This is how you kill off the middle class (while keeping Warren Buffet and other wealthy government cronies in high-paid, tax-addled administrative assistants).
Well, not you you. Good men who just happen to support different, equally patriotic policies, I mean.
— Who, incidentally, can also tell you how best to kill off the civil society by marginalizing all faiths not sanctioned under “tolerance” ordinances demanded by the State.
If you’re in the market for such a thing, that is.
The end game being two “classes”: the ruling class and their wealthy client-state cronies; and the rest of us: the masses, to be managed and herded and otherwise molested like stock animals. It’s liberal fascism, the favored stopping point of all Utopian socialists, who come to realize that once a nation they control hits that fascist / corporatist stage, they’ve gotten everything they wanted without having to give up their own lavish lifestyles to join in the egalitarian misery of the proles they’ve long claimed to champion.
So. Win-win!
For the first time I am profoundly unproud of Failshit Nation.
I’m depressed.
– I seem to remember Darleen writing something similiar in a more condensed fashion some ten years ago. Something to the effect that (paraphrasing) “In the end the statists only true concern is who holds the whip”.
– Of course she was roundly criticizes for being far to pessimistic and unhelpful by those Conservatives at the time who were busy promoting ‘conciliation’.
Now I’m more motivated than ever to look into forming an LLC for the family, erm, “business”.
Prof Jacobson traces the “You didn’t build that” trope back to…
…wait for it…
George Lakoff.
Yes, I’m scanning the skies for flying pigs, too.
From you link:
Craig Bannister: Yesterday, the Senate passed a bill (S. 3412) to raise the estate (death) tax from 35% to 55%.
S. 3412 makes no mention of the estate tax. If no bill is passed addressing the estate tax, then the estate tax rate will revert to 55% with an exemption of $1 million. This can be addressed in separate legislation.
Jeff G: This is how you kill off the middle class …
The President has proposed an estate tax of 45% with an exemption of $3.5 million. How would that affect the middle class?
Schadenfreude can be surprisingly comforting. The most dangerous place to be was in Stalin’s inner circle.
Zachriel, what do you do for a living? A $3.5 estate is not out of the ordinary for a middle class family who have worked, saved and own property (cars, boats, tools, farm equipment, &c.) Who is Congress and our hapless president to tell the American people how much of their own hard-earned property and monies they are allowed to pass on to heirs of their own choosing? The money that paid for the estate proper has already been taxed at least once in the owner’s lifetime.
Why can you not see that the incentive of this president and his cronies is to break the will of the American people—a fiercely independent people—and bend them, to make them slaves to the State?
$3.5 M estates are a dime a dozen in farming states.
Or, they will be with that death tax rate.
Speaking of which, ANY estate tax is an abomination. Full stop.
Suck on that one.
“How would that affect the middle class?”
– To save time and energy, and assuming just from the very nature of the question, yjay common cense would be a waste of time for yoing indoctrinated minds, I’ll try to keep it simple for any and all visiting over educated unworldly morons that happen by.
– When you overtax the wealth soyrces/producers of your society they will seek better opportunities elsewhere. That means they will no lomger employ people. Loss of jobs, financial resources, and a free market economy means no middle class.
– But maybe your side will finally figure out a way to turn Univorn poop into Big Macs.
leigh: A $3.5 estate is not out of the ordinary for a middle class family who have worked, saved and own property (cars, boats, tools, farm equipment, &c.)
U.S. families’ median net worth was about $80,000 in 2010.
The proposed tax on a $3.5 million estate is $0.
Estate taxes are robbery. Plain and simple.
– Life is not a zero sum game sunshine. Your side needs to believe that to justify what is clearly theft in the form of forced Marxian ‘redistribution’.
– Its one thing to do it, its another to try to reframe it by putting eye shadowon a goat.
A reader whose father-in-law was a dissident in the Soviet Union makes the following observation:
“When the Soviets denied people the right to emigrate to America or Israel, they often said, ‘The State has educated you, so your know-how is State property. It does not belong to you.’ These people had not built themselves, so to speak. The State, in its benevolence, had built them, and it had a right to all they produced.”
link
rjacobse: Speaking of which, ANY estate tax is an abomination.
leigh: Estate taxes are robbery.
BigBangHunter: Your side needs to believe that to justify what is clearly theft in the form of forced Marxian ‘redistribution’.
These comments are irrelevant to whether the estate tax will “kill the middle class”. It doesn’t seem any more a “robbery” than any other tax.
leigh: Who is Congress and our hapless president to tell the American people how much of their own hard-earned property and monies they are allowed to pass on to heirs of their own choosing?
Democratically elected representatives of the American people.
BigBangHunter: When you overtax the wealth soyrces/producers of your society they will seek better opportunities elsewhere. That means they will no lomger employ people. Loss of jobs, financial resources, and a free market economy means no middle class.
Overtaxing is a question of degree then. What would be a reasonable estate tax? Perhaps raise the exemption for family farms and small businesses?
Median is not the same as average.
geoffb: Median is not the same as average.
Bill Gates walks into a working-class bar so the average person in the bar is suddenly a billionaire.
Median is the proper measure for defining the middle class, not the mean. Half of American families have assets of less than $80,000, half have more.
As someone who does business valuation for gift & estate tax purposes, I can assure you the death tax (while good for my boss and consequently me) will crush family businesses.
Let’s say grandpa started a local car dealership back in the 50s. He’s been successful, a local institution. He employs many people and gave many more their first jobs (washing cars, selling them, pushing paper, whatever).
When he dies, he may have a $7 million estate, most of which is tied up in the car company. In order to pay the $3.85 million tax bill (this is at least a double tax as his earnings have been taxed at least before they could flow through to him), his estate has to sell the company (unless he happens to have $4 million in cash laying around). If they can’t sell the company, they may have to liquidate.
There go the jobs. There go the tax revenues generated by the business, its sales tax, its property tax, and the income tax on his employees. The city’s budget is now affected. Which means teachers and cops and firefighters (oh, my!) may have to be laid off. Which makes the city less attractive to businesses, which means people move out, which means lower budget…
Half of American families have assets of less than $80,000, half have more.
So? Nearly half the American people don’t pay income taxes, either. It seems to me, by your metric, they are not paying their fair share.
What would be a reasonable estate tax?
None. As I said above, that money has already been taxed more than once. It is a penalty levied against the dead and the heirs of the deceased.
Democratically elected representatives of the American people.
Thus, the argument for term limits. These members of congress are not representing the best interests of their constituents.
What would be a reasonable estate tax?
zero.
“What would be a reasonable estate tax?”
– Clue bat #1: Taxation is hardly ever “reasonable”. Taxation should be legal, minimal, and rare. (to paraphrase Clinton).
– Clue bat #2: The government works for us. Commit that to memory. You obviously need it.
– Clue bat #3: We the people allow the government to provide two basic services. To protect the soveriegnty from all foreign and domestic threats, and act and pass legislation as desired by the majority of the citizenry. To the extent neccessary we also permit taxation, enough for covering those specific activities, and nonr other as deliniated in the IX and X amendments to our Constitution.
– Denyimg any of that just shows your true agenda.
Z:
As others have already pointed out, the wealth in an estate has already been taxed at LEAST once — income taxes. And then there’s property tax, which is a second tax.
Now, you explain to us why any estate tax rate is just.
“Median is the proper measure for defining the middle class, not the mean. Half of American families have assets of less than $80,000, half have more.”
Median is just the middle point between two observed extremes. It’s a lousy measure of anything. related to income.
What this tax along with the one Reid is bringing up in the Senate are about is the destruction of the bourgeoisie, the small business owner, who has been hated and hunted by the left since it’s beginnings. To repeat.
And repeat.
The “Death Tax” like the income tax hits the upper middle class harder than the true upper class of the wealthy who have political connections and many means of getting around these minor inconveniences, to them, called taxes.
Z – So then what you’re saying is: “The amount we steal from others must be determined by their income”. Is that correct?
It’s almost as if the incentive is for small businesses to sell off their business to huge corporations before dying and then have their sons and daughters be forced to live off the dole of the State or work for said crony companies.
But THAT can’t be right. Why, we’d have to be living in a Nation that devalues family, hard work, and taking risks for that to be…. oh.
Snuggle right up to Stalin there, Zachriel. Maybe if you get close enough he won’t see you and he’ll destroy all his other friends first.
Huh? Wrong premise, pal.
What would be reasonable about taking what others own just because you’ve identified it as such?
You answer that question and maybe we can talk.
For the record, there is precisely one tax that’s fair and not coincidentally it’s called the Fair Tax. It taxes using the economy as a voluntary act and action.
It does not tax time spent earning a wage. It does not tax property. It does not tax the estate. It does not tax death. It does not tax unreliably, arbitrarily, politically, on a whim, out of malice, for reason of coveting, or because of greed.
All of which should inform your answer, should you venture to offer it.
Bravo, geoffb.
Can’t argue with that.
Snuggle right up to Stalin there, Zachriel.
He’s already a black bloc in his avatar, McGehee. He’s been “disappeared.”
– More like “assimilated” Leigh.
Ah. I stand corrected, BBH.
Let’s not forget that when heirs are forced to sell the family business to pay off the estate taxes, people like Warren Buffett are poised to snatch them right up.
Thus making sure that the big just keep getting bigger.
Ironically, the “purpose” of the estate tax is to prevent the odious situation in Europe where only a few people owned land and the rest of the population ate dirt and died, and there was no way for anyone to move up in the world because the wealth (read: land) just passed from father to son, generation after generation.
Thing is, here in America, family wealth lasts about four generations, if that. Great-grandpappy toils like mad to build his wealth, and his progeny fritter it away.
So the Lefties, in their zeal to prevent family hegemony, instead make sure that small bidnesses get devoured by large bidnesses, due only to human mortality.
Way to go, morons.
“100 years and 100 million bodies proves nothing! Rejoice comrads. The great Utopian Socialist revolution is just around the bend! Or in the words of our dear leader, Forward!
– ( This message is being beamed to the tin foil hats of the faithful comrads all over the world by Laika the space dog.)
Overtaxing is a question of degree then. What would be a reasonable estate tax? Perhaps raise the exemption for family farms and small businesses?
Zero. That would be reasonable. The estate has been taxed all along the way.
Not to mention the VERY rich are the ones who can afford to find a way to completely hide their estate. The estate tax catches the mildly wealthy and below.
Fuck that noise.
Not to mention the VERY rich are the ones who can afford to find a way to completely hide their estate.
ask the kennedys
ask the kennedys
TALK to American royalty? That’s not done.
Keep in mind that Marx HATED farmers, as their land is not just wealth, but also produces wealth.
Now, why do you suppose Democrats are pushing policies intended to destroy farms?
Yeah, but the left is opposed to the concentration of wealth. Just ask them, they’ll tell you.
(But their ACTIONS….)
I think Obama should do to the legal system what he is doing to healthcare.
Socialized law.
I wonder why that’s never occurred to him?
*ponders
I guess our intrepid scout is off researching.
