Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Old people say that about everywhere, though, including America... turning "being wealthy" into having 2 yachts instead of 3, or only being able to afford a 40 room mansion instead of an 80 room one, probably isn't going to act as much of a disincentive for people to work hard (or work at all, especially if you don't tax earnings below a certain level much), especially with the huge & growing amount of income inequality in America.
I know personally people who left 'socialist paradises' to come here so they would not be penalised for succeeding...
Why would you work hard and succeed to have 50% or more of your reward taken from you,why not simply work less??
In Australia when I was young, there was little incentive to work,you could get by on the dole....some enterprising young people even worked it out to where they could go on holidays to Bali for two weeks and then come back to Australia for two weeks,all the time receiving the dole for being unemployed...
The system could be inifinitely more efficient than it is today. Follow along...
It’s instructive to follow the health care dollar as it wends its way from employers toward the doctors and nurses and hospitals that actually provide medical services. First, private insurers regularly skim off the top a substantial fraction of the premiums — anywhere from 10 to 25 percent — for their administrative costs, marketing, and profits. The remainder is then passed along a veritable gauntlet of satellite businesses that feed on the health care industry, including brokers to cut deals, disease-management and utilization review companies, drug-management companies, legal services, marketing consultants, billing agencies, information management firms, and so on and so on. Their function is often to limit services in one way or another. They, too, take a cut, including enough for their own administrative costs, marketing, and profits. I would estimate that no more than 50 cents of the health care dollar actually reaches the providers — who themselves face high overhead costs in dealing with multiple insurers.
What are the signs of the imminent collapse of this system? Private health insurance premiums are now rising at an unsustainable rate of about 13 percent per year, and as much as 25 percent in some areas of the country. Coverage is shrinking, as more employers decide to cap their contributions to health insurance and workers find they cannot pay their rapidly growing share. And finally, with the rise in unemployment, more people are losing what limited coverage they had. This is not a system that can be tinkered with. It needs to change.
The program we are introducing today is the very soul of simplicity and efficiency, compared with our private health care system. It is a single-payer system, that is, health care funds would be distributed by a single, public entity, so that health care could be coordinated to eliminate both gaps and overlap. In many ways, our program would be tantamount to extending Medicare to the entire population. Medicare is, after all, a government-financed single-payer system embedded within our private, market-based system. It’s by far the most efficient part of our health-care system, with overhead costs of less than 3 percent, and it covers virtually everyone over the age of 65, not just some of them. Medicare is not perfect, but it is by far the most popular part of the U. S. health care system, and in my opinion its problems would be relatively easy to remedy — but that is another subject.
I'm in favor of a free public health care policy with these built-in rewards and responsibility.
1. It would be completely free to the drug free and those in re-hab.
2. Free to those who were in a dietary management program with weight control.
3. Mental health, anger management and self esteem classes would be mandatory.
4. Extra, Non Necessary drugs would not be prescribed.
5. A certain amount of money would be alotted per year for a person's BASIC health
care...if that money was not used in the year, a pro-rated refund would be rebated
to the individual.
Wow.. your all one for the government controlling peoples lives arent you?
Why would those not drug free not get medical? (They get free medical now, so are you proposing that they get kicked off free medical?)
You want the government to now dictate what I eat and weigh?
Who dictates if a drug is non-necessary? The doctor? the GOVERNMENT?
Thank you for pointing out some more reaons I'm against it.. It doesnt stop at just healthcare, now we're at controlling perscriptions, food, weight etc. Where will it end?
Wow.. your all one for the government controlling peoples lives arent you?
Why would those not drug free not get medical? (They get free medical now, so are you proposing that they get kicked off free medical?)
You want the government to now dictate what I eat and weigh?
Who dictates if a drug is non-necessary? The doctor? the GOVERNMENT?
Thank you for pointing out some more reaons I'm against it.. It doesnt stop at just healthcare, now we're at controlling perscriptions, food, weight etc. Where will it end?
Exactly, there is no possible way for the government to monitor if people are sticking to their diet (LOL). Talk about big brother.
