Solutions For Health Care Reform

Fed Up · 03-11-2010, 12:06 PM

My first post in awhile...

I wrote an article Health Care Reform Didn’t Work for Romney and Won’t Work For Obama – Here’s What Will Work where I critique Romney's MassCare (health care for all citizens of Massachusetts) and then offer solutions that will work in America in reforming Health Care.

Is it perfect? Of course not. But it does address most of the problems we have today in a system that can't let the government dictate its future.

For the lazy readers who won't click and read the article, here are the 5 things that need to be addressed:

A 5 Step Plan Is All That Is Needed To Reform Health Care Reform
You don’t need 2,400 pages to reform Health Care! Just do these 5 things…

Allow health insurance companies to compete across state lines – competition hasn’t hurt the computer, cell phone or Lasik surgery industries has it?
Utilize high deductibles and establish an emergency fund (From an insurance company provider perspective, they will rake in premiums from the majority that won’t even use their health coverage any longer. People don’t use their auto or home owners coverage often either, providing more than enough income to pay for the unhealthy minority and still provide profit for shareholders – From an insured perspective, competition for your preventive care needs will drive Doctor’s and hospital costs down making it more affordable for all ).
Make premiums for health insurance tax deductible just as they are for employers.
Make health coverage portable (including across state lines) – solves most of the problems related to the uninsured.
Keep the government out of health care.

I explain some of these in more detail in the article...

Feedback welcome, but I'm leaving for Rancho Mirage for the weekend in a couple hours and not sure if I'll have computer access to reply right away.....

Jas0n · 03-13-2010, 08:42 AM

#s 3 and 5 contradict one another.

stolz25 · 03-13-2010, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Jas0n

#s 3 and 5 contradict one another.

No they don't. Government is already involved when they tax earnings which go to health insurance.

Jas0n · 03-13-2010, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by stolz25

No they don't. Government is already involved when they tax earnings which go to health insurance.

Yes they do. And it's totally arbitrary. Why should "health care" be tax-deductible? Do you not think tax incentives constitute involvement? You realize that if you want that tax break, you'll have to meet whatever arbitrary standards are proclaimed to constitute health care? You realize that such an arbitrary standard necessarily has a distorting effect on the market?

There is absolutely no purpose behind making health care costs tax deductible, with two exceptions:

1. Save people a bit of money in April, and
2. Make an incentive to get people to buy plans.

But you can save people money by just cutting taxes across the board. Health care need not be a consideration. And paying people (even if it's in such a back-handed method as a tax break) to pay for a plan constitutes government involvement.

As for the statement "government is already involved when they tax earnings that go to health care"... that's not really a particularly sensible thing to say, if money going to health care is not treated any differently (for tax purposes) than money going elsewhere. I suppose it's technically true, but no more so than any other similar statement - "government is already involved when they tax earnings that go to [X]" where [X] is, say, computer games or porn or jazz records or socks.

The Great Catpiss · 03-13-2010, 04:08 PM

Claiming that 3 and 5 contradict each other is biased objective nonsense. Yes, you can make a point that they contradict each other, or you can use your brain and understand the meaning behind 3 and 5.

5. Keep the government out of health care
Means keep it out of "certain aspects of health care"

BTW, I understand what you are trying to say. You have a much different viewpoint on the matter than myself.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

Yes they do. And it's totally arbitrary. Why should "health care" be tax-deductible? Do you not think tax incentives constitute involvement? You realize that if you want that tax break, you'll have to meet whatever arbitrary standards are proclaimed to constitute health care? You realize that such an arbitrary standard necessarily has a distorting effect on the market?

Health care should always be tax deductible in my opinion. I don't count that as government interference in any way. It is not an issue of it being a tax incentive as much as it is a benefit to the people.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

There is absolutely no purpose behind making health care costs tax deductible, with two exceptions:

1. Save people a bit of money in April, and
2. Make an incentive to get people to buy plans.

Wrong. There are other more liberal and social reasons to not tax health care.

stolz25 · 03-13-2010, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by Jas0n

Yes they do. And it's totally arbitrary. Why should "health care" be tax-deductible? Do you not think tax incentives constitute involvement?

