health care
in [Golf]
|
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 22 Feb 2010 11:34 On Feb 22, 10:25 am, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 06:55:07 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr > > > > > > <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > >On Feb 21, 6:46 pm, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Feb 21, 6:36 pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > > >> > On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:04:02 -0600, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote: > >> > >>>What would be best would be for the money to come out of sales taxes. > >> > >>>That way even the slackers have to participate. > > >> > >>There are a lot of good reasons to replace income tax with sales tax. > > >> > >Name them. > > >> > Here's three. > > >> > A subsidiary company owned by a foreign company can't benefit its > >> > owner by lowering its profit (by being charged more by the parent > >> > company for products). > > >> > Sales value is simple and direct. Net profits is not. We spend a > >> > lot on lawyers to define business expenses to lower taxes. > > >> > Progressive taxes is implemented by excluding food and medicine, not > >> > by income bracketing. > > = > >> Excluding food and medicine does not make for a progressive tax. > > >Nothing progressive at all about income tax. Rich people do not rely > >on "income" as much as poor and middle class people do. > > Define rich. > > BK You live a high quality lifestyle and you don't need an "income" from "the man" to sustain yourself. You can generate wealth in any form you need as you need it.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 22 Feb 2010 11:36 On Feb 22, 11:16 am, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 22, 9:41 am, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 21, 4:02 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:41:58 -0800, Dinosaur_Sr wrote: > > > > Universal health care screws the poor far more than current US system. > > > > Really? On what planet? > > > This one. > > > The poor in the US have medicaid. Medicaid provides the poor in the US > > better health care than the Canadian system provides for the middle > > class. The fact of this is represented by the choice medicaid people > > have, and the fact they can go to any facility anywhere for service, > > as long as they take medicaid, and not all do, but still, beats being > > forced to go to one specific family care physician for all your health > > care need, like the middle class in Canada. > > > Now the rich and powerful in Canada, they have full access anytime, > > better than medicaid recipients in the US, better even than people > > like me on private insurance, and far better than the poor in Canada. > > Fact is, the poor in US, with medicaid, have access to far better > > health care than the poor in Canada. > > > OF course, with a govt system, we will all get less health care, more > > like Canada, and the poor will get that much less, as they always do. > > Some of the poor have Medicaid. Some don't. Poverty, i.e. living below > the poverty line, isn't enough to qualify someone for Medicaid. You > have to be much worse off than that. In the poorer (mostly southern) > states, you have to be destitute and penniless. The only reason poor people in the US don't have medicaid is because they haven't signed up for it. Like in Canada, people who haven't been taken on by a primary care physician don't have access to the system. If organizations like ACORN really cared, they would make a big issue out of going out there and making sure every poor person was signed up for medicaid.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 22 Feb 2010 11:37 On Feb 22, 11:18 am, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 22, 9:43 am, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 21, 4:38 pm, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 21, 3:27 pm, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 18, 6:16 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 05:18:15 +0000, assimilate wrote: > > > > > > On 17-Feb-2010, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > > >>>> Obviously, that totally misses the point. The point would be the > > > > > >>>> systemic corruption that makes such gross overbilling an everyday > > > > > >>>> event. > > > > > > >>> Stop whining. > > > > > > >> I should just allow myself to be raped like all you ideologues, huh? > > > > > > > Better that than I get raped by your Universal Healthcare. > > > > > > Please find any country on the planet with universal healthcare that has > > > > > higher per capita healthcare costs than the United States. Go ahead, > > > > > we'll wait. > > > > > The govt dictates costs and service levels in those countries. In the > > > > US people can choose from a free market. > > > > Yes, Americans can shop around for health insurance. They can shop > > > around for Bentleys and Maseratis, too. > > > Americans can choose to purchase the health care they want. > > Individuals can choose to allocate as they wish, not have the costs > > forced on them, in advance, by the govt. Some people choose not to pay > > the 10K pa or so health care costs, that's their problem. They'll pay > > that for a car, or a house, but not health care...so people like you > > want to tax people to the extend of 20K pa to get 10k worth of > > services delivered purely to serve the political ends of the govt.