– Romney is really stomping on his dipstick in Britain.
– I would love to see a floor fight in Tampa.
– We probably jarred his willful ignorance balloon fence so badly he had to go get some Twinkies and ‘Dew.
probably jarred his willful ignorance balloon fence so badly he had to go get some Twinkies and ‘Dew.
It’s always fun when the balloon fence makes a appearance here.
JohnInFirestone: As someone who does business valuation for gift & estate tax purposes, I can assure you the death tax (while good for my boss and consequently me) will crush family businesses… When he dies, he may have a $7 million estate, most of which is tied up in the car company. In order to pay the $3.85 million tax bill
Um, you may want to find another profession. Under Obama’s plan, the tax would be about $1.6 million, leaving them an asset of more than $5 million.
leigh: As I said above, that money has already been taxed more than once.
Actually not, in most businesses, most of it is untaxed capital gain. Generally, only the income is taxed, and value comes from income generating ability.
BigBangHunter: Taxation is hardly ever “reasonable”.
The U.S. Constitution gives the power to tax to an elected legislature. The founders considered taxation with representation to be reasonable. Perhaps you differ.
BigBangHunter: We the people allow the government to provide two basic services. To protect the soveriegnty from all foreign and domestic threats, and act and pass legislation as desired by the majority of the citizenry.
Yes, and generations of Americans have consistently voted for representatives who support many government programs, such as Social Security and Medicare.
William: It’s almost as if the incentive is for small businesses to sell off their business to huge corporations before dying and then have their sons and daughters be forced to live off the dole of the State or work for said crony companies.
In the example given above, a $7 million estate, they would still receive more than $5 million. That’s hardly living off the dole.
JHoward: What would be reasonable about taking what others own just because you’ve identified it as such?
All taxation is taking what others own.
JHoward: For the record, there is precisely one tax that’s fair and not coincidentally it’s called the Fair Tax. It taxes using the economy as a voluntary act and action.
The Fair Tax is compulsory.
Zachriel: It doesn’t seem any more a “robbery” than any other tax.
B Moe: Can’t argue with that.
All taxes are compulsory, but in a representative democracy, taxes are raised by an elected legislature. If you consider all taxes to be robbery, then all government, including democratic governance, is tyranny.
leigh: As I said above, that money has already been taxed more than once.
Actually not, in most businesses, most of it is untaxed capital gain. Generally, only the income is taxed, and value comes from income generating ability.
Oh good lord.
All taxes are compulsory, but in a representative democracy, taxes are raised by an elected legislature. If you consider all taxes to be robbery, then all government, including democratic governance, is tyranny.
The tyranny is becoming every more apparent to anyone paying attention. It’s not an all or nothing proposition. When the government is buying their power with votes by giving shit away from the non-producers, it is a form a tyranny.
William: It’s almost as if the incentive is for small businesses to sell off their business to huge corporations before dying and then have their sons and daughters be forced to live off the dole of the State or work for said crony companies.
In the example given above, a $7 million estate, they would still receive more than $5 million. That’s hardly living off the dole
That’s how you see it? When a family business has to sell what it has built in order to pay the government is piece of flesh – a business they may have worked at and derived an income from …
whatever.
Car: Oh good lord.
Prayer may be good for the soul, but hardly constitutes an argument.
Car: The tyranny is becoming every more apparent to anyone paying attention. It’s not an all or nothing proposition.
Despite all its problems, the U.S. is hardly tyrannical. From comments on this thread, some think all taxation is tyranny. Not sure where to find common ground.
Car: That’s how you see it? When a family business has to sell what it has built in order to pay the government is piece of flesh – a business they may have worked at and derived an income from …
They could sell part of the business. They could take out a loan to cover the taxes. Or they could sell the entire thing and pocket $5 million. Most Americans would love to have such a problem.
some think all taxation is tyranny
listening to those voices in your head again, eh?
The death tax is an immoral way to raise funds for government functions. Yes, the vast majority of citizens realize that gov is necessary and we need to pay for it.
But the purpose of the death tax, just like Obama and others hell-bent on raising the capital gains tax is NOT for raising funds but for “fairness”
Obama said so directly
The government has no moral claim to my inheritance of my grandma’s silver-framed wedding pics, just because my neighbor’s grandma didn’t have similar frames to pass down. Likewise has no claim on my grandma’s successful portfolio just because my neighbor’s grandma was a drunkard who couldn’t save a dime.
hey could sell part of the business. They could take out a loan to cover the taxes. Or they could sell the entire thing and pocket $5 million. Most Americans would love to have such a problem.
It’s so nice that you’ve decided it good to allow people to keep some of their money.
Car: The tyranny is becoming every more apparent to anyone paying attention. It’s not an all or nothing proposition.
Despite all its problems, the U.S. is hardly tyrannical. From comments on this thread, some think all taxation is tyranny. Not sure where to find common ground.
I refer to more than the comments on “this” thread. The tyranny of the majority has been a conversation we’ve been having here for years.
Car: Oh good lord.
Prayer may be good for the soul, but hardly constitutes an argument.
Yea, well, at times I realize someone is too far gone that I don’t even know where to start. I’m hoping the lord can give me strength.
Um, Z, 55% of 7 million is 3.85 million.
Why should someone be taxed for dying?
So, because the company is successful it should have to take out a loan, sell part of itself, or sell all of itself (and be taxed again on the gain of the sale, mind you) just because Uncle Sugar thinks it’s entitled to more money? Fuck that noise.
Darleen: listening to those voices in your head again, eh?
Zachriel: It doesn’t seem any more a “robbery” than any other tax.
B Moe: Can’t argue with that.
Darleen: The death tax is an immoral way to raise funds for government functions.
Why is that?
Darleen: Yes, the vast majority of citizens realize that gov is necessary and we need to pay for it.
That’s right.
Darleen: The government has no moral claim to my inheritance of my grandma’s silver-framed wedding pics, just because my neighbor’s grandma didn’t have similar frames to pass down.
The Estate Tax doesn’t apply to your grandma’s silver-framed wedding pics. (Maybe the shares of IBM from 1940 she hid in the back of the picture.)
Car in: The tyranny of the majority has been a conversation we’ve been having here for years.
The U.S. is hardly a tyranny of the majority. There are a number of checks on majoritarianism, including the structure of the upper house in the legislature, electoral college, the courts and federalism, not to mention the Constitution.
JohnInFirestone: Um, Z, 55% of 7 million is 3.85 million.
Obama’s plan is 45% with a $3.5 million exemption.
JohnInFirestone: Why should someone be taxed for dying?
Why should anyone be taxed at all?
It’s certainly moving more toward tyranny than away. As for the rest, another strawman argument. Remember when Obama chided those businesses people who think they’re so smart or worked so hard to achieve success? Remember when he reminded those self-important douches who are successful that “somebody invested in roads and bridges”?
Guess who that “somebody” was? That’s right, those who pay taxes — not those who double their incomes through tax credits.
We recognize that there’s a legitimate need for taxes. But cowboy poetry festivals or tax breaks for Media Matters or “investments” in green energy companies run by your bundler pals aren’t that.
See? They should thank the government for “nudging” them into selling the business they built! After all, it’s not like they’re left with nothing! Just a little under half!
They should be THANKING the government for making their decision to hand over their business to people like Warren Buffet that much easier!
iI don’t even know where to start./i
Gee, Carin. Why can’t you see that Zachriel just wants you to pay your fair share? /s
Z, there are a number of persons on this blog who 10 own their own business 2) work in finance/money management or are CPAs 3) are academics.
You aren’t impressing anyone with your undergrad knowledge.
John, no one told him there would be math.
Need more coffee
It should be abundantly clear from all of Zachriel’s answers that we cannot reach common ground because no one here believes all money is the government’s to begin with — and we’re permitted to keep that certain amount elected officials manage to tell us we’re allowed to keep.
Instead, we believe the opposite: that liberty is derived in large part from having a government that protects our rights to the fruits of our own labor.
If people wish to give more to government, they can do so without being compelled. That we are in fact compelled to do so suggests that most people don’t wish to do so — and therefore, the government that is supposedly ours is instead working against our wishes.
The basic substantive problem with the Lakoff-Obama argument is that it blurs the distinction between an uncontroversial proposition (government is necessary) and a highly disputed one (government of its current size and scope is necessary and may even be insufficient). The ability to blur such distinction is a useful skill for a politician; the best way to accomplish something controversial is to persuade people you’re doing something uncontroversial.
But rhetorical tropes like “There is no such thing as a self-made man” and “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that” do just the opposite: They call attention to the way in which the progressive ideology goes against the American grain. Americans believe in rugged individualism and self-determination, and it is foolish for a national politician like Obama to mock those values.
link
Jeff G: It’s certainly moving more toward tyranny than away.
Don’t know about that. There’s always a tension, but within living memory, the U.S. had systematic racial discrimination, so some things have changed for the better.
Jeff G: It should be abundantly clear from all of Zachriel’s answers that we cannot reach common ground because no one here believes all money is the government’s to begin with
Actually, you have found common ground, as we don’t believe all money is the government’s to begin with.
Jeff G: Instead, we believe the opposite: that liberty is derived in large part from having a government that protects our rights to the fruits of our own labor.
Sure, but the Constitution was specifically constructed to give the Congress the power to tax.
Jeff G: If people wish to give more to government, they can do so without being compelled.
Sure they can. But back on Earth, taxes are an important issue.
Tyrants who don’t understand that they are tyrants are tyrants in deep trouble. Most tyrants, at least the briefly successful tyrants, know damned well they’re tyrants: they have to, otherwise they wouldn’t last a week in power. Now sure, just like Zachriel here, they’ll lie when they speak in public, claiming that they **gasp** surely they, of all people, are not tyrannical!
But hey, people, what does the tyrant lying to your face induce? Greater love for the human piece of shit? Ha!
This Zachriel chap is a pod person.
I have to give Zachriel props for actually defending himself, here. It’s a refreshing change. And I think he/she is doing a decent job of it. You should welcome that, because Zachriel has been extremely reticent to engage in the past. None of which is to admonish against vigorous disagreement.
As for “double-taxation”: every dollar in circulation has been taxed many, many times. You get your paycheck, you go to the gas station, you buy gas, and you pay tax. You go buy some beer, you pay sales tax. Your tax dollars go to paying a soldier, who (may or may not) pays tax on his income, and tax on the purchases of his beer, etc ad infinitum. So the double-taxation bit doesn’t hold much sway with me.
Also, you always pay tax on your own income. If you have a job and pay a lawn service guy to cut your grass, he has to pay tax on that income even though you already paid tax on it. Likewise, if you die and pass your estate on to your surviving family, they didn’t own that before you died, and they own it after, so it’s effectively either income or a gift. Incomes get taxed, gifts get taxed under current tax code, so I don’t see a problem there. You may of course argue that gifts shouldn’t be taxed. I’m not arguing that either way; just noting that estate tax and gift tax are mutually consistent.
