Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
InCrYsIs

Looks like healthcare is a go.

Recommended Posts

I fail to see how the government had any involvement with my public education since my school raises its own money through property taxes. Only thing I've ever seen the government do is offer grants.

Also relearn the definition of the word hypocrite please. Pretty sure the government doesn't have to regulate education and its not as if its doing the best job of it either considering how lax our standards are compared to just about any other country's education system. Apparently a broken health care bill and a war are more important to our big government than education. So who is the hypocrite now... huh?

If that's true than what you just said is not a Public Education. If it was Public than it would be paid for by local and federal money, looks like you didn't get enough of that "Public Education"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah, that's why china isn't booming economically

 

China is communist, not socialist. There is a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If that's true than what you just said is not a Public Education. If it was Public than it would be paid for by local and federal money, looks like you didn't get enough of that "Public Education"

Looks like you didn't either. Property taxes fall under the category of local money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If that's true than what you just said is not a Public Education. If it was Public than it would be paid for by local and federal money, looks like you didn't get enough of that "Public Education"

Local not federal. Maybe its you who did not get enough of that "Public Education" as I've never heard of the federal government getting involved in public education other than with regulation and federal grants should the school apply for any.

Edited by Compxpert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

/semi-off-topic

I always find it amusing the way certain segments of society rant against "evil corporations" as though they're some giant robots bent on human subjugation. Those corporations are made up of and owned by people. But because they make a product or provide a service well enough to make a good living, they are "evil" and must be prevented from having a voice in their own country.

Edited by 94Camaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They don't always go over well on the internet. That's because my arguments aren't emotionally appeasing. They are the cold, hard, truth of life. Kids today don't always like that. And just because people don't like my arguments doesn't mean they aren't true. I've discovered that the more people come out and call me a "cruel, greedy sociopath" for what I say, the more right my argument tends to be. People who resort to calling you names like that only do so as a last resort when they know they don't have anything factual or even rational to rebut your assertion with. No one ever said taking the position of cold-hearted reality was going to be easy, or popular. When it comes to issues like health care and politics, people tend to put their rationality aside and put on their emotional blinders.

 

So, I like to replace "health care" with "bottled water" in my arguments. Health care is vitally important, yes, but no matter how important it is, it's also a commodity subject to the laws of supply and demand. So, in that sense, the health care market reacts no differently to outside stimuli than the bottled water market does. If the market price for bottled water is $1, and you lower the price to .50 cents, what happens to the supply and demand of bottled water? And if stores are unable to control the price of the water, how do they ensure that they maintain enough in stock to keep up with demand? Anyone who buys sale items on Newegg can answer that - "Limit five per customer." The same principle applies to health care, whether we like it or not.

 

Yes, health care is vitally important to life, but, just like bottled water, it has a price, and that price must be paid. Sometimes the price is higher, but it still has to be paid in full. And passing a law that says, "You can't charge more than this," doesn't change the price of the service, it just rolls it over to someone else, or leads to a decreased quality service. When you pay $5 for a $5 meal, you know what quality to expect. When you pay $5 for a $10 meal, do you expect to receive the same quality as if you had spent the full $10? No, you are going to get the meal you paid for.

 

I've always know and understood the points and people that made arguments against health care such as your argument.

 

Technically you do have valid points.

 

This is America and people should have right to spend there money however they please and they shouldn't have someone decide how to spend there money.

 

Healthcare is not a right in the constitution and technically could be seen as luxury.

 

I also understand that healthcare is run like a business and someone has to pay the bill.

 

But hear is where the arguments of the people (and a little of my own) I know who are for or want some kind of health care reform.

 

Many people believe that in a healthy productive society that health care should no longer be considered a luxury but a right just like civil rights or freedom of speech.

