1
   

Broken promises or Dictator

 
 
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 08:13 am
It is interesting how "Universal Healthcare" is being framed...or will be. If it is mandated that everyone pay for healthcare, then an argument can be made that our government is forcing us to buy something.

Assuming that we call it what it really is (a tax) then President Obama will have broken his promise that only those making more than $250,000 will be taxed. This is because even somebody making $100,000 would have to pay this tax.

What should the president do? Break his promise and call it a tax or mandate that everyone must purchase a product? Its a lose-lose situation :bigsmile:
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,055 • Replies: 35
No top replies

 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 08:24 am
@cruise95,
cruise95;117247 wrote:
It is interesting how "Universal Healthcare" is being framed...or will be. If it is mandated that everyone pay for healthcare, then an argument can be made that our government is forcing us to buy something.

Assuming that we call it what it really is (a tax) then President Obama will have broken his promise that only those making more than $250,000 will be taxed. This is because even somebody making $100,000 would have to pay this tax.

What should the president do? Break his promise and call it a tax or mandate that everyone must purchase a product? Its a lose-lose situation :bigsmile:


Why is it "really" a tax? What is it a tax on?
cruise95
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 09:01 am
@kennethamy,
You can be taxed several ways:
1) At the end of the year (April 15th), if someone does not have insurance, then they are forced to pay some amount of money.

2) Every paycheck the government takes out some amount of money (similar to Soc. Sec. or income tax) called Health Insurance.

This argument assumes that Healthcare is adopted.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 09:05 am
@cruise95,
cruise95;117259 wrote:
You can be taxed several ways:
1) At the end of the year (April 15th), if someone does not have insurance, then they are forced to pay some amount of money.

2) Every paycheck the government takes out some amount of money (similar to Soc. Sec. or income tax) called Health Insurance.

This argument assumes that Healthcare is adopted.


Those are not taxes. Those are penalties.
cruise95
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 09:18 am
@kennethamy,
taxes = penalties...same thing in this context. Its all about wording - choose your poison.
Pythagorean
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 10:04 am
@cruise95,
The health care bill provides health care coverage for more and more people. People who are right now uninsured will be insured under the new plan. This will cost more money. The money has to come from somewhere. Either you raise taxes and fees, or else you borrow from Chineese.

Plus O bama already raised the cigarette taxes a dollar per pack of cigarettes and most smokers who pay this are earning a lot less than 140 thousans a year so Obama already broke his pledge on that one.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 10:10 am
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;117283 wrote:
The health care bill provides health care coverage for more and more people. People who are right now uninsured will be insured under the new plan. This will cost more money. The money has to come from somewhere. Either you raise taxes and fees, or else you borrow from Chineese.

Plus O bama already raised the cigarette taxes a dollar per pack of cigarettes and most smokers who pay this are earning a lot less than 140 thousans a year so Obama already broke his pledge on that one.


I think Obama probably meant general taxes like the income tax. I was not in favor of Obama healthcare, nor, for that matter, Obama, but you are certainly right. We have to pay for what we buy no matter how foolish.
0 Replies
 
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 10:39 am
@cruise95,
Inevitably, every politician unfortunate enough to get his or her wish will come to this predicament; no amount of promises typically made can be fulfilled once the true complexity and pain of the situation is known (I started a thread on this very issue here).

Yea probably - though that's not only not new, its typical of virtually every elected official: They can't keep all the promises they make - part and parcel to how elections work.
Pythagorean
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 10:56 am
@Khethil,
Khethil;117292 wrote:
Inevitably, every politician unfortunate enough to get his or her wish will come to this predicament; no amount of promises typically made can be fulfilled once the true complexity and pain of the situation is known (I started a thread on this very issue here).

Yea probably - though that's not only not new, its typical of virtually every elected official: They can't keep all the promises they make - part and parcel to how elections work.


I disagree in that this is no way near any typical legislation. This is the largest new entitlement since the new deal and comes at a time when the country is nearing bankruptcy. I don't believe the long term economic consequences are being adressed here.

Socialized medicine is another step towards soft despotism as it exists, for example, in the UK. This is social democracy and very new and very different from the old constitutional system. As a matter of fact you cannot force people to buy health care and this health care bill, once O bama signs it, will be challenged in court as being unconsittutional. He wants to be a dictator for sure, but that's not much different than the way George W. viewed his presidency. We are sliding into despotism here.
0 Replies
 
salima
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 11:23 am
@cruise95,
i dont understand how this would help someone like my son who has no insurance now and no job. and even if he had a job they could deduct his wages and he already didnt have enough money to afford medical care, why make him buy insurance? how does that help him?

this sounds like a law that is being made to help insurance companies...and hospitals
cruise95
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 02:36 pm
@salima,
salima;117305 wrote:
i dont understand how this would help someone like my son who has no insurance now and no job. and even if he had a job they could deduct his wages and he already didnt have enough money to afford medical care, why make him buy insurance? how does that help him?

this sounds like a law that is being made to help insurance companies...and hospitals



Ideally your son would obtain a discount or subsidy from the government so that he could get health insurance. If this universal healthcare bill goes through, then it looks as though your son will have to wait 3 - 4 years until it kicks in anyway.

