Lefties shocked! Sign of the End?

by JeffT 54 Replies latest jw friends

hillary_step

Gregor,
HS. After you make this statement you proceed to describe exactly why he was NOT wrong. Unless you are saying that corporate taxes are, somehow, not taxes?
No I do not. Why not quote what I actually said? Read it carefully.
Taxes are collected and allocated. Some taxes collected but NOT allocated for use in the National Healthcare system, but are then RE-ALLOCATED for such uses if such a need arises. I gave such an example above with the UK windfall taxes, which were not allocated for healthcare use, but were later re-allocated for this purpose. When this happens, the allocation becomes a government SUBSIDY for that particular concern.
This is what I actually wrote Gregor:
Nationalized Health care is not free. It is paid for in the taxes levied on citizens of a particular country, sometimes with subsidies from the Government in certain situations.
My point is consistent and correct.
I also gave Derek examples of money that falls into government hands that is not from levied taxes.
HS
funkyderek

hillary_step:
No, but it can divert allocated funds from taxes collected for one purpose and use for it for a purpose not intended,
So, not only is the government taking my money and spending it on other people, it's not even spending it in the way it promised!
The Government is also a major investor in real estate and stocks, bonds etc. Though tax money is used to buy investments, the increase in these investements does not come directly from taxation.
No, but they come ultimately from taxation.
That a richer person pays more taxes than a poorer person, is this what you have in mind?
Exactly. Some people are forced to pay more than others for exactly the same service.
I was speaking of the healthcare system and its service to the sick, not the taxes levied in order to make the system work for the good of all.
The distribution is equitable, the collection is not.
If you turn up sick in any hospital in the UK, Canada, France, Ireland, Norway, Denmark, etc. etc. you will not be turned away. As a rich person, poor person, junkie, or aristocrat you will receive the same level of treatment. This is what I mean by national healthcare not being a "judge" of people.
You won't be turned away but you may have to wait a long time for treatment. If you can afford to, you'll probably choose private treatment instead. Thus, publicly funded healthcare becomes a way of transferring wealth from the productive to the unproductive members of society.
Both can avail of its use, equally and without judgement. Yes, perhaps the more unfortunate in society cannot afford to pay for what they get in the way of healthcare and those whose lives are better placed do pay. I see nothing wrong with this. In fact I see it as the morally superior route.
Should it stop at healthcare? What about food, housing, transport? Should the productive members of society be obliged to pay for whatever the unproductive members of society claim they require or deserve?
Of course, the aristocrat or the rich man who falls into wealth by inheritance may be able to pay for a much better health service than those who helped create his wealth. Whether he is morally justified in expecting to do this is a point for another thread, which I would be interested in discussing.
But it's not about the ultra-rich. It's ordinary working people who are forced to pay for the healthcare of people who are unable or unwilling to pay for it themselves.
Nobody has managed to crack it, that is the point Derek. Until someone does achieve the ideal, the national healthcare enjoyed and respected by millions of Europeans is imo far superior to its US counterpart. People die in the US because they cannot afford the level of treatment that they need. Imo this can never be morally justified.
Given that, in both America and Europe, the rich and most of the middle-classes and working poor pay for most or all of their own medical treatment anyway, there is only a very small percentage of people who actually have to rely on "free" medical care. Perhaps those who, like you, consider paying for those people's medical treatment as a moral ideal could do so voluntarily.
Or, if the issue is really about saving lives, then why should a country's borders be an issue for truly moral people? For the cost of treating one Western person's cancer, thousands of lives could be saved in the developing world. At the very least, could I choose to have my tax money channeled to them instead?
hillary_step

Derek
but it can divert allocated funds from taxes collected for one purpose and use for it for a purpose not intended,
So, not only is the government taking my money and spending it on other people, it's not even spending it in the way it promised!
Yes, but it is not always a matter of incompetence or bad planning. Often it is a matter of good housekeeping in the sense that when a bill turns up for an unexpected reason, cash gets diverted to take care of the need. We are seeing this very thing happen in California as we speak.
The distribution is equitable, the collection is not.
Exactly Derek, and this is why the issue becomes a moral issue rather than one justified by political ideologies.
Let me ask you a question or two. Do you think it serves the cause of justice, for the wealthy to be afforded better legal help than the poor? One pays a lot of money for a top-grade lawyer who often runs circles around the court system, while the poor take their chances. Life and death is involved.
This is a moral issue, and imo a moral issue that is mimicked by a health-care system that affords excellent treatment for those that can pay and brushes aside those who cannot. Did you read the example that I gave in an earlier post of the person needing a transfusion and being denied it by their insurance company. This issue is clearly a moral one Derek and is one that cannot be left to accountants to decide. Life and death is involved.
Should it stop at healthcare? What about food, housing, transport? Should the productive members of society be obliged to pay for whatever the unproductive members of society claim they require or deserve?
I think you are being disengenous Derek when you state this: "whatever the unproductive members of society claim they require or deserve?" I see no person claiming they deserve anything. I see sick people crying out for help and being turned away, or offfered little help if their bank account lacks.
Food, housing and transport are available, and always have been available to those in need Derek. Every civilized government recognizes its moral obligation to help those in need as well as supporting those not in need.
I was speaking with a senior citizen in the US recently. She receives $1200 per month in pensions for which she worked as a supporting member of her community all her life, paying her taxes and being a credit to her country. Her medication costs her $1750.00 per month and she is gradually eating away at the equity of her home to stay alive. The companies supplying her medication regularly publish profits in the tens of billions each year. It is earned on the backs of such people. Yes, this is a moral issue to me.
Given that, in both America and Europe, the rich and most of the middle-classes and working poor pay for most or all of their own medical treatment anyway, there is only a very small percentage of people who actually have to rely on "free" medical care. Perhaps those who, like you, consider paying for those people's medical treatment as a moral ideal could do so voluntarily.
Well, it is strange that you should mention this. Surveys completed in the UK and Canada both found that people were happy to pay more taxes to support a National Healthcare program. I would be one of those. Both countries are justifiably proud of their National Healthcare system. You see, people see beyond ideology and balance-sheets to the sick children, the senior citizens, the mentally challenged, the unfortunate in society who need someone to speak for them, and yes, to help pay for them when they need help.
HS
sammielee24

No system is perfect, and health economies are always going to be delicate balance between resources and demand, but having lived under a number of National Health systems, and having experienced the opposite, imo the US has a lot to learn from other nations regarding care of its citizens.
Agreed. The USA is the most backward of countries regarding their healthcare - you pay for private insurance with in many cases, thousands of dollars a year in deductibles and copays at a cost that exceeds the taxes paid for a universal system in most other countries. At last count it was something like 40% of every dollar you pay to your insurance companies goes toward administration and not actual care. Your government run Medicare costs something like 3% for administration. Yet people scream to hold on to a system that costs them more, is more inefficient, is controlled by insurance companies and denies millions of coverage to people - forcing them to use your tax dollars at an emergency room anyway. From a financial standpoint I just don't get it. sammieswife.
ush419

The idea of national health care imo is a joke. If you need health care then get off your ass and get a job or jobs that will give you the money to pay for it. I don't want to be responsible for paying for anyones health care except my own and my families. I have taken care of that and don't want anypart of a national health care system. In cities near the Mexican border (where you can get health care cheaper than the U.S., many people from Canada (where health care is supposedly free) come down to you city, attend your halls and quite frankly tell you that natinal health care although seemingly free (taxes), is a joke when it needs to be timely. That infact waiting has cost lives of people, waiting for health care in Canada, Great Britian or anywhere else is crazy imo.
JeffT

Hilary you're being obtuse when discussing my comment about insurance portability. If I had the money my employer pays for health insurance (and being the accountant I know that it is taken into account in the employees compensation package) I could use that money to buy the insurance I wanted, instead of being stuck with what the state of Washington tells my employer he has to provide.
Your comments about government reallocation of funds is also off the mark. The government still has to take the money from somebody whether their using taxes, smoke and mirriors, or kiting checks.
funkyderek

hillary_step:
Let me ask you a question or two. Do you think it serves the cause of justice, for the wealthy to be afforded better legal help than the poor? One pays a lot of money for a top-grade lawyer who often runs circles around the court system, while the poor take their chances. Life and death is involved.
Should the wealthy man not be allowed to pay for the best lawyer he can afford? He's already paying for the poor man's lawyer, after all. I agree though that it's a major flaw in the legal system; the whole set-up allows a very good lawyer to get a guilty client acquitted, and justice shouldn't work like that. A legal system is a legitimate function of government and must be completely impartial, although I have no idea how to go about getting it that way.
This is a moral issue, and imo a moral issue that is mimicked by a health-care system that affords excellent treatment for those that can pay and brushes aside those who cannot.
I don't think the issues are the same at all. The legal system is a necessary and proper function of government, I'm not at all sure a "health-care system" is.
Did you read the example that I gave in an earlier post of the person needing a transfusion and being denied it by their insurance company.
Better regulation of the insurance industry might help there, or it might just be necessary for the insuree to check their policy more carefully. Caveat emptor.
I think you are being disengenous Derek when you state this: "whatever the unproductive members of society claim they require or deserve?" I see no person claiming they deserve anything.
Really? I see it all the time. There is a shocking sense of entitlement among certain classes of society here. They expect weekly payments for being alive, free education, free healthcare, free housing. The less productive someone is the more they seem to feel they deserve - and the more they're given, the less they seem to appreciate it.
I see sick people crying out for help and being turned away, or offfered little help if their bank account lacks.
So what happened to charity? Where are all the compassionate people willing to bankroll other people's medical bills? When did it become the job of the government to force people to behave as if they were really compassionate?
Food, housing and transport are available, and always have been available to those in need Derek.
No they haven't. It's a very new turn of events. Up until the mid-twentieth century, none of those things was easily available to those who could not afford them. Such people had to rely on the kindness of others.
Every civilized government recognizes its moral obligation to help those in need as well as supporting those not in need.
You've been saying that the government redistributing the wealth of its citizens is a sign of civilisation. I still don't see why.
I was speaking with a senior citizen in the US recently. She receives $1200 per month in pensions for which she worked as a supporting member of her community all her life, paying her taxes and being a credit to her country. Her medication costs her $1750.00 per month and she is gradually eating away at the equity of her home to stay alive. The companies supplying her medication regularly publish profits in the tens of billions each year. It is earned on the backs of such people. Yes, this is a moral issue to me.
If that company hadn't invented the medication she uses where would she be? Dead, presumably. If that company was unable to make the profits its shareholders demand, it would get out of the business of producing medication and do something more profitable.
Well, it is strange that you should mention this. Surveys completed in the UK and Canada both found that people were happy to pay more taxes to support a National Healthcare program. I would be one of those.
And I would support your right to do so. But should the wishes of those who are happy to pay more taxes over-ride the wishes of those who are not?
Both countries are justifiably proud of their National Healthcare system. You see, people see beyond ideology and balance-sheets to the sick children, the senior citizens, the mentally challenged, the unfortunate in society who need someone to speak for them, and yes, to help pay for them when they need help.
Sorry, but it's all "ideology and "balance-sheets". You can't be truly compassionate without counting the costs. As compassionate as I am, I could find a better use for $1750 a month than spending it on extending the life of one old person. Think how many blind children in Africa you could cure for that money. If someone's going to take away my hard-earned money and spend it on someone else, why are they spending it on someone whose health and standard of living are well above the world average? Why not spend it all on the poorest and sickest people in the world?
Brother Apostate

