taxes?

[Destroyer]

how bad are taxes where you guys live?
in CA they seem to suck.
I worked real hard in school got my degree, got a job as a Software Engineer only to find out about 30% of my check will be taken out for taxes. its really depressing. it almost makes all that hard work not worth it. :(

[Superczar]

Is that just in taxes or overall 30% of your check will be withheld? If it's only 30% for everything that isn't that bad given I would assume grossing over 30k/year if not much more... if that is just California income tax, wow, then no wonder people spell it with a K.

It would seem that Cali's state income tax tops out at 9.3% if you gross over 40k/yr, so I assume the 30% is the total of everything being withheld... and again that's not that bad, I get about 21% of my check withheld, and thats without any insurances or retirement... (and PA's state income tax is a flat ~3%, and I get the full federal amount withheld so I can get that fat refund check every spring)

[Scotty]

30% isn't that bad. Ppl in other countries pay a lot more than we do in the USA.

If you have a 401k and max it out, you'll cut your taxes, and you'll be investing in a declining market. When the market rebounds in a year or two, you'll come out way ahead. During the last recession, my portfolio was showing 25-50% losses, but I kept shoveling as much money as I could afford in there, and I came out with 40-50% gains. As I was new to investing, I had made some mistakes early on, so my overall return was only 24.5%. All that money got rolled into an IRA that was showing 25% gains before the downturn last October.

You'll be able to fine-tune your withholding after you do your tax returns next year.

I've generally had the lowest possible amount withheld, so that I don't loan my money to the government for free.

When George H.W. Bush changed withholding in 1992 in a lame attempt to stave off the recession and keep his job, I went from +/- $100 to -$500. :mad: Smooth move, Ex-Lax. :mad:

Hopefully Dubya won't try anything that stupid, but I wouldn't put it past him. He's already run the national debt up from $5.7 trillion to over $9 trillion. :mad: This guarantees we'll all pay more taxes later. :mad:

[Waiter]

Having an almost non existing income the tax issue isn't as much a problem as the compulsory insurances. The actual taxes are just annoying as the state is sitting on my money for a year before I can claim it back.

[Jeff]

I usually get $5-6 taken off my check for EI and CPP. Income tax? I don't pay any because I don't work that much.

[Scream]

It's estimated that in Canada and the US roughly half of what you make annually goes to taxes of various types. We get back quite a bit for those taxes in Canada, although government bureaucracies can be wasteful unfortunately. I'd still rather live here than just about anyplace else on the planet though.

[Superczar]

That depends on if you own property in the US, landowners get raped in taxes in most areas...

[Scream]

Property tax is factored into it, and you pay some of that whether you own the property or not. If you rent, you can bet you're paying for your landlord's property taxes in your rent payment. Everyone's gotta live somewhere...

edit: Huh, according to Wikipedia, tax freedom day comes significantly sooner in the US than is does it Canada. Where we give close to 46 cents on the dollar, it's more like 33 in the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Freedom_Day

[Wamplet]

and don't forget other people's kids firgured into the property taxes.

If you are gonna have kids, pay for their public schooling yourself. :mad:

Why stop at income tax? Add up all the sales taxes you pay over the year. \o

[Scream]

and don't forget other people's kids firgured into the property taxes.

If you are gonna have kids, pay for their public schooling yourself. :mad:

Why stop at income tax? Add up all the sales taxes you pay over the year. \o


The "tax free day" calculations take into account all taxes. Income tax, sales tax, property tax, land transfer taxes etc etc.

I used to feel the same as you about paying for other people's children's education, but eventually realized that educating the young is good for all of us. They eventually get jobs and pay taxes themselves, putting money into the system for me to take advantage of if I have health problems, or to pay for my federal pension plan etc. If people only had to pay taxes for things that benefitted them directly, the whole system would break down, and there would be no real way to manage it. It's a pool that we all pay in to, and all take advantage of in different ways.

[Scotty]

Amen.

-Scotty

...though a perverse side of me would like to see the "Pay your own way!" crowd win, just to see an entire generation of Beavises and Butt-Heads take over the world 18-22 years later... :eek: :) :D

[Wamplet]

ahhh, so paying for someone else's kid to get an education is like preventative maintenance, keeping them from terrorizing the country; paying them to not be a menace to society. :o I understand the way you see it and i do see it that way as well, but it would be nice if people were held accountable, and not society, for their actions.

and Scotty, that's already taking place. The only difference is the age level is 50-80 right now.

I guess you could argue the 18-22 year old crowd right now will make their beavis mark by voting. :D

[Nessus]

What kills me is how much of the tax money is just wasted. Look at the schools, they are spending record money and getting worse results than ever. Or look at the war spending, literally hundreds of millions of dollars were either outright stolen or just gouged by raising prices to ridiculous levels because hey it's the government they'll pay whatever we ask. Add in all the bloat and mismanagement throughout government and the whole thing will drive you nuts.

[thefly]

And then there are those fun gas taxes, cell phone taxes, taxes on your electric bill, taxes on airline tickets...

What kills me is how much of the tax money is just wasted.

Well, yeah. A business tries to solve their corporate problems by carefully using their revenue, while governments just throw money at problems and hope that fixes them. And when that fails, they throw even more money. "War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Terror." Yes, lots of success there. ;D

Texas has the benefit of not having a state income tax. One funny thing I find are lotteries. Just another tax, but people voluntarily pay that one.

[Daveman]

30% isn't that bad. Ppl in other countries pay a lot more than we do in the USA.
They also don't have 53% of the federal budget going towards the military. :mad:

Honestly, if the military budget were cut back even a little bit to make it closer to other countries, the federal government could pay for everyone's healthcare and still cut taxes.

[Water12356]

Taxes stink in IL, especaly the sales tax! Its almost 9% in cook county, and they have a new bill out to raise it another 2% to help out with the Chicago Public transit crysis. ugh!

[Dopefish7590]

30% Wow. :o

Its 5% here in Canada.

[peoplessi]

Taxes stink in IL, especaly the sales tax! Its almost 9% in cook county, and they have a new bill out to raise it another 2% to help out with the Chicago Public transit crysis. ugh!

We have value added tax of 22% on everything, food is slightly less taxed, and books :D Also, we have this thing called progressive taxing, more you earn more you pay. And trafficfines scale with your income, nice way to spend 200k $.

[Waiter]

ahhh, so paying for someone else's kid to get an education is like preventative maintenance, keeping them from terrorizing the country; paying them to not be a menace to society.

For me this is a question of a person's right to an education and a chance to do something out of their lives regardless of wether their parents decdided to do so or not. It's a part of living in a civilized society.

[RAW]

Well i live in Maine ,we are the highest personal taxed state in the country,if you want to live on welfare come here its also the easyest state to get it in,plus theres really no jobs to speak of(why is it i live here again)I and my wife have good jobs but its a bitch to pay high taxes and get nothing in return to speak of

[Destroyer]

ahhh, so paying for someone else's kid to get an education is like preventative maintenance, keeping them from terrorizing the country; paying them to not be a menace to society. :o I understand the way you see it and i do see it that way as well, but it would be nice if people were held accountable, and not society, for their actions.

and Scotty, that's already taking place. The only difference is the age level is 50-80 right now.

I guess you could argue the 18-22 year old crowd right now will make their beavis mark by voting. :D

I think we do need a free K-12 education, but the ammount of money wasted is insane.
1 example. my sister works in a preschool. and at this preschool they buy school supplies and toys from this company who makes toys/supplies which are more age approporiate. so they pay 10$ for a small box of crayons. yes 10$, the same crayons they can get for 1$ at target or something.
alot of the organizations in our country waste too much money IMO.
i dont have a problem with having 30% of my check taken out for taxes if they were well spend but they are not. and I think our school system wastes the most money. the K-12 in USA is soo horrible. when it comes to math and science were way at the bottom yet I would be willing to bet we spend more money on our K-12 then any other country.

[Destroyer]

They also don't have 53% of the federal budget going towards the military. :mad:

Honestly, if the military budget were cut back even a little bit to make it closer to other countries, the federal government could pay for everyone's healthcare and still cut taxes.
Im not sure if I would want that. I like having the idea of having a military thats much stronger then the next nation. but I do think the military as well as other organizations can be just as effective with less money. we just have too much wastage in this country.

[Destroyer]

Hopefully Dubya won't try anything that stupid, but I wouldn't put it past him. He's already run the national debt up from $5.7 trillion to over $9 trillion. :mad: This guarantees we'll all pay more taxes later. :mad:
thats another thing that makes me sad/angry I dont understand how the govt can increase spending and claim they will give us tax breaks. I would like a tax break but I also dont want this country to go bankrupt.

[Daveman]

Im not sure if I would want that. I like having the idea of having a military thats much stronger then the next nation. but I do think the military as well as other organizations can be just as effective with less money. we just have too much wastage in this country.
We would still have the largest military in the world. The US GDP is so huge that, in theory, we could at once have the largest and most advanced military and the best healthcare in the world. Unfortunately, the military budget is so huge that we don't know what to do with it all, and there's insane amounts of wastefulness in R&D. Of course, you never hear about wasteful spending from the conservatives when the issue is the military.

And for the record, I'm not being partisan here, because neither political party is willing to reduce military spending. Hillary Clinton has publicly said she will increase the size of the military. Ron Paul says he'll eliminate all wasteful spending and get rid of the IRS, and still increase the military budget. Talk of reducing the amount of money flowing into the military's pockets is political suicide.

If the government cut the budget, they could send more money to the states, which could be used to develop transportation and fund schools. Instead, we get complaints about the amount of state funding needed for education and welfare, but these are only issues because the states have always relied on the federal government for other issues.

thats another thing that makes me sad/angry I dont understand how the govt can increase spending and claim they will give us tax breaks. I would like a tax break but I also dont want this country to go bankrupt.
The genius of it is that Bush and the Republicans who passed the legislation will never be pinned down publicly as the source of the issue. Years from now our children are going to be wading through pools of shit with the way the economy will collapse, and they'll be paying insane amounts of taxes. No matter the circumstances, Americans will never elect a president who will raise taxes. No matter how important or necessary for the economy, taxes are such a frightening thing to most Americans that they'll rather just put off the problem until it leads to the total collapse of the country.

[Chimera]

Income Tax - 22%
National Insurance - 11%

Technically not a tax, but my student loan gets deducted on my payslip too.

<3 Pay As You Earn

[Scotty]

Well i live in Maine ,we are the highest personal taxed state in the country,if you want to live on welfare come here its also the easyest state to get it in,plus theres really no jobs to speak of(why is it i live here again)I and my wife have good jobs but its a bitch to pay high taxes and get nothing in return to speak of

I'm in southern NH, and there was an article in my local paper a year or two ago that ME's welfare benefits are so good that your current welfare recipients are telling all their friends/family overseas to come to America and move straight to ME. :eek:

Hopefully your state can crack down on that w/o causing worse problems. It will be difficult to be generous enough to not throw ppl out in the street, while being tough enough to stop the tidal wave of freeloaders coming in. :eek:

[peoplessi]

Off-topic, as a outsider, Ron Paul seemed like the only guy who understood the big issues that USA has to face in the future. China is rising fast to rival USA position. The amounts spent in military are ridiculous, more on education and healthcare, cut the slack of the budget. There are great videos on youtube on this subject, university lectures.

[Daveman]

Ron Paul said in the last CNN debate that he would increase military spending while cutting almost all other programs. That would do some pretty horrible things to a government and economy as centrally privatized as the US...

[thefly]

we could at once have the largest and most advanced military and the best healthcare in the world.

The USA already does.

