US Health Fare

[Udella&Wiz 325]

This is a bit off topic, but...I think there are only about 7 states in the US who don't require schools to have students say the pledge. The other 7 have the option to have students say it or not. Only about 6 states require students to say the pledge.

My school didn't give students an option. We had a kid in our homeroom in high school who wound up getting suspended for not saying the pledge.

Interesting - I know my daughter hasn't learned it since moving here, she didn't say it in school and they haven't made an issue of it, mind you....she's done school now...but when she first arrived.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Interesting - I know my daughter hasn't learned it since moving here, she didn't say it in school and they haven't made an issue of it, mind you....she's done school now...but when she first arrived.

Students have gotten in trouble for not saying it, which in many ways is quite messed and a clear violation of the first amendment. Some people just don't get the 'freedom' of having the choice to say something or not.

[Revenesque 2]

Just because you make more money doesn't mean you should have to pay more. Sorry. NO and NO again. Taxes should be even across the board for individuals. You don't punish people for being sucessful and it's DAMNED IGNORANT for a stock transaction tax. Government loses money on any type of transaction/capital gains tax and gains money by lowering it. That is a proven fact that even got Charlie Gibson to grill Obama on. Of course that idiot said taxes should be raised out of "fairness," eventhough government would lose money....

I actually support the flat tax system in theory because it IS fair. But in application, it ain't going to work because the rich, because they are rich, already have access to tax loopholes in the current progressive system and is actually paying LESS than their fair share of tax. The middle class gets majorly screwed and the poor gets handouts. Status quo. :-(

Cost of course is going to be a lot higher in a larger population situation.

Nah, I don't agree. If health insurance is mandatory for everybody, you just increased the Insurance company's revenue base to payout claims. It IS feasible because countries like Canada, UK, Australia and France have proved it. And not surprisingly, the lifespan of their citizens outrank the US.

Government WILL ALWAYS pay more for something because they don't know a damn thing about economics and don't understand a damn thing about supply vs. demand vs. the market...Sorry, but Government IS and ALWAYS has been the problem. There is not one thing that they truly run more efficiently than the private sector...Government always causes costs to go up for the private sector when they grow something in the public sector.

Not always true. Government have scales of economies that private companies don't and THAT is an advantage. For example, the crown auto insurance in British Columbia where basic auto insurance is mandatory is an efficient profit-making machine that made record profits even during current times of economic turbulence. Before they came into

existence in the 1970s, auto insurance was incredibly restrictive and expensive.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I actually support the flat tax system in theory because it IS fair. But in application, it ain't going to work because the rich, because they are rich, already have access to tax loopholes in the current progressive system and is actually paying LESS than their fair share of tax. The middle class gets majorly screwed and the poor gets handouts. Status quo. :-(

This is why the flat-tax works though. You take out the exemptions, do away with income tax, and make it all about consumption. It's simple. No loopholes necessary.

[Spoom 8]

Students have gotten in trouble for not saying it, which in many ways is quite messed and a clear violation of the first amendment. Some people just don't get the 'freedom' of having the choice to say something or not.

I completely, 100% agree with you here. It's still, of course, valid for me to point out that there are several documents like this that go against your claim that the United States isn't "one nation", but I agree that the pledge shouldn't be forced upon people.

[Revenesque 2]

This is why the flat-tax works though. You take out the exemptions, do away with income tax, and make it all about consumption. It's simple. No loopholes necessary.

How very individualistic of this, lol. Reminds me of this one couple in the movie Joyluck CLub, where the husband was some highly-paid executive and the wife was a lowly secretary. But at home, they split the bills 50 - 50, ie. mortgage, bills, food, etc. Right down the middle to the penny. Not surprisingly, she's finacially struggling, while he's prospering. And the marriage didn't last long.

In theory, it makes sense, right? They are consuming the same goods and services.

But how many of you would think this is just wrong, that the spouse who brings the most bacon, should pay a larger portion of the household expenses? The progressive system would see that both spouses pay a % of household expenses appropriate to their income, so BOTH would enjoy the quality of life that they both can afford together.

I dunno...I've studied taxes, and really, one's perspective on taxes will depend on whether they lean towards individual or collective responsibility. Both systems have advantages and flaws.

[Revenesque 2]

This is why the flat-tax works though. You take out the exemptions, do away with income tax, and make it all about consumption. It's simple. No loopholes necessary.