Lack of punishment /= incentive.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

You realize that if you want that tax break, you'll have to meet whatever arbitrary standards are proclaimed to constitute health care? You realize that such an arbitrary standard necessarily has a distorting effect on the market?

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.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

There is absolutely no purpose behind making health care costs tax deductible, with two exceptions:

1. Save people a bit of money in April, and
2. Make an incentive to get people to buy plans.

I'm against taxation completely. It makes no difference why they choose to lower them or on what.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

As for the statement "government is already involved when they tax earnings that go to health care"... that's not really a particularly sensible thing to say, if money going to health care is not treated any differently (for tax purposes) than money going elsewhere. I suppose it's technically true, but no more so than any other similar statement - "government is already involved when they tax earnings that go to [X]" where [X] is, say, computer games or porn or jazz records or socks.

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.

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.

IdiotChildoftheCorn · 03-13-2010, 08:51 PM

I read this article today... kinda scary...

This letter appeared in the Indianapolis Star (which is owned by the same people who own the
Arizona Republic ) and was sent to a very popular Indiana Senator. This just goes to show
everyone what pressure these Democrats are currently under, so continue to let them know
how you feel about the healthcare bill.
Bill Stough
Shock to NBC This morning.

An Indianapolis doctor's letter to Sen. Bayh about the Bill (Note: Dr. Stephen E. Frazer,
MD practices as an anesthesiologist in Indianapolis, IN ) Here is a letter I sent to Senator
Bayh.. Feel free to copy it and send it around to all other representatives. -- Stephen Fraser

Senator Bayh,

As a practicing physician I have major concerns with the health care bill before Congress. I
actually have read the bill and am shocked by the brazenness of the government's proposed
involvement in the patient-physician relationship. The very idea that the government will dictate
and ration patient care is dangerous and certainly not helpful in designing a health care
system that works for all. Every physician I work with agrees that we need to fix our health
care system, but the proposed bills currently making their way through congress will be a
disaster if passed.

I ask you respectfully and as a patriotic American to look at the following troubling lines that I
have read in the bill. You cannot possibly believe that these proposals are in the best interests
of the country and our fellow citizens.

Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that
self-insure!!
Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill: THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what
treatments/benefits you get.
Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!

Page 42 of HC Bill: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you.
You have no choice!
Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or
otherwise.
Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals' finances & a 'National ID
Health card' will be issued! (Papers please!)

Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective
funds transfer. (Time for more cash and carry)

Page 65 Sec 164: Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions &
community organizations: (ACORN).
Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the
'Exchange.'

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans -- The Govt will ration your
health care!

Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. (Translation: illegal
aliens.)

Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups (i.e. ACORN & Americorps to sign up
individuals for Govt HC plan.
Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. (AARP members - your
health care WILL be rationed!)
Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in
Medicaid. (No choice.)
Page 12 4 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review"
against Govt monopoly.
Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU
what salary you can make.
Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. (NO
choice!)
Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees ANDtheir
families. (Employees shouldn't get excited about this as employers will be forced to reduce
its work force, benefits, and wages/salaries to cover such a huge expense.)
Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public
option will pay 8% tax on all payroll! (See the last comment in parenthesis.)
Page 150 Lines 9-13: A business with payroll between $251K & $401K who doesn't provide
public option will pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.

Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will
be taxed 2.5% of income.
Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes.
(Americans will pay.) (Like always)
Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of the GOVT HC Admin.. will have access to ALL
Americans' finances and personal records. (I guess so they can 'deduct' their fees)

Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax."
(Yes, it really says that!) ( a 'fee' instead)
Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors.
(Low-income and the poor are affected.)
Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors: It doesn't matter what specialty you have trained yourself
in -- you will all be paid the same! (Just TRY to tell me that's not Socialism!)
Page 253 Line 10-18: The Govt sets the value of a doctor's time, profession, judgment, etc.
(Literally-- the value of humans.)
Page 265 Sec 1131: The Govt mandates and controls productivity for "private" HC industries.

Page 268 Sec 1141: The federal Govt regulates the rental and purchase of power driven
wheelchairs.

Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients -
welcome to rationing!

Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt deems preventable
(i.e...re-admissions).
Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors: If you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a
re-admission -- the Govt will penalize you.

Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. (The Govt tells doctors what and
how much they can own!)

Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion. (The Govt is mandating that
hospitals cannot expand.)
Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have the opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is
required. (Can you say ACORN?)

Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: The Govt mandates establishment of=2 outcome-based
measures. (HC the way they want -- rationing.)
Page 341 Lines 3-9: The Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs,
etc. (Forcing people into the Govt plan)

Page 354 Sec 1177: The Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of 'special needs people!'
Unbelievable!

Page 379 Sec 1191: The Govt creates more bureaucracy via a "Tele-Health Advisory
Committee." (Can you say HC by phone?)

Page 425 Lines 4-12: The Govt mandates "Advance-Care Planning Consult." (Think senior
citizens end-of-life patients.)

Page 425 Lines 17-19: The Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers
of attorney, etc. (And it's mandatory!)
Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: The Govt provides an "approved" list of end-of-life
resources; guiding you in death. (Also called 'assisted suicide.')(Sounds like Soylent Green
to me.)

Page 427 Lines 15-24: The Govt mandates a program for orders on "end-of-life." (The Govt
has a say in how your life ends!)

Page 429 Lines 1-9: An "advanced-care planning consultant" will be used frequently as a
patient's health deteriorates.

Page 429 Lines 10-12: An "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end-of-life
plans.. (AN ORDER TO DIE FROM THE GOVERNMENT?!?)
Page 429 Lines 13-25: The GOVT will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.. (I
wouldn't want to stand before God after getting paid for THAT job!)
Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end-of-life!
(Again -- no choice!)

Page 469: Community-Based Home Medical Services = Non-Profit Organizations. (Hello?
ACORN Medical Services here!?!)

Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover marriage and family therapy. (Which means Govt will
insert itself into your marriage even.)
Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, and
rationing those services.

Senator, I guarantee that I personally will do everything possible to inform patients and my
fellow physicians about the dangers of the proposed bills you and your colleagues are
debating.

Furthermore, if you vote for a bill that enforces socialized medicine on the country and
destroys the doctor-patient relationship, I will do everything in my power to make sure you
lose your job in the next election.

Respectfully,

Stephen E. Fraser, MD

Dear Reader,

I urge you to use the power that you were born with (and the power that may soon be taken
away) and circulate this email to as many people as you can reach. The Power of the People
can stop this from happening to us, our parents, our grandparents, our children, and to
following generations

Jas0n · 03-14-2010, 10:44 AM

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.

Jas0n · 03-14-2010, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Catpiss

Claiming that 3 and 5 contradict each other is biased objective nonsense. Yes, you can make a point that they contradict each other, or you can use your brain and understand the meaning behind 3 and 5.

5. Keep the government out of health care
Means keep it out of "certain aspects of health care"

Yeah, well, no TRUUUUEEEE Scotsman takes sugar on his porridge. That's what I'm sure the author meant to say. (Do you need me to explain the fallacy to you?)

BTW, I understand what you are trying to say. You have a much different viewpoint on the matter than myself.

Health care should always be tax deductible in my opinion. I don't count that as government interference in any way. It is not an issue of it being a tax incentive as much as it is a benefit to the people.

Setting aside for the moment the fact that you somehow don't think it constitutes interference to incentivize based on some arbitrary standard, and setting aside for the moment the fact that you seem to see a stark difference between "provide a benefit to" and "give an incentive to" where, in this context none such exists,... why do you think health care specifically should be tax deductible?

Wrong. There are other more liberal and social reasons to not tax health care.

Like what?

stolz25 · 03-14-2010, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Jas0n

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.

The government itself is arbitrary. Seems ironic to me you are so against anything arbitrary but no doubt believe the government is necessary.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

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.

Taxation is in my opinion primary. It fuels the rest of the government. If the government does not tax it does not wage war, make laws and enforce laws, or do anything else. The "right" to take your earnings is the foundation that government is built on.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

(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.)

You mean with an arbitrary tax rate and arbitrary provisions?

Originally Posted by Jas0n

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.

I didn't read the OP's article, other than long enough to figure out that #3 and #5 weren't contradictory, nor have I said anywhere that I agree with it. You want to break it down, go for it, just try something else.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

Again... you should. Because you won't achieve any of your goals unless you're willing to step up and argue your position rationally.

