 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 13th, 2009 04:08 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Let me ask you straight out: do you feel the rich have no responsibilities whatsoever to the society that allowed them to get rich?
To go further, do you feel anyone has any responsibilities to the society they live in?
-- A2SG, sounds to me you feel the rich owe nothing to no one, and can just count their money as the world crumbles down around them.....
We are going around in circles because I keep saying the same thing and you apparently are not reading it. I will reiterate:
I believe everybody owes the same amount percentage-wise as the next guy. I never said the rich owe nothing, which you keep repeating. If the guy who earns 30K per year pays 20%, then the guy who earns 60K per year should pay 20%, and the guy who earns 5 million per year pays 20%.
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 13th, 2009 04:43 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: So the US has been perfect since 1776? Really???
Irrelevant. I was talking about the preamble of the Constitution of 1787 (and not the Declaration of 1776) and what the "union" part meant.
I think the idea of a "perfect union" is more an ideal than anything else. I interpret that to mean we, as a nation, should always be striving to improve our society.
Obviously, you feel otherwise, and consider our nation to already be perfect. I have to say, that completely astounds me.
I was speaking about what the preamble was referring to.
What has George W. Bush said so far about his getting us into as bad a financial situation as we're currently in?
I don't answer for Bush, and I am no fan of his or his policies.
Obviously. You seem to think the rich bear no obligations or responsibilities to the society they live in whatsoever.
You say this a lot, and it is untrue every time you say it.
But you seem to be suggesting that the successful have no responsibilities toward their society whatsoever, and that attitude mystifies me. I'm not rich by any means, but I feel I owe a responsibility to my society...why shouldn't they?
Same response.
If the rich paid a flat rate like that, I doubt there would be any problems. But with tax shelters, deductions and the like, I don't believe that is actually the case.
Then the tax shelters and deductions are what need to be fixed. Making a tiered tax system to compensate for it just complicates matters even more.
Well, when you put it that way....
See, that's not the argument I see here. The argument I see is that everyone in the US should have access to health care, including those who aren't rich. We can object to specific ideas on how to achieve that goal, but that is the argument itself.
So, I guess I'll just ask the question: do you feel that everyone should have access to health care, regardless of wealth?
When you say "health care" what you mean is preventative health care, right? Because all Americans already are guaranteed access to health care. So in answer to your question ... I don't know. If by guaranteeing all Americans preventative health care means bankrupting the country, then I'd say "no." If by guaranteeing all Americans preventative health care means reforming insurance practicies, then I'd say "yes."
But, even if you're not prepared to offer a solution, would you care to suggest a few ideas toward one?
Sort of the same thing, isn't it?
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1870 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14th, 2009 04:19 am |
|
Ronson wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Let me ask you straight out: do you feel the rich have no responsibilities whatsoever to the society that allowed them to get rich?
To go further, do you feel anyone has any responsibilities to the society they live in?
-- A2SG, sounds to me you feel the rich owe nothing to no one, and can just count their money as the world crumbles down around them.....
We are going around in circles because I keep saying the same thing and you apparently are not reading it. I will reiterate:
I believe everybody owes the same amount percentage-wise as the next guy. I never said the rich owe nothing, which you keep repeating. If the guy who earns 30K per year pays 20%, then the guy who earns 60K per year should pay 20%, and the guy who earns 5 million per year pays 20%.
I heard that, but I wasn't talking about just paying taxes. I was talking about responsibility. I think I may have mentioned that before.
The way I see it, those who benefit more from a society, have a greater responsibility toward it in return. If you were able to achieve a great degree of success and wealth in a society, I feel you owe that society a great degree of responsibility in return. Paying taxes, even more than a poor person would, is part of that, but not the whole of it. It's just a start, really
I take it you disagree, from what you've said.
So, can I assume, from your "everyone owes the same" mindset, that the poor and disadvantaged, as well as those who have no access to health care, are simply out of luck, and on their own?
-- A2SG, because that's exactly what you seem to be saying here....
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1870 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14th, 2009 04:58 am |
|
Ronson wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: So the US has been perfect since 1776? Really???
Irrelevant. I was talking about the preamble of the Constitution of 1787 (and not the Declaration of 1776) and what the "union" part meant.
I know. I disagree with your interpretation of that phrase. I don't agree with you that that the "union" we have created is perfect, not in any definition of the term.
Which is why I think we should always be striving to make it more perfect.
I think the idea of a "perfect union" is more an ideal than anything else. I interpret that to mean we, as a nation, should always be striving to improve our society.
Obviously, you feel otherwise, and consider our nation to already be perfect. I have to say, that completely astounds me.
I was speaking about what the preamble was referring to.
I know. And I feel you've mininterpreted it. I simply offered my interpretation.
What has George W. Bush said so far about his getting us into as bad a financial situation as we're currently in?
I don't answer for Bush, and I am no fan of his or his policies.
Nor do I answer for Obama or Pelosi. You asked about them, I asked about him.
