> On Jan 30, 8:18 am, "Sean"
blah.com.au> wrote:>>> On Jan 30, 6:49 am, "Sean"
blah.com.au> wrote:>>>>
gmail.com> wrote in message>>
>>
>>>>> On Jan 24, 2:44 pm, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:>>>>>> On Jan 24, 2:01 pm, ta
nc.rr.com> wrote:>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 24, 8:58 am, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 23, 2:48 pm, Michae...@
gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> Just about everybody has their own opinion on how I should
>>>>>>>>> manage
>>>>>>>>> "my"
>>>>>>>>>money. Many on this group have offered helpful and not so
>>>>>>>>> helpful
>>>>>>>>> ideas. I think the crux of the matter is realizing whatmoney
>>>>>>>>> represents and who owns its.
>>
>>>>>>>>> To my way of thinking,moneyrepresents labor and possessions/
>>>>>>>>> services. While not all of mymoneywas earned through labor,
>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> it was (either my labor or someone else's). And thatmoney
>>>>>>>>> personifies my ability to obtain possessions and services.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Also my opinion is that themoneyI have obtained is mine.
>>
>>>>>>>>>Taxes. By and far the governments primary means of obtaining
>>>>>>>>> capital
>>>>>>>>> (on which to operate) is through collectiontaxes. Thosetaxes
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> effect the "fee" I pay to live and work in the US (and
>>>>>>>>> entitles
>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> the benefit of continuing to work and live in the US).
>>
>>>>>>>> That's right. And the wonderful thing about this country is
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> are always free to leave and go to tax-free Somalia.
>>
>>>>>>> Sounds like a straw man to me. If I understand his post
>>>>>>> correctly,
>>>>>>> he's not taking issue with payingtaxes*per se*, but rather *how*
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>> are taxed.
>>
>>>>>>> If the government is raisingtaxesto pay for things that I am
>>>>>>> perfectly capable of doing for myself, or for things that I can
>>>>>>> obtain
>>>>>>> through other channels at a better price/higher quality, then the
>>>>>>>taxesare wasteful (or worse, detrimental to mine and others' self-
>>>>>>> interest). As taxpayers, we ought to be concerned that we are
>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>> the most bang for our buck, so to speak.
>>
>>>>>>> If the gummint is not spending ourmoneywisely -- that is, if they
>>>>>>> are not spending in ways that result in the overall best interest
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> society at large -- then we ought to be pissed about that.
>>
>>>>>> I think there's a basic logical flaw in this type of argument about
>>>>>>taxes. If you buy a product, you care about the value of the product
>>>>>> to you, not how the price was arrived at. We often buy things that
>>>>>> have features we are not interested in, and as long as the product
>>>>>> serves our purpose, we are content----consider operating systems
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> are all full of stuff you never use. So why do people complain
>>>>>> about
>>>>>> governments when they do exaclty the same thing?
>>>>>> The 'move to Somalia' argument is just making that point.
>>
>>>>>> A government comes with all the stuff; you can't pick and choose
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> features you are going to pay for. Their business model is to
>>>>>> provide
>>>>>> a range of services to satisfy a wide range of customers, and they
>>>>>> can't be exactly what any one customer wants.
>>
>>>>>> -tg
>>
>>>>>>> A good example is the one he cites -- the gummint ought not be
>>>>>>> telling
>>>>>>> people how to manage theirmoney. Instead, our taxmoneyought to be
>>>>>>> going toward mandating financial literacy programs in the schools
>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>> that we become more self-sufficient.
>>
>>>>>>> Unfortunately, the gummint often does things that is in the best
>>>>>>> interest of the gummint. That is, they create dependency.
>>
>>>>>>>> Which makes all the other stuff irrelevant. If you live in an
>>>>>>>> apartment building, and the owner decides to put in fancy
>>>>>>>> carpet,
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> can pay the rent increase associated with that or you can move
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> another building. If the owner wishes to charge some people
>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>> others, based on income, that's just him exercising his
>>>>>>>> property
>>>>>>>> rights.
>>
>>>>>>>> As in the other post on cloning, you seem to think that you
>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> is best for everyone else---if people in the free market want
>>>>>>>> un-
>>>>>>>> cloned food, they are 'stupid'. If they want to live in a
>>>>>>>> country
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> has progressivetaxes, they are also 'stupid', I suppose. Only
>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>> is 'smart'.
>>
>>>>>>>> -tg
>>
>>>>>>>>> I thinktaxescan be broken down into two issues (which appear
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> totally independent of each other). The first is "how much
>>>>>>>>>money
>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>> the government need" and the second is "how muchmoneydoes the
>>>>>>>>> government want to collect from me".
