Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums

Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/index.php)
-   Critical Thinking (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   Socialised Healthcare (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=111335)

hayatewillown 08-24-2009 03:11 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3203345)
Well, the Adult population of the US was 210 million in 2001, so even if we call it 250,000,000, the US census department says that unemployment nationally was 5.8% in 2008.

5.8% of 250,000,000 adults is 14,500,000 unemployed adults. But there are currently 45,700,000 americans without healthcare. The reason the 45.7M is even as low as it is, is because of government increases to automatic health coverage for children, which means that a fairly large percentage of "Americans without healthcare" are also "Americans that are NOT unemployed"

So if they have -jobs- but still can't afford health coverage, it's not a matter of you "appreciat[ing] people who don't or can't make enough money to support themselves feeling entitled to **** that I earned."

People who don't care enough is one objection.
People who can't make enough are another kettle of fish entirely.

If you -are- working, and -are- contributing, and -are- paying your taxes and all that jazz, I and it seems the vast majority of my country and many other countries feel like you -are- entitled also to heath coverage.

So let me ask you this.
WHY should we, as Americans, as our constitution and our republic designed us, be dependent on the GOV'T for support? Why should we let them choose for us? The Bill has actions to be made. In order to keep your "INSURANCE", as the bill states, is if you pay more than 3000 dollars!! On top of being taxed!

You however, may not know what it's like. I don't know, but you seem pretty confident so I'll continue.

Big Gov't means that the goverment will be involved with EVERYTHING! That's the point of the bill! The Government will soon involve itself (It already has but you know,) into the market. Then, for "Fair" and "balanced" competition, they will regulate what certain restaurants and stores can sell! Then it's not a competition, but rather a form of socialized (if even) communism.

I don't think I'm making myself quite clear here...

We will lose all of our rights as Americans.
If there's one thing I can say, it's that the liberal/democratic party is bad at being a loser.

Quote:

If you -are- working, and -are- contributing, and -are- paying your taxes and all that jazz, I and it seems the vast majority of my country and many other countries feel like you -are- entitled also to heath coverage.
I seem to remember a certain Darwins theory of survival in the question. BUT, there are also those who don't pay there taxes, who spend their money on illegal drugs, who spend others money on pork barrel projects. Yet these people deserve health care?

Also, I recall a certain group of people.. oh what was the name... SEIU?

This UNION has over 400 MILLION DOLLARS of taxpayer money that the government has given to them, yet they won't spend a freaking dime to insure their employees! And these very same people go to the Senate Town hall meetings and harass Conservatives for free speech and for saying that they don't agree with their representative.

devonin 08-24-2009 03:22 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

We will lose all of our rights as Americans.
This is the only element of your post I feel is even worth responding to at this point, and I'll respond thusly:

I live in a country with government-run subsidized healthcare, and in my estimation, we have been SUBSTANTIALLY freer than americans, have had SUBSTANTIALLY fewer of our rights and freedoms trampled all over (by the republicans I'll remind you, not the democrats) and in general are an overall much better country to live in (As our beating out the US in the United Nations survey of the best places to live for umpteen years in a row supports)

For all that you come in here and crow about how this is illegal, how it is counter to the constitution on which you seem to want to hang every objection, despite my showing you repeatedly where the word-for-word articles and sections of the constitution back up this program, and how Obama and his democratic government wants to take away your freedoms in the wake of a republican president who DID take away MANY of the freedoms protected in the constituion just shows how completely and thoroughly biased you are.

hayatewillown 08-24-2009 05:15 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3203460)
This is the only element of your post I feel is even worth responding to at this point, and I'll respond thusly:

I live in a country with government-run subsidized healthcare, and in my estimation, we have been SUBSTANTIALLY freer than americans, have had SUBSTANTIALLY fewer of our rights and freedoms trampled all over (by the republicans I'll remind you, not the democrats) and in general are an overall much better country to live in (As our beating out the US in the United Nations survey of the best places to live for umpteen years in a row supports)

For all that you come in here and crow about how this is illegal, how it is counter to the constitution on which you seem to want to hang every objection, despite my showing you repeatedly where the word-for-word articles and sections of the constitution back up this program, and how Obama and his democratic government wants to take away your freedoms in the wake of a republican president who DID take away MANY of the freedoms protected in the constituion just shows how completely and thoroughly biased you are.


