On 08/14/09 13:21, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg>  wrote:
>>          But let's talk about the progressive tax in the reverse direction. Do
>> you think rich people should pay _less_ tax than the ordinary person?
>
>    Maybe, if there's a good economical reason to do so. However, I'd say
> equal tax % for everybody is a good lower limit (well, as long as that %
> is not exorbitant). Rewarding success shouldn't be done at the cost of
> punishing poor performance. That's morally daunting.

	See. Here's what I meant. You said "if there's a good economical reason 
to do so" (and I agree). Why assume that it's not the case when they tax 
them more? Why jump to the conclusion that it's "jealousy" or "punishment"?

	Also, "success" is a very slippery concept. Not everyone views working 
hard to be extremely rich as an example of success. In the context that 
you set, "success" should be defined as being at the ideal point to 
benefit society (at least in an economic sense).


-- 
When a toast with butter falls from your hand, it always falls on the 
butter side.

When a cat falls from a height, it always lands on her feet.

If you tie a buttertoast over a cat with the butterside to the top, and 
let both fall, what will face the floor, the butter or the feet?

Post a reply to this message

On 08/14/09 10:53, somebody wrote:
> No only that, but if the rich were like black holes that hoard the money
> without letting it flow back, they would no longer be rich and it would
> actually raise the value of money for everyone else's pockets.

	This needs to be expanded upon a bit and placed on the Internet. A new 
type of economics.

-- 
When a toast with butter falls from your hand, it always falls on the 
butter side.

When a cat falls from a height, it always lands on her feet.

If you tie a buttertoast over a cat with the butterside to the top, and 
let both fall, what will face the floor, the butter or the feet?

Post a reply to this message

On 08/14/09 10:37, somebody wrote:
>> And while I'm fine with the Canadian model, I do have to ask: Why did
>> you bring them into the discussion? The proposed health bill is not
>> based off of them, and there are other universal health care countries
>> that are ranked above Canada.
>
> It's an example of a poorer implementation of so called socialized medicine
> in a developed country. Yes, there are better examples, but my point is to
> emphasize that switching systems is not a guarantee of improvement.

	Ah, I get it now.

> Yes, a bum knee or hip won't kill you, nor will even going blind, but I
> wouldn't consider waiting several years for those routine surgeries
> acceptable health care. Canadian health care is great if you don't need to

	Yes, but most would ;-). I know at least one person who had to wait 
about a year for the knee surgery. It was a pain for them, but they said 
the after-surgery care made up for it (including not having to pay 
bills, etc). They really appreciated not having to worry about anything 
once the treatment is done.

	Over here, even if you get quick treatment for something like this, 
it's often followed with months of arguing about the bill, etc. Doesn't 
help when some hospitals keep forcing stuff onto you that you don't need 
(and/or that is less than half their price if you just purchase it 
yourself elsewhere).

	For hip replacement, etc - it's merely a pain. Have a more serious 
condition with chronic treatment required, and many people simply give 
up and give in and file for bankruptcy because they simply don't have 
the energy to argue.

>> 1. For each horror story you bring to me from Canada, I'll bring 10 more
>> of the current system in the US.
>
> You'd better, just to break even. Population of US is 10 times that of
> Canada.

	That's why picked that figure ;-)


-- 
When a toast with butter falls from your hand, it always falls on the 
butter side.

When a cat falls from a height, it always lands on her feet.

If you tie a buttertoast over a cat with the butterside to the top, and 
let both fall, what will face the floor, the butter or the feet?

Post a reply to this message

On 08/14/09 14:06, andrel wrote:
> obligatory ted reference:
> http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/allison_hunt_gets_a_new_hip.html

	From my perspective, that was a talk that gives a good argument against 
the Canadian system. It's really crappy that she found a way to push 
herself to the front of the line.

-- 
When a toast with butter falls from your hand, it always falls on the 
butter side.

When a cat falls from a height, it always lands on her feet.

If you tie a buttertoast over a cat with the butterside to the top, and 
let both fall, what will face the floor, the butter or the feet?

