quote:that's saying you want to have the benefits of being protected by your govt without paying for it.
No, that's not even close to I'm saying. I am willing to pay my fair share for benefits that I (as part of the whole) will share in. Military, emergency responders, law enforcement, etc. I gladly pay my property taxes each year to fund necessary programs. I'm willing to do my part, I simply want those that share equally in the benefits to share equally in the burden.
quote:do you think people should be allowed to drive on the road with you and your family without insurance?
Another red herring, Glass. The government does not tax us to provide the coverage to those that 'can't afford it.' (yet) If you get hit by a driver and they don't have insurance you don't get a check from the government to cover your costs. If your own insurance doesn't cover you, you're hosed.
All of this secondary to what I thought was the original debate, however. Yes, I agree with you that Income Tax was made constitutional with the 16th amendment. I will even meet you as far as it is a necessary evil to pay for the cost of running this nation. Where I have to part with your apparent position is where it's 'right' to make a group of people pay for benefits that others will receive.
This was the intent of the 1936 Supreme Court case involving General Welfare reference. It was from this decision forward that the general consensus became the Congress can do ANYTHING to ANYONE as long as they cite general welfare.
All of the references I have used from the Founding Father's writings can only be construed to mean that this was FAR from their intent. There are certain rights that all American's (even rich ones) enjoy. The right to the protection of private property (including income) is one they fully believed in.
Just because it's LEGAL for Congress to impose these taxes does not mean it RIGHT to do so. Prohibition was the law of the land as well, Glass. Did the legal framework for it make it right?
Finally, most of these references come from the NCCS (National Center for Constitutional Studies) publications including the 5000 year leap from their founder, W. Cleon Skousen.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
he government does not tax us to provide the coverage to those that 'can't afford it.' (yet) If you get hit by a driver and they don't have insurance you don't get a check from the government to cover your costs. If your own insurance doesn't cover you, you're hosed
yes, but the govt requires drivers to be insured, and without a govt? there would be no requirement. you want that govt and the requirement.
it's one of the biggest problems we face here in the impoverished portion of MS. i pay double what i payed before i moved to this "zip code". The insurance co says it's because only half the drivers here are insured. private industry does the same thing that the govt does.
i think you are intentioanlly missing the point.
the question of taking from one to "give" to another is not the real point.
the real question is how the one who "has" obtained it.
Skousen? sheeesh man. the dude is a nutcase. so is Glenn Beck. i watched him a few times when he was on CNN, i'm sure he's just gotten worse now that he's on fox.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:yes, but the govt requires drivers to be insured, and without a govt? there would be no requirement. you want that govt and the requirement.
Absolutely. I want a government. I want some laws and I want that government to have the funds necessary to enforce those laws. I haven't disputed any of this.
Your issue with your insurance company is based on a lack of enforcement of current laws. There are many points where the state can check to see if someone isn't insured. Here in Utah, the State can require an Auto Insurer to inform them if someone's insurance lapses. If the local government made those drivers without insurance obtain\maintain coverage, your 'risk' would be reduced and thus your premiums would have to decrease due to competition of insurers because their risk would be reduced. None of which is related to your next point.
quote:i think you are intentioanlly missing the point.
the question of taking from one to "give" to another is not the real point.
the real question is how the one who "has" obtained it.
Please tell me you're not going to generalize that anyone who is 'rich' doesn't deserve it. That noone can possibly have acquired their money ethically. If they came by their money illegally, then prosecute them according to the laws that exist. Otherwise, leave them alone with what they've earned. Make them pay their part to maintain the freedom that allowed them to work and succeed, but to take more beyond that portion is not 'fair,' it's robbery.
This is why I have supported some form of flat tax. No deductions, no exemptions. X% for everyone. From that fund of money collected, if the People want everyone to have health insurance and make it enough of a priority to put off other things (like studies on asian prostitutes) to allow budget room for it, so be it.
Are there things that would be great to have for all American's? Yes. Do I think that given an honest choice of helping our neighbors or letting them starve\get sick\live on the street that most people (the VAST majority) want to help? Absolutely.
