Some interesting numbers...

[keryakos]

Im not offended. Do I look offended?

Fair enough i cant see you but you seem to be locked in a victim mentality

We are all trying to steal from you ect ect ,,,,,come on thats silly

 

[lordbt]

Fair enough i cant see you but you seem to be locked in a victim mentality

We are all trying to steal from you ect ect ,,,,,come on thats silly

Actually, I am locked into an individual rights mentality. I accept that you neither care nor perhaps even understand such things, but that wont stop me from trying to persuade others. But if some hoodlum robs you at the ATM, I dont want to hear you whine about it.

 

[keryakos]

Actually, I am locked into an individual rights mentality. I accept that you neither care nor perhaps even understand such things, but that wont stop me from trying to persuade others. But if some hoodlum robs you at the ATM, I dont want to hear you whine about it.

I believe in individual rights but i believe that healthcare for all is more important than OUR individual rights

actually i think im wrong it isnt offense i see you from you it is FEAR you are afraid and your fear regarding this is unfounded

Well i i would not whine about let him take it if he can live with it i can live without besides some people steal because they are left no choice

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

Actually, I am locked into an individual rights mentality. I accept that you neither care nor perhaps even understand such things, but that wont stop me from trying to persuade others. But if some hoodlum robs you at the ATM, I dont want to hear you whine about it.

If you think all taxation is theft, then it stands to reason that you would not want to utilize what was built with said tax money. So I assume you never drive a car (taxes built roads), fly in an airplane (ATAC and whatnot), drink water from the tap or take a shower (municipal water), send your kids to any public school (well, you're probably rich enough to not do that), listen to the radio (FCC regulates the airwaves so we don't have total chaos), or ever summon the police? If (and God send this never happens), your home caught on fire, you'd just let it burn rather than calling the fire department.

Right?

If you want to live according to your beliefs, why are you here, enjoying the benefits of what was built with tax? Why are you not in Somalia, where you would enjoy (cough) a way of life consistent with your total every-person-for-themselves beliefs?

 

[allhart]

His Agendas ..please

Our nation can't file bankruptcy, now can it and still be free?
You didn't respond to the real issues or the substance of our Nations problems "DEFICITS", freedom of choice and the Constitution!

How about Tax credits for individuals, as businesses have? Make it to where we the people can buy our own health care outside of our jobs. For as it stands now, we lose our jobs, we lose our health care. I'd be "ALL" for that, putting the power back in the peoples hands and for all the other incremental reforms etc, but not a Government injected option of bureaucracy. Make opportunity and the possiblity for all Americans to purchase personal health insurance!

 

[lordbt]

If you think all taxation is theft, then it stands to reason that you would not want to utilize what was built with said tax money. So I assume you never drive a car (taxes built roads), fly in an airplane (ATAC and whatnot), drink water from the tap or take a shower (municipal water), send your kids to any public school (well, you're probably rich enough to not do that), listen to the radio (FCC regulates the airwaves so we don't have total chaos), or ever summon the police? If (and God send this never happens), your home caught on fire, you'd just let it burn rather than calling the fire department.

Like so many of your posts on this subject, this one makes no sense at all. Chances are, I have paid a far greater proportion of my income toward these things than you have. Funny how when discussing the morality of wealth transfer taxation, you slip right into things that could easily be paid for through fee for service in the private sector. The fact that the state has taken them over is no fault of mine. I advocate them being turned over to the market as well. In the mean time I will continue to use them because I am paying for them.

Why not stick to the issue at hand. Socialized medicine. I am trying to keep it (or return it) to the free market. You want it turned over to the state so that you dont have to pay for it. You want a free ride. You want someone else to pick up the burden of your existence. To achieve that you want to take the property of others. You have no right to a single penny of mine nor to the wealth of Bill Gates or any other productive member of society that ignites your envious wrath.

The difference between a mugger at an ATM and you is that the mugger doesnt try to wrap himself in the mantle of morality. So between the two of you, he has the slight moral edge.