 

They can justify taxing rich people heavily because they believe that the Rich people already have more then enough money to get by while there at the middle or bottom trying hard to make it. They think of it this way if a person makes 10 million a year and lets just say they spend like a Rich person and spend $5 million a year on themselves and there expenses which is considered living a very comfortably by lower and middle class standards. They normally get taxed $1 million in taxes and have $4 million left to put in the bank however when health care reform comes there taxes go up $2 million a year to $3 million a year and can only put $2 million in the bank instead of $4 million in. Most middle class would be ok with this and don't see the problem because they see that $4 million a year is just wasted wealth (although because this is America technically they do have the right to put money in the bank year after year and watch there balance sheet grow even though it's not being used productively). This is also how some people believe how health care reform should be paid for in this way by rich people instead of poor or middle class ones paying for it because if a middle class person takes home $50,000 a year after taxes and has 12,000 taken out in health care costs that's quite a large dent out of a yearly salary when compared to the person who makes 10 million and who takes home $7 million and $3 million is taken out in taxes. The person who makes $50,000 and has $12,000 taken out in health care costs is effected more financially then a person who has makes $10 million and has $2 million taken away in health care taxes. They could argue that $12,000 is much more important and useful to a person who only makes $50,000 then the 3 million out of 10 million that the other person makes.

 

Now I know that there are holes in this theory because typically a rich person will not sit around and watch there profits go from $9 million a year to $7 million even if they don't need the money for anything important anyways they will most likely figure out a way to make an extra $2 million to get back up to the $9 million which will ultimately cost the lower and middle class people who buy the rich peoples goods and services.

 

I understand why Socialism and Communism don't work and your example with that teacher sums up the main reason. People get lazy no motivation to work because they know that there always going to get the same treatment weather they work really hard ever day or sleep in bed all day.

 

Know some people say this problem can be fixed if people were educated about the values of hard work and what's important in life rather than nowadays were people are taught the most important thing is acquisition of wealth. If you find two jobs that make lets say they pay the same $100,000 one job you sit in an office all day doing easy work the other one is hard labor everyone hear would probably pick job one over job two. However what if we taught people that you should work to benefit others and all of humanity and that there is nothing wrong with hard labor over easy labor maybe there wouldn't be these kind of problems with socialism programs.

 

Edit: Just finished editing everything

Edited by fire_storm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't label China a communist country. They are far from it. Anyone who has actually read the Communist Manifesto would understand that China doesn't represent communism at all, even though China claims to be. China's more like a plutocracy where the wealthy control the system and where the average Chen (Joe in America) has a low chance of social mobility. The Chinese "Communist" Party is not about the proletariat and protecting them. Even the Chinese Red Army is not for protecting the proletariat, but to ensure the survival of the Plutocratic Chinese Party.

Edited by UkJenT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people making $10 million a year aren't being taxed at a measly 10%. Try 40%.

 

And do you really think people making that much just let it sit in bank accounts or have big piles in their living room? No, they invest that money. And those investments do things like start new businesses or expand a small business. Or take a regional product national. You know, create jobs, which could provide health benefits.

 

So every time that "rich person's" income is reduced by taxes(funds which are likely squandered), he or she then has less available capital to invest. And our economy stagnates a little more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if the world were ideal (to the specifications of the respective debaters), many of the arguments would be pretty plausible. Unfortunately, the world isn't ideal to any of these. There is the corrupt politicians, the essentially evil CEO's, the welfare moms, and the people who haven't done a thing wrong but have been stricken with poverty or poor health regardless. I could go on with rhetoric, but we all already know that the world is not nor can ever be perfect. The question we are all left with is what is the best solution given this imperfect world. I don't have the experience or resources to say what is the right answer and I find it unfortunate that so many believe in the words of people who are equally unknowing, even if they do have the resources to come even close to an acceptable answer. Given the responsibility, I'd look to the advise and reason of specialists who might each hold a sliver of the answer, but it seems that many of our political leaders (both parties here) have not thought of doing that.

 

What I did like in the limited viewing of the debate that I saw was that one side used less rhetoric than the other. :P Like my AP teachers from a remarkably nice public school have taught me, statements are basically worthless without any evidence or reason to support them.

Edited by nickosha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China is as much a Communist state as America is a democratic or republican state. China's communism is as mixed in with their capitalism as our own democracy/republic is mixed in with socialism. Anyone who thinks that America is not in some respects a socialist state has not spent any time studying history. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily so. Am I advocating outright socialism? Hardly.

 

Government is, unfortunately, a necessary evil. That being said, governments should take care of their citizens as much as possible without interfering with their basic rights. European socialism is certainly not a golden standard in this regard, nor is America's republic a golden standard in its regard. Sadly, circumstances will almost certainly be far from ideal. That being said, there is no reason this country cannot take care of the health care of its citizens. Other countries do it quite well. I've known many people who hail from European states where the health care, despite what our media may lead you to believe, is more than adequate.