This from the person who in the last post told me that what I said was true, but not sensible? I have no real goals politically (as I don't intend to legitimize the political process) so there isn't any particular reason to care that much about possible reforms.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

And you can't do that unless you start caring about their reasoning, and correct its faults one by one.

If you haven't noticed the politicians are making new faults much faster than you are correcting the old ones (not to mention they care little for reasoning). How many wins would you say the reformers have wracked up in the last decade?

Originally Posted by Jas0n

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.

Jas0n · 03-14-2010, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by stolz25

The government itself is arbitrary. Seems ironic to me you are so against anything arbitrary but no doubt believe the government is necessary.

"The government is arbitrary" - meaning what?

Taxation is in my opinion primary. It fuels the rest of the government. If the government does not tax it does not wage war, make laws and enforce laws, or do anything else. The "right" to take your earnings is the foundation that government is built on.

Evidently you understand neither taxation nor government.

You mean with an arbitrary tax rate and arbitrary provisions?

To the first: yes, but not necessarily. To the second: that's what I'm trying to address.

I didn't read the OP's article, other than long enough to figure out that #3 and #5 weren't contradictory, nor have I said anywhere that I agree with it. You want to break it down, go for it, just try something else.

Another term that's evidently beneath you: "contradictory." Apparently you see no further than one thing sounds tasty to you, the other feels soft... they must work in concert!

This from the person who in the last post told me that what I said was true, but not sensible? I have no real goals politically (as I don't intend to legitimize the political process) so there isn't any particular reason to care that much about possible reforms.

Right. You don't "intend to legitimize the political process" but you feel free to criticize it - you unequivocally want it GONE but you claim to have no interest in actually making it so. You're a child.

If you haven't noticed the politicians are making new faults much faster than you are correcting the old ones (not to mention they care little for reasoning). How many wins would you say the reformers have wracked up in the last decade?

What reformers?

stolz25 · 03-14-2010, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by Jas0n

"The government is arbitrary" - meaning what?

They are subject to their own discretion. Why should fire service be provided by the government rather than the private market? Someone decided it should be that way, and they have the power to impose their will throughout society. Same goes for every service the government provides, and every tax they take up.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

Evidently you understand neither taxation nor government.

Well this certainly was enlightening.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

To the first: yes, but not necessarily. To the second: that's what I'm trying to address.

You can't address it. Any provisions they decide on will be arbitrary. You just prefer certain arbitrary provisions to others.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

Another term that's evidently beneath you: "contradictory." Apparently you see no further than one thing sounds tasty to you, the other feels soft... they must work in concert!

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. I'm sorry if you don't like being disagreed with, maybe find a different way to make your point than relying on a false statement?

Originally Posted by Jas0n

Right. You don't "intend to legitimize the political process" but you feel free to criticize it - you unequivocally want it GONE but you claim to have no interest in actually making it so.

You assume quite a bit in this statement. The only way to make it gone is to participate in the political process? I have no interest in actually making it so? And why shouldn't I criticize it?

Originally Posted by Jas0n

What reformers?

Exactly.

Jas0n · 03-14-2010, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by stolz25

They are subject to their own discretion. Why should fire service be provided by the government rather than the private market? Someone decided it should be that way, and they have the power to impose their will throughout society. Same goes for every service the government provides, and every tax they take up.

No they aren't - at least not necessarily.

Well this certainly was enlightening.

That's kind of what I thought when some self-avowed "anarchist" suggested that handing out tax favors to certain lucky citizens isn't contradictory to eliminating the meddlesome influence of government.

You should reject tax breaks and tax deductions if for no other reason than that they still imply taxation.

You can't address it. Any provisions they decide on will be arbitrary. You just prefer certain arbitrary provisions to others.

I can address it - I'm attempting to do so in this thread, as a matter of fact. And you have absolutely no business telling me what I prefer.

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. I'm sorry if you don't like being disagreed with, maybe find a different way to make your point than relying on a false statement?

It means you're suffering from the kind of myopia that is to be expected of an "anarcho-capitalist" (note: that's a contradiction in terms).

You assume quite a bit in this statement. The only way to make it gone is to participate in the political process? I have no interest in actually making it so? And why shouldn't I criticize it?

