Affordable Care Act - how much did your healthcare go up?
Forums › General Discussion › Affordable Care Act - how much did your healthcare go up?-
Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
No, not really. Show me where I did so other than my silly little psychoanalysis of you. I have treated you with far more respect than you have me. I could have jumped all over that little nugget from Slacker but I chose not to. You're welcome.★fnord★ wrote: Bluster based on absolutist strawmen which demonize your ideological opponents is your fallback position. You have taken everything I've said to a ridiculous extreme and then attacked that in an attempt to avoid a real discussion. The sad thing is you probably feel like you're convincing.
Sounds like what you are doing to me, don't it? -
You may continue to cherry pick your quotes, and I had hoped to refrain from doing the same. But since you refuse to admit that there was any notion of individual or societal liberty against government in our founding, WHICH IS INSANE, I just have to say:
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. "
How can you go on without concession, when you constantly bray about me painting you as an extremist, when you won't even recognize the huge body of thought on my side of the argument?
Oh. They are all just idiots. I'm sorry.
-
MacShakn wrote:
Brown Note I'd like to applaud you for your achievement and making the sacrifices and commitment necessary to get there. I also thank God for a country where that is still possible for those that take personal responsibility and have the desire.
Not to lessen the point, but he's in his 40s and overcame these obstacles twenty years ago. To say we live in the same world with the same opportunities is naive and reductive. It benefits no one to pretend like the economy fosters the ability to pull oneself up by the bootstraps... and btw, it's very different for someone who grew up in a moderately financially secure household and then became poor than for someone who was born into generational poverty.... No offense but being born poor and pulling yourself up takes way more effort than if you were (for want of a better term) slumming it for a few years.
-
There are plenty of examples of people doing just that in this day and age. Even if he doesn't meet your criteria, many others do. It is opinioned that there is more opportunity now than ever.
-
Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
Are you even reading what I'm writing? Why on earth would I refuse to admit that there was ANY notion of individual liberty against the government? I agree, that would be INSANE if I'd actually said it. To satisfy your strawman I will agree that yes, I have read, understood, and agree fully with the intent of the preamble and the bill of rights. You seem to be confusing a broad sense of individual right to property with the right to no taxation. Your quote is again a far reaching statement about government and the individual in general, not taxation specifically. Also quotes are more useful when arguing founding intent if they are provided with citation.You may continue to cherry pick your quotes, and I had hoped to refrain from doing the same. But since you refuse to admit that there was any notion of individual or societal liberty against government in our founding, WHICH IS INSANE, I just have to say:
-
Believe me, being raised with my brother by a single mother with nothing but high school typing class to employ her as a secretary in 1980 does count as poor.
Spaghetti Os on a hot plate because we had no stove is not middle class.
There was no medical insurance. Free lunch at school was a big deal for us.
This is first-world poor, granted... But that's really the worst of it here in America.
And by the way.. I am in my 40s, but I didn't get my bachelor's until 2005. It has been a long hard climb, and I'm still climbing. It was made more difficult by the fact that nobody really appreciated college in my family. I was never told I should go.
We are mostly limited by the scope our own vision. That's what defines "classes" of people.
Here, you are free to move to any class you wish. Being trapped is an illusion.
-
You know damn well who said that and where.
A smart guy like you doesn't recognize the most famous Thomas Paine quote from "Common Sense"? It's his opening argument!
What's bothering me most is that you are playing ignorant to anything that sides with my opinion.
Instead you seem to be intentionally pig headed here as if that's what is required to prove your opinion.
You are accusing me of making assumptions about you, but you can't seem to help doing the same thing: Arguing for and against a specific ideology that may or may not have anything to do what we actually believe.
"Necessary evil" is not a term I made up to describe government. It was a term used to found ours, and came out of the Enlightenment. And if you refuse to believe that, I can't help you.
Now go back to your calculator, and try to figure out why taxes are a necessary evil.
-
@ Brown:
Which evil country was Paine referring to when he published that in 1776? Paine's Agrarian Justice from 1796, on the other hand, is clearly a reflection of the founding principles of THIS country, then in it's infancy:
"All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came."
