I agree. So, them dying is a good thing.Also, poor people are partly (not all) poor because they are just not as capable as others. Even curing them from diseases will not change that they can not provide any worthwhile services.
Them dying costs money, them being healthy so they can get a job costs less.
so, why not jsut make private insurance mandatory? Or...well, not **** with people who don't want to be insured. And that might be true, but that doesn't mean that healthcare is a win-win system.
Well making insurance mandatory would also do what is needed. As long as people can afford it.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Fool.What is it in Germany?
What "fool" is in Germany.
What?
What?
Originally posted by Fishy
Them dying costs money, them being healthy so they can get a job costs less.Well making insurance mandatory would also do what is needed. As long as people can afford it.
T-them dying costs less money than paying for them not to die. In fact, it is free.
"needed"? It is not "needed"
Originally posted by ShantieSo now we're getting rid of retards with UH?
If it's for health purposes, rape, or the baby is retarded, yes.
But anyways.
Ok, let's put it in terms that we can all understand.
We can all agree that universal healthcare will lead to an overall healthier society. This is obvious. With a healthier society, we have a more efficient society because more people are free to work instead of being confined to a bed because of a cold that just got out of hand. People working means we're producing goods as a country and thus increases our country's income, which benefits the country as a whole.
Of course there are exceptions to the rule. Those in poverty who don't do anything to help their own situations. The "lazy bums", the real burdens on society. Those people, imho, don't deserve to be a part of any society. They're simply parasites.
But disregarding that, the law-abiding, tax-paying citizens are essentially guaranteed good health, which keeps them as law-abiding, tax-paying citizens instead of well.....dead. People dying is never good for a society, even if keeping them alive takes a bit more money.
Now you're concerned about a tax increase. I understand. No one likes hearing the words "tax hike" regardless of what sort of benefits are supposed to come from it. However, this can always be helped in other ways.
Imposing a "rich tax" where the 5% of the overtly wealthy citizens are asked to give back to a society that has helped them reach their prestigious position in the country. This 5% is the rich of the rich and even a couple thousand more a year wouldn't be the slightest bit missed by these oil tycoons, Fortune 500 CEOs, and all around blood sucking capitalists (sorry, I had to do it).
Increasing sales tax by 1 or 2% and/or widening what sales tax is applied to. Its relatively unnoticeable by the general populace yet a great increase to the income of a state. I was working retail in NJ when they increased the sales tax from 6 to 7% and they difference in moderately priced goods was a couple cents, not a big deal at all.
This is a more than feasible idea in which the pros outweigh the cons tremendously.
Originally posted by Bardock42
What "fool" is in Germany.What?
What?
T-them dying costs less money than paying for them not to die. In fact, it is free.
"needed"? It is not "needed"
Depends on how they die, the costs of a medical examination and the funeral could cost more then fixing an illness making them able to get another job. Of course it's kinda cruel to base if you are going to treat them or not on the cost of the curing vs the cost of funeral and stuff. Economically a smart thing to do though.
So now we're getting rid of retards with UH?But anyways.
Ok, let's put it in terms that we can all understand.
We can all agree that universal healthcare will lead to an overall healthier society. This is obvious. With a healthier society, we have a more efficient society because more people are free to work instead of being confined to a bed because of a cold that just got out of hand. People working means we're producing goods as a country and thus increases our country's income, which benefits the country as a whole.
Not necessarily true, although there always cases where treating is cheaper then not treating in general I do believe Health care costs more then it brings society. Unless of course everybody in society believes that it's worth it. (Or at least the majority when you live in a democracy)
Of course there are exceptions to the rule. Those in poverty who don't do anything to help their own situations. The "lazy bums", the real burdens on society. Those people, imho, don't deserve to be a part of any society. They're simply parasites.
Yet they are usually the one's that can't afford insurance and they are therefor the one's that would benefit most from universal health care, of course there is a change that a group of them doesn't have a job because they are sick and they could get one when cured. It's hard to say for sure though.
But disregarding that, the law-abiding, tax-paying citizens are essentially guaranteed good health, which keeps them as law-abiding, tax-paying citizens instead of well.....dead. People dying is never good for a society, even if keeping them alive takes a bit more money.
I disagree, people dying is necessary in fact most European country's and the US, probably Canada as well are right now facing problems because of the large amount of people that are going to retire soon, the cost of keeping them alive and giving them food by far outweighs the cost of them just dying when they turn 65 and can retire.
Now you're concerned about a tax increase. I understand. No one likes hearing the words "tax hike" regardless of what sort of benefits are supposed to come from it. However, this can always be helped in other ways.Imposing a "rich tax" where the 5% of the overtly wealthy citizens are asked to give back to a society that has helped them reach their prestigious position in the country. This 5% is the rich of the rich and even a couple thousand more a year wouldn't be the slightest bit missed by these oil tycoons, Fortune 500 CEOs, and all around blood sucking capitalists (sorry, I had to do it).
Tax the rich? Why is that always the answer. Tax the rich, the rich are eventually going to bleed dry and just leave the country if need be. Not to mention that I seriously doubt all of those people could provide the entire country with a welfare program.
Increasing sales tax by 1 or 2% and/or widening what sales tax is applied to. Its relatively unnoticeable by the general populace yet a great increase to the income of a state. I was working retail in NJ when they increased the sales tax from 6 to 7% and they difference in moderately priced goods was a couple cents, not a big deal at all.This is a more than feasible idea in which the pros outweigh the cons tremendously.
