Originally posted by KazetNagorra Not all. But GDP does correlate with taxation - countries that tax more heavily also tend to have a higher GDP per capita. So yes, taxation can create wealth if the government expenses create more wealth than private expenses would. This is a possibility you already acknowledge by saying government should take care of law and order (i.e. the taxa ...[text shortened]... ed for funding law and order creates more wealth than spending the money in the private sector).
So there are other reasons for wealth besides high taxation. That's all we need to know, I hope you will desist from that line of reasoning in future.
Originally posted by Wajoma So there are other reasons for wealth besides high taxation. That's all we need to know, I hope you will desist from that line of reasoning in future.
If you saw that line of reasoning in my posts you need to improve your reading skills.
Originally posted by Wajoma Let me get this straight all countries that are taxed more than the US are more wealthy than the US? Because if all countries with greater taxation than the US are not more wealthy than the US your point is null and void, actually.
You're basing your argument on: Fantastic taxation will create wealth?
I base my argument on a persons sovereignty over their own self.
Collective society creates the possibility of wealth by creating the rules of the economic system. Being sovereign over your own self cannot require anyone else to deal with you in such a manner that you can amass wealth.
Originally posted by TerrierJack You have no idea how devastating a catastrophic disease is on most families in this country. In your blessed state you just don't get it. I hope you never have to find out.
Thanks for completly dismissing my idea. I never said it was THE answer, merely, it should be part of it. Unfortunately, those on the left think they have the magic bullet with Obamacare when there is none.
Don't you think that if people had health accounts with large sums of money that all they would then need would be say, cancer insurance, for example? I also saw a piece on 60 minutes in which a business man did not want to pay health insurance costs and needed a heart bypass. He initially was going to forgo the operation despite the risk to his life because he simply could not afford it. However, he heard of a hospital in the far east that offered to do the operation for half the cost and they did. They even paid for the air fare. Now imagine how much power a health account would have given him in terms of shoping around for hospitals around the world. Of course, you might question his quality of care, but they showed the hospital and it looked like a resort with each patient having their own private room and private nurse with well qualified health care personelle. The reason the left abhors my idea is that it empowers the individual rather than Big Brother.
Originally posted by Wajoma Oh dear here come the woe is me I've had it hard and bad anecdotes, I've got one, my Dad died from a catastrophic disease here in the nationalised health care state of NZ and his one dying wish: "Just don't send me back to that place" i.e.the state hospital.
This is Big Brothers vision of how "old" people like your dad should be treated coming from their own mouths.
Originally posted by sh76 First, I'm going to make a big concession right off the bat. Something has to be done. I was watching the Lauer report this morning and the astounding rate at which premiums have risen recently, mostly to fuel larger and larger bonuses for insurance company executives, is disturbing. I have no problem with big executive bonuses per se; but when it comes at the ...[text shortened]... t, but fighting over that is not really what I'm looking to do with this thread.
Some of this is straight out of a looney-left playbook.
You believe insurance premiums are rising mostly to fund executive compensation? Intuitively, I already doubt it. 1) Show me the proof. 2) Show me an understanding of the forces at work and consideration for the consequences (intended and unintended) of manipulating them.
Wouldn't capping executive pay hinder quality results at companies where the caps are in place? Wouldn't making insurers cover MORE actually INCREASE premiums? Wouldn't capping premiums decrease supply and coverage of insurance? Wouldn't opening up tort exposure raises costs and partially be offset through premium hikes and/or decreased coverage? Wouldn't that be counterproductive of any tort reform? Which goal are you claiming to pursue here, because this hodgepodge has many countervailing results. Torm reform yes, but dump your opening to more tort exposure idea. Selling across state lines yes to increase competition, but if you want to cover pre-existing conditions don't make private insurers cover that or it will raise premiums, dumps such claims on the grappy government-run systems. Don't drag everyone's quality down and premiums up.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Not all. But GDP does correlate with taxation - countries that tax more heavily also tend to have a higher GDP per capita. So yes, taxation can create wealth if the government expenses create more wealth than private expenses would. This is a possibility you already acknowledge by saying government should take care of law and order (i.e. the taxa ...[text shortened]... ed for funding law and order creates more wealth than spending the money in the private sector).
Kazet, just because of this correlation, it does not prove causality, in fact the converse may well be true. Countries that have great wealth tend to be tempted to redistribute it and play God. They are not the be-all, end-all of wealth, and instead tend to distort markets and slow and reduce wealth. Europe is growing slower than the rest of the world, not faster. Great wealth takes generations to build, even centuries. Much of Scandanavia was neutral during world war II and has done a good job of emphasizing trade and education, wo they've gathered much technological progress and knowledge. I think that has a little more to do with their wealth over the centuries than their recent decades' dabbling in high taxation.
Originally posted by eljefejesus Kazet, just because of this correlation, it does not prove causality, in fact the converse may well be true. Countries that have great wealth tend to be tempted to redistribute it and play God. They are not the be-all, end-all of wealth, and instead tend to distort markets and slow and reduce wealth. Europe is growing slower than the rest of the world ...[text shortened]... do with their wealth over the centuries than their recent decades' dabbling in high taxation.