Obama said in a video that the electrical costs would skyrocket with the new bill (That again no one has read, have you even addressed this?). Take a look at this Devonin. This is OUR national debt. http://www.usdebtclock.org/

(If you have a good internet connection)

Do you think that with spending, more money will come in? If you destroy the free market and the insurance industry, do you honestly think that this will be fixed?

Cavernio 08-24-2009 09:01 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Does no one care that they will in all likelihood be paying less through their taxes than what they pay in insurance for similar healthcare?

Hayatewillon: You're totally unfocussed with your arguments, and many have nothing to do with healthcare. The only 'good' argument I've heard from you is an entirely personal one in regards to you wanting to be free of government. They way i see it, if it's not government who's going to control things for you though, it's going to be large business.

There will be jerks and idiots and power hungry people both on the left and the right. Saying that such and such a group is not being nice is hardly an argument against healthcare.

devonin 08-24-2009 09:19 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
They would rather pay more and know that they were only paying for themselves, than pay less and "pay for the lazy bums" as well.

Cavernio 08-24-2009 09:39 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
As far as quality of healthcare and wait times and the like, that really depends on how well it is set up, and how much money and effort the government is willing to spend towards healthcare.

I agree that canadian healthcare wait times can be very high, but I would also support higher taxes so that more doctors can be hired so that I could actually get a family doctor. I would also support more universal healthcare coverage in Canada too...like why do my glasses cost me so much money? I also hear of rich canadians crossing the border to pay for certain procedures so that they don't have to wait a month, and of poor US citizens trying to get healthcare in canada. *My point is, that when considering your healthcare system in the US, there's many other healthcare systems in the world which work better than Canada's, and to say that you don't want Canada's healthcare system is really a weak argument, especially given that what I've heard about how the US is going to handle things will be quite different from what Canada currently has.*

hayatewillown 08-24-2009 09:46 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavernio (Post 3203916)
As far as quality of healthcare and wait times and the like, that really depends on how well it is set up, and how much money and effort the government is willing to spend towards healthcare.

I agree that canadian healthcare wait times can be very high, but I would also support higher taxes so that more doctors can be hired so that I could actually get a family doctor. I would also support more universal healthcare coverage in Canada too...like why do my glasses cost me so much money? I also hear of rich canadians crossing the border to pay for certain procedures so that they don't have to wait a month, and of poor US citizens trying to get healthcare in canada. *My point is, that when considering your healthcare system in the US, there's many other healthcare systems in the world which work better than Canada's, and to say that you don't want Canada's healthcare system is really a weak argument, especially given that what I've heard about how the US is going to handle things will be quite different from what Canada currently has.*

From what I understand a Single Payer health care plan is almost identical to what Canada's is. The only difference that I really see that's going to happen is that America's government will have more control over what actual goes on in the free market and health care as a whole. Take a look at the bill.


Ps.
I've been in the military my entire life. My father is still in the Navy and I know what socialized health care is like.. it's the exact same thing. I'd prefer however to see a private practice (with a professional) rather than going to someone who's known as the tools of the trade.

Quote:

*My point is, that when considering your healthcare system in the US, there's many other healthcare systems in the world which work better than Canada's, and to say that you don't want Canada's healthcare system is really a weak argument, especially given that what I've heard about how the US is going to handle things will be quite different from what Canada currently has.*
My concern is this:

They are going to tax people who can't afford it, and those that can they are going to tax more because they have the money. This whole "Plan" is trillions of dollars that is going to be gathered from tax payers over 10 years.

Where are they getting the money. Since we are going to be paying for this HEALTHCARE PLAN when the hell are we going to fix the national debt? Has this even been an issue?? Democrats and liberals used to whine about it all the time when bush was in office, but as soon as obama preaches to the brainwashed it's like... OMG BILL TIME!

Please watch this devonin... and Whomever:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDizyQK5DHo

It also contains a link to the health care bill.


