row_33 Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 A safety net is needed for catastrophic care for those who cannot afford to pay it or get into a good insurance system. Running around with crocodile tears to guarantee everyone gets everything for free is no way to live.
Magox Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 https://twitter.com/williamlegate/status/842209771457462272 Looks like POTUS is distancing himself from the bill I don't believe any rational thinking person would come away with some take that you just did. can they split stuff like that out? idk what the relative costs are but i would think eventually its a wash. paternity might swing it tho, since thats so expensive all on its own. i cant think of an equivalent male medical expense that would be that consistently high when i talk about minimum benefits i just mean for routine stuff, like mamograms and/or colonoscopys, etc. stuff that saves lives in the long run. but i do think it has to be pretty comprehensive to cover a wide range of standard conditions. yeah, its going to cost a lot but it has both moral and long term cost benefits if they could make a list of stuff to split out of 'mandatory minimums' for specific ppl thats fine, but that seems incredibly complex - on top of whats already incredibly complex Before the ACA became law, many insurers were already beginning to cover preventative visits such as mammograms, annual physicals etc. I would expect that most insurers to continue doing so. Here is the beauty, if a particular insurer doesn't offer that service, then some other carrier will and you would have the choice to go with that carrier, specially if they allow carriers to compete across state lines. A safety net is needed for catastrophic care for those who cannot afford to pay it or get into a good insurance system. I think that will be addressed.
Tiberius Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 Magox, you will probably find this interesting https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2017/03/13/unspeakable-realities-block-universal-health-coverage-in-the-us/#156bb5af186a
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 AMA urges GOP to go 'back to the drawing board' The head of the American Medical Association (AMA) delivered a sharp warning Thursday to congressional Republicans, telling them to go “back to the drawing board” on their ObamaCare repeal-and-replace bill and warning that the bill's current version would take needed coverage away from people. ObamaCare has provided coverage to 20 million new people, Gurman noted, and “the AMA’s highest priority is to ensure that these individuals maintain their coverage.” Gurman also warned against large cuts to Medicaid under the House GOP bill and said the new tax credits should be based on income to give more help to low-income people. The tax credits in the bill are currently based on age, not income. Officials from the heart, cancer and diabetes groups also warned against Republican plans to weaken ObamaCare’s “essential health benefits,” which require insurers to cover a range of certain healthcare services. (mh - definitely!) “The mantra is that people who don’t have insurance live sicker and die younger,” Gurman said. (mh - which is why you need the essential health benefits) http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/324304-american-medical-association-urges-gop-to-go-back-to-the-drawing-board my morality says we should be concerned about our brothers and sisters like we are concerned about ourselves my morality says the richest nation in the history of the modern world should cover everyone with health care so that everyone can get the preemptive attention that prevents them from getting serious diseases that cost a ѕhitload to treat later my morality says oh by the way, it also keeps our brothers and sisters healthy so they dont have to suffer unnecessarily from things we can EASILY treat and often fix if we werent so damned selfish and petty my morality says we should compete as humans on many levels, but access to real and quality health care should NOT be one of them my morality says we should all chip in, with those blessed to make much more contributing much more. my morality said this even when i used to make well over a hundred thousand annually. and it sure as fk says it now that im broke and disabled my morality says that taxes are one obligation to our commitment to watch out for each other as enlightened beings, even if some of us still have a long road to travel to get there my morality says give ceasars things to ceasar and god's things to god conclusion: stop worshiping money like its a god. money is a tool, nothing more. worship your commitment to recognizing your default relationship with all ppl. if you can do that everything else works A LOT better Your morality is no morality at all. Again, taxation can be viewed in one of two ways: 1) That it is acceptable to rob a man at the barrel of a gun, and take from him what he has earned. 2) That a man doesn't actually own the fruits of his labor, but rather that the fruits of his labor belong to the state, and that the man is a slave. Yours is the ugly whip of force. The whip used on plantations of the South. An argument which resorts to force is a morally bankrupt one, as it seeks compulsion over conversion. Theft over charity. No one is entitled to anything other than what they themselves earn, and no one can give away what they themselves do not own. I encourage you to give until it hurts, and I encourage you to ask others to give until it hurts; but robbery is not giving. Until you embrace this, you're advocating evil.
