National Healthcare. What do you think of it?

[SeanyTheSailor]

I don't support nationalized health care. America is a do-it-yourself country where millions of immigrants came to work jobs for diddly until they couldn't walk unassisted(exaggeration but you get my point) so that their offspring and their grandchildren and so on could have a better life, people were fascinated by American individualism. The problem is we Americans live in a feed-me from a spoon world. Our entertainment is served up to us on plasma screens, our food can be found in mass quantities along with any other needs in supermarkets. We can communicate with friends and strangers thousands of miles away at the click of a button. Knowledge, should we desire it is also, at the click of a button. Now you are probably getting sick of reading all that so I'll cut to the chase. Americans want anything that is easily earned or given, we hear "free' and assume "good". We don't think for a moment that we are giving our lives to someone else and letting them decide if we live or die. You can say there is no such thing as "death panel" and maybe there aren't, but what is true is that YOU ARE NOT guaranteed to be treated, or even if you are you may not get everything you need. Chew me out all you want for this but essentially this bill assigns you a dollar value based on your age, what you do etc., and once you exceed that limit then that is it. If you support that you are saying that you do not know what is best for yourself and you don't deserve the best you can get/afford.

[ember3579]

I don't support nationalized health care. America is a do-it-yourself country where millions of immigrants came to work jobs for diddly until they couldn't walk unassisted(exaggeration but you get my point) so that their offspring and their grandchildren and so on could have a better life, people were fascinated by American individualism. The problem is we Americans live in a feed-me from a spoon world. Our entertainment is served up to us on plasma screens, our food can be found in mass quantities along with any other needs in supermarkets. We can communicate with friends and strangers thousands of miles away at the click of a button. Knowledge, should we desire it is also, at the click of a button. Now you are probably getting sick of reading all that so I'll cut to the chase. Americans want anything that is easily earned or given, we hear "free' and assume "good". We don't think for a moment that we are giving our lives to someone else and letting them decide if we live or die. You can say there is no such thing as "death panel" and maybe there aren't, but what is true is that YOU ARE NOT guaranteed to be treated, or even if you are you may not get everything you need. Chew me out all you want for this but essentially this bill assigns you a dollar value based on your age, what you do etc., and once you exceed that limit then that is it. If you support that you are saying that you do not know what is best for yourself and you don't deserve the best you can get/afford.

 

 

 

 

 

If I were to say the biggest problem that I see with your post was, it'd be the misconception that this bill sets the ceiling for health care. In fact, it's the direct opposite. It sets the floor of it. This is precisely to make sure that everyone has access to some sort of reasonable, beneficial health care plan. This isn't designed to support everyone in America. It's designed to force the insurance companies to actually give reasonable plans to their customers, and maybe inspire some competition among them for who can appeal to more people (by increasing quality and/or decreasing cost). Whether or not it's successful depends entirely on where they set the floor at. If it's set too high, then there's going to be very little change with the current state of affairs, if any at all. If it's set too low, then the government will end up saddled with too many people for it to cover.

 

 

 

Oh, and before you say something along the lines of "poor people need to work harder if they want better care, not whine more", keep in mind that there's a very limited supply of decent paying jobs in this country. Not everyone can get paid better based on how good work they do, and even fewer can trade up in the job market. Not everyone's job is as stable and secure as your own.

[Barihawk]

Yeah, lay off Barihawk. While I disagree with his views on various subjects (this is only one), demeaning him and anyone else with a dissenting opinion just makes everyone on our side look bad. Disagree with his points (and explain why), don't attack his character. That's the selfsame tactics that Rep politicians used the past 8+ years to get into power. If you really want to prove your point, be better than that.

 

 

 

I honestly will agree with that second-to-last statement and ante up that it's how the Democrats got in there recently :P. American politics needs an infusion of fresh blood who will listen to their constituants instead of painting "the other guys" as being wrong. Heaven forbid we elect Congressmen on their merits instead of the other party's flaws (which is a universal problem).