And Yes, I'm all over the place with this argument, but the bill is all over the place in America. I should be more organized when typing but then again Devonin can afford better grammar.. lol

Sullyman2007 08-24-2009 10:35 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Here's a link to yet another senator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACbwND52r
Link is broken. Not sure why I'm posting here but to tell you the link doesn't work.. you aren't posting anything I want to reply to. It seems like you are so desperate... just so desperate and I don't understand why.

hayatewillown 08-24-2009 11:09 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sullyman2007 (Post 3204013)
Link is broken. Not sure why I'm posting here but to tell you the link doesn't work.. you aren't posting anything I want to reply to. It seems like you are so desperate... just so desperate and I don't understand why.

I don't know what happened to the link but it's whatever, I'll have the link removed before someone else posts about it.

Afrobean 08-25-2009 03:02 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavernio (Post 3203840)
Does no one care that they will in all likelihood be paying less through their taxes than what they pay in insurance for similar healthcare?

What if I pay zero?

Because insurance is a ****ing scam.

devonin 08-25-2009 08:39 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
IT's only a scam while you don't need any very expensive medical procedures. Do you have 50 or 60 thousand dollars laying around in the event of a serious tragedy?

Afrobean 08-25-2009 09:10 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3204359)
IT's only a scam while you don't need any very expensive medical procedures. Do you have 50 or 60 thousand dollars laying around in the event of a serious tragedy?

I don't like the idea of wagering like 80k dollars (or more) over the length of my lifetime that I MIGHT have something VERY terrible happen that will be EXTREMELY costly.

I'd rather wager that if anything that terrible happens to me that it'd be big enough that that'd be how I go.

Patashu 08-25-2009 10:12 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
I don't have an awful lot of time right now, but the private for-profit healthcare system in America is terrible, just like your for-profit prison systems and so on. America's life expectancy is equal to Cuba's but yet it spends twenty times more per year on healthcare; Cuba and I think all of the world's industrialized nations besides America have some kind of universal healthcare system, and America is the unusual exception, unable to reflect on its own shortcomings because of the paradigm of American exceptionalism, for instance the consistent claims that America's healthcare system is 'number one in the world' despite falling short on many medical-related metrics. Because they are for-profit businesses, how do they make profit? They don't have a 'product' they can sell, so instead they have a huge bureaucratic web dedicated to denying claims, hunting down reasons to drop people when they get sick, etc etc. Basically something like half of all bankruptcies are due to medical costs and most of them had insurance lmao
http://www.courier-journal.com/artic...ting-condition
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...3959652.column
http://i27.tinypic.com/f52ema.png

Also if you don't want to rely on the government stop using roads, water and the legal system.

edit: oh yeah and if you had universal healthcare you wouldn't have to wager any money that you'd have a significant injury or illness over your lifespan lmao, it would just be accepted for granted that **** happens to people that's beyond their ability to control so we treat them until they're able to work for themselves again, I mean what did you think the point was. would you really just rather die the instant you got so sick that you lose your job and just die or go bankrupt w/o healthcare

Afrobean 08-25-2009 10:43 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Patashu (Post 3204407)
Also if you don't want to rely on the government stop using roads, water and the legal system.

Things like public roads, municipal water and legal systems are the few things that are wholly justified. Private roads and private legal systems are ****ing LAUGHABLE concepts to consider, and private water is only unreasonable to consider because of the outrageous cost that would be required to undergo a private water system as useful as the municipal one already in place.

You'll find some libertarians who are steadfast in their opinion that things like education or libraries or firefighting or even police force should be privatized. I don't think there are many who would make the same case for roads or THE ****ING LEGAL SYSTEM. Taxes, thus, are necessary for the necessary jobs that government IS justified in having, BUT the absurd taxes for the absurd **** they SHOULDN'T DO are NOT.
Quote:

edit: oh yeah and if you had universal healthcare you wouldn't have to wager any money that you'd have a significant injury or illness over your lifespan lmao, it would just be accepted for granted that **** happens to people that's beyond their ability to control so we treat them until they're able to work for themselves again, I mean what did you think the point was. would you really just rather die the instant you got so sick that you lose your job and just die or go bankrupt w/o healthcare
You're right. I wouldn't be wagering under universal healthcare, I'd just be FORCED TO PAY REGARDLESS through the money I pay into taxes.

If there was an opt-out (including an appropriately large tax refund), I think I probably wouldn't have too much problem with this though.

