| onion soup |
| ||
|
For a hypothetical scenario I'm thinking of, there are 3 options: 1. Everyone in a society is forced to pay a tax, and anyone who is unable to afford medical care will have that care paid for with the money raised from the tax. 2. No one is forced to pay a tax, but if anyone is unable to afford medical care, they are out of luck (or they can hope for generous neighbors and charities). 3. There is an optional tax. If you pay this tax, you will be medically covered in the event that you need it. If you don't pay the tax, you will not be covered. To be honest, I can't really decide which side I'm on. On one hand, I feel like nobody should be forced to pay anything to cover the costs of someone else (although I would assume most people would be kind enough to do so anyway). But then this article made me rethink my position: http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/12/06/383580/tennesee-fire-fighters-family-home-burn/?mobile=nc Basically, there is a volunteer fire department that charges an optional $75 for their firefighting service. No one is forced to pay the fee, but those who do are protected in the event that their house catches fire. As it turns out, there's been a few cases where houses have caught on fire and the owners did not pay the $75 fee. The firefighters came and watched to make sure the fire didn't spread and to save lives in case someone was in danger, but other than that, they let the house burn to the ground. Part of me thinks that it's horrible that the firefighters would just look on while the house burned to the ground, but another part of me thinks it's the family's own darn fault for not paying the fee. Perhaps someone can sway me one way or another. Any thoughts? |
| Giant Johnson |
| ||
|
We live in a society. The number of people that can't take care of themselves is a lot higher than most people think. Private charities can't do enough. Mandatory tax. Jesus is my homeboy. |
| Uncle Buck |
| ||
|
Because we are Christians. All of humanity is our brother and we care for our brother |
| media parrot |
| ||
|
The problem is that option #2 does not exist. Firefighters may be able to watch a house burn to the ground, but hospitals cannot legally let someone die on the sidewalk. So take that option away because it simply doesn't exist - there is no "you're out of luck" piece to this. And we can take away option #3 too, because again, hospitals aren't turning people away. So everyone who doesn't pay the optional tax...they still get emergency treatment. This is why we are stuck with option #1. |
| Keith Stone |
| ||
|
Most of the taxes we pay are for things we may not use right not (i.e. schools) or things we don't agree with (i.e. War in Iraq). We already pay medicaid and medicare. I may never drive on roads paid for my my taxes. If we are going to have a functioning society then some of our taxes we are forced to pay are going to go to things we don't need right now or don't agree with. It can't be ala-carte. |
| Inden. |
| ||
|
Well as Scalia said change the law and let them die GENERAL VERRILLI: in the health care market, you're going into the market without the ability to pay for what you get, getting the health care service anyway as a result of the social norms that allow -- that -- to which we've obligated ourselves so that people get health care. JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, don't obligate yourself to that. Why -- you know? GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, I can't imagine that that -- that the Commerce Clause would --would forbid Congress from taking into account this deeply embedded social norm. JUSTICE SCALIA: You -- you could do it.
|
| Mr. Obvious |
| ||
Great argument for repealing EMTALA. |
| media parrot |
| ||
|
Yes, that is an option. So it seems like we could go in either of two directions: 1) Try to create a system that includes everyone to pool risk to lower costs 2) Start not treating the uninsured Option 2 seems kind of cold, and I have not heard anyone honestly suggest it since it is politically and morally unsavory, but I agree it is a potential solution. But again, you would have to change existing laws. As things are now, option 2 does not exist. But it could. |
| Your Conscious |
| ||
|
I'm against paying for genocide against white Caucasians and white Semitics in the Middle East. White people should not be slaughtered and I should not have to pay for War Crimes. |
| HRE |
| ||
|
Lots of taxes, maybe most of them, force you to pay for the care or services of others. I may not want the amount of military protection that we have but I pay taxes to provide that level for those who do. People who have no children but own property pay taxes that fund public schools. People who don't use the library or have house fires still pay taxes that support those institutions. Health care is no different, You're paying now to provide health care for others to some extent. |
| Brian |
| ||
|
Would you rather live in Denmark or Somalia? |
| Why Fart |
| ||
|
I would be happy to pay taxes if the US were like Israel and had towns segregated for my religion/race to keep out Mexicans like Alberto Salazar. But the way the gov't mixes with the black filth like Trayvon Martin is disgusting and I hate paying taxes to a mutt race POTUS. |
| donut man |
| ||
|
We should recognize and uphold the moral principle that man has a right to keep the fruits of his labor. One man's need is not a claim on another man's property. If you fail to support your own life, you die, and that's the way it SHOULD be. It is morally evil to sacrifice the strong for the benefit of the weak. |
| excattyguy |
| ||
Donut man, although pointing out the hole in your rather simplistic argument is tempting, I think I'll pass. |
| donut man |
| ||
This is a false alternative. Reason provides us with the opportunity to take a better path than those chosen by Denmark and Somalia. We can have a peaceful, prosperous capitalist society based on the principle of individual rights. Under individual rights, nobody can take anything from anyone else, but those who are willing and able to work have a much greater ability to take care of themselves. Yes, that means that the tiny minority of people who are truly unable to provide for themselves will die, but so what? Who the hell would want to live a life of dependency on government handouts anyway? I would consider such a life to be worse than death anyway. Happiness or nothing. |