[Earth_Poet]

You can say there is no such thing as "death panel" and maybe there aren't, but what is true is that YOU ARE NOT guaranteed to be treated, or even if you are you may not get everything you need. Chew me out all you want for this but essentially this bill assigns you a dollar value based on your age, what you do etc., and once you exceed that limit then that is it. If you support that you are saying that you do not know what is best for yourself and you don't deserve the best you can get/afford.

 

 

 

I think you're confused. That's how private insurance companies operate.

[Barihawk]

You can say there is no such thing as "death panel" and maybe there aren't, but what is true is that YOU ARE NOT guaranteed to be treated, or even if you are you may not get everything you need. Chew me out all you want for this but essentially this bill assigns you a dollar value based on your age, what you do etc., and once you exceed that limit then that is it. If you support that you are saying that you do not know what is best for yourself and you don't deserve the best you can get/afford.

 

 

 

I think you're confused. That's how private insurance companies operate.

 

 

 

The difference is that private insurance companies need your business and only make marginal profits off of each user. Unfortunately, the government is non-profit and therefore does not have the motive to keep its "customers" happy.

 

 

 

And insurance plans are usually very flexible, depending on what conditions the user agrees to. Do they want a high deductible but more coverage? A low deductible with less coverage and a more expensive copay at the benefit of lower average costs? The government is likely to have a "one-size-fits-all" plan (to be honest I only made it to page 85 of the bill before my eyeballs started to bleed) but the disadvantage is that everyone shares in the government's budget. I think I read like $5,500 per individual and $10,000 for families is the maximum coverage and it will be adjusted for inflation. To be quite honest, that's not a lot. Two trips to the ER, to put it into perspective. A lot of senior citizens have that much as a deductible alone on Medicare, and they blow through that very quickly.

 

 

 

It's not an issue of being some socialist Big Brother stops you from getting medicine. It's that people are going to make use of this, run out of their plan, and end up having to get high deductible cheapo insurance regardless, at the expense of trillions of dollars. It's a drain that could be fixed by addressing the symptoms of what's wrong in healthcare.

[jasignhagj]

You can say there is no such thing as "death panel" and maybe there aren't, but what is true is that YOU ARE NOT guaranteed to be treated, or even if you are you may not get everything you need. Chew me out all you want for this but essentially this bill assigns you a dollar value based on your age, what you do etc., and once you exceed that limit then that is it. If you support that you are saying that you do not know what is best for yourself and you don't deserve the best you can get/afford.

 

 

 

I think you're confused. That's how private insurance companies operate.

 

 

 

The difference is that private insurance companies need your business and only make marginal profits off of each user. Unfortunately, the government is non-profit and therefore does not have the motive to keep its "customers" happy.

 

 

 

And insurance plans are usually very flexible, depending on what conditions the user agrees to. Do they want a high deductible but more coverage? A low deductible with less coverage and a more expensive copay at the benefit of lower average costs? The government is likely to have a "one-size-fits-all" plan (to be honest I only made it to page 85 of the bill before my eyeballs started to bleed) but the disadvantage is that everyone shares in the government's budget. I think I read like $5,500 per individual and $10,000 for families is the maximum coverage and it will be adjusted for inflation. To be quite honest, that's not a lot. Two trips to the ER, to put it into perspective. A lot of senior citizens have that much as a deductible alone on Medicare, and they blow through that very quickly.

 

 

 

It's not an issue of being some socialist Big Brother stops you from getting medicine. It's that people are going to make use of this, run out of their plan, and end up having to get high deductible cheapo insurance regardless, at the expense of trillions of dollars. It's a drain that could be fixed by addressing the symptoms of what's wrong in healthcare.

 

 

 

Bull [cabbage]

[ember3579]

You can say there is no such thing as "death panel" and maybe there aren't, but what is true is that YOU ARE NOT guaranteed to be treated, or even if you are you may not get everything you need. Chew me out all you want for this but essentially this bill assigns you a dollar value based on your age, what you do etc., and once you exceed that limit then that is it. If you support that you are saying that you do not know what is best for yourself and you don't deserve the best you can get/afford.

 

 

 

I think you're confused. That's how private insurance companies operate.

