|
On March 21 2010 19:56 Perseverance wrote:
I work for the Government and my healthcare is already free, I really wish that this wouldn't go through.
"I already have it, therefore nobody else should." Yeah, thanks for stating this right off the bat.
On March 21 2010 19:56 Perseverance wrote:
My parents never had problems with paying for healthcare. My mother raised me for 7 years alone with only a high school education and still managed to pay for my eye issues, divorce lawyers etc. She was just a telephone operator. She even managed to buy a home before she remarried. If she can do it, why can't other people?
How many people do you suppose applied for the same job your mother did and were rejected? How many people went for a significant time during those seven years without a job? Or without a job that provided them enough to afford health care, much less a house?
How many of those people do you plan on accusing of being lazy and undeserving of health? 50%? 100%?
|
On March 21 2010 20:12 McDonalds wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2010 19:56 Perseverance wrote:
I work for the Government and my healthcare is already free, I really wish that this wouldn't go through. "I already have it, therefore nobody else should." Yeah, thanks for stating this right off the bat. Show nested quote +On March 21 2010 19:56 Perseverance wrote:
My parents never had problems with paying for healthcare. My mother raised me for 7 years alone with only a high school education and still managed to pay for my eye issues, divorce lawyers etc. She was just a telephone operator. She even managed to buy a home before she remarried. If she can do it, why can't other people? How many people do you suppose applied for the same job your mother did and were rejected? How many people went for a significant time during those seven years without a job? Or without a job that provided them enough to afford health care, much less a house? How many of those people do you plan on accusing of being lazy and undeserving of health? 50%? 100%?
I already have it, because I chose to serve my country. Others can choose to serve their country too. Currently there are only a few non institutionalising medical issues that people can have that aren't their fault which would disqualify them from serving their country. The day that the US Military is no longer hiring is the day that I will start to worry about people in America in need of health care.
Also, there are currently a large number of positions open for people with 4, 6, and 8 year degree's. Just look online for jobs and you'll find tons! Lots of high paying medical jobs too! It's your own fault for not being qualified for a job. The day that there are zero jobs open is the day that I will start to worry about people in American in need of health care.
When I was 17 I could of kept playing BW and WC3 and just worked at a mill or Burger King like many other new graduates. but instead I chose to get an education and serve my country. It's not my fault that other people didn't make a mature decision at a young age. The opportunity was out there, they chose to ignore it. You live with your own decisions. I don't want to pay for other people that obviously can't carry their own weight.
|
Sorry Blood, but that is just silly. Continue with your primitive tribal instincts to only look after yourself or people like you and only trust your personal experience though.
|
Forcing a few select people to subsidize the existence of everyone else? No thanks.
Supporting a bill that mandates every individual must purchase insurance or go to jail? Hell no.
Obama fails @ the constitution.
|
They do not go to jail. If someone cannot demonstrate they can't pay for healthcare and its decided they voluntarily did not buy it, they are fined. Not only is it better for you to buy health insurance, you are a burden on others if you get sick without health insurance. You can cut it either way. I can easily argue I don't want people who opt out of health insurance clogging up the emergency room and making people in a real emergency less likely to get fast or effective help.
Did you know that you already have to pay for car insurance? Did you also know there are states that will fine you if you don't buy it because you're a risk? hmm...
|
On March 22 2010 00:04 Romantic wrote:
They do not go to jail. If someone cannot demonstrate they can't pay for healthcare and its decided they voluntarily did not buy it, they are fined. Not only is it better for you to buy health insurance, you are a burden on others if you get sick without health insurance. You can cut it either way. I can easily argue I don't want people who opt out of health insurance clogging up the emergency room and making people in a real emergency less likely to get fast or effective help.
Did you know that you already have to pay for car insurance? Did you also know there are states that will fine you if you don't buy it because you're a risk? hmm...
And if we refuse to pay the fine?
Heh, "it's better for me to buy health insurance". I'm so glad these hard-government types won't be telling me what's best for me come midterm elections.
Car insurance regulation is done on a state level, making it arguably constitutional. In addition, you don't have to buy a car. But everyone who is alive (i.e., everyone) will be subject to this unconstitutional mandate to purchase health insurance.
I'll run my own life, k thx bai.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 21 2010 23:56 KunfO wrote:
Forcing a few select people to subsidize the existence of everyone else? No thanks.
