EPTlol Canadians
Health Care Bill passed the House - Page 11
| Forum Index > General Forum |
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
lol Canadians | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On November 11 2009 14:04 jalstar wrote: Private options will always be better due to the profit motive. Private armies will always be better due to the profit motive. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
| ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On November 11 2009 14:10 Mindcrime wrote: Private armies will always be better due to the profit motive. Not sure what your point is. I'm for a public option by the way. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On November 11 2009 14:01 cunninglinguists wrote: he means the best QUALITY of care available. not necessarily the best system for providing it. He clearly said health care system. Just read the post again. ". . . the world's leading health care system." That's just pure lol. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7229 Posts
On November 11 2009 14:12 Savio wrote: Health care is a personal service (your colonoscopy does not protect me) and armies are a collective protection and therefore faces the freeriding problem (just like pollution and other collective problems) so your analogy is a fail analogy, Mindcrime. Your roads are a personal service. I do not use them. Ergo I should not have to pay taxes on them. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On November 11 2009 14:48 Sadist wrote: Your roads are a personal service. I do not use them. Ergo I should not have to pay taxes on them. What are you even talking about? The whole point of public roads is that they are public. They are the textbook example of public goods. *sigh* | ||
|
Tyraz
New Zealand310 Posts
On November 10 2009 04:31 Undisputed- wrote: Double edged sword I guess, if you don't have health insurance and get injured badly. They can't just turn you away. Who pays for that? Wrong. If you don't have the cash they CAN turn you away. On November 11 2009 02:51 Undisputed- wrote: + Show Spoiler + "The new House bill, H.R. 3962, builds on its predecessor from July in increasing the financial burden on low-income and moderate-income Americans. The Individual Mandate. Like the earlier version, this bill requires the uninsured to pay an extra income tax — 2.5% of adjusted gross income above the filing threshold, capped at the national average premium. Paying that tax wouldn’t “buy” anything; those paying this tax would remain uninsured. However, in a bid to decrease the government’s costs, this bill contains higher premiums that low- and moderate-income individuals and families would have to pay for health coverage to avoid the tax. Those premiums would increase rapidly with income, amounting to an additional tax on those with incomes below 4 times the federal poverty level (equivalent to about $88,000 per year for a family of four) ranging from 1.5% to 12%. This tax on low and moderate income Americans would be in addition to a “surtax” on higher incomes ranging up to 5.4%. The Employer Mandate. The bill imposes a new 8% payroll tax on employers who don’t cover specified percentages of their employees’ health insurance. Employers would have to get the money to pay the tax from someplace, and much of it would come from cutting wages or other benefits. This tax would also not go to pay for any coverage; the bill specifically says that the tax paid by the employer “shall not be applied against the premium of the employee.” Furthermore, since this tax would be lower than the cost of providing health care, especially for low-income workers, this would reduce the incomes of those most likely to be uninsured, or cause them to lose their coverage. Furthermore, health plans would have to meet new requirements to be specified later by the new “Health Choices Commissioner.” If your employer’s health plan doesn’t meet those requirements, you couldn’t keep it – employers would have five years to bring their plans into compliance. The Commissioner could require coverage of services people don’t want (increasing premiums), and then in the name of “cost containment” prohibit plans from covering services people want but that the Commissioner doesn’t want. The bottom line is: Almost everybody will pay more, and a new appointed bureaucrat will make your health care choices for you." heritage.org Aegraen... is that.. you? | ||
|
cunninglinguists
United States925 Posts
On November 11 2009 14:36 koreasilver wrote: He clearly said health care system. Just read the post again. ". . . the world's leading health care system." That's just pure lol. well actually, now that i reread his post i see that he's just being sarcastic...i think? | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On November 10 2009 03:27 Scorch wrote: You don't sound like the type of person who helps voluntarily. Neither am I such a person. This is why I find it necessary for the government to force people to care about others: nobody would do it otherwise. I can't stand your antisocial attitude to be honest. Needy people aren't poor by choice, you know. And please stop calling spending of tax money stealing. Is it stealing if the government builds streets? Interesting here how you suspect that since he opposes social programs, he is not generous and wouldn't give willingly. Also interesting that you admit you wouldn't give freely because: http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm Excerpt: "In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others." "If liberals persist in their antipathy to religion," Mr. Brooks writes, "the Democrats will become not only the party of secularism, but also the party of uncharity." And a map of the most generous state in the Union with red being "more generous": ![[image loading]](http://www.lawprofessorblogs.com/taxprof/linkimages/generosity0512map.gif) Here is the outcome of the 2004 Presidential race: ![[image loading]](http://www.lawprofessorblogs.com/taxprof/linkimages/election04.gif) Source: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/11/generosity_inde.html According to this, 28 of the 29 "most generous" states are Red States that voted for President Bush (including all 25 of the "most generous" states) While 17 of the 21 "least generous" states are Blue States that voted for Senator Kerry (including all 7 of the "least generous" states) I just thought that was interesting. ..and on a side note, I don't think that supporting government spending or entitlement programs counts as "charity", "generosity" or even "nice". When its not your money you are spending, you can't claim any of those titles. When thinking about government spending you just analyze it and make a choice that you think is logical or reasonable but you are NEVER generous when you are spending money that was taken from other people by an inherently coercive process. And pretending that it is generous is the great fallacy of modern liberalism. | ||