Obviously. You seem to think the rich bear no obligations or responsibilities to the society they live in whatsoever.
You say this a lot, and it is untrue every time you say it.
You've admitted they are obligated and responsible for paying the same percentage of taxes as someone living at the poverty level.
Is that it? Nothing more?
But you seem to be suggesting that the successful have no responsibilities toward their society whatsoever, and that attitude mystifies me. I'm not rich by any means, but I feel I owe a responsibility to my society...why shouldn't they?
Same response.
Then the same question back. Taxes and nothing else?
If the rich paid a flat rate like that, I doubt there would be any problems. But with tax shelters, deductions and the like, I don't believe that is actually the case.
Then the tax shelters and deductions are what need to be fixed. Making a tiered tax system to compensate for it just complicates matters even more.
Maybe so, but the situation is complex, so we need a similarly complex system to deal with it.
Look at it this way: A man earns a meager $20,000 a year, so according to your plan, he'd owe $4,000 in taxes. This leaves him $16,000 a year to pay for his home, car, food, and health care.
A man who is idly rich makes nothing per year in income, so he'd pay nothing. His vast wealth, from which he pays for his mansion(s), car(s) and an army of doctors who stand ready to treat his every sniffle with amazing speed, is not taxed, since he owes no more than the other guy, who has nothing in the bank.
That's fair to you?
Well, when you put it that way....
See, that's not the argument I see here. The argument I see is that everyone in the US should have access to health care, including those who aren't rich. We can object to specific ideas on how to achieve that goal, but that is the argument itself.
So, I guess I'll just ask the question: do you feel that everyone should have access to health care, regardless of wealth?
When you say "health care" what you mean is preventative health care, right?
No, I mean everything. Preventative care, emergency care, surgery, all of it. Whatever a doctor feels the patient needs.
Not like the current system, where an insurance company accountant decides what he is allowed to have.
Because all Americans already are guaranteed access to health care.
That's incorrect. 45,000 people die every year due to lack of access to health care, remember?
So in answer to your question ... I don't know. If by guaranteeing all Americans preventative health care means bankrupting the country, then I'd say "no."
It doesn't bankrupt Canada, England, Australia, or any other country with a universal health care system. You'll have to show me how it will bankrupt us before I can believe it will.
If by guaranteeing all Americans preventative health care means reforming insurance practicies, then I'd say "yes."
That's a start, at least.
Care to suggest how we might do that? How do you expect to convince the insurance companies, who currently make massive profits by denying coverage to people, to voluntarily do otherwise? Assuming, by your words, that you disagree with using the federal government to compel them to do so.
But, even if you're not prepared to offer a solution, would you care to suggest a few ideas toward one?
Sort of the same thing, isn't it?
Not at all. I'm not asking you for a solution, just a few ideas on how we might find one.
You obviously know enough to believe that the proposed idea, that the federal government help, isn't workable...surely you have some ideas about what might work.
How about this: if you don't favor the rich helping out the poor, do you feel that everyone should get a tax raise? That way, everyone, the idle rich as well as families at the poverty level, pay the same percentage of their income.
-- A2SG, I'm sure that extra few bucks from the family that earns $20,000 a year will help.....
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Nov 16th, 2009 03:43 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: So, can I assume, from your "everyone owes the same" mindset, that the poor and disadvantaged, as well as those who have no access to health care, are simply out of luck, and on their own?
If you can afford to pay for their healthcare then I say "go for it." My wife likes to give to charity, to the point we're now in major debt. I suspect you both came from the same economics school.
What you and Obama and Pelosi are proposing is going to bankrupt this country. Once that happens then we'll really see the divide between rich and poor, because the middle class will be gone.
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Nov 16th, 2009 05:17 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: I know. I disagree with your interpretation of that phrase. I don't agree with you that that the "union" we have created is perfect, not in any definition of the term.
Which is why I think we should always be striving to make it more perfect.
You disagree the preamble refers to organizing the colonies into united states? That's what it means and there is no other interpretation. We're not dealing with some ancient language from an ancient culture here. Also, I never said we have created a perfect union. This is getting frustrating.
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Nov 16th, 2009 05:18 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Nor do I answer for Obama or Pelosi. You asked about them, I asked about him.
Fair enough.
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Nov 16th, 2009 06:07 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: You've admitted they are obligated and responsible for paying the same percentage of taxes as someone living at the poverty level.
When did I say anything about "the poverty level"?
Maybe so, but the situation is complex, so we need a similarly complex system to deal with it.
Look at it this way: A man earns a meager $20,000 a year, so according to your plan, he'd owe $4,000 in taxes. This leaves him $16,000 a year to pay for his home, car, food, and health care.
Due to inflation, my $20K per year example may not work. When I was single earning 20K per year - in 1980 - I was living high on the hog. Today, that may be impoverished. I don't expect anyone in the poverty category to pay taxes.
