Do you support universal healthcare?

ExittheLemming wrote: The T wrote: thellama73 wrote: I'm still waiting for that explanation of why taxes aren't theft. You keep saying why you think taxes are justified, but that's not the question I asked. You said they are not theft because 1) everyone does it and 2) our elected officials fail to discontinue them. Then Rob pointed out that everyone committing a crime does not make it not a crime (to which you seemed to agree) and then you admitted that elected officials are in fact capable of committing injustice even though we voted for them. So I still have no idea where you idea that taxes are not theft comes from. All property derives from mostly ill-gotten gains. Certainly in the past (and today) people acquired property and means of production by less than holy means. Taxes are only just to compensate for that.  Wealth cannot be acquired without the structure of a society. You don't acquire it by yourself. You acquire it thanks also to the structure and to other people's contributions. Society as a whole is then justified to collect a part of it in the benefit of everybody.    Although I wouldn't go this far re 'ill gotten gains' this is exactly what my (admittedly w**ky) little caveman story was banging on about in the Libertarian Friends thread. To make any tangible good with which you can then trade with others and create wealth, you need to use a social context (customers) and natural resources (like coal in my pathetic example) The questions the story was designed to ask was: who owns natural resources? Answer: everyone How do you compensate those people who have had their property appropriated in the production of goods? Answer (same as The T's): a tax system Believe it or not I actually agree with Ayn Rand when she states an individual's ability, ingenuity or imagination in transforming natural resource to create goods should be rewarded with wealth (I have no problem with that) But as The T points out, those raw materials in the oceans, air and earth etc belong to the citizens of earth (dammit) But I promise no more caveman stories (honest)

That's the first well reasoned argument I've ever seen you make. That's what I'm looking for, T. An actual explanation of your views, not just "GREED IS BAD, OMG!!!"

That being said, I don't agree that natural resources are everyone's property. If that were the case, then I should be compensated for all the companies in China that use natural resources, not just American ones. I take it, Lemming, that you support a global tax system, rather than a series of national ones?

It's so difficult to be me here... I have to withstand all libertarians at once... 

thellama73 wrote: The T wrote: It all falls down to consent. You held the view that you haven't given your consent. i have always agree with the social contract view. You have given it.  Also, another thing: the only way to eliminate taxes is to eliminate all kinds of services altogether. If you have those services, you have to pay for them. You pay through taxes (like roads, etc).  You can't give consent unknowingly. It goes against the definition of consent. That's why we have all these date rape cases where the girl gets super drunk and the guy is like "but she gave consent" and the judge is like "uh uh, you can't give consent if you're super drunk." If I believe that I have not given consent, I have not given consent, by definition. Also, I am happy to pay for services that I use. I pay for the food I eat, the clothes I wear and the TV I watch. Why would eliminating taxes force me to give up these things? I would pay for roads I walked on (I don't have a car), or that were used to ship in the goods I buy. Why are taxes necessary for me to pay for these things?

Epignosis wrote: The T wrote: It's so difficult to be me here... I have to withstand all libertarians at once...  Now you know how I felt in the Atheist thread. I'll check out for now.  I'm way behind on work, and millions of people on welfare depend on me!

The T wrote: thellama73 wrote: The T wrote: It all falls down to consent. You held the view that you haven't given your consent. i have always agree with the social contract view. You have given it.  Also, another thing: the only way to eliminate taxes is to eliminate all kinds of services altogether. If you have those services, you have to pay for them. You pay through taxes (like roads, etc).  You can't give consent unknowingly. It goes against the definition of consent. That's why we have all these date rape cases where the girl gets super drunk and the guy is like "but she gave consent" and the judge is like "uh uh, you can't give consent if you're super drunk." If I believe that I have not given consent, I have not given consent, by definition. Also, I am happy to pay for services that I use. I pay for the food I eat, the clothes I wear and the TV I watch. Why would eliminating taxes force me to give up these things? I would pay for roads I walked on (I don't have a car), or that were used to ship in the goods I buy. Why are taxes necessary for me to pay for these things? Of course I'm talking about services provided by the government.  In a different issue, do you think consumption taxes are better? Maybe you "agree" to pay them when you agree to buy something? Or are they as bad as income taxes?