It's the concept of class envy\warfare that Congress has used to justify taking more from some because to give to others that irks me.
Here is my ideal situation:
Congress sets up a flat income tax at, say, 15%. 15% of ALL Income. Capital gains, payroll income, etc. If you make money in America, you pay 15% of it to keep this land safe and free.
With that figure, Congress projects what amount that will bring in. Using that as a baseline, they can only spend that much or LESS on any combination of projects.
As above, if one of those projects is Universal Health Care, Great! I would be one of the first inline to vote for it making the cut.
But once that projected money is spent, Congress is done. No more. Fin. That's it. Instead of looking for more ways to gouge more money from people, prioritize what you want vs. what you have and let the low priorities go back to the state and local governments. If California wants 10 million to build a Turtle Tunnel, let them put it to a local ballot and raise the funds locally if it passes.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Whether you like O'Reily or not, (I don't, in general, but to each his own), the attitude of the homeless guy toward Mr. King is disgusting.
You OWE me twenty!?!?!?
Yet, this is the attitude that is currently at play in our Congress. That somehow people are OWED something just for being and to hell with those who earned it if votes can be bought by taking it away from them.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please tell me you're not going to generalize that anyone who is 'rich' doesn't deserve it. That noone can possibly have acquired their money ethically. If they came by their money illegally, then prosecute them according to the laws that exist. Otherwise, leave them alone with what they've earned. Make them pay their part to maintain the freedom that allowed them to work and succeed, but to take more beyond that portion is not 'fair,' it's robbery.
that has absolutely nothing to do with my point.
you are setting up the paper tiger again.
conservatism (which i actually PRACTICE) is dead as long as these paper tigers keep getting set up.
fact is? everybody who has wealth earns it within a framework that is already in place at their birth. ther eis no escaping that.
even as an artist? i draw from past artworks to create "new" work. i create my own tools too, but i look hard at what as many others have done to come up with my new designs.
what i'm saying is that nobody survives or thrives in a vacuum. profits are not a bad thing. but the view that profits come solely from the individual (like Ayn Rands work claims) are whacko
Congress sets up a flat income tax at, say, 15%. 15% of ALL Income. Capital gains, payroll income, etc. If you make money in America, you pay 15% of it to keep this land safe and free.
20 to 24% is required. study your economics.
i have no problem with that.
but as i understand economics? employers will still have to pay their employees more in order for them to be able to eat, and sleep etc. when they aren't at work.
one last thing. when the govt collects taxes? the moeny goes right back to PEOPLE who do the work the govt directs.
in other words? the govt is not a money hole.it's an integral part of the economy.
this another paper tiger set up by ultra-cosnervative idealogues.
even that Alaskan bridge to nowhere COULD be defended on the basis that once the bridge is in place? nowhere becomes somewhere and RE values rise accordingly...
Whitewater? land values again, based on infrastructure
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Without going into debates over context and definitions of quotes....Don't you think that using the words of a man (great political leader that he was) who died in 1790 is a little off for this topic .... The good of the common man was kinda his niche.
No, I actually think his wisdom is absolutely needed in our time. It is no more 'outdated' than a great many other teachers' words.
I'm not calling it outdated. I am calling it contextually inapplicable because nothing resembling modern medicine or the infrastructure needed to give unrestricted access to it existed in his age.
If you find me a quote that says something about how slave owners should not give health care to their workers due to the cost or that the poor man should expect nothing but a corner to die in if he can't pay for a doctors visit then I will relent on my objection of your using the words of Benjamin Franklin in this debate.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Whether you like O'Reily or not, (I don't, in general, but to each his own), the attitude of the homeless guy toward Mr. King is disgusting.
You OWE me twenty!?!?!?
Yet, this is the attitude that is currently at play in our Congress. That somehow people are OWED something just for being and to hell with those who earned it if votes can be bought by taking it away from them.
LOL. more paper tigers.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:20 to 24% is required. study your economics.
