Howard Dean's Plan to Dramatically Raise Taxes on You

Lower tax rates than they have, and our per-capita GDP is higher than everyone else's except little ol' Luxembourg's.

Hmmm....

 

Correct, and we had lower tax rates prior to Bush's last round of tax cuts (during the longest economic expansion in postwar history), and would continue to have them even if such tax cuts were repealed (although they expire in 2010 anyway, at which time we will likely still have the lowest tax burden in the Western world -- of course, the most crippling deficit ever will be even more monstrous at that point, so all bets are off.)

 

So you want me to pay for your health care? Give me a break. Why don't you do what I do, be a man and take care of it yourself?

 

The Wall Street Journal:

Fair and Balanced Look at the Left

 

That's a good one!

Among my other favorites are:


" Poor people are only poor because they're lazy!"

" Bad things happen to everyone...only losers fall down because of bad breaks, winners carry on and triumph!"

and...


..." In this country, anyone can be a success if he works hard!"

 

LOL!!!

 

I hope the taxes are high enough to pay for universal health coverage.

Good point. That is the problem with the bumpersticker simplistic message so dear to the dittoheads and even their college educated cooleagues. Many good things are paid for by our taxes. Roads, public education, libraries, cancer research etc.

It is a shame that the ditto heads are so simple minded. One wonders if they are really so simple themselves or if they think they are being clever by appealing to the unthinking.

 

No. I'm pretty well covered by my student insurance. Though, if I am ever so broke that I can't afford to pay the doctors for treatment for my diabetes, I will more than happily take your money in order to treat it. It's very expensive to treat without insurance, and I am not guaranteed insurance by any entity.

So, in that case, while I would like to "be a man and take care of it" myself, I would also like to survive with my eyesight, both my feet, and working kidneys. Unless being a man means going blind, having my feet amputated, and promptly dying from kidney failure because I can't afford dialysis. Since these aren't "emergency" situations until the failure has already taken place, meaning that losing my eyesight isn't an emergency, but going suddenly and incurably blind is, that means no hospital is obligated to treat me until I'm already ****ed and incapable of having my eyesight saved.

I also want you to pay for other people's health care. You know, poor people. Lazy ones who just want to leech off of society by getting their incurable illnesses actually treated. Y'know, diabetics and cancer patients and stuff. Damn lazy bastards probably got diabetes from being lazy in the first place, but, what the hell, it's not my money - it's your money.

Lack of universal healthcare is barbarism.

 

...and while we're at it, I'd also like you to pay for my dental and optometry care.

 

But am I obligated to pay for your medical care? Apparently you think that you have a entitlement to reach into my pocket to pay for your medical bills, which is what would happen if we had "universal healthcare," which would be a disaster. You would use the govt with its police powers to take from me the fruits of my hard work to pay for your medical bills. Medical expenses are no different than a car payment, a house note or any other service. I compensate a doctor for his training by utilizing his services, no different than getting my roof fixed or my computer worked on. So by your badly flawed rationale, I guess it is barbarism that you don't have a Lexus. Or don't live in a 5th Ave. house. So I guess you expect your fellow man to pay for that as well.

 

You can live without a Lexus. You can't live without healthcare.

Why should a child stay sick because his parents are poor?

 

But conversely, it is appropriate for me to be compelled to pay for a service for someone else?

 

It comes down to a few key questions;

To what degree to you feel your current situation is attributable to the system you live in.

To what degree you feel that those who benefit from that system have a responsibility to portion some of the benefits they receive from same to those who said system does not benefit.

What you feel is the relationship between man and society, man and fellow man, and what the purpose of society is.

Whether you feel that part of being 'civilized' is to try and provide a chore standard of living for every member of your society as a means to try and account for the vagueries of fortune, and in the expectation of reciprocation should the degree to which fortune has played a role in your life is suddenly revealed to you in a manner which would prove discomforting.

 

C'mon bama. You have to know that this argument is ridiculous. You're an intelligent man. I've read your posts, and while I don't often agree with your viewpoints (though sometimes I do), you generally make somewhat rational arguments to support them.

But this is just silly.

Green Vegan made a more diplomatic argument than I could make in this case.

 

I consider myself a Republican and usually have conservative views.

But seriously the deficit scares me. I'm fearing the downfall of the US due to this burden. The baby boomers want to keep passing the buck, the buck needs to stop somewhere. I'm not in favor of massive tax increases, but we need to slowly increase taxes and lower/control spending without burdening the economy. Maybe that's impossible? I dunno. But continuing to increase the deficit isn't the answer.

I'm in favor of a national health plan. Instead of paying to an HMO I just pay more in taxes and hopefully everyone can go to the doctor/dentist/eye doctor. I want to help those in need, but I hate paying for those who don't work.

I'm not sure how it works but doesn't MediCare and Medicade cover kids/elderly for doctors visits? I know it covers expecting mothers. All it takes is enrolling in it, I think.

 

You already do.

When you buy products and services, those companies have the cost of their employees' health care built into the price. When you or your insurance company pay for your healthcare, a percentage of the fee goes to cover the uninsureds' expenses that the healthcare system must absorb. Some of your taxes go to county medical facilities, and others go to pay for senior, low income, disabled, child and veteran healthcare.

As for Universal Coverage, the Feds can tax the corporations an equivalent amount that they would have paid anyway, thus having no new impact on your pocket.

 

Actually, Universal Care and Managed Care are not mutually exclusive. The Medicare and Medicaid programs utilize managed care (HMOs) to deliver care.

 

You can't be serious. You would want the Federal Govt, which has never shown a propensity for running anything correctly, running your health care? Thanks, but no thanks. We already have "universal healthcare," it's called Mediscare, Mediraid and it is too much as it is. Today it is universal health care, tomorrow it will be govt. paid daycare, the next.......who knows what lurks in the minds of liberals.

 

Marriage counseling?

 

No. I don't want the government 'running' my healthcare; I want it to be the vehicle to pay for it. I want private industry to provide the care.

The government intrudes into healthcare as it sees fit now; it doesn't need to pay for the rest of healthcare (since it already pays for a mjor chunk of it through Medicare and Medicaid) for an excuse to intrude more.

But having the gov pay so all are covered will end many screwed-up issues in the industry and allow it to operate more efficiently and effectively.