Administrator/owner: John (Dragonslayer) Administrator: Melinda (mig) WebAdmin: Timo (Timo) Administrator: Brad (wolverinefan)
Moderators: - Tim (Dotyisle)
- Chelsea (Kiwi)
- Megan (Megan)
- Wendy (WendyR)
- John (Cheerful)
- Chris (fyrfytr187)
If you want to use this QR code (Quick Response code) just save the image and paste it where you want. You can even print it and use it that way. Coffee cups, T-Shirts etc would all be good for the QR code.
#366923 - 11/29/0912:15 PMRe: What to do about healthcare? Can it be fixed?
Yes, I realize that income taxes are geared toward income. The higher the income, the more you pay, whether it be a progressive/graduated, flat, or (likely) regressive tax scheme.
I struggle as to why the producers/earners, whether they be upper or middle class, should continually subsidize the able bodied of lesser economic means that choose not to productively enable their well-being. I can't grasp this concept of why an individual is entitled to the earned wages of another individual. I understand the exceptions for the elderly, those who are disabled and can't work, and children. I also can appreciate the extension of goodwill to help somebody get “back on their feet” and to enable them going forward for a period of time. However, there are too many out there that are too lazy to work or find it more economically advantageous to continue to live off the public dole. There is also those that fit into the category of not willing to get their GED if they didn't finish high school, not willing to try and achieve anything beyond high school, or have had the opportunity for post-secondary education, yet choose to obtain a degree that isn't widely marketable for a job. Those that exist in the previous sentence are fine; that's freewill; that's you reap what you sow. However, that is a choice that you made and you shouldn't reap what I sow.
I guess I have a little bit of a different perspective on your vanity example. While I agree the individual that can afford this price for a vanity can pay more in taxes (income or sales), it doesn't mean they should. The perspective I have is that you worked, expended your time, your effort, your strength, your knowledge, etc. to earn those wages. They are yours. You can spend them however you choose. No one outside of you is entitled to them. There's a whole different matter of should you spend that amount of money on such an object. Opinions vary I imagine. Personally, I am/was always frugal and would pass. However, instead of the government taking my money and re-allocating it, I'd rather spend the money on a reasonably priced object (after all, it is a thing) and donate a portion or the balance of it to the church or to charitable causes of my choosing. Bottom line though is that they are your earnings and you should be able to allocate them as you choose.
I concur with your toilet toggle/feed your child example also. It seems nearly everybody finds themselves in such a situation at some point in time. The situation may not be as dire as your example, but nearly everybody has a cash crisis of some magnitude at some juncture. I just hope folks in such instances can, at the very least, prioritize for spending of basic needs over discretionary items before such an occurrence occurs or that this is a rather infrequent occurrence. There are also public assistance programs for those in such dire straits (WIC in an instance of a woman and her infant/child). Ideally, this assistance is a temporary thing, but it's there if it is needed. I know it's not that simple or cut and dry; none of it ever is. I guess my point is that we, as a society, ultimately need to be reliant on self, not on subsidies.
Some of the problems I have with the government dictating healthcare versus a for-profit company lies mainly in the fact that services covered can vary from provider to provider and plan to plan, the appeals process, and the ability to initiate litigation against that for-profit company if need be. Currently, with for-profit insurance companies, doctors will perform a test, exam, etc. even if they know the insurance won't reimburse for it and explain to the patient (as least in my instances and insistence for action) that insurance is not likely to cover it. My fear is that doctors won't engage in such activity, even if the patient is willing to pay, due to fear of consequence from the government for coloring outside the lines. Also, I don't have any faith in an appeals process administrated by the government (at least our government). Just ask some of those appealing their decisions on SS disability. Want to bring a lawsuit against government run healthcare? Good luck. I'm sure there are others I'm not realizing at the moment, but this is my opinion of how things would take shape.
Kind Regards, Jay
Almost all of us long for peace and freedom; but very few of us have much enthusiasm for the thoughts, feelings, and actions that make for peace and freedom. - Aldous Huxley
Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. - Thomas Jefferson