Your definition of "best heath care" seems to be the one that costs the least. Not quality, just least expensive. But to do that, you want to raise taxes. So it isn't cheaper or better your way. And yet you probably hate insurance companies, but you want the Federal Government to become your insurance. And the Federal Government F-s up a lot by your own admission.

[Daveman]

The USA already does.

Your definition of "best heath care" seems to be the one that costs the least. Not quality, just least expensive. But to do that, you want to raise taxes. So it isn't cheaper or better your way.
But there's no reason why the government can't cover this while lowering the federal budget. The government already covers senior citizens and, in most states, minors, yet it's a tiny fraction of government spending. Expanding coverage to the whole population would cost about double what we're spending now, but cutting the military budget would more than make up for this. Part of the reason the military budget is so high is that we've got privatized troops earning hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to go to Iraq and Afghanistan to shoot people. The volunteer army that we had in the past isn't the main force anymore, and it's expensive as hell to pay for mercenaries. Not to mention some of the insane R&D and earmarking that goes on and absolutely gobbles up federal money.

Want to talk about wasteful spending? Try looking at the enormous drain that 59% of our federal tax dollars are going to be used on in 2008.

And yet you probably hate insurance companies, but you want the Federal Government to become your insurance. And the Federal Government F-s up a lot by your own admission.
Who's talking about socialized medicine? I'm talking about single-payer healthcare. It's still privatized, it's just paid for by the government.

[thefly]

The majority of the populace does receive either insurance or government provided health care. But you want to totally change the system to a single-payer system. Ok?


The volunteer army that we had in the past isn't the main force anymore, and it's expensive as hell to pay for mercenaries.

Not the main force? Ok, now you're being factitious. Also, does not a mercenary volunteer for a job?

Either way, you want to go back to Jimmy Carter style ideas, right?

[Daveman]

The majority of the populace does receive either insurance or government provided health care. But you want to totally change the system to a single-payer system. Ok?
And? It's not a difficult system to understand. It's government subsidized, private healthcare. Resources and tax incentives get spent encouraging fitness and preventative medicine, and the rest goes to treating the ill. That means that there are still private hospitals where the government will not foot all the bill, but it does mean higher standards for hospitals and clinics that are already free to the public.

Not the main force? Ok, now you're being factitious.
There are more privately-employed American troops in Iraq than there are British troops. Mercenary forces get used more frequently than standard troops because they don't have to worry about courts-martial for having a shaky trigger finger, and because they generally are more experienced and hardened.
Also, does not a mercenary volunteer for a job?
For much, much higher pay and with almost no regulations with regards to rules of engagement or international law, though? There's a huge difference between being enlisted in the army and being contracted to fight.
Either way, you want to go back to Jimmy Carter style ideas, right?
Honestly I wouldn't know. I don't know what Carter's policies were. Just about all I know about his presidency is that he spent a lot of resources cleaning up after the mess that was left for him when he got there.

[thefly]

It's government subsidized, private healthcare.

That makes no sense at all.

Health savings accounts were demonized by the left. So were school vouchers.

Daveman, you have a view that government is the ultimate, proficient way to everything and the private sector is the evil that seeks profits. But you claim the government wastes billions of dollars, so why should you support even more government control?

Edit: More taxes for what? Trillions of dollars are made in taxes. But more is needed, right?

[Scotty]

More taxes will be needed to pay off $9+ trillion of debt, most of which was run up by Reagan, Bush, and Dubya.

Reagan is the winner in terms of percentage increase (national debt for 1988 was a 186% increase over 1980) and I'm pretty sure Dubya will be the winner in terms of overall dollars by the time he's done dragging America to the bottom of the debt cesspool.

As long as so many Americans remember Reagan as a saint, this will never get better.

Making matters worse, many of the ppl that profited from Reagan's spending spree are retired or dead, which will make the taxpayers that inherit that debt that much less willing to pay it off.

[peoplessi]

Ron Paul said in the last CNN debate that he would increase military spending while cutting almost all other programs. That would do some pretty horrible things to a government and economy as centrally privatized as the US...

Actually, he is the only one that has the financial knowledge to determine such things. There are numerous debates were he has been given more time to explain. It is not just one big hole of money as "military", there are different sides there too, R&D among others.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ3-Xa2Ivxg meant this? Listen more carefully what he says. The FIRST question and answer, that is a thing that your other canditates don't even REALIZE. Also, they interrupt him ALL THE TIME, I don't is that due the network, but that is really childish to interrupt person that way.

[Daveman]

That makes no sense at all.

How doesn't it? The structure of the healthcare system isn't changed at all. The government provides for a standard health insurance for everyone, and gives every citizen a healthcare card that they can present at a hospital and have all their care paid for up-front. It's a system that's in place in lots of countries and allows for great, private healthcare while still providing for everyone.

Health savings accounts were demonized by the left. So were school vouchers.
Those are both entirely irrelevant. HSAs are "demonized" ("not wanted" would be a better set of words) because it's a badly designed system that doesn't provide for the people who need healthcare most.

School vouchers are an absolutely entirely different thing altogether, and don't pertain to this discussion in the least, so I don't know why you'd bring it up.

Daveman, you have a view that government is the ultimate, proficient way to everything and the private sector is the evil that seeks profits.
I don't know about the former, but the latter is certainly the case.

But you claim the government wastes billions of dollars, so why should you support even more government control?
Your question is misleading because it implies that single-payer healthcare is government control, which it isn't. The government is only involved in the financial transaction. They'd have a hand in controlling prices, but they already do that.

And I'm not justifying government waste in any way. But there's a gigantic double standard here. One form of waste is when people cheat the welfare system, but the amount of money wasted there is negligible, as so little money goes to welfare anyway. Another form of waste is earmarking R&D for military firms, which leads to unfair elections and pointless spending money. And it happens a lot. Just about every bill coming out of Conference Committee has an earmark, and most of these are for military firms because they're the easiest to slip in and the hardest to oppose.

Edit: More taxes for what? Trillions of dollars are made in taxes. But more is needed, right?
Uh, no. I don't get what's so hard to understand about that. The federal government reduces the amount of money going into the military. That means that military budget managers have to focus their efforts instead of wasting tens of billions of dollars on things they know aren't necessary. After reducing the military budget, the government will be left with a huge amount of money that it can redirect toward a single-payer healthcare system. If they decide that the state programs in place for minors and the elderly are good enough as-is, they will have a LOT of extra money, which they can use to reduce the national debt or to lower taxes (or both). If they decide to replace the state-run programs with the federal program, they can stop distributing money to the states to support these programs. When they stop sending money to the states, they'll save a LOT of extra money, which they can use to reduce the national debt or to lower taxes (or both).

Government-sponsored or government-managed healthcare can be affordable and effective, as well.
http://www.consumercal.org/issues/healthfacts/

[Destroyer]

Off-topic, as a outsider, Ron Paul seemed like the only guy who understood the big issues that USA has to face in the future.


Yes I liked Ron Paul as well. To bad he didnt even have a chance :(

The USA already does.

Your definition of "best heath care" seems to be the one that costs the least. Not quality, just least expensive. But to do that, you want to raise taxes. So it isn't cheaper or better your way. And yet you probably hate insurance companies, but you want the Federal Government to become your insurance. And the Federal Government F-s up a lot by your own admission.
I also agree with that. For the best quality product you have to go to the private sector. The more things that the feds try to give us the more they will raise taxes and waste money and the Quality of things will go down.
Also you have to realize even the feds need to try to please the largest group of people so they may do somethign with your money that you may not like. I think its best if the feds kept things to the bare minimum. All I ask of them is to please cut spending and get rid of bullshit programs. and when they do that then we can lower taxes and people will be able to afford quality things from the private sector.
As far as the military goes I think the cuts could potentially be made in operations(meaning have so many "conflicts" guys)
But I would like to see our military embrace techonology even further.
UAV's ect. I would also like to see some of that money being potentially invested in education that would benefit the military.
for example I am an engineer, and if you go to any university in the US most of the engineers are foreign students. but when it comes to jobs that deal with techonology for the military these jobs require you to be a US citizen.
but the number of students majoring in engineering/science is shocking low these days. so I would like to see more money invested in scholorships/other incentives to American students to go into engineering/science.

[Destroyer]

I don't know about the former, but the latter is certainly the case.

daveman I understand where you come from with that statement.heck look at the oil companies they claim that oil prices are higher due to this and that, BULL SHAT just look at their record profits. and the same goes for health care yes private sector is all about manking money, but having the feds take care of everything isnt the best idea. I think it would be best to allow private health care, but I do understand some people cant afford that(I was in that situation just 2 months ago) but those are the cases where I think the fed govt can potentially step in. but universal health care by the feds I dont think I like that idea. It really depends on your financial situation. As people progress financially/and in their careers its best the feds leave them alone. For example in my case I got a job that has health care, so if the feds really wanna help me their best bet would be stop wasting my tax dollors and lower my taxes then. This would help me advance my financial status which will allow me to seek thigns from he private sector.
The govt really should try to help people get to positions in life where they can take care of them selves instead of just taking care of them.

[Daveman]

Single-Payer healthcare is still privatized, and it's really not all that different from working with an insurance company. The difference is that instead of having some or most of your medical coverage paid for, all of it (unless you go to a private hospital that charges more than the government will allow) is covered upfront. It works in other countries, and can in fact save money. Instead of your employer deducting money from your paycheck to go into their insurance program, that money (it's likely that it would be less money, actually) would go to the government to pay for healthcare for all.

I understand the sentiment that people don't always want to cover the expenses of others. I think that kind of reasoning is valid when you're talking about welfare fraud. But I don't think people would have an issue with welfare if a system could be in place to ensure absolutely no welfare fraud whatsoever. A government-covered healthcare system (still private, remember) is much less likely to be exploited, and more easily regulated and monitored for exploitation. If the system would work, there's a moral imperative to establish a system that provides quality healthcare for everyone. The argument of "it'll cost more" doesn't necessarily apply, either. See the link above, and do a quick search of money spent per capita on healthcare. The US spends more per capita yet covers fewer citizens and has worse coverage than many other countries.

[Scotty]

Even if the doctors, hospitals, offices, etc are still private, the fact that the government will be the one holding the purse strings will be enough to turn a lot of ppl off.

As healthcare is getting more and more expensive, and insurers are willing to cover less and less, I think a single-payer system has a lot more chance of succeeding now than 10-15 years ago.

[Daveman]

The biggest issue with it is that Americans are so unhealthy. It could start out quite costly before preventative incentives start working to make people healthy. Of course, if that's the case, people will say that the system itself is the cause, not America's fat, collective ass.

[thefly]

Daveman, what aspect of a person's life do you think the government should not be involved in?

[mysteryperfecta]

I end up paying very little in income tax (due to deductions). Most of what I pay in is for Social Security. Truth be told, very few U.S. citizens pay much federal income tax at all. The top 25% of wage earners pay 86% of all federal income taxes. The top 1% pay 39% of all federal income taxes. This is why "tax cuts for the rich" argument is a canard-- if you cut taxes at all, you're inevitably cutting the taxes of the (evil!) rich. Cutting taxes for middle and lower class wage earners is fairly worthless as anything other than a political ploy.

Also, it's dangerous, IMO-- it's putting all of your eggs in fewer and fewer baskets. It makes the government's source of tax revenue very volatile.

As for single-payer health care, it would bankrupt the U.S. And then the quality of health care would decline exponentially. As it stands, we have the best health care in the world. The system has some significant flaws that need to be addressed, but this can be done without sacrificing what is good about U.S. health care. If you need anymore evidence of the problematic nature of funding single-payer, look to California. It's the most progressive big state in the country, and even they recently voted down a single-payer health care system, deciding that they simply couldn't afford it.

[SonnyBonds]

Daveman, what aspect of a person's life do you think the government should not be involved in?