Z, 55% is Obama’s goal. It makes his 45% seem reasonable.
Since you will not directly answer anyone here about anything, I’m done with you. You’re like alphie 2.0 without the balloon fences (yet).
I will leave you with this chart about taxation.
JohnInFirestone: Z, 55% is Obama’s goal. It makes his 45% seem reasonable.
Some Democrats “resisted a proposal from President Barack Obama to tax individual estates of more than $3.5 million — roughly three in 1,000 — at a top rate of 45 percent.”
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-25/billionaires-may-win-as-dems-split-on-estate-tax
Within living memory? We have that now. See, eg., the Attorney General’s reluctance to prosecute “his people.”
As is overtaxation. And being compelled into that state by things such as covetous death taxes or ludicrously high business taxes or all the taxes in ObamaCare — at least one tax of which was not even passed as a tax, though John Roberts knew better.
Sure you do, else you wouldn’t be agitating for the government to take more rather than less of what we produce for its own benefit without first demanding that they account for all the money wasted in redundancy, fraud, and “investments” in the companies of political clients.
Yes, but 55% of $(7-3.5) million is $1.925M. So, the heirs walk with a hair over $5M. Which, there may be problems with that, but it’s important to understand the problem accurately.
Zachriel is not so much a pod person who has been outfitted with a bunch of talking points and told to sally forth and show us all how, because taxing authority is a constitutional function of government, it is decidedly anti-constitutional to protest the amount of those taxes.
Because we’re not supposed to be able to separate out the variables, being unnuanced and all.
That chart about taxation sort of conveniently forgot to include sales tax, property tax, excise tax, etc. on the part of your income that you “consume”.
All of your income is multiply taxed, unless you spend all of your money on tax-exempt items such as groceries.
Yes, Slart, the chart about income & death taxes that did not mention sales tax, property tax, excise tax, conveniently did not mention any of those taxes. Shocking!
As we were not talking about any of those taxes until you started talking about them (and my link was directed at Z, not you), it’s not unreasonable to think I wouldn’t be talking about them.
That chart wasn’t about death taxes; it was about double taxation in general. So: yes, it was shoddy. And pretending there isn’t already multiple-taxation outside of the microcosm of estate taxes is sheer fantasy, which of course is why I bring up these points in the first place. After all, you want to come to the debate with a clear picture of what you’re arguing, no?
And, if O’s tax plan is not enacted the death tax will be 55% with a $1 million exemption. I orignially thought that the exemption went away. O is using the threat of 55% with a 1 million exemption to make his 45% with $3.5 million exemption seem reasonable. NEITHER are.
So, 55% of $6 million is $3.3 million, which is almost half of the estate. Which still sucks.
By the way, why no answers, Zachriel?
Let me ask again:
How much of your income, assuming you have any, are you willing to give away to pay for medical care for others?
What role should government play in the relationship between health care providers and health care consumers?
We here have Medicaid for the poor, and until now, choice as to when we acquired health coverage, or how much we needed.
“Universal” health care is rationed, state-apportioned health care — and it uses money from those who don’t need much in the way of health care, statistically speaking (and may wish to opt out of coverage), to subsidize the “universal” coverage that is, itself, not necessary, given that coverage has long been available to nearly everyone who wants it.
Providing “insurance” after something happens is not “insurance.” And we all know it. Even you.
And, Slart, you do realize that your argument about sales tax, property tax, excise tax, etc. only bolsters my argument that the government should NOT be taking any more of our money (like when we die), right?
I think if you’re going to argue for single-taxation only, that you’re going to be doing a whole lot of head-scratching trying to make that work. I’m not going to argue whether your opinion that the government shouldn’t be taking any more of my money than it already is is correct or not, because that’s a point of opinion. One that I happen to share, by the way, but what we’re really arguing over is (as I see it) really where the line between enough and too much lies.
As for that: you stop owning everything when you die. Everything you have goes into probate. It is, in fact, no longer yours, because you are no longer around to claim it. Really, it’s a gift to your survivors. You can argue whether that gift should be taxed, but I don’t think you can argue that it’s you paying the tax. If it were you paying the tax, the IRS would have a devil of a time getting you to pony up.
All of your income is multiply taxed, unless you spend all of your money on tax-exempt items such as groceries.
That depends on where you live, Slart. We are taxed on food at the prevailing rate of 9.12%.
Ouch.
You probably have property taxes, too. Where do you live?
What if those “survivors” getting the gift worked their entire careers in that business because it was a business that is a family one, and it was understand that they were working in it because it was the family’s to run? That is, why is it a “gift” rather than a right of inheritance?
And most importantly, why does the government have the “right” to take a huge chunk of the gifts you choose to give to your children or spouses to begin with — especially if you’ve already been taxed yearly on that gift, if not (per Zachriel and the covetous left) on the mechanism itself that allows the gift to bring in those revenues already taxed by the government?
I seem to remember having this debate with you before.
You probably have property taxes, too. Where do you live?
Yup, we pay property tax (that seems to be reassessed about every six months). We live in Oklahoma on Grand Lake.
Sure, I remember that.
I’m not saying you don’t have any good points, or there are no good points to be made. I’m saying, primarily that: a) multiple taxation is already here, and will continue to be here even if we turn the estate tax law into a smoking crater, and b) when arguing any issue, it’s important to understand that issue to the point where you can, in effect, do the math.
Which JohnInFirestone did well in his 10:23am comment.
I understand that multiple taxation is here. A good way to stop it is to take away each in its turn. Baby steps.
Can anybody answer this: does the fed provide a document with itemized spending of our tax dollars? Why is so much money required to run a (sort of) affluent country? I know that when we purchase Driver’s Licenses and tags for our vehicles, part of the fees are for roads and bridges. We live in Phillips Petroleum country and gas is still almost $3.50 a gallon and diesel is outrageous.
Where is all this money going and who is paying it? Better yet, who isn’t paying it? Maybe debtor’s prison is in the central planning office hopper.
So because it’s already here is justification for keeping it? (I know you’ve already conceded that you’re not a fan of the death tax; I’m just trying to figure out your logic on this.)
If so, that’s a lame argument. c/f slavery, women not having the right to vote, segregation, etc.
Roughly speaking:
Taxes are about?
Means.
Politics is about?
Ends.
So do arguments on taxes presuppose the ends are agreed? If the ends are not agreed, then arguments about taxation begin to look like whistling in a hurricane and expecting to be heard.
Jeff G: Sure you do, else you wouldn’t be agitating for the government to take more rather than less of what we produce for its own benefit …
We have?
Jeff G: because taxing authority is a constitutional function of government, it is decidedly anti-constitutional to protest the amount of those taxes.
Not at all. You have every right to protest. We’re just questioning your reasoning; for instance, your claim that an estate tax that only affects a small percentage of estates will “kill the middle class”.
Slartibartfast: And pretending there isn’t already multiple-taxation outside of the microcosm of estate taxes is sheer fantasy, which of course is why I bring up these points in the first place.
Quite so. The same dollar is spent more than once, earned more than once, taxed more than once. Yet, nearly everyone owns a color TV!
JohnInFirestone: And, if O’s tax plan is not enacted the death tax will be 55% with a $1 million exemption.
Well, Obama’s plan, or a compromise plan with a higher exemption. Republicans and some Democrats want a higher exemption. Something will be passed, so fretting about something no one wants doesn’t seem productive.
Jeff G: How much of your income, assuming you have any, are you willing to give away to pay for medical care for others?
It’s up to Americans to decide what is reasonable, but everyone wants to pay as little as possible for the best possible result.
Jeff G: What role should government play in the relationship between health care providers and health care consumers?
As few have the heart to turn sick people away from hospitals, an orthodox market system won’t work. That means you have to have universal coverage that pays for medical care, including basic services to minimize hospital visits.
Jeff G: We here have Medicaid for the poor, and until now, choice as to when we acquired health coverage, or how much we needed.
The problem with the current system in the U.S. is that millions of people don’t have coverage. They put off basic medical care until they are forced into the emergency rooms. Chronic, but treatable diseases, such as diabetes and high blood pressure, result in severe health problem when left untreated.
Jeff G: “Universal” health care is rationed, state-apportioned health care …
Not necessarily. Though all developed economies, except the U.S., have universal coverage, they have many different systems; government healthcare, single payer, insurance mandates, medical savings accounts, etc.
Jeff G: and it uses money from those who don’t need much in the way of health care, statistically speaking
Yes, healthy people don’t like to pay for coverage, but still show up at the emergency room when something happens.
Jeff G: And most importantly, why does the government have the “right” to take a huge chunk of the gifts you choose to give to your children or spouses to begin with …
It’s called a power, not a right. And it is exercised by an elected legislature.
leigh: Can anybody answer this: does the fed provide a document with itemized spending of our tax dollars?
Yes.
leigh: Why is so much money required to run a (sort of) affluent country?
Because life is complicated, especially when you live in an affluent country, and people want a lot of services. You would have to look at the specifics, though. A large chunk of the U.S. federal spending is transfer payments, such as Social Security and Medicare. Other spending includes interest on the debt, the military, education, unemployment and social services, transportation, veterans’ benefits (primarily for health care), health-related research and public health, international affairs, and the administration of justice.
Most other developed countries also have large public sectors.
Yes. Okay. Link?
sdferr: If the ends are not agreed, then arguments about taxation begin to look like whistling in a hurricane and expecting to be heard.
That’s right. As a people, you have to decide what level of services you need and want, then find a way to pay for them. What’s happened in the U.S. is that these two facets have become politically detached. People want services, but they’ve been told that tax cuts pay for themselves, or that deficits don’t matter.
People want services? What a laugh. People demanded ObamaCare not be passed, and were ignored. Pointedly. Repeatedly. Are still to this day, ignored. Tyrant.
No kidding, sdferr. We loved Welfare Reform, too. Our govenment doesn’t listen to it’s people.
As few have the heart to turn sick people away from hospitals, an orthodox market system won’t work. That means you have to have universal coverage that pays for medical care, including basic services to minimize hospital visits.
Universal health care. Well, at least you had the balls to just say it.
Jeff G: We here have Medicaid for the poor, and until now, choice as to when we acquired health coverage, or how much we needed.
The problem with the current system in the U.S. is that millions of people don’t have coverage. They put off basic medical care until they are forced into the emergency rooms. Chronic, but treatable diseases, such as diabetes and high blood pressure, result in severe health problem when left untreated.
No, the problem with the current system in the U.S. is that it is bloated and expensive. Break a bone? That’ll be a couple thousand dollars. I forked over $136 for a month’s supply of my husbands RX because our (expensive) plan doesn’t cover them . Health insurance is the source of the problem, not lack there of.
As a people, you have to decide what level of services you need and want, then find a way to pay for them. What’s happened in the U.S. is that these two facets have become politically detached. People want services, but they’ve been told that tax cuts pay for themselves, or that deficits don’t matter.
People w/o means want services. They want freebies. People only “want” things from their government when the pay-off to them is better than their cost.
