On June 30 2012 00:54 rogzardo wrote: We're all going to be taxed very slightly in order to give health care to tens of millions of Americans who can't afford it. If you can't be bothered to lose 1-2% of your income in order to benefit, greatly, millions of your fellow Americans, then you are an immoral person.
You can't praise someone's morality for paying a tax, that's actually laughable. Am I a moral person because I pay the local mafia "protection money"? (of course taxes are legitimized, but does that make them moral?)
Why not extend the healthcare benefits to our neighboring countries as well? I'm sure there are also a lot of suffering people in Mexico who cannot afford healthcare. Isn't it morally objectionable to ignore these people just because they were born south of the border?
Yes, it is just as immoral to ignore your suffering countrymen as those living under another government, but the MORAL solution is NOT to pay for it with money taken under threat of violence from the government. The only moral solution is to help as many people as you can with voluntarily given money.
I understand that you want to help everyone and fix the problem once and for all, but all this will do is help a portion of the people and create more problems.
Helping 100 million+ Americans is a good place to start. You think its a bad idea to help a portion of low-income people, just because others will still be left without aid? Great plan. By that logic, we have no moral obligation to help anybody, ever!
As you say, this will help a portion of the people. A large portion. The 'problems' created are taxing insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, and individuals who make more tan 200k/year. I'm ok with that.
I think you may have missed the part I emphasized with capital letters, so I'll just repeat it here. I think it's a great idea(moral) to help anyone and everyone who is in need of care. I think it's a bad idea(immoral) to coerce or actually force other people to pay for that care unwillingly. This leaves us with voluntary aid as our only moral solution.
Is it bad to force people not to kill other people? Should that decision be left at one's discretion?
On June 30 2012 00:54 rogzardo wrote: We're all going to be taxed very slightly in order to give health care to tens of millions of Americans who can't afford it. If you can't be bothered to lose 1-2% of your income in order to benefit, greatly, millions of your fellow Americans, then you are an immoral person.
You can't praise someone's morality for paying a tax, that's actually laughable. Am I a moral person because I pay the local mafia "protection money"? (of course taxes are legitimized, but does that make them moral?)
Why not extend the healthcare benefits to our neighboring countries as well? I'm sure there are also a lot of suffering people in Mexico who cannot afford healthcare. Isn't it morally objectionable to ignore these people just because they were born south of the border?
Yes, it is just as immoral to ignore your suffering countrymen as those living under another government, but the MORAL solution is NOT to pay for it with money taken under threat of violence from the government. The only moral solution is to help as many people as you can with voluntarily given money.
I understand that you want to help everyone and fix the problem once and for all, but all this will do is help a portion of the people and create more problems.
Helping 100 million+ Americans is a good place to start. You think its a bad idea to help a portion of low-income people, just because others will still be left without aid? Great plan. By that logic, we have no moral obligation to help anybody, ever!
As you say, this will help a portion of the people. A large portion. The 'problems' created are taxing insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, and individuals who make more tan 200k/year. I'm ok with that.
I think you may have missed the part I emphasized with capital letters, so I'll just repeat it here. I think it's a great idea(moral) to help anyone and everyone who is in need of care. I think it's a bad idea(immoral) to coerce or actually force other people to pay for that care unwillingly. This leaves us with voluntary aid as our only moral solution.
Is it bad to force people not to kill other people? Should that decision be left at one's discretion?
I know that this concept is foreign to some of you non-Americans who don't have a federalist system like we have in the US, but it's not the role of the federal government to exercise a general police power (ie the power to do things like forbidding the killing of others). That job is left to state governments.
On June 30 2012 00:54 rogzardo wrote: We're all going to be taxed very slightly in order to give health care to tens of millions of Americans who can't afford it. If you can't be bothered to lose 1-2% of your income in order to benefit, greatly, millions of your fellow Americans, then you are an immoral person.
You can't praise someone's morality for paying a tax, that's actually laughable. Am I a moral person because I pay the local mafia "protection money"? (of course taxes are legitimized, but does that make them moral?)
Why not extend the healthcare benefits to our neighboring countries as well? I'm sure there are also a lot of suffering people in Mexico who cannot afford healthcare. Isn't it morally objectionable to ignore these people just because they were born south of the border?
Yes, it is just as immoral to ignore your suffering countrymen as those living under another government, but the MORAL solution is NOT to pay for it with money taken under threat of violence from the government. The only moral solution is to help as many people as you can with voluntarily given money.
