Nationalized Healthcare-unconstitutional?

[JTalbain]

I think you've missed the point, the idea was introduce an element of choice into public finances to see whether people would choose to pay for the road or not. Your response is to take away that choice and force everyone to opt in, it doesn't tell us whether people were willing to pay for that road.

In fact in a roundabout way you have answered your own question. People would probably choose to purchase an alternative product avoid the tax and not have the infrastructure. If that's their choice why do you feel the need to overrule it? I seems a little dictatorial to me.

I can't answer the rest of your your post as I have to go out now.

Dictatorial, no. But certainly not 100% democratic either. We're not a democracy though, we're a democratic republic. If we don't like a particular policy we can make ourselves heard by contacting our elected officials or by voting them out of office. My point on coffee was that it is too narrow a choice of what to tax with too many alternatives. It would make more sense to apply a tax to restaurants, fast food. or grocery sales. It would make even more sense to apply the tax to some of the factors which are related to why you are fundraising. For instance, a tax on the registration of cars over 4000 pounds, the sales of such vehicles, and the tires and unique parts such vehicles use would be perfect for gathering funds for road repairs and construction. This way you both decrease the demand for some of the biggest contributing factors while simultaneously increasing revenue for some of the solutions.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I'm not trying to put anything in your mouth, I'm simply pointing out what you intuitively understand but refuse to admit openly because others may label you 'greedy', 'immoral' or 'a corporate shill' for saying so.

Your tale was about the triumph of the free market, a greedy capitalist tried to extract too much but the will of the people -as embodied by "the market"- prevailed and stopped his greed in its tracks. The story would have been complete if another less greedy capitalist was able to take his spot and offer the locals what they really wanted; a bar without the aggressively pitched bottle service.

And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there are still plenty of establishments in New York that do and still survive. That's because at the end of the day, the owners are NOT greedy. I've been to the majority of night spots in New York so I know what the average price of a drink is from a dive bar to a trendy club. We can easily figure out, based on a club's prices and their provided amenities, whether or not the people running it has their head on their shoulders and are in it for the long haul or are money gaugers who are looking for the quick payoff by any means necessary. And BTW, if you paid attention to what I was saying and used some kind of common sense, you'd understand that bottle service isn't really the ultimate problem here. There are naturally patrons who want to take advantage of it, and there are still a number of large clubs that provide it fairly. Even I have gotten together with friends and bout a couple of bottles at certain clubs. Again, a few people abused an opportunity and tried to force many people to buy things they didn't want to while not providing proper service to boot all in the name of making a profit. That's why those establishments are closed.

I can, which is why I don't get bogged down with the morality of profit. It's amoral.

And that, my friend, is the problem. Again, I know the difference between making a profit and being greedy. I used to say that you didn't know. Now I know you don't care, which in my view makes you the last person that needs to speak up on any economic matter. At the end of the day, you don't have to be greedy to make a reasonable profit. You just need to be wise about what you charge for what you provide. But thank you for proving my point without even trying.

 

[Speculator]

And that, my friend, is the problem. Again, I know the difference between making a profit and being greedy. I used to say that you didn't know. Now I know you don't care, which in my view makes you the last person that needs to speak up on any economic matter.

You think you can tell how ethical a person is by looking at their bank balance? Bizare.

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

I was speaking to a colleague at work the other day, her sister runs a pub but she's having to close it down because margins are tight and she's unable to turnover a profit. That's taxes, skills, jobs and competition down the drain; other pubs have more scope for price increases now so add a bit of unhealthy inflation to the mix too.

Oh heavens, a small business had to close during an economic downturn? This must be due to cheap medicine, rather than a poorly regulated banking system!

I'm sorry your friend's sister either can't run a business or is a victim of the recession. But it's bizarre and non-sensicle that you're bringing it up.

That's the reality of a profitless environment, it puts people out of work. It's not something to be celebrated imo.

Well if she's in a profitless environment, that's bad, but I thought we're talking about the UK?

In the UK the gov't taxes 50% of the economy, that means if they got out the way all things being equal EVERYTHING in the economy would be 50% off. But instead we have incredible levels of taxation, and to offset the subsequent price increases government subsidies too, all because a few people are ideologically opposed to a free market.

Madness.

You're silly. The economy exists because of the services that your government provides. Roads, education, healthcare, research subsidies, defense, etc.

Please, stop saying stupid ideological shit and get into the real world. You want all the benefits of government at none of the cost.

 

[Speculator]

Please, stop saying stupid ideological shit and get into the real world. You want all the benefits of government at none of the cost.

