I hate the phrase "Redistribution of wealth"

[Sylvia727]

I don't know what it officially means, but it seems I can't turn around without tripping over someone bleating about the unfair distribution of wealth and how it should be redistributed. If I want to work hard for my money, I should damn well be able to keep it all. And if I want to work the bare minimum and devote the rest of my time to non-income-earning pursuits, then I should be able to live at what I deem an acceptable level without taking away from someone else. There is no reason for me to work if the government is just going to take it away. Communism--technically socialism, I believe--failed because of this same principle. Redistributing the wealth doesn't do anything except convince the people who actually work to just slack off.

I'm not talking about refusing aid to the families who have been living below the poverty line for generations untold. But instead of throwing money at the problem, why not send them to college? Why not correct the grade schools so that they have a chance of passing the SAT/ACTs to get into college? The government seems content to just paper over the cracks with dollar bills; God forbid that the cracks get fixed. They're just too damn lazy to overhaul the system. They'd rather give everyone an even slice of the pie, even the folks who couldn't be found within 50 miles of the kitchen during baking time.

I don't mind paying taxes for a welfare/medicare system. Fuck it, I demand to pay taxes for welfare, medicare, roads, schools, etc. It's a social contract between me and my government. I pay my taxes as a guarantee that my neighbor doesn't go to bed hungry, or bleeding, or in unsufferable conditions of any kind. I pay taxes so that the government will enforce a bare minimum standard of living. So why doesn't my government invest my tax money into schools and whatever might be needed to get these poor families on their feet again??? Instead, they want to give them my money for nothing. I don't fucking think so.

Edit: This may be more suited for Social Woes. I meant to rant about how this specific phrasing grants on my nerves, but got sidetracked by the actual concept. If a mod wants to move it, go ahead.

[Saydrah]

I hate that phrase too, but for the opposite reason- I hate it because it gets thrown out there any time someone brings up private charity in a positive way. For example:

Me: "If you don't like the way government spends your tax money, why not make more donations to 501 (c) 3 tax-exempt organizations, and deduct that from your taxes? That way you get to do the research and see where the money is going."

Whiny Taxpayer: "Redistribution of wealth doesn't help society. It's proven."

Interestingly, they never seem to have specific proof of this, and when I bring up a charity near me that gives microloans ($100 or less) to Guatemalan women to help them start businesses, with a success rate over 95%, they stutter and talk about Communism.

Yes redistribution of wealth CAN help society. No, that doesn't mean China or Russia did it RIGHT. They obviously failed. Duh. That doesn't mean penalize charitable organizations, whine about taxes, and be a generally selfish prick!

(not directed at OP, directed at the people who use the phrase 'redistribution of wealth' to justify whining about taxes and not doing anything for their fellow human)

[Sylvia727]

Someone complaining about taxes being too high? Boo hoo hoo. Someone complaining about taxes being spent unwisely? Support your argument, I'm willing to listen. Someone using wasted tax money as an excuse to not give? Go **** yourself.

[Seshat]

I think a certain type of redistribution of wealth is highly desirable. The type that flattens the wage/salary system a bit.

I think it's totally wrong that Sam Stocker works a 50 hour work of hard physical labour for $X while Cyril CEO works a 40 hour week of hard mental labour for $X*1000.

Yes, Cyril CEO is typically more educated, and the results of his work keep Sam Stocker employed. But surely $X*100 or $X*500 would be enough to inspire people to obtain that education and work at that job.

[Pedersen]

I tend to only reply a little bit any more. Trying to help out a bit here and there.

But this post got my goat, so to speak.

Someone complaining about taxes being too high? Boo hoo hoo.

"Boo hoo hoo"? The government takes approximately 1/3 of my income (money that I worked hard to earn), and you shrug it off? And then the government offers to give it back to me if I promise I've been really good? And you shrug it off?

Someone using wasted tax money as an excuse to not give? Go **** yourself.

Wow. And people call me all kinds of nasty names. Look, I'd love to give to charity. Here's the problem: I don't make enough to have a home, a car, and give to charity after the government takes 1/3 of my fricking money.

Make sure I get to keep enough to do that, and we'll talk. Until then? Well, I'll just quote you:

Go **** yourself.