Proponents of healthcare reform in the form of universal healthcare overlook the BEST choice. The current system is corrupt due to profit, right? So remove the function of profit. Banks can be argued as similarly corrupt, so to fix that problem, remove the profit. Ever heard of credit unions? They're basically NOT-FOR-PROFIT banks. And they work GREAT. So why not apply the same business model to health care system? It's probably not allowed under current bull**** laws is my only guess, but if you're gonna MUCK AROUND WITH NEW LAWS, just ****ing fix the **** that's wrong with it in the first place.

Private NPO healthcare. That's the ****ing solution here. Not bull**** government tinkering.

Cavernio 08-25-2009 02:48 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hayatewillown (Post 3203935)
They are going to tax people who can't afford it, and those that can they are going to tax more because they have the money. This whole "Plan" is trillions of dollars that is going to be gathered from tax payers over 10 years.

Where are they getting the money. Since we are going to be paying for this HEALTHCARE PLAN when the hell are we going to fix the national debt? Has this even been an issue?? Democrats and liberals used to whine about it all the time when bush was in office, but as soon as obama preaches to the brainwashed it's like... OMG BILL TIME!

I'm not about to get into an argument over where the US government SHOULD be putting their money. We could both come up with hundreds of ideas at least one of us thinks is better, it really would get us nowhere. I'm really not an economist whatsoever, but I figure that paying off a countries debt works something like paying of your mortgage. You usually do it slowly, and people often take out a second one or re-mortage once it's paid off for various financial reasons. Paying off a mortgage in full is usually the last thing that someone does, and would also be stupid for the vast majority of homeowners.

As far as taxing people who can't afford it, if it is so similar to what canada has, then I wholly disagree with you. I've been on the low-income end ever since I've lived on my own, and I'm certainly not paying taxes beyond sales tax when I make less than a minimal amount of money.
Your argument against taxes is just that: an argument against taxes. The same argument could be made for any service the government would want to bring in. The only reason such an argument against taxes holds weight in this discussion would be if you thought the healthcare system that would be brought in would be terrible and end up being worse than the current system in the US, which is something you have not claimed.

Afrobean: Government healthcare is NOT insurance. You're not squirrelling money away either on your own or with a company who will then hopefully end up paying for anything that may happen to you. What you would be paying for is a service, a service I guarantee you will use multiple times in your life if you want to actually live a healthy life, and a service I guarantee will cost you less money than if you paid for the treatment from your own pocket. As someone who has just said that if any procedure you may ever need would cost so much money that you couldn't pay for it yourself, you'd rather die, you've basically just said you don't care if you live. If you don't want to live, your opinions and feelings about the issues involving sustaining living people aren't worth listening to.

Your comparison of roads waste management systems to healthcare is only saying that those systems are way better run by the government than by a smattering of individual, private companies. What you have yet to say is how government run healthcare is so drastically different from roads and water systems. You say it's absurd for government to run healthcare as if to make people feel dumb for not knowing the differences between why a road network and why healthcare are different in terms of why the government should be involved.

I see your points about road systems and other things and think you've just supported healthcare by making me think "I wonder if government can make healthcare that much better too?" Lets look at the main reason why private systems for roads don't work well, and see if there's a similarity in providing health care. The main reason why I see private companies building roads not working well is because roads need to interconnect and service everyone. If you have only even 2 companies building road networks in your state, then they would have to come to some sort of agreement as to how to connect or else your road network wouldn't get you where you want to go in anywhere near an optimal route. You would also have to charge some people somehow. The fairest way seems like putting on tolls when you cross from one companies' road to another. That'd be great for traffic flow! If, in this pretend world, you instead would just have people pay for the roads up front, and everyone would have to pay for their own individual pieces of road that goes in front of their house, no one would pay for the highway, or you'd have to pay for the highway by paying more money for your road in front of your house. It gets messy very, very easily.
Lets compare this to healthcare. Clearly the issue of payment for an individuals healthcare is going to much simpler. Pay for what you need and go. However, underlying this simple process is a lot of things. The very first thing is that you're going to have to have places and ways for people to pay. Having even 1 payment centre for, say, a hospital is way more overhead than taking a percent off someone's taxes. Secondly, in order to efficiently run things (all the while keeping in mind the road comparison of connecting everything properly) you would need to get individual doctors systems to agree with scheduling of equipment. Is it a first come first serve basis? Who pays the MRI tech's salary? Sure sure, the hospital does. But who gets what money when you find that hospital A's xray is booked to the max, and patients then get sent to hospital B for an xray but are still seeing some doctor who works at A? To top this all off, there has to be a liason between every insurance company and every healthcare worker because all this costs so friggin much that most people feel insurance is necessary. And then there's all the cost of the insurance.

