by JeffT 54 Replies latest jw friends
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.
NO I DID NOT CLAIM THAT!
Maybe if you actually read what was said to you, you could carry on a real conversation. I said that I SHOULD be able to buy whatever insurance I wanted, instead of being forced to get it through my employer.
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.
That's what you said. I pointed out that subsidies from the government come from taxes, whether raised for that purpose or diverted from whatever they were originally suposed to pay for. BTW, if done by anybody but the government, that's called fraud.
I hear the Democrats which will probably take over Washington in the next election, will try and pursue a national health care program, it might be a good idea
Don't hold your breath. Politicians have been in Bed with the Insurance and Pharmaceutical Industry for years. It adds up to Big $$$ for both sides.
JeffT,
That's what you said. I pointed out that subsidies from the government come from taxes, whether raised for that purpose or diverted from whatever they were originally suposed to pay for. BTW, if done by anybody but the government, that's called fraud.
You misread or did not bother reading my post to begin with, and though you now seem to have got the point, I see no apology where it is due. ;)
You originally seem to have claimed that somehow I was suggesting that taxes are levied by some other body than a governmental one. I pointed out to you that what I was actually said was that taxes collected by government can be REALLOCATED and that these are called SUBSIDIES. I also gave an example of this ocurring and also gave examples of, just for posterity, of monies that fall into the hands og government that are actually NOT as a result of direct taxation.
Neither reallocation of funds nor subsidising enterprises is an act of governmental fraud....lol. What a ridiculous suggestion Jeff.
Now to another issue. This is what you wrote and note my sequential replies.
What's annoying is that we HAVE insurance supposedly. We spent all day yesterday fighting issues with what should be a simple problem (Debbie's broken leg). I should be able to buy health insurance the same way I buy car insurance. Get what I need from the company that seems to be the best fit to me. And if they annoy me I can take my business elsewhere.
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.
I replied:
What's annoying is that we HAVE insurance supposedly. We spent all day yesterday fighting issues with what should be a simple problem (Debbie's broken leg). I should be able to buy health insurance the same way I buy car insurance. Get what I need from the company that seems to be the best fit to me. And if they annoy me I can take my business elsewhere.You should complete your sentence: "And if they annoy me I can take my business elsewhere if I can afford to do that".
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.
Your reply:
NO I DID NOT CLAIM THAT!Maybe if you actually read what was said to you, you could carry on a real conversation. I said that I SHOULD be able to buy whatever insurance I wanted, instead of being forced to get it through my employer
My comments were based around affordability as shown above. Your replies were contextually as a result of my comment on affordability. Not only am I able to carry on a "real" conversation Jeff, but I am able to remind YOU of what you REALLY wrote within its context.
I also need to remind you, as I did above, that you are quite incorrect in your assumptions regarding my description of the government as a tax collecting vehicle. Let me remind you again. The government collects taxes. It reallocates taxes collected for one purpose to another in time of need - I gave an example of this happening. It also earns monies on investments which are earned outside of a tax collection vehicle. I gace examples of how this process works.
Hell Jeff, here am I an artist, and there are you, the pride of the US accountancy system, and I am teaching YOU about taxes. No wonder the US is sliding into the slurry-pit of history with the speed of an drunk heading for the liquor store.
Best regards - HS
Hilary, maybe there is some difference in intrepretation on our respective sides of the pond. In the US for a government agency to collect taxes for one thing, and spend it on something else is fraud. Maybe you can do that there, we can't here. Your first post certainly made it sound like you thought that the govenrment had some source of funds other than taxes.
In the US payment of government funds to a group of individuals, or another entity is called a subsidy.
Jeff,
Hilary, maybe there is some difference in intrepretation on our respective sides of the pond.
I do not think so.
In the US for a government agency to collect taxes for one thing, and spend it on something else is fraud. Maybe you can do that there, we can't here.
Taxes are collected. There is no definition at point of collection as to what your taxes are going to be used for, that is decided by government treasuries. The government may allocate taxes for a certain sector but be presented with issues that require reallocation of funds, such as Katrina etc. Your own government in the US has done this in recent times by switching funds allocated for one domain and using it for another. This is not fraud. It is good housekeeping.
I would be interested for you to prove your case with regard to a perceived fraud.
Your first post certainly made it sound like you thought that the govenrment had some source of funds other than taxes.
No, it did not. It required a careful read in order to see exactly what was being said. My comments stand unchanged. As an aside, and to repeat myself yet again on this issue, the government DOES have a source of funds other than taxation, and that is the money earned on investments made with taxes collected. As an accountant you well know that this falls outside the parameters of your statement above.
In the US payment of government funds to a group of individuals, or another entity is called a subsidy.
Exactly. This is what I have been saying from post one on this thread. Go back and read it and you will see. Remember what I said - the government can reallocate taxes collected for one purpose if the need arises, and subsidise another project. I gave an example of this happening with BP and other oil companies "windfall tax" which were allocated for infastructure, but much of which was eventually sidelined into aspects of national healthcare. I am sure that you will agree that the National Health Department is an "entity"!!
I am not sure how often I need to repeat this for you to get the point, but you have certainly backed the wrong horse on this one.
HS
hillary_step:
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.
Because it's the government's job to enact and enforce laws. That's the primary purpose of government. It's one of the things that really defines a civilised society - a government monopoly on the use of force.
To me, it seems a little like asking why the referee in a football match doesn't tend to injured players as well as ensuring the rules of the game are followed. It's not his job, and it's something about which the teams have a right to make their own choices.
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, frankly, I don't. A company has invented a product that can increase the lifespan of some people. As with any other product they should be free to set the price. They are not controlling an essential item. They are producing a novel item that would not exist at all without them, and they are charging the amount that they believe makes the endeavour worthwhile. In doing so, they are saving lives. If they could not make a profit, only the most generous wealthy philanthropists would bother developing new medicines.
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
Well, I still don't! The problem I have is that the obligation you claim falls on the government ultimately falls on individual citizens, from whom money must be appropriated against their will and used in ways that may be contrary to their wishes. If the government has the right - and even the obligation - to do this, at what point does it stop? Is there a limit to how much money can be taken from me and what it can be used for? With such a moral imperative, can there be any limit on the amount we must sacrifice in order to slightly increase the lifespan of one person?
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.
Perhaps you're right, but in abandoning that ideology with what should I replace it? "Nanny knows best"? "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs"? "The greatest good for the greatest number"? Or should I just abandon ideology completely and simply allow any means to acheive the desired ends (whatever they may be in the current zeitgeist)? In doing so, I cannot see how your senior citizen friend, for example, would fare better. How utterly selfish of her to spend so much on slightly extending her own life when hundreds of others could benefit instead. She should accept that she has reached the end of her natural lifespan and allow the money to be put to better use. That's the moral thing to do, right? After all, any money that's being spent on her is money that's being taken out of the mouths of starving children.
Taxes are collected. There is no definition at point of collection as to what your taxes are going to be used for,
In the US there are a lot of taxes that are collected to pay for specific things. The gas tax for instance is dedicated to building roads. To take that money and spend it on something else is fraud. One of the reasons for delays in funding emergencies (such as Katrina) is that the government can't just move money from one place to another, it takes legislative action (at minimum) to do that. When the Tsunami hit Asia Bush was lambasted for not dedicating more funds sooner, but he couldn't do anything else. The government has very limited contingency funds.
Jeff,
To take that money and spend it on something else is fraud.
Can you post an example to validate your claim. If you are unable to provide one, I will settle for reading the US Government legislation that indicates that reallocating collected taxes in times of need is an act of fraud, punishable by....well, what exactly?
The government has very limited contingency funds.
I would like to see your evidence for this also. I am not denying your statement, as this is one reason why on occasion taxes are reallocated, I would just like to read verification of this point.
Derek,
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this issue.
I clearly see a dichontous connection between tax dollars funding a judicial system without complaint, and taxes funding a National Healthcare program with complaints. As one can argue that the place of goverment is to keep law to protect its citizens, one can also argue that care of the health of its citizens bears a similar responsibility.
I cannot, and I have this in common with governments in many countries, see on what basis you draw the moral line between these two facets of society.
Cheers - HS
| Graphic Version |
RCW 42.20.070Misappropriation and falsification of accounts by public officer. |
Every public officer, and every other person receiving money on behalf or for or on account of the people of the state or of any department of the state government or of any bureau or fund created by law in which the people are directly or indirectly interested, or for or on account of any county, city, town, or any school, diking, drainage, or irrigation district, who:
(1) Appropriates to his or her own use or the use of any person not entitled thereto, without authority of law, any money so received by him or her as such officer or otherwise; or
(2) Knowingly keeps any false account, or makes any false entry or erasure in any account, of or relating to any money so received by him or her; or
(3) Fraudulently alters, falsifies, conceals, destroys, or obliterates any such account; or
(4) Willfully omits or refuses to pay over to the state, its officer or agent authorized by law to receive the same, or to such county, city, town, or such school, diking, drainage, or irrigation district or to the proper officer or authority empowered to demand and receive the same, any money received by him or her as such officer when it is a duty imposed upon him or her by law to pay over and account for the same,
is guilty of a class B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in a state correctional facility for not more than fifteen years.
[2003 c 53 § 219; 1992 c 7 § 37; 1909 c 249 § 317; RRS § 2569. Prior: Code 1881 § 890; 1873 p 202 § 92; 1854 p 91 § 83.]
| Intent -- Effective date -- 2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180. |