>>
>>>>>>>>> While their are certainly some services that only the
>>>>>>>>> government
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> provide (in a reasonable manner), more and more we see the
>>>>>>>>> government
>>>>>>>>> becoming involved in delivering services that I could provide
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> myself but which it feels compelled to do for me. For
>>>>>>>>> example:
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> save and prepare for my own retirement, but the government
>>>>>>>>> feels
>>>>>>>>> compelled to do this for me. I don't think there is a
>>>>>>>>> financially
>>>>>>>>> astute person alive that feels that the return on my
>>>>>>>>> government
>>>>>>>>> controlled retirement investment is a "fair" and equitable"
>>>>>>>>> value,
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> none the less we all still buy into the system. Lets be
>>>>>>>>> honest.
>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>> the most part it is ourmoneythat is being squandered to
>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>> us
>>>>>>>>> with goods and services that are below the standard of those
>>>>>>>>> sames
>>>>>>>>> goods and services if they were provided by private industry
>>>>>>>>> (i.e.
>>>>>>>>> someone other then the government). The argument used is
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> government plan covers "everybody". What this means is that
>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>> retirement plan has been mingled with a government run
>>>>>>>>> charitable
>>>>>>>>> program. Don't get me wrong. I support charitable
>>>>>>>>> enterprises,
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> generally I prefer to make my own decisions as to how much
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> whom
>>>>>>>>> I am charitable. The politicians don't want us to make those
>>>>>>>>> decision.
>>
>>>>>>>>> This leads to the next issue. How much is taken from me.
>>>>>>>>> There
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> two general schools of though on this issue. The first
>>>>>>>>> centers
>>>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>>>> how to fairly break up the tax burden and the second is more
>>>>>>>>> focus
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> each members ability to pay. While these may sound similar
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> fact
>>>>>>>>> they are not. The first category looks at each citizens
>>>>>>>>> intrinsic
>>>>>>>>> debt to the government as well as inferred debt. I.E. If I
>>>>>>>>> consume
>>>>>>>>> more of the government "good will" or took more advantage of
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> "good will" I owe more. The second group resolves more
>>>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> idea of "fairness" and leveling. I.E. Make everyone equal
>>>>>>>>> (or
>>>>>>>>> equaler) by government mandate. Primarily this is
>>>>>>>>> accomplished
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> robin hood dynamic (take from those who havemoney- when they
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> it - and givemoneyto those who don't havemoney). The obvious
>>>>>>>>> downfall to this system (as demonstrated by the good ole
>>>>>>>>> USSR)
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> drive to obtainmoneyis diminished. And while on a morale
>>>>>>>>> level
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> may seem praise worthy, from a fiscal sense this will doom an
>>>>>>>>> economy.
>>
>>>>>>>>> So when people talk about raisingtaxes, I ask myself "why do
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>> to raisetaxes" and what will be the cost of that tax
>>>>>>>>> increase".
>>
>>>>> A point worth mentioning is "we are the govmnt". We can decide
>>>>> which
>>>>> options we don't like. Their is no social mandate saying that every
>>>>> option (e.g. state run un-healthy care) must be included. Also with
>>>>> regards to your rent analogy, I think this is does not paint a full
>>>>> picture. I seetaxesmore like rowing a boat. The ship of state only
>>>>> moves forward (this being a considered a good thing) when somebody
>>>>> is
>>>>> rowing the boat. The question is who should row and how much should
>>>>> they row. The rowing in no way helps the individual rower beyond
>>>>> the
>>>>> extent that it helps the entire ship, but it does have a negative
>>>>> impact on that rower (less energy to do other things). Does it make
>>>>> sense that only those who have great rowing ability should row and
>>>>> that those who are bad rowers never have to row. How do we
>>>>> encourage
>>>>> everybody to be strong and talented rowers (for their own benefit
>>>>> and
>>>>> also for the benefit they would provide when they row for us all).
>>
>>>> fwiw it seems to me that what always happens in any discussion about
>>>> this
>>>> subject is that too quickly someone will pipe up with a strident
>>>> "ideological" view and start accusing another as a leftie, a greenie,
>>>> or
>>>> a
>>>> rightard libertarian nutter.
>>
>>>> This happens whether it's online newsgroups, fox, national tv
>>>> commentary,
>>>> or
>>>> the newspapers .... and so in the process many positive ideas NEVER
>>>> get a
>>>> fair hearing in the USA - that includes the Congress and what
>>>> encircles
>>>> it.
>>>> Knee jerk emotional beliefs rule the day, not progressive ideas or
>>>> knowledge.
>>
>>>> eg I saw this session about the election on PBS News Hour the other
>>>> day.
