All these memes about less taxes, cutting taxes, no new taxes

Sorry, I don't mind taxes.

They give cops and firefighters and teachers jobs.

And also we just pay a crapton for shitty healthcare, not much difference.

edited 26th Feb '11 11:31:47 AM by Thorn14

And they make me have less money to blow on awesome shit.

Edit: I'm not arguing with a troll.

edited 26th Feb '11 11:35:27 AM by Thorn14

And I'm not trolling.

@Chagen: I'd rather have a tax-funded healthcare system that's run by a profit-neutral entity (the government) than to have to pay more than I make in a month for healthcare provided by a for-profit company who can refuse to cover things for whatever reason.

Seriously, before the healthcare reform got rolling, people who came down with cancer, HIV, or other costly health issues were routinely dropped from the plan that they'd been paying on for years.

Also, if everyone in America had government run healthcare, then they would get regular checkups and not have to rely on the emergency room for primary healthcare. This would have the benefit of lowering the cost for everyone, because dangerous conditions could be caught early while they're easier and cheaper to treat. And hospitals wouldn't have to charge quite so much, because there would be less people skipping out on paying hospital bills that they can't afford.

In short, there are more benefits to a government run healthcare system than there are to a corporate run healthcare system.

Personally, I'm in favour of free markets and the notion that no one knows how to spend my money better than I do.

I'd rather have more take-home pay and put any "excess" away for a rainy day than have it put into "public services"that operate purely on some bureaucrat's terms.

That said, I don't blame folk for using things like welfare/benefits in dire straits: they're only reclaiming the parts of their paychecks some stuffed-shirt saw fit to take from them.

Ever notice how many folks bitch and moan about benefits/social security/welfare, yet are mysteriously silent about corporate welfare, foreign aid, and war spending?

edited 26th Feb '11 12:05:48 PM by MRDA1981

Well, foreign aid actually isn't a huge part of the budget, but yes, people don't seem to realize the amount of "wealthfare" in this country. Actually, because of that I almost don't feel comfortable calling the US a "free market" economy; because it's run for the direct benefit of those at the top.

If a politico tells you we have a "free market" (or a "free country/world"), he's playing a bait 'n' switch game.

Honestly though, the whole "Free Market" meme isn't exactly best either. If we were living in a truly free market, then we'd only have Microsoft computers and we'd be getting them (and everything else) from Wal Mart.

A truly free market trends towards corporations and them squelching any competition that comes by.

That sounds closer to what we currently have: a lot of corporations wouldn't have the power they have if not for government props.

And they have government props, because their size allows them to buy the government outright.

I love how Chagen's concept of "Free Market" is actually just "Corporate Market"

When you give companies free reigns with the market, you get the opposite effect of "Free" you get "Owned" as in "The Market is Owned by a few powerful companies"

Chagen whines about COMMUNISM but pure capitalism is just as bad.

Corporations win no matter what.

In theory governments should be in place to stop them from becoming so huge, but they are bribed and bought out just like the rest.

Lobbyism should be illegal.

Yes, it should.

Commando: In fact, pure corporatism is pretty much indistinguishable from Communism, in that the economy would be centrally-planned by a monopoly over all commerce.

Chagen's head spins. Unable to comprehend.

In government, as in everything else, all things in moderation.

Some socialist aspects are beneficial, as are some capitalist aspects. The trick is to balance the two.

Anyone who wants us to go to a more capitalist, "free market" should look at history, because we used to be a more free market.

Seriously, look up something like "working conditions in the gilded age."

Done? Now tell me honestly if you still want a more capitalistic market.

Also, there's a damn good reason we pay the government to give us centralized institutions/infrastructure in certain cases: It's more efficient. It makes no sense to not have centralized currency, because that destroys trade and the international value of the money (yes, this was an issue at one point in time-specifically when the US first formed). It makes no sense not to have centralized power because of the high entry costs and duplicated or insufficient infrastructure in some locations. Same with water and roads. The military can't be run on a for profit basis because that produces a conflict of interests, so that needs to be centralized as well. Centralized education ensures certain standards are met and that everyone has the opportunity. Centralized police, much like the military, are necessary to prevent conflicts of interest. The list goes on and on.

One final thought: to those of you advocating pure capitalism, please make note of the fact that you have almost certainly never lived in anything close to pure capitalism.

Before I begin: Please don't call Chagen a troll. He's not a troll; he actually believes it.