[Saydrah]

How much do you make in a given year?

At least $15,000, I hope, because I've lived on less than that and it SUCKS- wouldn't wish that on you.

For me, the limit you must give to a 501 (c) 3 non-profit in a single year for it to be tax-deductible is $5,000. Which would be 33% of $15,000. Then you can decide exactly where that money goes, by yourself, by giving to charity and deducting it from your taxes!

Don't have $5,000 a year to give because the government takes their share first? Understandable. But if you can save a little each month, you can give a little each month, and get some back at the end of the year.

Sure, I don't like taxes being taken out of my paycheck, either- but which of the services the government provides would you like to do without? The fireman who comes if your house is on fire? The policewoman who keeps serial killers out of your neighborhood and ensures your possessions aren't stolen? Would you like to step over starving children as you walk to work because the government completely stopped assisting poor parents?

When 100% of people in the world would donate the same amount or more that they currently pay in taxes to charity- and not just any charity, they'd research it first- I'd say sure, eliminate the income tax. But right now, I know maybe two or three people who would; and they already are huge philanthropists. I don't know if even I would, and I LOVE donating to charity. It's like a luxury to me. But would I really remember every month to choose a charity to give $400 to?

[Pedersen]

How much do you make in a given year?

Irrelevant. And therefore unanswered. I work, same as everybody else. I get paid, same as everybody else. And the government takes one helluva chunk of that money.

For me, the limit you must give to a 501 (c) 3 non-profit in a single year for it to be tax-deductible is $5,000. Which would be 33% of $15,000. Then you can decide exactly where that money goes, by yourself, by giving to charity and deducting it from your taxes!

Really? If I give $5000 to charity, then the government will give me $5000 of the money from my taxes back to me? Or do you really mean to say that the government will allow me to pretend I didn't make that $5000, and therefore I will pay out less?

I rather suspect the latter. Oh, and by the by, that will translate to (roughly) $1500 less in taxes. Significant, but still not even close to equal.

Don't have $5,000 a year to give because the government takes their share first? Understandable. But if you can save a little each month, you can give a little each month, and get some back at the end of the year.

So, in other words, if I can manage to squirrel away some money from the tax man to help ensure that my family doesn't have issues if economic hard times come along, I can find a way to give those savings to charity? Wow, that's mighty generous of you.

I'd like to be able to afford to give to charity. Suffice to say that this is not an option for me at this time.

Sure, I don't like taxes being taken out of my paycheck, either- but which of the services the government provides would you like to do without? The fireman who comes if your house is on fire? The policewoman who keeps serial killers out of your neighborhood and ensures your possessions aren't stolen? Would you like to step over starving children as you walk to work because the government completely stopped assisting poor parents?

Wow, talk about laying out the guilt trip icons. With that ability, I'd have to believe you're a mom. I've never known somebody so able to generate a guilt trip as a mother.

No, if you'd like to talk about useless government functions that should be removed, I can find a few pretty easily. Heck, here's a list (http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml) of various departments of the US government. Lessee, we've got an "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission" and a "Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity". That seems like a prime candidate for merging, and dropping one of them.

The "Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds"??? That one seems to be a curious (at best) department.

"Fish and Wildlife" and "Environmental Protection Agency". Another candidate for merger. Yes, I know that these are two distinct things, and arguments could be made to keep them distinct. It's just a candidate.

"Food and Drug Administration" and "Food and Nutrition Service", plus I remember seeing another Nutrition bit in there somewhere.

Shall I go on? There is significant wastage of tax dollars. That's just at the federal level.

At the state level, the Florida tax assessor was ready to declare all home networks taxable under a law that was meant to tax the railroad companies for running their own phone lines along railroad tracks. In other words, another pure grab for the wallet by the government.

I'd say sure, eliminate the income tax.

I'm not saying to eliminate it. The government does a lot of very valuable functions that are not replaceable by private organizations.

The part that so pissed me off from the message before is the bit of "boo hoo hoo". It implies that people have a right to what's mine. That, quite frankly, is absolute bullshit.

I'll give what I can and when I can. But to forcibly take it, and then say I should like it? To tell me that I should give more, and to go **** myself if I don't because the government is ripping my wallet out and telling me it's for my own benefit? Don't expect me to take *that* lying down. It pisses me off to no end.

