Originally Posted by stolz25
Lack of punishment /= incentive.
If punishment is the status quo, then the above-quoted is false. Currently, punishment is
the status quo. If it's said "we're going to punish you for every dollar you earn, buuuuuuut,
we'll make exception for those dollars you put it into health care," then call it what you want - it's still involvement. It's still an influencing factor.
And I would consider any arbitrary standards set to constitute government involvement. That they will likely get involved doesn't mean that #3 and #5 necessarily contradict each other.
In order to specify that which constitutes a tax deduction, standards will have to be set. It's not metaphysically possible to come up with a non-arbitrary standard. That will be the standard by which the above incentive (or, if you insist, spared rod) will be administered. That means that the health care industry's every action will have to be weighed against these arbitrary government dictates. And it means that everyone who purchases health care with any intention of saving a dime will have to shop not
by his standards, but by the government's.
"Keep government out of health care" can only mean "reduce or remove entirely the government's influence on health care." But what else could possibly come of allowing the government to set an arbitrary standard for that which constitutes "health care" and then, using that standard as a bludgeon, compel the health care industry and every participant from every angle to either play by our rules
or pay up?
I'm against taxation completely. It makes no difference why they choose to lower them or on what.
It should. Even if you refuse to yield to any government action or any form of taxation on principle, your primary goal should be to eliminate from government that which is arbitrary. You treat taxation as if it's a primary. It is not. It is the product of several premises (e.g. "it is right for government to provide ___") which our nation has adopted, which must be defeated unequivocally if either of us are to ever achieve something resembling our respective utopias.
One of those premises is the acceptance of arbitrary law. Well, here's a great opportunity to address it head-on. I say: challenge the idea of arbitrary law, even if it means no tax deductions. Announce it loudly and clearly - we find taxation to be an equal-opportunity evil. (Of course the next step would be some kind of flattened tax code, then ideally an elimination of the above "government shall provide X" premises, then we're home free.)
If you really intend to concede nothing to the status quo in the name of progress (e.g. "taxation is terrible, but we're not going to get rid of it yet so let's try to approach it rationally"), then what you should be doing is attacking the OP's article like a rabid wolverine. It appears to represent the standard right-wing statist take on the issue of health-care, complete with references to state lines and a tacit acceptance of Sherman Anti-Trust.
Did you have a point here? Government is involved in every aspect of what you buy because they tax your earnings. Then they tax when you spend that money as well. Removing any of that involvement is a plus in my opinion, and I don't much care what kind of backward reasoning they get to a tax deduction from. Tax credits are something else entirely, of course I wouldn't have a problem with those if they just capped them when you hit zero tax paid.
Again... you should. Because you won't achieve any of your goals unless you're willing to step up and argue your position rationally. And you can't do that
unless you start caring about their reasoning, and correct its faults one by one. Stamping your feet like a petulant child at the thought of paying taxes, and refusing to consider the situation beyond that pre-adolescent, two-dimensional context will not get you anywhere.
I'd hate to see a day when the truth actually wasn't sensible. This is not the type of thing I'd expect to hear from a person who apparently admires the idea of a man like Hank Rearden.