Asking to not be stolen from is calssified as "studid ideological shit"?

well I guess that makes me an ideologue then, and you a muggers' accomplice.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

You think you can tell how ethical a person is by looking at their bank balance? Bizare.

You think you can stop trying to imply that I'm "against making a profit" or "making money" like the dishonest, disingenuous political hack you tend to be around here? Just like when you tried to label me as a "blind liberal" on infinite repeat before, saying the same thing over and over and over again about people making money will not help your cause nor will it magically become true. Seriously. How is anyone supposed to put any intrinsic value into your statements when your politically divisive ignorance always rears its ugly head when you talk? The only thing you're doing is proving that you're not capable of taking an honest look at the issue. Grow up.

And some people wonder why I tend to get snide and insulting around here...

 

[Speculator]

Dictatorial, no. But certainly not 100% democratic either. We're not a democracy though, we're a democratic republic. If we don't like a particular policy we can make ourselves heard by contacting our elected officials or by voting them out of office. My point on coffee was that it is too narrow a choice of what to tax with too many alternatives. It would make more sense to apply a tax to restaurants, fast food. or grocery sales. It would make even more sense to apply the tax to some of the factors which are related to why you are fundraising. For instance, a tax on the registration of cars over 4000 pounds, the sales of such vehicles, and the tires and unique parts such vehicles use would be perfect for gathering funds for road repairs and construction. This way you both decrease the demand for some of the biggest contributing factors while simultaneously increasing revenue for some of the solutions.

I still don't believe that these taxes -although well intentioned- let us know whether vehicle owners want and are prepared to pay for that road. If we made the tyre tax an optional extra then they have the choice, but forcing the tax upon them is coercive.

This is the logical disconnect with the left's argument, I'm told that society wants and needs state services, but I'm also told that we all need to be forced into making payments because is given the choice we wouldn't pay up. It sounds like they want it both ways.

 

[JTalbain]

I still don't believe that these taxes -although well intentioned- let us know whether vehicle owners want and are prepared to pay for that road. If we made the tyre tax an optional extra then they have the choice, but forcing the tax upon them is coercive.

What you are suggesting, however, is that people have the two different options: pay the tax or don't pay the tax, and whether they choose to pay or not is independent of the service/product they receive. Most people will not choose to pay out in this manner, because if the road gets built they get to use it anyway. Ever hear the story of the Little Red Hen? None of the other animals wanted to help the Little Red Hen gather the ingredients, prepare the dough, or make her bread, but when it was done they were more than happy to help her eat it. This is human nature.

Connecting the analogy back to healthcare for a moment, there are even ways to have a direct tax to help pay for the system. Look at Canada; Canadians will occassionally rave about how cheap cigarettes are here. The reason why is that even with all of the "oppressive" taxes that our government has placed on cigarettes, we're still about half as expensive as Canada. The reason why this system works for Canada is that smoking is a high risk habit which contributes to health problems, so directly taxing those who smoke means that those who contribute to the problems are helping pay for them. We do the same thing for other "high risk" behaviors here. Why do you think you get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt or a motorcycle helmet?

This is the logical disconnect with the left's argument, I'm told that society wants and needs state services, but I'm also told that we all need to be forced into making payments because is given the choice we wouldn't pay up. It sounds like they want it both ways.

People just don't want to be the ones left holding the check. They want some assurance that others will contribute their fair share rather than not paying in and reaping the benefits. (See the Little Red Hen story).
There is a good compromise solution I've seen before that is available when the tax is suggested in election season: putting the question on the ballot. "Do you think that the sales tax should be increased by 1% in order to help pay for X project?" People get to have their say and express their priorities. Additionally, those who think it would be a good idea, but would only go for it if everyone would be contributing equally have some assurance that this would be the case. Everyone gets to express their opinions, and even if not everyone gets exactly what they want, the public as a whole does.

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

Asking to not be stolen from is calssified as "studid ideological shit"?

If you're talking about taxes, then yes, of course.

If you don't want to pay taxes, go live in Somalia. But you won't, because you're a hypocrite.

 

[Speculator]

If you're talking about taxes, then yes, of course.

If you don't want to pay taxes, go live in Somalia. But you won't, because you're a hypocrite.

Well that is the option isn't it, put up with state theft -theft that has culminated in the worst crisis since 1929- or live in a country like Somalia, I'm glad you've clarified your position.

Personally I reject both options as equally unacceptable, but your ideological commitments have convinced you otherwise. Perhaps you've been brainwashed by the left, another "useful idiot".

