Conquer Club

ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby jbrettlip on Tue Mar 30, 2010 10:35 pm

And the fact that the CEO's are being brought before Congress to EXPLAIN these charges. f*ck. It just shows, the politicians have no idea what this law entails. SEC regs require them to take these charges and the Dems are accusing them of playing politics.

This is a for profit country. If you don't like AT&T, don't do business with them. If you want to share in their profiits, buy there stock. If you want some of their money for yourslef for no reason, keep voting democrat. But realize the country won't be here much longer if you do.





Fucking Commies.
Image
nothing wrong with a little bit of man on dog love.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jbrettlip
 
Posts: 1182
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:30 pm
Location: Ft. Worth, TX

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby Phatscotty on Tue Mar 30, 2010 10:59 pm

jbrettlip wrote:And the fact that the CEO's are being brought before Congress to EXPLAIN these charges. f*ck. It just shows, the politicians have no idea what this law entails. SEC regs require them to take these charges and the Dems are accusing them of playing politics.

This is a for profit country. If you don't like AT&T, don't do business with them. If you want to share in their profiits, buy there stock. If you want some of their money for yourslef for no reason, keep voting democrat. But realize the country won't be here much longer if you do.





Fucking Commies.


Freedom?
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby Night Strike on Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:25 pm

Sallie Mae plans to lay off 2,500 workers since the federal government took away the Stafford Loan business. I'm sure many other banks will begin to do so as well since this provision was slid into the health care bill. Not only are they killing jobs, but I'm nearly certain they purposely included this change so that they can bribe people with debt forgiveness to expand the "public service" jobs. Obama did say he wants a civilian service as large as the military.
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby MeDeFe on Wed Mar 31, 2010 7:05 am

Phatscotty wrote:
anthroguy wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
anthroguy wrote:Scotty, your criticism of my understanding of socialism is compelling (though socialism can exist at the city level as well). From my perspective, one of the main reasons (though not the only reason) that modern governments in industrialized nations exist is to protect people from rampant power. In developed countries like the U.S., a lot of that protection means protection from corporations that are by their very nature driven by greed.

I wouldn't and didn't say that everyone has a fighting chance. That is something that many of us like to believe, but in reality it isn't true. The wealth gap is widening at a startling rate and that, to me, is an indication that people in fact have even less of a fighting change than they used to. Sure, there are people who overcome seemingly insurmountable odds, but the fact that there is a whole section of the movie industry devoted to telling their story should make it clear how rare those individuals are; that's exactly why those movies are "inspiring." Meanwhile, there are tens of thousands of similar people who try just as hard but never make it because that is how this system works.

I've had this argument too many times to have it again. The income gap is always gong to widen. The people with the most money are pretty smart when it comes to money and even smarter about keeping it. However the income gap gas nothing to do with the poorest person being able to stand out and work hard and eventually set up a pretty good life for him/herself, if not their children. Oops, is that too priviledged? :) toungue in cheek

I don't think it's as black and white as either allowing parents to provide for their children or not allowing them to. Few would deny parents that right.

The fact the income gap is actually not rising in some industrialized nations (e.g., in the United Kingdom, I believe) disproves the idea that it must always grow. That's a fairly bleak outlook on the world, in fact, because a widening income gap translates as increasing poverty for ever vaster portions of the majority.

The Income gap will always be large and usually grow wherever freedom exists. period. Of course, the fact about the lowest percentage of the income gap in the USA in fact do live a far higher standard of living than most other countries.

The plain on which the income gap scale exists in the USA is a at much higher dimension than almost if not all other countries in the world. This is not bragging, it's a fair counterpoint.

That depends entirely on your definition of "freedom", if you mean "freedom to run one's business in practically any way one deems appropriate while protected by safeguards of intellectual property and nepotism that support monopolies and prevent new companies from entering the market", then you are correct that the income gap will widen wherever there is freedom. But currently you've got that sort of freedom practically everywhere there's a halfway stable state.
Incidentally, a widening income gap is an indicator for "trickle down economics" not working. Or at least not working sufficiently well. I don't think you've ever explicitly said what your opinion on that particular theory is, but your view on taxes is consistent with it.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Mar 31, 2010 7:56 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:By the way, and I just throw this out there... let's say these companies have to take a hit. Guess what? The CEO and the board are not the people taking the hit; you're the people that are going to be taking the hit. So, when AT&T has to raise their prices or not provide post-retirement benefits, it's on us. Again, just a little FYI from your friendly neighborhood racist, homophobe Tea Party member.

It's called the cost of doing business. The other option, having us support their employees artificially through our taxes, means even those who are not customers are paying.


Okay, and that's fine, and I agree. Except that you, and everyone else who supported the healthcare bill, indicated that (1) our healthcare costs were increasing substantially and were out of control pre-law and (2) this law would be revenue neutral and would help cut costs. So, clearly, we know now that #2 was not true, and it is more likely than not that Congress knew #2 was not true. In sum, either everyone did not understand this when the law was passed (which I do not believe) or that everyone did understand this and didn't care because they had to pass the law as soon as possible (which I do believe), in which case we were lied to.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby karel on Wed Mar 31, 2010 11:05 am

Phatscotty wrote:
karel wrote:well its better then nothing...so i'm for it

sounds like a lot of people are going to be laid off, in an already "worst economy since the great depression". How is that better than nothing? a job is way more important. somebody needs to pay those taxes! it's a double negative!


Cuz right now i cant get health coverage,so yes it does help me
Corporal 1st Class karel
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: montana........rolling in the mud with the hippies

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby spurgistan on Wed Mar 31, 2010 11:15 am

Night Strike wrote:Sallie Mae plans to lay off 2,500 workers since the federal government took away the Stafford Loan business. I'm sure many other banks will begin to do so as well since this provision was slid into the health care bill. Not only are they killing jobs, but I'm nearly certain they purposely included this change so that they can bribe people with debt forgiveness to expand the "public service" jobs. Obama did say he wants a civilian service as large as the military.


Poor, poor banks. Student loans (right now) are a moral hazard where the public guarantees the loans, but the private sector administers them and gets the profits. Socializing risk and privatizing profit is non-partisan corporate welfare.
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.


Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
Sergeant spurgistan
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:30 pm

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby PLAYER57832 on Wed Mar 31, 2010 11:35 am

thegreekdog wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:By the way, and I just throw this out there... let's say these companies have to take a hit. Guess what? The CEO and the board are not the people taking the hit; you're the people that are going to be taking the hit. So, when AT&T has to raise their prices or not provide post-retirement benefits, it's on us. Again, just a little FYI from your friendly neighborhood racist, homophobe Tea Party member.

It's called the cost of doing business. The other option, having us support their employees artificially through our taxes, means even those who are not customers are paying.


Okay, and that's fine, and I agree. Except that you, and everyone else who supported the healthcare bill, indicated that (1) our healthcare costs were increasing substantially and were out of control pre-law and (2) this law would be revenue neutral and would help cut costs. So, clearly, we know now that #2 was not true, and it is more likely than not that Congress knew #2 was not true. In sum, either everyone did not understand this when the law was passed (which I do not believe) or that everyone did understand this and didn't care because they had to pass the law as soon as possible (which I do believe), in which case we were lied to.


How not? #2 has absolutely nothing to do with company profits, it had to do with taxes, that ALL of us pay. This rightfully shifts the cost to those who buy the products. That, it seems to me, is how markets are supposed to work, not through artificial subsidies.

And, I still do believe overall healthcare costs will be going down. Without a public option to set the "floor", I am not sure what will happen to insurance. However, the bill changed so much in the final hours before it became law that I am still looking into all the ramifications.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby PLAYER57832 on Wed Mar 31, 2010 11:40 am

jbrettlip wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:By the way, and I just throw this out there... let's say these companies have to take a hit. Guess what? The CEO and the board are not the people taking the hit; you're the people that are going to be taking the hit. So, when AT&T has to raise their prices or not provide post-retirement benefits, it's on us. Again, just a little FYI from your friendly neighborhood racist, homophobe Tea Party member.

It's called the cost of doing business. The other option, having us support their employees artificially through our taxes, means even those who are not customers are paying.


hmmm..so healthcare costs will decrease, while EVERYTHING else increases in price. I thought we weren't going to inflate ourselves out of our debt problem....

Gee, and here I thought you were in favor of a free market, which means that companies need to pay their own way and not rely upon taxpayer subsidied to support their workers. If AT & T needs to raise its prices, then it needs to raise it prices. Better the users of AT & T pay their benefits than the rest of us support a private company further through our taxes.


jbrettlip wrote:I just don't understand why, IF YOU PAY TAXES IN THIS COUNTRY, YOU AREN'T PAYING ENOUGH, and if you DON'T PAY TAXES, YOU SHOULD GET MORE.

In the last few years, coporations have been getting more and more out of our personnal taxes. Companies need to pay their own costs. If they cannot afford to pay for their employees, then they don't need to be in business... calling to we taxpayers to support them is idiotic, particularly when the CEOs of those companies and stockholders are making pretty decent profits.
jbrettlip wrote:All the talk about drunk drivers, but what about fat fucks? Or people with retard kids? We can find out there kid is retarded, so just abort them! It is the left wing solution, so why are these kids all on disability now? Oh thats right, it is a hand out. I am so glad I paid 50k in tax last year, to give it to earthquake victims in Haiti etc. This country is lost....congrats Adolf Pelosi you fucking traitor.

Welcome to the "enlightened" vision of the 20th century. Otherwise known as "Hitler's vision".
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:02 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:By the way, and I just throw this out there... let's say these companies have to take a hit. Guess what? The CEO and the board are not the people taking the hit; you're the people that are going to be taking the hit. So, when AT&T has to raise their prices or not provide post-retirement benefits, it's on us. Again, just a little FYI from your friendly neighborhood racist, homophobe Tea Party member.

It's called the cost of doing business. The other option, having us support their employees artificially through our taxes, means even those who are not customers are paying.


Okay, and that's fine, and I agree. Except that you, and everyone else who supported the healthcare bill, indicated that (1) our healthcare costs were increasing substantially and were out of control pre-law and (2) this law would be revenue neutral and would help cut costs. So, clearly, we know now that #2 was not true, and it is more likely than not that Congress knew #2 was not true. In sum, either everyone did not understand this when the law was passed (which I do not believe) or that everyone did understand this and didn't care because they had to pass the law as soon as possible (which I do believe), in which case we were lied to.


How not? #2 has absolutely nothing to do with company profits, it had to do with taxes, that ALL of us pay. This rightfully shifts the cost to those who buy the products. That, it seems to me, is how markets are supposed to work, not through artificial subsidies.

And, I still do believe overall healthcare costs will be going down. Without a public option to set the "floor", I am not sure what will happen to insurance. However, the bill changed so much in the final hours before it became law that I am still looking into all the ramifications.


I probably didn't explain the original situation well enough (it's pretty complex, even for a tax issue). Essentially, and this is the important point, the federal government wanted companies to provide for post-retirement healthcare benefits to its workers. So, the federal government provided a subsidy (in the form of actual cash outlay from the government) and a deduction (also a federal subsidy in the form of a reduction in income, which would reduce taxes). So, in exchange for a company providing post-retirement benefits to its employees (which otherwise the government might have had to provide), the government gave 30% of the cost to the employer and permitted the employer to take a deduction for the cost of all monies given out.

Additionally, some people (like Player) see a deduction as an indirect federal subsidy. I would agree with that to an extent. However, there are some deductions that are simply given because they are costs to a company or individuals. For example, I may have $1 billion in receipts; but if my costs to generate those receipts are $999 million, should I be required to pay tax on the $1 billion or the $999 million?

On a related note, I'm pretty sure you dodged the issue Player.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby Snorri1234 on Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:20 pm

MeDeFe wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
anthroguy wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:I've had this argument too many times to have it again. The income gap is always gong to widen. The people with the most money are pretty smart when it comes to money and even smarter about keeping it. However the income gap gas nothing to do with the poorest person being able to stand out and work hard and eventually set up a pretty good life for him/herself, if not their children. Oops, is that too priviledged? :) toungue in cheek

I don't think it's as black and white as either allowing parents to provide for their children or not allowing them to. Few would deny parents that right.

The fact the income gap is actually not rising in some industrialized nations (e.g., in the United Kingdom, I believe) disproves the idea that it must always grow. That's a fairly bleak outlook on the world, in fact, because a widening income gap translates as increasing poverty for ever vaster portions of the majority.

The Income gap will always be large and usually grow wherever freedom exists. period. Of course, the fact about the lowest percentage of the income gap in the USA in fact do live a far higher standard of living than most other countries.

The plain on which the income gap scale exists in the USA is a at much higher dimension than almost if not all other countries in the world. This is not bragging, it's a fair counterpoint.

That depends entirely on your definition of "freedom", if you mean "freedom to run one's business in practically any way one deems appropriate while protected by safeguards of intellectual property and nepotism that support monopolies and prevent new companies from entering the market", then you are correct that the income gap will widen wherever there is freedom. But currently you've got that sort of freedom practically everywhere there's a halfway stable state.
Incidentally, a widening income gap is an indicator for "trickle down economics" not working. Or at least not working sufficiently well. I don't think you've ever explicitly said what your opinion on that particular theory is, but your view on taxes is consistent with it.


You know what would be awesome? If there was a list of countries ranked by economic freedom. And which included rates for different types of freedom like investment freedom, bussines freedom and investment freedom and all that. Man, what if they had a site? That would make all these assertions about how the USA is all about the freedoms and how it also inexplicably is moving towards socialism/communist USSR checkable.

Welp, guess there isn't any Index of Economic Freedom.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
Private Snorri1234
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:27 pm

Did you read that index Snormeister?
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby Snorri1234 on Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:39 pm

Incidentally, if one were to browse that list and compare GLORIOUS UNITED STATES OF AMERICAN CAPITALISM with some little socialist, godless country like here you'd see quite a few interesting things.

For instance: Did you know that the USA ranks lower on several important freedom-measurements like Investment Freedom, Monetary Freedom and Freedom from corruption than my little communist state?
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
Private Snorri1234
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:42 pm

Snorri1234 wrote:Incidentally, if one were to browse that list and compare GLORIOUS UNITED STATES OF AMERICAN CAPITALISM with some little socialist, godless country like here you'd see quite a few interesting things.

For instance: Did you know that the USA ranks lower on several important freedom-measurements like Investment Freedom, Monetary Freedom and Freedom from corruption than my little communist state?


So you're saying the US laws are onerous on investment, monetary and corruption freedom (and taxes... and government spending... take a look there). Be careful, this is a trap that will be used against you in ever single other thread.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby Snorri1234 on Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:43 pm

thegreekdog wrote:Did you read that index Snormeister?


No man why would I go around reading stuff? If I had read it I could point out that all of the countries above the US in the list have universal healthcare yet seem to have more freedoms than you guys.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
Private Snorri1234
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:44 pm

Snorri1234 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:Did you read that index Snormeister?


No man why would I go around reading stuff? If I had read it I could point out that all of the countries above the US in the list have universal healthcare yet seem to have more freedoms than you guys.


Awesome. So, basically, you agree with me that the US needs to relax its restrictions on and imposition on, among other things, taxation, international trade, financial reporting and regulation, etc. That's really cool. Glad to have you on our side Snorri.

EDIT - Also, explain to me how universal healthcare is going to make the US "better" on this index. Because it's not. It will probably make the US go down in ranking (at least for purposes of this list).
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby Snorri1234 on Wed Mar 31, 2010 1:03 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:Incidentally, if one were to browse that list and compare GLORIOUS UNITED STATES OF AMERICAN CAPITALISM with some little socialist, godless country like here you'd see quite a few interesting things.

For instance: Did you know that the USA ranks lower on several important freedom-measurements like Investment Freedom, Monetary Freedom and Freedom from corruption than my little communist state?


So you're saying the US laws are onerous on investment, monetary and corruption freedom (and taxes... and government spending... take a look there). Be careful, this is a trap that will be used against you in ever single other thread.


Are you crazy? I'm not saying that at all. Unlike you, I am able to read so in my short time of checking the site I was able to gather that any countries that rank above the 70 are decent enough in their laws that the can be classified as "Free". Meaning that they're all good places to live and start a bussines. It's nearly impossible to get higher on the list than Hongkong really.

If you have developed the ability to read between postings, you might notice that I was making a comparison. Using "ranks lower on" implies nothing but that objectively one is lower than the other. If I get a score of 90% on a test and you get 84% than I can say you got a lower score and that wouldn't mean you sucked so hard that your future children and grandchildren will feel the aftereffect.


My point is rather simple: For all the rhetoric about socialism and the gloriousness of capitalism that is the US is, there is very little indication that it is superbetterer than most other First World countries. If you keep on bragging about freedom I can simply point out that hey, we have freedoms like that too and sometimes moar of them, doesn't stop us from having universal healthcare though.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
Private Snorri1234
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Mar 31, 2010 1:09 pm

I'm not crazy. I know exactly what you are trying to say. It just doesn't mesh well with some of your ideas in other threads (which I am too lazy to go find). For example, I believe you would say that the US does not restrict banks, credit card companies, housing lenders and the like in any meaningful fashion - yet there is that 75% (or whatever) sticking out there. I believe you would say the US tax system is pro-taxpayer (what with all those deductions and credits and subsidies), yet there is that bad score (and decreasing). You might say that the US government doesn't spend enough money... you see where I'm going with this?

On the one hand, you would like to limit your point to "the US isn't the capitalist freedom-loving society that is better than the world that PhatScotty and crew say it is." And I agree with that. However, on the other hand, you have your posts where you make the US out to be a "pro-business, anti-poor people place where the income disparity is horrendous." I don't think those statements are compatible.

In any event, I do know what you're saying - you're saying that you can have universal healthcare and still have the freedoms you enjoy today. So, I'm fine with you saying that (although I disagree) and I'm fine with you calling out the alarmists. I just think it's funny reading those indices in the context of other threads.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby Snorri1234 on Wed Mar 31, 2010 1:26 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:Did you read that index Snormeister?


No man why would I go around reading stuff? If I had read it I could point out that all of the countries above the US in the list have universal healthcare yet seem to have more freedoms than you guys.


Awesome. So, basically, you agree with me that the US needs to relax its restrictions on and imposition on, among other things, taxation, international trade, financial reporting and regulation, etc. That's really cool. Glad to have you on our side Snorri.

EDIT - Also, explain to me how universal healthcare is going to make the US "better" on this index. Because it's not. It will probably make the US go down in ranking (at least for purposes of this list).


It's like my point is on the other side of the world or something. I have to ask if you're doing this on purpose because I seriously can't imagine anyone missing the point so hard.


There's this freedomstuff that we have. It's pretty cool, some countries have more of it than others. The problem however is that some people complain and complain about how universal healthcare kills those freedoms. Yet despite such convincing arguments the actual facts don't back up those assertions. It's perfectly doable to have universal healthcare and also your precious freedoms. I never said or even implied that having universal healthcare makes you go up in rankings (aside from those of healthrelated stuff), I simply said that it doesn't make you less free.

I made no statements regarding what I actually think about the various items on the list. I mean, plenty of them can't all be high anywhere but in city-states like Hong Kong. Tanzania has very high financial freedom and low government spending, because of that they also have incredible low bussiness and investment freedom because there is no government.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
Private Snorri1234
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Mar 31, 2010 1:30 pm

It's on purpose. See above.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby Snorri1234 on Wed Mar 31, 2010 2:00 pm

thegreekdog wrote:I'm not crazy. I know exactly what you are trying to say. It just doesn't mesh well with some of your ideas in other threads (which I am too lazy to go find). For example, I believe you would say that the US does not restrict banks, credit card companies, housing lenders and the like in any meaningful fashion - yet there is that 75% (or whatever) sticking out there. I believe you would say the US tax system is pro-taxpayer (what with all those deductions and credits and subsidies), yet there is that bad score (and decreasing). You might say that the US government doesn't spend enough money... you see where I'm going with this?

On the one hand, you would like to limit your point to "the US isn't the capitalist freedom-loving society that is better than the world that PhatScotty and crew say it is." And I agree with that. However, on the other hand, you have your posts where you make the US out to be a "pro-business, anti-poor people place where the income disparity is horrendous." I don't think those statements are compatible.


Did you read the site?

Those statements are perfectly compatible. The index doesn't measure those things you think I would say. All it does is say how freedomy countries are with respect to the economy. You can't see how anti-poor people the governments are, you can't see how high the income disparity is. So the only thing you can judge the compatibleness of that made up statement is "Pro-bussiness". And you know, the US is that just like all other first world countries.


Those things you think I would say are funny though. Of course I would say the US is pro taxpayer, but the Fiscal freedomthingie is not just based on the top-rating for individuals. You guys have a higher corporate tax than we(10% more, which is a lot), and a reasonably high amount of total tax-revenue due to the confusingness of your taxes. The government spending catagory is of course a little off with the recent stimulus and bailouts and such, but I still wouldn't say the government doesn't spend enough money. Rather, it just spends too much on catagories where it shouldn't. (Military for example)


In any event, I do know what you're saying - you're saying that you can have universal healthcare and still have the freedoms you enjoy today. So, I'm fine with you saying that (although I disagree) and I'm fine with you calling out the alarmists. I just think it's funny reading those indices in the context of other threads.

Why the f*ck would you disagree? The freedoms that are measured in this index are the ones pertaining to how free-markety you are in general. How easy it is to have a bussines, how easy it is to invest, how free trade is, low inflation and all that.

Universal Healthcare doesn't really influence that unless you go for the full taxpaid thing and even then it is relatively minimal. It only influences taxes and government spending, and not by a lot.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
Private Snorri1234
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Mar 31, 2010 2:08 pm

Snorri1234 wrote:Did you read the site?


Yes.

Snorri1234 wrote:The index doesn't measure those things you think I would say.


Yes it does.

Snorri1234 wrote:So the only thing you can judge the compatibleness of that made up statement is "Pro-bussiness".


For all intents and purposes, "pro-business" means "anti-little person." Or at least that is what I have been led to believe (to be honest, mostly by others, not by you).

Snorri1234 wrote:Of course I would say the US is pro taxpayer, but the Fiscal freedomthingie is not just based on the top-rating for individuals. You guys have a higher corporate tax than we(10% more, which is a lot), and a reasonably high amount of total tax-revenue due to the confusingness of your taxes.


The 35% tax rate noted in the index is for corporations, which, again according to people on this site, are bad guys. So, how can we have a high tax rate on the bad guys yet still be pro-taxpayer? I'm not understanding that one.

Snorri1234 wrote:a reasonably high amount of total tax-revenue due to the confusingness of your taxes.


This is not why we have high total tax revenue.

Snorri1234 wrote:but I still wouldn't say the government doesn't spend enough money. Rather, it just spends too much on catagories where it shouldn't. (Military for example)


I agree.

Snorri1234 wrote:Universal Healthcare doesn't really influence that unless you go for the full taxpaid thing and even then it is relatively minimal. It only influences taxes and government spending, and not by a lot.


According to Congress, healthcare influences two things - government spending and potentially taxes. It also influences overall healthcare costs (born by businesses and individuals). So, if we don't have universal healthcare, we bear a high healthcare cost, which affects businesses. And I don't think the cost of the current healthcare law, much less the potential universal healthcare cost would have a "minimal" effect on government spending or taxation.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby Snorri1234 on Wed Mar 31, 2010 2:33 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:So the only thing you can judge the compatibleness of that made up statement is "Pro-bussiness".


For all intents and purposes, "pro-business" means "anti-little person." Or at least that is what I have been led to believe (to be honest, mostly by others, not by you).

Well not neccesarily. It's only that way when you favor corporations over the right of individuals. This index measures the other kind of pro-bussiness though, the ease of starting, maintaining and cancelling a bussiness, the freedom to spend and how much they can spend.

Regulations on environmental and individual things are not included here.
Snorri1234 wrote:Of course I would say the US is pro taxpayer, but the Fiscal freedomthingie is not just based on the top-rating for individuals. You guys have a higher corporate tax than we(10% more, which is a lot), and a reasonably high amount of total tax-revenue due to the confusingness of your taxes.


The 35% tax rate noted in the index is for corporations, which, again according to people on this site, are bad guys. So, how can we have a high tax rate on the bad guys yet still be pro-taxpayer? I'm not understanding that one.

Because corporations are still not people?

The CEO only pays a low tax over his income, but the profits made at the company are taxed relatively high. People who pay taxes (especially rich ones) are cuddled and loved by the US.
Snorri1234 wrote:a reasonably high amount of total tax-revenue due to the confusingness of your taxes.


This is not why we have high total tax revenue.

Well that coupled with the higher corporate tax. I mean that there are a lot of state and city-taxes and such, and taxes on stuff and all that and such. It's still lower than ours though.


Snorri1234 wrote:Universal Healthcare doesn't really influence that unless you go for the full taxpaid thing and even then it is relatively minimal. It only influences taxes and government spending, and not by a lot.


According to Congress, healthcare influences two things - government spending and potentially taxes. It also influences overall healthcare costs (born by businesses and individuals). So, if we don't have universal healthcare, we bear a high healthcare cost, which affects businesses. And I don't think the cost of the current healthcare law, much less the potential universal healthcare cost would have a "minimal" effect on government spending or taxation.


I mean in the context of the index. Healthcare tax and spending by the government is already quite high anyway. Other countries with universal healthcare don't have a much higher degree of government spending. (Hell, their governments spend less than your government currently does on healthcare)
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
Private Snorri1234
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Mar 31, 2010 2:44 pm

I guess I would say that I complain because my taxes are high, and I think out of proprtion to my income, assets, etc. And some people complain that rich people don't do their part, and I don't think that's true either. And I think this index bears my thoughts out, at least with respect to businesses. I think a lot of times US companies get a bad rap with respect to taxes and the like, especially with respect to other countries.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Socialized Healthcare

Postby karel on Wed Mar 31, 2010 2:55 pm

just be happy that at least someone is trying to help people with no coverage,just be thankful for that.unlike the other party who could care less about americans... the party of NO.....fucking worthless republicans
Corporal 1st Class karel
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: montana........rolling in the mud with the hippies

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users