With all that said, am I missing the point as to why roads are good for government to run but healthcare isn't?

As to your comments are credit unions and banks, they're functionally the same thing, except credit unions are smaller and don't have the weight of having to set precedents for balancing the economy. Any not-for-profit organization is just a company that sets a high salary for the top dog(s) instead of the salary of all the companies' profits (or losses if that's the case). If I were to join a credit union, I would feel as a part of it as I am about my local co-op store, which is basically not a part at all. If I had a say I would be able to complain about things like why the majority of the staff is paid minimum wage. As far as using some such thing with healthcare...I point to my previous paragraph.

Patashu 08-25-2009 05:58 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Afrobean (Post 3204412)
Things like public roads, municipal water and legal systems are the few things that are wholly justified. Private roads and private legal systems are ****ing LAUGHABLE concepts to consider, and private water is only unreasonable to consider because of the outrageous cost that would be required to undergo a private water system as useful as the municipal one already in place.

You'll find some libertarians who are steadfast in their opinion that things like education or libraries or firefighting or even police force should be privatized. I don't think there are many who would make the same case for roads or THE ****ING LEGAL SYSTEM. Taxes, thus, are necessary for the necessary jobs that government IS justified in having, BUT the absurd taxes for the absurd **** they SHOULDN'T DO are NOT.

Okay, so you're fine with public services, you just disagree on which ones should be which. (I should talk about America's for-profit prisons too, haha. Awful stuff; they make money by imprisoning more people, which means they have a vested interest in not rehabilitating prisoners!)

Quote:

You're right. I wouldn't be wagering under universal healthcare, I'd just be FORCED TO PAY REGARDLESS through the money I pay into taxes.
Actually, you'd be forced to pay tax regardless, which is different from paying for the procedure itself; you do not have to pay catastrophic amounts of money for a catastrophic illness, that's the whole point! While you're sick and can't work, a bit of the state's tax would go towards ensuring you're cared for so you'll be alive, jobbed and productive at the end.

Quote:

Proponents of healthcare reform in the form of universal healthcare overlook the BEST choice. The current system is corrupt due to profit, right? So remove the function of profit. Banks can be argued as similarly corrupt, so to fix that problem, remove the profit. Ever heard of credit unions? They're basically NOT-FOR-PROFIT banks. And they work GREAT. So why not apply the same business model to health care system? It's probably not allowed under current bull**** laws is my only guess, but if you're gonna MUCK AROUND WITH NEW LAWS, just ****ing fix the **** that's wrong with it in the first place.

Private NPO healthcare. That's the ****ing solution here. Not bull**** government tinkering.
Isn't what you're advocating, a system with no incentive for profit, basically what the government is meant to do anyway?

hayatewillown 08-25-2009 07:37 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavernio (Post 3204576)
I'm not about to get into an argument over where the US government SHOULD be putting their money. We could both come up with hundreds of ideas at least one of us thinks is better, it really would get us nowhere. I'm really not an economist whatsoever, but I figure that paying off a countries debt works something like paying of your mortgage. You usually do it slowly, and people often take out a second one or re-mortage once it's paid off for various financial reasons. Paying off a mortgage in full is usually the last thing that someone does, and would also be stupid for the vast majority of homeowners.

As far as taxing people who can't afford it, if it is so similar to what canada has, then I wholly disagree with you. I've been on the low-income end ever since I've lived on my own, and I'm certainly not paying taxes beyond sales tax when I make less than a minimal amount of money.
Your argument against taxes is just that: an argument against taxes. The same argument could be made for any service the government would want to bring in. The only reason such an argument against taxes holds weight in this discussion would be if you thought the healthcare system that would be brought in would be terrible and end up being worse than the current system in the US, which is something you have not claimed.

