Uni Health Care

[Edwardo Piet]

[...] but a free health care takes money from those who have money and gives it to those who don't.

I really do not understand the 'but' in that sentence! If someone doesn't have any money at all then all the more reason they need free health care! Because they can't afford it themselves! Heatlh should be a given.

In 3rd world countries, would it not be ideal for them to all have free health care? No money means you can't afford health care so you need it free!

EvF

[dry land fish]

My taxes pay into parks department and I never care to use them. My taxes pay into the school system, I have no children and never intend to use them. My taxes pay into the highways of california, I never intend to use them.

YOU go ahead and pay extra out of your funds if you want to use these services and you can have your government parks and schools.

(The preceding was allegorical)

I would rather not pay any of those taxes. There's nothing I can do about it and I don't complain about it because uncle sam will get it anyway. I will complain about the extra taxes this health care system will impose on all of us whether we want it or not. Either way the decision isn't up to us little people. Our government is going to keep tweaking this healthcare plan and then whatever they decide they will make us foot the bill for it. Hopefully it will turn out positive. I'm not trying to knock people out of health care but I feel that it's not the governments business. Where I live the Amish people get out of paying some taxes because of their "religion". So while I'm paying taxes to keep the roads up around here those Amish people with their horses and buggys are tearing up the pavement. That really burns my butt but what can I do? Nothing...just like there's not anything I can do about this issue.

---

[...] but a free health care takes money from those who have money and gives it to those who don't.

I really do not understand the 'but' in that sentence! If someone doesn't have any money at all then all the more reason they need free health care! Because they can't afford it themselves! Heatlh should be a given.

In 3rd world countries, would it not be ideal for them to all have free health care? No money means you can't afford health care so you need it free!

EvF

Why can they not afford health care? We live in a country that has wonderful educational opportunities. Why are they not getting an education and getting a job that will either give them insurance or allow them to buy it from someone? Even the factory jobs here that employ people with a GED give people insurance! McDonalds has insurance. I work for a non profit and we don't have insurance but I'm not going to complain about it and expect you to pay taxes to help me out when I could easily go somewhere that offers health insurance. It is not your responsibility to pay taxes to keep me healthy.

[Tiberius]

Adrian/dry land fish....would you care to argue your differing positions ( as Libertarians ) on this issue?

I'm the kind of Libertarian who believes in the values of life, liberty, and prosperity, and build up a constitution / way of government around them. Whilst I'm still all for self-government and minimal government, I understand that there are some aspects of government that need to exist. In Libertarian terms, I'm a "minarchist". dry land fish comes across as more of an anarchist, believing that all public services should be privatized.

The problems with a private system is that the poorer classes that cannot afford the prices will lose out. This goes against the first value of the Libertarian system, and so the government has a duty to provide healthcare options for everyone. With a flat-rate tax, everyone pays the same proportionate amount of their earnings, and is provided with the same service.

I think dry land fish's idea of having an "opt-in" system is completely the opposite of having a minimal government. Firstly, it would require more paperwork as the amount people "opt in" to would have to be calculated from the number of people wishing to pay it. This would require people to first register their interest in applying so that the tax could be calculated, and then refactor that again if people join/leave the program when given the final amount.

Secondly, the budget would be incredibly variable. If 100,000 people sign up for the opt-in scheme one year, there is nothing to say that they will all sign up for it the next. In fact if only half sign up the next year, a major shift in the budget has to take place, and this could cause loss of a lot of jobs. With everyone paying the tax from the start, you have a set number to work with, out of which you can calculate a more accurate and stable budget.

Adrian, you asked me lots of questions about Socialism in another thread, so I'd like to pose you a few.
How would a Libertarian government tackle poverty, unemployment, the pensions timebomb and the resulting need for care for an increasingly old population, inequality i.e. the ever widening gap between the rich and the poor, global warming?
Just a few things to consider.

How would Libertarians tackle poverty and unemployment? We would end welfare payouts to families who have the ability to work, and use the money saved to create more jobs for those people. Obviously we are not going to do this overnight; it will be a slow process. We aren't just going to take welfare away and leave people stranded. We would also privatize education and encourage people to gain skills at universities in order to achieve better jobs.

As for pensions, we believe that the government should have a system in place to pay pensions, but people should be free to place their money in private retirement accounts; investing it in low/medium/high risk interests if they wish.

The elderly will be afforded free healthcare, and the privatization of parts of the healthcare industry would lead to "better deals" for old people.

As for the gap between the rich and the poor, we would encourage more jobs for the working class as already stipulated above. Libertarianism employs a right-wing economic system, so we aren't socialists who want everyone to earn the same...or earn within a smaller wage bracket.

For global warming, we would encourage the use of renewable energy sources, and make the government accountable for pollution they cause.

[Minimalist]

I would rather not pay any of those taxes.

But you pay taxes now to sustain medicare/medicaid and you pay higher insurance premiums because you can bet your ass that the doctors and hospitals are making up their losses by overcharging you...and me. You are merely kidding yourself if you think that you aren't paying part of the freight here.