 

 

 

The difference is that private insurance companies need your business and only make marginal profits off of each user. Unfortunately, the government is non-profit and therefore does not have the motive to keep its "customers" happy.

 

 

 

And insurance plans are usually very flexible, depending on what conditions the user agrees to. Do they want a high deductible but more coverage? A low deductible with less coverage and a more expensive copay at the benefit of lower average costs? The government is likely to have a "one-size-fits-all" plan (to be honest I only made it to page 85 of the bill before my eyeballs started to bleed) but the disadvantage is that everyone shares in the government's budget. I think I read like $5,500 per individual and $10,000 for families is the maximum coverage and it will be adjusted for inflation. To be quite honest, that's not a lot. Two trips to the ER, to put it into perspective. A lot of senior citizens have that much as a deductible alone on Medicare, and they blow through that very quickly.

 

 

 

It's not an issue of being some socialist Big Brother stops you from getting medicine. It's that people are going to make use of this, run out of their plan, and end up having to get high deductible cheapo insurance regardless, at the expense of trillions of dollars. It's a drain that could be fixed by addressing the symptoms of what's wrong in healthcare.

 

 

 

Bull [cabbage]

 

 

 

 

 

Before Bari even starts with this one, I ask you. Could you PLEASE give a reason why you think that, and not some one-liner jackass answer? [cabbage] like this is what deligitimizes the debate, and gives the opposing side reason to not listen.

 

 

 

EDIT: And so I don't have to make a new post, I'll reply to Bari's directly here.

 

 

 

You're a little mistaken with the way that insurance companies operate. They are in business to make money, any way they can. This means anything and everything from jacking prices (the other insurance companies are also doing this, to benefit everyone in the business elite) to dropping people at the first sign of trouble (doesn't work every time, but cuts costs for them immensely), to including so much fine print that the policy is essentially you paying for nothing. They will do damn near everything to make a buck, and have proved it. How much of the lies being spread about the government plan do you think originated from either the insurance companies, or people paid off by them?

 

 

 

While I don't disagree with you that the government might get more than they could chew with this, it would still provide some sort of assistance to the people who need it. The current system is entirely unsustainable, and I welcome almost any attempt to fix it. Just ask my sister (is paying 40,000+ USD for kidney stone removal from being pumped full of pills while she was having a rough spot in her earlier years). Though I agree with you on one very key issue; if we want anything to make a HUGE impact on this problem, we need to tackle the root cause of it; the prices of the medicine and treatments themselves. My dad received a bill for over four hundred THOUSAND dollars for various treatments to save his life after a bad wreck about 16 years ago (was covered, but still). People shouldn't have to think about money when it comes to saving peoples' lives. A very good example (for those of us who need something they can see) would be to watch the movie John Q. I'm fairly certain it's based off of a true story, if you're worried about that. Essentially, it's about a family whose ~10-11 year old son has a heart problem, and he needs a transplant. As it turns out, unless if the family can pay for the procedure (couple hundred thousand dollars, again), the son won't even be put on the waiting list to get a new heart. He thinks he's covered, but it turns out that he gets dropped off of some [cabbage] clause in his policy, and now he gets to watch his son die. While it doesn't turn out that way, I think that I explained enough of it for you to get the picture. If meaningful reform is to be taken, the base cost of medicine needs to be controlled. If it doesn't get controlled, then the amount of benefit that anything related to health care will provide in terms of money will have a very finite limit.

[depresins]

It doesn't solve as many problems as one might think. Privately owned hospitals will still be billing these huge amounts and it'll be a struggle to find staff to work in the public sector. I'm thinking tax hikes.

 

 

 

The way it works over here is everybody pays a medicare levy tax, which is roughly 1.5% (somebody care to correct me?) of your gross income, and medicare subsidises just about everything. For example, I pay $50 for a visit to my doctor, and I get about $35 back by taking my reciept into a medicare centre.

 

 

 

If you are earning under $30,000 a year you are entitled to a low income health care card which grants you free/discounted health care. Back when I had one, all doctors visits are free and I paid about $200 for a knee reco, which was essentially the cost of the anasthetic.

