Universal Healthcare - Where you getting the $$ from?

I agree 100%. The answer is, do we try to solve it with more legislation, more regulation and more taxation, or do we try something else?

Because the people who pay the bulk of the taxes, are the middle class as well as the upper class. That's my entire point about socialized medicine. Do you take another $2 from the middle class, to give them $1 in service (helping the lower class)? That might help those who can afford to pay (middle-upper) but it won't help the ones who can't pay or can barely afford to pay right now.

Socialized medicine is minimum care. There is no other way to do it, when you have some people subsidizing themselves AND others. There is simply not enough to go around. Much like the federal deficit. You have to attack costs (spending).

 

you can change the way taxes are paid if you want

my point was a gasoline tax isn't perfectly fair either. Nothing is perfectly fair. Because a guy driving an SUV will have to pay more tax for using the roads for the same distance.

If I remember correctly a few posts earlier you said water resources shouldn't be privatised, only waterfronts should. So which one is it?

on a large scale, yes, because as I've said before even if you don't have any children of your own giving education to kids will benefit you even if only indirectly.

You still haven't answered my question about wether the state should make education available to all kids through a public education system or not. I'm looking forward to your answer

I understand that, but do why do you support it? Shouldn't you be against having a socialist army?

I'll answer the rest of your post tomorow, I have to go now

 

Good start, for sure.

Yes, but it is a user fee. You don't have to drive an SUV, and if you do because you require it due to weather, or carrying capacity, then it makes sense to pay a premium in those situations. That's how a free market works.

I was referring most recently to privatizing the companies providing water and electricity. No one owns the water, that's ludicrous. That would be like privatizing the air.

If the state, wants to provide open access to all children that's fine. But if I don't have kids, or I want to homeschool, or send them to private school, I shouldn't be paying for the state school.

Again, you're talking about sharing the burden for varying levels of usage. That's not morally right in my books.

Re-read what I wrote. I don't support the idea of it, but it's a current reality. I don't agree with a progressive income tax either.

 

maybe a free market for a healthcare system isn't such a good ideea afterall. You already have a free market in the US don't you? How come you pay a lot more for healthcare than other countries.

if you choose a private healthcare provider the state should pay them whatever it would have costed you to get treated in the public system and then you pay the extra costs. Even in Romania we have such a system in place, even for treatments outside the country.

do you have any evidence the french or the italians only receive minimum care?

paying a part of your income as tax isn't taking away your liberties

I'm not making an argument for compassion, I'm making an argument for cooperation to meet the basic needs of the society. You can't leave everything to private initiative because some things simply aren't profitable enough to attract private investors

Can you show some evidence you can't progress individually in Europe?

well what do you suggest? Should you start the shit police department to make sure the people who didn't pay for it don't use it?

you do own your house and your car and whatever else you have in socialism. But remember, I'm not supporting the ideea of pure socialism. I support the ideea that some things should be done together, healthcare is among them

do you think in europe the only way of getting ahead is by starting a business?

it's human nature to always want more or something you don't have. That's enough of an incentive for most people to sacrifice, work hard, etc

how about the kids whom parents can't afford to pay for their basic education? What do you think should be done about them?

 

That idea is missing the whole basic point about what living in a society means. It's OK if somebody doesn't want to have kids, but if he/she wants to live in a society (and enjoy its benefits) still has the obligation to support the basic needs of the society (e.g. education, health etc).

I mean, the ones who don't want to have kids NEED the other people to be educated. Otherwise it's the law of the jungle, and we have overcome that long ago.

 

Free healthcare is great in theory, but in reality it just doesn't work as planned. Canada is a great example. We pay for the technology and Canada, a neighboring country is 10 years behind in technology according to the studies I did on this very subject in 2005. Also, for many surgerys you can be put on a waiting list for months, especially if it is just pain and not actually life threatening. Is our healthcare system perfect? No, it is just better than anyone elses.

 

@iul, I will respond later tonight.

So you are saying that your kids are my kids (common burden of the society), because I am obligated to help pay for their education, health care etc. If you're poor, I'm obligated to help feed you and your children.

Is this correct?

Because if your kids are my kids, they better get their butts over here after dinner and do the dishes. And stop watching TV, we're going to the library to take out some books. And bedtime is 8:00, end of discussion.

Saturday, I need my lawn cut and the car washed.

What's that? A "B" average? No social privileges until those grades are pulled up to "A"s.

Can I still help raise your children? Because that is how I would raise mine.