 

Is this bill a step in the right direction? Eh, I'm hardly convinced. That being said, as well off as our nation is it should take care of the basic health needs of its citizens regardless of income. Do not misunderstand me and think I am advocating a state where those that do not work are taken care of at the expense of those who do work their a ss es off. At this point health care should be a basic right of such an advanced (technologically and scientifically) society. Doesn't mean you shouldn't have to have a job and just live off the earnings of others. Health care in this country is ridiculously expensive and convoluted. If you feel otherwise, more power to you. I've lived enough to come to this conclusion on my own through my own circumstances. The amount of money I pay in taxes in this country, I SHOULD not have to worry about whether I can afford to go to the doctor or not. It is quite ludicrous how many separate times I am taxed on what I earned, be it income tax, sales tax, whatever. This is obviously quite unrelated to health care, but my point is nonetheless valid. Were our founding fathers alive today and seeing how much of our income we pay in taxes (well over the obvious 1/3 most pay in income tax) they'd mount another freakin' revolution, and I'd probably be among the first to enlist in it.

 

Two cents added.

Edited by Bizzlenitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many people believe that in a healthy productive society that health care should no longer be considered a luxury but a right just like civil rights or freedom of speech.

 

I don't know what else to tell you. It's a commodity. It has a tangible cost. It can't be a right. People may want to view it that way, but reality wins every time. It can't be a right. It just can't be.

 

They can justify taxing rich people heavily because they believe that the Rich people already have more then enough money to get by while there at the middle or bottom trying hard to make it. They think of it this way if a person makes 10 million a year and lets just say they spend like a Rich person and spend $5 million a year on themselves and there expenses which is considered living a very comfortably by lower and middle class standards. They normally get taxed $1 million in taxes and have $4 million left to put in the bank however when health care reform comes there taxes go up $2 million a year to $3 million a year and can only put $2 million in the bank instead of $4 million in. Most middle class would be ok with this and don't see the problem because they see that $4 million a year is just wasted wealth (although because this is America technically they do have the right to put money in the bank year after year and watch there balance sheet grow even though it's not being used productively). This is also how some people believe how health care reform should be paid for in this way by rich people instead of poor or middle class ones paying for it because if a middle class person takes home $50,000 a year after taxes and has 12,000 taken out in health care costs that's quite a large dent out of a yearly salary when compared to the person who makes 10 million and who takes home $7 million and $3 million is taken out in taxes. The person who makes $50,000 and has $12,000 taken out in health care costs is effected more financially then a person who has makes $10 million and has $2 million taken away in health care taxes. They could argue that $12,000 is much more important and useful to a person who only makes $50,000 then the 3 million out of 10 million that the other person makes.

 

NONE OF THAT is justification for taxing someone else who makes more money a higher percentage of their income. None of them are qualified to define how much money anybody "needs." The only person qualified to determine how much money he "needs" is the person earning it. No one else has the right to say otherwise. It may be some peoples' opinion that wealthier individuals should pay a higher percentage, but just because they think that's how it should be doesn't make it justified. I don't know what else to say to that. It's not their place to decide how other peoples' private property is utilized, and the sooner they realize that, the easier life will become for them. Your little brat friends need to realize that the only things they have in life are those things they work for. The only decisions they get to make regarding the use of assets are the decisions over the assets that are rightfully theirs. Once they have finally had to work for what they have, once they have dedicated their sweat, their tears, and their entire livelihoods towards obtaining those assets, their opinion over who has the right to decide what they do with them will be drastically different, I promise you. It's easy to sit back and justify to themselves how to best allocate something that isn't even theirs. Any self-righteous idiot can do that. The true measure of charity is to test how the rightful owner of the property decides to use it.

 

Know some people say this problem can be fixed if people were educated about the values of hard work and what's important in life rather than nowadays were people are taught the most important thing is acquisition of wealth. If you find two jobs that make lets say they pay the same $100,000 one job you sit in an office all day doing easy work the other one is hard labor everyone hear would probably pick job one over job two. However what if we taught people that you should work to benefit others and all of humanity and that there is nothing wrong with hard labor over easy labor maybe there wouldn't be these kind of problems with socialism programs.

 

Ideal, but it gawks in the face of human nature. Sure, if we could reprogram our genetic disposition, it might work. But we can't reprogram ourselves. We are who we are, and there's nothing we can do to change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for universal healthcare, though it'd be nice if we remove welfare to balance it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...