C
cynic
Guest
It doesn’ have to involve progressive tax, as those who earn more, pay more (in cash) with flat tax.
- Status
S
steveandersen
Guest
Then why did you use them?
AFAIK Marx and Engels are related to the Communist tradition and not the socialist tradition. But that has little or nothing to do with health care as noted by my previous reference to well-known antisocialist Bismarck and his health care initiatives.
Back OT
I am fortunate that I have lived a healthy life so far
BUT
I have a buddy of mine whose job it is to see that children under three with terrible health issues get the assistance they need.
The stories he tells would make your hair stand on end.
We need to do something differently.
T
Thais
Guest
True, even if the tax system was proportional - no redistribution, the vouchers would still cause some wealth redistribution, unless the vouchers were also proportional. But then it’d be the same as not helping the poor at all, other than the government making sure parents don’t squander money instead of sending their kids to school.
The ideal solution could be to let people freely donate money to charity institutions that in turn would offer scholarships to the poor. This already works quite well. Very few Americans are totally opposed to helping the poor at all, they just don’t want to be forced to doing so. In fact, a lot of people might donate even more if they didn’t have to pay taxes. But I don’t know exactly how this would work as I know of no country in modern history where there was no taxation.
I think that basically the left and the right are both proposing to solve a problem, nobody wants poor people anywhere. However, the left is better at sounding more concerned while the right is better at presenting more effective, even though slightly harder to understand, solutions.
The way I see it, school vouchers, tax credit for private health care, the fair tax… all of these still help the poor, while eliminating waste of money with incompetence caused by bureaucracy in between: no bad teachers/doctors protected by unions, no government imposed indoctrination in education, good quality services, no intrusion or waste of time with the income tax, etc.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
The communist countries (at least Romania) didn’t have taxes.
The best definition of communism was “they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.”
The way I see it, school vouchers, tax credit for private health care, the fair tax… all of these still help the poor, while eliminating waste of money with incompetence caused by bureaucracy in between: no bad teachers/doctors protected by unions, no government imposed indoctrination in education, good quality services, no intrusion or waste of time with the income tax, etc.
S
St_Francis
Guest
However, I believe that abortion is legal in all the European nations (except Ireland?) and so I wonder what their commitment is actually to, since the young and weak are not protected… and since at least one nation permits active euthanasia, neither are the elderly.
C
cynic
Guest
It’s not the ideal solution since people paying no tax have the choice of not giving to charity. In theory some children might not receive any schooling at all because their parents don’t earn enough. Vouchers at least guarantee that they will.
Yeah that seems to be a common theme, but it means children potentially bear the consequences for something they can have no control over, just so noone is forced to pay any tax.
T
Thais
Guest
Yeah, I guess that’d be like 100% taxes huh.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
LOL. You hit the nail on the head.
T
Thais
Guest
It’s a possibility, it makes one wonder what would really happen. But obviously there must be some taxation for services that individuals wouldn’t see as advantageous to hire privately, such as military, police and courts, like I mentioned before.
In computer science, it’s called a deadlock, when all processes are waiting for each other to start and complete before they grab a shared resource.
And by the way defense was the reason for temporary federal taxation in the Constitution - hubby and I read it this past 4th of July, loved it.
But I definitely like the idea of the vouchers. It’s a slight redistribution of wealth but for the right reasons: like you said, to help innocent children learn how to earn their own dough. Not anything disgusting like plain jealousy: “that person makes much more money than me, that has got to be wrong” or “the oil companies have too big of a profit, they (and all of the American people) will have to pay for that”.
We just need to be very careful with these “good reasons”. If we start thinking that all citizens simply “deserve” to be given “free” education, health care, food, housing, transportation to work, heat, air conditioning, trash service, cable TV, internet, cell phone, yearly vacations, etc… where would we be headed?
Where nobody gets any of that, just because some didn’t put enough effort into it.
R
ribozyme
Guest
I guess people should suffer from the misery of poverty then and patheticaly grovel to private charity.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
That’s very poetic…it would look nice on a velvet painting of Elvis singing to a sad clown.
But it is an empty statement, devoid of any meaning or substance. Poverty is not synonymous with suffering or misery…suffering and misery are part of the human condition, and no amount of money can ever change that. Many rich people believe they are suffering in one way or another- I know you won’t believe it, but some of my rich friends are miserable, and many of my my poor friends are very happy.
In fact, I was poor when I was growing up, but I have very happy memories of my childhood. Was I actually suffering and in misery all that time and just didn’t know it?
Your twisted idea of what it means to give, or receive, charity makes me question whether you have ever done either.
I suggest that you spend some time volunteering at a charity that provides direct service to the poor sometime- maybe at a food pantry or a homeless shelter. You might find that people who willingly give their time and resources to those in need are not the monsters you believe them to be.