15% was a random number, Glass. If 25% is needed, so be it. Whatever the number is, make it universal. Same burden (percentage wise) for same protections. The Rich pay more (dollar amounts) due to more income. The Poor, thus, pay less (dollar amounts) due to less income. Yet, it is 'fair' because each pays his due with noone getting a free ride.
If the end result for an individual worker is less than what is considered a 'living wage' by the general public, an assistance program could be proposed, voted on, and if passed instituted to provide aid. But it should fall within the budget of total revenue and at the cost of something else of lesser priority.
quote:one last thing. when the govt collects taxes? the moeny goes right back to PEOPLE who do the work the govt directs.
When you have 'no bid' contracts, Glass, you can't tell me that the money is being spent in the most efficient way possible. Bloated bureaucracies apply additional drain on available funds and limit the usefulness of the money collected. Does there need to be oversight? Sure. But not so much that we spend money simply to employ people to shuffle paperwork around.
quote:even that Alaskan bridge to nowhere COULD be defended on the basis that once the bridge is in place? nowhere becomes somewhere and RE values rise accordingly...
Cost vs. Benefit. That much money could be better spent elsewhere to provide similar growth benefits.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: IBD has an interesting article on this issue. I'm still looking for a copy of the bill to read it myself, but until then here's their take:
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.
I agree with you here. Public or Private plan needs to be a choice. I would speak out if such language were in the final bill.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
This is why I hate this debate. (Not just here, but with other's in my area) The belief seems to be (or is at least proffered to be) that those who are opposed to this bill simply want people to, how did you put it...
quote:expect nothing but a corner to die in if he can't pay for a doctors visit
That's simply not true. I (as I can only speak for myself) simply object to the manner in which it is being done. To pull a piece from the discussion between Glass and I, let's use the flat tax number of 25%.
EVERYONE pays 25% of their income. Let's say 3% is devoted solely to a national health care insurance fund. This would be similar to the original intent of the Social Security fund. Most of us would rarely if ever need to use the fund as we are generally healthy. Our portions would available to help those that might need more than they actually contribute.
Notice the resemblance to what the concept of private health insurance is supposed to be?
With proper oversight and strict limitations on the uses of the fund (No IOU's from the general budget folks) this would go along way to providing health care to everyone without unfairly punishing anyone due to nothing more than they are successful at what they do.
Franklin's words, as well as the other Fathers that I've quoted are applicable toward human nature. The general concept is that when we enter into a societal relationship we do so with the understanding that certain 'rights' are to be protected by that society. The Founding Fathers held that one of those 'rights' was that the government would not take what is yours and give it to another. When you take that protection away, you remove the incentive to succeed because you don't know if\when they will come to take it away from you.
There are ways to pay for Universal Health care (as mentioned above) that doesn't require placing the burden solely on one group of people. Not only would it share the burden equally, it would go along way to sharing the 'warm fuzzy' (for lack of a better word) of each having done their part.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: [QUOTE]
Here is my ideal situation:
Congress sets up a flat income tax at, say, 15%. 15% of ALL Income. Capital gains, payroll income, etc. If you make money in America, you pay 15% of it to keep this land safe and free.
With that figure, Congress projects what amount that will bring in. Using that as a baseline, they can only spend that much or LESS on any combination of projects.
As above, if one of those projects is Universal Health Care, Great! I would be one of the first inline to vote for it making the cut.
But once that projected money is spent, Congress is done. No more. Fin. That's it.
Sign me up. I think there are some areas were this will be too simplistic to work but the tax code as it is now is so convoluted that it needs to be scrapped entirely and restarted.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the end result for an individual worker is less than what is considered a 'living wage' by the general public, an assistance program could be proposed, voted on, and if passed instituted to provide aid. But it should fall within the budget of total revenue and at the cost of something else of lesser priority.
this is the argument i've made here since day one.
if you don't account for this from day one? you will fail.
even Reagan recognised this. he was FOR a progressive tax plan (that's the one that charges more to the wealthier) even tho in 1964 he spoke against it as a Goldwater representative.