Like I said, it works theoretically. No rich (and often powerful) will want to give up their tax loopholes in the current progressive tax system and if indeed, a flat tax system gets implemented, you can bet your butt that there will still be loopholes for the rich to benefits.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

How very individualistic of this, lol. Reminds me of this one couple in the movie Joyluck CLub, where the husband was some highly-paid executive and the wife was a lowly secretary. But at home, they split the bills 50 - 50, ie. mortgage, bills, food, etc. Right down the middle to the penny. Not surprisingly, she's finacially struggling, while he's prospering. And the marriage didn't last long.

In theory, it makes sense, right? They are consuming the same goods and services.

But how many of you would think this is just wrong, that the spouse who brings the most bacon, should pay a larger portion of the household expenses? The progressive system would see that both spouses pay a % of household expenses appropriate to their income, so BOTH would enjoy the quality of life that they both can afford together.

I dunno...I've studied taxes, and really, one's perspective on taxes will depend on whether they lean towards individual or collective responsibility. Both systems have advantages and flaws.

Love that movie... One of my favorite 'chick flicks' HA!

Well, the idea is the way the taxes are structured too.

For instance most who support the flat tax support a 1% tax across the board on EVERYTHING. So everyone is paying the exact same. So one penny on the dollar in taxes for consumption, no matter what it is.. Now this would actually make the government ALOT of money, especially when you have 310 million people who buy products each and every day. Plenty enough to pay for the majority of services.

Others have said give it a structure to where the majority of items have a 1% tax, but 'luxury' items like TVs, Computers, etc.. would have something like a 10% tax.

The problem with our tax system today is as you had mentioned is the middle class gets screwed. At the same time too the 'middle' class is somewhat of an anomoly to economic structures. It's something that is VERY hard to maintain in our tax structure we have today because it's ever changing. With inflation (the ignorance of punks who devalue the dollar) it's something that shifts all the time and why congress literally has to keep re-enacting the AMT laws which would come down hard on today's middle class. ---- Now I'm not one to punish people for being successful so I'm against a progressive tax system all together and I'm more for GOVERNMENT LEARNING TO CONTROL THEMSELVES.

The BIGGEST problem we have in the United States is our government spending like an 18-year old bimbo with her daddy's credit card. How in the hell can our government expect its citizens to be responsible with their money, when THEY can't even be responsible with OUR money!

[Revenesque 2]

Now I'm not one to punish people for being successful so I'm against a progressive tax system all together and I'm more for GOVERNMENT LEARNING TO CONTROL THEMSELVES.

Yah, um, I'm starting to sound like a broken record. Our current progressive tax system (which is not in its true form) actually rewards you for being sucessful, assuming you are smart with your money. So the "punish for being successful" line is misinformed.

The BIGGEST problem we have in the United States is our government spending like an 18-year old bimbo with her daddy's credit card. How in the hell can our government expect its citizens to be responsible with their money, when THEY can't even be responsible with OUR money!

No, the BIGGEST problem is citizens not being their responsible for their own money. Taxes are certain and it's to your interest to pay as little tax as legally possible as part of your overall financial planning.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Revenesque

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Yah, um, I'm starting to sound like a broken record. Our current progressive tax system (which is not in its true form) actually rewards you for being sucessful, assuming you are smart with your money. So the "punish for being successful" line is misinformed.

'exemptions' itself are the problem, not people who take advantage of them. If the exemptions weren't there, people couldn't take advantage of them.

No, the BIGGEST problem is citizens not being their responsible for their own money. Taxes are certain and it's to your interest to pay as little tax as legally possible as part of your overall financial planning.

Taxes aren't supposed to be certain. Atleast not on a Federal level beyond the scope of protecting the nation. That's constitutional. Our government over spends, over borrows, grows its debt, etc..... The government makes plenty of money, they just don't know how to manage it and how to cut back when they don't have enough money.

[Revenesque 2]

'exemptions' itself are the problem, not people who take advantage of them. If the exemptions weren't there, people couldn't take advantage of them.

My whole point exactly.

Taxes aren't supposed to be certain. Atleast not on a Federal level beyond the scope of protecting the nation. That's constitutional. Our government over spends, over borrows, grows its debt, etc..... The government makes plenty of money, they just don't know how to manage it and how to cut back when they don't have enough money.