 

[allhart]

Like so many of your posts on this subject, this one makes no sense at all. Chances are, I have paid a far greater proportion of my income toward these things than you have. Funny how when discussing the morality of wealth transfer taxation, you slip right into things that could easily be paid for through fee for service in the private sector. The fact that the state has taken them over is no fault of mine. I advocate them being turned over to the market as well. In the mean time I will continue to use them because I am paying for them.

Why not stick to the issue at hand. Socialized medicine. I am trying to keep it (or return it) to the free market. You want it turned over to the state so that you dont have to pay for it. You want a free ride. You want someone else to pick up the burden of your existence. To achieve that you want to take the property of others. You have no right to a single penny of mine nor to the wealth of Bill Gates or any other productive member of society that ignites your envious wrath.

The difference between a mugger at an ATM and you is that the mugger doesnt try to wrap himself in the mantle of morality. So between the two of you, he has the slight moral edge.

Ouch, but I agree!

 

[keryakos]

Like so many of your posts on this subject, this one makes no sense at all. Chances are, I have paid a far greater proportion of my income toward these things than you have. Funny how when discussing the morality of wealth transfer taxation, you slip right into things that could easily be paid for through fee for service in the private sector. The fact that the state has taken them over is no fault of mine. I advocate them being turned over to the market as well. In the mean time I will continue to use them because I am paying for them.

Why not stick to the issue at hand. Socialized medicine. I am trying to keep it (or return it) to the free market. You want it turned over to the state so that you dont have to pay for it. You want a free ride. You want someone else to pick up the burden of your existence. To achieve that you want to take the property of others. You have no right to a single penny of mine nor to the wealth of Bill Gates or any other productive member of society that ignites your envious wrath.

The difference between a mugger at an ATM and you is that the mugger doesnt try to wrap himself in the mantle of morality. So between the two of you, he has the slight moral edge.

You deserve to be ignored

 

[lordbt]

You deserve to be ignored

What's stopping you?

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

Like so many of your posts on this subject, this one makes no sense at all. Chances are, I have paid a far greater proportion of my income toward these things than you have. Funny how when discussing the morality of wealth transfer taxation, you slip right into things that could easily be paid for through fee for service in the private sector. The fact that the state has taken them over is no fault of mine. I advocate them being turned over to the market as well. In the mean time I will continue to use them because I am paying for them.

Okay, your assertion that you use them because you pay for them (albeit unwillingly) is fair enough. But the idea that these things could be handled by a free market is, for the most part, laughable. Starting with roads. How is that going to be handled? Are we to build three or four competing roads to service each address? Where are we going to put these extra roads? Looks like we'll have to bulldoze a lot of buildings. What about the rights of the people owning those buildings? What if someone doesn't want to sell the home they and their parents and grandparents lived in just to indulge some Objectivist experiment in competitive road-building. Oops, Galt's Gulch, we have a problem...

And do you have any idea the level of central coordination and standards-setting and enforcement that's required to run an Information Age society? How everything from power grids to telephony to air-traffic control to the Internet you post on requires central coordination and control? Requires enforceable standards and practices? Try running a nationwide air-traffic control system where each airline and airport and pilot has their own independent way of doing things, and see how many minutes (not days, not even hours) it lasts before we start crashing airplanes. The same applies to the Internet and electrical grids.

Implement your ideas, and we'd be back in the 19th century within a month.

Why not stick to the issue at hand. Socialized medicine. I am trying to keep it (or return it) to the free market. You want it turned over to the state so that you dont have to pay for it. You want a free ride. You want someone else to pick up the burden of your existence. To achieve that you want to take the property of others. You have no right to a single penny of mine nor to the wealth of Bill Gates or any other productive member of society that ignites your envious wrath.

Wrong, I already stated I'd be willing to pay higher taxes in exchange for national health care. Insurance company executives and CEOs don't have any God-given right to my money either, if we're going to play that way.

The difference between a mugger at an ATM and you is that the mugger doesnt try to wrap himself in the mantle of morality. So between the two of you, he has the slight moral edge.

