Universal health care in a universe created by God

[Immanuel Can]

No, taxes would need to be increased, obviously (perhaps more than doubled if they want to also have the largest military in the world).

Who gets that new tax burden? You and I know it won't be Nancy Pelosi, don't we?

Since the rich already pay the vast majority of taxes, and we already have a progressive tax system in place, you'd have to tax the middle class. In other words, the person who's going to have to pony up the dough is...Gary.

Have you done that yet?

I told you just below that that the top 100% make about double what the bottom 90% make. I would suggest raising their taxes first.

How are you going to guarantee that Nancy Pelosi pays you, and when you confiscate her money, how are you going to keep that money flowing?

[Gary Childress]

Who gets that new tax burden? You and I know it won't be Nancy Pelosi, don't we?

Since the rich already pay the vast majority of taxes, and we already have a progressive tax system in place, you'd have to tax the middle class. In other words, the person who's going to have to pony up the dough is...Gary.

Have you done that yet?

I told you just below that that the top 100% make about double what the bottom 90% make. I would suggest raising their taxes first.

How are you going to guarantee that Nancy Pelosi pays you, and when you confiscate her money, how are you going to keep that money flowing?

Unless Nancy Pelosi wants to evade taxes and get fined for it, she would have to pay her share. And if she is part of the top 10% in income earners, then she would have to continue paying her taxes for as long as she is part of the top 10% of income earners.

[Immanuel Can]

I told you just below that that the top 100% make about double what the bottom 90% make. I would suggest raising their taxes first.

How are you going to guarantee that Nancy Pelosi pays you, and when you confiscate her money, how are you going to keep that money flowing?

Unless Nancy Pelosi wants to evade taxes and get fined for it, she would have to pay her share.

Good luck with ol' Nancy. Get back to me when you've succeeded in cornering the old bat.

[phyllo]

It's fortunate that most people want to pay for a universal health care system

[Immanuel Can]

It's fortunate that most people want to pay for a universal health care system

Really? What's your evidence for that?

[phyllo]

These systems are in democratic countries. If the people didn't want it, they would have voted it away.

[Immanuel Can]

These systems are in democratic countries. If the people didn't want it, they would have voted it away.

No evidence? That would be Socialism, alright.

[phyllo]

Voting for universal healthcare is not evidence that the people want it and are willing to pay for it?

You funny.

[Immanuel Can]

Voting for universal healthcare is not evidence that the people want it and are willing to pay for it?

There is no ballot that asks, "Do you want universal healthcare?" If there ever had been, people might have voted for it, and they might have not, if it added, "...and bankrupt your economy, and have no money for any other need or social program." But since we've never seen it happen, we'll never know, either way.

What we do know is that universal health care is unrealistically expensive. That is, unless you've got a scheme to pay for it that nobody's seen yet.

[phyllo]

There is no ballot that asks, "Do you want universal healthcare?"

Sure there is ... every election is about "where should tax money be spent?"

What we do know is that universal health care is unrealistically expensive.

It's been paid for in dozens of countries for dozens of years.

[Gary Childress]

Voting for universal healthcare is not evidence that the people want it and are willing to pay for it?

There is no ballot that asks, "Do you want universal healthcare?" If there ever had been, people might have voted for it, and they might have not, if it added, "...and bankrupt your economy, and have no money for any other need or social program." But since we've never seen it happen, we'll never know, either way.

What we do know is that universal health care is unrealistically expensive. That is, unless you've got a scheme to pay for it that nobody's seen yet.

Maybe if you express more gratitude, you'll stop complaining about the Canadian healthcare system, and you'll be happier. Aren't we supposed to be thankful that we have any healthcare at all? That's what I've been told.

[FlashDangerpants]

But the whole thing about it being awful for society if too much wealth accumulates into too few hands is tenuous and presumptive historicism. I wouldn't base my argument on it if I had any alternative. It holds historical truth but that was when land was the basis of wealth.

As you know, economics is not my strong hand, but it seems to me that wealth has always been a product of what other people will do for you.

That sounds more like power than money I think, wealth is a pretty good way to buy that though.

The most boneheaded way to get people to serve you is force. Next on the whatthefuckery list is making preposterous metaphysical promises. Third is law, which might be predicated on the former, and upheld by the first. Then there are those that provide something that people actually value; you know: Rembrandt, Mozart and the other bloke who did something quite good. Am I hopelessly off course?

Seems about right. The history of money, wealth, and of course class and power are all bound up around each other. For the full exposition of Marx's account of history in Das Kapital you should of course report for instruction by the only living expert to be found in this world - mister Can. But from memory, what you are discussing there resembles his theory, which is still fairly influential in history departments.

The version of it I have in mind would begin with the hunter gatherers, who famously don't wear trousers, and thus are also without pockets. These happy egalitarian wanderers spent a hundred thousand years following food around and eating what they could every day. Everybody worked in the food gathering industry, leaving nobody left over to invent trousers or be the army. In such a society, even the king is just a guy who shits behind the same bush you do and picks his own berries from it afterwards....

... yadda yadda yadda, somebody comes up with farming, agrarian societies no longer follow the food around, they plant, harvest, and store a surplus. But they also have to deal with pastoralist nomads who raid them. So somebody sets up a system of taxation, taking from
the agricultural surplus of a producing class to feed a warrior class who defend the borders.

... continuing yadda... the lead warrior has a stool, a cudgel and a hat, which makes him king - and those are still the regalia of kings everywhere in the world today... and then somebody invents religion .... additional yadda ... then you end up with Immanuel Can. After that we must turn to the wise words of Douglas Adams: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."

[FlashDangerpants]

There has to be some joke that begins with the psychopath telling the manic-depressive to just be thankful and stop being depressed.

[Will Bouwman]

5 trillion/year, minimum, perpetually. Where are you getting it?

The US already spends 4.5 trillion a year on health, and still the Americans who can afford to, have to pay more for insurance premiums than typical national health contributions in the UK. Despite this, the US has higher infant mortality and lower life expectancy. The NHS is measurably better than the healthcare for profit model imposed on US citizens. They are simutaneously being ripped off, lied to and dying younger.

[Will Bouwman]

Jesus Christ:
"Love your neighbour as yourself."

Mr Can:

Good luck with ol' Nancy. Get back to me when you've succeeded in cornering the old bat.

From which, assuming Mr Can really is a Christian, we can conclude that he shares the same regard for himself that everyone else has.