A man who is idly rich makes nothing per year in income, so he'd pay nothing. His vast wealth, from which he pays for his mansion(s), car(s) and an army of doctors who stand ready to treat his every sniffle with amazing speed, is not taxed, since he owes no more than the other guy, who has nothing in the bank.
That's fair to you?
First, I've never heard of a single case where someone is idly rich moneywise. Can you name any? Their money is always earning more money, and that new money is taxed. The only "idle rich" are people who no longer have to work and they are on perpetual vacation. But unless they have stuffed everything they own into their mattresses, their money is still working and earning more money.
Secondly, the original money of the rich was taxed at some point. If the money was inherited then the ancestor paid taxes on it. If the rich guy earned all his wealth between 1990 and 1995, then he paid income taxes on all of it between 1990 and 1995. Are you suggesting the government just keep taxing him over and over, year after year, on the same money?
No, I mean everything. Preventative care, emergency care, surgery, all of it. Whatever a doctor feels the patient needs.
Not like the current system, where an insurance company accountant decides what he is allowed to have.
In the U.S., if a doctor or hospital denies a patient emergency care or surgery, they have broken the law. You are talking about preventative care.
That's incorrect. 45,000 people die every year due to lack of access to health care, remember?
Again ... if a doctor or hospital denies a patient emergency care or surgery, they have broken the law. You are talking about preventative care. Someone without insurance may not know they have treatable cancer. By the time they have symptoms and arrive at the emergency room a year later, it is too late for it to be treated. Those are the numbers.
It doesn't bankrupt Canada, England, Australia, or any other country with a universal health care system. You'll have to show me how it will bankrupt us before I can believe it will.
A trillion dollars in new debt - on top of our current massive debt - in the middle of a nasty recession? You'd have to show me how you would balance that debt before I can believe that it won't bankrupt us.
That's a start, at least.
Care to suggest how we might do that? How do you expect to convince the insurance companies, who currently make massive profits by denying coverage to people, to voluntarily do otherwise?
Voluntarily?
Assuming, by your words, that you disagree with using the federal government to compel them to do so.
Care to quote me on those words? Because (again) I never said any such thing. It isn't possible to reform anything unless there is muscle behind it.
Not at all. I'm not asking you for a solution, just a few ideas on how we might find one.
One thing off the top of my head is for all insurance companies to form and fund a high-risk company for high-risk customers (say, those with pre-existing conditions).
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1870 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 17th, 2009 04:24 am |
|
Ronson wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: So, can I assume, from your "everyone owes the same" mindset, that the poor and disadvantaged, as well as those who have no access to health care, are simply out of luck, and on their own?
If you can afford to pay for their healthcare then I say "go for it." My wife likes to give to charity, to the point we're now in major debt. I suspect you both came from the same economics school.
I will admit I've sometimes donated more money than I can strictly afford when I'm able to. Is that a crime?
What you and Obama and Pelosi are proposing is going to bankrupt this country.
So you keep assuming. You'll have to show me how this is going to happen though, if you want me to believe you.
After all, not having some form of universal health care hasn't exactly kept us from the recession we're in now, has it?
Once that happens then we'll really see the divide between rich and poor, because the middle class will be gone.
It's been slowly, but surely, disappearing roughly since the 1980s, and you can't blame that on universal health care.
-- A2SG, reaganomics, though, that's a different story.....
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1870 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 17th, 2009 04:45 am |
|
Ronson wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: I know. I disagree with your interpretation of that phrase. I don't agree with you that that the "union" we have created is perfect, not in any definition of the term.
Which is why I think we should always be striving to make it more perfect.
You disagree the preamble refers to organizing the colonies into united states?
I disagree that it means that, and nothing else. I don't believe that is what "perfect" means.
That's what it means and there is no other interpretation.
So says you. I happen to disagree.
C'est la vie, I suppose.
We're not dealing with some ancient language from an ancient culture here. Also, I never said we have created a perfect union. This is getting frustrating.
This is what you said:
That "more perfect union" was the transition between disconnected colonies and the formation of states. That was long ago attained.
I don't agree that "more perfect union" means only that, nor do I agree we have attained a "more perfect union" in any sense of the term. And, given that Obama made a speech at the Democratic National Convention on that very subject, I suspect I'm not the only one who feels this way, either.
But, so what? Right?
If you disagree that the phrase "create a more perfect union" has no meaning beyond the formation of the United States (which I find to be a rather curious definition of "perfect", I have to say), that's your perogative.
But to claim that's the only possible definition, well, that's another matter. I'd say the very idea that the Constitution has a means to be updated, redefined and changed proves that not even the founders of the US felt our union was already "perfect", in any sense of the term.
-- A2SG, but hey, you are -- of course -- free to disagree.....
Last edited on Tue Nov 17th, 2009 05:25 am by Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1870 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 17th, 2009 05:23 am |
|
Ronson wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: You've admitted they are obligated and responsible for paying the same percentage of taxes as someone living at the poverty level.