I understand that you want to help everyone and fix the problem once and for all, but all this will do is help a portion of the people and create more problems.
Helping 100 million+ Americans is a good place to start. You think its a bad idea to help a portion of low-income people, just because others will still be left without aid? Great plan. By that logic, we have no moral obligation to help anybody, ever!
As you say, this will help a portion of the people. A large portion. The 'problems' created are taxing insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, and individuals who make more tan 200k/year. I'm ok with that.
I think you may have missed the part I emphasized with capital letters, so I'll just repeat it here. I think it's a great idea(moral) to help anyone and everyone who is in need of care. I think it's a bad idea(immoral) to coerce or actually force other people to pay for that care unwillingly. This leaves us with voluntary aid as our only moral solution.
Do you also think that national security is something that should be funded by voluntary money, or is that something where it's OK to "coerce" people and use the money for a military?
On June 30 2012 00:54 rogzardo wrote: We're all going to be taxed very slightly in order to give health care to tens of millions of Americans who can't afford it. If you can't be bothered to lose 1-2% of your income in order to benefit, greatly, millions of your fellow Americans, then you are an immoral person.
You can't praise someone's morality for paying a tax, that's actually laughable. Am I a moral person because I pay the local mafia "protection money"? (of course taxes are legitimized, but does that make them moral?)
Why not extend the healthcare benefits to our neighboring countries as well? I'm sure there are also a lot of suffering people in Mexico who cannot afford healthcare. Isn't it morally objectionable to ignore these people just because they were born south of the border?
Yes, it is just as immoral to ignore your suffering countrymen as those living under another government, but the MORAL solution is NOT to pay for it with money taken under threat of violence from the government. The only moral solution is to help as many people as you can with voluntarily given money.
I understand that you want to help everyone and fix the problem once and for all, but all this will do is help a portion of the people and create more problems.
Helping 100 million+ Americans is a good place to start. You think its a bad idea to help a portion of low-income people, just because others will still be left without aid? Great plan. By that logic, we have no moral obligation to help anybody, ever!
As you say, this will help a portion of the people. A large portion. The 'problems' created are taxing insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, and individuals who make more tan 200k/year. I'm ok with that.
I think you may have missed the part I emphasized with capital letters, so I'll just repeat it here. I think it's a great idea(moral) to help anyone and everyone who is in need of care. I think it's a bad idea(immoral) to coerce or actually force other people to pay for that care unwillingly. This leaves us with voluntary aid as our only moral solution.
Is it bad to force people not to kill other people? Should that decision be left at one's discretion?
I know that this concept is foreign to some of you non-Americans who don't have a federalist system like we have in the US, but it's not the role of the federal government to exercise a general police power (ie the power to do things like forbidding the killing of others). That job is left to state governments.
Just to drive home the point, there is no Federal Murder charge. Murder is a crime in all of the 50 states, but not in the U.S. Code.
On June 30 2012 01:40 Kimaker wrote: Not precisely how I feel, but a close approximation of my general feelings regarding this:
Only watched the first 6 minutes so far but this is pretty awful He doesnt know what hes talking about and just makes ridiculous generalisations "health insurance companies are bad. Theyre run by bad people. When you are sick you dont get money thats needed"
For all who are against health insurance in general, how many countries do you know that have health insurance, where the majority (or anything even remotely close to 50/50) of the people are actually opposed to the idea of health insurance? I'd be surprised if anyone could name a single one.
On June 30 2012 00:54 rogzardo wrote: We're all going to be taxed very slightly in order to give health care to tens of millions of Americans who can't afford it. If you can't be bothered to lose 1-2% of your income in order to benefit, greatly, millions of your fellow Americans, then you are an immoral person.
You can't praise someone's morality for paying a tax, that's actually laughable. Am I a moral person because I pay the local mafia "protection money"? (of course taxes are legitimized, but does that make them moral?)
Why not extend the healthcare benefits to our neighboring countries as well? I'm sure there are also a lot of suffering people in Mexico who cannot afford healthcare. Isn't it morally objectionable to ignore these people just because they were born south of the border?
Yes, it is just as immoral to ignore your suffering countrymen as those living under another government, but the MORAL solution is NOT to pay for it with money taken under threat of violence from the government. The only moral solution is to help as many people as you can with voluntarily given money.
I understand that you want to help everyone and fix the problem once and for all, but all this will do is help a portion of the people and create more problems.