Your criticisms are irrational and nonsensical. As far as I can tell, they extend no further than "government is arbitrary, and I don't like taxes!" You won't achieve your goals - whatever you think they are - with such childish antics. Your choices are armed revolution or political participation. Is there a third option that excuses you? Or are you really just content to be the jackass on the sideline that harangues participants, but admittedly has no business being one himself?

Exactly.

You say "exactly" like the fact that we haven't seen a consistent reformer in several decades somehow proves the point that reform doesn't work.

stolz25 · 03-14-2010, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by Jas0n

No they aren't - at least not necessarily.

Yes necessarily. You can write a Constitution, but the people you elect must enforce it for it to have any effectiveness. If they choose not to then it doesn't matter what you have written down. If you don't elect anyone and merely vote on everything, it's still arbitrary, just the arbitrary will of the majority.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

You should reject tax breaks and tax deductions if for no other reason than that they still imply taxation.

I can see where you are coming from here, I just don't agree with it. A tax break doesn't legitimize taxes in my opinion, and even if it did it'd be worth it. The government will collapse when it overspends and runs out of money. The politicians are working hard on the overspending part, so I'll support the government taking in less money wherever it happens.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

I can address it - I'm attempting to do so in this thread, as a matter of fact. And you have absolutely no business telling me what I prefer.

You can't address it because anything they decide will be arbitrary. And I'm not telling you what you prefer, I'm saying that what you prefer is also arbitrary (regardless of what it is). You've decided that government should do certain things and not do others. You've drawn an arbitrary line in the sand. I don't care at all where you've drawn it.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

It means you're suffering from the kind of myopia that is to be expected of an "anarcho-capitalist" (note: that's a contradiction in terms).

Explain WHY it is a contradiction. Random accusations and name-calling don't do much to support your claim of relying on reason.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

Your criticisms are irrational and nonsensical. As far as I can tell, they extend no further than "government is arbitrary, and I don't like taxes!"

Let's say that is as far as they extend. What about that is irrational or nonsensical?

Originally Posted by Jas0n

You say "exactly" like the fact that we haven't seen a consistent reformer in several decades somehow proves the point that reform doesn't work.

No, it just proves that your method of working the system (which people have actually been trying to do since the Constitution was created) is rather fruitless. It is simply not natural for those in power to relinquish it willingly. You're one in a long line of people doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a different result.

The Great Catpiss · 03-14-2010, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Jas0n

Setting aside for the moment the fact that you somehow don't think it constitutes interference to incentivize based on some arbitrary standard, and setting aside for the moment the fact that you seem to see a stark difference between "provide a benefit to" and "give an incentive to" where, in this context none such exists,... why do you think health care specifically should be tax deductible?

Simple. Anyone with half a brain can figure out it isn't what was meant when saying less intereference.

Why do I think health care should be tax deductible? Taxes are already an unfair hardship. Why add an unfair hardship ontop of an unexpected hardship? For one, people have little to no choice what they pay for health care. Nobody knows how much will be spent, but it is a necessity that they get taken care of. Medical treatment is expensive. Last month I spent over $5000 on medical care for my family and I have great insurance. I believe many of our current socialized entities benefit society, and I would love to see national health care.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

Like what?

If you can't figure this out, then there is no point discussing this any further with you. You are purposely closing your eyes and blocking your ears, no different than our resident socialist.

Jas0n · 03-14-2010, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by stolz25

Yes necessarily. You can write a Constitution, but the people you elect must enforce it for it to have any effectiveness. If they choose not to then it doesn't matter what you have written down. If you don't elect anyone and merely vote on everything, it's still arbitrary, just the arbitrary will of the majority.

Define "government."

I can see where you are coming from here, I just don't agree with it. A tax break doesn't legitimize taxes in my opinion, and even if it did it'd be worth it. The government will collapse when it overspends and runs out of money. The politicians are working hard on the overspending part, so I'll support the government taking in less money wherever it happens.

Even if such a silly, pragmatic approach were workable on principle (which it isn't), in practice, it doesn't work that way... on either count. Currently, there's no such thing as "runs out of money" for them. And a tax deduction on health care by no means gives a logical cause to think that they'd be "taking in less money" - they'd just get it elsewhere. And that, of course, is one reason of many that you shouldn't even consider tax favoritism as being compatible with a reduction in government.