Reagan is the one that instituted the Earned Income Credit, and the Alternative minimum tax...
it's easy to be an idealogue, it's much harder to work in the real world.
face it. 90% plus of wealthy people become wealthy by borrowing money and then HIRING people to do the work. the long term success of each individual business entity is ALWAYS dependant upon making the long-term investments to acquire and maintain the highest quality talent.
this an inescapable rule of business and nature.
the fact is that most of the govt "growth" in this country that conservatives so like to demonise is created by and for the people who support the elected officials. the messy tax code is a product of special interest groups lobbying for advantages that they do in fact get.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul V. Dutton France's model healthcare system By Paul V. Dutton | August 11, 2007
MANY advocates of a universal healthcare system in the United States look to Canada for their model. While the Canadian healthcare system has much to recommend it, there's another model that has been too long neglected. That is the healthcare system in France.
Although the French system faces many challenges, the World Health Organization rated it the best in the world in 2001 because of its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and longevity of the country's population. The United States ranked 37.
The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States.
An understanding of how France came to its healthcare system would be instructive in any renewed debate in the United States.
That's because the French share Americans' distaste for restrictions on patient choice and they insist on autonomous private practitioners rather than a British-style national health service, which the French dismiss as "socialized medicine." Virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation's public health insurance, Sécurité Sociale.
Their freedoms of diagnosis and therapy are protected in ways that would make their managed-care-controlled US counterparts envious. However, the average American physician earns more than five times the average US wage while the average French physician makes only about two times the average earnings of his or her compatriots. But the lower income of French physicians is allayed by two factors. Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system, and medical schools, although extremely competitive to enter, are tuition-free. Thus, French physicians enter their careers with little if any debt and pay much lower malpractice insurance premiums.
Nor do France's doctors face the high nonmedical personnel payroll expenses that burden American physicians. Sécurité Sociale has created a standardized and speedy system for physician billing and patient reimbursement using electronic funds.
It's not uncommon to visit a French medical office and see no nonmedical personnel. What a concept. No back office army of billing specialists who do daily battle with insurers' arcane and constantly changing rules of payment.
Moreover, in contrast to Canada and Britain, there are no waiting lists for elective procedures and patients need not seek pre-authorizations. In other words, like in the United States, "rationing" is not a word that leaves the lips of hopeful politicians. How might the French case inform the US debate over healthcare reform?
National health insurance in France stands upon two grand historical bargains -- the first with doctors and a second with insurers.
Doctors only agreed to participate in compulsory health insurance if the law protected a patient's choice of practitioner and guaranteed physicians' control over medical decision-making. Given their current frustrations, America's doctors might finally be convinced to throw their support behind universal health insurance if it protected their professional judgment and created a sane system of billing and reimbursement.
French legislators also overcame insurance industry resistance by permitting the nation's already existing insurers to administer its new healthcare funds. Private health insurers are also central to the system as supplemental insurers who cover patient expenses that are not paid for by Sécurité Sociale. Indeed, nearly 90 percent of the French population possesses such coverage, making France home to a booming private health insurance market.
The French system strongly discourages the kind of experience rating that occurs in the United States, making it more difficult for insurers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or to those who are not in good health. In fact, in France, the sicker you are, the more coverage, care, and treatment you get. Would American insurance companies cut a comparable deal?
Like all healthcare systems, the French confront ongoing problems. Today French reformers' number one priority is to move health insurance financing away from payroll and wage levies because they hamper employers' willingness to hire. Instead, France is turning toward broad taxes on earned and unearned income alike to pay for healthcare.
American advocates of mandates on employers to provide health insurance should take note. The link between employment and health security is a historical artifact whose disadvantages now far outweigh its advantages. Economists estimate that between 25 and 45 percent of the US labor force is now job-locked. That is, employees make career decisions based on their need to maintain affordable health coverage or avoid exclusion based on a preexisting condition.