| Check Off boxes |
| ||
|
IRS Form 1040 should have check off boxes where you can specify where your tax dollars go. For instance I would NOT give a dime for retirement, medical, or dental plans, for federal, post office, FAA, Pentagon, CIA, FBI, national Guard, VA, Congress, Supreme Court. But I would pay the retirement benefits for the FDA, NIH, EPA, Planned Parenthood, NPS, etc. I am against funding myth-based charities and Churches. I am against funding private universities and private secondary schools. I am against foreign aid to Nazi dictatorships (Israel, Syria, Russia, N Korea, Texas, China, ...) . And so forth. |
| donut man |
| ||
|
The "On Your Own" Economy Yaron Brook and Don Watkins Yaron Brook and Don Watkins, Contributor http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2012/02/28/the-on-your-own-economy/ “From cradle to grave.” So goes the motto of the entitlement state, whose creator Otto von Bismarck said: “Give the working-man the right to work as long as he is healthy, assure him care when he is sick, assure him maintenance when he is old.” Are you bothered by the thought of government embedding itself in every aspect of your life? According to President Obama, the only alternative is “a government that tells the American people, you are on your own. If you get sick, you’re on your own. If you can’t afford college, you’re on your own. . . . That’s not the America I believe in.” It is, however, the America the Founding Fathers believed in. What made America great was the fact that it was the first country in history where you were on your own. Roll back the tape a few thousand years to when every element of life was controlled by the tribe. You could not live an independent existence, you could not choose your own ideas, your own values, your own destiny. You belonged to the group. The group, in turn, gave you a certain measure of protection: so long as you obeyed its commands, kept your place, and tended to its needs, you would get your scrap of food (if there was food to be had). The story of freedom is the story of how the individual escaped from ownership by the tribe. As Ayn Rand once observed, “Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.” The Founding Fathers took a crucial leap forward in that process, declaring that the collective has no claim on you; that the government exists only to protect your right to live your own life, earn your own wealth, and seek your own happiness. Other people’s wants and needs are not your responsibility. The corollary was that you and you alone were responsible for securing your own wants and needs. You were responsible for developing the knowledge, skills, and traits of character you needed to earn a living. You were responsible for saving to meet life’s unexpected twists and turns. You were responsible for educating your children. You could ask for help from other people—but you could not demand it as a right. You were on your own. Did people shrink from the twin values offreedom and responsibility? On the contrary, the vast majority of Americans during the 18th and 19th centuries eagerly embraced life’s challenges and flourished under the new system. People didn’t flee from America, they fled to America. They came here poor, but ambitious—ready to carve out a life for themselves in a country that offered them the only thing they asked for: an open road. Of course, Americans during this era were not “on their own” in the lone-wolf, asocial sense implied by Obama. Free Americans developed complex webs of association based on voluntary agreement. An unprecedented division of labor—capitalists, businessmen, and workers coming together to create wealth on an industrial scale—was a product of this newfound freedom. Far from leaving people unable to afford life’s necessities, it was this system of voluntary cooperation that enabled the masses to afford modern luxuries—things like cars, microwaves, and air conditioning, which the wealthiest men of past eras did not own. What Americans of yesteryear lacked was not voluntary cooperation and trade, but involuntary servitude (slavery being the glaring, deplorable exception). Starting at the end of the 19th century, however, the Progressive movement began replacing individual freedom, individual responsibility, and voluntary association with an entitlement society. They promised to keep the benefits of the industrial economy that capitalism had created, while replacing the freedom that made it possible with a modern form of tribalism. The group would take responsibility for us from cradle to grave, and we in turn would become servants of the group, burdened with responsibility for the lives of others. The Progressives and their present-day descendants have largely succeeded at eroding freedom. But the inevitable consequence is an economy nowhere near as vibrant as before. In a free country, you would decide how to live, whom to deal with, what obligations to accept, what projects to undertake, what values to uphold. But in entitlement America, you are forced to pay for other people’s tonsillectomies, other people’s Women’s Studies degrees, other people’s retirements, other people’s business subsidies, other people’s bailouts. Americans today face a choice: Do we want to be on our own—or continue as society’s servants? |
| Option Number Four |
| ||
|
Nazi Storm Troopers come to the houses of everyone who is more than 25% body fat and they are sent to re-education camps where they are forced to run 70 mpw and do thousands of sit-ups, eat only fresh fruits and vegetables and they are replaced on the job by healthy people. They don't get any TV privileges and they are not allowed to post on letsrun.com message boards until they change their ways If they lose 50, 100 or 150 pounds within 12 to 18 months they may be able to return to their jobs. Oh, wait a minute...I forgot...we live in America, stupid people are allowed to do stupid things and like Ron White says, "You can't fix stupid!" |