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

Well that is the option isn't it, put up with state theft -theft that has culminated in the worst crisis since 1929- or live in a country like Somalia, I'm glad you've clarified your position.

Personally I reject both options as equally unacceptable, but your ideological commitments have convinced you otherwise. Perhaps you've been brainwashed by the left, another "useful idiot".

What is state theft?

By the way, you don't get to call me brainwashed when you're spouting propaganda almost word for word. You probably think you came up with all this.

 

[faceking]

>>could have worked out great for those who might have been given the privilege of opting out of social security and then found their "other plans" totally down the tubes in the latest market crash!

are you fucking kidding me, or just fucking stupid.

a dollar invested across the private sector vs a dollar invested in Soc Sec at time of inception....

the former is positive in multiple of 10s, whilst the latter is well beyond net-negative, and prop'd up by tax dollars... the other is doing quite well out of the hands of the gov't. dumbasses don't get that, but not you, you're one of the smart ones.

 

[JTalbain]

Well that is the option isn't it, put up with state theft -theft that has culminated in the worst crisis since 1929- or live in a country like Somalia, I'm glad you've clarified your position.

Personally I reject both options as equally unacceptable, but your ideological commitments have convinced you otherwise. Perhaps you've been brainwashed by the left, another "useful idiot".

Why exactly do you equate being taxed to theft? Your tax dollars provide more freedoms, privileges and protections to you than those people in Somalia will ever have. Additionally if people were truly fed up with the amount they were being taxed, they would have turned out in droves to vote for the Taxed Enough Already Party, who in turn wouldn't have needed to throw in with the Republicans to stand a chance. Taxes are fine, just as long as the people are getting something valuable in return.

Perhaps you've forgotten, but the greatest offenders for this recession were the housing and financial markets, neither of which are state owned. They can claim that the legislation passed under Clinton "forced" them to lend in suboptimal situations, but the bottom line is many banks realized the risk in doing so and elected not to lend to those people. Some banks decided to befinancially responsible with the new regulations while other banks got greedy. Guess which banks didn't fail?

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

>>could have worked out great for those who might have been given the privilege of opting out of social security and then found their "other plans" totally down the tubes in the latest market crash!

are you fucking kidding me, or just fucking stupid.

a dollar invested across the private sector vs a dollar invested in Soc Sec at time of inception....

the former is positive in multiple of 10s, whilst the latter is well beyond net-negative, and prop'd up by tax dollars... the other is doing quite well out of the hands of the gov't. dumbasses don't get that, but not you, you're one of the smart ones.

You're a moron. Like seriously dumb.

Gee, I don't understand why people might not have faith in the market after the Great Depression, look at me.

 

[B_Marius567]

How will the unemployed pay for healthcare?

 

[Bbucko]

How will the unemployed pay for healthcare?

If they had healthcare and can afford to keep up with COBRA payments then nothing's really changed. If they cannot afford COBRA and let their benefit expire, then they're up shit's creek without a paddle until they get another job that pays benefits.

This really isn't news to you, right?

 

[B_Marius567]

If they had health care and can afford to keep up with COBRA payments then nothing's really changed. If they cannot afford COBRA and let their benefit expire, then they're up shit's creek without a paddle until they get another job that pays benefits.

This really isn't news to you, right?

how will they pay the 750.00 fine for not having health care

my brother lost this job and now rents a cab and has no health care, he will have no money to live on if he buys health care.

 

[lucky8]

how will they pay the 750.00 fine for not having health care

my brother lost this job and now rents a cab and has no health care, he will have no money to live on if he buys health care.

This is the biggest flaw in the bill. Considering COBRA is like $1,000 a month for most people, it really isn't an option, or worth it, for most families. At that rate it's usually cheaper to self-insure...or should I say was cheaper to self-insure

 

[lucky8]

Why not allow your brother to put that $750 in a savings account? Seems much more logical (and moral)

 

[Bbucko]

how will they pay the 750.00 fine for not having health care

my brother lost this job and now rents a cab and has no health care, he will have no money to live on if he buys health care.

If this is the same brother who has HIV, then he's qualified for Ryan White/ADAP (unless he's in a state with an enormous waiting list like FL, in which case he's screwed). If it's a different brother, then he's the best argument for The Public Option I can think of, but being conservative, you'd probably consider that Socialism.

Universal healthcare only works when it's universal, and all costs are shared evenly by everybody. As it stands right now, your cab-driving brother must be using ERs for his healthcare, which costs everybody more money. You DO understand that, right?