General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cromicus View Post
Except the tax burden hasn't been nothing, or anything close to nothing, for a long time. How are you so sure?
Because the people who are complaining that they don't get to keep all their money are not going to suddenly want to give large amounts of it away. That is the most absurd reasoning ever. They want lower taxes so they can have more of money, not so they can give more of it away.

If the rich really wanted their tax dollars going to help the poor in charitable ways then they would use their significant lobbying powers to make sure that was what was done with their tax dollars. I don't believe the "more welfare" lobby is a powerful one, or even one that exists.

Quote:
Not entirely, but look how much donation occurs to access the deductions--it would be more if there wasn't any taxes at all.
Right, because the choice to keep it or give it away would be far easier than the choice of giving it to the government or giving it to a tax deductible charity. Seriously that is retarded. And it's just another way of making the government the bad guy.

"Rich people would totally take care of you poor people in your times of need through charitable donations but the evil government came and took all their money away." Bull fucking shit, man. That is a fairy tale.

Charity might have worked better in olden times with tiny towns and everybody knowing everybody else but that is not how we are going to take care of our significant underclass in a modern society of 300 million + people.

Quote:
If you don't buy the bad insurance or plans, you don't pay them a cent.
And then you don't get any health care...

And the vast majority of people don't choose their own plans, their employer does or at least limits their options.

Quote:
Because there's absolutely no incentive to reduce costs. Looking forward, there's no reason to expect the trend to ever reverse, except with more privatization.
Because people like taxes? I've already shown how there is more incentive and opportunity to reduce costs in various ways under a single payer system than there is under our current system while still providing care.

And why is the most privatized nation in terms of health care the one with the most outrageous costs? We seem to be going in circles on this point. You keep telling us privatization reduces costs but the evidence is against you. We pay far more and our costs are rising faster. You can not escape this point as much as you'd like to dance around it.

Quote:
Again, you have to read economics books about this. Or continue going to your socialist workers' meetings and pound the table and rant about this some more, one of the two.
Or I could listen to you.

"being satisfied with what you get is the only option in any case."

Quote:
Yes, with, for example, polio vaccine, developed in (what was then) a private university by a private researcher who was pursuing his own goals. And he didn't even really want money, imagine that.
Great, I'll take one polio vaccine please... Can I get a side of health care with that for free? No? Hmm...

And have individual instances of cost reduction like your polio vaccine led to reduced costs in health care overall?

Quote:
Thus eliminating a good reason for them to become employed.
Except for food, housing, comfort, transportation, other bills, etc. There is still plenty of incentive for the people of Canada to go to work other than health care.

Quote:
OH WELL EVERYTHING'S JUST HUNKY DORY WITH THE CANADIAN HEALTH SYSTEM COST STRUCTURE THEN YOU RETARD
Well Mr. Economic Genius there is a pretty big damn difference between costs rising at 3% industry wide a year on average and costs rising at 3% of GDP annually. Your costs are rising at a fraction of a fucking percent of GDP which means you have a while longer to go before your costs are even approaching the level ours are at now.

Hey math whiz, if our slope is ahead of yours and rising faster than yours when is yours going to catch up? When it folds through the sixth dimension to an alternate reality?

Quote:
Pretty much, that's why a lot of innovators go elsewhere.
If they come here is that because we tax the successful less or because we regulate industry less?

Everyone knows of the plight of the Canadian innovator who must flee his oppressive native land to be able to explore economic opportunity. Just look at the ridiculous tax rate:

-----------------------corporate---------------------individual-----------------sales/gst/vat
Canada------------ 36.1% ----------------------15-29% (federal) -------- 5% GST

United States----15-39% (federal) ------ 0-35% (federal) ----------0-10.25% (state and local sales tax)
-------------------------0-12% (state) --------- 0-10.3% (state)
------------------------------------------------------- 15.3% (federal payroll)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

Or if you prefer, Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/media/pdfs/200...married_50.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/media/pdfs/200.../single_50.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/media/pdfs/200...arried_100.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/media/pdfs/200...single_100.pdf


Quote:
But even if I need serious long-term care, the taxes I'll pay in the next 5-10 years will cover that many times over.
Of course your tax dollars are going to more than just health care... And you are at the upper end of the income scale, correct? Depending on how much you make and where you live you could likely be paying just as much in taxes in the USA.

Quote:
And if the people needed to pay 15-20% of their income to finance it, fewer cars would be bought and they might shut down the factory anyways and not build any cars anywhere.
True, but it seems unlikely that people will be forced to pay 15%-20% of their incomes. In fact it seems likely that far fewer people will be forced to pay up to 15%-20% of their incomes to be able to afford health care.

