Registered User
Great, so now in addition to paying for others health care I am going to be required to pay into a Substance abuse program!?!?!?! No thanks.Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
Sorry, as much as many hate Bush, people need to realize they can't afford Hillarycare and the raise in taxes either democrat will bring. I'm tired of the entitlements. I have a responsibility to provide healthcare for myself and my family. THATS IT! The middle class is being clobbered with taxes already.
Master of Ale!
Like I said...the money the government brings in FROM legalized drug sales is put back in to the system to pay for the treatment/health needs of the users. It quite likely could sustain itself, and by removing the people who have a vested interest in engaging in urban combat over drug turf, you seriously drop the violent crime rate. By making it more affordable, you also reduce the OVERALL crime rate (nobody but an absolute junkie is robbing a 7/11 for the 35 bucks they keep in the till).
And I can tell you that the absolute fearmongering that I hear from the US media over how a public-funded healthcare system would ruin the conomy is absolutely ridiculous. Is our system flawless? Of course not...neither is yours. If you want to see how such a system can be run WELL, take a look at Scandinavia (also a great example there, in Norway, of a country that uses it's oil wealth smartly, as opposed to the absolute joke we have here in Alberta...but that's a rant for another day).
Registered User
All this is great in theory though its all a dream. History has showed time and time again that legalization doesn't reduce crime, or enhance the economy in fact its the obvious. I'd prefer to learn from history rather than repeat it.
As for healthcare, the US Govt. doesn't deserve the opportunity to handle such a task. Is there anyone that actually trusts the govt. to run this??? Regarding the costs, I admit I haven't researched as much as I'd like in this area, but I have seen and know many canadians that claim it costs them much more than the democrats want us to believe. The costs are hidden but as much as 5K per person. Top the costs with the claims that care isn't as good or as quick for serious illnesses and the rich can buy better and quicker care.....I don't see any benefits.
I trust the govt. with very little anymore. They've proven time and time again their incompetence. Stop the entitlement programs, and stay out my pocket.
We in Massachusetts were just handed compulsory health care. The current system is nothing even remotely resembling the promised system. Affordable, reigning in the insurers rates, etc. My bill last week was $119.54 for single coverage. No that's not monthly, thats WEEKLY.
Oh yeah, funny things that you wont hear about when you do hear how Assachusetts has universal care. Not even two months in to the scam, we're running a defecit on the new system. They've made it illegal NOT to carry health insurance, and they've stated that they didn't know that everyone without insurance would apply for it. So the "state assisted" insurance is already millions in the tank, 60 days in. For those who don't qualify, you either pay the full rate or you lose you personal exemption this year, and the fine escalates annually.
Watch for it soon. I've heard the promos of the Massachusetts system on national radio and television shows already, and they aint telling you the reality of our system.
Registered User
Ahhh, you mean the one Romney trumpeted and everyone said was so wonderful!?!?!?
Not surprising. $120.00 per week times 52 weeks is an astonishing $6,240!! Far more than i'm paying now for coverage on my entire family!!! I wish america would research instead of drinking this coolaid. Hopefully when the general election McCains camp will successfully feed this information.
Administration of this program is a HUGE tax increase for the middle class who can least afford it.
Hates Your Favorite Band
Wow - how did we go from Clemen's butt-cheeks to universal health care?? Odd transition, boys.
I think the Romney experiment, of 'mandatory' healthcare with fines imposed is the wrong approach. It was a brave step, and they can claim some level of 'success' for implementing it, but how could they not imagine that so many people would enroll, when they instituted fines? How did they get the population numbers so wrong as to go into the red within a few months? That's poor. I think Romney wanted it to come off as a success so he could impress some liberal voters in his run for the presidency, before the negative implications we being felt....too bad that didn't work. Believe me, any of us with family in Mass know about these issues.
Universal healthcare isn't supposed to be an increased burden on the middle class or working individuals; European countries run a universal healthcare system without this huge individual burden, or any fines, or forcing people to pick a plan and then pay such a huge cost for it. Most contries that run it successfully have one payer; after working in the healthcare industry for most of my life, the US system is tremendously different, and doing this hybrid privatized-yet-mandatory universal healthcare is going to be incredibly difficult.
One aspect that may make it less of a financial burden on other countries is that they have allowed for this expense for years; they aren't spending such a huge chunk of their budget on 'defense' (like we are, even before expenses for the two countries we are policing), and they might actually tax their wealthy and big corporations (oil, ahem) a little more progressively than we do. I think we could have a working universal healthcare system eventually, but it's not going to be handed to us - we have to make sacrifices, and make changes to the existing US healthcare system, which is unique, somewhat unregulated, and slow to adapt.
Registered User
I agree with most of your thoughts....I am not totally against the idea of revamping any of our programs but Govt. jumping into them haphazardly for political purposes is what is killing us. As for taxing the wealthy, and big corporations, America in fact is already doing this at a much higher level than europeans and any other industrialized nation. Over 70% of all taxes received by the govt. are from less than 10% of the population, the rich. The corporate tax in America is near 40%, almost twice as much as most european countries.
What does this all mean? It means corporations are now moving their operations overseas so they don't have the huge tax implifications in America. Loss of jobs, loss of taxes because of a high corporate tax rate. The rich (those getting taxable income from these corporations) are now paying the other nations income taxes and not americas as their employment is overseas. As the rich pay less, the burden on the middle class goes up and companies based in america stop providing health care to pay for the high corporate tax. Now those who lose their jobs when their company's go over seas need health care, middle class pays for them and their own as their employer stops providing it.
