alternatives to taxation

[bus2bondi]

that's one of the reasons i've been searching for alternatives. i agree with chaz about the health tax because well, i cannot find any other solution as of yet that doesn't lead into the same thing wearing new clothes..

i want to find a way that doesn't force anyone into anything, but works for everyone..

[The Voice of Time]

The incumbent Pope signed this into action. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/ ... LX20120921

I thought that tax disappeared hundreds of years ago? Catholics still pay taxes O.o never heard of that except in history class concerning the medieval ages and up to the 19th century.

(Norway is protestant but seriously, strange I haven't heard of the tax. Thought the pope made money on wine farms and stuff like that around the world. That is: business)

[bus2bondi]

grassroots some might say.. well, i'm for that as well. but again same thing over and over again... so, i'm trying to find something that breaks into this cyclical argument and works for everyone somehow. maybe not perfectly, but better than before.

[bus2bondi]

for instance, how could socialized medicine work for grassroots non-socialized medicine advocates? and vice versa? what are the main bitchings and gripes of each party? etc? how to address those?

[bus2bondi]

it's got to be optional somehow.

[ForgedinHell]

Libertarianism gets you there, also a flat-tax would help reduce taxes, educating people that using the state to steal from others is as immoral as slavery was would also help.

Why do you think you have to start from scratch?

[chaz wyman]

it's got to be optional somehow.

There is a non-tax paying option. Fuck off and create your own country. (see how far you get)
Failing that you can go and live in prison - its completely tax-free.

[chaz wyman]

for instance, how could socialized medicine work for grassroots non-socialized medicine advocates? and vice versa? what are the main bitchings and gripes of each party? etc? how to address those?

It works by them having the right to walk into any doctor's surgery or hospital and getting treated.

[chaz wyman]

Health is one issue where it is impossible to set aside enough cash for each of us to live free from the fear of illness.

Some people gamble by paying an insurance company, other countries have more or less state provision.

Generally the less you pay to insurance company parasites the better. Insurance company's main job is to AVOID paying out because they are not motivated to heal but to make money. Their aim is to maximise profits, and so get more income than they pay to the health provider; balancing litigation costs against, claim refusal, and spend outs.
Insurance companies have Death Panels deciding how little they can get away with paying.

What you laughingly call 'socialist medicine' is more efficient and delivers more for less money due to the fact that they are not funding insurance company profits, which cream off around 15-20% of basic health care costs.
So, in this instance MORE TAX please - less insurance.

i think you are right, and i think it should be luxury tax that funds health. are there any arguments against luxury tax as opposed to other forms of tax?

I suppose it depends how you define 'luxury'. Health care is a luxury for most people in the world, including 10 million Americans

[ForgedinHell]

Health is one issue where it is impossible to set aside enough cash for each of us to live free from the fear of illness.

Some people gamble by paying an insurance company, other countries have more or less state provision.

Generally the less you pay to insurance company parasites the better. Insurance company's main job is to AVOID paying out because they are not motivated to heal but to make money. Their aim is to maximise profits, and so get more income than they pay to the health provider; balancing litigation costs against, claim refusal, and spend outs.
Insurance companies have Death Panels deciding how little they can get away with paying.

What you laughingly call 'socialist medicine' is more efficient and delivers more for less money due to the fact that they are not funding insurance company profits, which cream off around 15-20% of basic health care costs.
So, in this instance MORE TAX please - less insurance.

i think you are right, and i think it should be luxury tax that funds health. are there any arguments against luxury tax as opposed to other forms of tax?

I suppose it depends how you define 'luxury'. Health care is a luxury for most people in the world, including 10 million Americans

Actually, the US has had socialized medicine for decades. And, one of the reasons healthcare is so expensive is because of socialism. Regulations alone account for the majority of a drug's price. Laws prohibit out-of-state insurers from competing with one another. Laws that prohibited employers from giving employees wage increases, started off the employer-paid health-insurance package, which has had a net effect of increasing the cost of medical care.

Socialized medicine, and I assume you are pointing to Europe's greater socialization than what exists in the US, does not deliver better care. In a recent study, $44,000.00 was the average amount that was paid per cancer patient in Europe. The average life-span for these patients after getting cancer was 9.3 years. In the US, the average care was $70,000.00, but the average life span was 11.1 years, almost two years greater. So, the issue becomes, are you socialists right that spending less money and allowing patients to die is better and more efficient than what we do in America, which is try to have people live longer.

[chaz wyman]

Some people gamble by paying an insurance company, other countries have more or less state provision.

Generally the less you pay to insurance company parasites the better. Insurance company's main job is to AVOID paying out because they are not motivated to heal but to make money. Their aim is to maximise profits, and so get more income than they pay to the health provider; balancing litigation costs against, claim refusal, and spend outs.
Insurance companies have Death Panels deciding how little they can get away with paying.

What you laughingly call 'socialist medicine' is more efficient and delivers more for less money due to the fact that they are not funding insurance company profits, which cream off around 15-20% of basic health care costs.
So, in this instance MORE TAX please - less insurance.

Actually, the US has had socialized medicine for decades. And, one of the reasons healthcare is so expensive is because of socialism. .