Post a reply to this message

On 08/14/09 10:43, somebody wrote:
> And no, it's mathematically impossible for *all* people to get health care
> for free. Not saying it's a bad thing, but if some people are getting it for
> free, some other people are paying extra, for those as well as themselves.

	That's a universal truth (for now) - regardless of whether it's public 
or private insurance.

-- 
When a toast with butter falls from your hand, it always falls on the 
butter side.

When a cat falls from a height, it always lands on her feet.

If you tie a buttertoast over a cat with the butterside to the top, and 
let both fall, what will face the floor, the butter or the feet?

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         As I said earlier, they always feel that the current system is the 
> ideal centrist one. Sure, they pay taxes and are fine with it (to an 
> extent). But ask them for any more and you're a socialist. Same goes for 
> any kind of regulation (including the type meant to prevent the economic 
> mess we found ourselves in). Some (probably a minority) want to take 
> national public TV and radio off the air. Some more want to do the same 
> with the postal service.

  In light of this, it starts sounding less ridiculous Steve Ballmer calling
Linux "communism".

  (Well, it *is* still completely ridiculous, but you know what I mean.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         See. Here's what I meant. You said "if there's a good economical reason 
> to do so" (and I agree). Why assume that it's not the case when they tax 
> them more? Why jump to the conclusion that it's "jealousy" or "punishment"?

  I'm not an economist, but from the little understanding I have, burdening
rich people with exorbitant taxes is not good for the economy in the long
run. People tend to vote with their feet, so to speak.

  I have yet to hear any good argument why rich people should be punished
with high taxes, other than emotional things like it being "fair".

  Taxing rich people a lot is not very productive because they are so few.
If the same amount of money was taxed from medium wealth people, they would
get their tax % raised only very little because they are much more numerous.
Leveling out the tax percentage a bit raises low and medium wealth people's
taxes only a bit, but reduces the taxes of rich people by a considerable
amount (because they are a small minority). The *advantage* of this is that
the rich people are rewarded for succeeding, will keep running their
business in the country, will keep employing people and thus will keep the
economy of the country running.

  I really think that "rich people getting even richer" has been negatively
hyped way too much. Personally I don't care how rich they get, if that helps
everybody by keeping the country's economy running.

  The main reasons to detest very rich people are mainly emotional rather
than rational.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 14-8-2009 23:24, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/14/09 14:06, andrel wrote:
>> obligatory ted reference:
>> http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/allison_hunt_gets_a_new_hip.html
> 
>     From my perspective, that was a talk that gives a good argument 
> against the Canadian system. It's really crappy that she found a way to 
> push herself to the front of the line.
> 
I don't think so. The real problem is the line.

Would you find it better if she could have bought an earlier operation? 
Or if the lines were shorter because most people that needed a new hip 
would never get one (e.g. because the hip trouble would prevent them 
from getting a job that would make enough money to pay for the 
operation. If you are looking for an argument why health care should be 
insured and not paid up front by the patient, avoiding catch 22 
situations like this is a good one)?

I am working in a hospital in Amsterdam and even here that helps for 
certain procedures. In any country, in any system knowing the physician 
helps. So IMHO that in no way disqualifies the Canadian system.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 03:49:19 -0400, Warp wrote:

>  I find it rather amusing that you think that "capitalism caused the
> economic crisis", when it was capitalism that caused the economic growth
> in the first place.

That's not mutually exclusive.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 05:59:03 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   If that's someone's honest opinion, it has one major flaw: Basically
>   the
> person is saying that poor people should be left to die because society
> (in other words, the citizens of the country) should have no obligation
> of keeping poor people alive and healthy. In other words, that poor
> people deserve no help from people who can afford helping them.

It strikes me as somewhat ironic that there are those who believe that 
the poor should be left to die, yet deny Darwin's "survival of the 
fittest" (as an element of the theory of evolution).  They want "social 
Darwinism" based on class but deny it exists.

(Mostly joking here)

Jim

Post a reply to this message