Again, if you don't like taxes there are places in the world you can go where you don't have to worry about paying them.

DISCLAIMER: I don't deny the U.S. government today has some major stewardship issues when it comes to use of tax dollars and policy in general, and as I've said elsewhere, I would want those to be corrected before any national health care plan was implemented.

 

[lordbt]

Okay, your assertion that you use them because you pay for them (albeit unwillingly) is fair enough. But the idea that these things could be handled by a free market is, for the most part, laughable. Starting with roads. How is that going to be handled? Are we to build three or four competing roads to service each address? Where are we going to put these extra roads? Looks like we'll have to bulldoze a lot of buildings. What about the rights of the people owning those buildings? What if someone doesn't want to sell the home they and their parents and grandparents lived in just to indulge some Objectivist experiment in competitive road-building. Oops, Galt's Gulch, we have a problem...

Why would there need to be 3 roads leading to my house? Why do you think a road construction crew would have the right to tear down peoples homes. There are 3 things the state must do: police, the military, and the courts. There are 3 things that seem to me to be best done by the state: roads, sewers and water. That is not to say that the free market couldnt do them, but it is hard for me to imagine them being done as efficiently. After that, the state should leave a free people to their own devices. What we are talking about is wealth transfers--robbing Peter with no other purpose in mind than to pay Paul. That violates one of the core principles of proper government--justice. When injustice becomes enshrined in law, then civil society ends. The state is there to secure to you what is rightfully yours and to me what is rightfully mine. You may not like it, but what Bill Gates has earned is rightfully his, not yours. It does not belong to the state, to the poor or anyone else unless Gates, himself, makes that decision. That is justice, my friend. Your envy and your emotionalism drive you to pursue injustice to achieve what you see a good ends. But injustice it remains.

And do you have any idea the level of central coordination and standards-setting and enforcement that's required to run an Information Age society? How everything from power grids to telephony to air-traffic control to the Internet you post on requires central coordination and control? Requires enforceable standards and practices? Try running a nationwide air-traffic control system where each airline and airport and pilot has their own independent way of doing things, and see how many minutes (not days, not even hours) it lasts before we start crashing airplanes. The same applies to the Internet and electrical grids.

There is nothing there that the free market could not do.

Wrong, I already stated I'd be willing to pay higher taxes in exchange for national health care. Insurance company executives and CEOs don't have any God-given right to my money either, if we're going to play that way.

Then dont buy insurance from them. I have never heard of an insurance agent forcing people to sign up for their policy at the end of a gun. If you dont want to pay it, dont pay it. Better yet, if you think insurance rates are too high, start your own insurance company, charge lower rates and put these evil conglomerates out of business. That is how markets work.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

Why would there need to be 3 roads leading to my house? Why do you think a road construction crew would have the right to tear down peoples homes. There are 3 things the state must do: police, the military, and the courts. There are 3 things that seem to me to be best done by the state: roads, sewers and water. That is not to say that the free market couldnt do them, but it is hard for me to imagine them being done as efficiently.

Why not health care too? Other countries have government-run health care, and better health statistics than we do with systems that consume a lower percentage of GDP than ours. So by that standard, health care should be State-run as well.

After that, the state should leave a free people to their own devices. What we are talking about is wealth transfers--robbing Peter with no other purpose in mind than to pay Paul. That violates one of the core principles of proper government--justice. When injustice becomes enshrined in law, then civil society ends. The state is there to secure to you what is rightfully yours and to me what is rightfully mine. You may not like it, but what Bill Gates has earned is rightfully his, not yours. It does not belong to the state, to the poor or anyone else unless Gates, himself, makes that decision. That is justice, my friend. Your envy and your emotionalism drive you to pursue injustice to achieve what you see a good ends. But injustice it remains.

And here the Objectivists make the same mistake the Marxists do: a blind faith that human nature will change to make their pet system work. It won't, it doesn't, it is what it is. Do things their way, and what you're going to end up with is Peter getting richer and richer and richer, and legions of Pauls seeing their standard of living decline a little each year while the Peters buy more LearJets and mansions and yachts.