Just like the person who wants to pay $20 for their cushy health insurance.
More or less, I’m arguing that a) you’re soaking in it, and b) you’re not going to be able to get out of soaking in it.
Think of money in circulation as volumes of water on the Earth, and taxes as a set of kidneys, and the adage that every drop of water on the planet has been passed through at least one set of kidneys, and you’ll get the general flavor. Even if you think it tastes a little bit like piss.
I am most definitely not arguing in favor of (or against) any specific tax rates, taxation practices, etc. I would in general prefer it if the government took less of what I earned, and I’d definitely prefer it if the government would quit fucking squandering that what it takes in, and I’d most emphatically prefer it if the government would stop making noises that sound like I didn’t really earn it in the first place. But I do realize the government does some things that are good and necessary, in addition to the things it does that make me roll my eyes.
Have I mentioned that I really, really hate it when politicians who a) make more money than I do and b) have a net worth that’s quite a bit higher than my own, and c) have voted themselves health and retirement benefits that would be insulted by the term “Cadillac” tell me that I’m not giving enough in taxes?
Carry on.
leigh: Yes. Okay. Link?
The Treasury Department provides the Financial Report of the United States Government.
http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/
Each department breaks down their own budgets into even more detail, while CBO provides useful analysis.
You might try Wikipedia for a simpler view:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget
Who is this “we” to whom Zachriel keeps referring?
The object of overtaxation and excessive debt is to kill the middle class and eventually reshape society to rid it of this uppity bourgeois. If you disagree with the reasoning, take it up with those leftist theorists who have decided upon it as a way to refigure the system. They spell it out quite clearly. In books and papers and tracts. In fact, there are even “rules” for how to do so!
And who could possible want more than one color TV?
Be happy with what we leave you, citizen. You can thank us at tax time.
I didn’t ask “Americans.” I asked you.
We have Medicaid for the poor. There’s your safety net, and it is being used by many as a hammock, instead.
Universal coverage is not the same as universal access to health care. People already have access to health care. Many of them just don’t wish to pay for it, or expect others to do so. Many of these people don’t understand economics — nor that the government has no money of its own to dole out save what it prints (which devalues the currency) — so they mistakenly believe what is “free” comes from government rather than out of the pockets of others. And whereas they might not like stealing from their neighbors, they don’t think twice about taking free things from the compassionate people who promise it to them without having their own money to back it up.
No, the problem is that many of those who don’t have coverage choose not to have coverage. You have decided to take away this choice, demand they join a market they aren’t ready to join, and take their money to fund the needs of others.
That is, you see free men as subjects and I don’t.
This has nothing to do with health care and everything to do with the power of government.
And yet medical savings accounts are routinely rejected by the left. Why is that, do you think?
Don’t answer. We already know. Because this isn’t about health care.
And again — health coverage isn’t health care, and of all the “developed economies,” the US has been the most successful and wealthiest. Perhaps the other developed economies should be following the free market lead rather than the inverse.
So bill them.
There’s a reason many of us believe in American exceptionalism and are happy to fight for it.
We were an affluent country before the Great Society and Ponzi schemes and the like. When a large part of your spending is servicing debt, most people recognize that spending needs to stop — not that more money needs to be taken from people to service the overspending.
Jeff G: We have Medicaid for the poor.
Being poor is not sufficient for eligibility under Medicaid. The new healthcare law attempted to extend coverage to all the poor, but the Supreme Court invalidated that provision.
Jeff G: No, the problem is that many of those who don’t have coverage choose not to have coverage. You have decided to take away this choice, demand they join a market they aren’t ready to join, and take their money to fund the needs of others.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Jeff G: No, the problem is that many of those who don’t have coverage choose not to have coverage.
And if they have a catastrophic medical problem, and not enough money, should hospitals be forced to treat them?
Jeff G: We were an affluent country before the Great Society and Ponzi schemes and the like.
Presumably, by Ponzi scheme, you mean Social Security. Is the U.S. today more or less affluent than in 1935?
http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.htm
By the way, having a leftist tell me “life is complicated” in an affluent country is just surreal. Because I imagine how much less complicated life might be but for them and their Rube Goldberg schemes and machinations, all of which combine to create a giant web of red tape many of us have learned daily to negotiate.
— Which of course doesn’t mean we couldn’t get around a lot better and with a lot less complication were that red tape ripped away and the bureaucrats attached to it told to go do something more productive.
Zachriel, so now that we’ve thoroughly established that you are a Big Government guy, where are you on the Earned Income Tax Credit? It would be simple to pay for one’s own health care with those monies, not mine.
Jeff, I like being referred to Wikipedia for a “simpler view”. That was precious.
Forced by whom? Under threat of what if they refuse?
If someone hasn’t eaten for two days and doesn’t have enough money, should restaurants be forced to feed them?
If someone’s homeless and doesn’t have money for rent, should landlords be forced to give them an apartment?
If someone’s horny and hasn’t gotten any for weeks, should that hot chick in 3C be forced to provide a hummer without me having to shell out for a dinner at Cheesecake Factory and sit through some gawdawful chick-flick?
“To be eligible for medicaid, you must have a low enough income to qualify. In general, if you have low income and are also a pregnant women, a member of a family with children under 18, or have disabilities, you should apply for medicaid.
“Even if you are not sure whether you qualify, if you or someone in your family needs health care, you should apply for Medicaid and have a qualified caseworker in your state evaluate your situation.”
Sources:
1.Info – http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/ess/medicaid.shtml
2.HHS.gov – http://answers.hhs.gov/questions/3030
So what you are saying, Zachriel, is that the US government doesn’t know how to define poor for purposes of need. No wonder they’ve broadened the scope of food stamps, or made it so that a family making $60K is better of making much less and taking all available government aid.
Well, unless the government steals the dough from someone and then hands it out for the needy citizen of its choosing to bake. Then it’s compassion!
Forced? No. That’s the government requiring servitude and robbing people of their labor. But in a civil society, we have voluntary charity. Until the government consumes that, as well, and becomes the sole purveyor of good deeds.
Incidentally, is your next move to suggest that the very people who you’re counting on to fund this redistributive scheme — the ones being forced into contracts they don’t want, mostly in the younger demographic, most of whom don’t will never fit the circumstances of your hypothetical — are simultaneously the same nasty free riders who would otherwise break the system?
Talk about getting the rhetorical shaft from both ends!
We’ve long had a safety net. Our system, such as it was, was broken by government intervention in the first place. And we all know that the aim of this latest is to destroy the insurance industry and leave single payer as the default option.
Though not for those who make these laws. Because, well, please. This shit is for the masses, not their champions — who let’s face it, deserve something a little better for putting in all that hard championing work that the little people don’t seem to want, but which they are going to get for their own good anyway.
DarthLevin: Forced by whom?
By Ronald Reagan and the U.S. government with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Do you think the law is justified?
Since 1935, has the US developed things that would drive wealth creation beyond merely a bigger government?
Or is it your argument that its the bigger government and its Ponzi schemes that are responsible for the wealth creation?
Jeff G: So what you are saying, Zachriel, is that the US government doesn’t know how to define poor for purposes of need.
As you cited, being poor is not sufficient for Medicaid coverage. Millions of poor are not covered. Attempts to extend coverage have been rebuffed.
Jeff G: Forced? No.
Thank you for the clear answer. The majority of people would reject the idea that a hospital could leave someone untreated for an emergency condition on their doorsteps.
By the way, make sure you always carry your credit card with you, just in case you have an accident. It would be unfortunate if you were refused emergency treatment because you didn’t have any money with you.
Jeff G: No, the problem is that many of those who don’t have coverage choose not to have coverage.
And if they have a catastrophic medical problem, and not enough money, should hospitals be forced to treat them?
Ah, now see if we actually had health “insurance”- which would be for catastrophic medical conditions- we wouldn’t be in the fucked up position we’re in. People would be more responsible for their health, and routine procedures and minor conditions would be afforadble w/o a “health plan.”
We’re probably have fewer people living in that hammock, an decide they’d better get a job so they can pay the $30 (or a reasonable amount) when their kid gets an ear infection.
By Ronald Reagan and the U.S. government with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.
wiki
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA).
Jeff G: Since 1935, has the US developed things that would drive wealth creation beyond merely a bigger government?
Of course it has. You were the one who suggested otherwise when you said, “We were an affluent country before the Great Society and Ponzi schemes and the like.”
Seriously, he’s frickin’ alphie 2.0.
the slow takeover of health care
wiki
The statute defines “participating hospitals” as those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program.[2] However, in practical terms, EMTALA applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S., with the exception of the Shriners Hospitals for Children, Indian Health Service hospitals, and Veterans Affairs hospitals.[citation needed] The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004,[3] or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA’s provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients.
— which I said in response to the suggestion that an affluent society needs all sort of big government programs.
So let me ask you again: is it the big government and its programs that you believe are responsible for increased wealth creation since 1935?
No, that’s not what I cited. What you are suggesting is that “poor” be redefined to mean “those who would rather spend their money on something else.”
If you are going to thank me for my clear answer, you might at least pretend to have understood it in all its clarity. No one should be forced to surrender their labor. Which is why I noted that we reimburse them.
The scarecrow called. He wants his straw back — and while he’s add it, he’s offered to lend you his new brain for the rest of the day, if that’d help.
I think you’re confusing “catastrophic medical problem” with the law’s requirement that people seeking treatment at a hospital’s Emergency Department can’t be turned away for lack of payment. A “catastrophic medical problem” like a disease with terminal diagnosis wouldn’t fall under that. I don’t think we can “force” anyone to pay for someone else’s needs, although people can and often do give generously if they know there is need.
And by the way, even though the law says that ED’s have to treat people, it doesn’t mean they can’t charge them. There are people carrying multi-million dollar account balances at every ED in the country. But they still get seen. They just have to deal with the hospital’s accounts department on each visit saying, “You currently have a balance of $2,416,332.21 for your last one hundred twelve visits. How would you like to take care of that today?”
And you’re skirting the issue of whether Horny Joe gets free relief if he doesn’t have date money.
Almost as unfortunate as forgetting your provincial Health Card for your free health care ito which your entitled, because heath care is free and shit.
Fucking tool.
Jeff G: — which I said in response to the suggestion that an affluent society needs all sort of big government programs.
Which still doesn’t explain your statement that “We were an affluent country before the Great Society and Ponzi schemes and the like”, unless by that you mean the U.S. is now a much more affluent country since the Great Society and Social Security.
Jeff G: So let me ask you again: is it the big government and its programs that you believe are responsible for increased wealth creation since 1935?
The U.S. government, along with its robust market economy and open society, are certainly among the many factors involved in the increased wealth of the United States.
Jeff G: What you are suggesting is that “poor” be redefined to mean “those who would rather spend their money on something else.”
You must not be reading very carefully. Medicaid is only available to families with children or the disabled. Working poor are not eligible, such as the old guy working as a greeter at Wal-Mart. There are millions of such people.
Jeff G: No one should be forced to surrender their labor. Which is why I noted that we reimburse them.