Perhaps it's time for us to take a closer look at French ideas about healthcare reform. They could become an import far less "foreign" and "unfriendly" than many here might initially imagine.
Paul V. Dutton is associate professor of history at Northern Arizona University and author of "Differential Diagnoses: A Comparative History of Health Care Problems and Solutions in the United States and France," which will be published in September.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
This is why I hate this debate. (Not just here, but with other's in my area) The belief seems to be (or is at least proffered to be) that those who are opposed to this bill simply want people to, how did you put it...
quote:expect nothing but a corner to die in if he can't pay for a doctors visit
That's simply not true. I (as I can only speak for myself) simply object to the manner in which it is being done.
Don't know man...if we concede that then we might have to concede that Pro-Choice voters might have more on their minds than killing babies right Cow?
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
EVERYONE pays 25% of their income. Let's say 3% is devoted solely to a national health care insurance fund. This would be similar to the original intent of the Social Security fund. Most of us would rarely if ever need to use the fund as we are generally healthy. Our portions would available to help those that might need more than they actually contribute.
problem is? health care costs in the US are 20% of GDP. add health care for all to the 25% and you have to go to close to 50% of GDP like Denmark, Belgium, germany etc..
(UK is only 39%)
and BTW? the US is at 29% but 2o to 25% is attainable and reasonable (w/o) health care
posted
Hate to leave on a sarcastic note but I must go. Later
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: This is why I have supported some form of flat tax. No deductions, no exemptions. X% for everyone. From that fund of money collected, if the People want everyone to have health insurance and make it enough of a priority to put off other things (like studies on asian prostitutes) to allow budget room for it, so be it.
Are there things that would be great to have for all American's? Yes. Do I think that given an honest choice of helping our neighbors or letting them starve\get sick\live on the street that most people (the VAST majority) want to help? Absolutely.
Congress sets up a flat income tax at, say, 15%. 15% of ALL Income. Capital gains, payroll income, etc. If you make money in America, you pay 15% of it to keep this land safe and free.
With that figure, Congress projects what amount that will bring in. Using that as a baseline, they can only spend that much or LESS on any combination of projects.
As above, if one of those projects is Universal Health Care, Great! I would be one of the first inline to vote for it making the cut.
But once that projected money is spent, Congress is done. No more. Fin. That's it. Instead of looking for more ways to gouge more money from people, prioritize what you want vs. what you have and let the low priorities go back to the state and local governments. If California wants 10 million to build a Turtle Tunnel, let them put it to a local ballot and raise the funds locally if it passes.
See you offer solutions and quite frankly that is what I want to hear for once from a GOPer. But you are the exception and not the rule with suggesting reasonable solutions.
You also are the exception and not the rule when it comes to saying "want to help: absolutely". I don't think you have read other people's opinions on the issue who are adamantly opposed to Universal Healthcare. If you did you would notice a vast majority of them do not care about anyone being insured except themselves and their families. And they offer no solutions that run down the middle like you have that would make everyone happy. They just bicker.
And trust me I hate agreeing with you on anything based on your right and i'm left but I like so far what you have said as possible solutions. I have always agreed with some sort of flat tax or national sales tax etc. And then from that pool if local, state and federal gov't's can keep their spending at a reasonable level they should only spend on certain issues first like education, healthcare (universal), military etc. and then what is left over can be used for whatever.... but first and foremost those types of issues that i mentioned...
but the problem is Gov't spending and this is from both parties and not just one. It is a myth that only the Left spend and the Right doesn't. A myth perpetrated by the Right whether you like to admit it or not. And why do they do that? So their constituents believe the myth and vote for the Right believing the Right is the champion of not spending and keeping taxes down.
Tis true in general that the Left raises taxes but that is only to pay for the spending of the previous Right administration. This happened with Reagan and Bush Jr. and most likely other GOP Presidents. Then the incoming Left has to raise taxes to pay for that spending and are made the scapegoats to set up the Right to win the next election if they do. It's a cycle that happens again and again. IMO.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