 

 

 

Most commonly prescribed medicines are subsidised under the PBS, so 2 month supplies of painkillers or antibiotics cost less than a cup of coffee.

[Barihawk]

Bull [cabbage]

 

 

 

 

You obviously don't understand business models. Often times, that's how every business out to make a buck operates. As long as you make even a fraction more than you spend and multiply that by the millions of people that you serve, you make a lot of money. Let's say someone on Blue Cross Blue Shield has a $2000 deductible. That's fairly average. BCBS has about 90 million customers each year. That's 180 billion dollars a year, on average. BCBS posts profits of only 1-3 billion each quarter, if they even manage that.

 

 

 

The same goes for banks, credit card companies, etc.

 

 

 

It's not the price per volume from where they get their money, it's the volume itself. The more customers you have, the more profit you make, and that profit is going going to be a few dimes on the dollar.

 

 

 

It's not a completely half assed statement, and it's not true for every insurance company. I just chose the largest for my example.

[mmmcannibalism]

Personally, I don't oppose Universal Healthcare in concept; I do however oppose it in America. Simple reason, I don't trust this government(either party) to run something so important, bearing in mind that this system doesn't need to be federal run(like the military). While the current system is problematic, the actual health care in America is very good.

 

 

 

You don't scrap a car just because the air conditioner isn't working; you fix the air conditioner. Just like health care; you don't scrap the current system, you find reasonable ways to improve it. For instance, require more coverage of preexisting conditions; but don't make insurance companies cover someone who has a love affair with fried chicken.

[Albel]

EDIT: WRONG THREAD

[Bloodstain]

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showth ... enumber=44

 

 

 

Nothing but 45 pages of rational American adults telling about how horrible their system is and praising universal. And from that thread:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Data

 

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=HEALTH

 

http://apps.who.int/whosis/database/cor ... cators=nha

 

 

The second major problem with the current system is its high cost. This can be divided into two parts: individual cost, and government cost - which to the individual shows up as taxation. UHC is inherently cheaper - far cheaper - due to economies of scale, the bargaining position of monopolies with regard to drugs and salaries, reduced administrative costs, and the lack of a profit motive. When it comes to individual health care costs:

 

 

 

According to the World Health Organisation, average American individual spending on healthcare is $3371 per year. Since this includes the uninsured and those covered by their employers, actual costs are higher. For comparison:

 

 

 

Australia: $1017

 

Canada: $916

 

Sweden: $532

 

United Kingdom: $397

 

 

 

The first of those is the second-highest in the world - meaning that Americans pay, not including taxes, more than three times as much as citizens of any other nation. This would be somewhat justifiable if they received better healthcare, but again - 28% have no care at all, life expectancy is below all other developed nations, and general health rating is below all other developed nations.

 

 

 

It is commonly assumed that this difference in cost is because under UHC systems, higher taxes are required to fund the system. Not so. As mentioned, UHC is a great deal cheaper than private healthcare, and as a result America's health-related taxation is also the highest in the world. According to the OECD, in 2006, American government spending on healthcare was $2887 per person. For comparison:

 

 

 

Australia: $2106

 

Canada: $2338

 

Sweden: $2468

 

United Kingdom: $2372

 

 

 

American healthcare taxes are in fact the highest in the OECD, with France second at $2714. In conclusion, every single UHC system in the world costs less money for individuals, requires lower taxes, and provides better care to more people than the American health care system. By implementing UHC in the U.S., things can only get better.

[Me_Hate_Libs]

No one really wants to talk about the philosophy behind nationalized healthcare.

 

 

 

I personally don't think that anyone should be reuqired to pay for the substenance of another person. Tax dollars are taken forcibly from me to pay for someone else. Doesn't anyone else think that is wrong?

 

 

 

I don't need charts and graphs to tell me whether or not it'll work. I don't care if it works. Whether it works or not doesn't make it right.

[1_man_army]

No one really wants to talk about the philosophy behind nationalized healthcare.

 

 

 

I personally don't think that anyone should be reuqired to pay for the substenance of another person. Tax dollars are taken forcibly from me to pay for someone else. Doesn't anyone else think that is wrong?

