If the government's healthcare insurance is so good...

And to keep up with your edits (which is kinda hard to do).

You can get denied by private insurance, but nationally funded insurance never will deny anybody?
 
Satya said:
I would say that the "people who can't/won't think for themselves" part was the attack. It's interesting that I pose a reasonable question and the response is that you can't be bothered to reply with evidence since I'm apparently not thinking for myself. What a wonderful way to get people to think for themselves! Deny them evidence that would allow them to see for themselves how you came to your conclusion.
Click to expand...

I don't consider your question reasonable.

Satya said:
As I recall your argument was, "in a cost/benefit analysis everyone bar a very very few have their lives improved more by the benefits of paying taxes than they lose by having less to spend themselves." That seems like an assumption to me. In fact, it almost seems like you are arguing that the government inherently does a better job of spending my money than I do. The market is usually a far more efficient tool for distributing resources than the government, and that is simply economics. Central planning has historically failed and so I think it prudent for me to ask what evidence you have that the benefits obtained from taxation outweigh all the costs. You used the word "analysis" so I assume you have actually investigated this assumption and have backed it up with valid evidence.

My intuition tells me that I called you out with my simple question and your ad hominem response was to hide how weak argument actually is.
Click to expand...

OK, at the most basic level no tax means no government, no government means no laws and anarchy, if you want to get insight into what life is life without an effective government then take a look at Somalia.

If it were not for governments around the world bailing out banks with out tax pounds/dollars we would now be heading into a great depression, although it hasn't played out fully yet it seems these actions have avoided the worst.

As for reganite blind faith in the markets you only have to look at the inefficiencies and extreme costs in the US health system at the moment to see that markets don't work on their own, and for some things don't work at all.

There is far more to taxation than the simple allocation of resources, as long as taxation is combined with democratic representation it allows people to control their destiny.

Don't get me wrong, I am in no way saying questions shouldn't be asked about what is done with tax revenue or whether value for money is obtained and how those things can be improved, those things are essential for the functioning of a democracy.

In any true analysis of the benefits of taxation the pro's far outweigh the cons as you could never obtain the same security and quality of life using your own resources alone unless you're a russian oligarch or warren buffett.
 
Oh and for the record, the united states is a republic, not a democracy.
 
so what I pay for both. it's my choice to get private as well, not a NEED.
When private denied me some shit (which they do) I can always go and get whatever it is that has to be done no questions asked.

Fearful of change? America? Land of the freedom and future and change? OMG.

Tell the scaremongers the wars and weapons and the getting into people's business and the lack of respect for their own citizens and massified lying media/propaganda could be some of the reasons why some people in the world don't like you so much?

more population = more taxes.
 
mallory knox said:
so what I pay for both. it's my choice to get private as well, not a NEED.
When private denied me some shit (which they do) I can always go and get whatever it is that has to be done no questions asked.

Fearful of change? America? Land of the freedom and future and change? OMG.

Tell the scaremongers the wars and weapons and the getting into people's business and the lack of respect for their own citizens and massified lying media/propaganda could be some of the reasons why some people in the world don't like you so much?

more population = more taxes.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry if you want to get hostile, but I'm not going to. All I'm saying is there is a lot to consider and you continuously treat it like a simple change.

People should be fearful of change and should question their government. Blindly following leaders can lead to fascism.

The media and government are two separate entities and no one is forced to watch the media.

More population=more taxes
but you're ignoring that more population also=a lot harder to set up

mallory knox said:
is it not democratic?
Click to expand...
calling it a democracy and calling it democratic are two very very different things. We are in fact a republic, with officials elected in democratic fashion. If we were a true democracy, the people would be voting on the health care reform, not elected officials. It's the official's responsibility to either a, act on the input of their constituents, or b, do what they feel is right. Ignoring constituents is a good way not to get re-elected.

mallory knox said:
No. They never deny anybody.
Click to expand...
really? I could go get any operation done that I wanted if I found (read as bribed) a doctor to say I needed it?

Shouldn't some operations be denied? Superfluous ones? Cosmetic ones?
 
errrrrrrrrrm said:
a republic is a representative democracy, it is still a democracy in the every day usage of the word.
Click to expand...
definitely not true. it's a democratic republic, not a representative democracy. Democracy=/=representative. Democracy is ruled by the majority, a republic is ruled by elected officials. We democratically elect officials, who therein run the government. We have very little actual say in national reforms
 
minority funk said:
definitely not true. it's a democratic republic, not a representative democracy. Democracy=/=representative. Democracy is ruled by the majority, a republic is ruled by elected officials. We democratically elect officials, who therein run the government. We have very little actual say in national reforms
Click to expand...

democracy is direct rule by the people in the classical definition of the word, the contemporary meaning has shifted to encompass all forms of rule by the people such as representative democracy where instead of voting directly on the issues the people vote in representatives to vote for them on the issues, that is your system of government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Representative democracy
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/representative democracy
http://knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Representative_democracy/
 
mallory knox said:
taxes are proportional.
Click to expand...

We have a progressive tax system. How is that proportional?

For that matter, why should people have to pay more taxes just because they can make more money? What is the incentive then to make more money?

I mean, you're the one who said starving people in Asia or Africa are living shit conditions by choice.
Click to expand...

I never said they were there by choice. I said they continue to be exploited by choice. They have lots of choices. They could go take the resources of the others around them. We do it, so why can't they?
 
errrrrrrrrrm said:
I don't consider your question reasonable.
Click to expand...

Aside from an ad homiem, you haven't exactly explained in clear terms why it isn't reasonable.