Um... If you payed attention to my first post my argument is about taxes that are completely unreasonable, rushed, and first off, the phrase "Taxation without representation". Again, the people aren't being represented. It is the JOB of these senators to reflect what their citizens want. And Yes, anti capitalism is the worst. The healthcare system is OK, it's far from perfect, but socialized is another story, considering that electrical costs would skyrocket. So would the cost for healthcare. 9 Trillion over 10 years? Ok Obama.. Ok

Quote:

Actually, you'd be forced to pay tax regardless, which is different from paying for the procedure itself; you do not have to pay catastrophic amounts of money for a catastrophic illness, that's the whole point! While you're sick and can't work, a bit of the state's tax would go towards ensuring you're cared for so you'll be alive, jobbed and productive at the end.
So what happens to the nations debt?

Quote:

Isn't what you're advocating, a system with no incentive for profit, basically what the government is meant to do anyway?
First off, there should be incentive for profit, but this is not a fix to debt, and it destroys private practice, again, I prefer a professional.


Quote:

I'm not about to get into an argument over where the US government SHOULD be putting their money. We could both come up with hundreds of ideas at least one of us thinks is better, it really would get us nowhere. I'm really not an economist whatsoever, but I figure that paying off a countries debt works something like paying of your mortgage. You usually do it slowly, and people often take out a second one or re-mortage once it's paid off for various financial reasons. Paying off a mortgage in full is usually the last thing that someone does, and would also be stupid for the vast majority of homeowners.
And whats ironic is that the housing market sucks...


Take a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr5FO9hvFkw

Quote:

America is the world leader in medical advancements and people from all over the world travel to see U.S specialists. The US healthcare system's problem is not the quality of care(because we do have the best quality) but the costs of healthcare. However that can be achieved through tort reform and opening up nationwide competition. By the way wasn't it the Canadian health minister last week saying that the Canadian system is unsustainable?


And also... Cash for Clunkers is practically useless...







Patashu 08-25-2009 11:04 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
So you'd agree that the problem with Healthcare in America is the cost and lack of consistent coverage, not the effectivity of it, right? Why then do you oppose Universal Healthcare, which is not a reform of doctors but of the way care is provided and distributed between carer and client, as opposed to between carer, client and 'insurance provider' who's primary interest is to squeeze as much profit out of its hapless clients as it can get away with? Something like 30% of healthcare costs is on administrative overhead, i.e. chasing down claims, all because of insurance company greed, and because universal healthcare would allow people to feel safer and more secure in their job in case of catastrophic illness or injury, they would actually be able to spend more freely and be more equipped to keep their job; so joblessness would go down, costs would go down, what's meant to be the disadvantage?

Afrobean 08-26-2009 05:50 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
Hi, my name is Afrobean and I make absurdly long quoted replies. Apologies for the obscenities if they offend you delicate constitutions, but I feel it's necessary sometimes to emphasize how ****ing stupid some of the **** put forth here is.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavernio (Post 3204576)
As far as taxing people who can't afford it, if it is so similar to what canada has, then I wholly disagree with you. I've been on the low-income end ever since I've lived on my own, and I'm certainly not paying taxes beyond sales tax when I make less than a minimal amount of money.

Canada doesn't have income tax?

Because in USA, any job that's legit (i.e., not "under the table") cuts a relatively large chunk of your money out of each pay check. Then when you spend/invest the money that they let you keep, they take more of it. They hit you coming and going.

Quote:

Your argument against taxes is just that: an argument against taxes. The same argument could be made for any service the government would want to bring in.
So you're in favor of higher taxes? I'm sorry, but I am wholly opposed to the tax system as it stands now and to know it will get even worse from here is very troubling for me. And the only way it WOULDN'T become worse is if they **** up the national debt even more, and that's even ****tier.

Quote:

The only reason such an argument against taxes holds weight in this discussion would be if you thought the healthcare system that would be brought in would be terrible and end up being worse than the current system in the US, which is something you have not claimed.
It would be slower and it would force people like me who DON'T WANT IT to pay for the ****s who are the pimples on society's ass.

Quote:

Afrobean: Government healthcare is NOT insurance. You're not squirrelling money away either on your own or with a company who will then hopefully end up paying for anything that may happen to you. What you would be paying for is a service, a service I guarantee you will use multiple times in your life if you want to actually live a healthy life, and a service I guarantee will cost you less money than if you paid for the treatment from your own pocket.
I'm as healthy as I've ever been and haven't been to a medical institution in years. I honestly cannot think of a single instance in my life where I can be assured that I would even need to step foot in a hospital or doctor's office. Accidents are one thing, but you're GUARANTEEING I will need it? For what?