What exactly is new about this concept? This is the foundation of every modern society, in a very classical sense of the term 'modern'.
|
On March 22 2010 00:09 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2010 23:56 KunfO wrote:
Forcing a few select people to subsidize the existence of everyone else? No thanks. What exactly is new about this concept? This is the foundation of every modern society, in a very classical sense of the term 'modern'.
Wrong. There are several mainstream governments such as Ukraine, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, etc. that have flat tax systems. It is also done at the state level in the US.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 22 2010 00:11 KunfO wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2010 00:09 Jibba wrote:On March 21 2010 23:56 KunfO wrote:
Forcing a few select people to subsidize the existence of everyone else? No thanks. What exactly is new about this concept? This is the foundation of every modern society, in a very classical sense of the term 'modern'. Wrong. There are several mainstream governments such as Ukraine and Macedonia that have flat tax systems. It is also done at the state level in the US.
There's flat income taxes and then corporate taxes and real estate taxes and sales taxes and sin taxes. And then there's tax breaks for having families and driving clean cars and not wasting energy. There is no truly flat tax.
And do you mean the Macedonia that just introduced Universal healthcare? Or the Ukraine that's about to switch from a private/public system (that's downright atrocious) to a more public system?
Also, in no sense would I call either of those governments 'mainstream' nor any of the other eastern European countries that use it.
In either case, all you're doing is arguing proportion. No matter what, a select group of people will be giving the majority of the money to subsidize other projects, and whether it happens at a flat rate or not seems completely irrelevant to your original objection. The powerlines to your house were built and are maintained by Bill Gates' X%, not Perserverance's mom's X%.
It's also worth pointing out that for people who are able to purchase their own health insurance, a large portion of that bill (upwards of $1000 and higher) is already being allocated to cover the uninsured. If you have insurance, you're already paying for everybody.
|
And do you mean the Macedonia that just introduced Universal healthcare? Or the Ukraine that's about to switch from a private/public system (that's downright atrocious) to a more public system?
Also, in no sense would I call either of those governments 'mainstream' nor any of the other eastern European countries that use it.
There's no such thing as a perfect country. But I think I made my point that a progressive tax is not the "foundation of every modern society".
The progressive tax is instead a 'cute' feel-good socialist system of taxation that is abandoned when countries need to get their economies in order, i.e. Macedonia, Bulgaria, etc. who have been experiencing 3%+ growth in GDP compared to abysmal numbers beforehand
edit: as for your edit, when you buy insurance you are voluntarily paying for everybody.
You are also apparently avoiding jail time, if this bill passes.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 22 2010 00:27 KunfO wrote:Show nested quote +
And do you mean the Macedonia that just introduced Universal healthcare? Or the Ukraine that's about to switch from a private/public system (that's downright atrocious) to a more public system?
Also, in no sense would I call either of those governments 'mainstream' nor any of the other eastern European countries that use it.
There's no such thing as a perfect country. But I think I made my point that a progressive tax is not the "foundation of every modern society". Sorry to our many TL users from those countries, but the places you're listing are not first world countries, and I can't imagine why you would possibly bring them up in a thread on healthcare.
The progressive tax is instead a 'cute' feel-good socialist system of taxation that is abandoned when countries need to get their economies in order, i.e. Macedonia, Bulgaria, etc. who have been experiencing 3%+ growth in GDP Experiencing 2% growth in GDP with an economy the size of the US is far, far, far, far, far, far more impressive than 3% growth with an economy the size of Macedonia, even more so when you consider the sectors that operate in each economy. Comparing % rates means absolutely nothing. If you mean to say their economy is in any way superior because of the flat tax, you're simply wrong.
Lol. They introduced the flat rate in 2008.
2007 - 5.9%
2006 - 4.0%
2005 - 4.1%
2004 - 4.1%
Do you see the point here? The correlation between flat tax and GDP growth rate is extremely weak, especially in the countries you're mentioning which could collapse at a whim by the US or W. Europe.
|
[QUOTE]On March 22 2010 00:17 Jibba wrote:
[QUOTE]On March 22 2010 00:11 KunfO wrote:
[QUOTE]On March 22 2010 00:09 Jibba wrote:
[QUOTE]On March 21 2010 23:56 KunfO wrote:
[/QUOTE]
Perserverance's mom
[/QUOTE]
I love my mommy
Okay, continue.
|
Experiencing 2% growth in GDP with an economy the size of the US is far, far, far, far, far, far more impressive than 3% growth with an economy the size of Macedonia, even more so when you consider the sectors that operate in each economy. Comparing % rates means absolutely nothing. If you mean to say their economy is in any way superior because of the flat tax, you're simply wrong.