My advice is to learn to set your own broken bones (have a friend(s) help if/when necessary)and other minor ills (90% of what most health insurance covers), pay for the vast majority of medical and all dental/vision out of pocket (as all insurance is a ripoff on these) and in the event of a major medical (cancer, disease, other surgery and follw-up with prolonged treatment), get an HSA (Health Savings Account, of which approximately half goes into a savings account that bears interest, that you draw from to pay your deductible) which will cost around $300/month total. If you can't afford an HSA, and your employer doesn't offer an affordable health care plan, then there are ways to get things payed, even for major medical.
How? It requires diligence and a lot of wherewithal. There is a way to beat the system, so to speak, but it is not without (perhaps major)sacrifice on your part in the event it is required.
BA- That's the facts, folks.
hillary_step

Jeff,
Hilary you're being obtuse when discussing my comment about insurance portability. If I had the money my employer pays for health insurance (and being the accountant I know that it is taken into account in the employees compensation package) I could use that money to buy the insurance I wanted, instead of being stuck with what the state of Washington tells my employer he has to provide.
My point is very simple Jeff, and you seem to have missed it. You claim that you are able to buy whatever medical insurance suits you. I suggested that this is because you can afford to do so. Simple fact, nothing obtuse in this statement.
Your comments about government reallocation of funds is also off the mark. The government still has to take the money from somebody whether their using taxes, smoke and mirriors, or kiting checks.
Again, you have missed the point in what I am saying. I have NEVER suggested that the government gets money from any other sources than taxes (apart from what is gained through investments). What I wrote was that often funds, collected through taxation and allocated for one use, are often when a need arises used for another use. I also gave an example of this. My comments are not off the mark, but FACT.
Did you actually read my posts Jeff? Either you did not or YOU are being deliberately obtuse.
HS
hillary_step

Derek,
Let us flesh this out.
A legal system is a legitimate function of government and must be completely impartial, although I have no idea how to go about getting it that way.
I don't think the issues are the same at all. The legal system is a necessary and proper function of government, I'm not at all sure a "health-care system" is.
On what grounds do you make what is a moral judgement about the matter? How is justice for all morally justifiable, yet health for all not?
Why is one worthy of being supported by the taxes of the community and the other not, after all, both grew from a communal need. Why do you suggest that charity takes care of those who cannot afford medical treatment, and yet are happy with your taxes paying for a judicial system.
I was speaking with a senior citizen in the US recently. She receives $1200 per month in pensions for which she worked as a supporting member of her community all her life, paying her taxes and being a credit to her country. Her medication costs her $1750.00 per month and she is gradually eating away at the equity of her home to stay alive. The companies supplying her medication regularly publish profits in the tens of billions each year. It is earned on the backs of such people. Yes, this is a moral issue to me.
If that company hadn't invented the medication she uses where would she be? Dead, presumably. If that company was unable to make the profits its shareholders demand, it would get out of the business of producing medication and do something more profitable.
You inadvertently make my point for me Derek. You are suggesting that profits come before the life of a senior citizen. This then becomes a moral issue. Should the decisions of life and death fall into the hands of a coproration whose main interests are its shareholders. Do you not see the dangers here?
No they haven't. It's a very new turn of events. Up until the mid-twentieth century, none of those things was easily available to those who could not afford them. Such people had to rely on the kindness of others.
I was speaking of a timespan within that of Nationalized Medicine.
So what happened to charity? Where are all the compassionate people willing to bankroll other people's medical bills? When did it become the job of the government to force people to behave as if they were really compassionate?
Nothing has happened to charity Derek. I do quite a lot of work in that field myself, and it works well in combination with government support. "Amazing" will give you an example of how charity helped him to survive heart attacks due to the charity of the Catholic Church. The question is, should we allow the health of those who are among the most unfortunate in society to have to rely on the charities for survival?
You've been saying that the government redistributing the wealth of its citizens is a sign of civilisation. I still don't see why.
No, I have been saying that as with the justice system, governments have a moral obilgation to take care of those who cannot afford to pay for medical treatment. The governments of Canada, UK, Ireland, France, most Scandanavian countries, even Cuba agree with me here Derek.
In many ways you are fighting an already proved success story Derek, and the only ammunition you have is the fatally flawed system in the US, and an ideology which is unproved at best and morally flawed at worst..
Best regards - HS

Lefties shocked! Sign of the End?

Share this