NHS: The best reason to dump Obamacare!

[Seth]

In all my 30 years of debating the subject. Never

Because you never listen

I always listen, carefully. Unfortunately I never hear anything of substance from Marxists and their dupes (that's you) other than personal invective. (see above for classic example of evasive ad hom)

and live in a fantasy world of your own making trying to justify your $100k self insured health fund .

Why would I need to justify that? It's my money and I intend to keep it, all of it, every single dime of it, for my own use and enjoyment. You can't have any of it.

Meanwhile the rest of the world moves on and you and your ilk are marginalized while Norway et al are happy examples of well run social democracies.

Norway is currently enjoying the bloom of OPM, specifically abundant natural resources that it has to sell to capitalists to keep their welfare state running. When the OPM runs out, it too will turn to despotism and tyranny, as all Marxist societies eventually do. It's as inevitable as entropy because you can't get something for nothing forever.

Britain is broke and cannot afford the same level of service in most part due to the rape by economic deregulation and a vain attempt to remain a world military power plus allowing the the North Sea oil wealth to be frittered away.

Nope. Britain is broke because it is a Marxist-based socialist state that promised what it could not possibly ever deliver and now the chickens are coming home to roost because the OPM has run out, as Thatcher so aptly pointed out. Despotism and tyranny await just around the economic corner.

[Tero]

You could have pretty cheap healthcare if you only use drugs and medical equipment with expired patents.

You do realise that if everyone tried to do that, pharmaceutical companies would never bother to develop new products in the first place?

There is always a market. When AZT was invented, there were no expired AIDS drugs. There were no AIDS drugs.

[Audley Strange]

And why would anyone shoot at them? Perhaps because they are viewed as evil, despotic thieves coming to destroy lives? Why indeed to IRS agents ever leave the office or see a taxpayer in person if not to intimidate and threaten them? Paying taxes is compulsory, and to be compulsory means that the State must have an enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance. The IRS is perhaps the largest terrorist organization on earth which uses fear and intimidation as an everyday tool of ensuring compliance with their byzantine and utterly incomprehensible "tax code."

So lets unpack that a bit. Some people have an Ideological pathology that makes them want to shoot government officials because they view them as evil. Thus these officials are at risk. So yes you prove my point, dangerous criminal nutcases. Your second point. Paying taxes is only compulsory on what you earn correct? So if you choose not to earn you don't have to pay taxes, you might have to rely on charity since you are so opposed to any scheme, but you could always starve or do the whole revolutionary suicide thing too. You do have options, you just might not like them.

Well being part of the American regime I'd agree that your IRS is part of the largest terrorist organisation on earth, that it is also a crazed bureaucracy doesn't surprise me, but complex paperwork is no reason to shoot people.

As we've seen from recent events, it's now also a tool of political terrorism by Obama.

no
Well if you are talking about Obamacare, it was the right and the libbos who helped made sure that SPH was off the table so you can't just blame Marxists or Socialists for it.

In a perfect world, the IRS would send a single polite letter saying "We believe you owe X for the government services you avail yourself of, please remit it to us at your earliest convenience." And if the taxpayer refuses, then the IRS should be bound by the same rules as every other bill collector in the US is bound by, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Well I don't really disagree with that much, other that in a perfect world taxes collected would be more than enough to pay for universal education and health care and still give everyone a decent quality of life, but as long as you're insane regime keeps constantly spending outrageously egregious sums on pointless aggression and national insecurity that's not going to happen.

[Seth]

And why would anyone shoot at them? Perhaps because they are viewed as evil, despotic thieves coming to destroy lives? Why indeed to IRS agents ever leave the office or see a taxpayer in person if not to intimidate and threaten them? Paying taxes is compulsory, and to be compulsory means that the State must have an enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance. The IRS is perhaps the largest terrorist organization on earth which uses fear and intimidation as an everyday tool of ensuring compliance with their byzantine and utterly incomprehensible "tax code."

So lets unpack that a bit. Some people have an Ideological pathology that makes them want to shoot government officials because they view them as evil.

No, because the ARE evil.

Thus these officials are at risk. So yes you prove my point, dangerous criminal nutcases.

They don't need guns if they don't act like terrorists.

Your second point. Paying taxes is only compulsory on what you earn correct? So if you choose not to earn you don't have to pay taxes,

Well, sort of. You pay all kinds of taxes not related to income like sales tax, but for the most part those sort of taxes are not redistributionary in nature, they are more accurately defined as "user fees" that fund public infrastructure and operations. The vast majority of redistributionary taxation takes place at the federal level and comes from the income tax.

But yes, you're right, if you don't make any income, you don't pay any income tax.

you might have to rely on charity since you are so opposed to any scheme, but you could always starve or do the whole revolutionary suicide thing too. You do have options, you just might not like them.

