How would txation for universal healthcare be theft

[DaisyDay]

You have a fine imagination, but I never said that there is nothing moral about society, nor made reference to hills, caves or underpoliced Somalis. I apologize if these are the images I invoked.
What I meant to say is that forcing people to fund ones programs on pain of imprisonment is immoral.

Democracy is immoral?

Oh I support paying for upkeep of society by all means. Use a road? Pay a toll. Send your kids to school? Pay tuition. Go to church? Give your offering. Use a phone and internet connection? Pay your phone bill.
See a homeless problem? Support your local shelter, remember, it could be you on the street someday.

That's fine if the society you envision is a third world one.

 

[Douger]

Democracy is immoral?

Democracy brought us the Attic Leauge, Third Reich, and the War on Terror. So democracy can certainly foster immorality.
But with a strong and well adhered to constitution, I do believe it is the best form of government.
Anyhow, this has what exactly to do with the discussion at hand?

That's fine if the society you envision is a third world one.

Weren't you the one who said people need to contribute to society? I agreed with you. Why are you turning this around on me?

 

[MarkSB]

Since you raised the point, it is something that has crossed my mind. Not specifically theft, but it takes alot of gall for someone to say "I expect people who are well off to pay for my health care."
​

except that's not really what is being said. Allot of anti health care reformers like to make it sound that way, but I generally find they'll lie about anything to prove a point.

Seems to me that's exactly what was being said. Maybe not by Obama, but if you go around and talk to liberals, a lot of them will give you answers like this:

How is it any different than any other tax funded program? Seniors ask young people to pay for their healthcare through Medicare. Poor people expect their roads to be funded by wealthier citizens. Poor people expect wealthier people to put their kids through public school and subsidize their college education.

I grew up in a middle class family and we didn't expect our roads to be paved by the rich, or our education to be funded by the rich. We pay our taxes just like everyone else. What bothers me about alot of the liberals I encounter is the sense of entitlement to someone else's property.

 

[keryakos]

Im not a liberal on the contrary i am quite conservative about some issue but i do believe that we are entitled to healthcare all of us

 

[MarkSB]

Im not a liberal on the contrary i am quite conservative about some issue but i do believe that we are entitled to healthcare all of us

But what do you mean by entitled to it exactly? Do you mean someone else should pay for it?

I think the govt. has a responsiblity to try to keep health care costs low. If we are entitled to health care, wouldn't it then follow that we are entitled to a house, a car, food and clothing as well? I just don't see why people would want or expect the gov to provide everything for them, it seems to me like it strips people's lives of dignity.

 

[Belk]

Seems to me that's exactly what was being said. Maybe not by Obama, but if you go around and talk to liberals, a lot of them will give you answers like this:



I grew up in a middle class family and we didn't expect our roads to be paved by the rich, or our education to be funded by the rich. We pay our taxes just like everyone else. What bothers me about alot of the liberals I encounter is the sense of entitlement to someone else's property.

So as long as we all chip in for it you are OK with it?

 

[Steve Petersen]

Care to give a link to the NHS / government website?

NHS cash crisis bars knee and hip replacements for obese | Society | The Guardian

 

[MarkSB]

So as long as we all chip in for it you are OK with it?

Yes, for the most part I don't see anything wrong with the way Obama's plan is supposed to work. He has stated that the public insurance fund will:

1. be self-sustainable based on the premiums paid by its participants
2. have optional enrollment
3. protect small businesses from any additional taxes/fees


But the way its going to work and the way its supposed to work are 2 different things. Fix the economy first and then worry about the other stuff. Obama and the dem's need to slow down for pete's sake. The last thing we need right now is another expensive government program.

 

[Belk]

Yes, for the most part I don't see anything wrong with the way Obama's plan is supposed to work. He has stated that the public insurance fund will:

1. be self-sustainable based on the premiums paid by its participants
2. have optional enrollment
3. protect small businesses from any additional taxes/fees


But the way its going to work and the way its supposed to work are 2 different things. Fix the economy first and then worry about the other stuff. Obama and the dem's need to slow down for pete's sake. The last thing we need right now is another expensive government program.

I'm in partial agreement with you. Frankly I wish there was someone with the political clout to actually attempt to tackle our debt (and if you think people are yelling now, wait till they see what fixing the debt will do to both social programs AND taxes). But the political reality is it will not get addressed until it starts to cause more problems for people then fixing it will. Given my druthers I would wait to implement health care reforms for afterwords. My fear is that such an event is so far off and our health care needs help now. Do I like everything about Obama's plan? No. But is there anything else even on the table?

 

[Loudmouth]

But the way its going to work and the way its supposed to work are 2 different things.

Very true. We should keep our representatives accountable and make this plan work if it is put into effect. That's the advantage of a public system, it is accountable. Private health insurance companies are not.