Taxes are as certain as governments exist, where there are infrastructure systems (e.g. roads, hospitals, schools, economic developments, etc) and national interests are for the collective benefit of the nation, since the beginning of mankind. Frankly, how the government chooses to spend THEIR money translates to a major %, but still LESS than 50% of our income. That means WE are responsible for most of our money. Period.

Not to say the government doesn't deserve some criticism but I feel it's ridiculous and unproductive to keep blaming the government for OUR poor money management.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Taxes are as certain as governments exist, where there are infrastructure systems (e.g. roads, hospitals, schools, economic developments, etc) and national interests are for the collective benefit of the nation, since the beginning of mankind. Frankly, how the government chooses to spend THEIR money translates to a major %, but still LESS than 50% of our income. That means WE are responsible for most of our money. Period.

Not to say the government doesn't deserve some criticism but I feel it's ridiculous and unproductive to keep blaming the government for OUR poor money management.

Again, there's a difference between federal and state/local government responsibility.

Highway funds are and should be the responsibility of the individual state. Same goes for education, economic development, etc. The federal government by our structure is not supposed to have any part of this whatsoever.

The idea that the federal government collects and 'gives back/redistributes wealth' throughout the nation is atrocious. Let the people keep their money and let them choose how to spend it. If a state needs new roads, that's THEIR responsibility, not the responsibility of the tax payers in another state.

[Revenesque 2]

Again, there's a difference between federal and state/local government responsibility.

Highway funds are and should be the responsibility of the individual state. Same goes for education, economic development, etc. The federal government by our structure is not supposed to have any part of this whatsoever.

The idea that the federal government collects and 'gives back/redistributes wealth' throughout the nation is atrocious. Let the people keep their money and let them choose how to spend it. If a state needs new roads, that's THEIR responsibility, not the responsibility of the tax payers in another state.

So you only b*tch about the federal gov't? So you think the federal government should only handle national security?!

So in your opinion, which government level should takes care of central banking, currency and national economic development? What about foreing affairs? International trade? Telecommunications? Postal Services? What about immigration? Who takes care of national highways?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

So you only b*tch about the federal gov't? So you think the federal government should only handle national security?!

So in your opinion.....

These aren't about my opinion, they are about the constitution and the law, period.

which government level should takes care of central banking

A central bank is unconstitutional in the United States actually. The treasury department is supposed to handle these affairs.

currency

See constitution.

and national economic development?

See individual states. National economics is supposed to be reflective of overall economics within the nation. Some states are up, some are down, etc.. it's the way things work.

What about foreing affairs?

You mean making sure we are at peace? This falls into national security.

International trade?

Regulated constittutionally, but beyond regulatory rules, the Federal government is supposed to take no part in it.

Telecommunications?

Private, not a public issue.

Postal Services?

FedEx and UPS are both more efficient than USPS, so you tell me.

What about immigration?

Immigration isn't handled by the government actually. They just set the rules. Taxpayer dollars don't pay for it. (see: fees associated with applications)

Who takes care of national highways?

There are national highways? Really? Please show them to me. There are "interstate" highways, but each state is/as should be responsibile for maintaining it within their boundries.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Paul and Vanessa

[Revenesque 2]

I'm derailing this thread so

#3 - and most importantly, like it or

The truth about health care that no one in the "mainstream" will admit, is government is and has been the problem with our system all along. They prevent an open-market system and regulate coverage of things they don't know a damn thing about. You want to 'fix' the system in the US? You have to open up the market and stop letting insurance companies take over individual states. Let them compete with one another and let it be an across the board item. FINE, if that fail and government wants to try and intervene reasonably, but give interstate commerce a chance first before trying to dictate how something should function.

The US health care system has many cogs and the government regulation is only ONE of the cogs. Taking the government out will NOT fix the problem. Targeting the insurance industry alone will NOT fix the problem. The problem is that every cog (users, insurance companies, medical and support industry, pharmaceuticals, government, employers) in the system has powerful incentive to remain status quo. To make any impact, one has to address most of these cogs to reduce costs and improve health care access to everyone.

Strangely, the health & health insurance industry, unlike other private industries, does NOT behave well with the free market system because 1) transparency issues (limited, highly specialized knowledge and skill expertise to provide service), 2) the profit-seeking nature in a competitive environment actually incent insurance companies to cherry pick their revenue base 3) profit-seeking entities insurance/medical/support/pharmaceuticals have high barriers to entry. This is one exception where competition and free market don't always benefit the consumer.