And that is just the beginning of the problems. . . do we really want the gov't determining who gets what procedure, surgery etc?
There is nothing free about it. . . giving up control of ones life to govt intervention.
I know personally people who left 'socialist paradises' to come here so they would not be penalised for succeeding...
Why would you work hard and succeed to have 50% or more of your reward taken from you,why not simply work less??
In Australia when I was young, there was little incentive to work,you could get by on the dole....some enterprising young people even worked it out to where they could go on holidays to Bali for two weeks and then come back to Australia for two weeks,all the time receiving the dole for being unemployed...
I wouldn't call taxes a "penalty for succeeding" unless they completely cancel out the rewards for "succeeding" that are already inherent in the system, which in America are gargantuan (especially for people at the very top), moreso than any other country in the world. Even if the top tax bracket is over 50%, by the time you get to that level the 50% of whatever you would be making is still such a huge amount of money that you'd be getting richer anyways -- 40% of $1,000,000 is still $400,000. So it isn't a "punishment" so much as it is a reduction of the reward, which usually remains incredibly high once you get up to that level.
I wouldn't call taxes a "penalty for succeeding" unless they completely cancel out the rewards for "succeeding" that are already inherent in the system, which in America are gargantuan (especially for people at the very top), moreso than any other country in the world. Even if the top tax bracket is over 50%, by the time you get to that level the 50% of whatever you would be making is still such a huge amount of money that you'd be getting richer anyways -- 40% of $1,000,000 is still $400,000. So it isn't a "punishment" so much as it is a reduction of the reward, which usually remains incredibly high once you get up to that level.
You state this as if the government provides the reward, but then simply reduces it a bit. These "rewards" for hard work and success are self imposed. The government "reducing" these rewards is simply a nicer way of expressing the government taking a share of the results from one's efforts, a typical strategy of the fiscal left who also call a small reduction in the increase in funding, a drastic cut in funding.
And that is just the beginning of the problems. . . do we really want the gov't determining who gets what procedure, surgery etc?
At least the government would have a "neutral" interest in your health. Which is better than the insurance companies today deciding who gets what procedure, surgery, when their primary interest is to deny and prevent so they will not have to cover it. How is this better?
You state this as if the government provides the reward, but then simply reduces it a bit. These "rewards" for hard work and success are self imposed. The government "reducing" these rewards is simply a nicer way of expressing the government taking a share of the results from one's efforts, a typical strategy of the fiscal left who also call a small reduction in the increase in funding, a drastic cut in funding.
The "rewards" wouldn't exist without the government in place to protect and ensure the smooth operation of the market system that produces gigantic rewards for a select few and smaller rewards for others. The skills/attributes useful for success in the state-supported system (money, investment skills, education, connections, etc.) are different from the set of attributes that would be needed for success/power with no state (millitary/physical force or complete self-sufficiency).
Location: Charlotte,NC, US, North America, Earth, Alpha Quadrant,Milky Way Galaxy
3,770 posts, read 7,546,456 times
Reputation: 2118
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger
I wouldn't call taxes a "penalty for succeeding" unless they completely cancel out the rewards for "succeeding" that are already inherent in the system, which in America are gargantuan (especially for people at the very top), moreso than any other country in the world. Even if the top tax bracket is over 50%, by the time you get to that level the 50% of whatever you would be making is still such a huge amount of money that you'd be getting richer anyways -- 40% of $1,000,000 is still $400,000. So it isn't a "punishment" so much as it is a reduction of the reward, which usually remains incredibly high once you get up to that level.
But fish, it is a penalty. You make more money, and some entity decides you have enough and thus you don't need much it. Yes, I agree, if you earn (say from a lottery) 1,000,000 and the government takes $333K in taxes, hey you still have $667K right- still a lot right? But why? It's a wealth redistribution tactic and admittedly I'm not for it, and is almost invariably championed by people who want to tell others what to do with their money.
Anyway on healthcare. I've conclude basic healthcare is a right that should be provided by the state. Just like the state provides security (police), law enforcement, public works, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
