Go Back   Fratching! > General > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

  #11  
Old 11-08-2019, 10:34 PM
Greenday's Avatar
Greenday Greenday is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,037
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjr View Post
Semantics.

Who are the "uber rich"? I notice that Elizabeth Warren's "wealth tax" proposal starts at a level far above HER wealth. Why do you think that is?

Further, as I've stated many times before, if she's that wealthy, nothing is stopping her from donating large sums of money to help people with healthcare, food, education, etc.

Heck, if I recall correctly, some millionaire guy recently paid for the college education of everyone at a college.

The question here is: How much do you trust our elected representatives? Because that's what you'd have to do -- completely -- to go with the "universal healthcare" model.

You have a valid point vis-a-vis the insurance companies, but I think there could possibly be other ways to "fix" those issues.
It's not really semantics if one involves earning something and the other doesn't.

Walmart gets billions of dollars in subsidies to make up for Walmart's low pay and benefits. So does Amazon. All those bank bailouts but not the people affected by predatory lending? When you profits are in the hundreds of millions or billions, there's no reason we should be taxing the working class so the businesses can have even higher profits. Paying a livable wage and benefits is the cost of business, not the taxpayers job.

It's a sad time we live in where private citizens have to step in to provide what should be available to anyone regardless of income.

I trust politicians more than I trust insurance companies and businesses whose number one priority is screwing us over as much as possible to bleed our bank accounts dry.
__________________
Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst. - Starship Troopers
Reply With Quote

  #12  
Old 11-09-2019, 06:33 AM
Gravekeeper Gravekeeper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjr View Post
In what way? If the math doesn't work, it doesn't work. If you believe the math works, by all means, show me the data with real numbers.
....your thread premise is literally going from Republicans not understanding science to "Yeah well what about Democrats not understanding math".


Quote:
Originally Posted by mjr View Post
You're correct. I don't. I doubt she does, either. Honestly, I think "Mayor Pete", if I were to vote Democratic, has the more valid approach anyway. After all, if the Democrats are all about "my body, my choice", isn't that was "Mayor Pete" is offering? With Warren's plan, there is no choice. You MUST be on this program.
So you're criticizing something you admit you do not understand and capping it off with a juvenile shot at abortion rights?




Quote:
Originally Posted by mjr View Post
There's simply not enough "rich people" money to go around. She's re-framing things in the form of "costs". Because every single time she is asked about taxes going up for the middle class, she changes it to "costs". At least Bernie's honest about it.

So who are these wealthy people? And are there enough of them? And how much of their money are they entitled to?
All things you would know if you bothered to read about her plan instead of complain about it out of your own ignorance.



Quote:
Originally Posted by mjr View Post
Bill Gates' net worth is approximately $100 Billion. He does a ton for charity. He pays more in taxes than many of us would see in multiple lifetimes. How much of that $100 billion would he have to give up? Even if he gave up every dollar of it, that is a small fraction of the FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS per year that the plan is anticipated to cost.
3.4 trillion per year by independent estimate. 2 trillion by her own. How the plan pays for these things is, again, something you would actually know if you bothered to learn about a topic before complaining about it. But for reference 300b per year comes from the wealth tax component.

Bill Gates would pay 6.379b a year with the wealth tax. Which is, notably, below what he publicly stated he would be willing to pay. As he stated he pays 10b as is and would be willing to pay 20b. So he'd be paying 16.379b. Him and Warren were recently discussing things on Twitter.

You're also not going to find much sympathy with "Won't someone please think of the billionaires?!" either. =p
Reply With Quote

  #13  
Old 11-10-2019, 11:01 AM
mjr mjr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,279
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenday View Post
It's not really semantics if one involves earning something and the other doesn't.
So are you implying that "the rich"/"the wealthy" don't earn it? Do you have a 401(k) at your job? Did you earn the gains from the money? Yes? No?