Now this isn't a free market economy; it's more like an "established-market economy"—anyone who's already here gets tons of perks, and sucks to be you if you don't already have a business going.

Also, if everyone in America had government run healthcare, then they would get regular checkups and not have to rely on the emergency room for primary healthcare. This would have the benefit of lowering the cost for everyone, because dangerous conditions could be caught early while they're easier and cheaper to treat. And hospitals wouldn't have to charge quite so much, because there would be less people skipping out on paying hospital bills that they can't afford.

1. Preventative care = cost savings. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
2. No charity care = cost savings. Other people don't have to foot your tab.

Now if you're complaining that forcing you to get insurance limits your freedoms, well, your getting expensive charity care when shit happens, especially when it was preventable, limits our freedoms.

Look at it this way, Chagen. Let's say you don't have insurance.

1. Shit happens to you. You need medical help.
2. You go to the hospital.
3. Hospital fixes you up.

So who pays for the hospital fixing you up? Someone's gotta do it. Are you paying for it?

If you're not paying for it, then where does the money come from? Hospital's funds? Out of the doctors' pockets? Rich benefactors? Mortgaging your property and throwing you in debtor's prison? Selling you as slave labor? Taxpayer funds?

No, no, no, let's not get treated. Well, perhaps you'll want to hide yourself in your home every time you become grievously diseased or injured, since the rest of society views emergency medical care as right, and would provide it for you and find you very strange (and not in a good way) should you refuse it.

Notice that I only said "get insurance", not "buy insurance". In a modern civilized society, it ought to be the insurance plan's design to be cost-effective yet stay free for those who can't afford it.

The point of insurance is to create a risk-mitigation plan that allows us to deal with shit happening even though we cannot predict when shit happens. What it would do is to provide a pool of money that would pay for your medical bills when shit hits your fan. And the same applies to everyone else in the same pool's plan.

Now, let's think about this: would the insurance cost more if a (standard for-profit) company offered to sell you insurance coverage, or if the government (a not-for-profit) organization offered to sell you insurance coverage?

In fact, pure corporatism is pretty much indistinguishable from Communism, in that the economy would be centrally-planned by a monopoly over all commerce.

Funny how it's a circle, just like how communism and fascism meet each other on the far side as well.

Thumped for switching the discussion from the topic to a person.

Well, there's a prevalent belief amongst those who are against taxes that if they don't pay the taxes for a particular service, then they "save" money.

For instance, Chagen is very anti-healthcare. So the belief runs, if I am magically healthy or otherwise find cheap healthcare insurance, then I do not foot the bill for others. It sounds logical. The reality runs into several problems:

• First off, the premiums you pay for private insurance requires that the corporation in question runs a profit. This means they have to charge more than they pay out, which necessarily means that the insurance you pay for doesn't make sense in a statistical sense. Everyone is paying more than they should. However, insurance removes the lottery system (ie. a couple people get totally screwed while others go on) and it also guarantees the healthcare professionals an income when they treat someone (hence why people without insurance are sometimes refused because it would be unprofitable to treat someone that can't pay you)

Proof: Every single country in the west pays almost half per capita in medical costs than America. Your concept that private is cheaper is just flat wrong.

• Secondly, letting some people die and you don't have to foot the bill. That sounds logical. The reality is that the economic damage from letting poor people dying is huge. They don't or are less able to get jobs, therefore hampering the available labour pool and driving up costs for businesses. Businesses that want good healthy workers have to pay for expensive medical insurance, hence also driving up operating costs (which is extremely damaging to small businesses, the backbone of the capitalist theory). People are afraid of finding their optimal job because medical benefits are tied to specific corporations. Simply put, your entire economy suffers, and so do you, in a significant personal manner. You get a crappier job and less pay, because your employer is unable to pay you more.

Proof: Operating medical costs between Canada and America, the most similar in terms of culture and economic model, except for healthcare, is significantly different. A corporation pays about 10x to 20x less in medical premiums for its employees in Canada than America.

Anyway I think i posted enough.

Lobbyism should be illegal.

I support this notion. Hell, make it treason, that's basically what it is.

profit-neutral entity (the government)

Oh wow.

In theory! Definitely more profit-neutral than the current companies running the insurance game.

Eh. I kinda lost faith in that possibility when they amended in the power to vote pay raises for themselves.

There is that. I've not been too hopeful for our government lately either.