I can think of several aspects but things as important as health care is something I don't think should be put entirely in private hands.

[Daveman]

Daveman, what aspect of a person's life do you think the government should not be involved in?
Plenty. Small businesses, family planning, sexual preference, political expression, artistic expression, library reading, use of the internet...etc.

I don't see how single-payer healthcare is an intrusion on personal privacy. It's a re-prioritization of the federal budget to provide healthcare for every citizen. Calling it an intrusion to freedom (or implying that it's one) is completely irrelevant in this discussion, because it's simply not true. What if I said the government is intruding on my freedom by sending my tax dollars to the military, which I don't support? It's every bit as logical an argument. Problem is, it doesn't work either.

And it's not surprising that California wouldn't be able to afford single-payer healthcare. States have to fund education, most transportation, police, wildlife protection, and lots and lots of other programs. Most states don't deal much with healthcare besides sometimes covering otherwise uninsured minors. Only the federal government has the money to cover a comprehensive healthcare system.

[mysteryperfecta]

Daveman, what aspect of a person's life do you think the government should not be involved in?

I'd like to answer that as well, if you don't mind.

I believe that the national government should be responsible for national defense, international relations (including some commerce), national infrastructure, and protection of rights. That's about it. State government is charged with state matters, and local governments with local matters.

So to answer your question, when it comes to a person's life, the government should be involved very little. This is a nation founded on freedom; particularly, freedom FROM government interference. The Bill Of Rights is indicative of this. Rights (the most basic being life, liberty, property/pursuit of happiness) were seen as God given, not government given (i.e. inalienable).

In this sense, we have to understand what is a right, and what we provide for due to a sense of moral obligation. We allow the government to provide health provisions for our elderly, and our children, and our disabled, because as a compassionate people, we feel morally obligated-- NOT a because it is a "human right". It isn't. It is a privilege.

[SonnyBonds]

We allow the government to provide health provisions for our elderly, and our children, and our disabled, because as a compassionate people, we feel morally obligated-- NOT a because it is a "human right". It isn't. It is a privilege.
This is a difficult issue. Who decides what human rights are?

[mysteryperfecta]

I don't see how single-payer healthcare is an intrusion on personal privacy.

Then it's because you're naive. In nations that have national health care, intrusion on privacy is a fact of life. Right now. When the government is picking up the tab, meddling is inevitable.

When the government is picking up the tab, you'll be told when and how often you can go to the doctor, and which doctor you can go to. And your infermaties will be prioritized against other's infermaties. When funding is limited, rationing is a reality.

When the government is picking up the tab, prevention will be a priority. Lifestyle choices that lead to greater heath risks will be regulated, including what and how much you eat.


And it's not surprising that California wouldn't be able to afford single-payer healthcare. States have to fund education, most transportation, police, wildlife protection, and lots and lots of other programs. Most states don't deal much with healthcare besides sometimes covering otherwise uninsured minors. Only the federal government has the money to cover a comprehensive healthcare system.

What in the world are you talking about? What money? The federal government has a huge budget deficit, year after year, WITHOUT a national health care system. If a state awash in tax revenue like California cannot afford to cover 36+ million people, you think the federal government can more easily cover 300+ million people? Do you think there's LESS bureaucracy at the federal level?

[SonnyBonds]

When the government is picking up the tab, you'll be told when and how often you can go to the doctor, and which doctor you can go to.
This is not true, at least not everywhere. I can pick what doctor I want to see and I can order as many appointments as I like.

When the government is picking up the tab, prevention will be a priority. Lifestyle choices that lead to greater heath risks will be regulated, including what and how much you eat.
This is also not true. There are no regulations on what I can eat. However, certain things like cigarettes are heavily taxed.

[mysteryperfecta]

This is a difficult issue. Who decides what human rights are?

You do. If you see a problem, and think something should be done, then YOU do something about it. It happens all of the time. One compelled person on a mission burgeons into national organizations and, with few exceptions, meet challenges MORE efficiently, and MORE effectively than the national government.

Hurricane Katrina is the perfect example. Who failed to meet expectations? Government bureaucracy (and in this case, state and local bureaucracy). Who succeeded in meeting needs? Individuals, churches, private organizations, businesses small and large, and the one governmental apparatus that works relatively well-- the military.

EDIT: SonnyBonds, where are you from?

[SonnyBonds]

Norway.

I'm not claiming we have a perfect health care system, far from it. There are inefficiencies and you can find horror stories like you can with pretty much any system.

But overall, it works well and most people are, in my experience at least, happy with it.

[Waiter]

Norway.

I'm not claiming we have a perfect health care system, far from it. There are inefficiencies and you can find horror stories (...)

Bludd...?

[mysteryperfecta]

Norway.

I'm not claiming we have a perfect health care system, far from it. There are inefficiencies and you can find horror stories like you can with pretty much any system.

But overall, it works well and most people are, in my experience at least, happy with it.

You cannot really compare Norway to the U.S., in nearly any facet. Norway is a tiny nation supported in large measure by a bounty of natural resources-- enough to keep their extensive welfare system solvent, for now. Add to that different budgetary priorities (Norway spends next to nothing on defense), and high taxes, and the ability to provide health care is there. If U.S. revenue per capita were comparable to Norway's, the affordability argument would be much weaker (hint-- it's not even close).

As an aside, I found this article about Norway to be astonishing:
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu7q6PMdH7LMAMflXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE4NjNlaGk 4BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA0RGRDVfODYEb ANXUzE-/SIG=12ud2gdgk/EXP=1204325946/**http%3a//seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001988054_norway25.html

[SonnyBonds]

I wasn't trying to compare the US and Norway or say anything like "since it works in Norway, it'll work in the US". I was just pointing out that certain things you said are not correct in all cases.

[Daveman]

I believe that the national government should be responsible for national defense, international relations (including some commerce), national infrastructure, and protection of rights. That's about it.
And what if the government can provide other services for a large part of the population? What if these services are necessary?

State government is charged with state matters, and local governments with local matters.
Okie dokie.

So to answer your question, when it comes to a person's life, the government should be involved very little. This is a nation founded on freedom; particularly, freedom FROM government interference. The Bill Of Rights is indicative of this. Rights (the most basic being life, liberty, property/pursuit of happiness) were seen as God given, not government given (i.e. inalienable).

In this sense, we have to understand what is a right, and what we provide for due to a sense of moral obligation. We allow the government to provide health provisions for our elderly, and our children, and our disabled, because as a compassionate people, we feel morally obligated-- NOT a because it is a "human right". It isn't. It is a privilege.
What about poor people? Those who can't afford to provide healthcare for themselves because the system is flawed? If you're going to maintain that the hardest working individuals get the best life in our country, you're going to be fighting against 250+ years of history that says otherwise.

Then it's because you're naive. In nations that have national health care, intrusion on privacy is a fact of life. Right now. When the government is picking up the tab, meddling is inevitable.
I'd like to see proof that this is happening in every country that has government-paid healthcare. Since your argument is that the system as designed is flawed, it should be easy to find.

When the government is picking up the tab, you'll be told when and how often you can go to the doctor, and which doctor you can go to. And your infermaties will be prioritized against other's infermaties. When funding is limited, rationing is a reality.
How do you think private insurance companies work? The difference here is that government can be held accountable for these problems, while private companies cannot.

When the government is picking up the tab, prevention will be a priority. Lifestyle choices that lead to greater heath risks will be regulated, including what and how much you eat.
No proposition of single-payer healthcare has included anything like this and you know it. You're being ridiculous. The only thing that could remotely resemble such an extreme example would be the government offering tax incentives for people who get regular exercise and doctor visits.


What in the world are you talking about? What money? The federal government has a huge budget deficit, year after year, WITHOUT a national health care system.
As I said, by redirecting the funds from private insurance to a national healthcare system, the government won't need any extra money to fund the system. In fact, if it's handled well at all, the government can save the average taxpayer money, which can either allow for lower taxes or more federal revenue from them.

If a state awash in tax revenue like California cannot afford to cover 36+ million people, you think the federal government can more easily cover 300+ million people? Do you think there's LESS bureaucracy at the federal level?
Did you completely ignore what I said before? As you said yourself, states handle state issues, and the federal government handles federal issues. State governments have to spend a huge chunk of their money on funding schools. If they don't do that, the education system completely falls apart. The federal government has much more freedom in choosing its priorities.

[Scotty]

What in the world are you talking about? What money? The federal government has a huge budget deficit, year after year, WITHOUT a national health care system.

The federal government has a huge budget deficit because of voodoo economics Reaganomics.

Bill Clinton inherited the Reagan/Bush mess. Every year he was in office, the deficit got smaller and smaller. By the time he left office, we were on the verge of seeing the first budget surplus since Eisenhower.

Then Dubya pandered to the lowest common denominator with tax cuts and tax rebates, America bought it hook, line, and sinker, and now we're back in the shitter with runaway deficit spending.

I hope history doesn't repeat: If Clinton or Obama gets elected and reigns in the Reagan/Bush/Dubya spendathon, I hope America isn't dumb enough to vote for the next huckster of Reaganomics to come down the pike.

[Daveman]

I'm not sure it can be done with the political culture we have in this country. Clinton and Obama want to raise taxes on the upper class, but that means that they'll get accused of raising taxes and being irresponsible. Since neither of them is likely to significantly reduce military spending, it'll be hard as hell to reduce the deficit without the tax hikes.

[Roger]

And what if the government can provide other services for a large part of the population? What if these services are necessary?

There are few services the government does that are necessary, and the ones they do someone else can probably do better.

What about poor people? Those who can't afford to provide healthcare for themselves because the system is flawed? If you're going to maintain that the hardest working individuals get the best life in our country, you're going to be fighting against 250+ years of history that says otherwise.

We should seek to abolish insurance in favor of pressuring hospitals and treatment centers to go down in price and to take on payment plans. The problem with the health care system is that nobody cares how much it costs and they don't go around looking for cheaper but effective treatment, so hospitals and offices figure they can charge however much they want. We just go where our insurance companies say we can go. When a dependency sets in, you start losing control of your life.

How do you think private insurance companies work? The difference here is that government can be held accountable for these problems, while private companies cannot.

You can't sue private companies? You can't have private companies investigated? If either one of these can get away with something, it's the government, since they're the only legitimate organization that can make demands at gunpoint.

As I said, by redirecting the funds from private insurance to a national healthcare system, the government won't need any extra money to fund the system. In fact, if it's handled well at all, the government can save the average taxpayer money, which can either allow for lower taxes or more federal revenue from them.

What happens when a lot of people have major ailments and treat through insurance? What about when the insurance company is held accountable for their actions by getting sued? The price goes up to cover the costs. You don't think this could possibly happen?

[Daveman]

We should seek to abolish insurance in favor of pressuring hospitals and treatment centers to go down in price and to take on payment plans. The problem with the health care system is that nobody cares how much it costs and they don't go around looking for cheaper but effective treatment, so hospitals and offices figure they can charge however much they want. We just go where our insurance companies say we can go.
This is a systemic issue. It's the result of a system where profit is the bottom line for the insurance companies, not the well-being of their clients.

You can't sue private companies?
Successfully? Not most of the time. Especially if Bush's legislation to protect insurance companies from lawsuits ever goes through the way he wants it. You can't have private companies investigated?
Not when the insurance industry has such influence over politicians. If either one of these can get away with something, it's the government, since they're the only legitimate organization that can make demands at gunpoint.
Why the connection between a government system of healthcare and totalitarianism? What could happen that the government would force people at gunpoint to not voice opposition?