Notice how he basically calls an accumulated wealth tax a fundamental duty of every citizen, no mention of evil done out of necessity.
Let me explain it in the simplest terms I can:
The wage you earn is inarguably the fruit of your labor. What you seem to ignore is that it is also the fruit of immense societal investment in ensuring that that labor and that fruit can be had.
... -
...
Further, the fruit of your labor is also the fruit of those who labored before you and innovated in ways that maximize the utility of your labor and your ability to maximize it's fruits. To assert that repaying some of that societal investment in your prosperity is in any way evil is terribly misguided, morally and ethically. Above Paine is saying that paying taxes is not only virtuous, it is your duty. No government has the right to confiscate what you YOURSELF have earned through your toil or your investment, but on the flip side you have no right to confiscate the people's investment in your success that is undeniably reflected in small portion of your earnings. This is what taxes are according to the enlightenment and our founding principles.
... -
...
We can argue all day about what percentage or form those taxes should take, but if we can't agree on the fundamental justness of citizens being required to return a portion of their gains (earnings) on borrowed equity (societal investment) back to their investors (The People), then I'm at a loss. (But i'll keep trying). Please read and understand these words for exactly what they are and tell me, where am I wrong? -
Just so there's no confusion...
Common Sense, published in early 1776, was primarily a call to arms against the Crown. 11 years later we formed a more perfect union, which I'm sure you'll agree was like none before it. Was Paine condemning a system of governance not yet conceived? Impossible to tell.
Even if it holds that all forms of government are necessary evils, there is an obvious flaw in your reasoning:
If government is a necessary evil, does that implicitly mean that every last function of government is also a necessary evil?
Would it follow to reason that a government prohibiting one person from owning another is a necessary evil?
For these reasons Paine's statement is not convincing evidence that he believed taxes to be a necessary evil in Britain, let alone in a republic yet to be created. If his other writings exhibit more specificity and pertinence to the founding principles regarding taxation then they should be cited as evidence instead. -
...And so I'm not arguing for less taxation? I think I am. You are arguing for more. Is that the case? I thought this was about health care.
50%, or even 90%... Is no "small portion".
That taxes are necessary does not mean they do not infringe on our private property rights. That is an evil.
Federal taxes are defined in the constitution simply to fund the limited operation of the government, and not to improve infrastructure, build a network of agrarian coops, or pay for my health care.
I'm quite certain that state and local governments are in charge of collecting fees for such intimate projects.
I've seen it from the military side, and now I see it from the civilian side. Millions and millions are flittering away regularly at my agency alone. Pet projects of bored Feds drain our cash like nothing you have seen before. Let's not forget those "close" to retirement that surf the net all day on your confiscated assets.
Are there no warning bells ringing in your mind? You want MORE of that?
-
@Brown:
I'd like to debate all of your reasonable assertions, but for simplicity's sake and being that it is central to the discussion at large, I think it would be best if we settle this argument before we move on.
Again, the topic is:What is the founding principle regarding the morality of taxation?
My assertion is that taxes are a citizen's moral duty, being that a citizen's confiscation of the portion of his relative gains born on the leveraging of assets borrowed from The People would be immoral. I have presented evidence and reasoned arguments to back this up.
Your assertion is that taxes are a confiscation of purely private property gained solely through a citizen's labor or investment alone and leveraging no publicly held assets, and are thus immoral.
... -
...
Either concede my point or present a reasoned argument that supports your assertion and I will concede. If you'd like to move on to another topic, we can shelve this argument and proceed under the agreement that neither of us argue the merits or deficiencies of taxes in moral terms henceforward regarding founding intent. -
Taxes in themselves are both moral and immoral. Precisely like immanent domain is both moral and immoral. It is a necessary evil. In the case of New London, it was clearly immoral because they were redistributing private property among private parties. Compensation was paid.. (Fair market value, or infrastructure in the case of taxation by your argument.)
Taking private property against the will of the individual is immoral. Not contributing to society is immoral.