When did I say anything about "the poverty level"?
I believe everybody owes the same amount percentage-wise as the next guy.
Can I safely assume "everybody" includes those living at the poverty level?
Maybe so, but the situation is complex, so we need a similarly complex system to deal with it.
Look at it this way: A man earns a meager $20,000 a year, so according to your plan, he'd owe $4,000 in taxes. This leaves him $16,000 a year to pay for his home, car, food, and health care.
Due to inflation, my $20K per year example may not work. When I was single earning 20K per year - in 1980 - I was living high on the hog. Today, that may be impoverished. I don't expect anyone in the poverty category to pay taxes.
Oh. See, you never said that before.
That's some relief, anyway. I'm not sure if it's enough to pay for health care, given today's costs, but it's something, I suppose.
A man who is idly rich makes nothing per year in income, so he'd pay nothing. His vast wealth, from which he pays for his mansion(s), car(s) and an army of doctors who stand ready to treat his every sniffle with amazing speed, is not taxed, since he owes no more than the other guy, who has nothing in the bank.
That's fair to you?
First, I've never heard of a single case where someone is idly rich moneywise.
You never heard of someone who made a ton of money at something, then retired? Granted, it's not something a lot of people can do these days, but it can happen.
Can you name any? Their money is always earning more money, and that new money is taxed.
Which is why I mentioned capital gains taxes. Can I take it you are in favor of them? A lot of conservatives feel they should be cut, or elminated outright.
The only "idle rich" are people who no longer have to work and they are on perpetual vacation. But unless they have stuffed everything they own into their mattresses, their money is still working and earning more money.
See, you weren't clear earlier. You never specified you were talking about capital gains as well as income.
But, that's really beside the point anyway, since, as I said before, I wasn't talking just about paying taxes anyway.
I'll ask again: do you feel the rich have no additional responsibilities toward society than paying their taxes?
Secondly, the original money of the rich was taxed at some point. If the money was inherited then the ancestor paid taxes on it. If the rich guy earned all his wealth between 1990 and 1995, then he paid income taxes on all of it between 1990 and 1995. Are you suggesting the government just keep taxing him over and over, year after year, on the same money?
I don't recall suggesting that, no.
As I said, I wasn't talking about taxes alone anyway. I was talking about responsibilities.
What responsibilities do you feel the rich owe the society that allowed them to become rich, may I ask? Nothing beyond paying taxes?
No, I mean everything. Preventative care, emergency care, surgery, all of it. Whatever a doctor feels the patient needs.
Not like the current system, where an insurance company accountant decides what he is allowed to have.
In the U.S., if a doctor or hospital denies a patient emergency care or surgery, they have broken the law. You are talking about preventative care.
Sure, but not just that. I'm talking about everything.
Also, in sheer economic terms, preventative medicine is cheaper than emergency medicine, and, oftentimes, can prevent the need for emergency medicine altogether.'
Would it not be more cost-effective, in the long run, to make preventative care available to everyone?
That's incorrect. 45,000 people die every year due to lack of access to health care, remember?
Again ... if a doctor or hospital denies a patient emergency care or surgery, they have broken the law.
Sure. But it happens, nonetheless.
You are talking about preventative care. Someone without insurance may not know they have treatable cancer. By the time they have symptoms and arrive at the emergency room a year later, it is too late for it to be treated. Those are the numbers.
Some of them, sure.
How would it bankrupt the US to treat them before it becomes an emergency? Other countries do it.
I'd even bet it would cost a hell of a lot less than the war in Iraq has.
It doesn't bankrupt Canada, England, Australia, or any other country with a universal health care system. You'll have to show me how it will bankrupt us before I can believe it will.
A trillion dollars in new debt - on top of our current massive debt - in the middle of a nasty recession? You'd have to show me how you would balance that debt before I can believe that it won't bankrupt us.
And now we're back to expecting those who can afford to help out to do so. That's one idea.
Got any others? Short of just saying "no" to those who need health care, that is?
That's a start, at least.
Care to suggest how we might do that? How do you expect to convince the insurance companies, who currently make massive profits by denying coverage to people, to voluntarily do otherwise?
Voluntarily?
Yeah. You seem opposed to using the federal government to force them to do so. If there is another way to compel them to change their exceptionally profitable current practices, you'll have to let me know about it.
Assuming, by your words, that you disagree with using the federal government to compel them to do so.
Care to quote me on those words? Because (again) I never said any such thing. It isn't possible to reform anything unless there is muscle behind it.
True enough. What muscle do you suggest we use in this case?
Not at all. I'm not asking you for a solution, just a few ideas on how we might find one.
One thing off the top of my head is for all insurance companies to form and fund a high-risk company for high-risk customers (say, those with pre-existing conditions).
And what if this fund doesn't make money? Can they just cancel it if it isn't profitable? Can they deny coverage to people if covering them cuts into the bottom line?
-- A2SG, cuz that's exactly the problem we're facing today, isn't it?
