Joe Biden promises to "provide health care for all"

[deleted480308]

Its a scenario that even it befalls him, there will not be any way to “check” if he stuck to his ridiculous beliefs or not, so its easy to espouse them.

Meanwhile, people like him keep using gov provided services and it is only when they get to a service that they can do without or have an alternative way of getting it, that it becomes “Socialism”

Nope, it’s socialism. My reasoning for using it is the system is a net negative to me right now but I don’t have the option to opt out of the bill. I get more taken by the govt than I get back.

I’m not at all interested in the implication that it’s hypocritical both want to end that system and also get my my money back as much as possible while stuck in the system

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

They would certainly be legal to do so, just like a grocery store is legal to do so. They could/would have charity hospitals or charity funds within hospitals.

Ah so basically you’re saying that ideally people wouldn’t just die, but that there would be charity systems set up that people put into or work for willingly instead of having money taken from us as a part of simply existing here.

 

[deleted480308]

Ah so basically you’re saying that ideally people wouldn’t just die, but that there would be charity systems set up that people put into or work for willingly instead of having money taken from us as a part of simply existing here.

I believe both thay charity would pick up a lot of the slack and that costs would be lowered (and likely healthcare salaries). It must be admitted though thay some people might die faster than under the current system

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I believe both thay charity would pick up a lot of the slack and that costs would be lowered (and likely healthcare salaries). It must be admitted though thay some people might die faster than under the current system

Might incentivize people to adhere to preventive care.

 

[deleted480308]

Might incentivize people to adhere to preventative care.

Or hospitals to stop building taj mahal facilities

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Might incentivize people to adhere to preventive care.

Doubt it

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Doubt it

One can dream.

 

[Ludwig2000]

Have fun using services that others paid for...

Given your concern about who is paying for public services- I assume you would support policies wherein people who pay more in taxes have a proportionately higher access to services? Is that right

 

[FutureInternist]

Given your concern about who is paying for public services- I assume you would support policies wherein people who pay more in taxes have a proportionately higher access to services? Is that right

That already happens.
People with better insurance plans (higher premiums) get better services.
Would you be OK with organs being allocated based on who can pay for them?

On the other hand, people w/o kids pay for schools, parks, libraries that they will not use as much as those with kids.

My philosophy (which I kind of mentioned in earlier comments), is that instead of 5 people having Ferraris, and 95 having Ford Escorts (although mine got me to Uni for 3 years before breaking down), is that lets get everyone Corollas, and then we can upgrade the 5 to Mercedes.

 

[deleted480308]

That already happens.
People with better insurance plans (higher premiums) get better services.
Would you be OK with organs being allocated based on who can pay for them?

On the other hand, people w/o kids pay for schools, parks, libraries that they will not use as much as those with kids.

My philosophy (which I kind of mentioned in earlier comments), is that instead of 5 people having Ferraris, and 95 having Ford Escorts (although mine got me to Uni for 3 years before breaking down), is that lets get everyone Corollas, and then we can upgrade the 5 to Mercedes.

So no one really owns their stuff because you decide how much of it they get to keep and what they are allowed to have based on how many other people have it....

That’s a bad idea

 

[FutureInternist]

So no one really owns their stuff because you decide how much of it they get to keep and what they are allowed to have based on how many other people have it....

That’s a bad idea

Jeez... they DO own it... just not as much.

We already do it now (AKA taxes).
I am for expanding them to include more millionaires and billionaires and corporations, in order to help people not starve.
You are not.

If, as a byproduct of these inc’d taxes, they can “only” buy Mercedes instead of Ferraris, then I am not going to lose any sleep over it, since the payoff will be less people starving/dying.

We have been round this block a few times so same arguments will get made.

 

[deleted480308]

Jeez... they DO own it... just not as much.

We already do it now (AKA taxes).
I am for expanding them to include more millionaires and billionaires and corporations, in order to help people not starve.
You are not.

If, as a byproduct of these inc’d taxes, they can “only” buy Mercedes instead of Ferraris, then I am not going to lose any sleep over it, since the payoff will be less people starving/dying.