Are you holding out to have people die in the streets? I'd expect that from the theists.

[LukeMC]

Did you miss the part where I said I had no insurance myself and that most of my adult life I've had no insurance or really crappy insurance? I'm NOT rich. My parents were poor. My parents were so poor I qualified for free meals at school. My parents refused to get food stamps or any state help because my father felt it was belittling. He fed me and my mom and put clothes on my back by working . I'm not some snobby rich person. I know what it's like to not have any money and I know what it's like to work for it. The issue is not free health care. NOTHING in life is free and if anyone is looking for anything for free it's a shame!!!! The government should be looking to make health care more affordable but a free health care takes money from those who have money and gives it to those who don't. As much as I hate to sound like a Republican....I have to agree with that concept. I'm not interested in a Robin Hood type mentality here.

I came into this thread late so I wasn't aware of your previous posts. While I didn't say you were rich, I guess I made it implicit in the same way you did as you denounced poor people for being lazy and not working.

My issues here is not so much with health care as it is with the way you condemned the poor and made out like they're all dishonest fucks who don't try hard enough and have only themselves to blame. I think you're completely out of order when you do that. Perhaps your parents were lazy, or the people in your area were lazy? If this is the case I could probably SORT OF see where you got the nerve. But if your parents were honest people (like you make them out to be) working hard to support themselves and to support you, I don't know where you find it within yourself to say that those who are economically at a disadvantage are lazy and deserve what they get (or in this case don't).

Now, the health care. I'm with EvF on this one. It should be a given. I take it from your post that you're american (if not, oh well I guess). I'm under the impression that the country grants "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The first of these three being life would have one assume the country wants to help a brother out. Why should somebody who isn't seeing much money coming their way be any less eligable for the required- the best- health care to keep them functioning if they come to any harm? Is it because they're lazy shits who don't work hard enough to deserve health care? No, even you don't think this. Then why should we punish them? We don't make them pay a private fee at a toll booth every time they use public roads. Do you support toll boothing instead of tax-paid roads?

Fact is, Robin Hood mentality couldn't be more humane. I will give up my time and energy to help an old lady cross the street. I will give up my money to a charity who help save lives. I will spare my free time to help others revise for a test. I will pay for the bus ride home if my brother is out of cash. If I have an excess of something, I take no issue sacrificing a little of it to help other people out. Especially when I'll still have an excess of it afterwards. I take it you have no issue with this?

Now, unless you can look at a starving child and say "fuck that, your parents can sort you out", I don't see how you could support the notion that helping those in need is a ridiculous idea. As a species we thrive from helping those around us. And if those who CAN help will refuse to do so, then they are condoning the suffering of some of their own less fortunate people. Now I don't CARE whether or not you would reject a tax-funded health care system. I think as a basic human right it should be put there for you to use if you so wish. If you'd rather spit in the hand of those offering you help, then your fate is your own making. There are lots of people who not only want but need this kind of system where their basic human right to health is upheld.

Damn, imagine having to pay for life. Some inalienable right that turns out to be. At the end of the day, I think the government has every right to demand extra help from the rich so that the rest of the country can function in good health. Otherwise, why don't these rich people just fuck off to some deserted island where they can take care of the only people that matter to them- themselves? You can't expect to live in a society among social creatures and reap all the benefits of their labour but do little to help them get their sick kid treated. Reciprocal altruism. We all give and take. Those who take the most should give the most. If you can buy a million dollar mansion, you ought pay a little extra towards the society that made this possible. If you're gonna be priveleged, put something back into the country.

Or just abolish tax and let corporations run the country and let the poor people die out while those on the top of the ladder enjoy a cold drink on their yacht. Come on, we've got to look out for each other.

Apology for another long post. I don't often get to express my views on this topic.

[Minimalist]

believing that all public services should be privatized.

I spent 30 years with the Internal Revenue Service, much of that time as a tax collection officer. If there is a bigger myth in America than that of the "efficient private sector" I don't know what it is....maybe "compassionate conservatives" but that's as close as I can come. I, and every one of my colleagues, had a drawer full of cases of failing private businesses. Most of these were capable technicians of one sort or another who had no friggin' clue how to run a business. They could build a great set of kitchen cabinets but they couldn't figure out how to collect their accounts receivable.

I had to laugh the other day when Obama noted that FedEx and UPS are doing fine but the "post office always has problems." The post office has problems because unlike Fedex and UPS they have to deliver mail EVERYWHERE for 42 cents.. If the post office ever said they were going to discontinue mail delivery in rural areas you would see the congressmen and senators from those states have a massive shit fit. The government is designed to provide services, not make a profit. Fedex might want to take on a contract to deliver mail between NY and Washington but you can bet your ass that they wouldn't be lining up to deliver mail between Podunk and Peoria.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Edwardo Piet]

Why can they not afford health care?

Well I meant that they can't by your definition going by what I quoted and responded to. You said those who don't have money. In which case by definition they can't afford heatlh care. They're broke.

You said:

[...] but a free health care takes money from those who have money and gives it to those who don't.

(My bolding).