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 17th, 2009 04:14 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: I will admit I've sometimes donated more money than I can strictly afford when I'm able to. Is that a crime?
So you keep assuming. You'll have to show me how this is going to happen though, if you want me to believe you.
After all, not having some form of universal health care hasn't exactly kept us from the recession we're in now, has it?
It's been slowly, but surely, disappearing roughly since the 1980s, and you can't blame that on universal health care.
-- A2SG, reaganomics, though, that's a different story.....
No comment, other than we disagree.
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 17th, 2009 04:16 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: I disagree that it means that, and nothing else. I don't believe that is what "perfect" means.
So says you. I happen to disagree.
C'est la vie, I suppose.
This is what you said:
That "more perfect union" was the transition between disconnected colonies and the formation of states. That was long ago attained.
I don't agree that "more perfect union" means only that, nor do I agree we have attained a "more perfect union" in any sense of the term. And, given that Obama made a speech at the Democratic National Convention on that very subject, I suspect I'm not the only one who feels this way, either.
But, so what? Right?
If you disagree that the phrase "create a more perfect union" has no meaning beyond the formation of the United States (which I find to be a rather curious definition of "perfect", I have to say), that's your perogative.
But to claim that's the only possible definition, well, that's another matter. I'd say the very idea that the Constitution has a means to be updated, redefined and changed proves that not even the founders of the US felt our union was already "perfect", in any sense of the term.
-- A2SG, but hey, you are -- of course -- free to disagree.....
Again, no comment except for one minor point. "More perfect" is not synonymous with "perfect." The former means to improve on something.
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 17th, 2009 04:43 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Can I safely assume "everybody" includes those living at the poverty level?
No. If someone is having trouble buying food then they shouldn't be giving to Uncle Sam. I suspect even your most ardent conservative would agree to that.
You never heard of someone who made a ton of money at something, then retired? Granted, it's not something a lot of people can do these days, but it can happen.
They physically retire but their money keeps working, earning more money (interest, you know) and that is taxable income.
Which is why I mentioned capital gains taxes. Can I take it you are in favor of them? A lot of conservatives feel they should be cut, or elminated outright.
I know conservatives do not want Capital Gains taxes to be exorbitantly high. Neither do I. But capital gains are still income. If we are going to have an income tax system, then all income should apply to it. Unless, of course, someone is categorized as impoverished.
I'll ask again: do you feel the rich have no additional responsibilities toward society than paying their taxes?
Ethically? Yes, and they do this through charity. Legally? No, they do not.
What responsibilities do you feel the rich owe the society that allowed them to become rich, may I ask? Nothing beyond paying taxes?
Answered above.
Sure, but not just that. I'm talking about everything.
Also, in sheer economic terms, preventative medicine is cheaper than emergency medicine, and, oftentimes, can prevent the need for emergency medicine altogether.'
Would it not be more cost-effective, in the long run, to make preventative care available to everyone?
I have no idea. It probably depends on the specific cases.
Sure. But it happens, nonetheless.
What do you propose beyond making it illegal to refuse treatment?
Yeah. You seem opposed to using the federal government to force them to do so. If there is another way to compel them to change their exceptionally profitable current practices, you'll have to let me know about it.
I may seem to be opposed but I am not. What I am opposed to is the federal government getting into the insurance business itself. If it compels insurance companies to alter their methods then I am not opposed to that. Again, even staunch conservatives see a problem with the health insurance business. The disagreement is on how to address it.
True enough. What muscle do you suggest we use in this case?
With my off-the-cuff suggestion? Give the companies some timeframe to put together a conglomerate that accepts everyone regardless of risk. They all supply boardmembers to that group and all share in the costs of running it. But again, this is off the cuff and not really thought out.
And what if this fund doesn't make money? Can they just cancel it if it isn't profitable?
It's not supposed to be profitable, but I'm sure it can be made tax deductable.
Can they deny coverage to people if covering them cuts into the bottom line?
Nope.
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 17th, 2009 05:59 pm |
|
WRAPPING UP ...
I don't see this discussion going much further. In short, you see the federal government as a tool to correct society's ills. I do not see it that way. In fact, I see the federal government causing more trouble than it solves.
If you have some summary regarding your philosophical position, fine. Otherwise I think this thread is getting cumbersome and unproductive.
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1870 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 18th, 2009 04:31 am |
|
Ronson wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: I disagree that it means that, and nothing else. I don't believe that is what "perfect" means.
So says you. I happen to disagree.
C'est la vie, I suppose.
This is what you said:
That "more perfect union" was the transition between disconnected colonies and the formation of states. That was long ago attained.
I don't agree that "more perfect union" means only that, nor do I agree we have attained a "more perfect union" in any sense of the term. And, given that Obama made a speech at the Democratic National Convention on that very subject, I suspect I'm not the only one who feels this way, either.
But, so what? Right?