It's entitlement of the worst form. And I will fight back against that.

[CancelMyService]

"Redistribution of wealth" is one of those conservative buzzwords meant to demonize any concept of charity that isn't some form of dressed up tax dodge.

Same thing as the renaming of vital social programs as "entitlements", which really irks me as it implies that somehow the person receiving them doesn't usually need it to survive.

Besides when people talk about redistribution of wealth they aren't talking about Joe Average Salesclerk making $30,000 a year and barely making his car note. It's about fatcat corporate types who make millions and leave it in a bank account to collect equal amounts of interest and dust. For as much crap as he gets (not all undeserved), Bill Gates has been one of the most active philanthropists of our time. Now that's not to say anyone making over a certain amount of money has some sort of obligation to hand over their wallet, but there's still a very palpable sense of "I got mine, so fuck you" that exists among the well to do.

It's funny that the conservatives pushed the idea of trickle down economics on the concept of giving more money to the wealthy (in the form of tax breaks) helps everyone because they'll spend more. In reality, most of that money ends up going directly into their pockets never to see the light of day and just grows the gap between the rich and poor. That's what the "redistribution" of wealth tries to fix, and anytime I see someone get bent out of shape about it I have to wonder why they want to see an economic class system in the US.

[Saydrah]

I'm no accountant, so you should probably see one if you're interested in the idea, but I did volunteer as a board member for a non-profit horse rescue for four years, and I chaired the fundraising committee. The single most frequent question was, "Is this donation tax-deductible?"

To my knowledge, so long as you exceed the minimum amount to make itemized deductions, you deduct that amount from your tax liability, not your taxable income. I don't itemize because the majority of my donations yearly are in the form of time and labor, which is not tax-deductible, but with the nice new job I'm considering seeing an accountant about making a plan to donate enough each year to take itemized deductions from my taxes, so I'll let you know how it works if I do. It is geared toward the rich (as most of our economic system is) but it's possible to take advantage of itemized charitable deductions even if you aren't rich- plenty of our donors at the horse rescue were not.

I could be totally wrong since, again, I'm not an accountant, but I can't even count the times I've heard, "Rather give it to you guys than pay it in taxes, ha, ha!" from the donors of larger amounts.

And no, I'm not a mom, nor do I want to be. I'm a realist. What do we do if the people who complain about the "welfare state" get their way? Do they really want to see people starving in the streets here like they have in third world countries? Not that YOU made that complaint, but many people (cough Ron Paul cough) do when they offer to lower taxes.

And, really, it doesn't save much money to merge government agencies. Look at the budget for the Department of Homeland Security vs. the budgets for the agencies that merged to become said Dep't.

If we want to cut government spending, I suggest ending the war on drugs, personally- but that's another topic.

[protege]

And, really, it doesn't save much money to merge government agencies. Look at the budget for the Department of Homeland Security vs. the budgets for the agencies that merged to become said Dep't.


If it's done correctly, it can save money. However, many times all that happens is the agencies combine, but don't get rid of duplicated facilities and services.

Right now, my city and county want to merge governments to save money . What's holding things up, is that the rest of us *outside* the city do not want to inherit the city's cash flow (and other) problems. In other words, we fear that they'll fuck up the county as well.

[Seshat]

Brief off-topic digression.


No, if you'd like to talk about useless government functions that should be removed, I can find a few pretty easily. Heck, here's a list (http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml) of various departments of the US government. Lessee, we've got an "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission" and a "Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity". That seems like a prime candidate for merging, and dropping one of them.

Agreed, so long as it can be done efficiently.


The "Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds"??? That one seems to be a curious (at best) department.

How much do you like kudzu? Do you utterly adore it? Want it to completely take over the areas where it likes to live?

I don't know which other plants are serious weeds in the US, but here the list is really long. Off the top of my head, I can name Morning Glory, Lantana, Nasturtium and Blackberry.

Any plant which is 'hardy' or 'easy to grow' in your local environment is a potential weed. If it escapes from your garden and is hardier in your environment than the native plants, it'll spread and outcompete them.