Prove it!
Healthcare in the US is expensive because it has to support the insurance infrastructure that you don't get in the UK.
Attempts at providing a service tend to feed the insurance monster which is profit motivated.
Also, it has doctors in fear of litigation because of your fascistic legal system, who tend to over-treat patients as if they had a blank cheque. None of this is of much concern in the UK. Because we have a better more caring culture less concerned with turning a profit. Doctors are on a salary and not share holders in insurance companies and hospitals.

[The Voice of Time]

Socialized medicine is a philosophical word. It doesn't mean that the health care is "good". Those 10 million people Chaz talked about may be just people who can't practically get easy access to health care. Dunno. My impression is that American public hospitals are underfunded or lacks proper administration to make them efficient...

[chaz wyman]

Socialized medicine is a philosophical word. It doesn't mean that the health care is "good". Those 10 million people Chaz talked about may be just people who can't practically get easy access to health care. Dunno. My impression is that American public hospitals are underfunded or lacks proper administration to make them efficient...

Actually the number is more like 15 millions, according to stats. This is not about physical access, but about being too poor to afford health insurance. This is the great underbelly of the US, people that do not feature in health stats, except for the fact that they do not receive any.

[ForgedinHell]

Some people gamble by paying an insurance company, other countries have more or less state provision.

Generally the less you pay to insurance company parasites the better. Insurance company's main job is to AVOID paying out because they are not motivated to heal but to make money. Their aim is to maximise profits, and so get more income than they pay to the health provider; balancing litigation costs against, claim refusal, and spend outs.
Insurance companies have Death Panels deciding how little they can get away with paying.

What you laughingly call 'socialist medicine' is more efficient and delivers more for less money due to the fact that they are not funding insurance company profits, which cream off around 15-20% of basic health care costs.
So, in this instance MORE TAX please - less insurance.

Actually, the US has had socialized medicine for decades. And, one of the reasons healthcare is so expensive is because of socialism. .

Prove it!
Healthcare in the US is expensive because it has to support the insurance infrastructure that you don't get in the UK.
Attempts at providing a service tend to feed the insurance monster which is profit motivated.
Also, it has doctors in fear of litigation because of your fascistic legal system, who tend to over-treat patients as if they had a blank cheque. None of this is of much concern in the UK. Because we have a better more caring culture less concerned with turning a profit. Doctors are on a salary and not share holders in insurance companies and hospitals.

Prove it? You serious? Medicare, medicaid, no emergency room can refuse any patient regardless of their ability to pay, that sounds pretty socialized to me.

We also have socialist laws in the US that hand the insurance carriers monopolies, so there is no competition to drive down prices. And the government never produces anything more efficiently than the orivate market when it comes to health care. For the government, waste is encouraged, because it results in a bigger budget for the next year. What we need to do is allow an actual free market in health care, and the prices will come down. We don't have that right now in the US. Nothing even remotely close to it.

And Chaz, you are such a buffoon. You want to discuss the legal system with an attorney? First, what is fascist about it? Second, the government has denied justice to people who suffer from medical malpractice. Laws have been enacted placing caps on damages, so the more seriously injured patients are denied justice. There is no cap on how much money a doctor can earn, so why should there be a cap on their liability? If I run a stop sign and turn someone into a wheel-chair bound person forever, there is no cap on what I have to pay.

Furthermore, the end result of limiting lawsuits against bad doctors is that those bad doctors are running around practicing medicine and harming more patients. Denying justice for victims of medical practice just serves to protect the bad doctors at the expense of the members of the community. That's not good, and should be done away with. The fact you believe medical doctors should get immunity for their bad care of patients just shows you to be the fascist. Of course, what else is new. You hate Jews, believe in conspiracy theories, hate the idea of freedom, and you fit the fascist profile perfectly. I'll continue to fight for justice for the victims of bad doctors, while you can continue to support laws to allow bad doctors to get away with harming their patients. The world would be safer if people like you did not exist.

[chaz wyman]

Some people gamble by paying an insurance company, other countries have more or less state provision.

Generally the less you pay to insurance company parasites the better. Insurance company's main job is to AVOID paying out because they are not motivated to heal but to make money. Their aim is to maximise profits, and so get more income than they pay to the health provider; balancing litigation costs against, claim refusal, and spend outs.
Insurance companies have Death Panels deciding how little they can get away with paying.

What you laughingly call 'socialist medicine' is more efficient and delivers more for less money due to the fact that they are not funding insurance company profits, which cream off around 15-20% of basic health care costs.
So, in this instance MORE TAX please - less insurance.

Healthcare in the US is expensive because it has to support the insurance infrastructure that you don't get in the UK.
Attempts at providing a service tend to feed the insurance monster which is profit motivated.
Also, it has doctors in fear of litigation because of your fascistic legal system, who tend to over-treat patients as if they had a blank cheque. None of this is of much concern in the UK. Because we have a better more caring culture less concerned with turning a profit. Doctors are on a salary and not share holders in insurance companies and hospitals.

Prove it? You serious? Medicare, medicaid, no emergency room can refuse any patient regardless of their ability to pay, that sounds pretty socialized to me.

That sounds like a really good idea to me.

Maybe you would prefer that the police just scrape people off the road and put them in a dumpster to die?

Your problem seems to be that you don't have a fucking clue what 'socialised' means.