You can't address it because anything they decide will be arbitrary. And I'm not telling you what you prefer, I'm saying that what you prefer is also arbitrary (regardless of what it is). You've decided that government should do certain things and not do others. You've drawn an arbitrary line in the sand. I don't care at all where you've drawn it.

No it isn't.

Explain WHY it is a contradiction. Random accusations and name-calling don't do much to support your claim of relying on reason.

Capitalism is a social system which is based on individual rights, to include property rights. This can only be achieved when the members of society forbid the use of force. This means that the task of defense of those rights must be delegated, such delegation constitutes government. Thus government is that entity which holds a legal monopoly on the use of force - in practical terms, this means some police as well as a court system which stands as an authority in legal disputes (such as a breach of contract).

Anarchy, on the other hand, is a naive floating abstraction which neglects all but the crudest, most brute aspects of human nature - specifically, "anarchy" rejects the desire, inclination, ability, and authority to replace chaos with order. Of course as soon as two people meet and begin to share or exchange ideas, goods, time, and so on, a hierarchy is formed either explicitly (as in a family unit) or implicitly (by the tentative agreement not to slaughter each other. In other words, "anarchy" only lasts as long as nobody is really aware of what the people around him are doing. Then there's order... of some sort. Maybe it's a brilliant government which safeguards man's rights and is funded without taxation, and maybe it's some savages who decided to take up AK-47s, form a rape gang, and troll around for your wife in the back of a pick-up. That is not a concept which is even remotely compatible with Capitalism.

Let's say that is as far as they extend. What about that is irrational or nonsensical?

You overgeneralize beyond the capacity to form a rational defense for your generalization. For example, if taxation is voluntary, you don't have to participate. What irritates you about my choice to pay taxes? Certainly they can't be the same reasons you yourself don't like to be taxed - in fact, they'd have to be contradictory reasons.

No, it just proves that your method of working the system (which people have actually been trying to do since the Constitution was created) is rather fruitless. It is simply not natural for those in power to relinquish it willingly. You're one in a long line of people doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a different result.

Aside from the fact that I'm posting on a forum, you really have no idea what I'm doing now, do you?

stolz25 · 03-14-2010, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by Jas0n

Define "government."

Any societal structure which elevates certain individuals and gives them the power to control other individuals through means of force.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

Currently, there's no such thing as "runs out of money" for them.

Sure there is, they just haven't hit it yet. Not only do they have to spend far more than they take in (which they already do) they have to run out of credit (which they are coming up on very quickly) and print enough currency to make it essentially worthless. On a national level with an economy as big as the US it will take a while, but it will happen.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

And a tax deduction on health care by no means gives a logical cause to think that they'd be "taking in less money" - they'd just get it elsewhere. And that, of course, is one reason of many that you shouldn't even consider tax favoritism as being compatible with a reduction in government.

If they get it elsewhere from taxing someone or raising them in general, then it's a net wash and I don't care. If they get the money from borrowing or printing, then it's a good thing, since that's one less dollar they can borrow or print later.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

No it isn't.

Excellent response. Please explain why you think your line in the sand is less arbitrary than, let's say, Obama's.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

This can only be achieved when the members of society forbid the use of force.

This isn't true. While property rights must be respected for capitalism to work, it doesn't necessitate giving the right to defend yourself to a government.

What you are trying to prevent with this line of thinking is an anarchical relationship between any parties that may have a dispute. But in actuality you just create a third party to have an anarchical relationship with. The government may settle disputes between you and your neighbor, but what happens when you have a dispute with the government itself? Not to mention you still have anarchy between individual governments.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

"anarchy" rejects the desire, inclination, ability, and authority to replace chaos with order.

No, it just rejects the idea that that order has to come by giving a subset of the population a monopoly on force. I didn't bother to quote the rest of this paragraph because you degenerated into fear-mongering with obviously no understanding of what anarcho-capitalism is. There have been a few examples in history where anarchy has existed in peaceful stable regions for quite a while, most notably Iceland. What you referred to was merely warring factions attempting form a government or take over the existing one.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

You overgeneralize beyond the capacity to form a rational defense for your generalization. For example, if taxation is voluntary, you don't have to participate. What irritates you about my choice to pay taxes?