If you disagree that the phrase "create a more perfect union" has no meaning beyond the formation of the United States (which I find to be a rather curious definition of "perfect", I have to say), that's your perogative.
But to claim that's the only possible definition, well, that's another matter. I'd say the very idea that the Constitution has a means to be updated, redefined and changed proves that not even the founders of the US felt our union was already "perfect", in any sense of the term.
-- A2SG, but hey, you are -- of course -- free to disagree.....
Again, no comment except for one minor point. "More perfect" is not synonymous with "perfect." The former means to improve on something.
Actually, strictly speaking, "more perfect" makes no sense, grammatically. Something either is or is not perfect, there is no degree of perfection.
Colloquially, though, "more perfect" does mean to improve on something, that is correct. But at what point is perfection attained? In what sense are we now, or when have we ever been a "perfect" union?
I don't agree with your assessment that we have been perfect since the colonies formed one united union. I believe the term is meant that we should ever strive to improve our union, our nation. We can debate on how that is to be done, but I don't believe the job is finished yet.
-- A2SG, nor will it ever be, perfection being more an ideal that a goal.....
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1870 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 18th, 2009 04:56 am |
|
Ronson wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Can I safely assume "everybody" includes those living at the poverty level?
No.
Ah. Then you were unclear. If you meant to qualify "everybody" you should have done so, otherwise it's hard to understand what you mean.
If someone is having trouble buying food then they shouldn't be giving to Uncle Sam. I suspect even your most ardent conservative would agree to that.
That is not my impression of most conservatives, ardent or otherwise, but I'll let them speak for themselves.
You never heard of someone who made a ton of money at something, then retired? Granted, it's not something a lot of people can do these days, but it can happen.
They physically retire but their money keeps working, earning more money (interest, you know) and that is taxable income.
Some conservatives believe it should not be. I didn't know you weren't among their number, you never specified.
Which is why I mentioned capital gains taxes. Can I take it you are in favor of them? A lot of conservatives feel they should be cut, or elminated outright.
I know conservatives do not want Capital Gains taxes to be exorbitantly high. Neither do I. But capital gains are still income. If we are going to have an income tax system, then all income should apply to it. Unless, of course, someone is categorized as impoverished.
Ah. Then you differ from many of the conservatives I've heard discuss this. No matter. As I said, I wasn't talking about taxes alone anyway.
But, now that we've got the taxation issue settled, care to weigh in on the issue of whether or not rich people have responsibilities to the society that helped them get rich?
I'll ask again: do you feel the rich have no additional responsibilities toward society than paying their taxes?
Ethically? Yes, and they do this through charity. Legally? No, they do not.
So their responsibilities are strictly voluntary, then? If they decide to keep all their money and screw everyone else, that's perfectly okay then? Can society expect nothing more from them than whatever they deign to part with?
Sure, but not just that. I'm talking about everything.
Also, in sheer economic terms, preventative medicine is cheaper than emergency medicine, and, oftentimes, can prevent the need for emergency medicine altogether.'
Would it not be more cost-effective, in the long run, to make preventative care available to everyone?
I have no idea. It probably depends on the specific cases.
Common sense, really. If you can treat a disease before it requires an emergency procedure, how is that not cost-effective?
Why should we not strive for this, instead of the current system, in which 45,000 Americans die each year due to lack of access to health care?
Sure. But it happens, nonetheless.
What do you propose beyond making it illegal to refuse treatment?
Dealing with the reason why some hospitals refuse treatment: cost. And I'm not talking about the cost of the care itself, but the cost of insurance as well.
Yeah. You seem opposed to using the federal government to force them to do so. If there is another way to compel them to change their exceptionally profitable current practices, you'll have to let me know about it.
I may seem to be opposed but I am not. What I am opposed to is the federal government getting into the insurance business itself.
For heaven's sake, why??? Insurance is the biggest money making scam going! Look at the massive profits insurance companies make!
If it compels insurance companies to alter their methods then I am not opposed to that. Again, even staunch conservatives see a problem with the health insurance business.
They do????? Really????
Wow, they're sure reticient to point it out!
The disagreement is on how to address it.
Care to provide an example of conservatives offering ideas toward a solution? I don't recall hearing any.
True enough. What muscle do you suggest we use in this case?
With my off-the-cuff suggestion? Give the companies some timeframe to put together a conglomerate that accepts everyone regardless of risk. They all supply boardmembers to that group and all share in the costs of running it.
And if they don't meet that timeframe? I'm just curious about what form of muscle you think is appropriate here.
But again, this is off the cuff and not really thought out.
Not to worry. I won't hold you to anything here. I'm just curious about how you think these issues should be dealt with. Most conservatives just rail on and on about how bad a public option would be without offering anything useful in its place.
And what if this fund doesn't make money? Can they just cancel it if it isn't profitable?
It's not supposed to be profitable, but I'm sure it can be made tax deductable.
So, in essence, the government would be paying for it anyway, since these insurance companies wouldn't be paying taxes on this endeavor.