Then I suggest that you find someone working for a government bureaucracy and ask their opinion about the effect that applying for government assistance has on their clients’ sense of human dignity and worth. While you’re there, you might also want to ask some of their clients if they feel like the government has ever made them “grovel,” and whether they have ever felt “miserable” or “pathetic” despite being on government assistance.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Excellent post.
I noticed when I worked in DC (for the Democrats) that many bleeding hearts like to “help humanity” but not so much humans, “love” people, but not so much persons.
Btw, study after study shows that, once you cross the line of bare subsistence, there is NO effect WHATSOEVER on happiness by increased money. None.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
Exactly- I’d like to add that “bare subsistence” used to include food, shelter, clothes, and basic/immediate medical care. But once politicians realized that they could garner votes by expanding the definition of “subsistence” to include just about everything their constituents wanted- free comprehensive healthcare, free education, free HDTV boxes (I’m not making that up), free transportation, and free houses (not housing- but actual HOUSES). At the same time, they have convinced these same people to resent anyone who works hard and is successful by promoting the idea that success is inherently selfish.
Now that I think about it, it may be true that this country is on its way to a two class system- the rich, defined as anyone who works hard and earns enough to be self-sufficient, and the poor, defined as anyone who depends on government benefits. Of course, as the definition of “poverty” keeps expanding, the “poor” will get more and more political power, and use it to punish the “rich” with higher and higher taxes until their businesses fail and they become poor themselves.
I guess that once that happens we will truly have a classless society- everyone will be poor and dependent upon the government for their basic needs.
Is that was they call a “Socialist Utopia?”
R
ribozyme
Guest
I rarely seen any examples of human “love”; I never seen anyone giving very generously without any concern for any remuneration or prestige for their giving. In general, people only give to others if they expect something in return i.e. tit for tat. I have never seen anyone give up their standard of living to help the unfortunate, and I do not expect many people to do it. I am sorry I have a very dark and grim view of human nature. We did not evolve to help others; we evolved mainly to pass on our genes. All I see are aggregrates of “selfish genes” competing in the Hobbesian jungle.
T
Thais
Guest
I am sorry if what you have witnessed in your past has led you to seriously doubt the capacity of the human heart for pure true charity. If it is any help, I would like to testify that I have seen it many times. And I pray that you will begin to see it, but it takes you being predisposed to see it. I will pray for you to be able to do that.
God created us good, in His image, out of Love. It was an outpouring of his Glory. Sin stained our nature and then Jesus restored our dignity. Without God, it would be impossible for us to be capable of true pure love, but with God’s help we can do it and many of us do so on a daily basis, without ever being noted or meaning to be. Love is our higher calling, it is everybody’s ultimate vocation. Remember what C.S. Lewis said, we “are” not a body, or aggregates of genes as you put it, and we do not “have” a soul. We “are” a soul and we “have” a body.
Jesus loves you every second, He will never stop. If the persons around you cannot show you a taste of God’s love, I hope that you will be able to experience it transcendentally. It makes up for all our past disappointments with less than perfect humanity. He alone can fulfill all of our expectations. Heaven will be the time, but we get countless previews of it every single day… as long as you’re looking.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
Then what, exactly, motivates your concern for others?
Are you uniquely capable of altruism? Did evolution simply overlook you?
In all sincerity, you need to spend time serving the poor directly- not in a think tank making up imaginary social programs, but directly by bringing food to them, or passing out blankets, or anything.
Given what you have said, it would do you as much good as them.
R
ribozyme
Guest
I still haven’t seen anyone performing an action of great love for anyone that isn’t related to them by kinship. Most people are not willing to sacrifice their standard of living to help the poor, and they will only merely give a few hundred dollars at most. I still believe charity is quite futile because it is not within our nature to be charitable. Instead we have a tendency to group the poor as either “deserving” or “undeserving.” Cooperation does happen within the human species if it benefits themselves, but charity is extremely rare.
I do not regards liberals as charitable people; they are simply utilitarians who believe that there is a paucity of charity within this species.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
If you think charity is extremely rare, and if you haven’t seen anyone performing an action of great love for anyone that isn’t related to them, I think you are running with the wrong crowd.
I do not doubt for a moment that some liberals are charitable people, but I think your judgment of the precise utilitarian motive is misplaced. For some liberals, it is not a matter of believing there is a paucity of charity, but of buying votes for their own aggrandizement and ensuring that they control the means of providing for the “bought” constituency. Utilitarian still, but different.
This puts me to mind of the Bolsheviks’ sacking of the Orthodox churches and monasteries. On a number of occasions during the Terror Famine, the churches and monasteries stripped the gold and jewels from their facilities in order to aid the starving. The Bolsheviks would have none of it, and insisted on seizing the very items the churches and monasteries were offering up, often resulting in the weird arrangement of “appointments” with the Cheka for “seizure”. Only the state, you see, could engage in charity. It did require work to remove the gold and jewels from their places and pack them securely, so the Chekists let the priests, nuns and monks do all of that for them. Of course, the Bolsheviks didn’t get any of the aid to the starving, either.
One of the big buyers of those things was Armand Hammer, the famous leftist/capitalist founder of Occidental Petroleum. A sort of George Soros of his time.
An extreme example of leftist charity, but only in degree.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
There’s a lot to respond to in there- probably enough for a new thread…
U
uther
Guest
I don’t think it is necessary to use a “european model” or a “Canadian model” at all. The best solution to the problem is a made-in-America solution. But that is the first issue, isn’t it, agreeing on what is the problem and how big it is. Practically speaking, the best solutions are not ideological extremes but some sort of blend. The trick is then ensuring that ideologues cannot hijack it.
A case in point. In Canada, there is a universal federal healthcare law, but the services are delivered by the provinces. In the province of Ontario, the health care system was at one time entirely private, but private charity also subsidized some people and/or some institutions, and generally there was a certain decency and benevolence such that practically nobody was refused even if they couldn’t pay all or even any of the bill. It was imperfect but it was before many technological advances in medicine and doctors still made house-calls. Costs were not as high.
As private insurers came onto the scene, at one point the Ontario Government decided to become one of the insurers. The plan was tax-subsidized but there was a means-tested monthly premium, and a basic list of services that the law stated could not be refused by the medical professionals and institutions who opted into the system. That plan was what one poster has referred to here as OHIP (Ontario Hospitalization/Health Insurance Plan). The key to its success was that it was truly an Insurance Plan, albeit one subsidized, but the providers were still private. Richer people could pay direct or for electives not covered by the plan or could buy a private insurer’s plan. It was a practical mix of public and private and for a time worked well.
What killed it was ideology. Successive leftist provincial governments gradually regulated the doctors to the point that they are now essentially civil servants although having the facade of independence. The plan was then made “free”, that is with no premium, which of course caused it to be over-used. This control of the doctors has created a doctor shortage to this day.
But what really illustrates this ideological idiocy was the example of MRIs in the province. With long waiting lines a more conservative government decided to allow for private MRI clinics, provided that they had to accept OHIP patients at the OHIP rate, which was very close to the private market rate, and everyone had to be treated the same for the purpose of access to appointments.
Several private clinics made the huge investment in MRI equipment and training and the waiting lines went down dramatically. It was working.
And then a leftist government was elected and one of the first things they did was eliminate all private MRI clinics. Why? Purely ideological. They could not accept that anyone could make a profit in their health care system. So the waiting lines went back to where they were.
So whatever Americans decide to do, beware the ideologues. They care less for practical efficiency and actual delivery of services to those that need them than they care about their ideology.
A case in point. In Canada, there is a universal federal healthcare law, but the services are delivered by the provinces. In the province of Ontario, the health care system was at one time entirely private, but private charity also subsidized some people and/or some institutions, and generally there was a certain decency and benevolence such that practically nobody was refused even if they couldn’t pay all or even any of the bill. It was imperfect but it was before many technological advances in medicine and doctors still made house-calls. Costs were not as high.
As private insurers came onto the scene, at one point the Ontario Government decided to become one of the insurers. The plan was tax-subsidized but there was a means-tested monthly premium, and a basic list of services that the law stated could not be refused by the medical professionals and institutions who opted into the system. That plan was what one poster has referred to here as OHIP (Ontario Hospitalization/Health Insurance Plan). The key to its success was that it was truly an Insurance Plan, albeit one subsidized, but the providers were still private. Richer people could pay direct or for electives not covered by the plan or could buy a private insurer’s plan. It was a practical mix of public and private and for a time worked well.
What killed it was ideology. Successive leftist provincial governments gradually regulated the doctors to the point that they are now essentially civil servants although having the facade of independence. The plan was then made “free”, that is with no premium, which of course caused it to be over-used. This control of the doctors has created a doctor shortage to this day.
But what really illustrates this ideological idiocy was the example of MRIs in the province. With long waiting lines a more conservative government decided to allow for private MRI clinics, provided that they had to accept OHIP patients at the OHIP rate, which was very close to the private market rate, and everyone had to be treated the same for the purpose of access to appointments.
Several private clinics made the huge investment in MRI equipment and training and the waiting lines went down dramatically. It was working.
And then a leftist government was elected and one of the first things they did was eliminate all private MRI clinics. Why? Purely ideological. They could not accept that anyone could make a profit in their health care system. So the waiting lines went back to where they were.
So whatever Americans decide to do, beware the ideologues. They care less for practical efficiency and actual delivery of services to those that need them than they care about their ideology.
- Status