Voluntary taxes are not taxes, they are a donation. But I have no problem with you voluntarily paying money to whomever you want, provided they don't attempt to control me through force.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

Aside from the fact that I'm posting on a forum, you really have no idea what I'm doing now, do you?

You just berated me for not participating in the system in an attempt to downsize the government. I can't say what, exactly, you are doing at this moment, no. I can say that the action you've suggested I should take is in my opinion pointless. Granted, it's an assumption to think that you are taking these sort of actions, but it's a very small assumption in comparison to many of your claims about me. For instance

"As far as I can tell, they extend no further than "government is arbitrary, and I don't like taxes!""

Jas0n · 03-16-2010, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by stolz25

Any societal structure which elevates certain individuals and gives them the power to control other individuals through means of force.

And you can think of no valid reason to control a person?

Sure there is, they just haven't hit it yet. Not only do they have to spend far more than they take in (which they already do) they have to run out of credit (which they are coming up on very quickly) and print enough currency to make it essentially worthless. On a national level with an economy as big as the US it will take a while, but it will happen.

I'm really not sure what to tell you (because it won't matter, you won't listen) aside from: that's an extremely two-dimensional take on quite a complicated issue. Study the Soviet system and the history of its money and you may begin to recognize the fact that there really is no such thing as "running out of money" as long as that's not the only force in play.

If they get it elsewhere from taxing someone or raising them in general, then it's a net wash and I don't care. If they get the money from borrowing or printing, then it's a good thing, since that's one less dollar they can borrow or print later.

Again, that's a really short-sighted, under-informed take on it.

Excellent response. Please explain why you think your line in the sand is less arbitrary than, let's say, Obama's.

For starters, I don't see government as a primary. I think you do, as evidenced by your attempt to define it, and I think Obama does. Because a society requires codified, objective law as an observable standard, so as not to descend into chaos, the authority to determine and enforce that law is delegated by all to one, and that one entity is "government." If you think the concept of "property rights" is arbitrary, then you'll think "government" in this context is arbitrary as well... and that's a much longer thread, because you'd be horribly wrong there too. Like... Marxist wrong.

This isn't true. While property rights must be respected for capitalism to work, it doesn't necessitate giving the right to defend yourself to a government.

Yes it does. Else there is no objective criteria for what exactly constitutes a legitimate defense of rights. "You stole my goat" becomes just as valid (or invalid) a claim as "you ogled my wife" or "you shot my son" or "you peed on my fencepost" to shoot someone in defense of your property.

Bear in mind, the Capitalist society I'm arguing for here doesn't prevent a person from shooting an intruder in his home or some such. I'm not saying "give up your guns and subject yourself to the will of the state!"

What you are trying to prevent with this line of thinking is an anarchical relationship between any parties that may have a dispute. But in actuality you just create a third party to have an anarchical relationship with. The government may settle disputes between you and your neighbor, but what happens when you have a dispute with the government itself? Not to mention you still have anarchy between individual governments.

A dispute with the government itself? There's a reference point for that. That's the point of a Constitution - to serve as a written declaration of the scope of the government's authority. When that authority is overstepped... responsible citizens should oust their leadership.

No, it just rejects the idea that that order has to come by giving a subset of the population a monopoly on force. I didn't bother to quote the rest of this paragraph because you degenerated into fear-mongering with obviously no understanding of what anarcho-capitalism is. There have been a few examples in history where anarchy has existed in peaceful stable regions for quite a while, most notably Iceland. What you referred to was merely warring factions attempting form a government or take over the existing one.

...which is exactly what you should expect, as soon as people realize that things like natural resources are finite.

Incidentally, though I'll need to read the article more carefully to be sure, at first glance it looks like they're not describing anarchy at all, rather a lack of centralized enforcement authority - which is, of course, quite different from "no government" insofar as evidently there was some means by which laws were established and probably codified.

Voluntary taxes are not taxes, they are a donation. But I have no problem with you voluntarily paying money to whomever you want, provided they don't attempt to control me through force.

What do you see as "controlling you"?

You just berated me for not participating in the system in an attempt to downsize the government. I can't say what, exactly, you are doing at this moment, no. I can say that the action you've suggested I should take is in my opinion pointless. Granted, it's an assumption to think that you are taking these sort of actions, but it's a very small assumption in comparison to many of your claims about me. For instance

I'm just taking you at your word.