What am I missing?
Can they deny coverage to people if covering them cuts into the bottom line?
Nope.
And the muscle to make sure the insurance companies comply with this would be....?
-- A2SG, sounds to me like the federal government would be just as involved here as they would be by offering their own public option......if not more so....
Last edited on Wed Nov 18th, 2009 05:14 am by Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1870 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 18th, 2009 05:08 am |
|
Ronson wrote: WRAPPING UP ...
I don't see this discussion going much further.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm learning a lot in this discussion, and I thank you heartily for your input.
In short, you see the federal government as a tool to correct society's ills.
In part, sure. Why not? Is it not an extension of society itself?
I do not see it that way. In fact, I see the federal government causing more trouble than it solves.
Sure, it does that, too. But since the federal government is an extension of we, the people, it seems we're the ones who need to make sure it works for us, rather than against us.
Making it the enemy doesn't seem to be the best way to do that, though.
If you have some summary regarding your philosophical position, fine. Otherwise I think this thread is getting cumbersome and unproductive.
Again, I'm sorry you feel that way. I've been finding it very productive, if for no other reason to gain some insight into the conservative mindset. Too many conservatives these days simply yell bumper sticker slogans instead of engage in meaningful discussions like the one you and I have been having, and I would like to sincerely thank you for this one.
When I discuss issues like this, I tend to ask a lot of questions, mostly so that I can understand another point of view. If it sometimes seems like I'm pressing or hammering on a certain point, it's usually simply because I don't understand your stance, and it's only by asking questions that I can do so. And yeah, I too tend to get very specific in those cases, but that's only because I don't find vague answers very useful.
So, again, thank you.
-- A2SG, as for a summary of my philosophical position here, it's simply this: I feel health care should be a right, available to all.....
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 18th, 2009 07:17 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Common sense, really. If you can treat a disease before it requires an emergency procedure, how is that not cost-effective?
Again, it would depend on the specifics. If someone has a tumor that is being treated by chemotherapy for a year and it isn't responding (like my father) odds are they will end up in emergency surgery to remove it. The chemo sessions were expensive and useless in my father's case.
Care to provide an example of conservatives offering ideas toward a solution? I don't recall hearing any.
The conservative talking heads you find on Fox News admit to a problem. I don't recall any specific suggestions from them, although they've pointed toward Republican congressmen who have floated ideas.
So, in essence, the government would be paying for it anyway, since these insurance companies wouldn't be paying taxes on this endeavor.
What am I missing?
A tax deduction (not paying a tax) and the government taking and spending money are quite different.
Sure, it does that, too. But since the federal government is an extension of we, the people, it seems we're the ones who need to make sure it works for us, rather than against us.
Making it the enemy doesn't seem to be the best way to do that, though.
There are many problems with centralized power. First, it is less responsive to constituents and more answerable to special interests, and liberals tend to miss this quite often. Why do you think we have the pollutant fluouride being introduced in drinking-water supplies all over the country? It's because the steel industry was able to twist arms in Washington DC. Do you see Al Gore or any environmentalists crying foul about it? No, because they had their palms "greened" already. Drug company lobbyists will pay for congressional junkets to the Bahamas, or golfing weekends in Maui, and suddenly those companies get another tax break, or a law is relaxed on animal testing (or whatever).
The average American earns $50,000 to $55,000 per year. Congressmen pay themselves $174,000 - PLUS give themselves benefits as generous as a CEO. You believe these people aren't self centered mercenaries? If they aren't elitists when they are first elected, they quickly transform afterwards. Look at the congressional corruption probes going on where members of both parties make taxpayers pay for their home remodeling, unscheduled vacations, first-class airfare, masseuses, etc.
Arrogance and lobbying run the federal government and these people do not have my best interests at heart. I don't care to keep paying these people more and more money, giving them more and more power, building a largesse bureaucracy to create what they believe is a better society.
Again, I'm sorry you feel that way. I've been finding it very productive, if for no other reason to gain some insight into the conservative mindset...
Well, I really am not the best representative of the "conservative mindset." I am a practical Libertarian. I was just as critical of Bush and his policies as I am of Obama and his policies. I am arguing the "conservative" viewpoint because liberals are currently holding power.
Too many conservatives these days simply yell bumper sticker slogans instead of engage in meaningful discussions like the one you and I have been having, and I would like to sincerely thank you for this one.
When I discuss issues like this, I tend to ask a lot of questions, mostly so that I can understand another point of view. If it sometimes seems like I'm pressing or hammering on a certain point, it's usually simply because I don't understand your stance, and it's only by asking questions that I can do so. And yeah, I too tend to get very specific in those cases, but that's only because I don't find vague answers very useful.
So, again, thank you.
-- A2SG, as for a summary of my philosophical position here, it's simply this: I feel health care should be a right, available to all.....
Thanks for your input as well.