Ah, but I am talking about the growth in these economies as opposed to where they have come from. Bulgaria has decreased it's unemployment rate by 10% from the 90s, Macedonia has recovered from 25+% poverty rates, etc.
And to bring the argument to America, some of the states with the highest differences in income tax brackets are experiencing the greatest loss in revenue. Take New York, for instance. Billions of revenue lost this past year due to a very progressive tax. Pennsylvania, however, has a flat income tax of 3% and has fared much better as far as inward migration of high-earners and it's economy as a whole.
edit: for your edit, I am not making Macedonia out as an example of the flat tax turning their GDP around, as they started it the year the recession hit. Look at Bulgaria, etc. instead. Look at the performance of states with flat tax systems, and then look at the economic situation of California.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 22 2010 00:44 Perseverance wrote:I love my mommy Okay, continue.
I'm sure she's a lovely lady and I'm glad she was able to support you.
|
Fun Fact: Greece has one of the most progressive income tax systems I know of, with 0% at the low end and 40% at the high
|
Greece doesn't have a tax system.
|
I'm surprised so many people are in opposition here on TL. The States is pretty much the only developed nation without universal coverage, pay the most for it (as %GDP), and were ranked #37 in health care globally by the WHO. Why not reform this poorly run system?
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 22 2010 00:50 KunfO wrote:
Ah, but I am talking about the growth in these economies as opposed to where they have come from. Bulgaria has decreased it's unemployment rate by 10% from the 90s, Macedonia has recovered from 25+% poverty rates, etc. Bulgaria's Unemployment
2003 - 18%
2007 - 9.6%
They introduced their flat tax in 2008.
Stop doing this to yourself.
And to bring the argument to America, some of the states with the highest differences in income tax brackets are experiencing the greatest loss in revenue. Take New York, for instance. Billions of revenue lost this past year due to a very progressive tax. Pennsylvania, however, has a flat income tax of 3% and has fared much better as far as inward migration of high-earners and it's economy as a whole. Uh... aside from the fact that you're completely ignoring all the other factors that have a far greater impact on a states' economic performance, you're weak on your tax information. Michigan has a flat income tax, does that make it a good point of comparison too? Pennsylvania's flat tax is only on personal income tax, what about sales, corporate and real estate? All of them are on a different system than NY's. Also, NY basically IS on a flat tax, which is why people are calling for a more progressive tax. Look at the brackets they use. It's something like 6.8% for anyone earning $20,000 and up.
|
On March 22 2010 01:03 Equaoh wrote:
I'm surprised so many people are in opposition here on TL. The States is pretty much the only developed nation without universal coverage, pay the most for it (as %GDP), and were ranked #37 in health care globally by the WHO. Why not reform this poorly run system?
Yea, maybe the US should start mimicking the rest of the world to attempt to grow our economy to match theirs. Oh wait...
Side note: with such a lousy health care system, what is a Canadian Premiere doing coming here for heart surgery when he has a perfectly awesome universal system all to himself?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2010/02/canadian_premier_has_heart_sur.html
|
On March 22 2010 01:07 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2010 00:50 KunfO wrote:
Ah, but I am talking about the growth in these economies as opposed to where they have come from. Bulgaria has decreased it's unemployment rate by 10% from the 90s, Macedonia has recovered from 25+% poverty rates, etc. Bulgaria's Unemployment 2003 - 18% 2007 - 9.6% They introduced their flat tax in 2008. Stop doing this to yourself. Show nested quote +And to bring the argument to America, some of the states with the highest differences in income tax brackets are experiencing the greatest loss in revenue. Take New York, for instance. Billions of revenue lost this past year due to a very progressive tax. Pennsylvania, however, has a flat income tax of 3% and has fared much better as far as inward migration of high-earners and it's economy as a whole. Uh... aside from the fact that you're completely ignoring all the other factors that have a far greater impact on a states' economic performance, you're weak on your tax information. Michigan has a flat income tax, does that make it a good point of comparison too? Pennsylvania's flat tax is only on personal income tax, what about sales, corporate and real estate? All of them are on a different system than NY's. Also, NY basically IS on a flat tax, which is why people are calling for a more progressive tax. Look at the brackets they use. It's something like 6.8% for anyone earning $20,000 and up.
:OOOOO do we? I never knew. These healthcare dbags need to look at michigan. Granholm brought up that there are more cars made in ontario now than michigan because the big 3 dont have to pay for health insurance in canada -_-. How true this is I am not sure but it logically would make sense unless the tax in canada is astronomically high
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
