Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 87

On November 07 2018 16:54 NMcNasty wrote: Midterms: so not exactly a blue wave. Democrats take House resoundingly but actually lose ground in Senate so its just a straight up gridlock. That was pretty much expected from the polls. Obamacare won't be repealed anytime soon, but we also won't have single-payer universal healthcare. No stupid wall. Being able to block Trump's agenda is tremendously important, though miraculously he wasn't actually able to do much damage even with complete party control of congress in the last 2 years. Foreign policy wise, again, its just incredibly important to be able to block something like a Bolton inspired invasion of Iran. Still, there's a lot Trump might try to get away with via executive order and once war drums start beating there's a chance some democrats might fall apart, though it seems there's a lot more unity now than in previous years.

declaring war is one of the few things the president can do without congress or senate

I was going to ask that, can he do that without any very serious threat or an actual attack on home ground? Pretty sure he has to go through both senate and congress if there are just doubts of malicious intent. Either way Iran is doing everything they can to keep the public opinion favoring them, so unelss the USA does some sick false flag attack I dont see how they could get into Iran with the public opinion on their side.

orange man bad

On October 31 2018 21:02 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On October 31 2018 11:19 Spitfiree wrote: Anyway I dont see how you could say the american healthcare system is universal. There are people with existing conditions which are denied insurance for their medical conditions??? The insurance companies are private and are the ones to establish whether or not your're eligible for a certain type of insurance, they are essentially maximizing their profits which is cutthroat defitinition of capitalism Medical expenses is one of the biggest causes of bankruptcy in the country, that is disgusting. Also what are you talking about, how would universal healthcare be abused by a corporation? A corporation would have nothing to do with it. Yes, the state is going to abuse it, but that the lesser of two evils. I didn't say the american healthcare system is universal did I? I said it is not remotely free market, healthcare is the biggest expenditure the US government has besides military... so its literally the 2nd industry the government is the most involved in and that is your example of a free helathcare system? lol. How can corporations exploit subsidized healthcare? they do it constantly thats the reason of the ridiculous US healthcare prices, why do you think a fucking X-ray costs like 800 bucks while in the free market they cost like 30? magic?. The specific mechanic of how to exploit it is fairly simple, in subsidized healthcare there isn't consumer choice... you dont get to chose if you want Pepto Bismol or Tums as antiacid, so the companies sales strategy isn't competing in prices, product development etc, their sales strategy is getting contracts with the government which is a recepeit for corruption, Pepto Bismol (procter and gamble) instead of spending money in advertisement will spend money in lobbying and bribes so that they sign a contract with the state as an anti-acid manufacturer... so they basically give tons of money to whoever makes that choice in the government and they can jack up the prices as high as they want, and thats how you get $100 antiacid and $400 X-rays. And yes medical expenses is one of the biggest causes of bankrupcy, and that is caused BECAUSE of subsidizing, Mexico's healthcare system is way more free and we have less bankrupcies and its way cheaper unrelated to labor costs.

It is because of BOTH. You and most libertarians problem is that you think there is always a simple single explanation for every complex issues. And in reality that is NEVER the case. Things like healthcare, the ethics and economics of it are extremely complex. The civilized society has been collectively trying to find a solution for the healthcare question for centuries, and the best they have found so far is universal healthcare. This is fact checked when you look at stats such as average life, various health indexes, and quality of life of people living under various healthcare systems.

Almost always the theories we come up with in our bedrooms and read on internet forums (left and right) have been tried and tested, the data has been studied numerous times and very carefully by scholars. Problem is as someone has said here, people like Ben Shapiro are getting paid to go out there and promote their nonsense by completely ignoring the results of these trials. They go out there and constantly try to spin the issues and derail the conversation. Their propose is not to try to argue a legitimate side, they are there to waste time and run the clock. That is the only thing they are there to do. Because running the clock and keeping the status que is how their sponsors make money.