Now, it is true that it's just evolution in action. But that's why I asked if you loooove kudzu. ;)

(Presuming you live in kudzu territory) If you'd enjoy going to your local national park and seeing only kudzu and a few brave trees, or having nothing but kudzu in your own garden (if you have one), then feel free to get rid of weed management government agencies. :D

. . . however, it could be a subsection of a department of Forestry, or some such.


"Fish and Wildlife" and "Environmental Protection Agency". Another candidate for merger. Yes, I know that these are two distinct things, and arguments could be made to keep them distinct. It's just a candidate.

"Food and Drug Administration" and "Food and Nutrition Service", plus I remember seeing another Nutrition bit in there somewhere.

Shall I go on? There is significant wastage of tax dollars. That's just at the federal level.

Merging departments isn't always more efficient than keeping them separate - but yes, most governments have waste. Fighting waste is an ongoing battle.

[Pedersen]

That's what the "redistribution" of wealth tries to fix, and anytime I see someone get bent out of shape about it I have to wonder why they want to see an economic class system in the US.

Strange thing there: Every time I see someone be a proponent of it, I have to wonder why they feel entitled to take from me what I've spent my time and work earning.

And that's what got me so pissed about Sylvia727's post. To me, it sounded very much like she was saying that taxes should be more, and if you do manage to pull ahead of the taxes, we need to fix that as soon as possible.

I'm almost starting to wonder why the government doesn't just end the charade now, and set taxes to 100%. The government owns everything, and gives it out as needed. Now where have I heard that before? Seems I have, and I think I remember it failing, but I can't quite place my finger on it.

To my knowledge, so long as you exceed the minimum amount to make itemized deductions, you deduct that amount from your tax liability, not your taxable income.

Well, I went ahead and researched it, and that is not the case, at least in the USA. Per ]the IRS (I could be totally wrong since, again, I'm not an accountant, but I can't even count the times I've heard, "Rather give it to you guys than pay it in taxes, ha, ha!" from the donors of larger amounts.

For the people who donate the larger amounts, it very much makes sense. Look at the tax tables here (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf), and you'll see why. Let's consider Joe Millionaire. He makes a million/year before taxes hit.

Per page 13, since Joe makes over $349,700, his taxes are $101,469.25 + 35% of all money over $349,700 (and this is just Federal. For my numbers up above, I was including state and township).

$1,000,000 - $349,700 = $650,300.

35% of $650,300 = $227,605 (tax liability for all income over $349,700)

$227,605 + $101,469.25 = $329,074.25

That's Joe's tax bill. Joe still has $670,925.75 left over. He can easily afford to give away a lot of money. Let's say he gives away $300,000 for the year, and then redo his taxes. Remember, he's now only made $700,000 this year, so that's where we start.

$700,000 - $349,700 = $350,300

35% of $350,300 = $122,605 (tax liability for all income over $349,700)

$122,605 + $101,469.25 = $224,074.25

$700,000 - $224075.25 = $475,925.75

Joe lost a total of (roughly) $200,000 on the deal. But at that level of income, how much is $200,000 to him? That'd be like the average person throwing $100 or so at a charity.

What all did he gain? Less taxes being given to the government. If he didn't make the contributions anonymously, he's also made himself a good name, since now people associate generosity with Joe Millionaire. And he's still got one helluva lot of money to spare.

And, really, it doesn't save much money to merge government agencies. Look at the budget for the Department of Homeland Security vs. the budgets for the agencies that merged to become said Dep't.

"A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money" - Senator Everett Dirksen

People claim that time is money, but that is not true. Money can always be made. There's veritable oceans of it out there waiting to be earned. Time, though, can not be made. Lose a minute, and it's gone forever.

The reason I point this out is this: Like everybody else, I work for my money. I work hard for it. Every minute I work, I get paid. That money is the result of my time. My effort.

And what I am hearing is people telling me that I should not be able to enjoy the fruits of that time and effort. That I should give it all away, so that they can enjoy the fruits of my time and effort. That my time, and my effort, is meaningless unless it helps them. And if I won't give it willingly, I should have it taken from me. But, since we don't want to break the law, we'll just make a new law to take more of it.