Helping 100 million+ Americans is a good place to start. You think its a bad idea to help a portion of low-income people, just because others will still be left without aid? Great plan. By that logic, we have no moral obligation to help anybody, ever!
As you say, this will help a portion of the people. A large portion. The 'problems' created are taxing insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, and individuals who make more tan 200k/year. I'm ok with that.
I think you may have missed the part I emphasized with capital letters, so I'll just repeat it here. I think it's a great idea(moral) to help anyone and everyone who is in need of care. I think it's a bad idea(immoral) to coerce or actually force other people to pay for that care unwillingly. This leaves us with voluntary aid as our only moral solution.
Do you also think that national security is something that should be funded by voluntary money, or is that something where it's OK to "coerce" people and use the money for a military?
Providing for the national security is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as a role of the Federal Government. One of its (no longer quite so) limited powers.
On June 30 2012 00:54 rogzardo wrote: We're all going to be taxed very slightly in order to give health care to tens of millions of Americans who can't afford it. If you can't be bothered to lose 1-2% of your income in order to benefit, greatly, millions of your fellow Americans, then you are an immoral person.
You can't praise someone's morality for paying a tax, that's actually laughable. Am I a moral person because I pay the local mafia "protection money"? (of course taxes are legitimized, but does that make them moral?)
Why not extend the healthcare benefits to our neighboring countries as well? I'm sure there are also a lot of suffering people in Mexico who cannot afford healthcare. Isn't it morally objectionable to ignore these people just because they were born south of the border?
Yes, it is just as immoral to ignore your suffering countrymen as those living under another government, but the MORAL solution is NOT to pay for it with money taken under threat of violence from the government. The only moral solution is to help as many people as you can with voluntarily given money.
I understand that you want to help everyone and fix the problem once and for all, but all this will do is help a portion of the people and create more problems.
Helping 100 million+ Americans is a good place to start. You think its a bad idea to help a portion of low-income people, just because others will still be left without aid? Great plan. By that logic, we have no moral obligation to help anybody, ever!
As you say, this will help a portion of the people. A large portion. The 'problems' created are taxing insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, and individuals who make more tan 200k/year. I'm ok with that.
I think you may have missed the part I emphasized with capital letters, so I'll just repeat it here. I think it's a great idea(moral) to help anyone and everyone who is in need of care. I think it's a bad idea(immoral) to coerce or actually force other people to pay for that care unwillingly. This leaves us with voluntary aid as our only moral solution.
Do you also think that national security is something that should be funded by voluntary money, or is that something where it's OK to "coerce" people and use the money for a military?
There's clearly a difference between 1) the federal government taxing people and using that tax money to fund government programs, and 2) the federal government using the tax power to force people to buy products from private companies. You may want to consider this point before posting further.
On June 30 2012 00:54 rogzardo wrote: We're all going to be taxed very slightly in order to give health care to tens of millions of Americans who can't afford it. If you can't be bothered to lose 1-2% of your income in order to benefit, greatly, millions of your fellow Americans, then you are an immoral person.
You can't praise someone's morality for paying a tax, that's actually laughable. Am I a moral person because I pay the local mafia "protection money"? (of course taxes are legitimized, but does that make them moral?)
Why not extend the healthcare benefits to our neighboring countries as well? I'm sure there are also a lot of suffering people in Mexico who cannot afford healthcare. Isn't it morally objectionable to ignore these people just because they were born south of the border?
Yes, it is just as immoral to ignore your suffering countrymen as those living under another government, but the MORAL solution is NOT to pay for it with money taken under threat of violence from the government. The only moral solution is to help as many people as you can with voluntarily given money.
I understand that you want to help everyone and fix the problem once and for all, but all this will do is help a portion of the people and create more problems.
Helping 100 million+ Americans is a good place to start. You think its a bad idea to help a portion of low-income people, just because others will still be left without aid? Great plan. By that logic, we have no moral obligation to help anybody, ever!
As you say, this will help a portion of the people. A large portion. The 'problems' created are taxing insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, and individuals who make more tan 200k/year. I'm ok with that.
I think you may have missed the part I emphasized with capital letters, so I'll just repeat it here. I think it's a great idea(moral) to help anyone and everyone who is in need of care. I think it's a bad idea(immoral) to coerce or actually force other people to pay for that care unwillingly. This leaves us with voluntary aid as our only moral solution.
Do you also think that national security is something that should be funded by voluntary money, or is that something where it's OK to "coerce" people and use the money for a military?