We have been round this block a few times so same arguments will get made.

I’m very aware of the stance

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Jeez... they DO own it... just not as much.

We already do it now (AKA taxes).
I am for expanding them to include more millionaires and billionaires and corporations, in order to help people not starve.
You are not.

If, as a byproduct of these inc’d taxes, they can “only” buy Mercedes instead of Ferraris, then I am not going to lose any sleep over it, since the payoff will be less people starving/dying.

We have been round this block a few times so same arguments will get made.

Yeah that's a little too communist for me. I don't know a single person who has come from a communist country who thinks it works or is a good idea.

 

[FutureInternist]

Yeah that's a little too communist for me. I don't know a single person who has come from a communist country who thinks it works or is a good idea.

Paying your fair share of taxes, and using it to better the lives of the less fortunate is communist??

Do you agree with people paying taxes or not?

If not, then there is no further conversation to be had since A) that system will never change, and B) its so opposite of my view that meaningful comvo is not possible.

If you do agree with taxes, then I don’t see an issue with getting corporations to pay their fair share (and not the ~3 % that Amazon paid last year), and we can discuss how to achieve that.

The view I mentioned, does not “take” material possessions from the rich, it just makes it that IF after paying their share of taxes, they happen to not be able to afford the super-duper ultra luxury yacht, but rather “only” the supreme luxury yacht, then so be it.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Paying your fair share of taxes, and using it to better the lives of the less fortunate is communist??

Redistribution of wealth is communist. The system you described is a redistribution of wealth, not just paying your fair share of taxes.

Do you agree with people paying taxes or not?

If not, then there is no further conversation to be had since A) that system will never change, and B) its so opposite of my view that meaningful comvo is not possible.

If you do agree with taxes, then I don’t see an issue with getting corporations to pay their fair share (and not the ~3 % that Amazon paid last year), and we can discuss how to achieve that.

The view I mentioned, does not “take” material possessions from the rich, it just makes it that IF after paying their share of taxes, they happen to not be able to afford the super-duper ultra luxury yacht, but rather “only” the supreme luxury yacht, then so be it.

I think that if you want to live in a place where the government makes sure the roads are nice, provides police and fire services, etc., then you agree to pay taxes to live there. But I don't think that the tax burden should be so high that you are limiting how people can spend their money.

 

[deleted480308]

Paying your fair share of taxes, and using it to better the lives of the less fortunate is communist??

Do you agree with people paying taxes or not?

If not, then there is no further conversation to be had since A) that system will never change, and B) its so opposite of my view that meaningful comvo is not possible.

If you do agree with taxes, then I don’t see an issue with getting corporations to pay their fair share (and not the ~3 % that Amazon paid last year), and we can discuss how to achieve that.

The view I mentioned, does not “take” material possessions from the rich, it just makes it that IF after paying their share of taxes, they happen to not be able to afford the super-duper ultra luxury yacht, but rather “only” the supreme luxury yacht, then so be it.

What exactly is someone’s fair share?

 

[FutureInternist]

Redistribution of wealth is communist. The system you described is a redistribution of wealth, not just paying your fair share of taxes.



I think that if you want to live in a place where the government makes sure the roads are nice, provides police and fire services, etc., then you agree to pay taxes to live there. But I don't think that the tax burden should be so high that you are limiting how people can spend their money.

Not sure if you are intentionally misunderstanding what I am saying.

You pay taxes.
Because of that there might be certain things you cannot buy since $X went to taxes and you could have used that to buy them.

Corporations don’t pay their fair share of taxes, their CEOs buy **** ton of stuff, although they hide a bunch more in offshore accounts.

Get corporations to pay taxes, and logically they will be able to buy less.

This is not redistribution.... its called “paying taxes”

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Not sure if you are intentionally misunderstanding what I am saying.

You pay taxes.
Because of that there might be certain things you cannot buy since $X went to taxes and you could have used that to buy them.

Corporations don’t pay their fair share of taxes, their CEOs buy **** ton of stuff, although they hide a bunch more in offshore accounts.

