Bush tax package guts middle class

Originally posted by wellard: So MagiK where would you draw the line on who is eligible for free health care? children still at school, university? when is someone old enough for free care 60, 70, more? pregnant women? what if they don't know they are pregnant yet, better be safe and give out free check ups to all women 15 to 45. How can you draw lines in the sand over this issue? If you have free health care it has to be universal IMO but your last comments on cutting spending is spot on [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Well, if I were King of the forest...no one would get free health care, or free anything...once people start getting things "given" to them, then they loose appreciation for what it cost and what its true value is. Children at school should be covered by their parents......NOW....we get to a sticky situation here....there is concern for the public safety...in which infectious diseases need to be stopped..so innoculations/vacinations should be provided by the government since under the constitution it is covered under the "Public good" phrases. Prenatal care? hmmmm perhaps if it can be shown that good prenatal care will cost the tax payer less in the future by creating healthier children....but again you have to live within your budget as a govenrment and so may not be able to fund everything you would like...The first and formost duty and function of the Federal government is National Defense...that should be your biggest ticket item, along with things like interstate roads and infrastructure projects....And being a rather rich successful nation, we may actually set up some sort of fund to help out those in need, but it would not be through a compulsory income tax...forcibly taking money from someone to give to someone else is just wrong...as is spending more than you have to run your government.

[wellard]

So despite the danger of being off topic How can someone retired age 70 afford a heart operation. no money no op? or children who never suffer because there parents are without money and are hesitent about the cost of taking their kid to the doctors. no I guess that it never happens!


Why does the richest nation on earth, spend more time crying about paying tax, throws billions away to grease the palms of the rich, and yet cannot even provide universal health care for its own people?


What is the point in tax cuts or money if you aint got your health? what is the point in being rich if the person next to you in the street is suffering from something that can easily be cured? bleedin heart I may be but bleedin obvious is the answer

[Davros]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Davros: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: [qb] One of the things that stifles success is prohibitive upper tax ranges on people trying to break into the upper income brackets. It also generates a massive industry in tax avoidace accounting. The good thing about a broad based consumption tax should be less fraud and less fraud industry. Well, the "fraud" industry is a fair statement. Though, if you can get a deduction and don't take it, isn't it your own failing? Anyway, the misconception with the income tax that the upper tax ranges keep people from breaking in is wrong. Say you are in the 15% bracket and want a new job that will put you in the 20% bracket. Well, you only pay 20% on the amount ABOVE the 15% cutoff level. On the first dollars, then, everyone pays the same rate. You are only charged the higher rate on your dollars that exceed the lower cutoff. Hope I didn't mistake your meaning with the comment.

I see where you are coming from, but I think we are talking from quite a different basis TL [img]smile.gif[/img] - our upper marginal bracket in Australia is 50%, so you can see how this can be an incentive killer. Every extra dollar I make goes half to me and half to Uncle Johnny. The shift towards a consumption tax a few years ago also increased the tax brackets, improving that ratio for many and has lowered the incentive to cheat the system.

LOL - that second sentence was spoken like a true lawyer - but yes, if I am due a deuction I take it [img]smile.gif[/img] - what I was referring to were all the shonky accounting schemes and shelves and shysters that people employ in the pursuit of avoiding paying tax.

Originally posted by wellard: So despite the danger of being off topic How can someone retired age 70 afford a heart operation. no money no op? or children who never suffer because there parents are without money and are hesitent about the cost of taking their kid to the doctors. no I guess that it never happens! Basicly yes, no money no op. where is it written anywhere that any person is entitled to take soemone elses labor, skill or work without paying? Why should a fully grown adult expect someone else to pay his way? (this goes for me too by the way..I would never be able to afford a heart transplant) It is a sad fact of life that death happens...not everyone born is fit to survive. Yeah I know, it is a cruel and heartless coment but that doesnt make it less true. Why does the richest nation on earth, spend more time crying about paying tax, throws billions away to grease the palms of the rich, and yet cannot even provide universal health care for its own people? again, I ask...where is it written that one person is entitled to someone elses hard work, money or possessions? We complain about it because it is antithetical to the priciples that built the country....where each person was given free reign to succeed or fail on their own merrits without imposing artificial barriers of discrimination. (in theory any way) Note you have the right to fail too..not just succeed...there is no gaurenteed freedom to leech off society. What is the point in tax cuts or money if you aint got your health? what is the point in being rich if the person next to you in the street is suffering from something that can easily be cured? bleedin heart I may be but bleedin obvious is the answer I can see what you are saying, but in the end, you are talking moral and ethical debate here. Should the rich person help the poor? from a moral standpoint (with christian values applied cause they are all I have to work with) I sayy yes...but does he HAVE to? no. It should be his decision...not one forced on him by the government. And as it stands..the richest country in the world already donates more money to the care and feeding of people world wide and at home than any other nation by a large amount. I walked accross the boarder once into Tiajuana...there you will find the most miserable dregs of disabled and handicapped people any where ont he planet...you find these people in Mexico....you can't find a sight like that anywhere in the USA or from what I can see Canada....so obviously we aren't turning out poor out onto the streets.....Sam Kinneson had a really excellent treatise on the poor in the USA, compared to the Kurds [img]smile.gif[/img] was funny but made a point too. Well I hope I made my points clear enough....Im not against all charity and government aide..Im just against the idea of taking half or more of soemthing from someone and ju8st giving to someone who didnt earn it.

[Timber Loftis]

Just to get my [img]graemlins/2cents.gif[/img] in on public healthcare. I think a minimum amount of health care should be available to all Americans. While I understand the need to let people keep as much of their earnings as possible, I think free basic health care far supercedes many "public aid" programs we currently have. I see it as a public health and safety issue: in short basic minimum healthcare is in my mind akin to police protections -- letting everyone live with some modicum of safety and security. I think it's more relevant welfare than food stamps, for instance, or AFDC (which is good in theory but troubled in practice).

Now, in the US there are a few things people may not understand about health care. Unless, I'm mistaken, a Dr. cannot refuse to treat a patient -- even if that patient is $10K behind in paying his/her bills. As well, there are numerous free (or VERY cheap) clinics all over the USA that provide many basic services.

Finally, insurance. This is supposed to solve it in theory. I must admit, I go to the dentist and don't pay one red cent. Of course, I'm on my wife's very nice government employee insurance policy. The problem is that not all employers offer group insurance policies and that insurance companies treat you like s**t if you don't have a group policy. I think a lot of the USA's health care woes stem not from privatization of health care, but from the insurance companies holding so much power over employers, doctors, and the insured.

For instance, and Attalus might be kind enough to confirm this, a doctor wanting to perform surgery on a patient typically has to make sure the operation is covered under insurance. It may be common knowledge that it will be, but in many instances, the Dr's staff must call up the insurer and ask if it is covered. So, the question as to whether or not a patient *needs* a surgery falls not to the Dr. but rather to some snotty-nosed 19-yr-old who works for a subcontractor fielding phone calls for the insurance company and cross-referencing Dr. requests with some matrix of "covered surgeries." [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img]

Yo! TL...what you said [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] I agree with the Insruance racket stuff...it is crazy.

[Azred]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Finally, insurance. This is supposed to solve it in theory. I must admit, I go to the dentist and don't pay one red cent. Of course, I'm on my wife's very nice government employee insurance policy. The problem is that not all employers offer group insurance policies and that insurance companies treat you like s**t if you don't have a group policy. I think a lot of the USA's health care woes stem not from privatization of health care, but from the insurance companies holding so much power over employers, doctors, and the insured. Unfortunately, this is not entirely true. There are plenty of places to find affordable insurance without being covered under a group policy. In fact, you and your family will be better off finding insurance on your own rather than trying to rely on some sort of group insurance. Some of the insurance companies' problems stem from an increase in lawsuits brought by those who, although they are in you own estimable profession, are *ahem* "less than reputable" and from outright fraud. The rest comes from those in the insurance industry not properly investing the money collected through premium payments to cover future losses and keeping costs down. For instance, and Attalus might be kind enough to confirm this, a doctor wanting to perform surgery on a patient typically has to make sure the operation is covered under insurance. It may be common knowledge that it will be, but in many instances, the Dr's staff must call up the insurer and ask if it is covered. So, the question as to whether or not a patient *needs* a surgery falls not to the Dr. but rather to some snotty-nosed 19-yr-old who works for a subcontractor fielding phone calls for the insurance company and cross-referencing Dr. requests with some matrix of "covered surgeries." [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img] I don't doubt that this may occur, but usually everyone knows well before surgery what is and is not covered. In cases of emergency, these things are worked out at the earliest available opportunity. ...at which point the insurance company can tell the person "no way" [img]graemlins/firedevil.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[wellard]

Originally posted by MagiK: Basicly yes, no money no op. where is it written anywhere that any person is entitled to take soemone elses labor, skill or work without paying? Why should a fully grown adult expect someone else to pay his way? (this goes for me too by the way..I would never be able to afford a heart transplant) It is a sad fact of life that death happens...not everyone born is fit to survive. Yeah I know, it is a cruel and heartless coment but that doesnt make it less true. But magiK I understand where you are coming from but to apply this system to children who have not had a chance to contribute to society and by definition are being nurtured by society IE they accept free schooling which comes from taxes or should that not be provided too? where would you draw the line? and has a child did you have state education? If we accept education as being a fair and resonable tax expense why not health? at least until they are old enough to work? Why does the richest nation on earth, spend more time crying about paying tax, throws billions away to grease the palms of the rich, and yet cannot even provide universal health care for its own people? again, I ask...where is it written that one person is entitled to someone elses hard work, money or possessions? We complain about it because it is antithetical to the priciples that built the country....where each person was given free reign to succeed or fail on their own merrits without imposing artificial barriers of discrimination. (in theory any way) Note you have the right to fail too..not just succeed...there is no gaurenteed freedom to leech off society. if true why not start with the wasted billions given to the rich? I can see what you are saying, but in the end, you are talking moral and ethical debate here. Should the rich person help the poor? from a moral standpoint (with christian values applied cause they are all I have to work with) I sayy yes...but does he HAVE to? no. It should be his decision...not one forced on him by the government. And as it stands..the richest country in the world already donates more money to the care and feeding of people world wide and at home than any other nation by a large amount. I walked accross the boarder once into Tiajuana...there you will find the most miserable dregs of disabled and handicapped people any where ont he planet...you find these people in Mexico....you can't find a sight like that anywhere in the USA or from what I can see Canada....so obviously we aren't turning out poor out onto the streets.....Sam Kinneson had a really excellent treatise on the poor in the USA, compared to the Kurds [img]smile.gif[/img] was funny but made a point too. Well I hope I made my points clear enough....Im not against all charity and government aide..Im just against the idea of taking half or more of soemthing from someone and ju8st giving to someone who didnt earn it. Thank goodness America and Australia have such good lifestyles in general. We have come so far in a short time. using the currant tax systemI wish the world could catch us up But it does not mean we can not do even better [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]