Universal health care- For or against? (income, dangers, poverty, children)

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by burdell

To me that's just quitting, don't think that's what brought us to where we are. Remember, many tod orville and Wilbur that flying was impossible.

Not a good analogy. We have examples of trying to fix a flawed system, e.g. social security, welfare, medicare, medicaid.

[fishmonger]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

Maybe this would be enough incentive for everyone to BECOME rich. Actually, with the reduction in taxes everyone would be able to afford it.

Assuming "incentive" would be enough. I don't think many people consciously want to be poor. And for most poor people capital gains and estate taxes are the least of their worries.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

User fees would pay for rescue personnel and insurance would pay for any property damage. There's no need for government intervention.

So when people are hit with a natural disaster we should just turn our backs and tell them they'll just have to cough up the user fees to solve their own problems? So just what is the need for government?

[fishmonger]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

I'm not sure where you're getting this information. You might be surprised.

Compare the percentage of money spent on Medicare/Medicaid that goes to administrative costs compared to private insurance companies, then get back to me.

[fishmonger]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

Not a good analogy. We have examples of trying to fix a flawed system, e.g. social security, welfare, medicare, medicaid.

Flawed and often underfunded, yet beneficial to many.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

Not a good analogy. We have examples of trying to fix a flawed system, e.g. social security, welfare, medicare, medicaid.

Still sounds like quittin' to me. "Gee, the system's flawed so we'll just abandon the system." I'm not buyin'.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by fishmonger

Assuming "incentive" would be enough. I don't think many people consciously want to be poor. And for most poor people capital gains and estate taxes are the least of their worries.

No, I don't think most poor people want to be poor, but they lack the initiative and incentive to do any better.

Capital gains should be a worry for everyone. Without capital gains more jobs would be created, as we have seen, benefitting everyone.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by burdell

Still sounds like quittin' to me. "Gee, the system's flawed so we'll just abandon the system." I'm not buyin'.

It's not simply flawed, but inherently corrupt. Why waste time and taxpayer money trying to fix the unfixable, just like the drug war?

[fishmonger]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

No, I don't think most poor people want to be poor, but they lack the initiative and incentive to do any better.

You don't know that, you just want to believe it because it absolves you of all responsibility to your fellow man and helps you to sleep better knowing that "people get what they deserve."

Capital gains should be a worry for everyone. Without capital gains more jobs would be created, as we have seen, benefitting everyone.

You mean the millions of people that have fallen into poverty during the years since Bush took office?

[fishmonger]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

It's not simply flawed, but inherently corrupt. Why waste time and taxpayer money trying to fix the unfixable, just like the drug war?

No reason... it's time to let corporate America run the show... they're so much better, you know, they must be since they have so much money, which means that they're better and more enlightened people than the rest of us. Since the best people are always the richest people, we should probably just get rid of democracy and have the 10 richest people in the U.S. run congress and the executive branch, since "10 richest Americans" must mean "10 best and most beneficial Americans." Capitalism is a perfect meritocracy, after all. Therefore, those with the most merit must have the most capital. And we should appoint officals based on merit, so, therefore, Bill Gates must be President and Donald Trump must be VP. Warren Buffet can be the whole supreme court.

There really wouldn't be anything to worry about, since we would only have 3 of the Greatest, most Enlightened, Productive, Hard Working, and Infinitely Wise Paragons of American Virtue running the country.

Think about it, though! Bill Gates has what, like 20 billion dollars or something? Therefore, he must be at least 250,000 times better than the average middle-class American! How could we possibly vote against someone with credentials like that, anyway?


^^^Sorry for the rant.