August 1st 2012: just like Pearl Harbor and 9/11

Well, that's your opinion. Cherish it.

 

Okay, so let me see if I have the gist: we will have a glut of people abusing the system by seeing doctors for insignificant hangnail type injuries and ailments. Also, simultaneously, we are dissatisfied with less-qualified nurse practitioners taking care of these issues because we used to be able to see a doctor for them.

So really, we want to keep healthcare privatized so that, when we abuse the system by seeing doctors for hangnails, we don't have to stand in line.

Does that sound right? Am I getting it?

 

Likewise, if the system adjusts such that hangnail-level maladies are seen by nurse practitioners instead of doctors (the whole Zoomcare paradigm), then demand for hangnail care can remain constant (or go up) without stressing the doctors more.

It's really too bad every economy is crumbling to dust; I like me some safety nets.

 

I'd love to raise taxes on the rich and well-off (Top 80%) to pay for all these nice things, but the rich act like it's 9/11 when it comes up.

(I would be affected, so it's not like it'd be happening to someone else)

 

What I find hilariously ironic is that the same people who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ promote this system of economic and social Darwanism, and any attempt to actually put into place processes that conform with what Jesus taught is met with resistance and hostility.

 

Ahh, yes, the "taxes is forced theft at gunpoint" viewpoint. Good luck with that.

 

This isn't meant as a slam at all, but why do you think it's fair that some people have to pay more to the government than others?

I understand, the rich have more money, but I've always thought it was unfair to tax someone more just because they have more money. Taxes should be a flat rate (20% or whatever) and leave it at that.

The key is, don't let these people use loopholes to get out of paying taxes. Just made sure everyone pays their fair share and call it good.

My opinion on the matter is, why should someone else be forced to take care of the rest of us just because they have more money? I'm not wealthy. I have a decent job, but I would probably fall somewhere in the lower-middle class. I take care of myself. I'm not looking for handouts. I don't like receiving things I didn't earn.

Maybe it sounds heartless, but I think it's fair to expect people to pay for things themselves. Sacrifice some shit. Maybe you don't need the big screen TV or the nice car. The housing market crashed because people were living outside their means. Americans want to live the lifestyle, but they are unwilling to wait for it. That's why so many people have so much credit card debt (I'm one of them). We need to start living within our means.

 

I'm sure that all doctors in countries with universal health care consider themselves "slaves to the state". Do you even read what you type?

 

There is a certain point of wealth/income that a person can have that passes the level from "comfortable existence" to "opulence for the sake of opulence". This is the level at which tax should be levied at a progressive rate.

Using your logic:
A person making 20,000 dollars a year pays 4000 in taxes, leaving them 16,000 dollars.
A person making 2 million dollars pays 400,000 dollars, leaving them 1,600,000 dollars.

Which do you think is going to be more impacted in the real world?

 

I don't think it's fair; I think it's morally right. Those with greater influence must act kindly to those with less influence, precisely because that equation isn't fair. Both parties should be fine with passing moral judgments as laws; civil rights wouldn't have been codified otherwise. You are paying more money as a trade-off for the greater societal influence that affluence inherently brings.