 

 

 

I don't need charts and graphs to tell me whether or not it'll work. I don't care if it works. Whether it works or not doesn't make it right.

 

 

 

By that logic, it's immoral that you're taxed to pay for roads that you don't drive on or to pay for schools that you'll never personally attend.

[ember3579]

No one really wants to talk about the philosophy behind nationalized healthcare.

 

 

 

I personally don't think that anyone should be reuqired to pay for the substenance of another person. Tax dollars are taken forcibly from me to pay for someone else. Doesn't anyone else think that is wrong?

 

 

 

I don't need charts and graphs to tell me whether or not it'll work. I don't care if it works. Whether it works or not doesn't make it right.

 

 

 

 

 

This "me first, screw everybody else" attitude is precisely why half the planet hates America. If we want to be at all respected on the world scale, we need to excise this psychological cancer of an attitude.

[Grim_]

No one really wants to talk about the philosophy behind nationalized healthcare.

 

 

 

I personally don't think that anyone should be reuqired to pay for the substenance of another person. Tax dollars are taken forcibly from me to pay for someone else. Doesn't anyone else think that is wrong?

 

 

 

I don't need charts and graphs to tell me whether or not it'll work. I don't care if it works. Whether it works or not doesn't make it right.

 

 

 

 

 

This "me first, screw everybody else" attitude is precisely why half the planet hates America. If we want to be at all respected on the world scale, we need to excise this psychological cancer of an attitude.

 

Yes I heartily agree but correct me if I am wrong but dont we already have nationalized health care ie medicare medicaid and to the best of my knowledgeTHE HEALTH CARE OF THE SENATORS OBJECTING TO SOCIALIZED MEDICINE once again correct me if i am wrong

[ember3579]

No one really wants to talk about the philosophy behind nationalized healthcare.

 

 

 

I personally don't think that anyone should be reuqired to pay for the substenance of another person. Tax dollars are taken forcibly from me to pay for someone else. Doesn't anyone else think that is wrong?

 

 

 

I don't need charts and graphs to tell me whether or not it'll work. I don't care if it works. Whether it works or not doesn't make it right.

 

 

 

 

 

This "me first, screw everybody else" attitude is precisely why half the planet hates America. If we want to be at all respected on the world scale, we need to excise this psychological cancer of an attitude.

 

Yes I heartily agree but correct me if I am wrong but dont we already have nationalized health care ie medicare medicaid and to the best of my knowledgeTHE HEALTH CARE OF THE SENATORS OBJECTING TO SOCIALIZED MEDICINE once again correct me if i am wrong

 

 

 

 

 

You're right. Senators, as well as all other upper-level officials in the government, already get their medical bills paid for by the American taxpayer. There's a reason that career politicians usually die in their late 80s-mid 90s.

[Rebdragon]

This "me first, screw everybody else" attitude is precisely why half the planet hates America. If we want to be at all respected on the world scale, we need to excise this psychological cancer of an attitude.

 

It's called capitalism, and buddy, it's the only thing on this planet providing the medical innovation thats keeping its people alive.

[Grim_]

This "me first, screw everybody else" attitude is precisely why half the planet hates America. If we want to be at all respected on the world scale, we need to excise this psychological cancer of an attitude.

 

It's called capitalism, and buddy, it's the only thing on this planet providing the medical innovation thats keeping its people alive.

 

Yes but there is capitalists who say screw the general public I dont wanna pay :thumbsup: which seems to be the american(or at least californian outlook on these things :-# ) And then there are pseudo socialist nations like certain northern european nations who actually do some things for the common good while providing funding for state projects. Also another reason why american (and right now russian) capitalism is horrible is that something like the 0.5% of the nation(probably much less) owns over 60% of the total wealth

[nickeley102]

I pay less tax than you and i get free, quick and high quality healthcare and unemployment/old age welfare. As a result I appreciate the system and I would never abuse it. My income tax does not pay for bombs, unemployment is lower and crime is less than in your country. How can you argue that your countries interpretation of social justice is further developed?