There's clearly a difference between 1) the federal government taxing people and using that tax money to fund government programs, and 2) the federal government using the tax power to force people to buy products from private companies. You may want to consider this point before posting further.
Are you suggesting that public money for national security never finds its way into the pockets private companies? Or it's OK in your mind so long as the government is an intermediary?
Only watched the first 6 minutes so far but this is pretty awful He doesnt know what hes talking about and just makes ridiculous generalisations "health insurance companies are bad. Theyre run by bad people. When you are sick you dont get money thats needed"
For all who are against health insurance in general, how many countries do you know that have health insurance, where the majority (or anything even remotely close to 50/50) of the people are actually opposed to the idea of health insurance? I'd be surprised if anyone could name a single one.
Agreed. But the general tone is what I agree with, not the specific points he raises. Don't have the time to write out a full explanation of my own take since I'm at work and I don't have internet at home xD
On June 30 2012 00:54 rogzardo wrote: We're all going to be taxed very slightly in order to give health care to tens of millions of Americans who can't afford it. If you can't be bothered to lose 1-2% of your income in order to benefit, greatly, millions of your fellow Americans, then you are an immoral person.
There's more to it than just a 1-2% tax to subsidize health insurance for the poor.
1) Requiring the healthy who can afford but don't want health insurance to buy it. 2) Regulating what plans health insurance companies can offer and how health insurance companies operate.
There's also the issue that 1-2% does not happen in a vacuum. Government is already nearly half the economy in the US so there should be plenty of room for the government to reduce spending on other programs to pay for the subsidy.
Yes, there is more to it. Insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, medical device sales, and individuals who make more than 200k/year will be shouldering most of the burden. In exchange, millions of Americans get to see a doctor. I'm ok with this.
1) Everybody will require health care. Everybody will benefit from having insurance. Those who can already afford insurance will pay slightly more without seeing a direct benefit to themselves, but it will benefit millions of their fellow man. Have any numbers for how many people can afford health insurance, but choose not to have it? I'm guessing its pretty damn low.
2) Private insurance companies raise rates arbitrarily, spend large amounts of money on advertising and executive salaries, and in general are in a position to screw desperate people over to make more money. Nearly every industrial country in the world regulates medical insurance.
Some of those taxes will get passed on to consumers. Many people that do not have health insurance already see a doctor so you are exaggerating the benefits they will receive from the law.
2) Can you cite a source for 'arbitrary' insurance rate hikes? Most employ quite a few actuaries to figure out how much they should be charging for premiums. No company turns a profit by spending excessively on advertising and executive bonuses - the competition would kill them for it.
- I'm not sure what issue you are referring to with 'screw people over to make more money' so it is hard to reply to that. You may have a valid point but it's hard to tell.
- Yes, of course there will be some regulation but this will result in more regulation and less accountability. The law is very complicated so it will be easy for insurance companies, state governments and federal agencies to blame each other when things go wrong / people are unhappy about what's going on.
On June 30 2012 00:54 rogzardo wrote: We're all going to be taxed very slightly in order to give health care to tens of millions of Americans who can't afford it. If you can't be bothered to lose 1-2% of your income in order to benefit, greatly, millions of your fellow Americans, then you are an immoral person.
You can't praise someone's morality for paying a tax, that's actually laughable. Am I a moral person because I pay the local mafia "protection money"? (of course taxes are legitimized, but does that make them moral?)
Why not extend the healthcare benefits to our neighboring countries as well? I'm sure there are also a lot of suffering people in Mexico who cannot afford healthcare. Isn't it morally objectionable to ignore these people just because they were born south of the border?
Yes, it is just as immoral to ignore your suffering countrymen as those living under another government, but the MORAL solution is NOT to pay for it with money taken under threat of violence from the government. The only moral solution is to help as many people as you can with voluntarily given money.
I understand that you want to help everyone and fix the problem once and for all, but all this will do is help a portion of the people and create more problems.
Helping 100 million+ Americans is a good place to start. You think its a bad idea to help a portion of low-income people, just because others will still be left without aid? Great plan. By that logic, we have no moral obligation to help anybody, ever!
As you say, this will help a portion of the people. A large portion. The 'problems' created are taxing insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, and individuals who make more tan 200k/year. I'm ok with that.
I think you may have missed the part I emphasized with capital letters, so I'll just repeat it here. I think it's a great idea(moral) to help anyone and everyone who is in need of care. I think it's a bad idea(immoral) to coerce or actually force other people to pay for that care unwillingly. This leaves us with voluntary aid as our only moral solution.