What happens when a lot of people have major ailments and treat through insurance? What about when the insurance company is held accountable for their actions by getting sued? The price goes up to cover the costs. You don't think this could possibly happen?
The issue is, again, systemic. Insurance companies understand well the risk of getting sued, and they factor all of that in to making their decisions. They don't design their companies around not getting sued, they design them around getting sued only so many times as to allow them to still make a substantial profit. And they are very profitable companies. They can get away with more and more lawsuits each year because the settlement size remains relatively steady while their profits continue to increase. Ever seen "Fight Club"? The scene where Edward Norton describes how the auto maker calculates whether or not to recall a product based on the financial bottom line is similar to how the insurance company works. The insurance companies profit off refusing to treat people, especially when they know they'll win a lawsuit.

[Scotty]

We should seek to abolish insurance in favor of pressuring hospitals and treatment centers to go down in price and to take on payment plans. The problem with the health care system is that nobody cares how much it costs and they don't go around looking for cheaper but effective treatment, so hospitals and offices figure they can charge however much they want. We just go where our insurance companies say we can go. When a dependency sets in, you start losing control of your life.

Things like Medicare and employer-sponsored medical insurance have created a huge feeding trough for the medical industry. It's been getting bigger and bigger for decades. There is no way that many individuals could pay for treatment at the current price points. Medical savings accounts wouldn't change this. How many ppl have saved $100k for their retirement, let alone for medical care?

The nihilistic side of me would like to see Medicare and all insurance abolished. In the short to medium term, lots of ppl that couldn't afford treatment would suffer and die. Lots of ppl in the medical industry would end up unemployed. Eventually a bottom would be reached, and the industry would rebuild itself, but at price points that ppl could actually afford to pay.

Hopefully there's a way to put the industry on a diet, instead of resorting to starvation tactics.

[thefly]

Bill Clinton inherited the Reagan/Bush mess.


And Reagan inherited the Jimmy Carter mess. Have you studied the USA economy in depth? It is pretty amazing, to me, that we survived since James Buchanan.

What about poor people?

The War on Poverty is the longest war fought by the USA. And it still has not been won. So we should tax everyone more (well, not everyone just rich a-holes that earn X dollars a year) and give it to the poor. Because they deserve it because they are poor. And the rich don't deserve it because they already have money they worked for.

Edit: And see SYSOPS, it is possible to keep debates civil. :D

[SonnyBonds]

Quite a few very rich people have inherited their wealth though.

And it's correct that poor and dying people need money much more than someone who has more money than he could possibly ever spend. If someone like that is selfish enough not to help people voluntarily and decides just to keep this huge sum in accounts etc, then I don't see what's so horrible about increasing taxes a little bit.

[Daveman]

Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor doesn't mean stripping the wealthy of all their money and handing it over to the homeless. I don't understand the fear of it. The slightest tax increase on the wealthiest individuals has the strongest impact on the budget, so a small tax increase on them (hell, the government could just return it to pre-Bush taxation levels) would be hugely effective at providing healthcare to the people that need it most.

If the poor are stuck spending half their salaries on medical bills, what chance will they have of getting anywhere?

And it's misleading (or maybe just naive) to say that the wealthy all earned it. We both know that in reality that's far from the case.

[mysteryperfecta]

I wasn't trying to compare the US and Norway or say anything like "since it works in Norway, it'll work in the US". I was just pointing out that certain things you said are not correct in all cases.

Understood.

And what if the government can provide other services for a large part of the population? What if these services are necessary?

I agree with Roger. I've already listed the areas where the federal government was 'necessary', imo. Many of the services you deem 'necessary' didn't exist here before FDR's New Deal. They were only deemed 'necessary' due to the Great Depression. And to characterize FDR's reign, I'll turn to Benito Mussolini, who proclaimed, "America has a dictator."

Meeting needs on the micro level is almost always more effective than on the macro level. Take our topic of health care-- insuring children is administered by the state. Moreover, it is my contention that things can generally be done privately better than they can be done by the government.

What about poor people? Those who can't afford to provide healthcare for themselves because the system is flawed? If you're going to maintain that the hardest working individuals get the best life in our country, you're going to be fighting against 250+ years of history that says otherwise.

There is Medicaid, for one. Two, I'm not poor, and the hospital where our second child was born just wrote our entire outstanding bill off. Our insurance covered most of the bill, and I pay less than $400 a month. That's less than $5000 a year, and our premiums are tax-exempt.

My frustration is, most people CAN afford health insurance. And there are already mechanisms that help the few that can't. If you were to see the breakdown of the 49 million uninsured, you'd be surprised to see what their characteristics are. Over a third already qualify for assistance, but haven't taken the simple steps to enroll. A large percentage are like I was for a while-- I could afford health care, but I was young and single and simply decided to roll the dice. Another significant percentage of uninsured are only temporarily so, and finally, a smaller part of the remaining uninsured can simply afford to pay any bills.

I'd like to see proof that this is happening in every country that has government-paid healthcare. Since your argument is that the system as designed is flawed, it should be easy to find.

I doubt it's happening in every country. Look to SonnyBond's Norway. But in more comparable countries to the U.S., like the UK and Canada, there are a myriad of examples. Here's a recent one: http://tr.subscribermail.com/cc.cfm?sendto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edailymail%2Eco%2E uk%2Fpages%2Flive%2Farticles%2Fnews%2Fnews%2Ehtml% 3Fin%5Farticle%5Fid%3D515332%26in%5Fpage%5Fid%3D17 70&tempid=e592fe532b7b4f339288e5ce4695fe78&mailid=e796c7fd3f5147b7a27087e96237120b

To see how true free market health care works, look to the cosmetic surgery industry. Those services are paid for completely out-of-pocket. People can easily compare prices. And over the decade of the 1990s, the average price of cosmetic surgery actually went down in real terms, even as there were all kinds of technological innovations that drove up costs elsewhere.

No proposition of single-payer healthcare has included anything like this and you know it. You're being ridiculous. The only thing that could remotely resemble such an extreme example would be the government offering tax incentives for people who get regular exercise and doctor visits.

Its on the horizon. http://tr.subscribermail.com/cc.cfm?sendto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emetro%2Eco%2Euk%2 Fnews%2Farticle%2Ehtml%3Fin%5Farticle%5Fid%3D99600 %26in%5Fpage%5Fid%3D34&tempid=e592fe532b7b4f339288e5ce4695fe78&mailid=e796c7fd3f5147b7a27087e96237120b

Did you completely ignore what I said before? As you said yourself, states handle state issues, and the federal government handles federal issues. State governments have to spend a huge chunk of their money on funding schools. If they don't do that, the education system completely falls apart. The federal government has much more freedom in choosing its priorities.

I read what you said. You named a few state priorities, and would have me assume that the federal govt. has fewer, less costly priorities. The fact is, states are heavily reliant on federal funding for schools. And our education system is already falling apart, despite an astronomical amount of funding. Private schools are much more successful, and people pay out of pocket for them (while still funding public school with their tax dollars). And don't tell me that public school was 'necessary'-- schools used to be entirely private, and were much more effective.

The federal government has a huge budget deficit because of voodoo economics Reaganomics.

I disagree. Budget deficits are a product of spending. Tax revenue went up under Reagan, while the top tax rate went from 70%(!) to 28%. The deficits came from massive spending (on defense, in particular). Reagan inherited a terrible economy with high inflation and unemployment, and improved those numbers significantly. There was a small recession under Bush Sr. that we were already coming out of before Clinton took office.

[Destroyer]

Only the federal government has the money to cover a comprehensive healthcare system.
yes but this fund would have to be soo large, and do you really trust the fed govt to be efficient with money?
what percentage of it do you think will just get wasted on the middle man.
though this may seem like a good idea, I would prefer the feds to not take care of everything because of how much money they can waste and how bloated all their programs get.
if they come up with the "perfect program for this" someones gonna wanna add this and that to it, it will get out of hand. and then wheres that wasted money gonna come from?


I end up paying very little in income tax (due to deductions). Most of what I pay in is for Social Security. Truth be told, very few U.S. citizens pay much federal income tax at all. The top 25% of wage earners pay 86% of all federal income taxes.

I disagree I don't think im in the top 25% and i end up paying quite a bit.
and If im in the top 25% then just WOW it doesnt take alot to be in the top 25%.

[mysteryperfecta]

Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor doesn't mean stripping the wealthy of all their money and handing it over to the homeless. I don't understand the fear of it. The slightest tax increase on the wealthiest individuals has the strongest impact on the budget, so a small tax increase on them (hell, the government could just return it to pre-Bush taxation levels) would be hugely effective at providing healthcare to the people that need it most.

So it's OK to bleed the rich, because they'll still be rich? Can I steal food from a rich person's fridge because I need food, and he can afford to buy more? Where do you stop? The government could take 90% from anyone making over 5 million dollars, and they'd still be rich. How much is too much? And what constitutes a 'need'? Poor people need lots of things! Bleed the rich!!!

If the poor are stuck spending half their salaries on medical bills, what chance will they have of getting anywhere?

The same chance as the other 99% of the country. Millions of people better their circumstances every year. You sure are painting a cynical picture, as if everyone is contracting catastrophic diseases.

I'm sorry that certain people are poor. And sometimes it is due to circumstances beyond their control. We are a compassionate nation, and there a myriad of organizations and programs that offer a hand up. But people are not entitled to a hand-out. With few exceptions, everyone has obstacles. Even people who get rich.

Quite a few very rich people have inherited their wealth though.

Less than 20% of millionaires in the U.S. inherited their money. The majority of millionaires are self-made.

And it's misleading (or maybe just naive) to say that the wealthy all earned it. We both know that in reality that's far from the case.
And it's just as misleading (or a flat out lie) to infer that it is "far from the case" that the wealthy earn their money. It's outrageous conjecture. There are over 9 million millionaires in the U.S. How many are you fingering? By the way, we have mechanisms to indict and punish people have illegally obtain money. Otherwise, even those accused are still innocent until proven guilty.

The wealthy in this country are the employers, the producers, the investors. They did not get rich by hoarding their pennies. They got rich by taking what they've earned and reinvesting it. That is what spurs the ecomony.

[mysteryperfecta]

I disagree I don't think im in the top 25% and i end up paying quite a bit.
and If im in the top 25% then just WOW it doesnt take alot to be in the top 25%.

I don't know how to quantify 'quite a bit'. If you make around $350,000 or more, then you're paying 35% of that taxable income to the federal government. By contrast, the lowest tax bracket is 10%. Of course, that excludes state and local taxes, property taxes (in some states), sales taxes, etc.

Here's an interesting chart. Note that health care expenses do not dominate:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Tax-Freedom-Day/2007/figure1large2.jpg

[Destroyer]

tax is tax, federal, or state. i make much less then 350K a year, but At the end of the year
I will end up taking home only 70% of what my salary is.
30% taken out in state/fed tax may not seem like a lot by my salary isnt that much, and it does end up effecting me quite a bit. I could be investing that money to increase my cash flow in turn which would allow the govt to tax me even more.
my argument is that people in my income bracket have shitty because we do get taxed a decent ammount but our incomes are not high enough to be taxed that much.

[Daveman]

My frustration is, most people CAN afford health insurance.
Being able to afford insurance and being able to afford medical coverage are to vastly different things. The insurance industry is designed in such a way that they can't make a profit if they cover everyone's medical expenses. That means that they deny a lot of people medical coverage just so they can make a profit.