Jas0n · 03-16-2010, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by The Great Catpiss

Simple. Anyone with half a brain can figure out it isn't what was meant when saying less intereference.

Why do I think health care should be tax deductible? Taxes are already an unfair hardship. Why add an unfair hardship ontop of an unexpected hardship? For one, people have little to no choice what they pay for health care. Nobody knows how much will be spent, but it is a necessity that they get taken care of. Medical treatment is expensive. Last month I spent over $5000 on medical care for my family and I have great insurance. I believe many of our current socialized entities benefit society, and I would love to see national health care.

So you think that health care should be tax deductible because it's expensive? So are most major appliances. So is a running vehicle. So is a boat. So is a fine musical instrument. So is a mink coat. So is jewelry.

How is a medical bill any more an "unexpected hardship" than a surprise transmission replacement?

As for "necessity" ... there is no more arbitrary a line than the one you draw between that which is "necessity" and that which is not. What's more, your arbitrary little line likely contradicts itself - by any sociologist's standard, food is more "necessary" than a routine checkup. Should I get to write off every steak dinner I buy myself? Every bottle of single-malt? Oh, those are luxuries ... like anesthetic, which often is medically necessary
only insofar as it's necessary to make a patient comfortable.

But if food, medical care, clothing, alcohol, appliances, utilities, rent (or mortgage), and an automobile are all tax deductible... what's left to tax?

Next, I'll explain why "unfair" is a stupid word, and why it's not your job to decide what's "necessary" after all.

If you can't figure this out, then there is no point discussing this any further with you. You are purposely closing your eyes and blocking your ears, no different than our resident socialist.

I can't think of a much better way to scream "please, oh please, don't take me seriously!"

If you have a point to make, make it.

stolz25 · 03-16-2010, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by Jas0n

And you can think of no valid reason to control a person?

Not pre-emptively, no.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

Study the Soviet system and the history of its money and you may begin to recognize the fact that there really is no such thing as "running out of money" as long as that's not the only force in play..

I'm of course also counting on americans not putting up with the same attrocities the soviets put up with.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

For starters, I don't see government as a primary.

I don't know what you mean by this.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

Because a society requires codified, objective law as an observable standard, so as not to descend into chaos, the authority to determine and enforce that law is delegated by all to one, and that one entity is "government."

I reject your premise.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

Yes it does. Else there is no objective criteria for what exactly constitutes a legitimate defense of rights. "You stole my goat" becomes just as valid (or invalid) a claim as "you ogled my wife" or "you shot my son" or "you peed on my fencepost" to shoot someone in defense of your property.

A governmental agency is not required to mediate these claims.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

A dispute with the government itself? There's a reference point for that. That's the point of a Constitution - to serve as a written declaration of the scope of the government's authority. When that authority is overstepped... responsible citizens should oust their leadership.

And if they decide to ignore the Constitution you have no recourse besides starting a war (anarchial relationship). Of course in this relationship you've given one of the two entities extreme power to abuse.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

..which is exactly what you should expect, as soon as people realize that things like natural resources are finite.

In most cases you are correct, this doesn't mean it can't be done though.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

Incidentally, though I'll need to read the article more carefully to be sure, at first glance it looks like they're not describing anarchy at all, rather a lack of centralized enforcement authority - which is, of course, quite different from "no government" insofar as evidently there was some means by which laws were established and probably codified.

Anarchy is merely the lack of a government, it is not synonomous with chaos. The laws were only enforcible to those who chose to subject themselves to them.

Originally Posted by Jas0n

What do you see as "controlling you"?

Subjecting me to victimless laws where the offended party is the state.

Keep in mind also that while you compare anarchy and government you are in your head actually comparing the US's government (probably the best to ever exist) with the worst situtations of anarchy, and that most of those situations aren't really anarchy. The citizens of a country casted off their government, but they didn't cast off government.

Also, anarchy didn't produce the holocaust, Stalin, Mao, the Civil War, or the trail of tears. I have little doubt that even if every single one of your fears came true with anarchy it wouldn't begin to measure up to the horrors that various governments have released on the world.