Do you also think that national security is something that should be funded by voluntary money, or is that something where it's OK to "coerce" people and use the money for a military?
There's clearly a difference between 1) the federal government taxing people and using that tax money to fund government programs, and 2) the federal government using the tax power to force people to buy products from private companies. You may want to consider this point before posting further.
Are you suggesting that public money for national security never finds its way into the pockets private companies? Or it's OK in your mind so long as the government is an intermediary?
The latter. The feds can spend money for public welfare. That's not in dispute. However, forcing private individuals to engage in behavior (ie buy products from private companies) that they otherwise would not engage in by using the tax power is not right.
On June 29 2012 18:00 Mafe wrote: [quote] Don't spread incomplete information. You have to spend a certain percentage of your income for the health system, i. e. medicine and more (the value usually talked about is ~14%, but obviously there are a lot of calculation rules and your emplyer pays a part of it). So you are actually paying much more for medicine here.
Wow, is it really 14% in Germany?
In Australia, the cost of universal healthcare is funded by 1.5% of taxable income, called the Medicare Levy.
As I said, 14% is value talked about. But for my understanding it is completely wrong to think that "cheap system = good system". I have no idea what people get for the "1.5%" in Australia in comparison to the "14%" in germany and if these the numbers are comparable. I personally feel like I don't pay too much, but that might be because having a chronical desease I receive much more than I pay. However the main flaw imoh here is that too much money goes to pharmacy companies and too little to some (but not all) doctors.
Also I hope to see the new health system in the US succeed.
And one question about the US: As I mentioned I'm chronically ill. Does this mean I would not get any good health insurance in US with the current system, or what would be ways to get one?
And one point: I heard that in the US people tend tohave to pay around 3times as much as in europe for COMPARABLE medical insurance? Can anybody who has an idea of "COMPARABLE medical insurance" confirm or deny this?
Under the pre-Obamacare system, you would be unable to get insurance, as you would have a pre-existing condition. Insurance companies would label you as being 'too expensive' to insure.
With Obamacare, insurance companies cant turn you down for pre-existing conditions. They *have* to insure you.
So does this mean you could just pay the penalty (a minimal amount) and then if something bad happens to you, suddenly take out the maximum insurance policy, get maximum benefits, and then once you are well, (assume you get well) then you can just cancel it and go back to paying the minimum?
edit: this =/= these
Health insurance contracts have waiting periods. So, no.
Not to mention that when the penalty rises to a substantial amount by 2016 ($695 or 2.5% of household income, whichever is greater), you might as well pay some more and have insurance in the meantime.
The annual penalty is capped at an amount roughly equal to the cost of the national average premium for a qualified health plan — in other words you cannot be forced to pay more than it would have cost to buy a plan in the first place.
The relevant section on the penalty starts on page 2102 line 17 (actually it starts on page 321 line 12, but this is amended by the preceding page reference).
Now the penalty is stated on page 2103 line 9: it says:
[The penalty] shall be equal to the lesser of— [...] (A) the sum of the monthly penalty amounts determined under paragraph (2) [...] (B) an amount equal to the national average premium for qualified health plans which have a bronze level of coverage
So there you have it. I'm right again (ABC's right). It's capped by (B).
But wait, what about the max of some base amount and 2.5% of income that we keep hearing?
Well that's what determines the monthly penalty of (A) above and can be found under paragraph (2) (which is page 2103 line 21). It says:
For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), the monthly penalty [...] is an amount equal to 1⁄12 of the greater of the following amounts: (A) FLAT DOLLAR AMOUNT [...] (B) PERCENTAGE OF INCOME
It is actually what I said: penalty = min(max(percent of income, base amount), cap amount). The penalty cannot exceed "(B) an amount equal to the national average premium for qualified health plans which have a bronze level of coverage"
This is correct, I found the law, 26 USC 5000A.
I was right in noting a mistake by someone (it's the lesser of the two, not greater), but i pulled the wrong things out of memory. my apologies, i was thinking of the wrong part of the bill. you were correct.
On June 30 2012 00:54 rogzardo wrote: We're all going to be taxed very slightly in order to give health care to tens of millions of Americans who can't afford it. If you can't be bothered to lose 1-2% of your income in order to benefit, greatly, millions of your fellow Americans, then you are an immoral person.