Most people want 1) healthcare reform and 2) for all to be able to receive a just amount of healthcare. What seems strange to me is that if the bill working its way through congress is so deficit neutral, and will save us money...then why not start health care immediately instead of waiting 3 - 4 years? I wouldn't mind paying less for healthcare - especially if it would help somebody else out! Something just smells fishy about the whole thing right now.
0 Replies
 
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2010 08:26 am
@salima,
As far as the bill in question goes: I think it started out with good intent and high hopes. It's been batted, whittled and altered to the point where it does virtually no one any good. The only good point that I see is the pre-existing condition exclusion... really. And I'd echo your concerns that mandating insurance coverage to those who can't afford it is ... just silly.

I'd like to have seen universal healthcare implemented; I think it's in our best interests, but looking back now - that was just wishful thinking. The U.S. is far from being ready for such a thing.

I still think the important part of the OP addresses a fundamental flaw in how we "get" our leaders; you must lie, you must inflate, you must sit both sides of the fence and you must exaggerate just to get elected. Campaign promises will never be worth a hoot and I find it hard to believe anyone believed 'em in the first place; from anyonerunning for office.

Thanks
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2010 09:24 am
@Khethil,
Unless I'm mistaken, the primary issue here is that Medicare is presently cruising down a dead-end street. Deductions from our paychecks have long been supporting it. Anybody who thinks government sponsored healthcare is a new thing in the US has been living in a dreamworld.

But something needs to change or Medicare is scheduled to crash. The present healthcare bill was supposed to represent an intelligent approach to that issue. As it is, it's a start at addressing it. More needs to be done. We could just sit and watch Medicare crash and then listen to the crowds asking: why didn't we do something? I lived for 15 years without health insurance before I got my present job. I don't have a personal investment in the issue.

A little simple human compassion for my brothers and sisters who do and will need my support is my only interest.
Pythagorean
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2010 10:59 am
@Arjuna,
Since there is no money to add the uninsured, this conversation is a bit ridiculous. Where are you going to get the money? Medicare itself is unfunded. How do you give poor people new services when you are essentially bankrupt? I would love to give all poor people on earth a great big kingdom in heaven on earth. But if wishes were horses beggars would ride.

--
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2010 12:34 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;117739 wrote:
Since there is no money to add the uninsured, this conversation is a bit ridiculous. Where are you going to get the money? Medicare itself is unfunded. How do you give poor people new services when you are essentially bankrupt? I would love to give all poor people on earth a great big kingdom in heaven on earth. But if wishes were horses beggars would ride.

--
A significant aspect of the situation is that there are glaring problems with the way the money is presently being spent. Before we consider adding more fuel to an inefficient engine, we need to fix the engine so that it's running as efficiently as possible. It's less expensive to take care a person before they're so sick they're about to die. Ounce of prevention?

I don't know if I would suggest that the USA is bankrupt. Deeply in debt means we wake up tomorrow to a world as stable as the one we have today. Bankrupt is a totally different story... a bridge we haven't crossed yet.
Pythagorean
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2010 01:18 pm
@Arjuna,
I don't think money will be saved by providing insurance to those who are currently uninsured. Overall, I believe the health care bill will add to the deficit. Because insuring the uninsured costs more in the long run than what would be saved by having sick people treated before they become sicker. You are adding more health care service than would otherwise be covered. It may even cost more money to detect sickness in its early stages. Of course, on humanitarian grounds your argument is more powerful. But the question remains whether or not we can afford to provide coverage to more and more people.

On the face of it, it costs more money to provide more people with more coverage. The newly insured will use this coverage not only when there exists early signs of sickness, but they will use their coverage on a regular basis such as yearly physicals, just as everyone else who is now covered do. So, I believe that the costs of providing insurance to those who are currently uninsured will overall costs more money. The financial argument should be seperated from the humanitarian argument, in my opinion.

As for the country being bankrupt, I believe that it is already, if not officially. The U.S. is the world's largest debtor nation with no future prospects of being capable of paying off its debt.

