healthcare as a benefit/privilege?

Revoltingest · Nov 26, 2013

metis said:
Why is it that some tout tax breaks and numerous tax deductions for the "job creators", but that's supposedly not "wealth distribution"; but anytime there's a program that has the wealthy pay proportionally more, that's "wealth distribution"?

Easy.
Anything which reduces a high tax burden serves to mitigate wealth redistribution.
Confusion stems from government's assertion that a large portion of taxpayers' money
belongs to government, ie, gov is entitled to it. Government & the left see any reduction
in this entitlement as a taking from itself & the minimally productive recipients who
pay little (if any) tax, & depend upon its largesse.

9-10ths_Penguin · Nov 26, 2013

Revoltingest said:
Easy.
Anything which reduces a high tax burden serves to mitigate wealth redistribution.

"Wealth redistribution" occurs any time money or value is transferred from one person to another. The free market causes wealth redistribution; that's the whole point of it.

IMO, when people bemoan wealth redistribution, it's not usually redistribution in general that they're opposed to, but redistribution that benefits someone other than themselves.

metis · Nov 26, 2013

9-10ths_Penguin said:
"Wealth redistribution" occurs any time money or value is transferred from one person to another. The free market causes wealth redistribution; that's the whole point of it.

IMO, when people bemoan wealth redistribution, it's not usually redistribution in general that they're opposed to, but redistribution that benefits someone other than themselves.

Bingo!

Revoltingest · Nov 26, 2013

9-10ths_Penguin said:
"Wealth redistribution" occurs any time money or value is transferred from one person to another. The free market causes wealth redistribution; that's the whole point of it.

Certainly, if I give you a hoist trolley (my spare) in exchange for $200, this is a transfer of wealth.
But this is not what we mean by the phrase "wealth transfer" in a political context. It's about
government taking money from Peter in order to give it (in the form of services or goods) to Paul.

IMO, when people bemoan wealth redistribution, it's not usually redistribution in general that they're opposed to, but redistribution that benefits someone other than themselves.

Well, of course, that is a common lament. Many of us who pay very high taxes don't want to see it
wasted on those who don't pay their own way, but could. But that is not the only motive.
Wealth transfer fuels the nanny state, which has a corrosive effect on productivity & independence.

I have an analogy:
I break into your house, & open your safe to find $100,000.
(I know you're loaded. Don't deny it.)
You cry, "Oh, please don't take it all! I have boat payments to make!".
I say, "OK, boats are cool. You may keep $20,000, & I'll take only $80,000.".

A libertarian would say: "I just stole $80,000 from you."
A leftish type would say: "I just gave you $20,000 of wealth distribution."

metis · Nov 26, 2013

Wow, then Sweden and Finland should be nearly totally disfunctional. Oops, they have a higher standard of living than those of us here in the States, and traveling back from western Europe feels like we're living in a third world country?

When the previous minister of the treasury in Sweden was asked how Sweden rebounded from going downhill in the early 1990's to where they're at today, his short response was "Higher taxes". To those who have no clue how macro-economics works, his response would seem nonsensical. Some simply cannot quite get it through their head that tax money doesn't disappear into thin air, and that pin-pointed spending can often be quite beneficial to the society economically.

Revoltingest · Nov 26, 2013

metis said:
Wow, then Sweden and Finland should be nearly totally disfunctional. Oops, they have a higher standard of living than those of us here in the States, and traveling back from western Europe feels like we're living in a third world country?

So you say. But this misses the point that there are complexities:
1) How efficient is the nanny state? Americastan is quite wasteful, & bad at the job.
2) What incentives are there? Americastan is quite punishing towards those who try to get off the dole.
3) What other goals compete for the taxpayer's money? Americastan's being policeman to the world is an expensive fiasco which should be reconsidered.

When the previous minister of the treasury in Sweden was asked how Sweden rebounded from going downhill in the early 1990's to where they're at today, his short response was "Higher taxes".

To simply cry "Raise taxes!" without considering how the revenue will be used or the effect on the economy is facile & glib. We also have the example of a booming economy under Reagan, who greatly lowered marginal tax rates.

To those who have no clue how macro-economics works, his response would seem nonsensical. Some simply cannot quite get it through their head that tax money doesn't disappear into thin air, and that pin-pointed spending can often be quite beneficial to the society.

To those who have no clue how macro & micro economics works, there is more to it than the mere spending of money. Some ways of spending are more productive than others.

metis · Nov 26, 2013

Revoltingest said:
So you say. But this misses the point that there are complexities:
1) How efficient is the nanny state? Americastan is quite wasteful, & bad at the job.
2) What incentives are there? Americastan is quite punishing towards those who try to get off the dole.
3) What other goals compete for the taxpayer's money? Americastan's being policeman to the world is an expensive fiasco which should be reconsidered.

To simply cry "Raise taxes!" without considering how the revenue will be used or the effect on the economy is facile & glib. We also have the example of a booming economy under Reagan, who greatly lowered marginal tax rates.

To those who have no clue how macro & micro economics works, there is more to it than the mere spending of money. Some ways of spending are more productive than others.

It's your outrageous hyperbole and dishonesty and your nonsensical creating of strawmen that has made me realize that it is impossible to have any civil discussion with you, and you live well up to your screen name. Time to put you on the ignore list, but that won't bother you because you're really into yourself. Maybe it's time for you to grow up.

Goodbye.

Revoltingest · Nov 26, 2013

metis said:
It's your outrageous hyperbole and dishonesty and your nonsensical creating of strawmen that has made me realize that it is impossible to have any civil discussion with you, and you live well up to your screen name. Time to put you on the ignore list, but that won't bother you because you're really into yourself. Maybe it's time for you to grow up.
Goodbye.

I get that a lot.
But they eventually calm down, & come back for more.
You will too, bruderherz!

metis · Nov 26, 2013

Yep, the ignore list works out just fine-- thanks for the test.

Dirty Penguin · Nov 26, 2013

9-10ths_Penguin said:
"Wealth redistribution" occurs any time money or value is transferred from one person to another. The free market causes wealth redistribution; that's the whole point of it.

IMO, when people bemoan wealth redistribution, it's not usually redistribution in general that they're opposed to, but redistribution that benefits someone other than themselves.

This right here....is spot on.

This is why I said distribution happens in both directions...but I personally believe more money is flowing upward than downward....

It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones

:shrug:

Dirty Penguin · Nov 26, 2013

metis said:
Yep, the ignore list works out just fine-- thanks for the test.

I'm not sure his response was worthy of the ignore list. That's just the way he is.....

I can understand what he means about the wise way to use the taxes collected but I still don't see any reason it should preclude Single Payer. The US does need to prioritize its spending. Cutting back on military spending (it's bloated and unnecessary) and a host of other agencies frees up revenue for Single Payer. Cutting many of these businesses off and/or scaling back on the tax breaks from the federal dole will help as well...we can also scale way back on what we give in foreign aid as well....

Revoltingest · Nov 26, 2013

Dirty Penguin said:
I'm not sure his response was worthy of the ignore list. That's just the way he is.....

All he had to do was look at me moniker & me avatar to know what to expect.
If he didn't want to have his senses assaulted, he shouldn't oughta dressed that way!
(Learning to handle differences of opinion with aplomb is a hard won skill.)

I can understand what he means about the wise way to use the taxes collected but I still don't see any reason it should preclude Single Payer. The US does need to prioritize its spending. Cutting back on military spending (it's bloated and unnecessary) and a host of other agencies frees up revenue for Single Payer. Cutting many of these businesses off and/or scaling back on the tax breaks from the federal dole will help as well...we can also scale way back on what we give in foreign aid as well....

I've proposed that single payer would be better than Obamacare.

I have me own plan in the works.
It's a single payer system which is free (generally, & ignoring taxes) up to a certain level.
It favors preventive measures, the basics, hospice, & life saving treatments (until denied by my death panels).
Above that level, it becomes a private matter, & one must depend upon one's own resources or charity.
If you want pec implants, a shicksa nose, perky boobs, a full head of hair, or to look like Brad Pitt, then it's on your dime.
(This is a hard thing to explain to posters who have it all figured out, & now sanctimoniously proclaim THE TRUTH.)
Anyway, my plan has widespread political support here in Revoltingistan.

metis · Nov 26, 2013

Dirty Penguin said:
I can understand what he means about the wise way to use the taxes collected but I still don't see any reason it should preclude Single Payer. The US does need to prioritize its spending. Cutting back on military spending (it's bloated and unnecessary) and a host of other agencies frees up revenue for Single Payer. Cutting many of these businesses off and/or scaling back on the tax breaks from the federal dole will help as well...we can also scale way back on what we give in foreign aid as well....

I think we will eventually move to single payer because money talks-- and you know the rest. Our companies are very much hurt with both medical and legacy costs, thus making us less competitive internationally and even domestically. Eventually we may well do what the Swedes successfully did, namely reduce corporate/business taxes (roughly 10% in Sweden) but eliminate loopholes, and then make up the difference with a VAT.

The advantage of the VAT is that imports are taxed at the same VAT rate as are domestic products, thus making our goods more competitive than they are now. Canada pays for their health-care system using a VAT, and it's worked out quite well for them.

Dirty Penguin · Nov 26, 2013

Revoltingest said:
I've proposed that single payer would be better than Obamacare.

And most Democrats would agree. Our political climate won't allow it though.

Dirty Penguin · Nov 26, 2013

metis said:
I think we will eventually move to single payer because money talks-- and you know the rest. Our companies are very much hurt with both medical and legacy costs, thus making us less competitive internationally and even domestically. Eventually we may well do what the Swedes successfully did, namely reduce corporate/business taxes (roughly 10% in Sweden) but eliminate loopholes, and then make up the difference with a VAT.

The advantage of the VAT is that imports are taxed at the same VAT rate as are domestic products, thus making our goods more competitive than they are now. Canada pays for their health-care system using a VAT, and it's worked out quite well for them.

We'll see....

As long as you have Libertarians (using the word very lightly) and Republicans shaking their fist and screaming about "big gub'ment"....while partaking of said big gub'ment....we'll continue to see more of the status quo...let the free markets solve our woes.....

metis · Nov 26, 2013

Dirty Penguin said:
We'll see....

As long as you have Libertarians (using the word very lightly) and Republicans shaking their fist and screaming about "big gub'ment"....while partaking of said big gub'ment....we'll continue to see more of the status quo...let the free markets solve our woes.....

I hear ya. It's like the Tea Party element screaming against "big government" while carry signs like "Don't touch my Social Security!", "Don't touch my Medicare!", and "Lets spend more on defense!", whereas these are three of the four big legs for the "big government" stool.

Let me also add that some of these people have apparently totally forgot their history because capitalism eventually led to socialism and also our mixed economy because of the problems it created. As I used to tell my students, no economic system grows faster than capitalism, or sinks quicker, and also a part of the problem is that it takes longer to recover from the sinking than the typical rate of growth.

Walkntune · Nov 26, 2013

MoonWater said:
I've always believed that healthcare should be a right given to everyone simply because we're all human. Yet throughout this whole ACA thing I've been hearing opponents talk about healthcare as a "benefit" or worse yet a "privilege" as if it's something that should be "earned".

Seriously? We're not talking about a christmas bonus or being able to move into a bigger house. We're talking about people's lives here. I could understand people being against it because they think it will be less effective than our current system or far to costly to maintain (both of which are bogus as has been constantly shown, but that's not what this thread is about). But to be against universal coverage because you consider healthcare a benefit or privilege? That just seems so... heartless to me. Is it just me? Has anyone else come across this? Can any of those who favor it offer any justification?

Healthcare is a right? Is it also a right to force someone to be a doctor?

Revoltingest · Nov 26, 2013

Dirty Penguin said:
We'll see....

As long as you have Libertarians (using the word very lightly) and Republicans shaking their fist and screaming about "big gub'ment"....while partaking of said big gub'ment....we'll continue to see more of the status quo...let the free markets solve our woes.....

Really? I blame the status quo primarily on you lefties, especially your Democrats.
This mess of endless wars, crony capitalism, bloated nanny state, & Obamacare is primarily your party's
work, exacerbated by your prez (with the exception of our successful non-war with Iran & Syria).
Libertarians are quite powerless. I bet you can't even name one of us in power off the top'o your head.

Penumbra · Nov 26, 2013

dawny0826 said:
How does this not translate to wealth redistribution, though?

The United States already has the most economic inequality of any large highly developed country in the world. Wealth is already being redistributed upwards.

Almost all of the rest of the rich nations of the planet have decided that, in their value system, they're rich enough to make sure everyone has healthcare. The result is that in addition to wider coverage for their populations, they all pay a lot less per capita for generally better healthcare, than the United States.

They tend to view it as more of a long-term social investment- things like education and health- that benefit everyone in society over time rather than just the ones that were disadvantaged and directly needed the help.

metis · Nov 26, 2013

Penumbra said:
The United States already has the most economic inequality of any large highly developed country in the world. Wealth is already being redistributed upwards.

Almost all of the rest of the rich nations of the planet have decided that, in their value system, they're rich enough to make sure everyone has healthcare. The result is that in addition to wider coverage for their populations, they all pay a lot less per capita for generally better healthcare, than the United States.

They tend to view it as more of a long-term social investment- things like education and health- that benefit everyone in society over time rather than just the ones that were disadvantaged and directly needed the help.

Well said, and unfortunately all too true.

healthcare as a benefit/privilege?

Pragmatic Libertarian

1/10 Subway Stalinist

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Pragmatic Libertarian

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Pragmatic Libertarian

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Pragmatic Libertarian

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Master Of Ceremony

Master Of Ceremony

Pragmatic Libertarian

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Master Of Ceremony

Master Of Ceremony

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Well-Known Member

Pragmatic Libertarian

Veteran Member

aged ecumenical anthropologist