Yes, I much prefer consumption taxes, because you can choose how much you want to pay based on how much you consume. Paying too much in taxes? Consume less! Much, much better.

thellama73 wrote: The T wrote: thellama73 wrote: The T wrote: It all falls down to consent. You held the view that you haven't given your consent. i have always agree with the social contract view. You have given it.  Also, another thing: the only way to eliminate taxes is to eliminate all kinds of services altogether. If you have those services, you have to pay for them. You pay through taxes (like roads, etc).  You can't give consent unknowingly. It goes against the definition of consent. That's why we have all these date rape cases where the girl gets super drunk and the guy is like "but she gave consent" and the judge is like "uh uh, you can't give consent if you're super drunk." If I believe that I have not given consent, I have not given consent, by definition. Also, I am happy to pay for services that I use. I pay for the food I eat, the clothes I wear and the TV I watch. Why would eliminating taxes force me to give up these things? I would pay for roads I walked on (I don't have a car), or that were used to ship in the goods I buy. Why are taxes necessary for me to pay for these things? Of course I'm talking about services provided by the government.  In a different issue, do you think consumption taxes are better? Maybe you "agree" to pay them when you agree to buy something? Or are they as bad as income taxes?  Yes, I much prefer consumption taxes, because you can choose how much you want to pay based on how much you consume. Paying too much in taxes? Consume less! Much, much better.

ExittheLemming wrote: BTW (as an aside) ain't americans taxed on all their global income by the US government?

Good question. I'm no expert, but I think that individuals pay income taxes on all their global income, but corporate income tax only applies to money earned domestically. I might be wrong, though.

The bottom line from a healthcare worker. We can whine all we want about taxes, but the fact is that the U.S. has a large and growing population of uninsured working poor. Obviously they cannot afford to pay out of pocket for catastrophic injury/illness. Doctors are bound by Hippocratic oath to care for people in those situations, regardless of whether they can pay for it or not. Either doctors and healthcare staff does the work for free, or some method of providing payment publicly must be in place. Right now, the associated states (using the word 'united' is an utter farce at this point) have a terribly inadequate system to compensate in these cases...which is why safety net hospitals across the country are going under. In other words, universal healthcare is a fact of life but nobody wants to call it that so it doesn't get fixed to a point where it works and hospitals can stay open.

So what's it going to be? Change the rules of engagement? No more Hippocratic oath. You're sick and poor so you have to die now?

And you want to know what private insurance gets you now? I work in an oncology department for which the insurance that covers us will not even pay for the oncologists we work with. Its pure fantasy to think that 'for profit' insurers are going to get us any kind of fix for the current crisis. They make their money by NOT PAYING! There are a lot of people on this board, I am sure more than a couple have some idea what the out of pocket is for Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia for just the workup and induction chemo. Not counting the months of support and maintenance therapy. 

Regardless of which side of the fantasy pitch you are on, if you are in the U.S., DO NOT GET SICK!   

GY!BE wrote: I don't because II think there's always a hidden agenda, especially in a capitalist system and a money based economy.

A money based economy? As opposed to what, exactly?

Finnforest wrote: I wonder if it would work to have HSA for individuals to cover their own base yearly deductible of say, $5K, with single-payer protection for catastrophic care....or anything above the deductible.  That way patient is responsible for something, thus has incentive to be healthy and use care judiciously, but everyone has a safety net against the nightmare of a major illness.....no one loses their home or savings account to an illness. People who want to run to the Doc for every little sniffle will have to flip the bill.....but no one ever has to worry about losing everything to cancer.  Private profit insurance can get out of health care and find other ways to screw us, and taxes need only be expended for actual cost of care to those who rack up more than $5 K per year in expenses.  Substantial yes, but much less than single payer for EVERY single cent of care.   Ready to get roasted from both sides