No free rides.

You want kids, you pay to educate them. If you don't want kids by accident, don't have sex. You don't have a right to procreate and then not live up to your responsibilities by pushing them on someone else. Don't get married until you are financially secure enough to support a family. It's not my job to work and pay for your life decisions. That's not a society, that's slavery.

 

Not correct at all, so I'm ignoring the rest. I'm not saying that my kids are your kids (I was very clear actually). Kids is an example.

Let me say it other way.

You have to choose between living in a society or living all by yourself.

The first means everybody has to do a part in keeping the society alive and functioning.

The second means you go to the jungle (or the tundra, as you wish) and live without relying on anybody else. You fish for yourself, you get your clothes and so on.

I guess like most people, you'll choose to live in a society. It comes with houses, streets, grocery stores and theatres, but it comes with a price, which is taxes. Part of the taxes will keep the streets smooth and water coming out clean and nice out of your tap. Part will keep you safe from thieves and fires. Ans so on. Another part (way very little compared to what you spend on yourself) goes to provide education to your poor neighbour's kids.

Why is this last thing good?

Because if they don't get any education your cozy barrio will turn into a nightmare in one or two generations. You don't care because you won't be there in two generations? Then think about the past. Thanks to publicly funded education (paid by your parents, grands, et cetera) your poor neighbour can at least be a mailman, or a store dependant, or something. And that made your life easier. If you don't believe it, go visit a country where basic public education doesn't exist and see what it is like. I'm sure you'll be happy to pay the small price.

A good level of education in your city/country is good for you, so the concept works even if you consider it from a selfish position.

Of course I'm talking very generally, there are better and worse cities, more and less education, more and less crime and more and less comfort. I just want to make the point that what you call a common burden is nothing but a price for keeping your society alive and working.
Please don't just take a detail from what I said to make a whole argument about it.

 

It's a really good example. I owned it.

Define society.

Ahhhh, socialism. The needs of the society exceed the needs of the individual.

Here is a radical idea for you. How about free will co-operation based on mutual benefit? You hunt the animals, I'll cook dinner. You hunt and cook, I will build your house. You carve me a stone idol, I will give you a basket of fruit.

This is how a free market works.

Now here is another idea. You are sick. I will protect you. You hunt but can't get a kill this season, I share my food.

Again, this is a cooperative association between individuals. But this time it is charity. Which is also a product of a free market.

It's a myopic view of humanity to assume that the society alone can facilitate trade, charity or peaceful collaboration.

The "society" doesn't provide houses. Savings and production do.

Same with grocery stores and theaters. Taxes do not facilitate these things, entrepreneurship does.

I'm pretty sure we had theater before we had socialism. Trade too. Shelter as well. Communities? You betcha.

The failure of a socialist argument is only arguing the good.

"Look at this benefit to you!"

Let me tell you right off the bat about the costs. Because people like you and I, we're smart consumers. We like to kick the tires and take the car for a drive before we sign the lease.

"Look at this benefit to you! All you have to do is pay taxes, along with everyone else who can pay taxes, and everyone can share in this great benefit!"

So what are taxes? They are a pre-payment to the "society" against either hard/soft assets or income. But if you don't own hard/soft assets, or generate income, you don't pay taxes.

This creates inequality. The people who work, not only pay for themselves, but for everyone else. This means that either (1) they pay more than they use, or (2) they accept a lower level of service than if they had bought the benefit for themselves with the same money. It's a question of resources.

In the next quote, you use the term publicly funded. This is incorrect. It is productively funded. Those who produce fund the system, not the at-large public.

Fear mongering. Surely people who work, would place value on the education and future of their children. That is omitting the fact that some of the most successful people in American history have had very modest, or little formal education.

Pick a country for me. I can almost guarantee there will be bigger barriers to individual prosperity than there are to education.

A good level of education is wonderful. I'm just curious as to why the workers have to bear the burden for the non-workers.

But why are only the workers paying the price!!!! This is what I am asking. Why should a single, childless workaholic, pay for someone who doesn't work, whose spouse doesn't work, and they have 5 children. Do I really need this many mailmen?

Nah, I went through the whole thing. I'm still waiting for someone to rationalize the SELECTIVE cost burdens of a socialist system to me. Not by telling me about the shared societal benefit, but the moral argument for why the few who pay for the benefit, by tax and the coercion of law, is just.