Magox Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 So essentially he believes that if you make a lot of money, that you are white a person, white male to be more specific.
HappyDays Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 Your morality is no morality at all. Again, taxation can be viewed in one of two ways: 1) That it is acceptable to rob a man at the barrel of a gun, and take from him what he has earned. 2) That a man doesn't actually own the fruits of his labor, but rather that the fruits of his labor belong to the state, and that the man is a slave. Yours is the ugly whip of force. The whip used on plantations of the South. An argument which resorts to force is a morally bankrupt one, as it seeks compulsion over conversion. Theft over charity. No one is entitled to anything other than what they themselves earn, and no one can give away what they themselves do not own. I encourage you to give until it hurts, and I encourage you to ask others to give until it hurts; but robbery is not giving. Until you embrace this, you're advocating evil. Taxation is as old as civilization, it is literally the only way we know to fund modern society and all its conveniences. This is the cost of living in society. Don't like it, go live in the woods somewhere the rest of your life, no one will come looking if you run away far enough. It would be far more evil to eliminate taxes because millions of people would suffer and society as we know it would crumble. You're not "robbing at gunpoint," you're making a trade. "We will provide you with all the benefits that belonging to society entails, and you have to pay your fair share." Robbery would be taking money and giving nothing back. Well every person (especially the rich) in America has been taking from society since they were born. So they have to pay it back. That's as fair as we can get in this inherently unfair world.
Tiberius Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 So essentially he believes that if you make a lot of money, that you are white a person, white male to be more specific. And you get heavily subsidized by the government for many things
Benjamin Franklin Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 Taxation can be viewed in one of two ways: 1) That it is acceptable to rob a man at the barrel of a gun, and take from him what he has earned. 2) That a man doesn't actually own the fruits of his labor, but rather that the fruits of his labor belong to the state, and that the man is a slave. Neither of these are moral arguments. That basic concept of taxation itself is immoral. Direct from Ayn. Taxation is as old as civilization, it is literally the only way we know to fund modern society and all its conveniences. This is the cost of living in society. Don't like it, go live in the woods somewhere the rest of your life, no one will come looking if you run away far enough. It would be far more evil to eliminate taxes because millions of people would suffer and society as we know it would crumble. You're not "robbing at gunpoint," you're making a trade. "We will provide you with all the benefits that belonging to society entails, and you have to pay your fair share." Robbery would be taking money and giving nothing back. Well every person (especially the rich) in America has been taking from society since they were born. So they have to pay it back. That's as fair as we can get in this inherently unfair world. Income tax is the most troubling tax. That which you create belongs to the state. I like a use tax. Always. You get to keep whatever you make. Consumption though...that'll cost ya.
IDBillzFan Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 It would be far more evil to eliminate taxes because millions of people would suffer and society as we know it would crumble. You're not "robbing at gunpoint," you're making a trade. "We will provide you with all the benefits that belonging to society entails, and you have to pay your fair share." Robbery would be taking money and giving nothing back. Well every person (especially the rich) in America has been taking from society since they were born. So they have to pay it back. That's as fair as we can get in this inherently unfair world. Part of the problem is that anyone who makes even the slightest effort to be successful is made to pay taxes through every hole in their body, and yet we're STILL told -- over and over and over by the left -- that millions of people are suffering, society is near collapse and the planet is being destroyed by our very hands...and the only way to fix it? Collect more taxes. Yeah. I'll pass on that stupidity.
Tiberius Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 Part of the problem is that anyone who makes even the slightest effort to be successful is made to pay taxes through every hole in their body, and yet we're STILL told -- over and over and over by the left -- that millions of people are suffering, society is near collapse and the planet is being destroyed by our very hands...and the only way to fix it? Collect more taxes. Yeah. I'll pass on that stupidity. Do we have a problem with people giving up on their ambitions because of the taxes they will pay?
Azalin Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 Taxation is as old as civilization, it is literally the only way we know to fund modern society and all its conveniences. This is the cost of living in society. Don't like it, go live in the woods somewhere the rest of your life, no one will come looking if you run away far enough. It would be far more evil to eliminate taxes because millions of people would suffer and society as we know it would crumble. You're not "robbing at gunpoint," you're making a trade. "We will provide you with all the benefits that belonging to society entails, and you have to pay your fair share." Robbery would be taking money and giving nothing back. Well every person (especially the rich) in America has been taking from society since they were born. So they have to pay it back. That's as fair as we can get in this inherently unfair world. 1) Nobody is saying anything about doing away with taxes. 2) We fund all of modern society's conveniences with tax money? 3) Theft is as old as civilization too. That doesn't make it right. 4) You are not making a trade when money is taken from you to support policies that you do not believe in. 5) How have the rich taken from society? Please give detail.
grinreaper Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 Direct from Ayn. Income tax is the most troubling tax. That which you create belongs to the state. I like a use tax. Always. You get to keep whatever you make. Consumption though...that'll cost ya. The "Fair Tax" is the way to go. National sales tax but not a value added tax. Exempt the low income people by rebating tax up to a finite level.
Magox Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 1) Nobody is saying anything about doing away with taxes. I think that TYTT was implying so. It's what I call the Libertarian conundrum. No offense to TYTT or Firechan, but they are victims of this conundrum. Just ask Firechan his beliefs whether or not private citizens should own Nukes.
Azalin Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 I think that TYTT was implying so. It's what I call the Libertarian conundrum. No offense to TYTT or Firechan, but they are victims of this conundrum. Just ask Firechan his beliefs whether or not private citizens should own Nukes. TYTT is more than capable of speaking on his own behalf, but I've seen him describe taxes as being a necessary evil on several occasions. He comes down hard on the concept and principle of taxation, but then again, so do I. I think everyone should. Further, I think that there's no question that many view taxation as a means of extracting money from people who are more successful, as if it were a moral means of balancing personal wealth throughout society.
Tiberius Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 The "Fair Tax" is the way to go. National sales tax but not a value added tax. Exempt the low income people by rebating tax up to a finite level. This would so screw up our country. Consumer goods would become so expensive that the black market would explode with business. Real dumb idea
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 Taxation is as old as civilization, When you say that "taxation is as old as civilization", are you legitimizing tribute and wealth confiscation under the philosophy of the Divine Right of Kings which dominated the Earth until the late 1700's? it is literally the only way we know to fund modern society and all its conveniences. This is a fiat declaration, rather than fact. The most effective and efficient advances of modern society have been created and provided by the private sector. Taxation is a net drain on wealth, as it consumes rather than creates. This is the cost of living in society. Fiat declaration, rather than fact. This is an argument for the deeply flawed philosophy of the Social Contract. The Social Contract is not a contract as a contract requires mutual consent in order for it to be valid. Your argument is one that states I can contract with you against your will. Don't like it, go live in the woods somewhere the rest of your life, no one will come looking if you run away far enough. This is an argument that man is owned as slave by the state, and that the only way to escape slavery is to run fugitive. This is an immoral argument. It would be far more evil to eliminate taxes because millions of people would suffer and society as we know it would crumble. Fiat declaration, rather than fact; stacked on top of a special pleading logical fallacy. Here you make the case that evil must be permitted in order that individuals not have the freedom to fail. You're not "robbing at gunpoint," you're making a trade. "We will provide you with all the benefits that belonging to society entails, and you have to pay your fair share." Robbery would be taking money and giving nothing back. Well every person (especially the rich) in America has been taking from society since they were born. So they have to pay it back. That's as fair as we can get in this inherently unfair world. Again, a trade is something which involves the consent of both parties. I am not permitted to exchange goods and services with you without your consent. If I take your wallet, and give you a handful of dirt in exchange, it would be inaccurate to say that we made a trade. As I said, given that the concept of the nation state is dependent on taxation, some form of taxation must be permitted as a necessary evil; while at the same time it is imperative to recognize that it is still an evil. As such, great pains must be taken to assure that taxation is voluntary to the individual, and that taxes be confined to paying for things and services that are for non-exclusive use, and that they work to serve only the defense and perpetuation of the nation state, and the defense of the rights of the citizens of said nation state. I think that TYTT was implying so. It's what I call the Libertarian conundrum. No offense to TYTT or Firechan, but they are victims of this conundrum. Just ask Firechan his beliefs whether or not private citizens should own Nukes. I most certainly was not. I am a firm believer that the nation state is the best way for humanity to organize itself. In order for the nation state to exist, there must exist some form of taxation as a necessary evil; while at the same time we must still recognize that taxation is an evil, as it can exist, at it's most fundamental level, as either theft or slavery, neither of which a free society can embrace as just. Therefore, tax proceeds at the federal level must only be used for non-exclusive services and things which promote the defense of the nation state, and the protection of the rights of the citizens of the nation state. Further, such taxes must be paid as voluntarily as possible through a consumption tax with allows the citizens to control their own individual tax burdens through their spending choices.
Magox Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 TYTT is more than capable of speaking on his own behalf, but I've seen him describe taxes as being a necessary evil on several occasions. He comes down hard on the concept and principle of taxation, but then again, so do I. I think everyone should. Further, I think that there's no question that many view taxation as a means of extracting money from people who are more successful, as if it were a moral means of balancing personal wealth throughout society. I don't view it from a moral standpoint but purely from a transactional pragmatic view. Clearly there are services provided by federal, state and local governments, and the money has got to come from somewhere to pay for those services. So the question is what should the proper rate of taxation be? The answer would be that it depends on all the services and debt that each level of government has. The best way to have lower taxation would be to reduce the reliance from the public of some of these services. I'm not advocating for taking a hatchet to government, as I know many here would want. But I do believe that it needs to be trimmed, and it should be something that we have people in government that are always looking to reduce wasteful government programs and projects.
Tiberius Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 I don't view it from a moral standpoint but purely from a transactional pragmatic view. Clearly there are services provided by federal, state and local governments, and the money has got to come from somewhere to pay for those services. So the question is what should the proper rate of taxation be? The answer would be that it depends on all the services and debt that each level of government has. The best way to have lower taxation would be to reduce the reliance from the public of some of these services. I'm not advocating for taking a hatchet to government, as I know many here would want. But I do believe that it needs to be trimmed, and it should be something that we have people in government that are always looking to reduce wasteful government programs and projects. I think you got some of these people like tasker and azolin that are really angry and want to be victims so they say they are being robbed to make their anger seem legit when it really isn't.
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 I don't view it from a moral standpoint but purely from a transactional pragmatic view. Clearly there are services provided by federal, state and local governments, and the money has got to come from somewhere to pay for those services. So the question is what should the proper rate of taxation be? The answer would be that it depends on all the services and debt that each level of government has. The best way to have lower taxation would be to reduce the reliance from the public of some of these services. I'm not advocating for taking a hatchet to government, as I know many here would want. But I do believe that it needs to be trimmed, and it should be something that we have people in government that are always looking to reduce wasteful government programs and projects. I'm advocating what is proper from a philosophical standpoint. We stand elsewhere in the world, and obviously we cannot jump from one place to another, but what we can do is differentiate right from wrong, and work towards what is right. We know slavery and theft are wrong, so when we design policy, we should design it in such a way that it honors the promises we've made while at the same time working towards the ideal so that we do less harm in the form of slavery and theft to future generations. As such, taxation should always be viewed harshly. We should never make moral arguments in favor of what it evil.
Magox Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 I am a firm believer that the nation state is the best way for humanity to organize itself. In order for the nation state to exist, there must exist some form of taxation as a necessary evil; while at the same time we must still recognize that taxation is an evil, as it can exist, at it's most fundamental level, as either theft or slavery, neither of which a free society can embrace as just. Therefore, tax proceeds at the federal level must only be used for non-exclusive services and things which promote the defense of the nation state, and the protection of the rights of the citizens of the nation state. Further, such taxes must be paid as voluntarily as possible through a consumption tax with allows the citizens to control their own individual tax burdens through their spending choices. I misunderstood your intent. So when you say this: 1) That it is acceptable to rob a man at the barrel of a gun, and take from him what he has earned. 2) That a man doesn't actually own the fruits of his labor, but rather that the fruits of his labor belong to the state, and that the man is a slave. If you are robbed at gunpoint or held as a slave to the state, what are the two commonalities here?
Recommended Posts