Actually, you mentioned charity. Now you say you will reimburse them.
Actually, it means that the US is affluent because of rugged individualism, the Protestant work ethic, free market capitalism, and liberty from natural rights protected by the Constitution, and it was affluent before and after big government — because it isn’t big government that creates the wealth.
Is the robust market economy and open society more robust under limited government or big government?
Not true. Single applicants are considered. Eligibility differs state to state. Cutoff is usually at around $15K. Also, many companies allow part-time employees to get in on the company’s health care plan.
Which is irrelevant. You don’t wreck an entire system to accommodate the outliers. You find a way to bring the outliers into a system that, save for government interference, has always worked well. Fostering competition lowers prices.
Apologies. Took out the sentence about reimbursement and didn’t realize it. Which doesn’t change the fact that hospitals try to work out payment plans for uninsured patients, with the losses offset from the charges to private insurers, where profit is built in. Meaning, no one is “forced” to care for uninsured patients in the way you meant. Reimbursement, though often minimal, is built into the system.
So we with private health care plans were already paying for the uninsured. Now we just lost our freedom to decide for ourselves what kind of coverage we want, or if we want coverage at all. And the cost of health care coverage will rise as the quality of health care will fall.
Yay, Utopia!
such as the old guy working as a greeter at Wal-Mart.
walmart
Health & Well-Being Benefits
Consumer-directed health plans, including Health Reimbursement Accounts (HRA) plans and a high-deductible plan with a Health Savings Account (HSA). Highlights include:
100 percent coverage for eligible network preventive care
$4 co-pay on thousands of eligible generic drugs
Maternity Program – personal support network before, during and after pregnancy
HMO plans (available on a location-by-location basis)
Dental insurance
Free confidential counseling and health information service
Quit Tobacco program
Company-paid life insurance for associates; optional and dependent life insurance available
Accidental death & dismemberment insurance (AD&D)
Critical illness insurance
Accident insurance
Short- and long-term disability insurance
Associate Eyewear Program
such as the old guy working as a greeter at Wal-Mart.
he maybe eligible for medicare
Oh. Also.
You don’t wreck an entire system to accommodate the outliers. You find a way to bring the outliers into a system that, save for government interference, has always worked well.
I had this same argument with a colleague when the administration first started talking up the ACA.
Still no answer about the EITC, either. And don’t tell me it’s off topic, Zachriel, since you’ve been the king of strawmen today.
Actually, you mentioned charity.
catholic hospitals do alot charity work for the “poor” . too bad baracky’s going to put them out of business.
Are we talking about blacks? Or crooked investment bankers?
Jeff G: How much of your income, assuming you have any, are you willing to give away to pay for medical care for others?
Z Man: It’s up to Americans to decide what is reasonable, but everyone wants to pay as little as possible for the best possible result.
See it is deep insights like this that make me rethink leaving the Democrats.
Z
Why is estate tax immoral? Because it’s purpose is not to raise funds for legitimate gov services (e.g. gasoline taxes go to roads, park fees go to park maintenance) the oft stated reason is because of “fairness.” How dare DARE someone presume to dispose of their own property only to their family.
It is part and parcel of the Left mindset that, yes indeed, The State is ultimate owner of all wealth in the soviet and it will decide what portion you are allowed to use or rent while living.
Also, you state, as “accepted wisdom” that the government has to be involved in medical decisions because we can’t have people dying on the streets because evil, mustachioed men in the ER will toss out the poor ones.
Guess the whole City of Hope or St Jude’s or the Shriner’s stuff just goes right by you.
A free people are, individually, much more giving in time and money to charity then those individuals who believe it is the State’s responsibility to take care of everyone.
The Left is not interested in success, it is only interested in equal outcomes. So if a program leaves people poorer in wealth, health or character that’s just dandy as long as it’s everyone (save for the rulers who are entitled to extra just because)
DarthLevin: I think you’re confusing “catastrophic medical problem” with the law’s requirement that people seeking treatment at a hospital’s Emergency Department can’t be turned away for lack of payment.
Quite aware of the distinction.
DarthLevin: A “catastrophic medical problem” like a disease with terminal diagnosis wouldn’t fall under that.
That’s right. So without universal coverage, someone with a terminal diagnosis is ignored until they are disabled to the extent they can’t work or require hospitalization, only then provided medical care, rather than provided care early during the disease where they might continue to work and be productive.
DarthLevin: I don’t think we can “force” anyone to pay for someone else’s needs, although people can and often do give generously if they know there is need.
So you’re saying hospitals should have the legal right to refuse to provide emergency medical services to those without the ability to pay, as they often used to do.
Jeff G: Is the robust market economy and open society more robust under limited government or big government?
As small a government as possible that still meets people’s needs and expectations of their government. The most economically developed countries have public sectors from about 40% (e.g. United States, Germany) to 50% of the economy (e.g. France and Sweden).
http://www.heritage.org/index/explore?view=by-variables
Jeff G: Single applicants are considered.
Your own citation indicated that only certain classes are eligible, though as you mentioned, it is different in the various states. Nevertheless, it’s a fact that tens-of-millions of Americans do not have health insurance and less than adequate access to basic medical services. It’s also a fact that the ACA was intended to extend coverage to millions of currently uninsured Americans.
Jeff G: You don’t wreck an entire system to accommodate the outliers
Quite so, but in this case, the outliers are a major reason the system is distorted. For millions of people, there is no basic medical care, even for chronic illnesses, until the illness becomes catastrophic. Not only does it cost a lot more than necessary, but it provides poor results for a large segment of the population.
Jeff G: Meaning, no one is “forced” to care for uninsured patients in the way you meant. Reimbursement, though often minimal, is built into the system.
Without the force of law, many hospitals would refuse treatment. Good Samaritan hospitals would consequently be at a competitive disadvantage, which is why markets don’t work normally. With the law, hospitals have huge unreimbursed expenses, especially in urban areas. These costs are spread through the system, but again, stabilizing patients, then sending them back out into society without followup care, is just an invitation for more emergency room visits. (Imagine spending tens-of-thousands of dollars to treat someone for diabetic shock, but then sending them home without a regular source of insulin or followup care. Because that’s what happens.) From a medical standpoint, it’s a broken system. From a financial standpoint, it’s a broken system.
“The Left . . . only interested in equal outcomes.”
No. No no no no no. The left is interested in attaining and keeping power. Period. If it has to claim an interest in achieving “equal outcomes” in order to get power, it will do so. If it has to claim an interests in unequal outcomes in order to get power, it will do so. We should keep this straight.
I want to know where we’re all going to be jailed for refusing to comply with this robbery.
someone with a terminal diagnosis is ignored until they are disabled to the extent they can’t work or require hospitalization, only then provided medical care, rather than provided care early during the disease where they might continue to work and be productive.
ain’t nothing preventing an individual to proactively take preventative measures medically. you throw to too much anecdotal bs up to be taken seriously.
Without the force of law, many hospitals would refuse treatment.
which ones? you sound like baracky when he says docs would cut off a foot for the medicaid payment. face it pal the utopia you are constructing has been tried and has failed.
Without the force of law, many hospitals would refuse treatment.
really with lawsuit nation? good allan you’re too stupid.
And there’s managed care in a nutshell. Or, to paraphrase Obama, sometimes it makes more sense to give grandma a pain pill.
Your problem is that you believe, contrary to the sum total of all human experience, that some bureaucratic commitee in some basement conference room in some D.C. suburb can make these decisions more efficiently than the market.
He says that like it’s a bad thing, instead of an incentive towards responsible behavior.
Imagine spending $50 – $100/ month on insulin and going to the free clinic. Ta da!
Millions like the old Walmart guy? They’re on Medicare.
This is nice:
“I’m aware of the distinction. Now watch me ignore it!”
newrouter: you throw to too much anecdotal bs up to be taken seriously.
Hadley, Insurance Coverage, Medical Care Use, and Short-term Health Changes Following an Unintentional Injury or the Onset of a Chronic Condition, Journal of the American Medical Association 2007: “Among individuals who experienced a health shock caused by an unintentional injury or a new chronic condition, uninsured individuals reported receiving less medical care and poorer short-term changes in health than those with insurance.”
Families USA, Getting Less Care: The Uninsured with Chronic Health Conditions 2001: “this study demonstrates, the likelihood of receiving medicine, doctors’ care, or other treatment for these conditions differs greatly, depending on insurance status.”
Robertson et al., Oceans Apart: The Higher Health Costs of Women in the U.S. Compared to Other Nations, Commonwealth Fund 2012: “examines the implications of poor coverage for women in the United States by comparing their experiences to those of women in 10 other industrialized nations, all of which have universal health insurance systems.”
Zachriel: Without the force of law, many hospitals would refuse treatment.
newrouter: which ones?
Here’s just one U.S. county:
Schiff, Transfers to a public hospital. A prospective study of 467 patients, New England Journal of Medicine 1986.
Ernst Schreiber: And there’s managed care in a nutshell.
The problem with your position is that there are examples of universal health care systems that work effectively.
Ernst Schreiber: He says that like it’s a bad thing, instead of an incentive towards responsible behavior.
Some people are just poor, even if they have worked hard and done everything right—especially if they get sick. In any case, how many agree that hospitals should be able to let people die on their doorsteps rather than admit them with an emergency condition?
Pablo: Millions like the old Walmart guy? They’re on Medicare.
A 55 year old with high blood pressure, but able to work, doesn’t qualify for Medicare. It’s simply a fact that millions of poor Americans do not have health insurance.
Census, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009: “The number of uninsured people increased to 50.7 million in 2009”.
90 days worth of BP meds costs me $20, cash money, w/ no insurance.
My point was that they only work effectively cost wise by denying treatment —particularly your beloved preventative care. (e.g. try being a woman under 50 in G.B. desiring a mammogram).
Barak Obama loves ’em so much, he makes more of us poor every day.
But I’ll take it as conceded that we don’t have a health care problem, we have a health expenses payment problem.
Zachriel, the Angel of Selective Memory’s characterization of what I said:
In order to deal with what is, rather than what somebody thinks should be, here’s a real world situation:
Earlier this week, somebody made their fifth (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) visit to an emergency room that day. It was the sixth trip through triage, because on the 5th time s/he was bumped to the bottom of the list so s/he went outside, called 911, and had the squad pick them up at the ER entrance and take them around to the ambulance bay and came in that way. (BTW, this happens more than you think.)
The problem? Cyclical vomiting due to the person smoking too much weed. At each ER visit, the doc told the person, “If you want to stop puking, you have to lay off the smokey-smoke”. Five times.
Guess who’s not laying off the smokey-smoke?
And who do you think is paying the bill for this? Which ran over $75,000 for that day? (Not the ganja, the ER visits. Multiple daily ER visits.)
So, Zach, what should happen in that case? Should hospitals have the discretion to boot out obvious non-emergent cases that tax already overstressed resources? But really, what should or should not happen is irrelevant, because the reality is that hospitals are required to see them. Regardless of how stupid that may be.