As for reganite blind faith in the markets you only have to look at the inefficiencies and extreme costs in the US health system at the moment to see that markets don't work on their own, and for some things don't work at all.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the reason the markets are inefficient is because the insurance companies have exploited the government to give them protection in the market.

There is far more to taxation than the simple allocation of resources, as long as taxation is combined with democratic representation it allows people to control their destiny.
Click to expand...

How?
 
Satya said:
Aside from an ad homiem, you haven't exactly explained in clear terms why it isn't reasonable.
Click to expand...

for every reason (and more) I gave in the post you partially quoted, those things are obvious to me and shouldn't need explaining

Satya said:
Perhaps the reason the markets are inefficient is because the insurance companies have exploited the government to give them protection in the market.
Click to expand...

or perhaps its because the markets can't function in the long term on their own

How?
Click to expand...
because it allows them to exist in a society where they (should) have access to an education not dependant upon their parents ability to provide it which in turn gives them opportunities to improve their lives

it allows them to make decisions based more on their wants than needs (example without a government to provide police, fire, health and national defence services everywhere within their borders the issues these services attempt to address would have a larger influence on people's choices than they do now)

those are just 2 examples of the top of my head, I'm sure I could come up with more.
 
Last edited:
minority funk said:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

read it.
might I quote
"Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition"
We are officially a republic, with democratic tradition. Hence, we elect officials democratically, who run the government in a republic fashion.
Click to expand...

how does that mean you aren't a representative democracy?

being a republic just means you are not a monarchy (your head of state is not a king or queen)
federal refers to the fact you are a collection of states that recognise the authority of the central government

no where does that say you are not a representative democracy, 'representative democracy' and 'federal republic' descrive different aspects of your nation.
 
errrrrrrrrrm said:
how does that mean you aren't a representative democracy?

being a republic just means you are not a monarchy (your head of state is not a king or queen)
federal refers to the fact you are a collection of states that recognise the authority of the central government

no where does that say you are not a representative democracy, 'representative democracy' and 'federal republic' descrive different aspects of your nation.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, democracy and republic are two different forms of government. We are officially recognized as a republic, not a democracy.

We're arguing definitions and it has nothing to do with this thread
 
Satya said:
For that matter, why should people have to pay more taxes just because they can make more money? What is the incentive then to make more money?
Click to expand...

the incentive is exactly the same one you would have with a flat taxation, you have more money in your pocket if you earn more.

people who are motivated by the acquisition of wealth aren't going to be deterred by the fact their earnings over
 
minority funk said:
I'm sorry, democracy and republic are two different forms of government. We are officially recognized as a republic, not a democracy.

We're arguing definitions and it has nothing to do with this thread
Click to expand...

no, you're arguing definitions, I'm telling you facts

a republic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/republic
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic
http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Definition+of+Republic
http://dictionary.weather.net/dictionary/republic
http://knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Republic/
http://www.allwords.com/query.php?SearchType=0&Keyword=republic&goquery=Find+it!&Language=ENG

definition of democracy:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...fB2viiCw&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
http://www.democracy-building.info/definition-democracy.html
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/democracy
http://economics.about.com/cs/economicsglossary/g/democracy.htm
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

They are not mutually exclusive.
 
Last edited:
minority funk said:
I'm sorry if you want to get hostile, but I'm not going to. All I'm saying is there is a lot to consider and you continuously treat it like a simple change.

People should be fearful of change and should question their government. Blindly following leaders can lead to fascism.

The media and government are two separate entities and no one is forced to watch the media.

More population=more taxes
but you're ignoring that more population also=a lot harder to set up


calling it a democracy and calling it democratic are two very very different things. We are in fact a republic, with officials elected in democratic fashion. If we were a true democracy, the people would be voting on the health care reform, not elected officials. It's the official's responsibility to either a, act on the input of their constituents, or b, do what they feel is right. Ignoring constituents is a good way not to get re-elected.


really? I could go get any operation done that I wanted if I found (read as bribed) a doctor to say I needed it?

Shouldn't some operations be denied? Superfluous ones? Cosmetic ones?
Click to expand...

Cosmetic operations in general are denied if they're just for vanity of course. But in general no necessary prodecure for your well being is denied. You could be a tourist passing by and it wouldn't be denied. It's something to take pride in. It reflects respect for human life.

If you bribe a doctor to say you need it, then that's obviously a crime and will be treated as such if found out.

I wasn't being hostile towards you either.

I'm just saying you can be fearful of change, but this is long due and you're way behind everyone else in that sense and your people deserve that, so there's no point in postposponing what has to start, it is a positive thing, it has to start somewhere and somehow to de adjusted and improved along the way.
 
Last edited:
Satya said:
We have a progressive tax system. How is that proportional?

For that matter, why should people have to pay more taxes just because they can make more money? What is the incentive then to make more money?



I never said they were there by choice. I said they continue to be exploited by choice. They have lots of choices. They could go take the resources of the others around them. We do it, so why can't they?
Click to expand...

BECAUSE MONEY MAKES MORE MONEY.

If you have that much money, certainly you can afford to pay a little more and contribute a little more to the country that's allowing you to be that rich without drastic changes in your life.

when it comes to any money transactions or purchase, everything is taxed according to the value.

it's a public service, why do you justify paying taxes for schools or the fire department and you can't justify health care? All these are basic needs for human dignity.

If people in general have a better quality of life, then the country will be better. Not if a minority gets richer and richer.

The extreme selfishness of this thinking is astonishing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top