And we both know there are different tiers of medical insurance. Just because someone can afford basic coverage doesn't mean they're set. The fact that poor people can only afford basic medical care because their insurance won't cover anything above a certain limit means that the privatized system is divided unequally between the poor (or lower-middle class) and the wealthy.
And there are already mechanisms that help the few that can't. If you were to see the breakdown of the 49 million uninsured, you'd be surprised to see what their characteristics are. Over a third already qualify for assistance, but haven't taken the simple steps to enroll.[quote]
Sounds interesting, but I'd like to "see the breakdown".
[quote] A large percentage are like I was for a while-- I could afford health care, but I was young and single and simply decided to roll the dice. Another significant percentage of uninsured are only temporarily so, and finally, a smaller part of the remaining uninsured can simply afford to pay any bills.
But there's no reason for them to be uninsured, even if they're not completely destitute. Single-payer healthcare can, in fact, SAVE the average person money. It doesn't just mean higher taxes. It means no insurance bills as well.

I doubt it's happening in every country. Look to SonnyBond's Norway. But in more comparable countries to the U.S., like the UK and Canada, there are a myriad of examples. Here's a recent one: http://tr.subscribermail.com/cc.cfm?sendto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edailymail%2Eco%2E uk%2Fpages%2Flive%2Farticles%2Fnews%2Fnews%2Ehtml% 3Fin%5Farticle%5Fid%3D515332%26in%5Fpage%5Fid%3D17 70&tempid=e592fe532b7b4f339288e5ce4695fe78&mailid=e796c7fd3f5147b7a27087e96237120b

Firstly, do not quote the daily mail. If that's a valid story, you can find a much, much more credible source. Secondly, you're not showing me anything that can't be compared to equal or worse things happening in the US. Your argument is that single-payer healthcare is systemically bad. My argument is that privatized healthcare is systemically bad. Both have their cases of bad things happening, and yet one of these systems provides healthcare for all, regardless of income level, even with these issues. The other provides the same issues, but only to people who can't make money anyway.
To see how true free market health care works, look to the cosmetic surgery industry. Those services are paid for completely out-of-pocket. People can easily compare prices.
The cosmetic surgery industry is also in huge trouble with the government because many of its surgeons aren't actually doctors, and the advertisement of pricing has led to misleading and exploiting patients. When you play on people's greed, a lot of bad side effects come along with it.

The cosmetic surgery industry isn't a necessary field that everyone deserves access to anyway. Unless you're talking about cosmetic surgery performed after car accidents or something, but that's not relevant because that kind of cosmetic surgery is covered by insurance.

Its on the horizon. http://tr.subscribermail.com/cc.cfm?sendto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emetro%2Eco%2Euk%2 Fnews%2Farticle%2Ehtml%3Fin%5Farticle%5Fid%3D99600 %26in%5Fpage%5Fid%3D34&tempid=e592fe532b7b4f339288e5ce4695fe78&mailid=e796c7fd3f5147b7a27087e96237120b

That article just says that obesity is an issue, not that the government will have anything authoritative to say about regulating people's lifestyle choices. That's a huge leap of logic.

I read what you said. You named a few state priorities, and would have me assume that the federal govt. has fewer, less costly priorities.
No, but there's more flexibility in trying new programs with the federal government.
The fact is, states are heavily reliant on federal funding for schools.
Not entirely. Most states fund their own schools, because that funding needs to be guaranteed. They rely on federal money for other projects so they can afford to fund their schools with their own tax money.
And our education system is already falling apart, despite an astronomical amount of funding.
It's a complicated issue, to be sure. The biggest problem is that kids are losing touch because of a society that pumps them full of advertisements and technology that distracts them from school. It's a nationwide issue with how materialistic our society is becoming.
Private schools are much more successful, and people pay out of pocket for them (while still funding public school with their tax dollars). And don't tell me that public school was 'necessary'-- schools used to be entirely private, and were much more effective.
I would love to see some figures that say that school used to be more effective when it was private. I would absolutely LOVE it. It's bullshit and you know it.

So it's OK to bleed the rich, because they'll still be rich? Can I steal food from a rich person's fridge because I need food, and he can afford to buy more? Where do you stop?
At a reasonable tax rate? You have more faith than that. Lawmakers aren't going to put a 90% tax rate on the heads of multimillionaires and you know it. A slippery slope argument doesn't work here, especially as I'm talking about cutting federal spending overall, not increasing it.
And what constitutes a 'need'? Poor people need lots of things! Bleed the rich!!!
You're getting carried away. I'm talking about the fundamental human right of access to healthcare. Stop trying to blow my argument out of proportion.


Less than 20% of millionaires in the U.S. inherited their money. The majority of millionaires are self-made.
Source?

And it's just as misleading (or a flat out lie) to infer that it is "far from the case" that the wealthy earn their money. It's outrageous conjecture.
I said it's far from the case that ALL millionaires earn their wealth. Huge difference.

There are over 9 million millionaires in the U.S. How many are you fingering? By the way, we have mechanisms to indict and punish people have illegally obtain money. Otherwise, even those accused are still innocent until proven guilty.
First, the wealthy in this country can most definitely get away with more crimes. White collar crime is every bad as extortion, but it's a slap on the wrist in the judicial system.
Second, I'm not talking exclusively about inherited wealth. Every person born to a wealthy family has a leg-up in this world, even if they don't inherit their money. Granted, a lot of it is cultural, but the culture reflects the inequalities every bit as much as the inequalities reflect the culture.

[mysteryperfecta]

Being able to afford insurance and being able to afford medical coverage are to vastly different things. The insurance industry is designed in such a way that they can't make a profit if they cover everyone's medical expenses. That means that they deny a lot of people medical coverage just so they can make a profit.

I am not an apologist for the insurance industry. Reforms are needed. But you're mischaracterizing how insurance companies make money. They make money because we're gambling, and they are the house. Sure, the house has to pay out sometimes, but the odds are in their favor.

And we both know there are different tiers of medical insurance. Just because someone can afford basic coverage doesn't mean they're set. The fact that poor people can only afford basic medical care because their insurance won't cover anything above a certain limit means that the privatized system is divided unequally between the poor (or lower-middle class) and the wealthy.

Actually, when I was shopping for insurance, catastrophic was the cheapest. It didn't cover routine medical bills (check-ups, dentistry), but major illnesses leading to huge bills were covered. The limits were very high.

Sounds interesting, but I'd like to "see the breakdown".

So would I. I've 'heard' the breakdown, but I can find a link to it, save the percentage of people who qualify that simply haven't enrolled (latest figures put that number at 25% of uninsured).

Single-payer healthcare can, in fact, SAVE the average person money. It doesn't just mean higher taxes. It means no insurance bills as well.

With socialized medicine, it costs less to be sick, but more to be healthy. But many infermaties are the result of lifestyle choices (smoking, overeating, etc). In my mind, people who take care of themselves shouldn't be punished.


Firstly, do not quote the daily mail. If that's a valid story, you can find a much, much more credible source.

Discounting the argument by attacking the forum is intellectually lazy. The sources quoted in the article are credible.

Your argument is that single-payer healthcare is systemically bad.

No. I'm arguing that single-payer healthcare has been unjustifiably deified, and that it not improve the health care system of the U.S. specifically.

My argument is that privatized healthcare is systemically bad.

Then you'll be shocked to know that private sector health care is the fastest growing segment of the health care industry in countries with socialized medicine. People in countries like the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada are paying for private insurance that covers services which they are presumably entitled to for free under their nation's health care system. Why would they do such a thing if their national health care were better?

Both have their cases of bad things happening, and yet one of these systems provides healthcare for all, regardless of income level, even with these issues.

That's a myth. In the UK, they call it the "postcode lottery", in which a person's chances for timely, high-quality treatment depend on the neighborhood "postcode" in which he or she lives. And people with money can cut in line.

That article just says that obesity is an issue, not that the government will have anything authoritative to say about regulating people's lifestyle choices. That's a huge leap of logic.

It says that obesity is such an issue, that the government should get involved, beyond just encouraging people to exercise and eat less. How would one propose the government tackle a lifestyle issue such as obesity? I didn't suggest that they would literally take food out of your mouth, or tie you to an elliptical machine. But they can limit your food choices and serving sizes through heavy regulations. After all, they're paying for health care.


No, but there's more flexibility in trying new programs with the federal government.

Debateable.

Not entirely. Most states fund their own schools, because that funding needs to be guaranteed. They rely on federal money for other projects so they can afford to fund their schools with their own tax money.

No. The local school district is inexorably focused on enrollment numbers, as they directly correspond to how much money they get from the federal govt. It is a big deal.


I would love to see some figures that say that school used to be more effective when it was private. I would absolutely LOVE it. It's bullshit and you know it.

No, it's anectodal. The degree of difficulty has gone down dramatically. The goal is to shuffle people through the system. Curriculum has been dumbed down. Expectations are minimal. My youngest sister is a perfect example of the failure of the public school system. It has become a highly political enterprise.

At a reasonable tax rate? You have more faith than that. Lawmakers aren't going to put a 90% tax rate on the heads of multimillionaires and you know it. A slippery slope argument doesn't work here, especially as I'm talking about cutting federal spending overall, not increasing it.

It's not a fairy tale. It's happened. The top marginal tax rate was around or above 90% from the early 1940s to the early 1960s, and was 70% for the decade of the 70s. This was without another enormous government apparatus like socialized medicine.

You're getting carried away. I'm talking about the fundamental human right of access to healthcare. Stop trying to blow my argument out of proportion.

I don't believe it's a right. If you get sick, no one else should be required to pay for your treatment. Many have been treated out of compassion. Many have been covered as a benefit in the competition for the best employees. Now many people, like yourself, feel entitled.


Source?

Gee whiz, a simple search uncovered the data. Its not a secret.


I said it's far from the case that ALL millionaires earn their wealth. Huge difference.

But it's not far from the case, as the data suggests. Most do.


Second, I'm not talking exclusively about inherited wealth. Every person born to a wealthy family has a leg-up in this world, even if they don't inherit their money. Granted, a lot of it is cultural, but the culture reflects the inequalities every bit as much as the inequalities reflect the culture.

I don't disagree. But I don't agree that they should be punished for it.

-----------

We just have two diametrically opposed philosophies. I'm a proponent of limited, laissez faire government, you want cradle-to-grave entitlements and government intervention. I believe in self-reliance and freedom, and you prefer a nanny state. My vision for the U.S. is similar to the founding fathers, and yours is similar to European socialism. We're free to express our beliefs.

[SonnyBonds]

I don't believe it's a right. If you get sick, no one else should be required to pay for your treatment.
I think that is what it means to live in a civilized society. We all have to accept paying for things that may never affect us personally.
I'm not saying not having universal health care equals an uncivilized society, just to make that clear.. but I do think that there are things that everyone needs to pay for in order to have a good society.

And we already pay for several things that may never personally affect us. Medical care is just as important as other things I have to pay taxes for.
Perhaps I will never need police protection. If I were very rich, I could afford to pay my own guards.. why should I have to pay for others to be protected. Even if society went to hell without it, if I didn't care about that, why should I be forced to pay.

And if I was a complete pacifist who did not believe in any military of any kind, why should I have to pay for that.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Whoa, a history/political thread and I didn't know?! My major and minor can finally come to use.

Anyway....

Socialized European everything, was actually a product of post WW2 rebuilding effort by the United States. The allied countries, Britain in particular (Google "Battle of Britain" or watch the 1950's movie by the same name), were devastated by the war... and socialistic mechanisms took hold to rebuild the country when so many had nothing. They saw what FDR did in the new deal and ran with it. Some were only temporary, like 100% employment, however others like socialized medicine stayed.

Why? It worked for them, and to all of a sudden say that instead of being free it would now cost quite a bit of money would have been political suicide... even Margret Thatcher or Tony Blair would have never dreamed of removing government paid health care.

The reason the Bush tax cuts are considered pointless, is because if one makes 20 million a year giving that person an extra million or two really will not affect their spending habits. Likewise if you take an extra million or two away, their lifestyle usually is not adversely affected. However, if one gives the average Middle America family a extra grand they are far more likely to go spend it right away... for instance on that HDTV that dad wants. The money goes immediately back into the economy.