When taxes are taken for purposes beyond the scope of federal government, or are wasted in any way, at least that portion is immoral with no moral obligation to pay it.
Also, the infrastructure that allows us to earn capital is largely state and private entities. By that logic, most of our taxes should be state taxes.
We are mandated to pay exactly what it costs to run the government. We are not paying an arbitrary tribute for the luxury of living in America.
-
Ӈཪ༱عɗ☠ᏩᎧེ͜Ꭷེℵ wrote:
Honestly, the FR is the least of our worries. The government has always run on credit, and there's not much chance changing that. One thing that will make us tons (as in I forgot the exact number) money annually and will satisfy most Americans- stop minting pennies. You could make a case for nickles as well, but they're not nearly as problematic.Only one U.S president was able to pay off the nations debt around 1830 and that was Andrew Jackson. How did he do it? Simple... he abolished the 'Central Bank' as it was known back in those days. Today we know it as the Federal Reserve. The debt will never be paid off because we continue to put our well being in the hands of puppets. Obama talked about 'change'... And sure, I see change... But it isn't a change for the better. Lets be honest, who can we trust to make the right decisions in our government? I know one thing, it wont be the next president or the president after that.
-
The amount taken exceeds the moral obligation to fund the supposedly limited federal government, therefore that amount in excess of the bare minimum is in itself immoral, and I can't concede that there is a moral obligation to pay it.
I will also not concede that the founders would disagree with this. Their constitution is a limiting document, and it's clear that they wanted to keep the federal government small. There is no language granting wealth re-distribution, healthcare, education, or any other function typically reserved for the states.
It was obviously intended that the federal government fill the gaps that no state could: National issues of defense, simplified foreign treaties, state disputes, etc.
Can states provide and regulate health care? They can and do. Therefore, it is out of scope, immoral, and unconstitutional for the federal government to expand into this area without an amendment of the scope of our federal government.
-
But if you take into consideration the "necessary and proper" clause o the US constitution, you could make the argument that it is necessary and proper to take care of the sick people in the US, right? Should we leave people to die because the constitution doesn't say we can save them?
-
Conversely, the ACA is costing the government money. That much is obvious. Whether or not we can pay for these peoples care is still a toss-up. Centralized health care is expensive, and maybe it would be better if private intersts held the power to keep people alive.
-
Interestingly, in the US, we spend the most on healthcare out of every other nation in the world, and we supposedly don't have centralized health care. I can't explain it very well, but there's a YouTube video about it on the channel "Vlogbrothers". It makes me want to go back to Canada, actually. :(
-
We have the most expensive care why?
Forget insurance for a moment. Insurance does not reduce the overall cost. In fact, it adds overhead.
You can throw out emergency room care for a moment. I can argue that it's cheaper to die in an emergency room than to get cancer treatment. When most people use the emergency room, it's for trauma emergencies or sudden illness. If it's because they can't afford a regular doctor, they require subsidy anyway in the overall system if you provide their care. I think it's a wash.
Why then, ignoring the above, is it the so expensive?
Greedy doctors and health care companies? Yes. More capital investment in health care requiring higher fees? Yes.
Unlimited care available for those that can afford it? I think so.
So to make it cheaper:
Deny doctors and medical facilities their requested fees.
Limit the amount of care available so the rich can't get the uber-expensive 1 week extension on their lives. (That's only fair. Everyone or no one, right?)
Why not?
-
@Brown
Imagine your ideal America. There's no federal spending beyond the national defense, the courts and the core government functions. There's no 16th Amendment. Each state handles their own infrastructure and their basic functions as they see fit. There's no federal income taxes, only minimal import tariffs and excise taxes the way the founders intended. Now imagine you own the only gas station for miles and it's right next door to a military base. You literally owe your entire income to your proximity to that military base and it's soldiers buying your gas and goods for their own personal use. You're a self-made small business owner who came up from nothing. You scrimped and saved and leveraged your assets to get where you are. You have invested in your own drilling rigs and refine your own gasoline. Personal responsibility all the way.
... -
...
The only direct federal government involvement in your life is a 3% excise tax on the gasoline you sell to pay for, among other things, the costs of operating the military base that employs your customers. In this scenario, how would pay for this tax?
A). Consider it to be an operating expense that you and you alone are responsible for as the party extracting profit from the manufacture and sale of gasoline, and knowing that without the government investment of this gas tax you would have no customers (or military protection), and subtract it from your own profits.
B). Consider it to be an immoral confiscation of your private property and pass it on to your customers in the form of higher gas prices. Essentially forcing federal employees to fund their own salaries on your behalf. Post notices on the pumps making this policy known.Which choice is the most moral and just? Which better reflects your duty as a citizen?
-
Looks like te big, ultimately pointless arguments haven't stopped since I left this game 😄
-
We are not obligated by law to pay tribute to our federal government. We are obligated to fund it in the exact amount necessary. Not even we. CONGRESS is permitted to raise funds. That's all it says.
Income taxes are a new feature to raise more money. It's not because it's more fair than other forms of fund raising.
Let's say you have a gas station that only services pleasure boaters on a small lake. Why should they pay the same as your military base gas station?
I really don't agree with your theory.
I said YOUR morality is different from mine, remember. You are the one applying that to taxation.
Your morality says that risk and reward should be removed from freedom at a significant level. Mine says freedom requires both risk and reward and I don't believe in a nanny state.
If we don't suffer through bad choices, what stops us from making them? The evolution of our society is moving away from individual free will. My morality says that's wrong.
-
🔥zUntamed🔥 wrote:
I find them entertaining and mildly educational. You may go back to the map and spend money on ultimately pointless circle trading if you like. 😄Looks like te big, ultimately pointless arguments haven't stopped since I left this game 😄
-
Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
True enough... I don't really do either anymore. I just come back every once in a while to see how things are going.🔥zUntamed🔥 wrote:
I find them entertaining and mildly educational. You may go back to the map and spend money on ultimately pointless circle trading if you like. 😄Looks like te big, ultimately pointless arguments haven't stopped since I left this game 😄
-
@Brown
I laid out the gas tax example in the simplest way possible and reflecting original founding intent in an effort to get you to put down your baggage about my motivations and all the things you see wrong with the current direction of this country. You continue to twist anything I say into an extreme where I want to destroy the incentives and rewards of risk and hard work. Can't you see that this is no different than me asserting that your morality leads to the destruction of the federal government and a return to tribalism and feudalism? It would be just as disingenuous for me to repeatedly employ that tactic in the context of this discussion.The answer to the military base example AND the pleasure boaters example is clearly neither A nor B. The gas tax should be split equally between the proprietor and his customers. This is the most equitable solution for all parties involved, yet it results in the proprietor paying a much higher percentage of his income in taxes than his customers do. Hmmm.
-
Since you keep bringing up the subject of morality in the context of the infringement of individual liberties that are taxes:
Why are you such a proponent of flattening out the tax code? I recall you arguing some time ago for a flat consumption tax as well. The obvious purpose of both of these is to 'make everyone have some skin in the game', not necessarily to limit the size of government. It seems contradictory to me that someone of your high moral character would argue for this. Imagine your house got broken into and your property confiscated by a thief, a clear violation of your individual property rights akin to what you believe the federal government does via taxation. Would your reaction be to argue that all the other people in your town, and especially the ones in less affluent neighborhoods than yours should be robbed as well? Why parade yourself as a victim while arguing there should be more victims? Makes no sense, morally. Makes a lot of sense ideologically. -
You are bouncing all over the place.
I want a drastically smaller government. I want all people to understand the real dollar cost of government as well as the cost in terms of liberty. I don't want voters motivated by "free" services that others have to pay for.
If we all understand those things, it's safe to vote on how much intrusion into our lives we need to allow.
I believe the well-intentioned voter enticement of public health care would completely fail if people had the awareness of our founders of what relationship liberty has to society and government.
I believe I've gone over why.
Can you be as concise? I'm not sure exactly what you believe.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC