Fundamental Differences

Harlowe · Post by **Harlowe** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 6:05 am

The only actual "liar" on this board is you Jecks. Your constant dishonesty is pretty glaring. Your motives are not subtle and your tactics are cliche.

Lurker · Post by **Lurker** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:30 am

Jecks wrote:I am sure the rest of the board sees Harlowe's lies for what they are. Libertarian, indeed.

I'm sure the board is stunned to find out Harlowe is a little "L" libertarian. She's only been saying that herself for going on six years now.

Jecks wrote:Umm...no....it didn't. This thread has nothing to do wit public transportation cuts. That is your assumption and it is wrong.

I've asked twice now for you to explain what this thread is about. Instead of doing that you fall back on one of your favorite tactics. "If you can see nothing wrong in socializing nearly every aspect of our lives then there is really nothing more to discuss."

Instead of throwing a hissy fit, why not read my post again, give it some thought, and then defend your position?

Taxious · Post by **Taxious** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:34 am

What's so bad about socializing health care again?? Everyone I play SoD with in Canada absolutely loves it. I wouldn't mind paying 50% of my paycheck to taxes if I never had to deal with a fucking insurance agency again.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:19 am

Taxious wrote:What's so bad about socializing health care again?? Everyone I play SoD with in Canada absolutely loves it. I wouldn't mind paying 50% of my paycheck to taxes if I never had to deal with a fucking insurance agency again.

Wait until you make 6 figures, and then see if you feel the same way.

Taxious · Post by **Taxious** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:20 am

Embar Angylwrath wrote:
Taxious wrote:What's so bad about socializing health care again?? Everyone I play SoD with in Canada absolutely loves it. I wouldn't mind paying 50% of my paycheck to taxes if I never had to deal with a fucking insurance agency again.
Wait until you make 6 figures, and then see if you feel the same way.

Oh that's right, it's about greed and not wanting to help out others. I almost forgot.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:24 am

Taxious wrote:
Embar Angylwrath wrote:
Taxious wrote:What's so bad about socializing health care again?? Everyone I play SoD with in Canada absolutely loves it. I wouldn't mind paying 50% of my paycheck to taxes if I never had to deal with a fucking insurance agency again.
Wait until you make 6 figures, and then see if you feel the same way.
Oh that's right, it's about greed and not wanting to help out others. I almost forgot.

Tax.. lets say you make 30K a year. You go in to get your teeth cleaned and it costs you 100 bux. Then you get a promotion that doulbes your salary, and the next time you get your teeth cleaned it costs you 200 bux. Sound fair?

Taxious · Post by **Taxious** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:28 am

Embar Angylwrath wrote:
Taxious wrote:
Embar Angylwrath wrote:
Taxious wrote:What's so bad about socializing health care again?? Everyone I play SoD with in Canada absolutely loves it. I wouldn't mind paying 50% of my paycheck to taxes if I never had to deal with a fucking insurance agency again.
Wait until you make 6 figures, and then see if you feel the same way.
Oh that's right, it's about greed and not wanting to help out others. I almost forgot.
Tax.. lets say you make 30K a year. You go in to get your teeth cleaned and it costs you 100 bux. Then you get a promotion that doulbes your salary, and the next time you get your teeth cleaned it costs you 200 bux. Sound fair?

Knowing that I'm helping out other people that can't afford dental care at all makes your whole point kind of ridiculous to me. Half of a 6 figure income is still a hell of a lot more money than I'll ever need in my life.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:38 am

You haven't seen enough summers on this planet for me to take that comment seriously. You're too young to have any real perspective on what you'll "need" later in life. And if you feel generous then, you can always donate your excess.

Lurker · Post by **Lurker** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:38 am

I don't mean to break up a really lame hypothetical argument, but nobody is suggesting we take half of anyones paycheck to pay for health care.

Harlowe · Post by **Harlowe** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:40 am

Man, I don't even want to think about what our health care costs are going to be when we're old or what kind of crappy nursing home we're going to be able to afford when you have no idea where you can safely invest anymore.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:42 am

Lurker wrote:I don't mean to break up a really lame hypothetical argument, but nobody is suggesting we take half of anyones paycheck to pay for health care.

The standard still applies though. The more you get taxed for health care, the more the health costs you, whatever percentage you want to apply to it.

And as I said before, if Obama wants to tax healthcare benefits of people already receiving employer sponsored health care in order for everyone to "share the pain" of providing some type of universal coverage, I can get behind it. Can you?

Post by **Ddrak** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:53 am

The problem with Canada's system (and England's for that matter) is you can't choose to not use the public system if you don't want to. While I have no problem with taxes funding the public system, I see no reason that people shouldn't be able to use the facilities of their own choice if they want to and pay the gap between what the government would have paid for the procedure and what it actually cost. I also see no reason they wouldn't be able to take insurance out to cover that gap (something not permitted in Australia, much to my confusion).

As to the "double the price for the treatment" - that argument makes no sense. Would you make the same argument about roads, or national defense? I mean, why should Bill Gates be funding the US military several orders of magnitude more than Harlowe does when they both enjoy the same level of protection? Same deal for health care - it's a function of society to protect itself and like defense, I see health care as simple protection of the society. How you then fund it is a completely separate issue, and taxes should be *at least* flat (double the pay = double the tax).

And as I said before, if Obama wants to tax healthcare benefits of people already receiving employer sponsored health care in order for everyone to "share the pain" of providing some type of universal coverage, I can get behind it. Can you?

Sounds like a fringe benefits tax, which I believe every western nation other than the US has implemented.

Dd

Taxious · Post by **Taxious** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:55 am

Embar Angylwrath wrote:You haven't seen enough summers on this planet for me to take that comment seriously. You're too young to have any real perspective on what you'll "need" later in life. And if you feel generous then, you can always donate your excess.

Fair enough.

I must admit though, the comfort of a national health care plan is really alluring. I love the idea that if I get sick, I can get help without having to fight with my insurance company about it. I like that everyone is afforded this service, despite their income. And I love that it depends on people pitching in to support everyone in their country.

Embar, I'm not sure what you are buying that requires you to have such a large income, but I guess you are in the right country to make it happen. I wish it were easier to move to Canada. /sigh

Fallakin Kuvari · Post by **Fallakin Kuvari** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:58 am

Lurker wrote:I don't mean to break up a really lame hypothetical argument, but nobody is suggesting we take half of anyones paycheck to pay for health care.

Just a 35% surtax on anyone making 6 figures or more.

Fallakin Kuvari · Post by **Fallakin Kuvari** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:00 am

Taxious wrote:I wish it were easier to move to Canada. /sigh

Lurker · Post by **Lurker** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:03 am

Embar wrote:The more you get taxed for health care, the more the health costs you, whatever percentage you want to apply to it.

Not if your premiums go down, or at minimum we get the costs under control so they don't go up 300% every few years.

Ddrak,
All proposals on the table allow people to buy whatever insurance they want. Coupled with a strong public option it sounds like the system you think would work best.

Ddrak wrote:How you then fund it is a completely separate issue, and taxes should be *at least* flat (double the pay = double the tax).

Are you talking about taxes implemented to pay for health care or taxes in general?

Fallakin wrote:Just a 35% surtax on anyone making 6 figures or more.

Links please. The 35% number is over 10x higher than reality. Where did you hear it?

Fallakin Kuvari · Post by **Fallakin Kuvari** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:10 am

I'll correct myself. 5.4% surtax (their taxes now are 35%) starting in 2011 (which is when the "tax cuts" expire) which would mean people making 6 figures or more would be taxed at 39.4%.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090 ... hy/3272213
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_c ... ded-i.html

Originally they were looking at a 3% surtax on people making 6+ figures, 5.4% was the only way they could apparently get the additional funds to make the system work.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:14 am

Lurker - can you get behind taxing current health care benefits to help fund universal health care?

Lurker · Post by **Lurker** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:29 am

Here's a nice graphic showing the actual surtax in the House plan.

And don't worry, they can afford it. Embar said so.

Embar wrote:Lurker - can you get behind taxing current health care benefits to help fund universal health care?

As I said here, I'm not opposed to it.

Garrdor · Post by **Garrdor** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:31 am

Poor Capitalists.

Brell Rants

Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences

Re: Fundamental Differences