If you want to know why I get pissed off so badly at these people, look at that. You ask "Why would I not want to give?" I ask "Why would I want to?" There are people who need help. I will happily help them. Then there are the people who take without asking, who demand that I do for them without regard to what that would do to me or to my family, who look at me and say "He's got things that I wish I could have, so it's only right that he helps me out, whether he wants to or not".

Those people are the ones who set me off. And, honestly, they are the ones who can "Go **** themselves".

If we want to cut government spending, I suggest ending the war on drugs, personally- but that's another topic.

Yeah, that it is :)

[CancelMyService]

You know, as much as people point to places like China and the Soviet Union, real socialism (ie: not a dictatorship pretending to be socialism) has proven to be a pretty decent system in most of Europe and even Canada if you believe the propaganda that free health care = socialism.

I mean, right now I pay about a $100 a month for medical/dental coverage. What would the difference be where the deduction came from? At this point most large health insurers are as much of a bureaucracy as the government. At least we would have less uninsured folks if it was a government program. Alas, somewhere along the line going to the doctor became a privilege instead of a basic human right so an alarming percentage of Americans would rather leave millions with no access to health care than run the risk of being called "socialist" or some other horribly dated cold war era slur.


We all can go round and round about taxes, but the elephant in the room is that if we put some brakes on the ridiculous amounts of money spent on defense we'd have enough for health care and education without raising anyone's taxes. Sadly with so many people living in pants-wetting fear of the invisible boogeymen out to kill us all, that likely won't happen.

[Seshat]

I mean, right now I pay about a $100 a month for medical/dental coverage.

The Medicare levy in Australia is 1.5% of taxable income. It doesn't cover everything - for instance, dental cover was an issue in our latest election - but it does cover the basics other than dental. I can get my eyes checked, my hearing tested, my preventative medicine handled, all for a small fee ($5 or so) if I'm not a 'low income earner', or for free if I am and have a 'health care card' distributed by our welfare office.

If I have a sore throat, I can nip in to my local GP of choice (general practitioner - front line doctor) for free to get it checked out. If I'm not a low income earner, I get to pay a share of the cost of the antibacterial or antiviral he prescribes: but if I pay more than a particular amount over the course of a year, I get it for free after that cap. (If I recall correctly.) If I am a low income earner, I still pay a share but it's a lower share. (And I get to choose my GP.)

Emergency room trips are free, and the ERs aren't clogged up with people who can't afford to see a GP. Hospitalisation is free for necessary procedures or necessary emergencies, but you're on a waiting list if it's not an emergency and you get a shared ward and the doctor you're assigned. (If there's a medical reason for you to have a private ward, however, you get it.)

(Private health insurance is available, and lets you use one of the private hospitals, get a nicer room in a hospital, get your choice of doctor in a hospital. Private health insurance also covers things Medicare doesn't.)

For 1.5% of taxable income, Medicare is a bargain. And yes, even when I thought I was going to be able to earn lots of money in this lifetime, I still thought it fair that a percentage of my professional-level income went to paying for the medical treatment of people who couldn't make that sort of money for whatever reason.

I don't mind paying taxes, so long as the taxes are spent reasonably. It's how we (at least where I am) get to have city streets that are well maintained and clean. Toilets that when we flush them, take the biohazard away so we don't have to think about it. Firefighters or police or ambulances that come when we call.

It's also how we avoid pandemics and epidemics, keep from having beggers in the street struggling to survive, and don't have Bhopal-like chemical spills in our suburbs.

Where I am, tax is a bargain. Sure there's government waste, and doubtless some corruption, but it's a lot better than it could be.

[Boozy]

You know, my husband and I are in the highest tax bracket they have here in Canada, so we pay through our teeth.

But we also make the money we do because of our heavily subsidized post-secondary educations, and the fact that we can commute to work every day on well-maintained roads.

My husband and I think that we're getting a pretty good deal for the taxes we pay.

[daleduke17]

My husband and I think that we're getting a pretty good deal for the taxes we pay.

It wouldn't be so bad in the USA if we were getting a good deal for our taxes. We send in taxes on every check, but it doesn't seem like we get anything back for them. I am ineligible for public aid since I work, I have health insurance so nothing from the state, I'm 26 years old so I don't qualify for free transportation on the city busses, I didn't serve in the military so I don't qualify for the Montgomery GI Bill or anything associated with it, I don't drive a "green" vehicle so I can't get credit on my taxes for that, I'm too young to qualify for deductions for being in Vietnam, I'm not a minority so the government pretty much says "F*** you" to me.

As far as state and local taxes: we have several pothole marred streets (not just little ones, large car-damaging ones), I make too much money to have the city pay for my child's schooling and I don't believe that I qualify for job placement assistance.

So, pretty much we get little return on our taxes. I do not believe in universal health care, but would like to see something done with schooling for everybody.

[Seshat]

You still get a lot of protections and resources you haven't mentioned. Police and fire, for example. You may or may not have a state emergency service &/or rescue force. You do have environmental protections intended to avoid a Bhopal-style chemical disaster. Your 'blackwater' (ie toilet and other contaminated wastewater) is hauled away without you having to pay attention to it. Your buildings follow strict building codes so they're much less likely to fall on your head. Lots of invisible benefits you get from your taxes.

However, I'm curious about one thing: why don't you believe in subsidised/free public medical care?

I see it as an obviously good thing, but I'll explain why after I hear why you think it's not. :) I'd like to hear the 'other side'.

[AFPheonix]

I frankly would like to see a plan instituted here similar to what you have there. I think if instituted correctly, it could really take care of a lot of the overhead expenses that are dragging down our health care system.
I deal with prescription coverage in-depth. I don't know a ton about health other than my own plan, really.
However, I could see us instituting a basic plan for everyone: health, dental and rx, maybe vision, with one formulary, accepted at all providers and portable across state lines. (something that medicaid cannot do now). Merge medicaid, medicare, and tricare into this one umbrella plan, take the funding from all three of those plans and funnel it into the one plan. Take a certain amount of tax to pay for the rest, and remove the burden from employers to pay for their employees' health care, allowing for higher wages and lower costs of goods.
Allow patients to purchase private coverage above and beyond the basic plan if they so wish, depending on what their needs are.
I think instituted correctly (and it would be a miracle, considering what a mess congress made of medicare part D), it could really be a boon for all of us. Yes, it would be a total madhouse probably for a year or two before the system got sorted entirely, but in time it could really be efficient and easy for everyone to understand, which is more than I can say for the system we have now.

[CancelMyService]

I don't want to speak for daleduke17, but a lot of the people around here that don't favor universal health care have that opinion from having talk radio shows beat it over their head since 1994 or so (when Hilary Clinton tried to get momentum for it and the Republicans went ape) that it's bad. The common refrains are "They'll take our money and then you'll have to wait forever for a doctor", or "it's the first step to introducing socialism in America" since most people have a mental link of socialism = communist dictatorships.

[daleduke17]

However, I'm curious about one thing: why don't you believe in subsidised/free public medical care?

I see it as an obviously good thing, but I'll explain why after I hear why you think it's not. :) I'd like to hear the 'other side'.

I don't feel as though the taxpayers should have to go to bat for everyone else and give even more money to the government. Taxpayers are already giving people food (LINK card*), housing (section 8**) and schooling (tuition vouchers***) among other things. I know the first two are being abused horribly and it would only be a matter of time before healthcare would be as well.

Also, it seems our nation is getting more and more of a belief that they are entitled to whatever and don't want to work for anything anymore. I'm not against people who need the help receiving it, I'm against people abusing it and that is what I see happening with universal healthcare.

* - that's the Illinois title for foodstamps.
** - probably another Illinois specific term.
*** - part of the wonderful No Child Left Behind act.

[Boozy]

I have never seen the difference between government-provided emergency services such as fire and police, and government-provided health care. Both are fundamental services necessary for the health and well-being of the populace.

The only reason the US doesn't have public health care is because the health care industry has been raking in the profits for far too long and are worried that the gravy train will end.

[Seshat]

I don't feel as though the taxpayers should have to go to bat for everyone else and give even more money to the government.
<snip>
I know the first two are being abused horribly and it would only be a matter of time before healthcare would be as well.
<snip>
I'm not against people who need the help receiving it, I'm against people abusing it and that is what I see happening with universal healthcare.

Ah. I can only say that in Australia, universal healthcare isn't being significantly abused. Those who are hypochondriac or have Munchausen's get diagnosed and treated just like anyone with any other problem, and - well, I can't figure out any other way to abuse healthcare. You get sick, you go to a doctor, you get treated. If you're not sick, why go to a doctor? (Other than preventative medicine, which also isn't abuse.)

Possibly I'm naive. Maybe there are reasons or ways to abuse universal healthcare that don't happen here but might in some other culture.

Anyway. I promised my views. Universal health care is good because:

* It reduces everyone's chance of getting sick.
* The herd immunity provided by immunisation squeezes out some virii and bacteria.
* Rapidly curing everyone who gets a contagious illness reduces everyone's exposure to the contagion. With Multiply Resistant Tuberculosis in the wings, we really need to be careful about contagious illnesses.
* Rapidly treating everyone who gets a mutating virus (such as influenza) reduces its rate of mutation as well as peoples' exposure to the contagion. This one will be even better as we develop effective broad-spectrum antivirals.

* It increases the proportion of the population who can work.
* The people least able to afford medical care are often those who most need it. Many of these people want to work, either out of social conscience or simply to be able to afford to live well.
* A significant proportion of these people can work if their illness or disability is treated.
* Universal health care will get them treated and into the work force.

* It reduces the proportion of people driven to crime by desperation or mental illness.
* Treating those capable of work means they can work, and don't become desperate enough to steal bread or medicine. (Sure, they might steal for other reasons, but not out of desperation.)
* Treating those who are mentally ill will let some of them work and function normally in society. Another subset will function if provided carers, and will live happy and relatively normal lives in halfway houses or other supervised accomodation. Another subset, unfortunately, will need to live in enclosed accomodation of some sort, but at least they and society can become mutually safe from each other.

* The additional tax income of those made capable of work, and the reduced crime costs, and the unquantifiable benefit of less sick leave due to herd immunity and epidemic prevention, will offset the cost of the universal health care. Not necessarily a complete offset, but certainly some.
Add the unquantifiable benefit of the emotional comfort of knowing you will get treatment when you fall sick, and - well, I think it's overall a good thing.

* Note that cosmetic surgery doesn't fall under universal health care, except when it's medically necessary cosmetic surgery: such as fixing cleft palate, or preventative removal of potential melanoma. Universal health care only covers problems of a medical nature.

[Rapscallion]

With that last part, you have to be careful. We've had GPs referring patients for breast enhancement on grounds of psychological harm caused by breasts that are too small. I don't mind reduction where back pain is involved, but that? Nah.

Rapscallion

[Sylvia727]

Jumping back in a bit late here...

Pederson, I think I expressed myself unclearly. I wasn't taking about redistribution in that post; I was responding to the SCs of tax laws, those who have no justification for evading taxes other than "I don't wanna." Yeah, governments wastes money, perhaps the USA's more than others'. I don't like 33% taxes either. But taxes are necessary, and the government is "entitled" to your money as payment for services rendered. Like others have pointed out, we reap invisible protections from our government every minute. Anyone who enjoys the protection of the police department or sends their kids to a public school and then refuses to pay taxes is a thief. How much taxes you think should pay...I'm willing to listen. But you have to pay some.

Redistribution of wealth is in itself disturbing, I think. Putting 33% of my earnings into a community pool so that it can be handed back out to the lower income earners makes no sense. My government should be supporting a minimum standard of living, not ironing out the differneces. How much of my tax money is really necessary to provide food, medicine, roads, schools, even the department of weed control? And how much is being thrown away on programs that still don't work, like the war in Iraq or the war on drugs or the war on sex? The government won't be giving that money back to me even if they do decide to straighten up their act.

There's only two reasons I should be paying taxes. The first is the infrastructure of this country that everyone enjoys, like roads and schools. The second is protective measures for my fellow citizens, like ensuring that they have food and a roof over their heads. My money should not be buying the poor luxuries like cable tv or cigarettes, nor should it be wasted by my government on functions or facilities that don't fulfill one of those two objectives, with the possible exception of the political system as that is supposed to support the first two.