It isn't only the middle class who is overtaxed, its the upper class and corporate america. Hard to encourage job growth and improve the economy with this. Our family values decline as it now requires two full time working parents to support SMALLER families than it did 30 years ago, and even at that these families are way overstretched with debt.
Small govt. and small taxes is what provides a strong economy. Govt. should focus on infrastructure and providing security. How does increasing taxes with a universal health care system make any sense?
Hates Your Favorite Band
Aside from increasing taxes, I pointed out above the issues with where our tax expenditures currently go. See chart below. #1, other nations don't spend so huge an amount, percentage wise or pure numbers wise, on defense, specifically keeping up two wars and funding contractors and other third-party companies to do the dirtywork. And a lot of that money isn't necessarily 'handled with care.' (I'm sure anyone can find stories of the military and $4,000 toilet seats)
#2, other countries that successfully do universal health care aren't spending so much on Medicare/Medicaid, because there is only one health coverage payer. The more seperate payers you maintain, the more seperate rules, administrative staff, and overhead there is. Ever spent a day on the phone with Medicare? I have. Not a well-oiled machine.
Not sure if other countries do the Social Security thing either; that's a big piece of where our pie goes. Before we even think about increasing taxes, we would have to logically examine where all this current money is going, make some spending sacrifices, and combine some government entities into one. Then you can add in what everyone currently pays for health insurance (which generates huge profits for hundreds of huge insurance companies across the US - they don't get into this business for the fun of it, after all).
If it is all centrally managed, then it can work, and work well. If it is going to be part private, part government aid programs, then the whole theory will never work - at least it will never stay afloat financially. And the big flaw in it is that we can't have our country simulatenously provide flawless universal healthcare, social security for everyone retiring, and huge constant expenditures on war and defense (at least not with so many holes for money to fall into, or without a constant 10-to-1 ratio of working to retired, healthy to sick). Something has to give.
On top of all that, then you can look at taxing progressively - taxing investment gains as heavily as income, or more heavily, since there isn't labor going into them. And for the companies paying high taxes in the US now - well, they are still turning in record profits, year after year. Anyone else that has worked for a Fortune 500 knows there are horrible, horrible wastes of money there (hiring of expensive consultants, executive 'expenses' for gifts and trips, huge bonuses of stock paid to top executives, mergers that are handled poorly and fail, incompetency and scandal, etc). And yet these companies make a killing every year...I don't think they can really be hurting as much as some preach. I think some forced cutbacks and streamlining would only force companies to operate better. But, admittedly, I am jaded after working for a few of them.
E=I*R
"Progressive" taxes are a great way to kill an economy and increase unemployment. Granted, I understand the feelings behind the idea of progressive taxation, and the theory of how they should work is sound. It's the reality of their effects that causes a problem. Progressive taxation makes for a good poster child of an issue for how theory doesn't always work out well in reality.
But then, I'm a hardcore Libertarian. If it were up to me, there would barely be any taxes at all... and that pie chart wouldn't have a purple, yellow, light blue, or green slice at all, and would have a really small pink slice...
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Yes, the same one that T. Kennedy, J. Kerry, and the rest of our legislators and representatives were supposed to work out to benefit all of us in Assachusetts. They didn't bother. It dragged on for months past the deadline since they had no idea how to make it work. The final result was basically a "because we will criminalize non compliance" ruling. The net result is that the same people who were getting free health care before, are still getting it free, the rest of us are just "getting it".
There went years of pay increases, effectively removing much of the financial incentive of working hard to get ahead.
Hey Dabs, how's Rhode Island work?
A large part of Massachusetts' problem is that we're a single party state. Not helped by the fact that instead of voting our bad pols out, people choose to leave the state. It's an impossible situation right now. People on both sides blindly vote the party ticket every time. Last election, I asked both Democrats and Republicans who and why they voted for who they did. i got the who, but rarely a why. Most just ignored the why, or literally, turned and walked away.
Registered User
I hear ya. I'm not far away in CT. Not much different. We've got the two largest casino's in the world who reportedly pumped 430 million into the general fund in 2007 (CT gets a percentage of the slot revenue). Connecticut brought in over 279 million into the general fund from the state run lottery. When the lottery was created, it was championed as the savior of the education system, all profits would make CT's public education system the best in the nation. Years later the education system sees a very small fraction of this money.
The state income tax was supposed to keep other taxes from rising. After the income tax was implemented Connecticut then began seeing the huge casino revenue. Why after all that revenue has just about every tax increased and new ones added? Our bridges are amongst the worst in the nation.
After all this people still pull the lever for tax and spend democrats.
Master of Ale!
First off, the claims of the costs per person in Canada being that high are nothing short of preposterous. I'm not saying some improvement couldn't be made, but it's not nearly that high, and can be done MUCH better, as I said, as many European countries have shown.
Anyway, to the main point...legalization DOES reduce crime rates. It's irrefutable that it reduces them, because possession is no longer a CRIME. It opens up a lot of time for law enforcement and the court system to deal with crime that ACTUALLY affects people in a much more blunt and direct way, rather than wasting time busting some kid with 3 joints, then sentencing him to prison time for it (which is also a colossal waste of prison resources).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
