Philosophy Now Forum

thanks chaz, there are alot of reasons why an american form of the NHS wouldn't stand in the U.S.. i know everyone knows every single counter arguement of each party already, and even those tarrying everywhere in between, if i'm wrong and there are those who don't.. i apologize. but i'm not going to get into them, because it's not going to work. not here.

i don't mean that as an insult, i'm just saying, it's not going to work.

i wonder if there was something that would include insurance, grass roots, and then those various people who fall deep into the left and deep into the right and everything else in between could work non-governmentally?

sort of like, the government is still there for various issues, but say health..

what if there was an organization as the left as we know it... but it was non-governmental? it did its thing because that's its thing.. but it had no hither nor tither with the right... in terms of health at least.

for example, how could there be a non-governmental form of the NHS in the U.S. that doesn't collide as much as it does now with its entire opposite?

bus2bondi wrote:for example, how could there be a non-governmental form of the NHS in the U.S. that doesn't collide as much as it does now with its entire opposite?

What do you mean by a non governmental form - why would that be desirable?

How would such a thing fund itself?

bus2bondi wrote:thanks chaz, there are alot of reasons why an american form of the NHS wouldn't stand in the U.S.. i know everyone knows every single counter arguement of each party already, and even those tarrying everywhere in between, if i'm wrong and there are those who don't.. i apologize. but i'm not going to get into them, because it's not going to work. not here.

i don't mean that as an insult, i'm just saying, it's not going to work.

It could be made to work. But it would take a political revolution, where the rich were not in control.
It would involve real people power. For this you would also have to break the power of the media (also controlled by the rich) which pretends that nothing is wrong with US health, and likes to denigrate a better system such as we have in the UK.

chaz wyman wrote:

bus2bondi wrote:for example, how could there be a non-governmental form of the NHS in the U.S. that doesn't collide as much as it does now with its entire opposite?

What do you mean by a non governmental form - why would that be desirable?

How would such a thing fund itself?

well, because a governmental form of the NHS or even something similar in terms of 'universal healthcare' in the U.S. wouldn't work because the arguements against it are too strong and i also agree with many of those arguements against it myself. and again, there are all those who are in between..

some of those against it wouldn't necessarily not think it a good thing, or be bothered by it in anyway, if it did not have what those people feel are negatives toward them and what they believe. (i apologize for not listing all of those but i couldn't possibly get into every single arguement that the right and left and those in between have against eachother right now, not even on this one policy area).

i'm proposing that a non-governmental form of the NHS in the U.S. could very well be a wonderful alternative that would benefit pretty much everyone.

one example of how this would be desirable.. one of the essential recurring arguments against it is funding. say for example you want to buy a new tractor (i am thinking of this because the other day i missed my turn into McDonalds and had to turn around in a tractor dealership ) well anyways, say someone wants to buy a new tractor but the tax on it pissed this person off and that person has their beliefs as to why they don't want to be taxed on it. and the business itself might even feel that it's bad for business. and some might even feel it has a negative effect on the economy..

so a healthcare system that is non-governmental would not effect this person, the business or the economy.

what i mean by non-governmental form is that those who are fighting for universal healthcare in the U.S. and similar could take those efforts and resources used in that fight to create something that is what it is, but.. non-governmental. so that it would be a less risky, longterm, desirable solution for everyone.

that might sound like grassroots and insurance.. i think grassroots is wonderful, and insurance can be wonderful too... but... there are the counterarguments that share the view that that isn't enough... etc... right or wrong... those counterarguments will remain and just saying it's going to be one or the other isn't going to work. because it is just not ever going to be one or the other.

if even for a brief moment, something might slightly happen where it is but not entirely, and not satisfactorily to everyone or even most everyone, and there will always be the other side going back at it, and that might be gone tomorrow.

for example, you said you have cancer. say hypothetically you live in the U.S.. all of a sudden a bill passed that would benefit you somehow. and then in the next four years that was gone. during this time, other people with different and varied beliefs are upset about how this bill is effecting them. maybe they win the next time, or maybe even partially, and now it is you who will lose. and the coins are continually tossed up in the air, and never entirely effective.

so, what i'm proposing is that we try to find a way around this. and it seems that an ngo or non-governmental entity might be the solution.

chaz wyman wrote:How would such a thing fund itself?

hmmm, how would such a thing fund itself. that's the thing! it will fund itself without asking those who don't believe in it to fund it because those who believe in it will fund it! because they believe in it so much! and because of all the time and money wasted going against those who don't believe in it could actually be put into what they believe! and it wouldn't be a gamble and it would be longstanding. and the people who don't believe in it will be happy with that too!