It does not prove causality. But if high taxes are so bad for an economy it does beg the question why they are doing so well. They have been doing this for like 50 years now, so if it really was so terrible you would expect their economies to be in bad shape, too.
Europe has a lot of growth potential, still, particularly in Eastern Europe, and the rest of Europe can benefit from that. One of the big reasons why the US in the mid- to late-20th century was such a success story is that it has a dominant language and a huge internal free trade zone. As Europeans are slowly adopting English as a langua franca and the EU removes more trade barriers, the economy will benefit. A good example of how important free trade is, is Poland. After they joined the EU the unemployment rate plummeted from 20% to 9% in just a few years.
Originally posted by eljefejesus Much of Scandanavia was neutral during world war II.
Much of Scandinavia? Norway and Denmark were occupied by the Nazis. Finland (if we count it as Scandinavian; strictly, it's Nordic) was an Axis power, of sorts. So one Scandinavian country, Sweden, successfully stayed neutral during World War II.
Originally posted by whodey Thanks for completly dismissing my idea. I never said it was THE answer, merely, it should be part of it. Unfortunately, those on the left think they have the magic bullet with Obamacare when there is none.
Don't you think that if people had health accounts with large sums of money that all they would then need would be say, cancer insurance, for example ...[text shortened]... The reason the left abhors my idea is that it empowers the individual rather than Big Brother.
I dismiss your idea because it is not practical. It is just like every other idea you idealogues trot out - based your beliefs and having no basis in people's real lives. You want to impose an idea on all of us because you divide the world into supporters and opponents. You can't see that real people make up the country and not lab rats primed for the imposition of your ideas. I (and apparently the OP) just want to work something out that will safeguard American families and prevent the collapse of American business competitiveness. I don't care about your fantasies of Obamacare or socialism or whatever boogieman you're carrying around in your head under your sheet this week. The OP is being savaged not by people who have a solution but by people devoted to an orthodoxy. While you're accusing everyone else of being un-democratic and un-American you might want to try facing a mirror (of course, that will require self-reflection and not regurgitation - can you do it?)
Originally posted by Teinosuke Much of Scandinavia? Norway and Denmark were occupied by the Nazis. Finland (if we count it as Scandinavian; strictly, it's Nordic) was an Axis power, of sorts. So one Scandinavian country, Sweden, successfully stayed neutral during World War II.
Sweden, Neutral???? Lol, what about the Swedish volunteer SS divisions, or the sale of Swedish raw materials, iron ore etc to the Nazis? Neutral, mmmm, its must be a very broad definition of neutral that you have. What this has to do with healthcare i do not know and i apologise to uncle Jack and others who have serious points to debate. 🙂
Originally posted by TerrierJack I dismiss your idea because it is not practical. It is just like every other idea you idealogues trot out - based your beliefs and having no basis in people's real lives. You want to impose an idea on all of us because you divide the world into supporters and opponents. You can't see that real people make up the country and not lab rats primed for the im ...[text shortened]... irror (of course, that will require self-reflection and not regurgitation - can you do it?)
Well sure I want everyone to have health insurance but I also want peace on earth. So does this mean that I sanction the federal government to impose peace on earth? God knows they have tried.
As far as what it practical, do you think that the current system of medicare/medicaid is practical? All I hear from both sides is that it is going belly up and something needs to be done. In the same breath, however, they say we can have an even more inclusive system insuring up to 30 million more people and have it be cost effective. How? It is now your oppurtunity to sell me Obamacare.
There are other suggestions for health care such as tort reform. Again, it is no magic bullet but just like my flexible spending idea it is part of the puzzle. Why is it not included in Obamacare?
Originally posted by whodey Well sure I want everyone to have health insurance but I also want peace on earth. So does this mean that I sanction the federal government to impose peace on earth? God knows they have tried.
As far as what it practical, do you think that the current system of medicare/medicaid is practical? All I hear from both sides is that it is going belly up and s ...[text shortened]... t like my flexible spending idea it is part of the puzzle. Why is it not included in Obamacare?
Yeah, everyone having health insurance sure is utopian.
Originally posted by whodey Well sure I want everyone to have health insurance but I also want peace on earth. So does this mean that I sanction the federal government to impose peace on earth? God knows they have tried.
As far as what it practical, do you think that the current system of medicare/medicaid is practical? All I hear from both sides is that it is going belly up and s ...[text shortened]... t like my flexible spending idea it is part of the puzzle. Why is it not included in Obamacare?
(But you don't mind a federal government run bank account?)
I'm not selling anything. I'm actually willing to compromise with people of good will. Those who lie and obstruct and name-call are not people of good will. Your idea might be a valid piece of an compromise but it is far from being a solution. If your side did negociate in good faith they might be able to get your idea included. Why aren't you asking your mullahs why they aren't looking for compromise? Why are they lying? Why did they never attempt to seriously address this problem when they had control? Why do they have no respect for you?
BTW - tort reform is in there (and the CBO said it might affect 1 and half percent of the long term cost - that's from memory I could be wrong but I know it was minor - and boy could I tell stories about what a joke malpractice really is in this country!)
Healthcare: More regulation or less?
07 Mar '10 21:07
Back to Top