On November 08 2018 07:34 Baalim wrote: declaring war is one of the few things the president can do without congress or senate

The short answer is no, the constitution gives congress the power to declare war (btw "Congress" means both House and Senate), not the president, though admittedly there are some gray areas which is mostly unavoidable. Obviously if Russian bombers are flying over Alaska the president shouldn't need to get a bill passed to intercept them. Googling this was a bit surprising to me though. The US actually only formally declared war a few times in history, the last being WW2. Presidents got away with sending troops overseas in dozens of not at all small conflicts. After Vietnam Congress adopted the War_Powers_Resolution which explicitly checks presidential authority, since then Congress authorizes "use of force" or funding but hasn't formally declared war. But again, that still doesn't necessarily work in practice. If the president issues an order to his handpicked generals them saying "No sir, you have to go through congress" might be the correct response but I don't feel great that that actually happens. Still, having a large political faction in place that can at least in theory check an assault carried out by executive order is way better than not.

On November 08 2018 14:34 capaneo wrote: Their propose is not to try to argue a legitimate side, they are there to waste time and run the clock. That is the only thing they are there to do. Because running the clock and keeping the status que is how their sponsors make money.

Indeed, what I meant. The main problem though is that he gets protested by SJW idiots that cannot form their arguments correctly. Its basically masses of idiots arguing with each other and they both "represent" the 2 sides of the political spectrum. Ben Shapiro's job is quite easy, any adequate person with some knowledge could make the SJW look like idiots regardless of their belief and he s targetting exactly those people. I havent seen the guy, or anyone for that matter, actually debate with someone adequate AND knowledgeable. I was interested in how people perceive him and watched a bunch of lectures he did in universities and all of the liberals that come that ask him specific questions, he just answers with hard data which is true but completely ignores the universal data, the college kids havent done proper research to counter argue him and usually end up wordless and agree with him, which is actually the biggest issue. I've seen dozen of people get to the mic and tell him " listen I use to be a liberal but you completely changed my mind". It's easy to follow someone that is logical and makes sense, when you don't see the bigger picture and its much easier to do so when SJW idiots protest all of your lectures with constructive argument. Thats how "hype" figures are created and public opinion is changed.

I really don't understand why aren't people coming out debating him on issues like religion, healthcare, abortion, gun control and all of the shit the average american cares about. It seems like a free win. The USA feels like a 2nd world country on most social issues e.g. relative poverty - 15% ... they like to compare how shitty scandinavian countries are but Denmark has 1% of pop in relative poverty and Finland has around 5-6% , their healthcare is lightyears ahead, their education (at least in Denmark) is free and overall considered better than the USA (which is not really surprising... was interested in what SAT looks like, took a math one, most of the fucking questions were things I learned when i was 14 or 15......)

Also when he talks about religion he keeps saying Judeo-Christian religion, yet he forgets the Islam has been artificially removed from that group, as all 3 of those religions have the same core, yet he keep arguing religion is the core of the social structure the western world has, yet muslim countries are obviously far away from that, except countries like Turkey which used to show promise

On November 08 2018 18:19 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On November 08 2018 07:34 Baalim wrote: declaring war is one of the few things the president can do without congress or senate The short answer is no, the constitution gives congress the power to declare war (btw "Congress" means both House and Senate), not the president, though admittedly there are some gray areas which is mostly unavoidable. Obviously if Russian bombers are flying over Alaska the president shouldn't need to get a bill passed to intercept them. Googling this was a bit surprising to me though. The US actually only formally declared war a few times in history, the last being WW2. Presidents got away with sending troops overseas in dozens of not at all small conflicts. After Vietnam Congress adopted the War_Powers_Resolution which explicitly checks presidential authority, since then Congress authorizes "use of force" or funding but hasn't formally declared war. But again, that still doesn't necessarily work in practice. If the president issues an order to his handpicked generals them saying "No sir, you have to go through congress" might be the correct response but I don't feel great that that actually happens. Still, having a large political faction in place that can at least in theory check an assault carried out by executive order is way better than not.

short answer is yes, he can send troops and has to notify congress in 24h, it requires approval for the troops to remain over 60 days, at which point you basically started a war

On November 08 2018 14:34 capaneo wrote: It is because of BOTH. You and most libertarians problem is that you think there is always a simple single explanation for every complex issues. And in reality that is NEVER the case. Things like healthcare, the ethics and economics of it are extremely complex. The civilized society has been collectively trying to find a solution for the healthcare question for centuries, and the best they have found so far is universal healthcare. This is fact checked when you look at stats such as average life, various health indexes, and quality of life of people living under various healthcare systems. Almost always the theories we come up with in our bedrooms and read on internet forums (left and right) have been tried and tested, the data has been studied numerous times and very carefully by scholars. Problem is as someone has said here, people like Ben Shapiro are getting paid to go out there and promote their nonsense by completely ignoring the results of these trials. They go out there and constantly try to spin the issues and derail the conversation. Their propose is not to try to argue a legitimate side, they are there to waste time and run the clock. That is the only thing they are there to do. Because running the clock and keeping the status que is how their sponsors make money.