[Grim_]

I pay less tax than you and i get free, quick and high quality healthcare and unemployment/old age welfare. As a result I appreciate the system and I would never abuse it. My income tax does not pay for bombs, unemployment is lower and crime is less than in your country. How can you argue that your countries interpretation of social justice is further developed?

 

Exactly where are you I want to live there

[Rebdragon]

I pay less tax than you and i get free, quick and high quality healthcare and unemployment/old age welfare. As a result I appreciate the system and I would never abuse it. My income tax does not pay for bombs, unemployment is lower and crime is less than in your country. How can you argue that your countries interpretation of social justice is further developed?

 

I'll bullet point my response to this 'cause I don't like getting into extended essays on this forum nowadays.

 

 

 

1) Yes, the American system is broken and needs fixing. No, UHC is not the right fix.

 

2) What country are you in? Small socialist states are a bit different than a capitalist superpower and require different ways of running.

 

3) Your higher quality healthcare is a result of American innovation, something that can't be found in socialist states. That is unarguable.

 

4) America was founded on capitalist ideals, and it has risen as a superpower because of them. Just look at Hong Kong.

 

5) Please don't get into military arguments. Your country doesn't pay for bombs because it doesn't have to- America does it for your nation (arguably over the top somewhat).

 

6) "Social justice"? Do you think capitalism is evil? Would you prefer your imaginary utopia?

 

 

 

This "me first, screw everybody else" attitude is precisely why half the planet hates America. If we want to be at all respected on the world scale, we need to excise this psychological cancer of an attitude.

 

It's called capitalism, and buddy, it's the only thing on this planet providing the medical innovation thats keeping its people alive.

 

Yes but there is capitalists who say screw the general public I dont wanna pay :thumbsup: which seems to be the american(or at least californian outlook on these things :-# ) And then there are pseudo socialist nations like certain northern european nations who actually do some things for the common good while providing funding for state projects. Also another reason why american (and right now russian) capitalism is horrible is that something like the 0.5% of the nation(probably much less) owns over 60% of the total wealth

 

Okay, couple things. I don't know where you got that bunk data from- the general estimate is that the top 15% or so own that much of the wealth. You're off by a magnitude of like 30, so please leave the blatantly false data at the doorstep. Second, the problem in California and the rest of the US is a terrible cancer that's only being fueled by ideologies such as those you mentioned. The top 1% of the nation pays something like 40% of the total income taxes, while the bottom 60% pay 3% of the total taxes of this nation. 25 years ago it was only 18% of total income taxes being payed by the top 1%, but democratic politicians have since pushed the tax burden more and more on the wealthy. What's worse, those same politicians and left-wing voters that are taking more and more money from the rich to pay for this nation's absurd spending are at the same time insulting those who pay most of the taxes in saying things like "they screw the general public" and 'can't pay a little to help those in need.' What's happening in California is a result of this hatemongering. The upper class are fed up with being insulted and at the same time having their tax rates increased, and they're mobile. They leave, and budget deficits remain in their place.

 

 

 

You keep taxing the hell out of that top 10% that's paying for most of this nations debts, and they'll get mobile too. Then what? What happens to this country then?

[nickeley102]

I pay less tax than you and i get free, quick and high quality healthcare and unemployment/old age welfare. As a result I appreciate the system and I would never abuse it. My income tax does not pay for bombs, unemployment is lower and crime is less than in your country. How can you argue that your countries interpretation of social justice is further developed?

 

I'll bullet point my response to this 'cause I don't like getting into extended essays on this forum nowadays.

 

 

 

1) Yes, the American system is broken and needs fixing. No, UHC is not the right fix.

 

2) What country are you in? Small socialist states are a bit different than a capitalist superpower and require different ways of running.

 

3) Your higher quality healthcare is a result of American innovation, something that can't be found in socialist states. That is unarguable.

 

4) America was founded on capitalist ideals, and it has risen as a superpower because of them. Just look at Hong Kong.

 

5) Please don't get into military arguments. Your country doesn't pay for bombs because it doesn't have to- America does it for your nation (arguably over the top somewhat).