>>>> An
>>>> obvious libertarian/right leaning person complained about "universal
>>>> healthcare" provided by the Govt. because it would mean a person on an
>>>> HMO
>>>> no longer making decisions about her health care but a bureaucrat in
>>>> the
>>>> Government. That's an "ideological" misunderstanding of the facts.
>>
>>>> I live in a nation with universal health care and a free hospital
>>>> system
>>>> operating alongside a private health insurance health care & private
>>>> hospital system. No where does a HMO type person, or anyone in
>>>> Government
>>>> EVER make a decision about a persons health care .. that is always the
>>>> patients and the doctors to discuss and choose the best course.
>>
>>>> Neither in this system are employers made responsible for thier
>>>> workers
>>>> health care or for payments of medical insurance ... it is always a
>>>> private
>>>> matter. For the poor and disabled unable to work in society there is
>>>> also
>>>> Health Care Concessions usually almost free, where the govt pays
>>>> public
>>>> or
>>>> private doctors and services.
>>
>>>> There's a Pharmacetical benefits system that protects low income or
>>>> high
>>>> health cost families and people with subsidised medications ....
>>>> instead
>>>> of
>>>> $120 for a script of Prozac, it's only $5.20 .... for someone with no
>>>> Concession it's still only about $25 per script.
>>
>>>> For this each working person pays 1.25%% of their Taxable Personal
>>>> Income,
>>>> on
>>>> top of the usual PAYE Income Tax. That's it.
>>
>>>> For those who wish higher protection thru Private health insurance
>>>> they
>>>> pay
>>>> premiums of around $3000 per year [average] and they get priority
>>>> private
>>>> hospital access for non-urgent procedures, and can go to any private
>>>> doctor
>>>> GP or Specialist.
>>
>>>> It's not a perfect system, like everywhere costs are going up fast all
>>>> the
>>>> time .... and it;s hard for the government to contain costs, not
>>>> enough
>>>> doctors and nurses, a stressed out system like every other nation ...
>>>> but
>>>> overall it's a fairer system, no one pays an arm and a leg like in the
>>>> USA
>>>> ... and no one gets turned away from medical attention by a doctor or
>>>> a
>>>> hospital becasue they can't afford it.
>>
>>>> The thing is .... what goes on is always the citizens right to choose,
>>>> if
>>>> they don't have themoneyto do what they'd like, there is always a
>>>> public
>>>> system that can help them, and if urgent they will get treated NO
>>>> MATTER
>>>> what the problem is ... critical or longterm like Cancer treatments
>>>> ... $
>>>> is
>>>> not the basis upon which medical decisions are made ... everyone is
>>>> equal,
>>>> everyone has access to the public system even those with private
>>>> health
>>>> insurance.
>>
>>>> My point? whats the difference between a Govt paying a private doctor
>>>> for
>>>> your treatment [ and that's it ] , and your govt mandating that your
>>>> employer must provide health insurance and mandating that pen pushers
>>>> in
>>>> HMO's have the power to make "medical" decisioons about your own
>>>> private
>>>> and
>>>> personal health care???
>>
>>>> There's alot of difference .... in our system the individual has got
>>>> far
>>>> more rights and options to choose from.
>>
>>>> But the right wing ideologues and free marekteers would cry foul at
>>>> our
>>>> system calling it social welfare ..... and enforced govt control ....
>>>> the
>>>> thing is the PEOPLE actually like this system ... they are happy with
>>>> it
>>>> overall, though it needs improvement on what it was a few decades ago
>>>> ...
>>>> mmm
>>
>>>> mm
>>
>>> Very informative post, Sean.
>>
>> You're welcome of course ... all grist for the mill.
>>
>> BTW whilst away from here i read about 20 articles on the stock market
>> crash
>> and current financial debacles around the world ... every single one
>> referred to the stock market as gambling, betting, a casino, winning and
>> losing, good luck bad luck , etc etc etc .. didn;t matter what paper, or
>> tv
>> news effort, online leftie or a conservative right serious stock market
>> analysis article.
>>
>> Weird that ... I must be wrong if everyone else in the world referrs to
>> the
>> stock market as a casino and gambling. Who'd have imagined that. hehehehe
>> ;-)
>>
>> more below fwiw
>>
>> Just to be precise about the US system,
>>
>>> there has not been a mandate for employers to provide coverage,
>>> although some states have been moving in that direction---if not
>>> actual mandate, requirements for some contribution to a state sysem if
>>> the employer doesn't cover workers. In fact, the govenment subsidizes
>>> employer plans through the tax system. This is the worst possible
>>> approach, but just try to get it changed.
>>
>> Oh OK .. it's free will for the employer, but if they don;t do it the
>> moral
>> indignation, lower competitiveness in the market, and tax imposts means
>> ..
>> it;s mandatory anyway. ;-) I get it .. the usual free market capitalist
>> system that isn't.