Cha-ching.
Zachriel: putting a smiley face and pretend concern on your fascism doesn’t change its nature.
I’m not a subject. And I don’t want to incentivize dependency and irresponsibility. The truth is, the vast majority of people in this country who want health coverage can get it. Everybody who needs health care has it available to them. We don’t have a health care shortage. At the fringes, we might have a health coverage shortage. But that doesn’t justify stealing from me or demanding I enter into a contract I don’t want to enter into — nor does it justify the government dictating the terms of a policy.
I’m not sure if you are a citizen or not, because you seem to like to point outside to other developed nations as examples of what you think works best, but here in the US, most of us believe market solutions work best, and that government works least best.
Which is why this Obamanation had to be forced through, and why the vast majority of Americans don’t want it and fired the Congress that passed it. Resoundingly.
I have nothing else to say on the matter.
Why do you hate, Darth?
$20 bucks! HAVE YOU NO HEART?
Everyone should have to pay at least a thousand more a year so that dude doesn’t have to shell out $4 a month. FOR FAIRNESS!
Hey, it isn’t $4 a month. It’s more like $6.66. Oh noes! That’s eeeevil! Deliver me, Barack!
Quite obviously, Darth you are using a selective example. Not.
There are a tremendous number of malingerers who over use emergant care. Not to mention all of the gangbangers who enjoy pumping each other (and bystanders) full of lead on a regular basis. Taking a history on those characters is a hoot.
Me: Mr. OG, have you ever been shot before?
OG: Fuckin’ A. Here, (hauls up gown and points to healed GSWs). Mutherfucker shot me here. And here.
Me: When was that, Mr. OG?
OG: Um…Last year. I’m hungry. You got sammitches here?
Me: I’m sorry. I can’t let you eat in the ER.
OG: Hmph. It’s cold, too!
Me: I’ll have the nurse get you a blanket.
_____________
Mrs. Darth has better stories than me.
The point is these youngbloods and their gunwielding brethren don’t carry insurance and don’t care.
Pablo: 90 days worth of BP meds costs me $20, cash money, w/ no insurance.
Good for you. Perhaps not everyone has the same medical needs. It’s possible, you know.
Ernst Schreiber: My point was that they only work effectively cost wise by denying treatment —particularly your beloved preventative care. (e.g. try being a woman under 50 in G.B. desiring a mammogram).
Anyone in Britain can opt for private care. However, breast cancer screening is only recommended for women under 50 if they are in a high risk category. That’s because of excessive exposure to radiation and the problem of false negatives.
Ernst Schreiber: But I’ll take it as conceded that we don’t have a health care problem, we have a health expenses payment problem.
That’s incorrect. Many people put off regular care, including pregnant women, because of cost.
DarthLevin: Earlier this week, somebody made their fifth (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) visit to an emergency room that day.
Yes, that is the crux of the problem. People using emergency rooms for their primary care, including people with mental problems.
DarthLevin: Should hospitals have the discretion to boot out obvious non-emergent cases that tax already overstressed resources?
They should refer them out. A lot of hospitals and localities have adopted ad hoc solutions for referrals, but there are still many gaps in the system.
Jeff G: here in the US, most of us believe market solutions work best, and that government works least best.
Apparently, the current patchwork system in the U.S. is not working properly. The poor are underserved, and everyone else is overcharged.
Jeff G: putting a smiley face and pretend concern on your fascism doesn’t change its nature.
Godwin was a genius.
You can’t make fascism disappear by being afraid to name it. I don’t shame easy, and attempts at ironizing away the truth don’t work on me.
You’ve been identified and named.
Deal with it.
Incidentally, charity took care of the underserved poor — that, and bilking the rest of us to subsidize the cost of those uninsured who couldn’t pay, once the government got involved and proved to such people that there would be no real ill effect from refusing to be self-sufficient or responsible. Either way, the problem, such as it was, had been addressed.
Charity at the point of loaded mandate? That’s theft, not charity. And there’s nothing compassionate about taking the fruits of the labor of others and handing it out yourself, then proclaiming your goodness and generosity.
Again, this isn’t about health care, and you aren’t compassionate. You are what I’ve said you are, and you aren’t fooling anyone here, I dare say.
Maybe move on and try elsewhere?
This pusillanimous, un-self-reflective fascist propagandist, seems to think to win converts to its tyranny? Perhaps, but that would only tend to prove how small its mind actually is, and how little it looks about itself. It genuinely knows not what it does.
But its wit, sdferr, is absolutely to die for.
It’ s possible? Well, then. Let’s upend the whole HC system, and put the federal government in charge of it! Surely, it will benefit an outlier or two. Why worry about cost or liberty or any of those silly things when there’s a utopia to perfect?
A heh for each of you.
Bullshit. No free medical care is not the same as no medical care.
A pack of cigarettes, a six pack and two lottery tickets a day or basic health insurance.
Boy that’s a tough one.
B Moe: No free medical care is not the same as no medical care.
People without insurance do not have the same access to health care as people with health insurance. We provided citations above.
sdferr: This pusillanimous, un-self-reflective fascist propagandist, seems to think to win converts to its tyranny?
Jeff G: You can’t make fascism disappear by being afraid to name it.
Heh. Because universal health care is the same as the murder of millions of Jews and wars of aggression that consumed the world. Because every developed country which has universal health care today is the same as Hitler.
I note with interest that Portugal has Universal Health care.
And 15% unemployment.
Public debt is expected to be 114.5% of their GDP this year.
I could probably go on listing the shitty economies of countries with socialized medicine, but I don’t want to bore everyone.
If you want to bring up Sweden – with it’s wonderful socialized medicine, you may want to note that they don’t extend their healthcare to non-citizens, so even if you’re married to one, you cannot participate.
Because fascism equals Hitler, eh Zach? You even passingly familiar with logic? Or do all your best ideas spring forth fully formed from your arse cheeks?
Let me point you to the term liberal fascism. Whole books have been written on it!
It’s not hard at all to imagine Mussolini being praised once more just as he was then. The man got things done, after all. That’s all Zach wants. Is that so wrong?
A 55 year old with high blood pressure, but able to work, doesn’t qualify for Medicare.
90 days worth of BP meds costs me $20, cash money, w/ no insurance.
Dang. I picked up my husband’s the other day and it was $136 for a 30 day supply. We don’t have RX coverage. It’s confusing because 1) our health insurance cost has gone up over $200 a month since Obama was emaculated and 2) the cost of my husband’s drug has increased by about $36 (a month) since Obama’s “Affordable care act” passed . Exactly who is it affordable for?
WHY is that, I wonder? Same drug gone up since it passed. Our prices are skyrocketing. Weird, huh?
Are you getting generics, Carin? Mine (a combo drug) used to be $10/3 mos until my dose was upped. Right around the time Obamacare passed, IIRC.
Zach, of course, was just here reminding us that Obama only meant to say that we find achievement through our collective effort.
A good metaphor for this is a bundle of sticks being stronger together than each is separately. Another term for such a bundle of these sticks is fasces.
Who said everyone is supposed to have the same access? My access to Kobe beef is severely limited. You gonna fix that for me?
Yet another term for a bundle of sticks is faggot.
Fascist Manifesto
Italians! Here is the program of a genuinely Italian movement. It is revolutionary because it is anti-dogmatic, strongly innovative and against prejudice.
For the political problem: We demand: a) Universal suffrage polled on a regional basis, with proportional representation and voting and electoral office eligibility for women. b) A minimum age for the voting electorate of 18 years; that for the office holders at 25 years. c) The abolition of the Senate. d) The convocation of a National Assembly for a three-years duration, for which its primary responsibility will be to form a constitution of the State. e) The formation of a National Council of experts for labor, for industy, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made from the collective professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a General Commission with ministerial powers.
For the social problems: We demand: a) The quick enactment of a law of the State that sanctions an eight-hour workday for all workers. b) A minimum wage. c) The participation of workers’ representatives in the functions of industry commissions. d) To show the same confidence in the labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy) as is given to industry executives or public servants. e) The rapid and complete systemization of the railways and of all the transport industries. f) A necessary modification of the insurance laws to invalidate the minimum retirement age; we propose to lower it from 65 to 55 years of age.
For the military problem: We demand: a) The institution of a national militia with a short period of service for training and exclusively defensive responsibilities. b) The nationalization of all the arms and explosives factories. c) A national policy intended to peacefully further the Italian national culture in the world.
For the financial problem: We demand: a) A strong progressive tax on capital that will truly expropriate a portion of all wealth. b) The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor. c) The revision of all military contracts and the seizure of 85 percent of the profits therein.
[Formatted it a bit for ease of reading.]
Cheers.
My health care (fuck insurance, it’s a side issue) costs me money. It should.
The people who provide it to me invested huge sums of their own money and years of their lives to be able to provide this service. Even for just average expertise and service they’re entitled to huge compensation simply because by making their expertise available to me for money they relieved me of the need to know how to do the things they can do.
It’s already too rare for people to really feel the cost of their health care. These days they feel co-pays and deductibles and complain about those. And they complain about red tape and the mess lawyers always make of things when people feel entitled to more than they’ve paid for. Mostly they complain about not being treated like kings.
What media types and hacktivists and talking-points-echo retypers like Zachriel have to really dig for though, is to find someone who is genuinely complaining about lack of health care.
People who want health care find it.
People who aren’t getting health care aren’t trying to get it. They’re too busy complaining about not getting it, to go get it.
Just like the people who complain about it being too hard to vote.
Well fuck them. I’ve listened to enough complaining about bullshit from people who produce nothing but bullshit. Nobody has a right to tax me to pay them for producing it, and then to pay to have the bullshit hauled away.
[…]
Wait, how did I get myself argued around to Congress?
My health care (fuck insurance, it’s a side issue) costs me money. It should.
you know, not to be trite, but people don’t really put much value on their life. Faced with the option of paying $200,000 or dying – what would most people do? Would you be willing to take out a loan – to live?
No, it’s usually after the fact that people bemoan that they’re in debt because someone saved their life. Or saved a limb or etc. For some, it’s something stupid like insuring they didn’t have a scar on their face.
But they shouldn’t have to PAY for that.
People usually get the care. They just don’t want to pay for it.
And no one is really interested in finding out how to make care affordable.
ahem, it’s called the AFFORDABLE CARE act. ;P
ahem, it’s called the AFFORDABLE CARE act. ;P
From our very own Ministry of Truth.
Separate issues. You can solve most of the problem by educating people that however much they may think they should have to pay for their health care, they’re wrong. It’s really much, much more — and it is entirely their own responsibility whether they complain about it or not.
Making health care “affordable” without giving people that two-by-four treatment first, only ensures health care will never be affordable.
Dumb ass, universal health care isn’t the same as fascism. It’s the tyrannical ideology that wants to force people to participate in your little social engineering wet dream that’s fascist.
Put another way: They’re not the same. The latter is the source of the former.