Didn't say I didn't have options. The problem is that for the most part those who have no income choose to demand that other people support them by using the government as their personal jackbooted thugs to collect the money they need. There wouldn't be a problem if non-taxpayers made their own way in life by depending on charity. Government redistribution is not, however, charity. It's theft that's ultimately backed up with the bullets from machine guns.

Well being part of the American regime I'd agree that your IRS is part of the largest terrorist organisation on earth, that it is also a crazed bureaucracy doesn't surprise me, but complex paperwork is no reason to shoot people.

It's not the paperwork, it's the theft.

As we've seen from recent events, it's now also a tool of political terrorism by Obama.

no
Well if you are talking about Obamacare, it was the right and the libbos who helped made sure that SPH was off the table so you can't just blame Marxists or Socialists for it.

I'm talking about the use of the IRS as a terror-tool against groups who opposed Obama's second election.

In a perfect world, the IRS would send a single polite letter saying "We believe you owe X for the government services you avail yourself of, please remit it to us at your earliest convenience." And if the taxpayer refuses, then the IRS should be bound by the same rules as every other bill collector in the US is bound by, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Well I don't really disagree with that much, other that in a perfect world taxes collected would be more than enough to pay for universal education and health care and still give everyone a decent quality of life, but as long as you're insane regime keeps constantly spending outrageously egregious sums on pointless aggression and national insecurity that's not going to happen.

If the public is not willing to voluntarily support universal education and health care why should they be forced to do so against their will? It's their money, they should get to do with it as they please. If you have kids and want them educated, then by all means educate them or pay someone else to educate them. If you want them doctored, then by all means doctor them or pay someone else to doctor them. But again, why should I be forced to pay for your kid's education or health care?

Just because you want universal education and health care doesn't mean there is a rational, moral or ethical argument to support stealing the labor and property of one person to fund the desires of another.

If you think there is, then go ahead and argue the case.

[Audley Strange]

Well your mixing a lot up on that last bit so I'll respond to that.

I was pointing out that as a hypothetical "perfect world" one can say any old shit.

Look, the U.S. public do not vote for those who support universal health care nor do they vote for Libertarians. Given that we can only assume that they do not see taxes as theft nor force but at the same time they don't vote of parties that do want to bring in UHC.

Secondly I'm not a moralist, so I cannot produce any moral argument for anything. However I do understand rhetoric. Again you have choices not to so you are not forced. If anything you have an inherent contractual obligation with the government to pay taxes. Now you could argue that "you never signed any contract" which is true, it is assumed, being a citizen. However there is another option, If you don't like the obligations of a citizen leave and find a place more suitable and renounce citizenship. It is irrational to demand the rights of a citizen without being willing to perform the common obligations of that nations definition of a citizen.

So I don't accept your polemics of it being forced upon you or it being theft. You have choices.

[Seth]

Well your mixing a lot up on that last bit so I'll respond to that.

I was pointing out that as a hypothetical "perfect world" one can say any old shit.

Look, the U.S. public do not vote for those who support universal health care nor do they vote for Libertarians. Given that we can only assume that they do not see taxes as theft nor force but at the same time they don't vote of parties that do want to bring in UHC.

Secondly I'm not a moralist, so I cannot produce any moral argument for anything. However I do understand rhetoric. Again you have choices not to so you are not forced. If anything you have an inherent contractual obligation with the government to pay taxes. Now you could argue that "you never signed any contract" which is true, it is assumed, being a citizen. However there is another option, If you don't like the obligations of a citizen leave and find a place more suitable and renounce citizenship. It is irrational to demand the rights of a citizen without being willing to perform the common obligations of that nations definition of a citizen.

So I don't accept your polemics of it being forced upon you or it being theft. You have choices.

I keep asking for a rational supporting argument and you keep giving me a fallacious appeal to common practice answer.

Indeed, the primary of which is the choice to polemicize against the injustice I see as a starting point for fomenting change.

[pErvinalia]

Seth, the most obvious rational justification for caring for the more disadvantaged in society is that they will separate your head from your shoulders if you don't. It's hard to be rational when you are torn to shreds by the masses.

[Audley Strange]

Well your mixing a lot up on that last bit so I'll respond to that.

I was pointing out that as a hypothetical "perfect world" one can say any old shit.

Look, the U.S. public do not vote for those who support universal health care nor do they vote for Libertarians. Given that we can only assume that they do not see taxes as theft nor force but at the same time they don't vote of parties that do want to bring in UHC.

Secondly I'm not a moralist, so I cannot produce any moral argument for anything. However I do understand rhetoric. Again you have choices not to so you are not forced. If anything you have an inherent contractual obligation with the government to pay taxes. Now you could argue that "you never signed any contract" which is true, it is assumed, being a citizen. However there is another option, If you don't like the obligations of a citizen leave and find a place more suitable and renounce citizenship. It is irrational to demand the rights of a citizen without being willing to perform the common obligations of that nations definition of a citizen.

So I don't accept your polemics of it being forced upon you or it being theft. You have choices.

I keep asking for a rational supporting argument and you keep giving me a fallacious appeal to common practice answer.

Indeed, the primary of which is the choice to polemicize against the injustice I see as a starting point for fomenting change.

No I didn't give you a fallacious appeal to common sense. I explained that a citizen has certain obligations and if you don't like them you have various options.

There is no sole rational answer because caring about your fellow man is as far as I'm concerned not solely a rational thing. However, the simple fact remains that if you withdraw the polemics from your original question what you are left with is "Why should I to pay taxes for stuff I don't use", that's fine, I don't want to pay taxes for things I don't use either, so do most people, but still they do because they in turn recognise the benefits they receive from such, but be honest about it, don't try and rationalise selfishness as something other than selfishness because that is not entirely rational either. Nor is it any less or more "evil" than the former.

Sine you basically agree it's polemic and since you basically agree you have choices I think I've given you a sufficient answer, if you choose not to accept it as sufficient, because you wish to use polemic to motivate (who exactly?), then tough. You are not forced into indentured servitude or by point of machine gun to have money stolen from you.

Also rEv's right, if you don't give the plebs a hand while you've living in luxury they tend start bloodily redistibuting things.

[pErvinalia]

Basically, Seth was born into the comfort and protections afforded by a civil society, but he wants to pretend that he did it all by his own bootstraps. This is his actual view, as any time anyone suggests to him he is free to drop out of society or move to Somalia, he says "why should I have to move anywhere?". The reason is, Seth, is that you have gained whatever health and wealth you have today via the strictures and systems provided by a stable civil society. You didn't do it on your own, and you owe society for that protection and opportunity it provided. The only legitimate questions are related to "how much" one should owe. You say basically "zero" outside of services you personally use and benefit from. I.e. you aren't addressing the legitimate question.

[Seth]

Seth, the most obvious rational justification for caring for the more disadvantaged in society is that they will separate your head from your shoulders if you don't. It's hard to be rational when you are torn to shreds by the masses.

Well, believe it or not that is actually a valid argument, unlike almost every other evasion I've seen from you.

So, in response I say "Why shouldn't we just kill those who attempt violence because they want what others have?"

Someone comes at me with your stated intent and that's most certainly what I'm going to do. Why is that a bad public policy?

[pErvinalia]

yes, Seth, chaos and anarchy are excellent public policies.

[Seth]

Basically, Seth was born into the comfort and protections afforded by a civil society, but he wants to pretend that he did it all by his own bootstraps.

Not in the least. The society that I was born into is what it is. I could have been born to a starving mother in Darfur. I wasn't. More importantly I didn't ask to be born into this society, and I don't accept the argument that I'm born owing a debt to society for being born.

Perhaps my parents owe a debt to society for their fair share of the benefits of civilization they enjoy, but not me. I only owe for that which I consume.

This is his actual view, as any time anyone suggests to him he is free to drop out of society or move to Somalia, he says "why should I have to move anywhere?". The reason is, Seth, is that you have gained whatever health and wealth you have today via the strictures and systems provided by a stable civil society.

Yes, and I pay my way in that civil society. I pay my way completely. I don't demand that others subsidize or support me. The gift of citizenship is exactly that, a gift, not a generational form of slavery through obligations of past generations. I fully accept that I'm responsible for my own debts. But I am not responsible for anyone else's debts.

You didn't do it on your own, and you owe society for that protection and opportunity it provided.

Yes, I owe society for that which I consume or enjoy by way of public benefits, and I pay that debt. The "debt" I'm referring to is the assumption that I owe someone else a debt of support merely because they are less fortunate than I am, or didn't work as hard.

The only legitimate questions are related to "how much" one should owe. You say basically "zero" outside of services you personally use and benefit from. I.e. you aren't addressing the legitimate question.

No, it's you who is waffling around the central question which I've asked several times now.

We generally agree that those who use and enjoy the benefits of society must pay their fair share of the costs. Where we disagree is very specific, but you seem unwilling to cease and desist conflating government-forced wealth redistribution from the productive class to the dependent class with the just obligation to contribute to the infrastructure of civilization. They are two quite different things.

If you care to stick to the point we might get somewhere this time.

[Seth]

yes, Seth, chaos and anarchy are excellent public policies.

Non-responsive strawman fallacy.

Try again, if you have it in you.

[macdoc]

Neither does yours...it's a disgrace

Why is the rich US in such poor health?

* 15 July 2013 by Laudan Aron
* Magazine issue 2925. Subscribe and save
* For similar stories, visit the Comment and Analysis and US national issues Topic Guides

In the wake of a startling report highlighting the US's poor health compared with other wealthy nations, its study director searches for answers

AMERICANS die younger and experience more injury and illness than people in other rich nations, despite spending almost twice as much per person on healthcare. That was the startling conclusion of a major report released earlier this year by the US National Research Council (NRC) and the Institute of Medicine (IOM).

It received widespread attention. The New York Times concluded: "It is now shockingly clear that poor health is a much broader and deeper problem than past studies have suggested."

What it revealed was the extent of the US's large and growing "health disadvantage", which shows up as higher rates of disease and injury from birth to age 75 for men and women, rich and poor across all races and ethnicities. The comparison countries – Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands and the UK – generally do much better, although the UK isn't far behind the US.

The poorer outcomes in the US are reflected in measures as varied as infant mortality, the rate of teen pregnancy, traffic fatalities and heart disease. Even those with health insurance, high incomes, college educations and healthy lifestyles appear to be sicker than their counterparts in other wealthy countries. The US Council on Foreign Relations, a non-partisan think tank, described the report as "a catalog of horrors".

Findings that prompted this reaction include the fact that the rate of premature births in the US is the highest among the comparison countries and more closely resembles those of sub-Saharan Africa. Premature birth is the most frequent cause of infant death in the US, and the cost to the healthcare system is estimated to top $26 billion a year.

As distressing as all this is, much less attention has been given to the obvious question: why is the US so unwell? The answer, it turns out, is simple and yet deceptively complex: it's almost everything.

Our health depends on much more than just medical care. Behaviours such as diet, physical activity and even how fast we drive all have profound effects. So do the environments that expose us to health risks or discourage healthy living, as well as social determinants of health, such as education, income and poverty.

The US fares poorly in almost all of these. In addition to many millions of people lacking health insurance, financial barriers to care and a lack of primary care providers compared with other rich countries, people in the US consume more calories, are more sedentary, abuse more drugs and shoot one another more often. The US also lags behind on many measures of education, has higher child poverty and income inequality, and lower social mobility than most other advanced democracies.

The breadth of these causal factors, and the scope of the US health disadvantage they produce, raises some fundamental questions about US society. As the NRC/IOM report noted, solutions exist for many of these health problems, but there is "limited political support among both the public and policymakers to enact the policies and commit the necessary resources".

One major impediment is that the US, which emphasises self-reliance, individualism and free markets, is resistant to anything that even appears to hint at socialism. Interestingly, as a group, classically liberal nations like the US and the UK – free market-oriented with less regulation, tax and government services – are the least healthy among wealthy democracies.

By contrast, social democratic countries such as Sweden – in which the state emphasises full employment, income protection, housing, education, health and social insurance – enjoy better overall health, although health inequalities within these nations are not always the smallest.

Debates about the relative merits of "cut-throat" US versus "cuddly" Swedish capitalism contend that there are important trade-offs between economic growth and innovation on the one hand, and growing inequality, high poverty and a weak social safety net on the other. Unfortunately, these debates often fail to factor in our health. That needs to change.

And, as it turns out, the US spends plenty on social welfare. It may tax less and spend less on social programmes than most rich democracies, but when you add in tax-based subsidies and private social spending, it ranks as the fifth highest in the world, just after Sweden. What distinguishes the US is how that money is spent. More goes on healthcare – while still leaving many without health insurance or access to care – and less on children, families and the disadvantaged.

Digging into the social determinants of health can be tricky. Social scientists and other researchers are rightly trained not to confuse correlation with causation. But the evidence on the biology of disadvantage – how social and economic conditions affect our health and survival – is rapidly building.

Following the World Health Organization's 2008 Commission on Social Determinants of Health, countries such as Finland, Australia and Canada are taking a "health in all policies" approach that promotes health through public policies in areas as diverse as transportation, housing and agriculture. In the US these ideas have yet to gain much traction.

Moving beyond the dismal headlines generated by the NRC/IOM report, we can hope that the evidence of a health disadvantage in the US is now so compelling that the terms of the conversation and even the political calculus will begin to change. Then, perhaps, we can start addressing that disadvantage and stop paying for it with our lives.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ealth.html

I noticed you mentioned Britain in your OP as if it's representative of UHC - it's not....

although the UK isn't far behind the US.

Typical right wing cherry pick...

[Tero]

Maybe it's the stress or US daddies having to carry concealed weapons every time they take the kiddies to the movies?