Explanations are often simple but solutions rarely are, and no society hasn't been tryong to find a solution to "healthcare" for centuries, modern medicine barely has over 100 years, Kings weren't debating if their aphoticary should drain the townsfolk blood paid by the crowns purse in 1600 lol.

First of all avg. lifespan, quality of life etc are meaningless if you dont factor in costs, also its missing tons of variables like technological development that increases both in much greater measure than any healthcare system in place..

I can show you a lot of data that shows the decline of healthcare in Canada after it subsdizied model, so back pedal on your belief that the data supports your idea of more state = good... and its funny considering how you opened your post that you fall on the same "more government" part of every single issue I've talked with you.


You acuse Ben Shapiro of being intellectually dishonest yet your argument here is "data" ignoring all the nuance you spoke just a few lines above, how do you like data that shows a inverse correlation between gun ownership % and gun violence... thats where the nuance conveniently comes in.

Also you imply that my solution is simple and yours is complex... your solution is "the government will provide healthcare for everybody, nevermind there is already a huge and growing debt in an unbalanced budget, we will tax the rich or something".


What I purpose is to reduce the barrier of entry into the healthcare system to increase competition at its max, restructure the FDA and patents and the price of the services will fall to their market price in other countries which is like 10-20% of the costs of the US, that would release a huge amount of tax money into the economy and would weaken the pharma monopolies.

On November 09 2018 06:41 Baalim wrote: Also you imply that my solution is simple and yours is complex... your solution is "the government will provide healthcare for everybody, nevermind there is already a huge and growing debt in an unbalanced budget, we will tax the rich or something". What I purpose is to reduce the barrier of entry into the healthcare system to increase competition at its max, restructure the FDA and patents and the price of the services will fall to their market price in other countries which is like 10-20% of the costs of the US, that would release a huge amount of tax money into the economy and would weaken the pharma monopolies.

Have we not all seen firsthand that healthcare has massive room for improvement? It is held back by institutional inertia. We could have greatly improved technology delivering ten times better health outcomes at much lower prices but big government is in the way - protecting their comfortable rent collecting mates. Opening up to the improvement in ways of doing business, and improvements in technology till we get to startrek-level medical care.
Or starcraft level medic-care: just shine a light on em mate.

On November 09 2018 05:40 Baalim wrote: short answer is yes, he can send troops and has to notify congress in 24h, it requires approval for the troops to remain over 60 days, at which point you basically started a war

The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to cut down on the gray areas and limit presidential ability to start/continue wars under the pretext of just mobilizing troops. Its not giving the president permission to just do whatever under a 24 hour window. Its basically just a backup check after the constitution.

On November 09 2018 05:57 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On November 08 2018 14:34 capaneo wrote: It is because of BOTH. You and most libertarians problem is that you think there is always a simple single explanation for every complex issues. And in reality that is NEVER the case. Things like healthcare, the ethics and economics of it are extremely complex. The civilized society has been collectively trying to find a solution for the healthcare question for centuries, and the best they have found so far is universal healthcare. This is fact checked when you look at stats such as average life, various health indexes, and quality of life of people living under various healthcare systems. Almost always the theories we come up with in our bedrooms and read on internet forums (left and right) have been tried and tested, the data has been studied numerous times and very carefully by scholars. Problem is as someone has said here, people like Ben Shapiro are getting paid to go out there and promote their nonsense by completely ignoring the results of these trials. They go out there and constantly try to spin the issues and derail the conversation. Their propose is not to try to argue a legitimate side, they are there to waste time and run the clock. That is the only thing they are there to do. Because running the clock and keeping the status que is how their sponsors make money. Explanations are often simple but solutions rarely are, and no society hasn't been tryong to find a solution to "healthcare" for centuries, modern medicine barely has over 100 years, Kings weren't debating if their aphoticary should drain the townsfolk blood paid by the crowns purse in 1600 lol. First of all avg. lifespan, quality of life etc are meaningless if you dont factor in costs, also its missing tons of variables like technological development that increases both in much greater measure than any healthcare system in place.. I can show you a lot of data that shows the decline of healthcare in Canada after it subsdizied model, so back pedal on your belief that the data supports your idea of more state = good... and its funny considering how you opened your post that you fall on the same "more government" part of every single issue I've talked with you. You acuse Ben Shapiro of being intellectually dishonest yet your argument here is "data" ignoring all the nuance you spoke just a few lines above, how do you like data that shows a inverse correlation between gun ownership % and gun violence... thats where the nuance conveniently comes in.