In an ideal world, my fellow citizens would have enough to eat and have adequate healthcare, but unless there's some reason they can't work, they shouldn't be getting free handouts. Australia apparently has a pretty good system where anyone can get basic medical care. Why not import that? Why not improve our public transportation system or our school system instead of giving my tax money to people who often can't or don't know how to invest it properly and assuming that it's enough and that they will use it appropritately? I don't think this would take too much of my money. If anything, it should take less of my money.

[protege]

I don't want to speak for daleduke17, but a lot of the people around here that don't favor universal health care have that opinion from having talk radio shows beat it over their head since 1994 or so (when Hilary Clinton tried to get momentum for it and the Republicans went ape) that it's bad.

I don't think it's so much that...but you get the government involved in *anything* and they'll fuck it up. For example (and speaking of infrastructure), one of the local bridges had its deck drop about 8 inches...and the local transit authority has no idea why. Never mind that PA has the *worst* roads on the planet, simply because they weren't built well to begin with...but also aren't maintained worth a damn. Also, the other reason Hilary's health care plan failed...was that the *industry* didn't want it either.

[Boozy]

My dad was talking to an old family friend who lives in Michigan. He's a farmer, and has to pay his own health insurance. For his wife, his hired man, and his two children. He can not afford to cover himself.

His premiums run to almost $100,000 a year.

My dad, when raising his children as a farmer in Canada, was also responsible for a number of people: his wife, his FOUR children, and two hired hands.

We got full health coverage from the government. And let me assure you, we did NOT pay $100,000 a year in taxes.

Health care costs SOAR in free-market run systems. Its because of the insurance factor.

The same friend, our Michigan farmer, was having knee problems. He went to the doctor at his wife's urging. He was reluctant to go because he was the only member of the family not covered by insurance.

The doctor takes a look at him and says, "You need surgery."
Friend says, "Shit. How much?"
Doctor says "$8000."
Friend says, "I don't have insurance."
Doctor thinks for a minute, then says, "I'll do it for $2000."

That's the effect free market health care has on health care costs. If he'd had insurance, or Medicare or Medicaid, that surgery would have been billed out at 4 times the actual cost.

Despite all the hysteria spread by the Republicans about "socialized" health care, the fact remains that the Canadian public system provides equivalent service for half the cost of that of their friends to the south.

[AFPheonix]

Actually, the federal government has executed a number of pursuits really well. Social Security comes to mind. It would probably remain solvent for far longer if other parts of the government would stop bloody raiding its trust fund.
Veteran's hospitals are some of the most efficient around. Yes, we hear horror stories now and again and some are having trouble now, but that's because the DoD did not plan well enough for vets who would actually survive traumatic wounds that normally soldiers would die from. Yay for science making better in-field care possible.

You also have to keep in mind that different layers of government have different competency levels. You are currently complaining about your local government.
Amazingly enough, YOU have more control over it than you do national government. Get involved!

Back to the topic of health care, The US spends more per capita on health care expenditures than any of the countries with socialized medical plans. How's that for ironic?

[TheRoo]

Not only do we spend more per capita, but we are behind other industrialized countries on most health indicators.

[machinest]

A big part of the problem is that the US health care system is not really a system it is many independent providers contracting with each other and the public .This leads to popular high profile technologies being over supplied while less "glamorous" needs are neglected.

[Seshat]

A big part of the problem is that the US health care system is not really a system it is many independent providers contracting with each other and the public .This leads to popular high profile technologies being over supplied while less "glamorous" needs are neglected.

Indeed. When the medical system was checking out my breast lump, my doctors used a sliding system of tests. Simple palpation was first. Nice and cheap, and may well have been able to rule out cancer. It didn't, so we went to ultrasound. Not as cheap, but minimal harm and again, it could have defined it as a non-issue. Again, it didn't, so mammogram time.

Fortunately for me, the radiologists and the specialist in breast disease both decided I didn't have cancer (phew!) but I do have a breast illness which will mean I need regular mammograms (argh).

I did the ultrasound and the mammogram at the same place, and the radiological specialists looked at the ultrasound while I waited and read a magazine. They decided the result wasn't specific enough and had the authority to call for the mammogram 'if necessary'.

There are other fancier and more expensive technologies that would have been called into play if the simple ones didn't define the problem; but with the system we have here, we just went up the scale, starting from 'cheap and noninvasive', and going no further than we had to.