One thing I am curious about is given the profits of just the insurance companies vs. typical healthcare costs of the average person; how many more people could be covered? I have a feeling that it would be millions of people. This is leaving out profits by hospitals and drug companies because it can be argued that those profits go back into R&D where as in insurance companies that argument is not valid.


Mysterypefecta - You do need better sources, your claim that your source is a valid one is without merit. Find me something that is peer reviewed or don't bother linking to it.

[Destroyer]

=

The reason the Bush tax cuts are considered pointless, is because if one makes 20 million a year giving that person an extra million or two really will not affect their spending habits. Likewise if you take an extra million or two away, their lifestyle usually is not adversely affected. However, if one gives the average Middle America family a extra grand they are far more likely to go spend it right away... for instance on that HDTV that dad wants. The money goes immediately back into the economy.



exactly dude. Like my salary is in the mid range. If i was given a decent tax cut I would go buy a new car. not only would that make me happy but it would help boost the economy. if my Taxes were cut in half that would hardly effect the government but I know i could invest that money into something and in the long run make a lot more money which would actually allow the govt to tax me more, and in my career lifetime they would actually get more money from me.

[peoplessi]

What if everyones taxes were cut to half? USA is already in debt, why make it even worse? Stopping the excess spending all-around is the key thing in the future, and regaining the monetarystatus USA once had, and what is now slipping away for China. That's the biggest challenge. National healthcare and tertiary education could be provided(assisted, or paid in full) if the slack would be cut from certain militaryspendings.

[Waiter]

Socialized European everything, was actually a product of post WW2 rebuilding effort by the United States.

Ehh...WHAT???

Instead of posting links about socialism in the almost 200 years preceding WW2, I'm just going to ask you what you mean with that comment and what on earth the US had to do with the development of socialism in Europe.

[Daveman]

Discounting the argument by attacking the forum is intellectually lazy. The sources quoted in the article are credible.
Not if it's the Daily Mail. It's a horrendously biased source.


It says that obesity is such an issue, that the government should get involved, beyond just encouraging people to exercise and eat less.
As far as I can tell, the statements weren't made by a government official, and there's absolutely no mention of any concrete plan to implement what the guy says. Whenever the media hops on an article saying "a new study says..." or "an expert on this says..." they like giving the impression that it's the new standard for science, when in reality it's just one study against many or just one guy talking about things that are particularly shocking and will get people to buy papers. To say that what this guy is suggesting is inevitably going to be the path lawmakers take is ridiculous.

How would one propose the government tackle a lifestyle issue such as obesity?
Like I've said, tax incentives. They work.


No, it's anectodal. The degree of difficulty has gone down dramatically. The goal is to shuffle people through the system. Curriculum has been dumbed down. Expectations are minimal.
No no no no, you said schools were better when they were private. I'm not debating that the school system is in trouble. I'm debating that the school system was better when it was private. Are you telling me that schools were better in the 1840s than they are now? Because that's a total bullshit argument.


I don't believe it's a right.
You and I disagree. Just like a free, society-provided education, it's a right.


We just have two diametrically opposed philosophies. I'm a proponent of limited, laissez faire government, you want cradle-to-grave entitlements and government intervention. I believe in self-reliance and freedom, and you prefer a nanny state. My vision for the U.S. is similar to the founding fathers, and yours is similar to European socialism. We're free to express our beliefs.
I don't doubt that your argument is similar to that of the founding fathers. I don't agree with a lot of what the founding fathers have to say though. I think a lot of their ideas simply don't apply anymore with the way society and culture has developed. It's time for the next progression of society.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Ehh...WHAT???

Instead of posting links about socialism in the almost 200 years preceding WW2, I'm just going to ask you what you mean with that comment and what on earth the US had to do with the development of socialism in Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

I had a book for a 20th century britain class, but I guess I sold it back. It was very boring and dry, but went into much better explanation and detail. Anyway, I am not saying the US brought the idea of socialism to europe, but that with the United States help it was able to foster and grow post ww2.

[superevilcube]

I just want to throw in my two cents.

I just voted absentee the other day for Ron Paul because he definitely has the best plan for taxes (and everything else). We shouldn't need an income tax, but government spending is so out of control we need it. There's no reason for American troops to be stationed in Germany, Korea, Japan and Nigeria. Bringing those troops home will definitely save tax payer money. We give aid to Arab countries who have sought for Israel's destruction! Why do we give aid our Ally's enemies? It makes no sense to me.

Also what I don't get is why we keep on sending aid to Africa. Not that Africans don't deserve help, but out government doesn't have the money to be sending in the first place! Our government is already in massive debt. Why borrow and print money if we are just going to be sending it to other countries? It just hurts our economy.

Some government agencies are just so silly anyway. The National Endowment for the Arts? That's got to be the biggest joke I've ever heard. Why should my tax dollar collected down here in Texas go to fund some theatre in Redwood,Washington? It makes no sense. If I want my money to go to a theatre, I'll donate to a local theatre.

[Nessus]

There would be no income tax if it wasn't for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
Since then whenever the Fed creates money we owe them interest on it. This usury system of debt based money goes back thousands of years and every country that has used it goes through great hardships as a result while making the recipients of the debt extremely wealthy. The income tax was created as a direct result of paying off the Fed's debt to private interests, most of whom aren't even American.

They Fed is now so powerful the pundits are afraid to even mention the nature of the system. It's pretty much known throughout media and education that if you make that your issue you can go find another job. All of our other monetary problems are academic in the face of the Federal Reserve scam.

[Scotty]

If the Fed had stuck to its role as "The lender of last resort", our problems would be a lot less.

However, America has turned into a bunch of instant-gratification-boo-hoo-crybabies that demand that the Fed keep interest rates in the toilet so that they can keep borrowing, instead of *shudder* actually having to save, or in the case of the government, actually having to raise taxes to pay for their massive spending sprees.

[Daveman]

Also what I don't get is why we keep on sending aid to Africa.
The irony is that the reason we need to keep sending aid to them is our refusal to forgive their debts.

Some government agencies are just so silly anyway. The National Endowment for the Arts? That's got to be the biggest joke I've ever heard..
That sounds great until you realize just how little programs like the NEA actually cost you per year. The cost is so little and the benefit for people who need it is quite great.

[Destroyer]

What if everyones taxes were cut to half? USA is already in debt, why make it even worse? Stopping the excess spending all-around is the key thing in the future,
well ofcourse, im not saying cut taxes and continue spending like crazy. I think we can make major cutbacks and have major tax cuts.

[Joe Siegler]

I should have peeked in this thread before. This is in a minefield folks. Keep it civil, and we're OK, but htese subjects almost never stay civil. Someone gets their panties in a knot.

[Daveman]

I think things have kept really civil so far. And I'm pretty sure this discussion is dying anyway.

[Waiter]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

I had a book for a 20th century britain class, but I guess I sold it back. It was very boring and dry, but went into much better explanation and detail. Anyway, I am not saying the US brought the idea of socialism to europe, but that with the United States help it was able to foster and grow post ww2.

I still don't get what you're saying. There's also not a word in that link about socialism. Why would the US of all countries be promoting socialism?

Before WW2, socialism had been a growing movement for over 150 years in Europe, going back to the french and russian revolutions, the industrial revolution and people like Marx and Rosseau. Sweden had a socialist government from the early 30's and one of the ways that Hitler managed to seduce the german people was by calling his party socialist. (Even though it had nothing to do with it)

It's a well known trend that people lean towards the socialist thoughts in difficult times and to the individualist when the economy is better. Boosting the economies of the west european countries was a way of pulling them back to a more right winged socialist position rather than promoting socialism itself. This relative wellfare put a lid on the leftwards socialist development all over Europe, and Sweden's socialist govenrment had it's toughtest election since it took over in 1932.

If the Marshall Plan had anything to do with promoting socialism, it was by keeping the general opinion from falling even further left towards communism. Had Europe been left to itself, this would most likely have been the result, especially in Germany. Russia was of course part of the alliance but they were not the people who had bombed Germany into crumbles and dust, and had it not been for things like the Marshall Plan, Germany would have been in complete chaos.

[Daveman]

I still don't get what you're saying. There's also not a word in that link about socialism. Why would the US of all countries be promoting socialism?

Before WW2, socialism had been a growing movement for over 150 years in Europe, going back to the french and russian revolutions, the industrial revolution and people like Marx and Rosseau. Sweden had a socialist government from the early 30's and one of the ways that Hitler managed to seduce the german people was by calling his party socialist. (Even though it had nothing to do with it)

It's a well known trend that people lean towards the socialist thoughts in difficult times and to the individualist when the economy is better. Boosting the economies of the west european countries was a way of pulling them back to a more right winged socialist position rather than promoting socialism itself. This relative wellfare put a lid on the leftwards socialist development all over Europe, and Sweden's socialist govenrment had it's toughtest election since it took over in 1932.
I think what he was saying was that the Marshall Plan helped develop modern socialism (socialism through the electorate) even if it wasn't the intended goal. The reconstruction effort, and the money and support provided by the Marshall Plan, allowed socialism to grow and become accepted.

I disagree with you that had the Marshall Plan promoted socialism, Europe would've fallen to the Soviets. The reason there was never a violent revolution backed by the Soviets in Western Europe was because social programs were in place to keep the population reassured that there was a good basic standard of living and that a violent revolution wouldn't achieve much that they didn't already have.

It's the same reason Britain never saw a violent socialist uprising in the 19th Century, even when the rest of Europe was falling apart from strikes and protests. England had standards that protected workers from being treated as badly or from feeling disaffected like the rest of Europe's poor.

[mysteryperfecta]

The reason the Bush tax cuts are considered pointless, is because if one makes 20 million a year giving that person an extra million or two really will not affect their spending habits.

What do you mean? They get spending fatigue? "I JUST CAN'T spend that extra million! I'm exhausted! Plus, I have everything I could possibly need!" Not likely. Besides things like celebrity and lottery, people get rich by growing their earning power, not resting on their laurels. This happens by exploring new revenue streams, adding new markets, expanding existing markets, and adding employees. THIS is the engine of the economy. Hell, even if they stick it in a bank, banks in turn invest this money into the economy, building homes and businesses. Or, the rich can simply use it as disposable income, putting the money right back into the economy.

However, if one gives the average Middle America family a extra grand they are far more likely to go spend it right away... for instance on that HDTV that dad wants. The money goes immediately back into the economy.

Your agument is problematic. Middle America is much less likely to treat an extra grand as disposable income-- and making a mortgage payment doesn't stimulate the economy. The entire raison d'être for an economic stimilus package is based on the premise that Americans are feeling the pinch. Frittering an extra away is not going to help matters long-term. By contrast, a million is real money that a person can do real things with, and in the hands of a person making 20 mill, has a much better chance to help the economy. In the context of the ecomony, giving Middle America an extra grand is just a stealth tax cut that the Democrats actually vote for.

At least we're on the same page in that letting people keep more of what they earn is good for the economy. :)

[mysteryperfecta]

Just noticed this-


Mysterypefecta - You do need better sources, your claim that your source is a valid one is without merit. Find me something that is peer reviewed or don't bother linking to it.

I claimed that my source quoted credible sources. I know this by actually reading the article. This wasn't an op-ed. And peer-reviewed? Want me to stick to medical and science journals? You just linked to Wikipedia! Should I dismiss your argument entirely? Physician, heal thyself.

Please point me to a peer-reviewed source that completely discredits The Daily Mail. I assume that's how you drew your conclusion.

[Waiter]

I think what he was saying was that the Marshall Plan helped develop modern socialism (socialism through the electorate) even if it wasn't the intended goal. The reconstruction effort, and the money and support provided by the Marshall Plan, allowed socialism to grow and become accepted.

But that's my point, it was accepted and "through the electorate" even before WW2.

I disagree with you that had the Marshall Plan promoted socialism, Europe would've fallen to the Soviets.

I didn't say that, I said that the MP prevented the general opinion from leaning even further towards the left and communist side. My whole point is that the MP didn't promote socialism.

It's the same reason Britain never saw a violent socialist uprising in the 19th Century, even when the rest of Europe was falling apart from strikes and protests. England had standards that protected workers from being treated as badly or from feeling disaffected like the rest of Europe's poor.

Again sort of my whole point. There were socialist movements - with and without protests - all over Europe way before WW2.

You're right when you say that the Marshall Plan kept people from violent protests and from some countries to fall into complete chaos, I just don't see how this has anything to do with the development of socialism. It was there the whole time.

[Daveman]

Just noticed this-



I claimed that my source quoted credible sources. I know this by actually reading the article. This wasn't an op-ed. And peer-reviewed? Want me to stick to medical and science journals? You just linked to Wikipedia! Should I dismiss your argument entirely? Physician, heal thyself.

Please point me to a peer-reviewed source that completely discredits The Daily Mail. I assume that's how you drew your conclusion.
It doesn't take being a source being peer-reviewed to be credible. It takes this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_ethics). We're not even saying the scandal never took place, just that you can find a better source. Please do so, because The Daily Mail is about the worst place you could look.

[Destroyer]

I still don't get what you're saying. There's also not a word in that link about socialism. Why would the US of all countries be promoting socialism?

I think what he is trying to say is that when the Govt takes care of your needs everyone tends to have the same. For example with health care, if the Govt took care of it everyone would have the same healthcare, though that may seem like a good idea, but everyone is getting the same not matter how hard they work or how much money they make. I know this seems like a really "evil" thing to say especially with health care. But if everyone is going to get the same treatment/advantages in life why work hard?
I'm really divided with this issue. Though I feel that way, I also think it would be very nice if everyone could afford health care.

[Daveman]

That's actually not at all what he was saying. He was talking about the Marshall Plan.

[Waiter]

(...)that may seem like a good idea, but everyone is getting the same not matter how hard they work or how much money they make. I know this seems like a really "evil" thing to say especially with health care. But if everyone is going to get the same treatment/advantages in life why work hard?
I'm really divided with this issue. Though I feel that way, I also think it would be very nice if everyone could afford health care.

As Daveman said, this has nothing to do with what we were discussing, but do you seriously mean that the rich people are the ones who work hard?

There is also nothing that prevents you from getting an extra private health insurance if you can afford one. The point is to have a system that guarantees everyone a right to basic health care. For me it's even strange just to imagine a country where people are left on the outside and don't get medical treatment because they can't pay for it. It's also way cheaper to have a common health care where people can afford to go to the doctor when they can still be cured on an early stage in a relatively cheap way.

[mysteryperfecta]

As Daveman said, this has nothing to do with what we were discussing, but do you seriously mean that the rich people are the ones who work hard?

I don't think he means that; I don't believe that. But then again, I don't favor working hard over working smart, or being savvy, or talented. There is no sweat-to-compensation ratio, and shouldn't be.

There was a woman who got an idea for a book. It's called, "What Men Know About Women". The pages are blank. A wordless book; a novelty item, and it made this person rich, with little effort. Should she be wealthier than the person who does 60 hours of manual labor a week? Yes.

There is also nothing that prevents you from getting an extra private health insurance if you can afford one.

Extra insurance for what? You mean that some people will receive better, newer treatments that allow them to live longer, more productive lives, based on how much money they have? Blasphemy!

The point is to have a system that guarantees everyone a right to basic health care.

That rarely exists even in socialized medicine. "Rationing is a reality when funding is limited." The key word is "basic". What qualifies as "basic" health care? Who decides? "Sorry, you die, your medical problem is considered 'advanced' health care." Are MRI's 'basic'? CT scans? There are a number of costly procedures that help to diagnose common illnesses.

What is everyone entitled to? Straight teeth? Acupuncture? Home visits? Rehab?

For me it's even strange just to imagine a country where people are left on the outside and don't get medical treatment because they can't pay for it.

Depending on the treatment, that's exactly the scenario you're suggesting.

[SonnyBonds]

Extra insurance for what? You mean that some people will receive better, newer treatments that allow them to live longer, more productive lives, based on how much money they have?
Probably not but I can't speak for him. However, what I had in mind when he said that was that you could get shorter waiting times and stuff like that for things that are not life-threatening or very dangerous.
If the condition is life threatening or can leave permanent damage, people are of course treated fast under universal health care (talking about my own country but I'm sure it's like this most places).

The key word is "basic". What qualifies as "basic" health care? Who decides? "Sorry, you die, your medical problem is considered 'advanced' health care."
Anything insurance companies cover are covered here.. once there was this guy who could live a few months longer if he got a very new kind of medication and he was denied it.. it was printed in the paper and there was a big outrage and it ended up with him getting it anyway (which I disagree with btw). But that's a rare example.

Are MRI's 'basic'? CT scans? There are a number of costly procedures that help to diagnose common illnesses.
They must be, I've had two MRIs and haven't paid a thing.

What is everyone entitled to? Straight teeth? Acupuncture?
Don't be silly.

Home visits?
If you're unable to leave your home and in situations like that perhaps.

[mysteryperfecta]

However, what I had in mind when he said that was that you could get shorter waiting times and stuff like that for things that are not life-threatening or very dangerous.

That's not what private insurance does for people in countries like Canada and England.

If the condition is life threatening or can leave permanent damage, people are of course treated fast under universal health care (talking about my own country but I'm sure it's like this most places).

Socialized medicine does not remedy the problem of waiting for surgery, life-threatening or not. A 2001 study learned that in Britain, delays for colon cancer treatment are long enough that 20 percent of the cases considered curable at time of diagnosis are incurable by the time of treatment. During one 12-month period in Ontario, Canada, 71 patients died waiting for coronary bypass surgery while 121 patients were removed from the list because they had become too sick to undergo surgery with a reasonable chance of survival.

Don't be silly.

You may think this silly, but others don't. Acupuncture is seen as a legitimate pain relieving technique. And you expect poor people to go through their lives with crooked teeth because they can't afford something as basic and readily available (though costly) as braces?

My entire point has been to punch holes in the idealistic notions of nationalized health care. In many areas, these systems are as bad or worse than our situation in the U.S. As you've demonstrated, Sonny, socialized medicine can work reasonably well in small, wealthy nations. The U.S. has over 300 million people, and a budget of 2.7 trillion dollars without socialized medicine (revenue is 200 billion less than the budget). There is no possible scenario in which socialized medicine will cost the government less than it pays now.

[superevilcube]

Mysteryperfecta, do you have a link to the article that cites that study? That's very interesting data.

[Waiter]

A perfect mystery... if you take the time to read through my post and try to understand it and what I was responding to, you'll probably find out that we adtually agree on most things.

There is no sweat-to-compensation ratio, and shouldn't be.

Which was exactly my point.

Extra insurance for what?

In Germany, for example, you have a basic protection that guarantees you basic health care, i.e. the treatment considered necessary by a doctor. However, if you want to, the different insurance companies also have different extras covering for example medicine, hospital fees, private treatment when abroad, alternative medicine and preventive things like courses in nutrition and back/sholder-gymnastics.

You mean that some people will receive better, newer treatments that allow them to live longer, more productive lives, based on how much money they have? Blasphemy!

As said, read again.

What qualifies as "basic" health care?

See above.

Depending on the treatment, that's exactly the scenario you're suggesting.

Once again, no. It's exactly the scenario I'm objecting to.

[dlink]

I live in Denmark and i think we have some of the highest taxes int he world. I don't remember them exaclty but they're between 25%-40% it's pretty damn expensive for everything but the benefits are nice. Free school free health to the age of 18 free kinder garden and other stuff. When you got to university or high school you will get money for actually going in school which is a plus. I'm also a proud dane to say we're the happiest nation in the world just look at this entry Denmark had in 60 Minutes :D.

PART1: http://youtube.com/watch?v=2E4xgk5870s

PARTY2:http://youtube.com/watch?v=i3BmE_IvjYQ

party 2 is mainly about the rich wealth in denmark

[Daveman]

Just think how much happier you could be if you left all that to private companies, though!

[Waiter]

Did you hear him say he wasn't happy?

And why would I be happier if I left it to private companies whose only interest is to get as much money out of me as possible rather than providing basic service equally available to everybody?

[Scotty]

Judging from Daveman's earlier posts in this thread, I think he was pulling our leg. :)

[Daveman]

Yes, I was being fairly sarcastic.

[0marTheZealot]

I wouldn't mind taxes if I saw that money going back into making lives better.

I pay close to 25k a year in taxes and everywhere I go, shit is going downhill. Potholes everywhere, rusted out bridges, traffic is insane (2+ hours/day each way just commuting, normally a 40 minute drive with normal traffic), healthcare is a joke, public schools are a complete mess, inflation is rampant, everything about America seems to be going downhill. Even comparing to things just 4-6 years ago, things were better.

[Waiter]

Yes, I was being fairly sarcastic.

That's not allowed when I'm taking people seriously for once. :tinyted:

[Kevin Wolff]

I pay close to 25k a year in taxes and everywhere I go, shit is going downhill. Potholes everywhere, rusted out bridges, traffic is insane (2+ hours/day each way just commuting, normally a 40 minute drive with normal traffic), healthcare is a joke, public schools are a complete mess, inflation is rampant, everything about America seems to be going downhill. Even comparing to things just 4-6 years ago, things were better.
Funny, when I read this post, I thought to myself, "He must live in Chicago." :D

ABC World News did a story about potholes there, it's so bad. They said they fill about 200 a day but can't keep up. As for traffic...there is no "normal traffic" there from what I can see. Last time I was up there, I-90 was crowded during Letterman. :o And didn't the county raise sales tax to 10%? I lol'd.

Maybe I should stay in Florida after all...although, this place has little going for it except warmth. Maybe it really is a nationwide problem.

[0marTheZealot]

Funny, when I read this post, I thought to myself, "He must live in Chicago." :D

ABC World News did a story about potholes there, it's so bad. They said they fill about 200 a day but can't keep up. As for traffic...there is no "normal traffic" there from what I can see. Last time I was up there, I-90 was crowded during Letterman. :o And didn't the county raise sales tax to 10%? I lol'd.

Maybe I should stay in Florida after all...although, this place has little going for it except warmth. Maybe it really is a nationwide problem.

yep, I live in Chicago. Love the city to death, but a lot of things really piss me off :)

[Nessus]

I wouldn't mind taxes if I saw that money going back into making lives better.

I pay close to 25k a year in taxes and everywhere I go, shit is going downhill. Potholes everywhere, rusted out bridges, traffic is insane (2+ hours/day each way just commuting, normally a 40 minute drive with normal traffic), healthcare is a joke, public schools are a complete mess, inflation is rampant, everything about America seems to be going downhill. Even comparing to things just 4-6 years ago, things were better.

I honestly believe we are going to see America take a hard fall in the near future. The dollar is about to inflate in earnest, they have been lying about existing inflation and it's starting to really take off. soon they are going to have to raise taxes more because they money they have isn't buying what it used to.

[Nessus]

Find me something that is peer reviewed or don't bother linking to it.


You should never give any automatic respect or credibility to anything becasue it's peer reviewed. Here's Fred Reed's take on peer review and why the whole system is suspect.