First, please Show me the data on how health care in Canada's has declined.

But keep in mind when speaking on the issue of studies and data, I am engineer and very familiar with the scientific data process since that directly is related to my professional work. A single study is pretty much as meaningless as a single data point. What really proves a hypothesis is general consensus of experts in the field. Meaning you want multiple studies, done by multiple people, with multiple different methods, and on various data sources all pointing out the same conclusion. This is one of the fundamental aspect of science and scientific methods. I can pretty much not only find you a couple of studies supporting ANY nonsense theory you can think of, I can even start the other way around. You give me the conclusions first (earth is flat, moon landing is fake, humans are 6000 years old) etc. Etc.), I find the data and write the study for you. And it will all make sense. That's how science actually works. What actually makes a hypothesis true is general consensus of different scientist. Not a single study or two, or even a 100.

On the issue of healthcare, we have that to the tune that everyone knows quality of health and life of people living under socialized healthcare is higher. That is why that is the method used in every developed country other than USA. You can say it costs too much, or you don't give a shit about people dying on the street or families going bankrupt, but you can not say USA has a better healthcare system.

On November 09 2018 06:41 Baalim wrote: Also you imply that my solution is simple and yours is complex... your solution is "the government will provide healthcare for everybody, nevermind there is already a huge and growing debt in an unbalanced budget, we will tax the rich or something". What I purpose is to reduce the barrier of entry into the healthcare system to increase competition at its max, restructure the FDA and patents and the price of the services will fall to their market price in other countries which is like 10-20% of the costs of the US, that would release a huge amount of tax money into the economy and would weaken the pharma monopolies.

Reducing the barrier is all I'm for. I actually advocate a public option system, meaning the government provide health insurance, but you can enroll in private health insurance if you want.

Restructuring patent laws and pharma companies monopoly is a different topic man. We talking about health insurance industry, completely separate issue than pharmaceutical industry.

On November 08 2018 21:58 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On November 08 2018 14:34 capaneo wrote: Their propose is not to try to argue a legitimate side, they are there to waste time and run the clock. That is the only thing they are there to do. Because running the clock and keeping the status que is how their sponsors make money. Indeed, what I meant. The main problem though is that he gets protested by SJW idiots that cannot form their arguments correctly. Its basically masses of idiots arguing with each other and they both "represent" the 2 sides of the political spectrum. Ben Shapiro's job is quite easy, any adequate person with some knowledge could make the SJW look like idiots regardless of their belief and he s targetting exactly those people. I havent seen the guy, or anyone for that matter, actually debate with someone adequate AND knowledgeable. I was interested in how people perceive him and watched a bunch of lectures he did in universities and all of the liberals that come that ask him specific questions, he just answers with hard data which is true but completely ignores the universal data, the college kids havent done proper research to counter argue him and usually end up wordless and agree with him, which is actually the biggest issue. I've seen dozen of people get to the mic and tell him " listen I use to be a liberal but you completely changed my mind". It's easy to follow someone that is logical and makes sense, when you don't see the bigger picture and its much easier to do so when SJW idiots protest all of your lectures with constructive argument. Thats how "hype" figures are created and public opinion is changed. I really don't understand why aren't people coming out debating him on issues like religion, healthcare, abortion, gun control and all of the shit the average american cares about. It seems like a free win. The USA feels like a 2nd world country on most social issues e.g. relative poverty - 15% ... they like to compare how shitty scandinavian countries are but Denmark has 1% of pop in relative poverty and Finland has around 5-6% , their healthcare is lightyears ahead, their education (at least in Denmark) is free and overall considered better than the USA (which is not really surprising... was interested in what SAT looks like, took a math one, most of the fucking questions were things I learned when i was 14 or 15......) Also when he talks about religion he keeps saying Judeo-Christian religion, yet he forgets the Islam has been artificially removed from that group, as all 3 of those religions have the same core, yet he keep arguing religion is the core of the social structure the western world has, yet muslim countries are obviously far away from that, except countries like Turkey which used to show promise

SJW are lazy motherfuckers who realize there are problems, but they are too stupid and/or lazy to actually attack the real problems. So they take on the little guys with no power or go for some nonsense issue to belong in a tribe that they can masturbate together on their off time.
The fact that they are labeled as the left is one of the things that really pisses me off. They are the scums of the earth IMO.

On the issue of Shapiro debates, I agree with you. But you ignoring how tribal people are. To many people issues and policies are like a football game. They are fans with ZERO thoughts put into it. You can not ever expect to change the mind of the supporters of ManU after they lose to Man City. I like and support Juventus because as a kid I liked their jersey colors, do you really think there is ever a reason I might support Inter? Or Napoli? No. And that is politics for 90% of people.
Also, The whole debating is is just intellectual masturbation and extremely wasteful. What I do care about is winning. Fuck the right wing, in order to win you don't need to convince them of anything, specially in a country where only 50% of people vote.

On November 09 2018 17:29 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On November 09 2018 05:40 Baalim wrote: short answer is yes, he can send troops and has to notify congress in 24h, it requires approval for the troops to remain over 60 days, at which point you basically started a war The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to cut down on the gray areas and limit presidential ability to start/continue wars under the pretext of just mobilizing troops. Its not giving the president permission to just do whatever under a 24 hour window. Its basically just a backup check after the constitution.

Indeed its to reduce the power of the commander in chief over the military and that is good, but he can still attack foreign countries without congress aproval and that pretty much gives him the legal power to set off wars if the president wanted to.

On November 10 2018 03:12 capaneo wrote: First, please Show me the data on how health care in Canada's has declined. But keep in mind when speaking on the issue of studies and data, I am engineer and very familiar with the scientific data process since that directly is related to my professional work. A single study is pretty much as meaningless as a single data point. What really proves a hypothesis is general consensus of experts in the field. Meaning you want multiple studies, done by multiple people, with multiple different methods, and on various data sources all pointing out the same conclusion. This is one of the fundamental aspect of science and scientific methods. I can pretty much not only find you a couple of studies supporting ANY nonsense theory you can think of, I can even start the other way around. You give me the conclusions first (earth is flat, moon landing is fake, humans are 6000 years old) etc. Etc.), I find the data and write the study for you. And it will all make sense. That's how science actually works. What actually makes a hypothesis true is general consensus of different scientist. Not a single study or two, or even a 100. On the issue of healthcare, we have that to the tune that everyone knows quality of health and life of people living under socialized healthcare is higher. That is why that is the method used in every developed country other than USA. You can say it costs too much, or you don't give a shit about people dying on the street or families going bankrupt, but you can not say USA has a better healthcare system.

In other words:

"provide me the data... but when you do, thats bad data, data can prove anything"

"the only thing that matters is expert concensus... but your experts are shills, my experts are the good ones"

"Socialized healthcare works better, look at the scandinavian peninsula.. ignore the rest of the socialized medicine shitholes those do not count... because the quality of life IS because socialized helathcare, not because of nuisiance I like to talk so much in the level of civility of a society"

"you want to let people die on the streets and families going bankrupt !!!... also my ideas are 100% objectivly based on data, they are not emotionally driven about not letting people die on the streets, that is a mere coincidence"

On November 10 2018 03:16 capaneo wrote: Show nested quote + On November 09 2018 06:41 Baalim wrote: Also you imply that my solution is simple and yours is complex... your solution is "the government will provide healthcare for everybody, nevermind there is already a huge and growing debt in an unbalanced budget, we will tax the rich or something". What I purpose is to reduce the barrier of entry into the healthcare system to increase competition at its max, restructure the FDA and patents and the price of the services will fall to their market price in other countries which is like 10-20% of the costs of the US, that would release a huge amount of tax money into the economy and would weaken the pharma monopolies. Reducing the barrier is all I'm for. I actually advocate a public option system, meaning the government provide health insurance, but you can enroll in private health insurance if you want. Restructuring patent laws and pharma companies monopoly is a different topic man. We talking about health insurance industry, completely separate issue than pharmaceutical industry.

