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?
The US has the best if you can afford it. No one debates that. The problem is the affordability and the bullshit insurance companies. I know first hand how painful it can be when you are denied coverage because something is deemed "cosmetic". They can all go fuck themselves.
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.
Bulgaria's unemployment rate was also 8% in 2009 (gets a lot harder to lower it the less you have to work with) and GDP growth was a whopping 6% in 2008 right before the recession hit.
Keep in mind I am mentioning these countries because they are examples of a stable flat taxation system, and that they have proven they can grow their economies well with the system in place.
New York state's income tax ranges from 4% to 7%
New York city adds and additional 1% (2.9~3.8) income tax discrepancy in addition to additional flat charges for higher incomes, and it is the city that has experienced the most revenue loss.
Keep in mind there is only so much states can bleed from taxpayers on top of the federal tax, so 4 to 7 is a pretty sizable discrepancy based on what they have to work with.
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%?
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.
This is fallacious reasoning; the reason why a person could be in a state is completely to the judgment of that person and the social networks that person adheres to; people should have the right to take risks and accept failure as part of life's process. I could use your argument against the government because governments take actions that are not even in the benefits of implied country and pass on many opportunities. Other people can make the your argument against your welfare and your standing in society because some of the things that you live off can also be considered wasteful in their perspective depending on how they frame it. There really is no rule or linear way of how people function or adapt to an environment and how they will behave in the future. The way I see it, society and government is just a mechanism that evolved out of tribal groups that came into existence many years ago. We're just organisms trying to survive in this universe, "hard work" and "opportunities" are just subjective biased assessments based on faulty social theories that fails explore the potential of someone that can contribute to the world regardless of their actions in the past. All I see of society is that of a survival mechanism that forces us to give up certain things and certain lifestyles so we could all advance as a species, This includes paying for other "people" and paying for things that have no intrinsic value in the present and possibly in the future for a whole lot of people, but which still keeps the whole mechanism of society running.
The argument can be framed for sociopaths and others that keep society at a standstill, because if your not willing to "pay" for a less fortunate member of society you are obviously willing to pay for someone who is "fortunate" regardless of the views of that person toward certain issues or of the behavior of the individual if that individual is seen as synchronized with meritocracy and service to country and with other people. In this case, following such an argument is disastrous and doesn't benefit people at all, Making the "I don't want to pay because person A did not work for something" argument fails to capture the sheer irrationality and the diversity of people on this planet. People are prey to herd mentality and close-minded thinking and sometimes it takes a failure or an individual to keep us alive and society progressing. Whether someone works hard or not is none of my goddamn business but the person deserves a right to life and to live regardless. People are too complex to be put under simplistic assessments such as the one you demonstrated in your post, period.
Oh and the day the U.S military stops hiring, is the day I'll be happy, I don't remember the exact statistic but I think nearly 80% of our budget goes towards making weapons and shit made to kill people and shit we don't need; instead of more important stuff such as civilian infrastructure. The U.S committed thousands of atrocities and acts of imperialism that had no long term benefit because of "service to country". The military industrial complex is too big in my country and it needs to stop growing. You can be more responsible and give more service to your country by accepting the different views and backgrounds of people on this planet, helping those in need, befriending other people and living a more productive life with a limited amount of consumerism then taking things from other people, and being a complete tool to the assessments and control of narrow-minded childish, greedy, nationalistic power hungry bureaucrats.that use the military, citizenry and wars for short-term profit and power. You might even work for them and might even become one of them. The fact is, I don't want the government or society to be arbitrators of an individual not only because its unethical in many cases but because people are irrational, form stupid beliefs from unimportant events, and because the two entities cannot completely take into account the many characteristics of a person. Using the same two entities/institutions to make accurate judgments about certain people can destroy and damage the individuality and the productivity of said individual because you are essentially relying on biased,and narrow-sighted views of humans and not perfect machines that take every complexity in life into account.
Working to earn money in burger king shouldn't be beneath your dignity, if you are trying to survive, you should call that "opportunity", it all depends on the situation.
On March 22 2010 00:11 KunfO wrote: 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.
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. ... 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.
OK, I'll take a look at Bulgaria.
Until 1989 Bulgaria was a communist country, thus having an unemployment rate of 0%. After the change unemployment rates skyrocketed since the majority of the previously state run industries had "profit" margins between -50% and -500%. (same is true for Romania and Ukraine, which abandoned communism in '89 and '91 respectively)
Let's take a look at our awesome GDP growth. At the beginning of the 90's (after the collapse of communism) the economical situation in Bulgaria was pretty grim. It became even worse '97 when we had the hyperinflation (nearly four digit inflation!!!). You cannot go much lower from that, so of course afterwards we have experienced economic growth...
So how about our flat rate tax? Being the poorest country in the EU Bulgaria didn't have much of an indusry going on anyway. Having the infrastructure of a central African country it wasn't exactly the optimal place to start your business. So how do you attract foreign investors? You lower you taxes as much as possible and keep them flat (the situation in Romania is absolutely analogue, Ukrainie and Macedonia are comparable).
By the way, how about not looking at "mainstream" governments but exceptional governments? Germany is the 3rd strongest economy in the world with the highest export revenues and has a progressive tax system (tax rate ranging between 0% and 45%).
On March 21 2010 15:15 zizou21 wrote:
That's quite funny if it doesn't happen in your country ^^
On March 22 2010 02:15 hp.Methos wrote: the united states definitely doesn't need any further health care reform. i am against obama and his plan.
Now this is a view rarely held by anyone on any part of the political spectrum. You actually thought the old monster created of an outdated insurance system forced into a situation it was never designed for with top down government initiatives and public interference was a good one? You need to look at the numbers again because you're paying double what comparable countries pay and getting a worse service for it. You don't necessarily have to be for the new system, I certainly don't think it's ideal, and if you think a wholly private system would be better that's a defensible opinion but to actually think reform isn't needed is just ridiculous. Your system doesn't work, nobody agrees on how best to fix it but the numbers don't lie.
WASHINGTON - House Democrats heard it all Saturday — words of inspiration from President Barack Obama and raucous chants of protests from demonstrators. And at times it was flat-out ugly, including some racial epithets aimed at black members of Congress.
That usually happens when you try and control a persons life.
That usually happens when you try and tackle a very rich and very interested lobby group.
The Medical Insurance lobbies, lobbied for this. They are being granted a monopoly, just like the AMA. What company in their right mind would lobby against being granted a monopoly?
Yeah, the sole libertarian in DC Ron Paul has a great lobby influence, that wants to control others lives...
The fact that the public option isn't politically viable in the US as contrasted with the rest of the western world goes to show you how corrosive the hyper-autonomist philosophy actually is.
Then again, at this stage conversation about the topic is irrelevant. The damage is already done.
What the fuck are you talking about. Healthcare is all ready pretty much solely Government run. People who believe it isn't right now, are living in a delusional fantasy land. Tricare, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, VA, FDA, AMA, et. al.
It's a fucking joke. The major damage has been done ever since WW II. How has prices responded? Shooting through the damn roof, and now we have TRILLIONS in unfunded liabilities from these entitlements. Get rid of them all, and do it overnight.
Prices have shot through the roof because you have a multi-payer system in which almost 40% of the system's costs are absorbed in administration costs. Compare that with, for instance, the Canadian system wherein less than 1% of total costs are absorbed by administration and doctors decide which treatments patients should get instead of government or insurance bureaucrats.
The economic numbers are in: your system blows donkey nuts.
The insurance companies are only going to profit off this unconstitutional bill. I'm completely against the federal government running my health care, they fail at everything else they have done...and have failed in the past at managing health care. Open market operations > government operations imho...
Especially during an economic crisis primarily caused by a government program (Federal Reserve).
On March 22 2010 02:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Whoa, MSNBC is saying Stupak will vote yes?!
EDIT: Rep. Baird is now a "yes" vote.
EDIT #2: Stupak is apparently still a "No" vote.
What I am seeing everywhere officially is that Stupak is "close to a deal". Which means as of now he is no, but likely will change his mind just before roll is called.
On March 22 2010 02:15 hp.Methos wrote: the united states definitely doesn't need any further health care reform. i am against obama and his plan.
And why do you say that? In a country where people can literally be in debt their entire lives for something as small as a broken leg, why do you think these people should just have to "not get sick"? Why should your economic class determine how well you are treated by the government? It makes very little sense to me.
It seems to me like he is either going to vote no and just trying to get the speaker/pres off his back for now, or he is holding out for a better deal.
Wtf?! What does abortion have to do with anything? How do you tolerate a system so openly corrupt in which votes are bought and sold for unrelated legislation?
On March 22 2010 02:38 KwarK wrote: Wtf?! What does abortion have to do with anything? How do you tolerate a system so openly corrupt in which votes are bought and sold for unrelated legislation?
On March 22 2010 02:38 KwarK wrote: Wtf?! What does abortion have to do with anything? How do you tolerate a system so openly corrupt in which votes are bought and sold for unrelated legislation?
Federally-funded abortions are a greater moral outrage than mere healthcare. If the health bill can be shown to directly sponsor immoral acts, its claim to moral high ground is dissolved.
And the reality of American policy is that popular sentiment is constantly the object under chase. Your definition of corruption assumes fairly rigid first principles.
everybody saying no to this are people with money or insurance have not experienced not being able to pay for health care and having to live with a loss.
having the gov pay for your health care doesn't make you socialist china... >_> its not everything will change. the government pays for you. wowww sucks man getting somebody to pay for you
EPT