Quote:
I thought the assumption was that there are people who can't do that.
Correct. Under a dual tier system, if you can't afford to pay for private care then you wait in line for public care. Better than waiting forever for private care that isn't coming.

Quote:
Except this goes on with almost every politician and every industry and nobody seems willing or capable of doing anything about it.
Health care issues are not at all a factor in your elections?

Quote:
Remember when we talked about the 13%+ annual turnover rate for CEOs? It's over stuff like this. But go ahead and pretend how being a CEO is infinite job security for corruption
Health care CEOs get fired for not meeting customer demands for more health care? Or do they get fired over other concerns, Like profitability?

Quote:
And maybe you shouldn't have the power to make that decision.
Jesus fucking Christ, did you get dropped on your head? I'm not making that decision for anyone. I'm suggesting that the reason a hip replacement for an old person might take longer would be because of it being of a low medical or life saving priority.

I'm not an expert but I'm pretty damn sure that discomfort due to aging would not be considered a high priority, life threatening condition. Therefore a hip replacement surgery would be ranked below other more necessary surgeries in terms of medical priority.

You might not think it is fair but the people who's lives were saved thus causing your Nana to have to wait a couple extra weeks for her new hip would likely hold a different opinion.

Quote:
So? If you can't convince anyone to help you, you should be able to force them? Where does that come from?
First of all, we should vote for universal health care of our own free will so let's get over the whole force shit. I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I'm arguing about why we should do it, not holding a gun to anyone's head and demanding anything. Do they hold guns to doctors heads in Canada or do they pay them for their services?

Instead of a private insurer deciding not to pay for your care because there is no profit in it for them, I'm suggesting a non-profit government single payer system should pay for your non-profitable care because the priority would be to provide care and not to maximize profits. I believe this makes sense in the case of health care, just like it does in the case of fire, police, and other public services who's main goal is not profitability.

Quote:
Yup. I wouldn't hesitate. I'm sorry you can't understand that.
You are full of fucking shit. No one tells the doctor to pull their plug when they have a fully treatable condition they can recover from. If you got into an accident and were brought into a hospital unconscious, treated, and then woke up you wouldn't tell them to unplug you and dump you in the medical waste dumpster out back.

I'd be more willing to believe that you would complain about having to wait because the victim of another car accident was ahead of you in surgery. You already believe you have more than payed your fair share according to your own words so please, stop it with the martyr bullshit.

Quote:
Why indefinitely? Why not figure out a way to make it work so that you can have everything you want? Why be so hopeless?
Because for the vast majority of people there is no magical light at the end of the tunnel in our current system. There is very little opportunity for them to just innovate their way out of a shitty situation. Reality has a nasty way of limiting options.

Quote:
Mostly by political pull, networking and other unmeritorious ways.
lol, how do you think things work here? Jobs are not handed out based solely on merit.
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street

Last edited by pyramid; 03-05-2008 at 06:26 AM..
Old 03-04-2008, 07:53 PM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#391  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

cromicus
I act tough on genmay, but real life im a pussy
 
cromicus's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post
Because the people who are complaining that they don't get to keep all their money are not going to suddenly want to give large amounts of it away.
The complaint isn't that they don't get to keep it, it's that they don't get to choose how it is used. Nobody wants to "keep" money. Money doesn't do anything on its own, except perhaps produce more money. Money is obtained to be spent on something, and that often includes things that don't produce tangible consumable objects, like charities. If people want that to happen, and the evidence is clear that they do, then there is no real difference between taxing money that would be spent on a new car and taxing money that would be spent on medical research.

Quote:
If the rich really wanted their tax dollars going to help the poor in charitable ways then they would use their significant lobbying powers to make sure that was what was done with their tax dollars.
In other words, the ideal society is that you get what you want only if you have enough political pull to exploit the bureaucracy.

Quote:
I don't believe the "more welfare" lobby is a powerful one, or even one that exists.
Really? Why was Sicko such a popular movie then?

Quote:
Right, because the choice to keep it or give it away would be far easier than the choice of giving it to the government or giving it to a tax deductible charity.
Do you presume to know how every single person in the world makes such a choice?

Quote:
"Rich people would totally take care of you poor people in your times of need through charitable donations but the evil government came and took all their money away." Bull fucking shit, man. That is a fairy tale.
I donated an awful lot of money to a stem cell retinology research foundation last year. Would have spent more if I had more money. Charity is a very marginal expenditure, if you increase a person's income by reducing taxes, it comes as an increase to marginal expenditures.

Quote:
Charity might have worked better in olden times with tiny towns and everybody knowing everybody else but that is not how we are going to take care of our significant underclass in a modern society of 300 million + people.
Really? Is that charitable donations in America totaled $295 billion in 2006, which was a real increase of 1% over 2005? That's larger than the 2006 Medicaid budget, and more than 2006 federal corporate tax revenues.

Quote:
And then you don't get any health care...
But because insurance contracts are standardized there's going to be an awful lot of people doing the same. That's a considerable amount of demand, and a good incentive for a new insurance company to step in and offer you a contract that you can afford. Unless, of course, the government restricts competition in the insurance industry and drowns new entrants in mindless bureaucracy.

Quote:
And the vast majority of people don't choose their own plans, their employer does or at least limits their options.
But they choose their employers.

Quote:
I've already shown how there is more incentive and opportunity to reduce costs in various ways under a single payer system than there is under our current system while still providing care.
You haven't done anything of the sort, you just pretend like you will get the exact same results as another country if you just do some things the same way.

Quote:
And why is the most privatized nation in terms of health care the one with the most outrageous costs?
I have numerous explanations for this, you have absolutely none. You cannot explain the problem, you can only complain about it. You will not arrive at the correct conclusion unless you understand the problem.

Quote:
And have individual instances of cost reduction like your polio vaccine led to reduced costs in health care overall?
Do you think it's more expensive to administer everybody a polio vaccine or treat large segments of the population for polio? I'll bet it's the former. Maybe I'm just stupid.

Quote:
Except for food, housing, comfort, transportation, other bills, etc. There is still plenty of incentive for the people of Canada to go to work other than health care.
But its one less incentive.

Quote:
If they come here is that because we tax the successful less or because we regulate industry less?
Both, although as you point out the distinction is shrinking.

Quote:
Of course your tax dollars are going to more than just health care...
Yeah, I get very little from those other things too.

Quote:
And you are at the upper end of the income scale, correct? Depending on how much you make and where you live you could likely be paying just as much in taxes in the USA.
Yup, I live in by far the least tax-onerous province and there are very tax-onerous states, but if the whole point is to avoid taxes, obviously I would consider the less taxy options.

Quote:
True, but it seems unlikely that people will be forced to pay 15%-20% of their incomes. In fact it seems likely that far fewer people will be forced to pay up to 15%-20% of their incomes to be able to afford health care.
There is no possible way that the upper class and the very wealthy spend anywhere near 15-20% of their incomes on health care.

Quote:
Health care issues are not at all a factor in your elections?
Nobody's been voted out of office over mismanagement of health care.

Quote:
Health care CEOs get fired for not meeting customer demands for more health care? Or do they get fired over other concerns, Like profitability?
Not meeting demand for health care is a threat to profitability. Believe it or not, a firm of any type with no customers is not very profitable.

Quote:
I'm not an expert but I'm pretty damn sure that discomfort due to aging would not be considered a high priority, life threatening condition. Therefore a hip replacement surgery would be ranked below other more necessary surgeries in terms of medical priority.
Is that why there are so many cosmetic surgeons?

Quote:
You might not think it is fair but the people who's lives were saved thus causing your Nana to have to wait a couple extra weeks for her new hip would likely hold a different opinion.
So you would allow them to force the doctor to do what they want.

Quote:
First of all, we should vote for universal health care of our own free will so let's get over the whole force shit. I'm not forcing anyone to do anything.
If you don't have to force anyone to pay for universal health care, then why does it need to be paid for by taxes? If people wanted to pay for universal health care, why doesn't it already exist? The truth is you want to force people to pay for it, and you think that a majority forcing a minority to do something isn't forcing, which is of course ridiculous.

Quote:
I'm arguing about why we should do it, not holding a gun to anyone's head and demanding anything. Do they hold guns to doctors heads in Canada or do they pay them for their services?
If you refuse to pay your taxes, they seize your property and maybe put you in jail, I suspect its the same idea in America. Taxes are not voluntary.

Quote:
I believe this makes sense in the case of health care, just like it does in the case of fire, police, and other public services who's main goal is not profitability.
But at least some of the people needed to fund it don't agree. Do you take their wishes into account?

Quote:
No one tells the doctor to pull their plug when they have a fully treatable condition they can recover from.
You can pretend that I would force other people to help me against their will, but that doesn't make it true. I don't think that way.

Quote:
Because for the vast majority of people there is no magical light at the end of the tunnel in our current system. There is very little opportunity for them to just innovate their way out of a shitty situation.
So you think it would be sustainable for large numbers of people to be net recipients of production, not net producers?

Quote:
lol, how do you think things work here? Jobs are not handed out based solely on merit.
Certainly, but the only reason that is allowed to happen is due to a lack of competition.
__________________
you shall see hail fall from a clear sky
Old 03-05-2008, 03:22 PM cromicus is offline  
Reply With Quote
#392  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:00 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.