America consumes more goods than it produces. And there is no prospect that we will face an increase in our industrial productivity. The industrial sector is the only sector than could provide a means of paying back the debt, but the U.S. manufacturing sector has been gutted by free traders.

The only way out of our debt is to inflate it away, which would mean a dramatic decline in the value of the dollar. This, I believe, is what will indeed happen ( I don't believe the U.S. would ever openly default on its debt- although it would be the most honest approach, in my opinion.)

Such inflation would mean the prices of oil and food will skyrocket and the standard of living in the U.S. will decline markedly. This is the road that we are on and there is no way off.

They are attempting to fix the dramatic credit and debt crises by providing more credit and adding more debt. The fundamentals are clearly unsound at this point. Asset values have yet to crash or fall to sustainable levels due to the infusion of money. There was no correction in the economy to soak up the debt and credit crises - they papered over the crises with yet more credit and debt. The crises is not over, the real correction hasn't taken place yet.

Bankruptcy will come when fuel and food prices rise beyond the means of average Americans to pay - (which should be in the next two years time). So it will never be officially declared.

--
cruise95
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2010 06:06 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;117821 wrote:
The only way out of our debt is to inflate it away, which would mean a dramatic decline in the value of the dollar. This, I believe, is what will indeed happen ( I don't believe the U.S. would ever openly default on its debt- although it would be the most honest approach, in my opinion.)

Such inflation would mean the prices of oil and food will skyrocket and the standard of living in the U.S. will decline markedly. This is the road that we are on and there is no way off.


That's why I am trying to save as much as I can. Look at all the other countries around us...American's standard of living is pretty good comparatively. If we become like every other developed country in the world, then our standards will decrease - I'm not saying this is good or bad...it just is what it is.

Obviously in a global economy, America is just another country...just like all the other countries. A good example would be mixing hot water with cold water so you have warm water.
Pythagorean
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2010 07:45 pm
@cruise95,
cruise95;117946 wrote:
That's why I am trying to save as much as I can. Look at all the other countries around us...American's standard of living is pretty good comparatively. If we become like every other developed country in the world, then our standards will decrease - I'm not saying this is good or bad...it just is what it is.

Obviously in a global economy, America is just another country...just like all the other countries. A good example would be mixing hot water with cold water so you have warm water.


You are wise to save Cruise.

I am convinced that such a decline in the American standard of living is coming. It is just a matter of time. The real 'correction' is on its way. And when this decline in American living standards does arrive it will probably bring about a good deal of political upheaval. The people will be very upset, at least at first. The question that I have is: what type of political turmoil will it be? How bad of a shock will it produce? These are the important questions to my mind. It could mean a drastic revolutionary series of events. I hope that I live to see this history played out. I find it very interesting to speculate on these types of things.
cruise95
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 11:53 am
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;117969 wrote:
I am convinced that such a decline in the American standard of living is coming. It is just a matter of time. The real 'correction' is on its way.


Obviously there are many reasons why America endured a successful economy in the past. I am wondering how much 'Universal Healthcare' will impact our situation. Some like to say that we are one of the only developed countries that does not provide health care to all of its citizens! It is also strange that we are also one of the most successful developed countries! Is this a coincidence? Maybe America has had good fortune (sort of) BECAUSE we do not have universal health care!

But as I said before, there are many reasons why America has had good fortune and health care might have very little to do with things. Maybe we'll find out...Be careful what you wish for because you might just get it!


Pythagorean;117969 wrote:
I hope that I live to see this history played out.


Again...be careful what you wish for Very Happy
Pythagorean
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 06:23 pm
@cruise95,
cruise95;118219 wrote:
Obviously there are many reasons why America endured a successful economy in the past. I am wondering how much 'Universal Healthcare' will impact our situation. Some like to say that we are one of the only developed countries that does not provide health care to all of its citizens! It is also strange that we are also one of the most successful developed countries! Is this a coincidence? Maybe America has had good fortune (sort of) BECAUSE we do not have universal health care!


That's exactly right. Socialism and third world poverty go hand in hand. They always have. You go back and you look at the poorest nations and they were the ones who live under socialism. It is funny now to witness the U.S. slide towards socialist despotism right at the time the economy is taking a historical downward trajectory.

[quote]But as I said before, there are many reasons why America has had good fortune and health care might have very little to do with things. Maybe we'll find out...Be careful what you wish for because you might just get it![/quote]
Quote:




Again...be careful what you wish for Very Happy


I absolutely expect things to get bad. In my view, and for a variety of reasons, darkness is coming/has come to America, a deep and profound darkness at that.

There's nothing I can do about it so I might as well take notes. :bigsmile:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Broken promises or Dictator
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/17/2024 at 03:40:01