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1870 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Nov 19th, 2009 05:10 am |
|
Ronson wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Common sense, really. If you can treat a disease before it requires an emergency procedure, how is that not cost-effective?
Again, it would depend on the specifics. If someone has a tumor that is being treated by chemotherapy for a year and it isn't responding (like my father) odds are they will end up in emergency surgery to remove it. The chemo sessions were expensive and useless in my father's case.
Granted, there are always exceptions, but generally speaking, it's cheaper to deal with problems before they become problems. If health care were universal and not the hassle it generally is now, there is a good possibility that tumors like you describe could be dealt with before chemo or emergency surgery were required.
And that would be more cost-effective than the current system is, I'd think.
Care to provide an example of conservatives offering ideas toward a solution? I don't recall hearing any.
The conservative talking heads you find on Fox News admit to a problem. I don't recall any specific suggestions from them, although they've pointed toward Republican congressmen who have floated ideas.
Care to mention who those congressmen are, or what those ideas might be? I seem to have missed that.
So, in essence, the government would be paying for it anyway, since these insurance companies wouldn't be paying taxes on this endeavor.
What am I missing?
A tax deduction (not paying a tax) and the government taking and spending money are quite different.
Maybe so, but who's going to pick up the slack from all that money the insurance companies are losing? Wanna bet they'll be charging more elsewhere? And futher, what's to prevent them from cutting people off when the cost more money than the insurance company is willing to part with?
Sure, it does that, too. But since the federal government is an extension of we, the people, it seems we're the ones who need to make sure it works for us, rather than against us.
Making it the enemy doesn't seem to be the best way to do that, though.
There are many problems with centralized power. First, it is less responsive to constituents and more answerable to special interests, and liberals tend to miss this quite often.
Contrary to what people like Glen Beck and hiram might think, I don't think you'll find a liberal alive who believes the government is perfect or without flaws.
For example, I never said that health care would be best handled by the federal government, but I see no one else trying to fix the problem.
Why do you think we have the pollutant fluouride being introduced in drinking-water supplies all over the country? It's because the steel industry was able to twist arms in Washington DC.
Well, the fact that it prevents tooth decay may have something to do with it.
Do you see Al Gore or any environmentalists crying foul about it? No, because they had their palms "greened" already.
Maybe they know about the tooth decay thing.
Drug company lobbyists will pay for congressional junkets to the Bahamas, or golfing weekends in Maui, and suddenly those companies get another tax break, or a law is relaxed on animal testing (or whatever).
Hey, I won't argue that governments, at every level, are subject to corruption and influence peddling. People can always be bought, that's a fact of life.
For example, Joe Lieberman, a senator from a state where a lot of insurance companies have offices, has threatened to filibuster any health care bill with a public option.
The average American earns $50,000 to $55,000 per year. Congressmen pay themselves $174,000 - PLUS give themselves benefits as generous as a CEO. You believe these people aren't self centered mercenaries?
Sure they are. And none of them need to pay for their own health care. I'd love to see their health insurance be part of the public option, you'd see that bill pass in a nanosecond.
If they aren't elitists when they are first elected, they quickly transform afterwards. Look at the congressional corruption probes going on where members of both parties make taxpayers pay for their home remodeling, unscheduled vacations, first-class airfare, masseuses, etc.
Arrogance and lobbying run the federal government and these people do not have my best interests at heart. I don't care to keep paying these people more and more money, giving them more and more power, building a largesse bureaucracy to create what they believe is a better society.
Fine.
What do you suggest we do instead?
You mentioned a few ideas about how insurance companies would be taking care of the problem themselves, though I'm still unclear on why they'd be doing this, or what muscle would be used to compel them to lose money on people who need health care that may not be profitable.
Again, I'm sorry you feel that way. I've been finding it very productive, if for no other reason to gain some insight into the conservative mindset...
Well, I really am not the best representative of the "conservative mindset."
True. And that is to your credit.
I am a practical Libertarian. I was just as critical of Bush and his policies as I am of Obama and his policies. I am arguing the "conservative" viewpoint because liberals are currently holding power.
Were you arguing a liberal viewpoint during the Bush years? I don't recall.
Too many conservatives these days simply yell bumper sticker slogans instead of engage in meaningful discussions like the one you and I have been having, and I would like to sincerely thank you for this one.
When I discuss issues like this, I tend to ask a lot of questions, mostly so that I can understand another point of view. If it sometimes seems like I'm pressing or hammering on a certain point, it's usually simply because I don't understand your stance, and it's only by asking questions that I can do so. And yeah, I too tend to get very specific in those cases, but that's only because I don't find vague answers very useful.
So, again, thank you.
-- A2SG, as for a summary of my philosophical position here, it's simply this: I feel health care should be a right, available to all.....
Thanks for your input as well.
de nada.
-- A2SG, so how's stiggy doing these days anyway?
Last edited on Thu Nov 19th, 2009 05:12 am by Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
|
Current time is 09:02 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5   |
|
|
|
|