Quote:

As someone who has just said that if any procedure you may ever need would cost so much money that you couldn't pay for it yourself, you'd rather die, you've basically just said you don't care if you live. If you don't want to live, your opinions and feelings about the issues involving sustaining living people aren't worth listening to.
You clearly misunderstood what I was saying. All I was saying is that odds are good that if something truly terrible happens to me, something so bad I wouldn't be able to scrounge to afford treatment, that it would be LIKELY that something that bad is bad enough just to kill me. Terrible car wreck, I could easily die from that. Terrible disease, I could easily die from that. I'm not saying I'd prefer to, I'm just saying it's likely.

Quote:

Your comparison of roads waste management systems to healthcare is only saying that those systems are way better run by the government than by a smattering of individual, private companies.
Again, you misunderstood me. Don't know how you could draw that conclusion when I refer to the SUCCESS of waste management in private sector. Yes, water is impossible in the private sector pretty much, because of all the piping that would need to be laid, all the legal rights and all that.

But waste management can work. They don't require laying a bunch of pipes EVERYWHERE. They can just drive their trucks to the neighborhoods they're contracted for, pick **** up, and drive it back to their private dump (or whereever they're contracted to dump to). Same idea with health insurance. The thing stopping health insurance and "healthcare" from being useful is the profit model on it, NOT the fact that it's not feasible for the private sector to offer it. The private sector absolutely CAN offer it, they're just corrupted by the for-profit model. It's not like they need to apply work laying pipes all over the place and can't get the legal rights to it because of the inordinate cost.

Quote:

What you have yet to say is how government run healthcare is so drastically different from roads and water systems.
Roads and water cannot be supplied by the private sector due to cost constraints. Insurance can, as there are no costs which stop it from being possible.

Quote:

You say it's absurd for government to run healthcare as if to make people feel dumb for not knowing the differences between why a road network and why healthcare are different in terms of why the government should be involved.
Yeah, if a person can't see why the private sector can't do private roads and yet can do insurance, that person dumb.

Quote:

I see your points about road systems and other things and think you've just supported healthcare by making me think "I wonder if government can make healthcare that much better too?"
It's not that government makes roads better, it's that the private sector CANNOT DO IT AT ALL. The Insurance industry, however, IS possible to function in the private sector.

Quote:

Lets look at the main reason why private systems for roads don't work well, and see if there's a similarity in providing health care. The main reason why I see private companies building roads not working well is because roads need to interconnect and service everyone.
Actually, it's that, plus the fact that roads need to be officially standardized, plus how would a person pay for private roads? Would every road you drive on from the street you live on up to main streets up to interstates be TOLLWAYS? Every mile you'd have to stop and pay money? How do you think it would cost effective for a private company to build and maintain these roads, keep them standardized in size and type and rules and such, ANNND maintain their money collection system which would likely need to be MANNED BOOTHS freaking EVERYWHERE.

Quote:

Lets compare this to healthcare. Clearly the issue of payment for an individuals healthcare is going to much simpler. Pay for what you need and go. However, underlying this simple process is a lot of things. The very first thing is that you're going to have to have places and ways for people to pay. Having even 1 payment centre for, say, a hospital is way more overhead than taking a percent off someone's taxes. Secondly, in order to efficiently run things (all the while keeping in mind the road comparison of connecting everything properly) you would need to get individual doctors systems to agree with scheduling of equipment.
Roads interconnecting analogy doesn't work here. If you're covered by Company X with health insurance, Company X doesn't need to interact with Company Y to serve you. They have to interact with HOSPITALS AND ****. I would guess that in the terrible and broken analogy of road construction, that would be like ensuring that all roads and ways to get off the roads to enter private businesses. You can't say "all roads need to interact so all health care needs to interact therefore government should socialize health care". **** no. That's just stupid.

Quote:

With all that said, am I missing the point as to why roads are good for government to run but healthcare isn't?
Because roads need to:

#1: be standardized
#2: collect money for payment

Insurance:

#1: doesn't need to be universally standardized
#2: Has no problems being able to collect payment for their services

Honestly, how can you look at the profits they make and say "no, they have problems with money and government running it would make things better." Seriously? They have a problem with money: they have too ****ing much of it.