Now, maybe the Objectivists would like the Pauls of the world to just suck it up and accept that they're a lower class of life and don't deserve homes and health care and stable lives--to accept their servitude to the elite as part of some grand plan. Even in the Middle Ages, though, things didn't work that way. What happens in the real world is eventually the Pauls get fed up with riding in the back of the bus, organize, and open up a can of whoop-butt on the Peters, taking their wealth, and in many cases a lot of lives too.

That's the direction America is headed in.

So this is why we do need some redistribution of the wealth, whether you like it or not. We can tolerate--and, in fact, encourage, some disparity of wealth to provide incentive. We just have to say as a society that there's a point of diminishing returns, and make sure things don't get so unbalanced that we risk social unrest and violence. So if the Peters have big houses and yachts and Bentleys and private doctors while the Pauls have cottages and Chevrolets and go to the public clinic, that's acceptable. But when the Pauls end up in tin shacks or under bridges with no transportation, and start suffering and dying from easily treatable diseases, well, then we have a problem, and that's where we are ending up.

Then dont buy insurance from them. I have never heard of an insurance agent forcing people to sign up for their policy at the end of a gun. If you dont want to pay it, dont pay it. Better yet, if you think insurance rates are too high, start your own insurance company, charge lower rates and put these evil conglomerates out of business. That is how markets work.

No, the way markets work is if you don't have the capital, you're out of luck, and you do without. That's fine for commodities like automobiles, television sets and even houses, but not for health care. In an advanced industrial state, no one should have to do without at least basic health care.

 

[lordbt]

Why not health care too? Other countries have government-run health care, and better health statistics than we do with systems that consume a lower percentage of GDP than ours. So by that standard, health care should be State-run as well.

They do not have better statistics than we do. Their statistics measure things that actual care may not influence. Things that can be directly attributed to quality of care like cancer survival rates put American medicine out front. But that is a different issue. Health care is unaffordable because of government involvement, not in spite of it. Health care covers too much and the consumer is disconnected from cost. Health insurance should cover only catastrophic illness or accidents and nothing else. If this were the case everyone could afford it.

And here the Objectivists make the same mistake the Marxists do: a blind faith that human nature will change to make their pet system work. It won't, it doesn't, it is what it is. Do things their way, and what you're going to end up with is Peter getting richer and richer and richer, and legions of Pauls seeing their standard of living decline a little each year while the Peters buy more LearJets and mansions and yachts.

That is just total nonsense. The US is the most free, the most free market oriented country on earth and it is the richest. Government programs do not create a middle class any more than they create wealth.

Now, maybe the Objectivists would like the Pauls of the world to just suck it up and accept that they're a lower class of life and don't deserve homes and health care and stable lives--to accept their servitude to the elite as part of some grand plan. Even in the Middle Ages, though, things didn't work that way. What happens in the real world is eventually the Pauls get fed up with riding in the back of the bus, organize, and open up a can of whoop-butt on the Peters, taking their wealth, and in many cases a lot of lives too.

That is just another TheNewWorldMan rant that isnt substantive enough to be worthy of response.

So this is why we do need some redistribution of the wealth, whether you like it or not. We can tolerate--and, in fact, encourage, some disparity of wealth to provide incentive. We just have to say as a society that there's a point of diminishing returns, and make sure things don't get so unbalanced that we risk social unrest and violence. So if the Peters have big houses and yachts and Bentleys and private doctors while the Pauls have cottages and Chevrolets and go to the public clinic, that's acceptable. But when the Pauls end up in tin shacks or under bridges with no transportation, and start suffering and dying from easily treatable diseases, well, then we have a problem, and that's where we are ending up.

And another one.

No, the way markets work is if you don't have the capital, you're out of luck, and you do without. That's fine for commodities like automobiles, television sets and even houses, but not for health care. In an advanced industrial state, no one should have to do without at least basic health care.

Then open your own insurance agency. If they are so obviously overcharging everyone, it should be simple to get clients. Who knows, you might even get rich enough to envy your own success.