Get corporations to pay taxes, and logically they will be able to buy less.

This is not redistribution.... its called “paying taxes”

Taking enough of people’s money that it significantly limits their lifestyle (in your example, taking their Ferraris and selling them so everyone can have a corolla and then they can only afford a bmw or whatever) and giving it to others is redistribution. You can have people who make more pay more without forcing them to be unable to afford their lifestyle.

 

[FutureInternist]

What exactly is someone’s fair share?

Somewhere b/w 0% and whatever the top income bracket is.

All I am saying is that everyone should play by the same rules, but when rules are rigged to allow the rich to get away with even paying the bare minimum, then that is an issue for me.

If I remember correctly, you used to be in construction... so, to make a building do you not need a solid foundation?, every apartment should have the basics (water, heat etc), and THEN you can offer luxury apartments that have more.
If ensuring that all apartments have the basics, means that the luxury ones only have 5 bedrooms instead of 6, then I’m OK with that.

I am NOT saying to take people’s possessions, I AM saying that under this system (which the current one is supposed to be anyway), the # of possessions for the super rich will go down by a bit, while ensuring (to quote Jungle Book), the basic necessities of life, for millions.

 

[FutureInternist]

Taking enough of people’s money that it significantly limits their lifestyle (in your example, taking their Ferraris and selling them so everyone can have a corolla and then they can only afford a bmw or whatever) and giving it to others is redistribution. You can have people who make more pay more without forcing them to be unable to afford their lifestyle.

Dude/dudette,

I don’t know how much each of those things cost. I was just using them as an example.

WHERE did I say we would sell them??
Just that IF they pay their taxes, and IF said taxes lead to them to “only” be able to afford a slightly less luxurious item, then I am OK with it.

By your logic you are currently in a communist state then, since you are unable to afford something, since you paid taxes.

Maybe the apartment example in my response to sb247 makes more sense?

 

[FutureInternist]

Redistribution of wealth is communist. The system you described is a redistribution of wealth, not just paying your fair share of taxes.



I think that if you want to live in a place where the government makes sure the roads are nice, provides police and fire services, etc., then you agree to pay taxes to live there. But I don't think that the tax burden should be so high that you are limiting how people can spend their money.

Agree (with the 2nd half)..... and I am not saying that at all.

 

[deleted480308]

Somewhere b/w 0% and whatever the top income bracket is.

All I am saying is that everyone should play by the same rules, but when rules are rigged to allow the rich to get away with even paying the bare minimum, then that is an issue for me.

If I remember correctly, you used to be in construction... so, to make a building do you not need a solid foundation?, every apartment should have the basics (water, heat etc), and THEN you can offer luxury apartments that have more.
If ensuring that all apartments have the basics, means that the luxury ones only have 5 bedrooms instead of 6, then I’m OK with that.

I am NOT saying to take people’s possessions, I AM saying that under this system (which the current one is supposed to be anyway), the # of possessions for the super rich will go down by a bit, while ensuring (to quote Jungle Book), the basic necessities of life, for millions.

But you quite literally want to take people’s possessions, but only if you think they are wealthy. That’s what your answer of “between zero and the highest rate” means. And you want to take more than is currently take

 

[Mad Jack]

Hopefully it goes single payer, I'm tired of this Obamacare garbage

 

[Mad Jack]

But you quite literally want to take people’s possessions, but only if you think they are wealthy. That’s what your answer of “between zero and the highest rate” means. And you want to take more than is currently take

I think that given our current deficit is higher than WWII levels, we should have WWII era taxes until it is paid down so that the country doesn't collapse

 

[deleted480308]

I think that given our current deficit is higher than WWII levels, we should have WWII era taxes until it is paid down so that the country doesn't collapse

or we could stop spending so much

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Dude/dudette,

I don’t know how much each of those things cost. I was just using them as an example.

WHERE did I say we would sell them??
Just that IF they pay their taxes, and IF said taxes lead to them to “only” be able to afford a slightly less luxurious item, then I am OK with it.