so how would it fund itself? by the people who believe in it. those people are allready there. the technicalities of a move towards something like this from what we have now seem and are immense. but can be done. what is more immense are the things many are trying to accomplish right now, and that's not working well enough, for many of the reasons i've mentioned above.

chaz wyman wrote:It could be made to work. But it would take a political revolution, where the rich were not in control.
It would involve real people power. For this you would also have to break the power of the media (also controlled by the rich) which pretends that nothing is wrong with US health, and likes to denigrate a better system such as we have in the UK.

i don't think what i've proposed would need any political warfare of any sort because all it would entail is what i've (in general) described above. if it did not effect those who are against it (and helped them too), and only helped those who are for it. where is the problem?

and again, i'm not suggesting some utopia, but.. come on... this isn't anything close to that.

There is no proper alternative to taxation. The only proper function of government is social integration (like a traffic cop keeping people from running over each other) and the the protection of life and property (as overseen by the government, since government itself should not own, operate, support or promote anything). The ultimate and only proper source of revenue for this function is a tax on the property being protected. All property should be taxed with no exemptions, and it is theoretically the fairest tax possible at the lowest tax rate.

bobevenson wrote:There is no proper alternative to taxation. The only proper function of government is social integration (like a traffic cop keeping people from running over each other) and the the protection of life and property (as overseen by the government, since government itself should not own, operate, support or promote anything). The ultimate and only proper source of revenue for this function is a tax on the property being protected. All property should be taxed with no exemptions, and it is theoretically the fairest tax possible at the lowest tax rate.

Were you to change all tax and transfer it to property, then you would find that people would get rid of it, live with less and you would end up with not enough tax to go around. The result would be that you either move back to tax on earnings and sales (which represents 90% of tax now) , or force more people out of property.

chaz wyman wrote:

bobevenson wrote:There is no proper alternative to taxation. The only proper function of government is social integration (like a traffic cop keeping people from running over each other) and the the protection of life and property (as overseen by the government, since government itself should not own, operate, support or promote anything). The ultimate and only proper source of revenue for this function is a tax on the property being protected. All property should be taxed with no exemptions, and it is theoretically the fairest tax possible at the lowest tax rate.

Were you to change all tax and transfer it to property, then you would find that people would get rid of it, live with less and you would end up with not enough tax to go around. The result would be that you either move back to tax on earnings and sales (which represents 90% of tax now) , or force more people out of property.

Have you absolutely lost your marbles??? Property is the only wealth there is. I'm talking about anything that has intrinsic market value. Nobody is going to destroy property. People may sell property or give it away, but nobody is going to destroy it. Your argument is beyond laughable, it's bizarre!!!

bobevenson wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

bobevenson wrote:There is no proper alternative to taxation. The only proper function of government is social integration (like a traffic cop keeping people from running over each other) and the the protection of life and property (as overseen by the government, since government itself should not own, operate, support or promote anything). The ultimate and only proper source of revenue for this function is a tax on the property being protected. All property should be taxed with no exemptions, and it is theoretically the fairest tax possible at the lowest tax rate.

Were you to change all tax and transfer it to property, then you would find that people would get rid of it, live with less and you would end up with not enough tax to go around. The result would be that you either move back to tax on earnings and sales (which represents 90% of tax now) , or force more people out of property.

Have you absolutely lost your marbles??? Property is the only wealth there is. I'm talking about anything that has intrinsic market value. Nobody is going to destroy property. People may sell property or give it away, but nobody is going to destroy it. Your argument is beyond laughable, it's bizarre!!!

If you think 'property' is anything with market value then you are a moron. What you are saying is that the tax system stays exactly as it is. You have nothing to offer, as usual.

Under Evensonomics, property is defined as anything with intrinsic market value. Stocks, bonds and currency are merely pieces of paper with no intrinsic value, they are simply mediums of exchange of property with intrinsic market value. Under this definition, property becomes the only basis for taxation, fool. Every other form of taxation is a scam that the gullible public buys and conniving politicians sell!

bobevenson wrote:Under Evensonomics, property is defined as anything with intrinsic market value. Stocks, bonds and currency are merely pieces of paper with no intrinsic value, they are simply mediums of exchange of property with intrinsic market value. Under this definition, property becomes the only basis for taxation, fool. Every other form of taxation is a scam that the gullible public buys and conniving politicians sell!

Obviously you do not know the meaning of intrinsic.