Fix the economy first and then worry about the other stuff.

Increasing health care costs is a major player in our economy. Reigning in health care costs is fixing the economy. According to several surveys anywhere from 20% to 60% of bankruptcies are due to medical costs.

Obama and the dem's need to slow down for pete's sake. The last thing we need right now is another expensive government program.

Health care costs us one way or another.

 

[chaz345]

Taxation becomes theft when it passes a certain amount or when the people being taxed have too little say in how it's spent. I'd say that the US right now is getting dangerously close to both of those conditions being met.

 

[Belk]

Taxation becomes theft when it passes a certain amount or when the people being taxed have too little say in how it's spent. I'd say that the US right now is getting dangerously close to both of those conditions being met.

Can you quantify at what point you believe it crosses over into theft? Do you think it a specific amount or a percentage?

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

Wrong. An imaginary world without the State. Or do you somehow equate government and society? Like people can't associate and interact without a G-man behind them. People who say stuff stuff like that are also probably big into free-market economics. Not all people who would say that imagine being self-sufficient.

Wherever you have societies (and you will wherever human beings gather) you will have hierarchy, and thus government. It might not go by that name, but it will be functionally equivalent.

If we did go the Objectivist route, for starters our civilization would collapse. You can't run transcontinental power grids, communications networks, highway systems, air traffic control, etc. as a nation of 300M-odd disconnected individuals all doing their own thing. This is the point that our resident Objectivists have, time and time again, either dodged or just said "the market could do that" without providing a shred of proof or precedent. So for starters, implementing Objectivism would unravel the last century or more of technological progress, deindustrialize the country, and return us to being an agrarian society roughly as we were in the third quarter of the 19th century.

Of course, since Objectivism is against basic human nature, we would never get to that point, any more than the state "withered away" under Marxist revolutions. What any serious attempt to go Objectivist in America would result in is an iron-fisted amalgam of corporatism and plutocracy as the corporations and wealthy elite, free of any contraints, would end up owning us all. We'd go Blade Runner before becoming agrarian.

 

[chaz345]

Can you quantify at what point you believe it crosses over into theft? Do you think it a specific amount or a percentage?

I think it's pretty hard to put a specific number on it. I'd say that when we come to a point that the government is doing all sorts of things that it isn't really constitutionally allowed to do and the additional taxes are required to support those things, that we've gotten there. In any case I'd say that any level of taxation above 50% is too much and when you account for all levels of taxation and government fees, (local,state and federal) much of the middle class is paying pretty close to 50% of what they make in some form of tax.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think it's pretty hard to put a specific number on it. I'd say that when we come to a point that the government is doing all sorts of things that it isn't really constitutionally allowed to do and the additional taxes are required to support those things, that we've gotten there.

Do you think this is going on now? If so, could you give an example?

(BTW, this is an honest question. I hear a lot of people complaining that the government isn't following the Constitution but I never hear any examples.)

 

[jgarden]

Taxation becomes theft when it passes a certain amount or when the people being taxed have too little say in how it's spent. I'd say that the US right now is getting dangerously close to both of those conditions being met.

**********************************************************
How do you think liberals feel after the Bush Administration sold the nation and the world "A BILL OF GOODS" about the existance of WMD to justify the Iraq War?

 

[Steve Petersen]

**********************************************************
How do you think liberals feel after the Bush Administration sold the nation and the world "A BILL OF GOODS" about the existance of WMD to justify the Iraq War?

Do you know any other song?

 

[salida]

Well, keryakos

Its just more theft. I'm forced to pay taxes for public schools even though I don't go to this school at all and I didn't have any kids who went to public school. So, who is getting the money? Is it the national teachers association? We pay more into schools but it doesn't show up in the educaton enough compared to other countries. Thus, NOW I could be forced to pay for health care I don't want - MORE theft.

Its theft because its against my will. What is your definition of theft?

 

[lordbt]

Apparently, there is fine print below The Eighth Commandment that effectively suspends the rule if the proceeds of that theft go to education, or health care, or welfare, or Social Security, or food stamps, or public television, or public housing, or the arts, or.....

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

Apparently, there is fine print below The Eighth Commandment that effectively suspends the rule if the proceeds of that theft go to education, or health care, or welfare, or Social Security, or food stamps, or public television, or public housing, or the arts, or.....

The Bible said clearly to render unto Caesar what is due him. So trying to justify anarchism under Scripture is going to be a non-starter.

If you analyze Mosaic law, especially as presented in Deuteronomy, you see the Biblical model of a society would be an orderly culture where work was rewarded, but hoarding and extremes of wealth and poverty discouraged and in fact actively counteracted by Scriptural law (things like farmers leaving a remnant of their crops to be gleaned by the poor, debt Jubilee and so forth).