By your logic you are currently in a communist state then, since you are unable to afford something, since you paid taxes.

Maybe the apartment example in my response to sb247 makes more sense?

Yeah I think it might just be that the analogy doesn’t quite work. The analogy you used makes it seem like you basically want to tax people so that most people live about the same lifestyle, maybe a little better if they are filthy rich.

 

[Mad Jack]

or we could stop spending so much

Even if we cut all discretionary spending competely it would take 42 years to pay off the national debt. We can't cut our way out of this one, we have to cut and raise revenues or the country will collapse

 

[deleted480308]

Even if we cut all discretionary spending competely it would take 42 years to pay off the national debt. We can't cut our way out of this one, we have to cut and raise revenues or the country will collapse

if it's SOOOO desperate that you think we have to raise taxes and cut spending, you can't sell that to me without everyone paying income taxes AND spending coming down. I'm not buying, "we'll just keep taking more from the top end"

 

[Mad Jack]

if it's SOOOO desperate that you think we have to raise taxes and cut spending, you can't sell that to me without everyone paying income taxes AND spending coming down. I'm not buying, "we'll just keep taking more from the top end"

I'm all for cutting discretionary spending. The military budget is atrociously large.

 

[deleted480308]

I'm all for cutting discretionary spending. The military budget is atrociously large.

you are too modest in your approach but we're agreeing so far

 

[Mad Jack]

you are too modest in your approach but we're agreeing so far

Oh we would never agree. I want actual top marginal tax rates at WWII levels. We spent the money, we should pay it down. Doing so before resulted in the most prosperous period in our nation's history.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Oh we would never agree. I want actual top marginal tax rates at WWII levels. We spent the money, we should pay it down. Doing so before resulted in the most prosperous period in our nation's history.

Good luck with that.

 

[FutureInternist]

Yeah I think it might just be that the analogy doesn’t quite work. The analogy you used makes it seem like you basically want to tax people so that most people live about the same lifestyle, maybe a little better if they are filthy rich.

Definitely NOT....
Just cut down the rich’s lifestyle by a smidge, and use that $ to KEEP PEOPLE FED AND ALIVE.

 

[FutureInternist]

But you quite literally want to take people’s possessions, but only if you think they are wealthy. That’s what your answer of “between zero and the highest rate” means. And you want to take more than is currently take

Dude... seriously... read my replies to Mathew and then if you still think that, then I can’t explain it any better nor can you understand it any better.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Definitely NOT....
Just cut down the rich’s lifestyle by a smidge, and use that $ to KEEP PEOPLE FED AND ALIVE.

Yeah that’s different.

 

[deleted480308]

Definitely NOT....
Just cut down the rich’s lifestyle by a smidge, and use that $ to KEEP PEOPLE FED AND ALIVE.

It is not the role of govt to decide that someone’s money should be used on someone else

 

[FutureInternist]

It is not the role of govt to decide that someone’s money should be used on someone else

You give up certain rights when living in a society as opposed to alone.

I don’t have a right to drive the wrong way down a road etc, as hence the gov forces me to comply under threat of fines and jail.

I am OK with gov doing that to help people, since private charities can (and do) discriminate as to who they will help, and not every person in need of help, has a niche representative charity that they can rely on.

Breathing clean air, not having water as polluted, not having elevators come crashing down since gov forced companies to do the right thing, IS a function of gov

 

[deleted480308]

You give up certain rights when living in a society as opposed to alone.

I don’t have a right to drive the wrong way down a road etc, as hence the gov forces me to comply under threat of fines and jail.

I am OK with gov doing that to help people, since private charities can (and do) discriminate as to who they will help, and not every person in need of help, has a niche representative charity that they can rely on.

Breathing clean air, not having water as polluted, not having elevators come crashing down since gov forced companies to do the right thing, IS a function of gov

You ascribe way too much good to govt

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

You ascribe way too much good to govt

Given what history has shown us, I think you ascribe way too much good to people. I’m not exactly for big government, but there’s a reason the gov has had to step into certain things.

 

[deleted480308]

Given what history has shown us, I think you ascribe way too much good to people. I’m not exactly for big government, but there’s a reason the gov has had to step into certain things.

Oh I don’t think people are necessarily good. I just think you have a better chance with people because even when they are bad, they want money so they have to act right enough to keep earning it. Govt in some things is still appropriate for when it gets out of hand

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Oh I don’t think people are necessarily good. I just think you have a better chance with people because even when they are bad, they want money so they have to act right enough to keep earning it. Govt in some things is still appropriate for when it gets out of hand

And yet we have a long history of people doing ****ty things to just about everyone in order to make money.

 

[deleted480308]

And yet we have a long history of people doing ****ty things to just about everyone in order to make money.

And thats the “get out of hand part”, but when a person acts bad you can stop dealing with them. A govt, not so easy

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

And thats the “get out of hand part”, but when a person acts bad you can stop dealing with them. A govt, not so easy

That’s true, but not always practical. When all the grocery stores in your town refuse to serve you because of the color of your skin, you shouldn’t have to undergo an undue hardship like traveling to a different town just to buy food. That might fall under “getting out of hand” for you though.

 

[FutureInternist]

That’s true, but not always practical. When all the grocery stores in your town refuse to serve you because of the color of your skin, you shouldn’t have to undergo an undue hardship like traveling to a different town just to buy food. That might fall under “getting out of hand” for you though.

Gov is needed to provide basics of life and to keep other elements in check.
Just see what Boeing with its plane disaster, Ford with its ignition switches, Oil companies with their spills, Monsato with its poisons etc etc.

No individual or even a coalition is enough to fight them.
Their only driving force is more profit and only the gov can fine/sanction them enough for them to play nice.
The devastation they can and have caused by even a single event pales to what individuals can do, and so you need someone more powerful to keep them on the relatively straight and narrow.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Monsato with its poisons

I’m not sure this is a great example since Agent Orange wasn’t exactly shunned by the government. It was only litigation that forced them to pay up, and the current issues with glyphosate are if anything an example of how people with zero scientific knowledge can decide scientific issues through the courts, since there doesn’t appear to be any real evidence that glyphosate causes or increases a risk of cancer, and yet judges and juries are awarding cancer patients millions of dollars from the company. The whole Monsanto thing may actually be a good example of where the government hasn’t gone far enough with tort regulations.

 

[deleted480308]

That’s true, but not always practical. When all the grocery stores in your town refuse to serve you because of the color of your skin, you shouldn’t have to undergo an undue hardship like traveling to a different town just to buy food. That might fall under “getting out of hand” for you though.

Except that even during the more racist parts of our history there were stores willing to serve people, so much so that govt acted poorly and tried to tell them they couldn’t with jim crow laws

 

[Mad Jack]

And thats the “get out of hand part”, but when a person acts bad you can stop dealing with them. A govt, not so easy

Tell that to the millions who died at the hands of the British East India Company

 

[deleted480308]

Gov is needed to provide basics of life and to keep other elements in check.
Just see what Boeing with its plane disaster, Ford with its ignition switches, Oil companies with their spills, Monsato with its poisons etc etc.

No individual or even a coalition is enough to fight them.
Their only driving force is more profit and only the gov can fine/sanction them enough for them to play nice.
The devastation they can and have caused by even a single event pales to what individuals can do, and so you need someone more powerful to keep them on the relatively straight and narrow.

Or an airline can stop buying boeing which incentivizes them to get in line, same with customers and ford

i agree though there is a place for govt somewhere

 

[deleted480308]

Tell that to the millions who died at the hands of the British East India Company

They were the “gets out of hand” example, a private company should never have been allowed to act like a defacto govt and murder people

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Except that even during the more racist parts of our history there were stores willing to serve people, so much so that govt acted poorly and tried to tell them they couldn’t with jim crow laws

Yeah, I mean there are just plenty of examples. Child labor, price gouging, unfair hiring practices, etc. It's a nice idea to think that there will be enough companies that do the right thing, but I guess I just disagree where someone's rights end. Your right to be an dingus ends where it affects another person's rights.