>>
>> The question still is ... what does the employer have to do with
>> people';s
>> personal health care to begin with???? Just find their insurance?
>>
>> Seems to me the it's the Health Insurance industry over there where ALL
>> the
>> problems really lay ... they control it and it's all smoke and mirror
>> stuff.
>>
>>> The essence of the system we have is to *minimize* individual control
>>> (while maintaining the illusion that it is a market system.)
>>
>>> -tg
>>
>> Well, that's what makes me laugh so much, and I wonder why so few in
>> these
>> parts and elsewhere seem to miss the bleeding obvious ...
>>
>> free marketers and libatarians crow how good the USA is and evrryone one
>> of
>> them complain about the big govt in their business etc .... I mean is the
>> USA the best example for capitalism and free markets and personal
>> responsibility and democracy, or isn't it? :-)
>
> Most people are concerned over the cost of health care not the quality
> of health care. The US has the best and brightest doctors (they come
> from all over the world to study here and then many stay) and some of
> the best hospitals.
>
> The costs are driven by many things that have nothing to do with
> health care itself. One of the big areas of concern is frivolous
> lawsuits - that are driving doctors and hospitals out of business.
That happens everywhere. Some places pass Laws to minmise frivolous claims
not getting very far, some restrict the potential payouts to keep things
more realistic and not depend on emotional responses from individual Juries,
these in turn tend to lower overal costs while still maintaining an high
quality of services from surgeons especially. [ they are a rare breed ]
Secondly, one the best ways to lower overall costs is things like
recommended Schedule Fee structures for medical proceedures set by the Govt
Health Dept under advice, electronic bulk billing by doctors and medical
services like xrays, and a universal health/hospital coverage for all, paid
for primarily by a specific medicare levy included as a %% percentage of
personal income taxes, eg 1%% is often enough.
Doctors etc have a free choice to register for a Medicare providor number or
not, but if they charge the Govt system they will only get paid the
scheduled fee, but they know that. Might be 50-75%% of what the doctor would
normally charge.
Something like 30%% of all GP visits are charged using bulk-billing by
doctors. Being paid by the Govt is faster than private health or following
up on patient accounts and credit card payments etc.
People have a choice of going to a bulk-billing GP, specialist, or public
hospital [ usually free services] .... or seeing any Doctor, paying whatever
they charge, and then the patient gets a rebate from the medicare office for
the "scheduled fee" ... so they only have to pay the difference.... the gap.
People also have the free choice to join a Private Health Insurance Fund ...
which gives them total freedom of choice for their doctor and private
hospital of choice, with various levels of care and %%payouts. They too have
thier own "sechedule fee" that they think is ok for doctors to charge, it;s
just higher than the Govt bulk billing that's all.
People who go full private insurance also get a tax rebate from the Govt
which is about 30%% plus of the cost of that health insurance. This credit
offsets much of the 1%% levy automatically charged all taxpayers. Private
health patients can still access the public hospitals, and bulk billing
clinics and GPs at any time as normal.
In emergencies, people are taken to the nearest available hospital and
treated immediately ... any issues other than specific medical care are
sorted out later.
It isn't perfect, costs are still an issue, sometimes there are not enough
bulk-billing doctors in a particualr area things like, but everyone has a
choice about how they want to go about things, be they patients or doctors,
and everyone is covered as a "citizenship right" in effect.... iow universal
health cover is seen as an honourable egalitarian rule of thumb here. It's
about looking after your mates, no matter what, no matter the cost.
And it's about balance ... costs are always being weighed up against
benefits. So there's more decernment about what new drugs and proceedures
obtain "approval" for inclusion into the schedule fees and at what $ rate.
There is also a Universal Pharmacetical Health benefits Scheme operating in
tandem. Prescriptions cost about $30 or less. Those in social security, say
pensioners & even private funded retirees get a bigger discount paying only
$5 for a script no matter what it's real cost is. The Govt fund reimbursers
the Drug company for the difference. The PHBS is not Means Tested, so no
matter who you are, rich or poor, you pay the same price and get the same
discount from the Govt funded system.
That too is a free choice and that holds sway in public opinion and voting
patterns in a free democracy. The sky hasn't fallen in despite all warnings
to the contrary when Universal health care was introduced in the 70's, but
teething problems there were.
But pls let me make it clear that this is a "bill paying" - "universal
insurance" system only, all medical decisions and proceedures are decided by
the doctor/patient, and nothing like what HMO's can decide about patient
care in the USA.
Any arguments usually boil down to 2 things:
Doctors & Drug Companies charge too much.
The Govt doesn't pay enough to Doctors and Drug Companies.
Not unusual when you think about it. all fwiw :-)