You can't praise someone's morality for paying a tax, that's actually laughable. Am I a moral person because I pay the local mafia "protection money"? (of course taxes are legitimized, but does that make them moral?)
Why not extend the healthcare benefits to our neighboring countries as well? I'm sure there are also a lot of suffering people in Mexico who cannot afford healthcare. Isn't it morally objectionable to ignore these people just because they were born south of the border?
Yes, it is just as immoral to ignore your suffering countrymen as those living under another government, but the MORAL solution is NOT to pay for it with money taken under threat of violence from the government. The only moral solution is to help as many people as you can with voluntarily given money.
I understand that you want to help everyone and fix the problem once and for all, but all this will do is help a portion of the people and create more problems.
Helping 100 million+ Americans is a good place to start. You think its a bad idea to help a portion of low-income people, just because others will still be left without aid? Great plan. By that logic, we have no moral obligation to help anybody, ever!
As you say, this will help a portion of the people. A large portion. The 'problems' created are taxing insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, and individuals who make more tan 200k/year. I'm ok with that.
I think you may have missed the part I emphasized with capital letters, so I'll just repeat it here. I think it's a great idea(moral) to help anyone and everyone who is in need of care. I think it's a bad idea(immoral) to coerce or actually force other people to pay for that care unwillingly. This leaves us with voluntary aid as our only moral solution.
Do you also think that national security is something that should be funded by voluntary money, or is that something where it's OK to "coerce" people and use the money for a military?
There's clearly a difference between 1) the federal government taxing people and using that tax money to fund government programs, and 2) the federal government using the tax power to force people to buy products from private companies. You may want to consider this point before posting further.
Are you suggesting that public money for national security never finds its way into the pockets private companies? Or it's OK in your mind so long as the government is an intermediary?
The latter. The feds can spend money for public welfare. That's not in dispute. However, forcing private individuals to engage in behavior (ie buy products from private companies) that they otherwise would not engage in by using the tax power is not right.
So then I'm assuming you were in favor of the single payer system where health care is a government program for public welfare and they act as an intermediary using public money to pay the healthcare companies for their services.
On June 30 2012 00:54 rogzardo wrote: We're all going to be taxed very slightly in order to give health care to tens of millions of Americans who can't afford it. If you can't be bothered to lose 1-2% of your income in order to benefit, greatly, millions of your fellow Americans, then you are an immoral person.
You can't praise someone's morality for paying a tax, that's actually laughable. Am I a moral person because I pay the local mafia "protection money"? (of course taxes are legitimized, but does that make them moral?)
Why not extend the healthcare benefits to our neighboring countries as well? I'm sure there are also a lot of suffering people in Mexico who cannot afford healthcare. Isn't it morally objectionable to ignore these people just because they were born south of the border?
Yes, it is just as immoral to ignore your suffering countrymen as those living under another government, but the MORAL solution is NOT to pay for it with money taken under threat of violence from the government. The only moral solution is to help as many people as you can with voluntarily given money.
I understand that you want to help everyone and fix the problem once and for all, but all this will do is help a portion of the people and create more problems.
Helping 100 million+ Americans is a good place to start. You think its a bad idea to help a portion of low-income people, just because others will still be left without aid? Great plan. By that logic, we have no moral obligation to help anybody, ever!
As you say, this will help a portion of the people. A large portion. The 'problems' created are taxing insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, and individuals who make more tan 200k/year. I'm ok with that.
I think you may have missed the part I emphasized with capital letters, so I'll just repeat it here. I think it's a great idea(moral) to help anyone and everyone who is in need of care. I think it's a bad idea(immoral) to coerce or actually force other people to pay for that care unwillingly. This leaves us with voluntary aid as our only moral solution.
Do you also think that national security is something that should be funded by voluntary money, or is that something where it's OK to "coerce" people and use the money for a military?
There's clearly a difference between 1) the federal government taxing people and using that tax money to fund government programs, and 2) the federal government using the tax power to force people to buy products from private companies. You may want to consider this point before posting further.
Are you suggesting that public money for national security never finds its way into the pockets private companies? Or it's OK in your mind so long as the government is an intermediary?
The latter. The feds can spend money for public welfare. That's not in dispute. However, forcing private individuals to engage in behavior (ie buy products from private companies) that they otherwise would not engage in by using the tax power is not right.
The argument use to be "not legal". Now it's "not right". HAHAHA.
On June 30 2012 00:54 rogzardo wrote: We're all going to be taxed very slightly in order to give health care to tens of millions of Americans who can't afford it. If you can't be bothered to lose 1-2% of your income in order to benefit, greatly, millions of your fellow Americans, then you are an immoral person.
You can't praise someone's morality for paying a tax, that's actually laughable. Am I a moral person because I pay the local mafia "protection money"? (of course taxes are legitimized, but does that make them moral?)
Why not extend the healthcare benefits to our neighboring countries as well? I'm sure there are also a lot of suffering people in Mexico who cannot afford healthcare. Isn't it morally objectionable to ignore these people just because they were born south of the border?
Yes, it is just as immoral to ignore your suffering countrymen as those living under another government, but the MORAL solution is NOT to pay for it with money taken under threat of violence from the government. The only moral solution is to help as many people as you can with voluntarily given money.
I understand that you want to help everyone and fix the problem once and for all, but all this will do is help a portion of the people and create more problems.
Helping 100 million+ Americans is a good place to start. You think its a bad idea to help a portion of low-income people, just because others will still be left without aid? Great plan. By that logic, we have no moral obligation to help anybody, ever!
As you say, this will help a portion of the people. A large portion. The 'problems' created are taxing insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, and individuals who make more tan 200k/year. I'm ok with that.
I think you may have missed the part I emphasized with capital letters, so I'll just repeat it here. I think it's a great idea(moral) to help anyone and everyone who is in need of care. I think it's a bad idea(immoral) to coerce or actually force other people to pay for that care unwillingly. This leaves us with voluntary aid as our only moral solution.
Is it bad to force people not to kill other people? Should that decision be left at one's discretion?
I know that this concept is foreign to some of you non-Americans who don't have a federalist system like we have in the US, but it's not the role of the federal government to exercise a general police power (ie the power to do things like forbidding the killing of others). That job is left to state governments.
Wait, what about the FBI and federal marshals and things like that?
On June 30 2012 00:54 rogzardo wrote: We're all going to be taxed very slightly in order to give health care to tens of millions of Americans who can't afford it. If you can't be bothered to lose 1-2% of your income in order to benefit, greatly, millions of your fellow Americans, then you are an immoral person.
You can't praise someone's morality for paying a tax, that's actually laughable. Am I a moral person because I pay the local mafia "protection money"? (of course taxes are legitimized, but does that make them moral?)
Why not extend the healthcare benefits to our neighboring countries as well? I'm sure there are also a lot of suffering people in Mexico who cannot afford healthcare. Isn't it morally objectionable to ignore these people just because they were born south of the border?
Yes, it is just as immoral to ignore your suffering countrymen as those living under another government, but the MORAL solution is NOT to pay for it with money taken under threat of violence from the government. The only moral solution is to help as many people as you can with voluntarily given money.
I understand that you want to help everyone and fix the problem once and for all, but all this will do is help a portion of the people and create more problems.
Helping 100 million+ Americans is a good place to start. You think its a bad idea to help a portion of low-income people, just because others will still be left without aid? Great plan. By that logic, we have no moral obligation to help anybody, ever!
As you say, this will help a portion of the people. A large portion. The 'problems' created are taxing insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, and individuals who make more tan 200k/year. I'm ok with that.
I think you may have missed the part I emphasized with capital letters, so I'll just repeat it here. I think it's a great idea(moral) to help anyone and everyone who is in need of care. I think it's a bad idea(immoral) to coerce or actually force other people to pay for that care unwillingly. This leaves us with voluntary aid as our only moral solution.
Do you also think that national security is something that should be funded by voluntary money, or is that something where it's OK to "coerce" people and use the money for a military?
There's clearly a difference between 1) the federal government taxing people and using that tax money to fund government programs, and 2) the federal government using the tax power to force people to buy products from private companies. You may want to consider this point before posting further.
Are you suggesting that public money for national security never finds its way into the pockets private companies? Or it's OK in your mind so long as the government is an intermediary?
The latter. The feds can spend money for public welfare. That's not in dispute. However, forcing private individuals to engage in behavior (ie buy products from private companies) that they otherwise would not engage in by using the tax power is not right.
The argument use to be "not legal". Now it's "not right". HAHAHA.
To be fair to him... Roberts logic is bad and I think it's a bad decision. I twas incorrect and therefore "not right" even if it's still the law. It should have been decided on commerce clause. There is a reason pretty much every lawyer dismissed the taxing power argument.
On June 30 2012 00:54 rogzardo wrote: We're all going to be taxed very slightly in order to give health care to tens of millions of Americans who can't afford it. If you can't be bothered to lose 1-2% of your income in order to benefit, greatly, millions of your fellow Americans, then you are an immoral person.
You can't praise someone's morality for paying a tax, that's actually laughable. Am I a moral person because I pay the local mafia "protection money"? (of course taxes are legitimized, but does that make them moral?)
Why not extend the healthcare benefits to our neighboring countries as well? I'm sure there are also a lot of suffering people in Mexico who cannot afford healthcare. Isn't it morally objectionable to ignore these people just because they were born south of the border?
Yes, it is just as immoral to ignore your suffering countrymen as those living under another government, but the MORAL solution is NOT to pay for it with money taken under threat of violence from the government. The only moral solution is to help as many people as you can with voluntarily given money.
I understand that you want to help everyone and fix the problem once and for all, but all this will do is help a portion of the people and create more problems.
Helping 100 million+ Americans is a good place to start. You think its a bad idea to help a portion of low-income people, just because others will still be left without aid? Great plan. By that logic, we have no moral obligation to help anybody, ever!
As you say, this will help a portion of the people. A large portion. The 'problems' created are taxing insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, and individuals who make more tan 200k/year. I'm ok with that.
I think you may have missed the part I emphasized with capital letters, so I'll just repeat it here. I think it's a great idea(moral) to help anyone and everyone who is in need of care. I think it's a bad idea(immoral) to coerce or actually force other people to pay for that care unwillingly. This leaves us with voluntary aid as our only moral solution.
Do you also think that national security is something that should be funded by voluntary money, or is that something where it's OK to "coerce" people and use the money for a military?
There's clearly a difference between 1) the federal government taxing people and using that tax money to fund government programs, and 2) the federal government using the tax power to force people to buy products from private companies. You may want to consider this point before posting further.
Are you suggesting that public money for national security never finds its way into the pockets private companies? Or it's OK in your mind so long as the government is an intermediary?
The latter. The feds can spend money for public welfare. That's not in dispute. However, forcing private individuals to engage in behavior (ie buy products from private companies) that they otherwise would not engage in by using the tax power is not right.
Well, According to SCOTUS they can. As long as it's a "tax".
I'm not saying that it's unconstitutional. I'm just saying that it's not right.
On June 30 2012 00:54 rogzardo wrote: We're all going to be taxed very slightly in order to give health care to tens of millions of Americans who can't afford it. If you can't be bothered to lose 1-2% of your income in order to benefit, greatly, millions of your fellow Americans, then you are an immoral person.
You can't praise someone's morality for paying a tax, that's actually laughable. Am I a moral person because I pay the local mafia "protection money"? (of course taxes are legitimized, but does that make them moral?)
Why not extend the healthcare benefits to our neighboring countries as well? I'm sure there are also a lot of suffering people in Mexico who cannot afford healthcare. Isn't it morally objectionable to ignore these people just because they were born south of the border?
Yes, it is just as immoral to ignore your suffering countrymen as those living under another government, but the MORAL solution is NOT to pay for it with money taken under threat of violence from the government. The only moral solution is to help as many people as you can with voluntarily given money.
I understand that you want to help everyone and fix the problem once and for all, but all this will do is help a portion of the people and create more problems.
Helping 100 million+ Americans is a good place to start. You think its a bad idea to help a portion of low-income people, just because others will still be left without aid? Great plan. By that logic, we have no moral obligation to help anybody, ever!
As you say, this will help a portion of the people. A large portion. The 'problems' created are taxing insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, and individuals who make more tan 200k/year. I'm ok with that.
I think you may have missed the part I emphasized with capital letters, so I'll just repeat it here. I think it's a great idea(moral) to help anyone and everyone who is in need of care. I think it's a bad idea(immoral) to coerce or actually force other people to pay for that care unwillingly. This leaves us with voluntary aid as our only moral solution.
Is it bad to force people not to kill other people? Should that decision be left at one's discretion?
I know that this concept is foreign to some of you non-Americans who don't have a federalist system like we have in the US, but it's not the role of the federal government to exercise a general police power (ie the power to do things like forbidding the killing of others). That job is left to state governments.
Wait, what about the FBI and federal marshals and things like that?
FBI only has jurisdiction and police powers for crimes that are committed accross state lines or crimes that violate federal laws. Marshalls are the "judge's police force" to assist with the law enforcement needs of the court system.
EPT