Quote:

As to your comments are credit unions and banks, they're functionally the same thing, except credit unions are smaller and don't have the weight of having to set precedents for balancing the economy. Any not-for-profit organization is just a company that sets a high salary for the top dog(s) instead of the salary of all the companies' profits (or losses if that's the case).
Or in other words:

"I don't understand how NPOs work!"

Quote:

If I were to join a credit union, I would feel as a part of it as I am about my local co-op store, which is basically not a part at all. If I had a say I would be able to complain about things like why the majority of the staff is paid minimum wage. As far as using some such thing with healthcare...I point to my previous paragraph.
If an employee is only paid minimum wage, that is all they are worth. You have no right to complain "This person here is only making minimum wage for their unskilled work!" If the employer says they are going to pay the employee that much and they are able to fill the job with a person, THAT IS WHAT THE JOB IS WORTH. THIS IS HOW THE FREE MARKET

CAPITALISTIC WORLD WORKS MOTHER ****ER.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patashu (Post 3204777)
Okay, so you're fine with public services, you just disagree on which ones should be which. (I should talk about America's for-profit prisons too, haha. Awful stuff; they make money by imprisoning more people, which means they have a vested interest in not rehabilitating prisoners!)

That is truly terrible, and I will say that prisons should be government run due to their necessary role in the judicial system.

Quote:

Actually, you'd be forced to pay tax regardless, which is different from paying for the procedure itself; you do not have to pay catastrophic amounts of money for a catastrophic illness, that's the whole point!
So you're thinking that taxes will remain CONSTANT? Where will the money come from to pay for this then? If I'm not paying any more in my taxes and no one else is paying any more, where does the money come from to pay for my "catastrophic illness"?

And what if I don't feel as though I will ever be catastrophically ill? What if I don't want to pay into the pot that will be used IN CASE I am ever catastrophically ill? What if I don't like the idea of paying for health insurance when I'm perfectly healthy so that some **** who doesn't deserve it can get whatever medical treatment. Screw the asshole who can't fend for himself.

Quote:

While you're sick and can't work, a bit of the state's tax would go towards ensuring you're cared for so you'll be alive, jobbed and productive at the end.
**** that. I don't need mommy picking me up and kissing my booboos. I can take care of myself, at least as far as "[being] alive, jobbed and productive at the end."

And actually, you say "state". If this was a STATE decision, I think I might be more ok with it. If the state I live in sets up something I don't like, I could always move to another state, right? BUT THIS **** IS FEDERAL.

Quote:

Isn't what you're advocating, a system with no incentive for profit, basically what the government is meant to do anyway?
Sort of, except that it would be private sector with COMPETITION. And it's not that there is no "incentive for profit", it's that it's not profit above all else. They would provide the service necessary first and foremost, provide a FAIR salary for the people they employ, then figure out what to do with surplus, which would otherwise be PROFIT. It can go toward new projects, new advancements, expansion, whatever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hayatewillown (Post 3204844)
And also... Cash for Clunkers is practically useless...

lmao FREE MONEY

That's what makes government great, right? WHEN THEY GIVE AWAY FREE MONEY?!

And of course everyone turned around and bought Japanese cars and ****, when the whole point was to try to prop up the American companies that the government had given loans to (while at the same time, they had just given FREE MONEY away to the financial industry).

Man, I hate the world some times. It's like we get the worst of both worlds from capitalism and socialism without anything of the good stuff. Where's the competition brings down costs and brings up quality? Foreign cars are way better than American because American cars are pieces of **** and the companies refuse to fix it. Then we turn around and get the ****ty side of socialism in government taking their absurd taxes and using it to prop up failing industries, and yet we don't get the benefits of government funded social projects that help the greater good (we instead only get social projects that help the BOTTOM RUNG).

devonin 08-26-2009 10:37 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
(Friendly "Here's how it is in Canada" aside)

Quote:

Canada doesn't have income tax?
If you make less than a certain amount of money in the year, your income is not taxed. And if it were taxed but you made little enough money that you shoudln't have been, you get that money back when you file your income taxes.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution