Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

best article on health care economics I've read in a while


Azazello1313
 Share

Recommended Posts

The tax increase to pay for this, I assume it would be a flat tax levied on everyone equally, or are you expecting me to pay for 10 other peoples health care as well?

No, flat, same as Social Security. I guess if this whole thing was extended into Medicare , that tax would diminish too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, flat, same as Social Security. I guess if this whole thing was extended into Medicare , that tax would diminish too.

 

Ok, but then your going to turn around and give a one time tax credit to everyone making less than $100,000 only your going to do it every year right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, but then your going to turn around and give a one time tax credit to everyone making less than $100,000 only your going to do it every year right?

Should be no need at $100k level. I can see how we'd still have to subsidize poor people though.

 

You won't get me to rise to your bait. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should be no need at $100k level. I can see how we'd still have to subsidize poor people though.

 

You won't get me to rise to your bait. :wacko:

 

I'm really not trying to bait you, only pointing out what will happen if the government gets involved. It will turn into redistribution. Some will be happy about that, personally I have a problem with it. Don't get me wrong, the truly poor need to be taken care of, but the truly poor need to be truly poor and not just truly poor decision makers in their spending habits before I want to help them, and then I prefer helping them of my on accord, not under the threat of imprisonment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really not trying to bait you, only pointing out what will happen if the government gets involved. It will turn into redistribution. Some will be happy about that, personally I have a problem with it. Don't get me wrong, the truly poor need to be taken care of, but the truly poor need to be truly poor and not just truly poor decision makers in their spending habits before I want to help them, and then I prefer helping them of my on accord, not under the threat of imprisonment.

 

Leaving is an option...NO? Seriously. Lets talk about taxes....I wish I had the problem of paying 1 million in income taxes...that means I have no worries for pretty much the rest of my life. Why must you give somewhat wealthy people a bad name by constantly complaining about how bad you have it. We have had this discussion before....I call it luck...or as muck pointed out....randomness. You call it you worked for it and earned every damn penny...no luck. Some people are where they are because they had great ideas and no luck. Others sat next to the right person on a plane who put them in touch with another connected person...and voila...uber successful. So, yes...there is a progressive income tax...deal with it. If at some point you find it to be so blatantly unfair...simply leave...you have options...this is not Russia....heck what am I saying...Russia is not Russia any longer....this is not N. Korea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leaving is an option...NO? Seriously. Lets talk about taxes....I wish I had the problem of paying 1 million in income taxes...that means I have no worries for pretty much the rest of my life. Why must you give somewhat wealthy people a bad name by constantly complaining about how bad you have it. We have had this discussion before....I call it luck...or as muck pointed out....randomness. You call it you worked for it and earned every damn penny...no luck. Some people are where they are because they had great ideas and no luck. Others sat next to the right person on a plane who put them in touch with another connected person...and voila...uber successful. So, yes...there is a progressive income tax...deal with it. If at some point you find it to be so blatantly unfair...simply leave...you have options...this is not Russia....heck what am I saying...Russia is not Russia any longer....this is not N. Korea.

 

There was a group of people that made up roughly 1/3 of the population, but were taxed roughly 1/2 of the total taxes collected. They found that the government was only spending 10% of the money collected on them and the rest on the those farther north. They tried to leave, and were raped and pillaged. Listen you can gripe all you want to about what this country does that you don't like, and I'll do the same. There are only two ways to initiate change in government, either try to get others to agree to your viewpoints and change it via legislation or via force. I'm still trying to get people to agree with me and Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Adams, and a significant percentage of current patriots. I'll make you a deal, I won't tell you to leave when you complain about something the government does, if you don't tell me to leave. BTW, I do not discount luck, but at the same time I would ask not to discount hard work or try to take away the incentive to work hard.

Edited by Perchoutofwater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a group of people that made up roughly 1/3 of the population, but were taxed roughly 1/2 of the total taxes collected. They found that the government was only spending 10% of the money collected on them and the rest on the other 2/3rds. They tried to leave, and were raped, pillaged, and slandered. Listen you can gripe all you want to about what this country does that you don't like, and I'll do the same. There are only two ways to initiate change in government, either try to get others to agree to your viewpoints and change it via legislation or via force. I'm still trying to get people to agree with me and Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Adams, and a significant percentage of current patriots. I'll make you a deal, I won't tell you to leave when you complain about something the government does, if you don't tell me to leave. BTW, I do not discount luck, but at the same time I would ask not to discount hard work or try to take away the incentive to work hard.

 

Let me ask this then. Exactly how do you keep score on what the government spends yearly that you use? Cause as far as I can tell....you may have absolutely no clue how much you actually use of "government anny spending." Seriously...how on earth can you sit there and say....without really saying but insinuating...that people are where they are at because they won't work hard. Many are willing to work hard...just no where to work. So, I apologize...giving you the option to leave was rather quick on the draw. But, when this nation fights wars to defend our liberties....but mostly to defend our economic well being....who stands to profit most...those with cash...or those without cash? Anything this country spends on trade policy or stimulus tends to favor those with cash. So please spare me the the whining about how bad you have it because you are asked to pay more...but you reap more from defense spending cause you have more to lose if China takes us over...don't you agree. There are simply a myriad of arguments as to why a progressive income tax makes more sense than the fair tax or flat tax.....look at all of them...not just the few you don't like. And for the record...I am against income taxes all together. A man's labor is all he owns and that shouldn't be taxed. Property is the only tax that should be levied.....I am a hugh fan of Henry George.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me ask this then. Exactly how do you keep score on what the government spends yearly that you use? Cause as far as I can tell....you may have absolutely no clue how much you actually use of "government anny spending." Seriously...how on earth can you sit there and say....without really saying but insinuating...that people are where they are at because they won't work hard. Many are willing to work hard...just no where to work. So, I apologize...giving you the option to leave was rather quick on the draw. But, when this nation fights wars to defend our liberties....but mostly to defend our economic well being....who stands to profit most...those with cash...or those without cash? Anything this country spends on trade policy or stimulus tends to favor those with cash. So please spare me the the whining about how bad you have it because you are asked to pay more...but you reap more from defense spending cause you have more to lose if China takes us over...don't you agree. There are simply a myriad of arguments as to why a progressive income tax makes more sense than the fair tax or flat tax.....look at all of them...not just the few you don't like. And for the record...I am against income taxes all together. A man's labor is all he owns and that shouldn't be taxed. Property is the only tax that should be levied.....I am a hugh fan of Henry George.

 

I have no idea how much money the government spends that I use. That is part of the problem. The government has way overstepped its intended purpose of providing for the common defense. Hamilton wanted something like what we have now, but the vast majority of framers were against it. If we had stayed true to the Constitution we wouldn't be having this argument. I would love for the government to do nothing other than protect us from physical threats foreign and domestic, and to make sure the states treated each other fairly in their trading practices. I would love to see all subsidies done away with, as well as all economic protections and regulations. I would agree with you that property tax makes more sense than income tax. I'd also say a sales tax makes more sense than a income tax. I have no problem with Henry George regarding the "single tax", provided you limit the amount of property the government can hold to prevent confiscation for political purposes. I totally disagree with him regarding state ownership of natural monopolies, though I'll admit it has been a while since I've read him. My favorite would have to be Adam Smith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fixed. Tell me, do you support people who fire guns at US troops?

 

The troops in question were an occupation force trespassing in a sovereign state that had seceded from the Union as was their right. Keep in mind that secession was a recognized right up until Lincoln chose not to recognize it. After Fort Sumter Lincoln wrote a letter thanking his naval commander Gutavus Fox for manipulating the South Carolinians into firing on the fort. How many troops were killed or wounded when Sumter was fired upon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea how much money the government spends that I use. That is part of the problem. The government has way overstepped its intended purpose of providing for the common defense. Hamilton wanted something like what we have now, but the vast majority of framers were against it. If we had stayed true to the Constitution we wouldn't be having this argument. I would love for the government to do nothing other than protect us from physical threats foreign and domestic, and to make sure the states treated each other fairly in their trading practices. I would love to see all subsidies done away with, as well as all economic protections and regulations. I would agree with you that property tax makes more sense than income tax. I'd also say a sales tax makes more sense than a income tax. I have no problem with Henry George regarding the "single tax", provided you limit the amount of property the government can hold to prevent confiscation for political purposes. I totally disagree with him regarding state ownership of natural monopolies, though I'll admit it has been a while since I've read him. My favorite would have to be Adam Smith.

 

And even Adam Smith ADMITS that to have a successful capitalistic model of economics there must be a small amount of socialism necessary to protect the "losers" from the winners. Glad we can agree on income tax...not a fan of sales tax either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Care to point out what was revisionist?

 

Maybe revisionist is the wrong word . . . I am looking for a word that describes someone that erroneously thinks that the US should be returned to the "utopia" of frontier America and he is the sole representative of the ghosts of USA past and is somehow the standard bearer for what he thinks the founding fathers envisioned for the 21st century.

 

:wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe revisionist is the wrong word . . . I am looking for a word that describes someone that erroneously thinks that the US should be returned to the "utopia" of frontier America and he is the sole representative of the ghosts of USA past and is somehow the standard bearer for what he thinks the founding fathers envisioned for the 21st century.

 

:wacko:

I'll be the first to admit that I think our founding fathers were absolutely brilliant and came up with one of the most important documents in hughman history, the Constitution. With that being said, we do live in a very different world than our forefathers 200+ years ago. To think we need to stick to the letter of the law from frontier America is just not realistic. That is why they enabled us to enact amendments to the Constitution, to change with the times.

 

Perch, while I can appreciate your stance on Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, etc., I think it is going way overboard. I don't seem to recall this laser focused adherence (read: bring up founding fathers at every chance) in the past, but then again, I haven't been as active in the Tailgate for a while. That is why you are seeing all the comments about shtick and suck...or rather, I am noticing them more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be the first to admit that I think our founding fathers were absolutely brilliant and came up with one of the most important documents in hughman history, the Constitution. With that being said, we do live in a very different world than our forefathers 200+ years ago. To think we need to stick to the letter of the law from frontier America is just not realistic. That is why they enabled us to enact amendments to the Constitution, to change with the times.

 

Perch, while I can appreciate your stance on Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, etc., I think it is going way overboard. I don't seem to recall this laser focused adherence (read: bring up founding fathers at every chance) in the past, but then again, I haven't been as active in the Tailgate for a while. That is why you are seeing all the comments about shtick and suck...or rather, I am noticing them more.

 

I agree with a good deal of what you said. My main contention is a good majority of the expansion of government was not constitutional and should have been changed by amendment instead of just changed and eventually accepted as that is how it is. I've always been for less government and railed on Bush spending too much and increasing the scope, though admittedly not to the extent I'm doing now. Of course the main reason I'm doing it now is because of the health care debate. While I may disagree on other issues that Obama has brought forward such as the non-stimulus stimulus package, and cap and trade, they ware fairly easily reversible in a few years when liberals are no longer the majority. Heath care on the other hand if government run will fundamentally change the size and scope of government just as social security and medicare did, only to a greater extent. So, to some degree my outspokenness has to do with the magnitude of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with a good deal of what you said. My main contention is a good majority of the expansion of government was not constitutional and should have been changed by amendment instead of just changed and eventually accepted as that is how it is. I've always been for less government and railed on Bush spending too much and increasing the scope, though admittedly not to the extent I'm doing now. Of course the main reason I'm doing it now is because of the health care debate. While I may disagree on other issues that Obama has brought forward such as the non-stimulus stimulus package, and cap and trade, they ware fairly easily reversible in a few years when liberals are no longer the majority. Heath care on the other hand if government run will fundamentally change the size and scope of government just as social security and medicare did, only to a greater extent. So, to some degree my outspokenness has to do with the magnitude of it.

 

With this I totally agree and it is quite disturbing to me. And you are right, it seems the health care debate, whether good or bad, is getting people involved, and that is what this country needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Republican Sen. John Ensign delivered one of the more curious arguments against a government-run, public health care option during a long and lofty Senate committee debate Tuesday.

 

People might like it and use it.

 

Then it would become popular, and too big to fail.

 

And the government would have to support it.

 

:wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information