If you're in Canada, then you have a progressive tax system. The more you work, the more you pay in taxes per capita. So working hard, or earning more means that you get less. But the society gets more. Isn't this a totally asinine system?

 

We do not have a free market. We have a lot of regulation and corporate medicine. This is not the by product of a free market condition, it is the byproduct of a government that likes to tax and intervene.

Absolutely none. Do you have any proof they receive maximum care?

Sure it is. If I can't pay my property tax, my property is confiscated. If I work harder, I have to pay more taxes, not based upon my single citizen share of the public entitlements but progressively more as earn more. If I have a crappy job, and I work part time, I pay less taxes.

You know, there is a reason why we no longer have women in the home raising families. It was a windfall for the government. They almost doubled their tax base once women started working.

A basic civil liberty is economic liberty. What I produce is mine. If what I produce belongs to others, and they can adjust the claim on my production or savings, then I have no economic liberty. I can never truly benefit from my own production.

You should be making an argument for compassion. It would make you feel good.

Where there is demand, it will be met with supply. You have to believe in the marketplace. Not all demand has to be fulfilled by a profit motive either. Firefox and Linux are great examples of free market collaboration, without a profit agenda, but for mutual benefit. People creating things for the purpose of free sharing.

Oh, you can progress, but you're restrained. It's the same anywhere that socialism, taxation and regulation occurs. You can't be efficient productively if your creative energy is restrained, or you are forced to pay more than you consume along the way in taxes.

I think you are obsessed with this topic. There is also a market for this type of fetish, and I believe it is very profitable.

People will shit whether or not there is a toilet. Given the choice to install one in a new house, or rent an apartment with one, I believe most people would make this choice.

But sewage treatment can also be privatized.

No you don't own ANYTHING in a socialistic situation. There are tax liens against your property. If you don't pay your taxes, you can lose your property. Even when you have paid for something 100%, it can still be taken away by the state.

You introduced the idea of small business people getting ahead. I'm just rolling with that.

There are a lot of people in the West, who are happy to take the minimum that they can get for free, rather than work. It's the downside of prosperity and a socialist state. People get fat and happy.

I think I would give their dad a job. Or I would try to get him a job with my employer. Or I would offer to let them study with my children after school. Or I would contribute some money towards their education.

Maybe their parents, if they don't have work, could educate their children. Maybe the grandparents. Perhaps in a neighborhood, one mother could offer to stay home from work and teach them, and the remaining working adults could help subsidize that family's productive loss, thus making it paid for by the people who engage in the education, and cheaper because it is done without bureaucratic inefficiencies.

We got pretty far as a race without public education. It's not the ONLY way to learn. In the US, homeschooled children kick the ass of kids from public schools. And they don't have the socialization problems that were part of the fear process to scare people away from homeschooling.

 

There is no such a thing as maximum care. There's always something more you could get. But you claimed in a socialised health system you only get minimum care, which is simply not true.

I'm not a fan of the property tax either (or is it "neither"?) but a social democracy doesn't necessary have such a tax

women work because your lifestyle is different from that period

last time I checked firefox made about 50 millions in a year from google and Linux costs money too even though you could just ripp it and use it without a licence

basicly it's harder to move forward but you still can

sure it can, I have no problem with that, what I'm worried about is that a city would simply not have a sewage system if it wasn't build from public money. I'd love to see some examples of city sewage systems being built privately.

can't your proterty also be taken from you if you don't pay your taxes in a purely capitalist state too?

anomalies

what if all that doesn't happen? Then what? Should kids be left without an education? I think there must be a system that provides access for all kids to education. Wether you choose to send your kids to public schools or not is entirely your choice

we would have most likely be even further if we had provided education to the masses earlier in our history.


I frankly think a state where absolutely nothing is socialised and everything is left to private initiative would look like a third world country. The rich would get richer and the poor would be those who pay most of the taxes for the state to function. A lot of necessary infrastructure would simply not exist because it's not economicly viable for anyone to invest in them and in an state without regulations the existent infrastructure would be abused.

Imagine this scenario: We're naibors, you fuck my wife, I get pissed off and buy the road we use to get to our homes and then ban you from using you the road. Isn't that an abuse?

Imagine another scenario: I buy a strip of one meter wide across a highway and charge everyone 1000$ to pass. Isn't that an abuse? Isn't having the guaranteed right to use public roads better?
Would letting everything to private initiative really mean much freedom and liberties for you or would it simply replace the state as your liberty constrictor with a possibly even worse one in the shape of private companies?