The difference in luxury goods however would be huge, and luxury goods is still a huge source of income for any rich society. Raising sales taxes touches everybody. Although a better system then just taxing the rich it will surely have an effect.
This is a more than feasible idea in which the pros outweigh the cons tremendously.
This is really the only part I agree with, the pros outweigh the cons. But that's just because I personally believe that it's important to give everybody good health care. Society in general however I doubt they would really benefit from it at all.
Originally posted by MarxmanImposing a "rich tax" where the 5% of the overtly wealthy citizens are asked to give back to a society that has helped them reach their prestigious position in the country. This 5% is the rich of the rich and even a couple thousand more a year wouldn't be the slightest bit missed by these oil tycoons, Fortune 500 CEOs, and all around blood sucking capitalists (sorry, I had to do it).
You are a ****ing stupid, egoistical, leeching *******.
The rich don't have to pay for you, they already give you enough with the service they give...you. Rich people deserve their money, they do more good than all the unemployed together, you selfish (in the bad sense) bastard want to steal even more of their hard earned money? By what ****ing right? Because you or the poor people are incapable of achieving it?
Sorry, had to....stupid communist scum.
Originally posted by FishyBut are we really pitting cost against cost here? This way of thinking is like putting a value on a human life, which I'm not prepared to do. Are you? Do we value some over others? Maybe physical capabilities or metal capacity? Sounds like a slippery slope.
Not necessarily true, although there always cases where treating is cheaper then not treating in general I do believe Health care costs more then it brings society. Unless of course everybody in society believes that it's worth it. (Or at least the majority when you live in a democracy)
Originally posted by FishyMy point is not to focus on that. There will always be those trying to take advantage of a good thing. Yet why should the fear of that make us pass up the opportunity to bring in a program that would only help the greater good of our country.
Yet they are usually the one's that can't afford insurance and they are therefor the one's that would benefit most from universal health care, of course there is a change that a group of them doesn't have a job because they are sick and they could get one when cured. It's hard to say for sure though.
Originally posted by Fishy............good point. 😛
I disagree, people dying is necessary in fact most European country's and the US, probably Canada as well are right now facing problems because of the large amount of people that are going to retire soon, the cost of keeping them alive and giving them food by far outweighs the cost of them just dying when they turn 65 and can retire.
Originally posted by FishyThe objective of taxing the rich is not to "level the playing field" but rather have those that can afford it to assist. The tax would be no where near enough to bleed them dry. These are people with networths of $100,000,000+. These are people that have lots of money and make lots more of it everyday. No way will these people even notice a difference in their living. Maybe except the won't be able to buy that $5000 pair of underwear.
Tax the rich? Why is that always the answer. Tax the rich, the rich are eventually going to bleed dry and just leave the country if need be. Not to mention that I seriously doubt all of those people could provide the entire country with a welfare program.
Originally posted by FishyIt wouldn't be huge. Its a 1 to 2% increase. Obviously the more it costs the more of an addition it would be but if people are working instead of being sick they've got the money to afford it.
The difference in luxury goods however would be huge, and luxury goods is still a huge source of income for any rich society. Raising sales taxes touches everybody. Although a better system then just taxing the rich it will surely have an effect.
Originally posted by FishyYou think healthcare is a good idea yet you don't think quality of life would increase if it was available to all? I'm sorry but I don't understand.
This is really the only part I agree with, the pros outweigh the cons. But that's just because I personally believe that it's important to give everybody good health care. Society in general however I doubt they would really benefit from it at all.
Originally posted by Bardock42Ouch. Why we getting so personal? Did you even read the rest?
You are a ****ing stupid, egoistical, leeching *******.The rich don't have to pay for you, they already give you enough with the service they give...you. Rich people deserve their money, they do more good than all the unemployed together, you selfish (in the bad sense) bastard want to steal even more of their hard earned money? By what ****ing right? Because you or the poor people are incapable of achieving it?
Sorry, had to....stupid communist scum.
Originally posted by MarxmanYou don't understand a thing about how economics work do you?
Imposing a "rich tax" where the 5% of the overtly wealthy citizens are asked to give back to a society that has helped them reach their prestigious position in the country. This 5% is the rich of the rich and even a couple thousand more a year wouldn't be the slightest bit missed by these oil tycoons, Fortune 500 CEOs, and all around blood sucking capitalists (sorry, I had to do it).
Blood sucking capitalists? Who are the ones that mooch off of other people and who are the ones that work for what they have?
Originally posted by Bardock42Again with the hostility. I'm sorry if I believe in giving back to one's community. If one has the means to help others they should. Yet most people with lots of money think exactly like you do. "I earned my money so I should be able to spend it all on myself." Yes, you have that option but you also have a moral obligation to the greater goodof humanity to give back.
Because it is ****ing stupid opinions like yours that make everything in this world shit.
Are you selfish enough to not care about the welfare of others or can you look past your constant struggle to purchase your own iPhone in order to ensure all people can enjoy good health?
Originally posted by CreshoskI could have a field day with that statement but I don't want to turn this into a Capitalist Pigs vs Communist Liberators thread. I'd rather it keep on topic.
You don't understand a thing about how economics work do you?Blood sucking capitalists? Who are the ones that mooch off of other people and who are the ones that work for what they have?