CHART OF THE DAY: The US Garbage Indicator Is Sending An Ominous Sign For The Economy
Nuance is lost on the troll.
True, leigh — but sometimes it’s fun to beanbag ‘im just right and watch him tumble back under the ol’ Chevy a-rustin’ in the back yard.
If it stops bein’ funny we’ll load up a shot shell and leave ‘im for the crows.
I’m enjoying having a good troll, if there is such a thing, to swat around.
I’m sure if he starts to misbehave, y’all will remind him of his manners.
Oh, okay. When we get bored with ‘im we’ll stake ‘im down with our Bowie knives so he’ll still be there come mornin’.
Why? I thought my descriptors were very illustrative.
I guess some people just don’t appreciate prose. = )
Car: I note with interest that Portugal has Universal Health care. And 15% unemployment.
Germany has had universal health care for a century, and a 6.8% unemployment rate, lower than the United States. There are apparently other factors involved.
Car: If you want to bring up Sweden – with it’s wonderful socialized medicine, you may want to note that they don’t extend their healthcare to non-citizens, so even if you’re married to one, you cannot participate.
That’s funny. You’re complaining that people have to buy health care. In any case,
“If you live or work in Sweden, you are covered by Swedish social insurance. This means that you, for example, only have to pay a set fee when you visit the doctor or are in hospital.”
http://www.forsakringskassan.se/sprak/eng/in_brief_about_social_insurance_(for_those_who_have_recently_arrived_in_sweden)
Residency is normally one year. Meanwhile, you can use your existing insurance, or EU insurance card.
Silver Whistle: Because fascism equals Hitler
They both meet the condition of Godwin’s Law. And no, universal health care is not fascism.
Jeff G: Let me point you to the term liberal fascism. Whole books have been written on it!
Yeah, one, though not by an historian. Good example of Godwin’s Law, by the way. Here’s a few other books on fascism, a bit more scholarly:
–
Nazism and the Radical Right in Austria 1918-1934, Lauridsen.
The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right, Paul Davies.
The Culture of Fascism: Visions of the Far Right in Britain, edited by Gottlieb & Linehan.
Fascism Past and Present, West and East: An International Debate on Concepts and Cases in the Comparative Study of the Extreme Right, Griffin et al.
France in The Era of Fascism: Essays on the French Authoritarian Right, edited by Jenkins.
Fascism and Neofascism: Critical Writings on the Radical Right in Europe (Studies in European Culture and History), edited by Weitz & Fenner.
bh: Zach{riel}, of course, was just here reminding us that Obama only meant to say that we find achievement through our collective effort.
“The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”
Pablo: Who said everyone is supposed to have the same access?
That’s an important question. Most people on this forum don’t think it’s their responsibility, but in fact, most people think at the very least hospitals should be required to treat emergency patients regardless of ability to pay. And that begins the distortion of the market that makes universal coverage a reasonable solution. That solution may be single payer, or it simply may be an insurance mandate with subsidies for the poor, which leaves the overall market intact.
McGehee: People who aren’t getting health care aren’t trying to get it. They’re too busy complaining about not getting it, to go get it.
Believe it or not, there are poor people, often due to health reasons.
LBascom: It’s the tyrannical ideology that wants to force people to participate in your little social engineering wet dream that’s fascist.
So would any public project, then; roads, schools, fire protection, military defense. They all force people to participate, at the very least by their taxes. That means the U.S. Constitution is fascist. Democracy is Nazism! Everything is Hitler!!
A more reasonable solution would be to recognize that just because someone walks into an emergency room doesn’t mean its an emergency.
Someone deeply boring doesn’t understand Goodwin’s Law. Yawn.
Lower than the US now. Plus, you know, they don’t need to pour so much money into defense and all.
Incidentally, I love when leftists try to tie everything to a “radical right” in Europe and Asia that is merely a “right” in the sense that it is on the nationalist end of the leftist spectrum of socialism.
It’s a trick, a semantic and rhetorical ruse, and it only works on those who accept the left’s framing of things. Anyone with a computer can look through various Marxist tracts and see where it correlates to the political spectrum in the US. Too, they can revisit academic journals or newspapers at the time of the rise of Mussolini, eg., and see just who his admirers were here.
Let’s just say that were Thomas Friedman writing back then, we’d be treated to musings on the efficiency of smoothly running trains.
Fascinating!
I think I know how to make Zachriel happiest and provide the perfect end to his not-really-fascist desires: all money belongs first to the government, which then uses it for all our wants and needs (and by “our,” I of course mean elected officials’). This is entirely justified because individuals of all stripes have disparate wants and needs, all of them valid and deserving of some sort of civic subsidy. There can be no differentiation made between basic services meant for infrastructure and security like roads and bridges or fire and police and defense, and other things like paying for the contraceptive usage of your neighbors. Not only that, those things can’t be voted on locally and instead must fall under the purview of a centralized authority many many miles removed whose masterminds know best what will work for everyone in every community — in that way ensuring a non-controversial and peaceful uniformity of the spread-out masses.
What’s left, money-wise, can be handed out on debit cards like a kind of government stipend — this way the government can keep track of who is spending (which, like with unemployment checks, stimulates the economy!) and which ungrateful citizens are “hoarding” wealth — and so have a better idea on how to track wealth to fix its allocation when necessary. For the redistributive fairness, you see. Social justice requires a loving iron fist and a velvet-gloved police state.
And of course, Zachriel wouldn’t get rid of private business or enterprise. He’d just want to make sure it was working closely with the government — through regulation or other client arrangements — to serve the people in a way that is fair and universal.
Which naturally isn’t fascism in any way but is more caring from caring people who, for our own good, care. Thank god they — and Bill O’Reilly — are looking out for us!
It’s foolish to compare the USA to European countries. Our country is vast and has hundreds of millions of citizens. We also have a federalist government, state’s rights and are capitalist and not socialist. You are comparing apples and oranges when you head down that highway. We fought a long and bitter war to free ourselves from British rule. Why would we, some 200 years on, want to embrace a failed system?
You are making a fool of yourself, Zachriel.
It is a problem. But is it a big enough problem to justify anything that’s been done to the health care system since 1993?
I suspect the futility on display in Zachriel threads stems from the willingness of people to expand the question, making the debate about larger and larger principles.
Health care is a green eyeshade issue.
McGehee, the frustrating thing in arguing with a person like Zachriel, is that he is relying on statistics provided by persons in organizations that are agenda-driven, rather than empirical evidence. Never mind that many of us have real life and/or work experience that disprove his points. By gum, he has numbers!
Pablo: Lower than the US now.
Which implies that other factors are involved.
Jeff G: I think I know how to make Zachriel happiest and provide the perfect end to his not-really-fascist desires: all money belongs first to the government, which then uses it for all our wants and needs (and by “our,” I of course mean elected officials’).
Um, no.
Jeff G: There can be no differentiation made between basic services meant for infrastructure and security like roads and bridges or fire and police and defense, and other things like paying for the contraceptive usage of your neighbors.
Sure there can be a distinction. More important, there is a distinction between government having the power to tax, and the danger of government taxing people into subservience. But that wasn’t LBascom’s point to which we were responding. He suggested that any coercion was tyranny. But no one seems to be making the former point. Rather, they simply equate universal health care to fascism using a heterodox and strained definition of fascism. Like drawing out “Hoosein”, it substitutes for argument. Godwin was a genius.
Jeff G: And of course, Zachriel wouldn’t get rid of private business or enterprise. He’d just want to make sure it was working closely with the government — through regulation or other client arrangements — to serve the people in a way that is fair and universal.
Actually, markets work best when unencumbered with excessive regulation.
leigh: It’s foolish to compare the USA to European countries. Our country is vast and has hundreds of millions of citizens.
Some comparisons are apt, some not.
leigh: We also have a federalist government, state’s rights and are capitalist and not socialist.
Some European countries are federalist, some not. All developed economies have both strong public sectors and robust market economies.
leigh: We fought a long and bitter war to free ourselves from British rule. Why would we, some 200 years on, want to embrace a failed system?
While the British may still have a monarchy, the political and economic system has changed somewhat in the last couple of centuries. Keep in mind that Western Europe includes some of the most developed and highly technological societies in the world. Just because they are not USA! USA! doesn’t mean the Americans can’t learn from them—from their mistakes and from their successes. It’s always been the strength of the American culture to integrate new ideas as well as innovate them.
McGehee: It is a problem. But is it a big enough problem to justify anything that’s been done to the health care system since 1993?
A very good question, and a reasonable point.
Healthcare costs in the U.S. are much higher than in other developed countries for comparable results. That’s certainly a problem. Studies have shown that much of the problem is due to people using emergency rooms for basic healthcare, and because easily treated diseases are not treated until they become a dire problem, often resulting in disability.
A constant assertion, often corrected or challenged, never answered, only reasserted.
This is a propagandist. And a sophist.
It’s who they are. It’s what they do.
Studies have shown that much of the problem is due to people using emergency rooms for basic healthcare, and because easily treated diseases are not treated until they become a dire problem, often resulting in disability.
Studies? Easily treated diseases? Are you passingly familiar with what constitutes a disease from an illness? Let me help you: a disease is chronic and persistant, resulting in death. Free clinics abound in our land. You may have to wait around for a spell, but one may be vaccinated and given check-ups for nothing. Preventative care cost nothing.
Healthcare costs in the U.S. are much higher than in other developed countries for comparable results
This is patently false.
Zachriel: Healthcare costs in the U.S. are much higher than in other developed countries for comparable results.
Jeff G: A constant assertion, often corrected or challenged, never answered, only reasserted.
leigh: This is patently false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita
leigh: Are you passingly familiar with what constitutes a disease from an illness?
Yes, a disease is an abnormality of the body. Though often used synonymously, an illness is the experience of disease.
leigh: Let me help you: a disease is chronic and persistant, resulting in death.
The common cold is a viral disease, but rarely chronic, persistent or resulting in death.
Silver Whistle: Because fascism equals Hitler
They both meet the condition of Godwin’s Law. And no, universal health care is not fascism.
Liar. Moron.
SW, I’m done talking to him. As you say, he’s a liar and a moron.
One may suffer morons, leigh, as their condition may not be their own doing. But liars are not to be tolerated.
Healthcare costs per capita and outcomes do not correlate. We’re fatter, we drive a ton more, we tend toward shooting each other and we spend more because we can. God bless America.
Wow. People in other countries (allegedly) get health care cheaper than I do.
I don’t give a fuck.
Wrong, I was suggesting the desire of the new left to force Obamacare onto an unwilling population stems from a tyrannical mindset. And don’t even pretend they were acting with the consent of the governed on firm constitutional grounds. It was forced through with all kinds of backdoor, irregular means (reconciliation, deemed to be passed, have to read it to know what’s in it, voted on by congresspeople that almost all admit they never read it before they voted, etc.), against the will of a majority of voters.