|
Drowsy
United States4876 Posts
On November 10 2009 02:11 agorist wrote: Any realistically intelligent economist understands that pure socialism is folly. An attainable form of "socialism" is anarchy. Central planning just will not work. Read some Mises. After only 3 years of college, it physically pains me to hear people talk about socialized health care having never stepped inside an introductory economics classroom and having no direct experience in the medical field. I can't even talk about it with non-economists anymore. It'd be like me lecturing a physics student about why string theory is wrong or something. Hearing two people who aren't involved in the medical field directly or have a basic understanding of economics talk about healthcare reform is like hearing two mildly retarded people try and teach calculus to each other. That said, it won't pass through the Senate. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
..and on a side note, I don't think that supporting government spending or entitlement programs counts as "charity", "generosity" or even "nice". When its not your money you are spending, you can't claim any of those titles. When thinking about government spending you just analyze it and make a choice that you think is logical or reasonable but you are NEVER generous when you are spending money that was taken from other people by an inherently coercive process. Agree completely. A "welfare state" is completely unnecessary when charities function much more efficiently and people give more when they have lower taxes. Government should be limited to necessities, like police, fire, transportation, defense, education, and, yes, health care. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 11 2009 16:00 jalstar wrote: Government should be limited to necessities, like police, fire, transportation, defense, education, and, yes, health care. Out of these "necessities," I can't see an argument for providing education or health care. It's like arguing that government should provide food since it's a necessity. Perhaps, the might be a role for governments for police, fire, and transportation goods since they involve geographical monopolies, but that scope of government is much smaller than 500,000 people. It's even arguable that defense needs to be provided for on a daily basis. Most countries could get by with local militias with emergency provisions. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 11 2009 16:12 koreasilver wrote: funny how so many Americans push forward the whole neo-liberalism bullshit when the past few decades of history has shown how much nonsense it is. It's funny how your comments have no relevance to anything in the thread. | ||
|
QibingZero
2611 Posts
On November 11 2009 06:43 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: I doubt the bill will pass the senate. It is a bad bill anyway, from what I have seen. It is next to impossible to achieve the kind of healthcare reform required given the political situation in the United States anyway. Every major political and economic debate is framed, and the agenda dominated, by the interests of established wealth and power rather than the interests of the general population. I do not see that changing any time soon. This is exactly the problem. Every debate in America is framed deliberately to mislead the public. The politicians do this, and the media follows suit. Instead of any constructive debate, we get two opposing parties throwing non sequiturs at each other until one side gets tired of it and gives up. Rarely are any real issues discussed. The reality behind the situation is that the power interests in America have most of the public believing that universal health care provided by the government is not only evil and the first step to socialism, but also is extremely expensive and fails to work. Of course, it's very much the opposite on all accounts. But what can you expect? When the media picks and chooses their stories to cover, you're going to end up with public opinion largely skewed. If all Americans hear about socialized health care is that some guy in Canada had to wait in line to see a doctor (I'm pretty sure I hear this same story every other week, and have for years), how are they to know better? Most people don't actively make an effort to research these type of things. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On November 11 2009 16:16 TanGeng wrote: It's funny how your comments have no relevance to anything in the thread. lol obviously you have no idea what neoliberalism is. | ||
|
gchan
United States654 Posts
On November 11 2009 16:12 koreasilver wrote: funny how so many Americans push forward the whole neo-liberalism bullshit when the past few decades of history has shown how much nonsense it is. Please enlighten me on how much nonsense it is. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 11 2009 16:21 koreasilver wrote: lol obviously you have no idea what neoliberalism is. You mean the neo-liberalism (economic school of thought) - but that's not just an American phenomenon. And despite its glaring limitations, it works better than Keynesian ideas or socialist idealism. You might mean neo-liberalism (political school of thought) but that's government regulation towards "free-market policies" usually involving regulations that benefit large business and thereby creating the anti-thesis of the free market. Perhaps you are taking about "privatization" where government doesn't give up control of the market. Instead it bestows its monopoly on some private company. But yeah neo-liberalism is probably BS. It's macroeconomics, and that's mostly BS. The only useful economics that you can learn is microeconomics, and to get some understanding of overall effect, one has to generalize and aggregate individual behavior. The strongest arguments against socialism have always come from microeconomics so the attack against neo-liberalism is entirely tangential. | ||
| ||