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Silly Americans, wasting their money on such frivilous luxuries as > housing and cars. Next thing you know, they'll want to start buying > food and clothing! You can't have everything. You want to drive an expensive German car and live in a big house, and that doesn't leave enough for health insurance, that's your choice.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 22 Feb 2010 11:40 On Feb 22, 11:22 am, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 22, 9:55 am, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 21, 6:46 pm, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 21, 6:36 pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:04:02 -0600, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote: > > > > >>>What would be best would be for the money to come out of sales taxes. > > > > >>>That way even the slackers have to participate. > > > > > >>There are a lot of good reasons to replace income tax with sales tax. > > > > > >Name them. > > > > > Here's three. > > > > > A subsidiary company owned by a foreign company can't benefit its > > > > owner by lowering its profit (by being charged more by the parent > > > > company for products). > > > > > Sales value is simple and direct. Net profits is not. We spend a > > > > lot on lawyers to define business expenses to lower taxes. > > > > > Progressive taxes is implemented by excluding food and medicine, not > > > > by income bracketing. > > > > > -- > > > > "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, > > > > than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace > > > > to the legislature, and not to the executive department." > > > > > - James Madison > > > > Excluding food and medicine does not make for a progressive tax. > > > Nothing progressive at all about income tax. Rich people do not rely > > on "income" as much as poor and middle class people do.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Rich people pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than poor > people do. That is the definition of a progressive tax code. What is income to rich people? You think John Kerry cares about the tax on his senate salary? You think people like Bill Gates have an "income" like I do? To tax wealth, that would be progressive. But we will never see it, the wealthy will not allow it. You think George Soros would allow a meaningful redistribution of actual wealth if he could prevent it...and he can! The world is what it is, and I can live with it, but don't expect me to believe in the fallacy of "progressive income tax". You want to be a dupe of the man, be my guest. I don't know better for a lot of things, but this is one thing where I do.
From: John B. on 22 Feb 2010 13:50
On Feb 22, 11:36 am, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Feb 22, 11:16 am, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 9:41 am, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > > > > On Feb 21, 4:02 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:41:58 -0800, Dinosaur_Sr wrote: > > > > > Universal health care screws the poor far more than current US system. > > > > > Really? On what planet? > > > > This one. > > > > The poor in the US have medicaid. Medicaid provides the poor in the US > > > better health care than the Canadian system provides for the middle > > > class. The fact of this is represented by the choice medicaid people > > > have, and the fact they can go to any facility anywhere for service, > > > as long as they take medicaid, and not all do, but still, beats being > > > forced to go to one specific family care physician for all your health > > > care need, like the middle class in Canada. > > > > Now the rich and powerful in Canada, they have full access anytime, > > > better than medicaid recipients in the US, better even than people > > > like me on private insurance, and far better than the poor in Canada. > > > Fact is, the poor in US, with medicaid, have access to far better > > > health care than the poor in Canada. > > > > OF course, with a govt system, we will all get less health care, more > > > like Canada, and the poor will get that much less, as they always do. > > > Some of the poor have Medicaid. Some don't. Poverty, i.e. living below > > the poverty line, isn't enough to qualify someone for Medicaid. You > > have to be much worse off than that. In the poorer (mostly southern) > > states, you have to be destitute and penniless. > > The only reason poor people in the US don't have medicaid is because > they haven't signed up for it. Like in Canada, people who haven't been > taken on by a primary care physician don't have access to the system. > If organizations like ACORN really cared, they would make a big issue > out of going out there and making sure every poor person was signed up > for medicaid.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - That is patently false. Many poor people are INELIGIBLE for Medicaid because they aren't poor enough. |