You can continue chanting Godwin in an attempt to escape being described as what you are, but it’s like calling someone paranoid when they really are being stalked. By the way, Godwins rule involves Hitler, not fascism. They are not one and the same, Hitler didn’t invent fascism, nor did it end with him. Hitler just showed us the inevitable destination of the road you want to travel.
Obamacare is government taking control of a private industry, and then forcing citizens to enter into a contract with that private industry. It has moved beyond using tax dollars to pay for public roads into using the taxing power to coerce the people into an activity they don’t wish to participate in. Tell me how that isn‘t fascist.
Quick question, when you just let some old dude die with the stash of morphine you provided him — rather than, say, aggressively treating his liver disease and keeping him alive an extra two or three years, time spent with family or grand kids, etc. — would that gross overspending on a dude who’s had his time and should just die for the Greater Good impact per capita expenditure on health care?
Or take the pre-mature babies we try to save that our added to our mortality statistics but that other countries don’t report as part of theirs? Would those impact per capita spending — as well as mortality rates?
And finally, does Zachriel think this a site where we don’t know such things?
Isn’t it 2012? See, we learn from mistakes. Whereas you seem to wish to repeat them.
Also? I’m quite certain Churchill wasn’t constrained by our Constitution.
Or who you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
Heh. We’ll never hear it on the news.
the problem is due to people using emergency rooms for basic healthcare,
that happens when you allow 10+million mexican trespassers into the country
“Healthcare costs in the U.S. are much higher than in other developed countries for comparable results”
Due to rationing of treatment.
There are no ‘comparable results’ however. The very basis for valid comparison in altered in the assumptions of the studies that ignorant NGO types try to compare.
Cost cutting.
The “Liverpool Care Pathway” over here known as the “Schiavo Method”.
No kidding. How can we compare two different sets of outcomes without using the same metric?
We can’t.
This is an interesting twist in the conversation in light of the original topic.
Consider an old millionaire, who could buy another year or so of life but it would wipe out his estate. The same estate the government will get half of if he croaks.
Be a shame, wouldn’t it?
Sounds like retroactive abortion to me.
I came across an old newspaper clipping today about an old campfire ditty boyscouts used to sing. I’ll share without further comment, other than say it sound like debating a progg…
LBascom: And don’t even pretend they were acting with the consent of the governed on firm constitutional grounds.
Elected representatives passed the legislation and the courts upheld the law. How did you think it worked?
LBascom: against the will of a majority of voters.
Do you have evidence of that? A survey, perhaps?
Zachriel: Winston Churchill 1944
Jeff G: Isn’t it 2012? See, we learn from mistakes. Whereas you seem to wish to repeat them.
The Godwinian claim, repeated many times on this forum, is that universal health care is fascism. Churchill advocated not just for universal health care, but a single source system.
palaeomerus: There are no ‘comparable results’ however.
Life expectancy is comparable in most developed countries.
geoffb: One of Britain’s top doctors, Patrick Pullicino, says that they’re killing 130,000 people a year in a euthanasia program they call the “Liverpool Care Pathway.”
The figure doesn’t make sense. That’s the total number of people on the Liverpool Care Pathway. Even if there were people on LCP who should not be, it certainly wouldn’t be 100%. Nor is Pullicino quoted as saying it is 100%. That calls into question the entire thrust of the article.
Do you have evidence of that? A survey, perhaps?
How about a nationwide poll taken in November, 2010?
Elected representatives passed the legislation and the courts upheld the law.
stuff you say if you are a statist especially regarding the sordid history of barackycare.
Life expectancy is comparable in most developed countries.
medical care is not. there’s more medical scanning devices in the state of pa then in all of canada.
Churchill advocated not just for universal health care, but a single source system.
so what. after the war the british sent winnie packing and embraced their inner fabian socialist fascism.
No, that’s not the claim. Forcing it on us by way of a rigged vote, a rewriting of the law by the SCOTUS, and a newly-found taxing authority over inactivity — this is where the fascism lies.
Churchill, as I pointed out (and you left out; this is how leftist’s argue, when they aren’t providing links to data sources that don’t take into account all variables, or when they aren’t linking each other is a circle-jerk of dissembling and polemic) wasn’t working within our Constitutional system. Too, we’ve seen the failures of universal health care, which does nothing more than serve the government’s thirst for power at the expense of the individual’s access to timely health care. Which is why I pointed out to you that 1944 and 2012 are different times, and that we’ve had nearly 70 years of experience to draw on to determine the best health care system. And we already have it here.
You are a fascist and a sophist. Why you think your replies will convince anyone here otherwise is astounding.
From September 2009.
‘The combination of dehydration and powerful painkillers can only lead to one thing. She died within three days.’
That’s just horrific, geoff. Having worked in hospice care in the past, I can’t imagine how one could even come to believe that letting old people (or the terminally ill) die in order to save money is the right thing to do. Apparently, the British have found the price of a human life.
Well, lets just say the way it did work wasn’t covered in my HS American Government class…
B Moe: How about a nationwide poll taken in November, 2010?
Rather a vague citations. AP had a poll at the time:
52% oppose
41% support
But,
37% repeal
36% want law to do more
15% leave it as it is
Most of those against the healthcare law thought it was too timid. A majority wanted at least as much change as offered by the Affordable Care Act.
http://www.moneynews.com/Economy/US-AP-Poll-Health/2010/10/22/id/374568
Zachriel: Life expectancy is comparable in most developed countries.
newrouter: medical care is not.
Unless there are measurable differences in health results, then there is no difference of significance.
newrouter: there’s more medical scanning devices in the state of pa then in all of canada.
They must be sitting idle most of the time.
Canadians “see their doctors 6.2 times a year on average while Americans visit theirs 3.6 times. This explains in part as a result the higher number per capita of MRI and CT scanner exams conducted in Canada. Canadians on average live two years longer than Americans.”
“Canada has reached the level of 6 MRI scanners per million people in 2006 compared with about 9 in the United States.”
http://www.globaltrade.net/f/market-research/text/Canada/Hygiene-Cosmetics-Health-Medical-Equipment-The-Medical-Imaging-Market-in-Canada.html
Zachriel: Churchill advocated not just for universal health care, but a single source system.
newrouter: so what.
The claim was made that advocating universal health care made one a fascist. That makes Churchill a fascist.
Jeff G: Forcing it on us by way of a rigged vote, a rewriting of the law by the SCOTUS, and a newly-found taxing authority over inactivity — this is where the fascism lies.
The legislation was passed by Congress. It was signed by the President. It was reviewed by the courts. Not sure how you thought it was supposed to work.
LBascom: Well, lets just say the way it did work wasn’t covered in my HS American Government class…
Maybe you should have took home economics.
“There are two things you don’t want to see being made—sausage and legislation.”
It’s like the Energizer Bunny of sophists. Or maybe the Timex watch.
Godwin’s Law has nothing to do with fascism, silly bot, Nor does it suggest any moral implications. It postulates a probability. Do you know what it is?
“Life expectancy is comparable in most developed countries.”
No, Zachariel, in fact life expectancy is not directly comparable between countries. Infant mortality is not reported until x days after birth in some countries making several infant deaths appear as miscarriages. The meaning of the term natural causes is disputed between countries.
” making several infant deaths appear as miscarriages”
This means they may not be counted as live births if the child dies within 48 hours. It does skew the figures. Several forms of cancer have vastly different mortality rates in different countries as well.
The figures are NOT comparable.
“The claim was made that advocating universal health care made one a fascist. That makes Churchill a fascist.”
Yes, it does. And?
Did you know that FDR was for the most part a pro fascist as well?
I thought the lawmakers were supposed to read it first. We were also told we’d get a chance to read and review the thing. Having the Speaker tell us we need to pass it to see what’s in it? Not so much how it’s supposed to work.
Too, we were told the individual mandate was not a tax but a penalty. Either way it changes the relationship of the citizen and the government to a subject/master relationship and so should have been thrown out — but beyond that, the deciding opinion informed us that what we were assured wasn’t a tax was in fact to be read as a tax, meaning Congress can now pass secret taxes we aren’t told about and can rely on the Court to add the necessary hermeneutic water to turn those magic tax beans into a magic tax beanstalk.
Anything else, fascist?
O, Canada!
Incidentally, looks like the leftists have started reporting Daily Caller as an attack site. Because of the tolerance, you see.
I ran into that Daily Caller problem this morning, and was preparing to ask whether anybody else had done. Thanks for the info Jeff. Didn’t know about the leftists’ false claims, although I had already formed that as one hypothesis among a few.
I don’t know that for certain, sdferr. But having been through it myself, I suspect this is what happened.
Effects of Homocide on Life Expectancy.
The effects of lifesyle choice on life expectancy.
Why comparing us to other countries is apples to oranges.
Among other reasons.
yes, something is up with Daily Caller. The hostages have been looking into this.
Weasel zippers too.
W.Zippers says: “Last night someone went in and hacked the old template. As a quick fix I re-routed the site back to my old Blogspot account. If anyone is an expert at WordPress site design please email me, “
palaeomerus: Infant mortality is not reported until x days after birth in some countries making several infant deaths appear as miscarriages.
In scientific studies of life expectancy, a consistent definition of infant birth is used with a ‘live birth’ defined as a baby born with any signs of life.
Zachriel: The claim was made that advocating universal health care made one a fascist. That makes Churchill a fascist.
palaeomerus: Yes, it does.
Okay. Just checking.
Jeff G: We were also told we’d get a chance to read and review the thing.
The text of the bill was publicly available long before its passage.
This is one of the more dishonest things that I have read on the Internet in the last month. Which, given that I follow politics, means that this is very dishonest indeed.
Slartibartfast: This is one of the more dishonest things that I have read on the Internet in the last month.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Fascism_as_vague_epithet
Sure! We had plenty of time to review the 2700 pages before a vote. Which is why everyone who voted on it read it, and why Nancy Pelosi never said anything about having to pass it to see what’s in it.
Don’t like history? Rewrite it. Don’t like the conventional usage of terms? Deconstruct them and rewrite them to your own satisfaction and based on your own set of expediencies.
Are we done with this guy yet?
Beyond done.
I’m certainly done with him.
I can’t believe it took 3 days for you to be done with him. I was done the first day.
I know batting trolls around can be fun, but his refusal to answer a direct question annoyed me silly.
Since he’s so damned worried about poor people not getting their preventative care because it costs like, money and shit, and so we end up spending even more money when they finally drag their sick and dying asses into the emergency room, somebody first ask him what he plans to do about those people who refuse to avail themselves of his freee preventative care panacea.
Before we’re done with him, I mean.
Sorry, bare links in lieu of argument doesn’t wash with me. I don’t question whether you can find a link that asserts that if you’re being called a fascist, you’re being compared to Hitler. Not that you’ve done that, but you can probably find one.
Ernst, Free Clinics abound across the land. Preventative care is a no brainer, unless one has no brains.
Not the point, leigh. The problem is what do we do about the people who “put off care,” as Zachriel said, “until it is a dire necessity.”
That shit’s expensive you know.
“Get in line” said the Gubmint Employee as he sat behind the bullet-proof glass.