So like I said, I don't understand the 'But' in that sentence. And you said those who dont have money: So they therefore can't afford it.


EvF

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

With a flat-rate tax, everyone pays the same proportionate amount of their earnings, and is provided with the same service.

They had a flat rate tax system in Hong Kong (15%) before the PRC took it back.That place made the US look like a socialist paradise. The argument for a flat rate of taxation is more simplistic than a real,and simple solution.

Flat rate taxation is essentially unjust and just does not work.[unless you're rich,then it's just dandy]

I'm strongly against the kind of Libertarianism often described by Americans on this and other sites:It seems to describe the worst aspects of the middle classes: Greedy, self indulgent and callous, AND espousing the fatuous, disingenuous ideal of the 'trickle down effect" of wealth.

It seems to be epitomised in the shallow, self absorbed attitude and screwy logic of those who oppose universal health care on the grounds that they don't need it.[yet]

To be truly affluent,a society needs; Full employment,high wages AND high taxes,personal and indirect. To be just it needs to ensure disadvantaged groups have a decent standard of living. It is a disgrace that in rich countries such as the US and Australia ,that ANY person,of any age should live on the street through necessity. It is also a disgrace that any person should be refused needed medical treatment or die because they cannot pay for the treatment.


Below some notes on flat tax,lifted from Wiki. If you're really interested ask a couple of economists with opposing views.

Fundamental problems

Perhaps the largest logical issue is that if the flat tax system has a large per-citizen deductible (such as the "Armey" scheme below), then it is effectively a progressive tax since the total income tax rate is increasing with increasing income. The admission that such a flat tax is not actually flat at all, would seem to undermine the notion that the "flatness" of the tax is itself a desirable feature. Any flat tax with an initial threshold deduction is inherently progressive. Thus, the undermining logic continues, if progression in the schedule is necessary then surely a more flexible form of progression is even more desirable.

In general, the question of how to eliminate deductions is fundamental to the flat tax design: deductions dramatically affect the effective "flatness" in the tax rate. Perhaps the single biggest necessary deduction is for business expenses. If businesses were not allowed to deduct expenses then businesses with a profit margin below the flat tax rate could never earn any money since the tax on revenues would always exceed the earnings. For example, grocery stores typically earn pennies on every dollar of revenue; they could not pay a tax rate of 25% on revenues unless their markup exceeded 25%. Thus business must be able to deduct their expenses even if individual citizens cannot. A practical difficulty now arises as to identifying what is an expense for a business. For example, if a peanut butter maker purchases a jar manufacturer, is that an expense (since they have to purchase jars somehow) or a sheltering of their income through investment. How deductions are implemented will dramatically change the effective, and thus flatness, of the tax.

Philosophical problems

Since the central philosophy of the flat tax is to minimize the compartmentalization of incomes into myriad special cases, a vexing problem is deciding when income occurs. This demonstrated by the taxation of interest income and stock dividends. The shareholders own the company and so the company's profits belong to them. If a company is taxed on its profits, then the funds paid out as dividends have already been taxed. It's a debatable question if they should subsequently be treated as income to the shareholders and thus subject to further tax. (The counter argument is that the stockholders don't own the losses: a "corporation" is an entity that enjoys many benefits of citizenship and thus should be treated, for tax purposes too, as if it were a separate citizen, and thus the dividends are more like interest on loans paid to the shareholders and thus subject to tax.) A similar philosophical issue arises in deciding if interest paid on loans should be deductible from the taxable income since that interest is in-turn taxed as income to the loan provider.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Fu...l_problems

[omjag86]

Why do we pay taxes in the first place?
Ask Woodrow Wilson, we pay taxes to pay off the Governments interest to the Fed for borrowing money from them in the first place.
If Obama was willing to barricade himself in the White House he could enact Kennedy's Executive order 1111-0 and the US Government could start making real money again. Then we wouldn't have to pay higher taxes to pay for health insurance because the government would be following constituional law by paying for our right to have health insurance.
Since it's a given that won't happen anytime soon we could look at education about what makes us healthy and what makes us sick. If folks were educated in this area then preventive health care would save the govermnment and us plain folk billions of dollars and greatly extend our quality of life.
Speaking of which, I was in Compton last week and I couldn't find a single Jamba Juice or Whole Foods store. Plenty of McDonalds and Burger Kings though. Food that we know is literally sucking the life out of all those lazy poor baby makers who are getting diabetes at the age of twenty-five.
IN my opinion if we are going to allow corporations to be monopolies then they should have to pay for their power-not rich people but the people who are paying them.
Omjag86

[leo-rcc]

I used to live on an island with a flat rate taxation (back then it was 8% of your income no matter how high the income is) and that works. However it was expected of you to pay for your own medical bills, no pension from the state, no unemployment benefits, pretty much only welfare was covered. This was quite a few years ago so I imagine the percentage has gone up, but I am willing to bet it is still no where near any mainland taxation.

I pay 42% income tax in the Netherlands, but it covers a lot. I prefer the 42% over the 8% anytime if it means that other people are able to get the healthcare they need.