 

6) "Social justice"? Do you think capitalism is evil? Would you prefer your imaginary utopia?

 

 

 

USA is the dominant superpower and has been since WW2, this is something to be proud of but it doesnt mean it can rest on its laurels (sp) and become resistant to change. Your capitalist ideals have served you well but it is no secret that there power has been shifting in this side of the millennium. I value my membership in the human race over nationalism or patriotism anyway.

 

 

 

I do not think that capitalism is evil, I believe that the free market is not a reliable distributor of social justice because it does not account for cultural/social reproduction. My interpretation of social justice is akin to equity and it is the goal of any bureaucratic government.

 

 

 

I come from New Zealand, a small British colony which owes more to Europe (as does USA) than it does to the states for its technological advancements. We are not socialist, if we were placed I assume we would be central (the third way or something?)

 

 

 

I find it very hard to fathom a situation where dropping a bomb on some people is beneficial.

[Grim_]

 

Okay, couple things. I don't know where you got that bunk data from- the general estimate is that the top 15% or so own that much of the wealth. You're off by a magnitude of like 30, so please leave the blatantly false data at the doorstep. Second, the problem in California and the rest of the US is a terrible cancer that's only being fueled by ideologies such as those you mentioned. The top 1% of the nation pays something like 40% of the total income taxes, while the bottom 60% pay 3% of the total taxes of this nation. 25 years ago it was only 18% of total income taxes being payed by the top 1%, but democratic politicians have since pushed the tax burden more and more on the wealthy. What's worse, those same politicians and left-wing voters that are taking more and more money from the rich to pay for this nation's absurd spending are at the same time insulting those who pay most of the taxes in saying things like "they screw the general public" and 'can't pay a little to help those in need.' What's happening in California is a result of this hatemongering. The upper class are fed up with being insulted and at the same time having their tax rates increased, and they're mobile. They leave, and budget deficits remain in their place.

 

 

 

You keep taxing the hell out of that top 10% that's paying for most of this nations debts, and they'll get mobile too. Then what? What happens to this country then?

 

The reason why they pay more is that they have much more than the bottom 60% (correct me if I am wrong). While I agree that the spending is absurd (especially in the military) and needs to be cut there does need to be some taxes on corporations (not obscenely high or low) but enough to get some revenue from them... Furthermore please do not propose that left wings are to blame for the almost idiocracy in politics (look to the californian No New Taxes Pledge).

 

Well that being said I now realize how stupid it was for me to argue with reb.

[Me_Hate_Libs]

No one really wants to talk about the philosophy behind nationalized healthcare.

 

 

 

I personally don't think that anyone should be reuqired to pay for the substenance of another person. Tax dollars are taken forcibly from me to pay for someone else. Doesn't anyone else think that is wrong?

 

 

 

I don't need charts and graphs to tell me whether or not it'll work. I don't care if it works. Whether it works or not doesn't make it right.

 

 

 

By that logic, it's immoral that you're taxed to pay for roads that you don't drive on or to pay for schools that you'll never personally attend.

 

 

 

Yes, and it is. I personally don't agree with government schooling. Not that they can even do it well anyway.

 

 

 

As far as roads go, I'm a pretty strict constitutionalist. I believe in limited Government, as well as government should be done primarily on the local level. Roads should be paid by local and state taxes and be built/repaired by the paying of those taxes. It wouldn't cost any more or less, and it reduce further federal buercracy and corruption.

 

 

 

I should note I'm a Libertarian.

 

 

 

As far as the guy who said it's a me first attitude, pretty much. Only we call it rational self interest.

 

 

 

Taxes are the taking of my m oney, from my job. My job is my time that I have put into being paid that money. It's my life. Taxes are the taking of my time and my life. To use that money to subsidize other people is to steal my life, my time, and appropriate it to them.

 

 

 

I do not, and I will never, recognize anyone as having first right to my life, my time, my body before me. Not by man, god, or government. A further example being me against any forms of draft or compulsory volunterrism. It's my life and my body. Government has no right to force me to go somewhere and sacrifice it for their cause. If I voluntarily choose to do it, like our current military, that is another matter.