Quote:
Walmart gets billions of dollars in subsidies to make up for Walmart's low pay and benefits. So does Amazon.All those bank bailouts but not the people affected by predatory lending?
I think it's a non-sequitur to compare Wal-Mart/Amazon to the bank bailouts. Truthfully, I wasn't for them. That said, my wife was, I believe. She has a degree in economics, and is fairly liberal, by the way. She explained to me why she felt it was a good idea for that to happen.

Though I will agree with you about Predatory Lending. That needs to be reigned in.

Quote:
When you profits are in the hundreds of millions or billions, there's no reason we should be taxing the working class so the businesses can have even higher profits. Paying a livable wage and benefits is the cost of business, not the taxpayers job.
Then let's do as I previously suggested: Have the government put out a list of every job in the country, and assign a salary to it. Then let the government dole out the money. Then everyone's on a government job (or at least paid by the government). Let's see what the government believes these jobs are worth.

Quote:
It's a sad time we live in where private citizens have to step in to provide what should be available to anyone regardless of income.
Um, taxation on line 1...

Besides, forced altruism isn't altruism. Being generous with other people's money isn't being generous.

We have a society now that thinks "the government should pay for it". Do they know where that money comes from? The government, in those instances, doesn't make money. It's a tax collection and distribution system. A "middle man", of sorts. With a LOT of bureaucracy rolled in.

Quote:
I trust politicians more than I trust insurance companies and businesses whose number one priority is screwing us over as much as possible to bleed our bank accounts dry.
Do ya? Look, a lot of health insurance companies are already starting to put restrictions on people (i.e. smoking, rock climbing, etc.). You don't think the government wouldn't do the same thing? Need I remind you in NY Michael Bloomberg wanted to ban sugary drinks and extra-large drinks? You don't think that can't happen at a federal level? What about mandatory daily exercise? You for that?

As I've said before: Simply because something is a good idea (i.e. daily exercise) doesn't mean it should be mandatory.

Last edited by mjr; 11-10-2019 at 11:14 AM.
Reply With Quote

  #14  
Old 11-10-2019, 06:30 PM
Gravekeeper Gravekeeper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjr View Post
Do ya? Look, a lot of health insurance companies are already starting to put restrictions on people (i.e. smoking, rock climbing, etc.). You don't think the government wouldn't do the same thing? Need I remind you in NY Michael Bloomberg wanted to ban sugary drinks and extra-large drinks? You don't think that can't happen at a federal level? What about mandatory daily exercise? You for that?

As I've said before: Simply because something is a good idea (i.e. daily exercise) doesn't mean it should be mandatory.
The problem with this and many similar arguments against universal healthcare is it requires you to ignore that basically every other first world democracy on the planet has universal healthcare. And has had it for decades without any kind of weird draconian mandates about exercise or soda. There's overwhelming evidence that it works and ample models to draw upon as a road map.

It's right there in the word: Universal. Not conditional.

The real risk with America is doing it in half measures to try and placate the shitlord politicians that benefit from money made off of the current system. It has to be universal just like everyone else. If you try to do it as a hybrid system the shitlords will find ways to continue to profit off of people's misery.

No one's going to mandate exercise. But someone's certainly going to try and find a way to keep charging $500 for an IV bag at behest of the lobbyists that line his pockets.
Reply With Quote

  #15  
Old 11-10-2019, 08:24 PM
mjr mjr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,279
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravekeeper View Post
It's right there in the word: Universal. Not conditional.

The real risk with America is doing it in half measures to try and placate the shitlord politicians that benefit from money made off of the current system. It has to be universal just like everyone else. If you try to do it as a hybrid system the shitlords will find ways to continue to profit off of people's misery.
I'll give you that. Consider, though, Unions have healthcare. Congress has cushy healthcare. Do you think that either of those groups is going to want to give that up?

You're correct in your assertion that "universal" means "universal". That means the wealthy and the poor, the privileged and disadvantaged alike. We can't complain under a "universal" system that "rich people don't need it, because they can already afford to go". Nor could we have carve-outs for Congress and unions.

I don't believe for a second that wouldn't happen.

Quote:
No one's going to mandate exercise.
Ya sure about that? They might not mandate it, but they can certainly heavily incentivize it. Just like they can incentivize it if you're at what they deem to be a healthy weight.

Did you know that a lot of very in shape pro athletes are considered overweight and/or obese, based upon what they "should" weigh?
Reply With Quote

  #16  
Old 11-10-2019, 09:09 PM
Gravekeeper Gravekeeper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjr View Post
I don't believe for a second that wouldn't happen.
Honestly, at this point, Congress is pretty much a lost cause. One side is a cult of personality. The other side is arguing with itself over whether or not doing something good for people would be going too far.

Only consolation is the Democrats at least aren't little more than a hyperpartisan cult of personality.



Quote:
Originally Posted by mjr View Post
Ya sure about that? They might not mandate it, but they can certainly heavily incentivize it. Just like they can incentivize it if you're at what they deem to be a healthy weight.

Did you know that a lot of very in shape pro athletes are considered overweight and/or obese, based upon what they "should" weigh?
The moment you attempt to mandate or incentivize something it isn't universal healthcare anymore is it?

I'm certainly not in any kind of good mental or physical shape. But neither my disability pension or the 8 pills a day I have to take are dependent on me doing sit ups.
Reply With Quote

  #17  
Old 11-10-2019, 11:58 PM
mjr mjr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,279
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravekeeper View Post
The moment you attempt to mandate or incentivize something it isn't universal healthcare anymore is it?
There was universal healthcare in Orwell's 1984, I believe. Everyone was mandated to exercise by "The Party".

Aside from that, even if they make it where everyone has to have insurance and pays a small premium (or maybe a tax bill according to income), that could be affected, couldn't it?

Quote:
I'm certainly not in any kind of good mental or physical shape. But neither my disability pension or the 8 pills a day I have to take are dependent on me doing sit ups.
That may well be true. But if the Canadian government (I believe you're in Canada) decided to do that, what would the people of Canada do?
Reply With Quote

  #18  
Old 11-11-2019, 06:20 PM
Gravekeeper Gravekeeper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjr View Post
There was universal healthcare in Orwell's 1984, I believe. Everyone was mandated to exercise by "The Party".

Aside from that, even if they make it where everyone has to have insurance and pays a small premium (or maybe a tax bill according to income), that could be affected, couldn't it?
Again, every first world democracy except America has universal healthcare. None of them has collapsed into an Orwellian state as a result of it. In fact, most countries in the world have universal healthcare.

It isn't a mystery. It's not some kind of crazy untested plan. There's no reason that the richest and most powerful country on Earth can't pull off something even Botswana does.



Quote:
Originally Posted by mjr View Post
That may well be true. But if the Canadian government (I believe you're in Canada) decided to do that, what would the people of Canada do?
Throw that party out of parliament because this is, you know, a democracy.
Reply With Quote

  #19  
Old 11-11-2019, 08:03 PM
mjr mjr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,279
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravekeeper View Post

It isn't a mystery. It's not some kind of crazy untested plan. There's no reason that the richest and most powerful country on Earth can't pull off something even Botswana does.
While that may be true, you've often criticized the U.S. government for not doing the right thing, correct? If the decision makers in the government aren't to be trusted, by default, how can we trust them do do something like this?
Reply With Quote

  #20  
Old 11-11-2019, 08:55 PM
Gravekeeper Gravekeeper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjr View Post
While that may be true, you've often criticized the U.S. government for not doing the right thing, correct? If the decision makers in the government aren't to be trusted, by default, how can we trust them do do something like this?
Hence why I say it can't be done has a half measure otherwise it will be rife with problems. It has to be universal from the get go and America has it's pick of the little of different models it can draw off from other countries.

However, difficulties in dismantling the system of for profit healthcare is a far cry from your suggestion that somehow universal healthcare will lead to an Orwellian state.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 02:28 PM.


vBulletin skins developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.