1) Peer review works, it seems to me, if you believe that people credentialed as scholars are not subject to political correctness, fear of their peers, concerns about tenure, and the heavy pressure to stay within the accepted paradigm. Is this the case?

2) Who would write the more insightful and accurate paper on race in America—Jared Taylor (who I believe not to have any sort of high academic credentials), or the head of the sociology department at the U. of Maryland? Whose paper would be more likely to pass peer review?

3) If I stole a prepublication copy of a high-grade-paper from a major figure in one of the semi- or pseudo-sciences—psychology, sociology, anthropology—and submitted it under my name, as plain Fred Reed, would it pass peer review? If not, then the function of peer review as an assurance of quality would seem dubious. Indeed, I would have to conclude that the journal didn’t even recognize quality in its own field, and that peer review was chiefly a form of exclusionary unionism.

4) I may be wrong, but I have the impression that people who pass peer review, such as Jay Gould (was he peer-reviewed?) have been regarded by the list as incompetent if not dishonest.

5) I believe I have read that someone wrote a deliberately nonsensical paper in sociology or some such, and this parody was duly published in a respected journal. I don’t know whether it was peer-reviewed.

Maybe journals ought to reserve a slot per issue for things interesting but unconventional, and let the reader decide.

[Daveman]

I think the peer-reviewing remark was a little misplaced, but that doesn't mean the Daily Mail isn't journalistically worthless.

[Joe Siegler]

We're close to being totally irrelevant to what the thread was started about.

Remember that.

[thefly]

I can't wait to get my tax rebate check so I can pay off some of my debt. Even though that means the government will have less money to pay of its debt. Which means taxes will eventually rise higher and I will have to pay more taxes so I will have less money to pay off my debts? :insomnia:

Also, I believe the tax rebate checks are going to be considered income, which means they will be taxed. So a tax on your tax rebate check. This makes a lot of sense.

[Scotty]

The rebate checks weren't taxed in 2001, and I doubt they'll be taxed now.

Some ppl are saying the rebates will run up the debt, other ppl are saying they will come out of our refunds next year.

George HW Bush pulled something like that in 1992: Withholding was lowered so that ppl had less tax taken out of their paychecks, though there was no actual change in tax due. As such, when we filed our tax returns the next spring, many ppl got smaller returns instead of big returns, and ppl like me that normally got small returns ended up owing taxes on our returns. At any rate, that ploy failed, assuming its goal was to get Bush re-elected.

I guess we'll have to keep an eye on exemptions on our 2008 tax forms next year to see if they're reduced by $600.

[Nessus]

I think I'm going to buy some silver with my rebate check. I'm betting that the dollar is going to keep tanking and that we are headed for worse inflation. I'd imagine that McCain or Obama when they make their new budget are going to have to raise it significantly due to the inflation we've already suffered and as a result will have to raise taxes.

The thing with the rebate checks is that the government is just printing that money out of thin air and now we will owe interest on it to the privatetely held Federal Reserve. Since the interest is always more money then was actually created the only way it can be paid is to create more money. It's a vicious circle doomed to collapse.

[Destroyer]

thats a good idea, perhalps invest in some gold.
but my refund really wasnt that much so i cant really invest it in something. I just bought a new laptop.

[helious]

Do i hear some of you guys complaining?

i pay around 70% in taxes!

[Mariamus]

I pay 40% in income tax. Then there's the taxes on food, cigarettes, alcohol, cars, gas.
Here in denmark, we pay roughly triple what americans pay for a gallon of gas. Oh, and we pay 2½/3 times as much for a new car than almost anywhere else. Denmark is horribly expensive to live in, but we have free health-care, so it's not like i'm packing my shit to move to the states any day soon.

[thefly]

Your tax money is paying for the health-care.

[SonnyBonds]

Well, duh!

When saying "free" healthcare, it's the same as if you would say you're getting free police protection. Everyone realizes that taxes pays for these things. In a society, taxes are required for basic things to be covered for everyone. You might have issues with what these things are and that's fine :)
Fortunately, there are enough people here in support of universal health care being paid for by taxes that it is in no danger of going away in the foreseeable future :)

[John]

:o Wouldn't want any of that spreading to the States now would we?

[0marTheZealot]

Do i hear some of you guys complaining?

i pay around 70% in taxes!

I'm willing to bet that your infrastructure isn't collapsing, seeing a doctor doesn't cost you a thousand ******* dollars, and inflation isn't out of control in your country. In the US, inflation has gone up about 7% in the last 3 years, which is amazing. Basically, you are 7% poorer just by living in America. It's shitty and it's not going to get better.

[Daveman]

Thank the privatization of warfare, among other things.

[thefly]

I'm willing to bet that your infrastructure isn't collapsing, seeing a doctor doesn't cost you a thousand ******* dollars

How many times have you paid a grand or more to see a doctor?

and inflation isn't out of control in your country.

It is hardly out of control. Prices have risen very little in the USA compared to the global estimate of money supply.

[0marTheZealot]

How many times have you paid a grand or more to see a doctor?


Not quite a grand, but I also have insurance. It cost me 30 bucks just to see a doc, another 20 for a referral, then the next doc charged me 30 bucks. 80 bucks down the drain because I have to play grab-ass with this stupid system. If I know I have a specific problem, then why can't I just talk to the specialist instead of playing merry-go-****-a-cock with the hospitial/insurance companies? On top of that, I have to see a brand-new doctor (ie not my old family doctor) thanks to employer healthcare and I can only choose a doctor from a small list of 12 specialist doctors in my area. Then add in prescription drugs costs, about 40 bucks for my scrip. For someone who puts in nearly 5% of his paycheck, before taxes, that's a shitload of money. I get robbed before taxes and the goddamn insurance companies rob me afterwards.


It is hardly out of control. Prices have risen very little in the USA compared to the global estimate of money supply.

What the hell does that mean anyways? I know I was paying 1.99 for a gallon of milk in 2001/2002, now I'm paying 3.69 for a gallon of milk. For eggs, it used to be .99 or 1.09, now it's 1.69. Everyone knows about the gas prices. Rent's gone up, heating has gone up, electricity has gone up, everything is getting more and more expensive ($100 for rent, heating is up about 20% over last year, electricity is the same for me, despite having installed energy efficient bulbs and appliances). Meanwhile, the city government taxes me more and more to pay for potholes they never fix, to pad the pockets of corrupt bankers and aldermen, to pay victims of police brutality (over $20 million over the last 3 years!), to pay for a road system that's fundamentally broken (290 is a parking lot from monday to friday, 294 is a mess, 88's been under construction since before I learned how to drive, Cermak should be renamed the gaping mouth of hell, because every goddamn day it looks like demons are going to spew forth from the myraid number of holes, etc etc). Meanwhile, I've only gotten "cost of living" pay increases, which is something like $400 a year.

[Mariamus]

Dudes, calm down, it's just money. we'll get more...
....
......
After the State's had it's share.

[Nessus]

Fly I think the inflation is starting to get bad. For the last few years everyone has just been getting by on a little less and businesses have been absorbing the rising costs out of their own profit but now I notice everything is starting to go up. Notice how quickly you blow through 20 dollar bills just going about your business throughout the weak. Compare that to 10 or 20 years ago and you'll see inflation is really starting to take a bite. It's the nature of having a private central bank. The entire existence of the Fed is to steal wealth through inflation.

[Daveman]

Dudes, calm down, it's just money. we'll get more...
....
......
That's right, the government will just print more. :D

[Scotty]

It doesn't help that food and energy aren't counted as part of inflation anymore, which allows the Fed to understate inflation so that they can keep lowering interest rates for the crackwhores on Wall Street.

[Kevin Wolff]

What the hell does that mean anyways? I know I was paying 1.99 for a gallon of milk in 2001/2002, now I'm paying 3.69 for a gallon of milk. For eggs, it used to be .99 or 1.09, now it's 1.69. Everyone knows about the gas prices.
You answered your own question. Those things get to you via gas-powered transport, so, the price has gone up.

Meanwhile, the city government taxes me more and more to pay for potholes they never fix, to pad the pockets of corrupt bankers and aldermen, to pay victims of police brutality (over $20 million over the last 3 years!), to pay for a road system that's fundamentally broken (290 is a parking lot from monday to friday, 294 is a mess, 88's been under construction since before I learned how to drive, Cermak should be renamed the gaping mouth of hell, because every goddamn day it looks like demons are going to spew forth from the myraid number of holes, etc etc). Meanwhile, I've only gotten "cost of living" pay increases, which is something like $400 a year.
Hmm, let me take a whack at this, lord knows how much I love that messed-up city...the potholes are gradually being fixed and the formation of new ones should slow down now that winter is over...provided the people in charge of that were not lying on national TV. 294 and 88 are tolled and state-run and not funded by city taxes. Toll roads tend to be under construction a lot; here, they are adding in new paying systems that let you go full speed while paying electronically. Illinois already did that, but, eh. 290, like its buddies 90/94, will always be parking lots because there's literally no room to expand them; no money will fix that. As for Cermak...why the hell are you driving there?!? :p

The real problem, I think, is that a lot of the transportation infrastructure in the US is aging and we are finally noticing that, in a big way, at the same time as an economic downturn. Kinda like rubbing salt in the wound.

[Superczar]

IIRC, the price of eggs going up was a result of chickens being killed off due to disease...

[Kevin Wolff]

I've never heard that before. Got any sources? Sounds interesting.

[Superczar]

I've never heard that before. Got any sources? Sounds interesting.

No I don't actually, and it may not have anything to do with the eggs being up now, rather maybe a year or 2 ago. Again that's what I "heard", though it was through a food distributor... Also, again, IIRC, the beef prices and milk prices were rising before gas got really BAD (about 3-4 years ago) and that time I was pretty sure it had to do with the "Mad Cow" scare here in the US & Canada. Beef went through the roof, and of course so did milk and ice cream...

[Nessus]

I heard a rumor that the reason beef is relatively cheap right now is because feed has become so expensive that ranchers are slaughtering cattle instead of feeding them. If that's true expect to see a huge jump down the road.

Remember also that rising fuel costs are only a part of the picture. Transportation is only part of the cost of chicken eggs or beef and fuel is only a part of the cost of transportation. Their is also salaries and the trucking infrastructure to be taken into account. The whole ethanol thing mixed with price inflation throughout the system is also to blame.

(EDIT) This explains part of the problem with feed prices. "Of course, there is no pressure on gasoline supplies in this country as of today, but Bodman's statement must have made eyes roll among the executives at Pilgrim's Pride PPC; the Pittsburg, (Tex.) poultry producer announced 1,100 layoffs on Mar. 13, closing one processing plant and 6 of their 13 distribution centers because their company's outlay for chicken feed went up $600 million last fiscal year and was on track to increase by another $700 million this year.

Here's the scorecard, in case you missed it. There's no shortage of gasoline or oil in the U.S. today, and we have near-record reserves on hand. Meanwhile the Congressional mandate for ethanol has jacked up the price of chicken feed for Pilgrim's Pride, which is the U.S.'s largest processor of chickens and turkeys—by $1.3 billion. And that's for just one company processing chicken. This is what passes for acceptable to our Energy Secretary? "

http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/apr2008/bw2008041_945564.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_ businessweek+exclusives#=rss

[Superczar]

Yeah, the demand for corn now for fuel isn't going to help matters... however beef has NOT gone down here that I have seen in the last 4 years or so. Of course it is cheaper in some places (Texas seems like one of those places, at least according to a coworker who just came back form there on vacation and said you could get the biggest, fattest steaks for around $8!!! And I guess the cattle there are mainly grass-fed)...

[Nessus]

Yeah it hasn't gone down but it should have shot way up and it didn't so in that respect it's cheap now.