With reducing barrier I mean reducing the entry barrier for developing healthcare businesses to increase competitiveness.

Laser eye surgery is dirty cheap because its a very competitive market, let that be included in your socialized utopia and see how you have to wait 6 months to get an appointment and a $8,000+ bill in the form of taxation.


I'm not talkinga bout healthcare insurance in particular, I'm talking about all healthcare.

On November 10 2018 03:22 capaneo wrote: SJW are lazy motherfuckers who realize there are problems, but they are too stupid and/or lazy to actually attack the real problems. So they take on the little guys with no power or go for some nonsense issue to belong in a tribe that they can masturbate together on their off time. The fact that they are labeled as the left is one of the things that really pisses me off. They are the scums of the earth IMO. On the issue of Shapiro debates, I agree with you. But you ignoring how tribal people are. To many people issues and policies are like a football game. They are fans with ZERO thoughts put into it. You can not ever expect to change the mind of the supporters of ManU after they lose to Man City. I like and support Juventus because as a kid I liked their jersey colors, do you really think there is ever a reason I might support Inter? Or Napoli? No. And that is politics for 90% of people. Also, The whole debating is is just intellectual masturbation and extremely wasteful. What I do care about is winning. Fuck the right wing, in order to win you don't need to convince them of anything, specially in a country where only 50% of people vote.

You are preaching to the choir, people are retarded.

You dont need to convince people to win? I dont see your angle here, do you mean you have to convince people to vote? that topic is uninteresting to me, opposite of you I care more about the ideas than the polls.

So in theory what I understand is you would defund all government healthcare instances e.g. hospitals and make it a free market with everything basically being a private clinic. In theory it sounds great, as that the demand would virtually stay the same for those services, however the supply would be forced to react on the competition accordingly driving the prices to self-regulation. However also in theory, there would be no real reason for institutions that already charge shittons of money for their services to decrease their prices in the short term, as a matter of fact there would be higher chance of them increasing their prices as the government hospitals, which in theory are charging less, are out of the picture, it would certainly happen in the long run but not in the short term. So what would happen is, people getting in debt because of medical bills, which would increase the risk for banks and would virtually lead to a financial crisis from the medical sector due to people not being able to pay their bills nor their debt afterwards. Which would lead to a reverse action of the government getting involved.

On November 13 2018 19:26 Spitfiree wrote: So in theory what I understand is you would defund all government healthcare instances e.g. hospitals and make it a free market with everything basically being a private clinic. In theory it sounds great, as that the demand would virtually stay the same for those services, however the supply would be forced to react on the competition accordingly driving the prices to self-regulation. However also in theory, there would be no real reason for institutions that already charge shittons of money for their services to decrease their prices in the short term, as a matter of fact there would be higher chance of them increasing their prices as the government hospitals, which in theory are charging less, are out of the picture, it would certainly happen in the long run but not in the short term. So what would happen is, people getting in debt because of medical bills, which would increase the risk for banks and would virtually lead to a financial crisis from the medical sector due to people not being able to pay their bills nor their debt afterwards. Which would lead to a reverse action of the government getting involved.

actually the demand would go down, obviously subsidizing healthcare leads to wasteful overuse, but yeah the prices would go down dramatically, I dont undertand why you think it wouldn't be quick? why wouldn't any clinic drop its prices significantly, lets say an X-Ray costs 10-20 bucks to produce (salaries included) so they can price at at 50 bucks still have a ridiculously margin and have their doors flooded with clients, it would take a couple of weeks for the most used services/products to reach real market value and the least used perhaps a couple of months.


On the subject of how to transition from a government-handled healthcare to a free market that is another whole issue that I really haven't put any thought into but it should be possible, for starters many people have paid into these services through taxation so you can't cut them or it would be a PokerStars and Supernova thing all over again lol, so basically what you do is to stop collecting social security/medicaid etc taxes and from that point onwards you can either continue the subsidization of the remainig population who already paid or ideally simply "buy them back" giving those tax dollars back.

I would also strongly incentivize charity in society so that the weak and vulnerable are taken care of but efficiently and by voluntarism