I got an idea! Let's tax fast food!

[Prince Valiant]

It's coming sooner than you think:




New Jersey Lawmakers Consider Tax On Fast Food
'Sin' Tax Could Help Fund Struggling Hospitals
Reporting: Christine Sloan

WINDSOR, N.J. (CBS) ― The sputtering economy has caused an increase in prices of many staples including gasoline, rice, ice cream, even beer. Now some lawmakers in New Jersey are considering taking food taxes a step further and install a proverbial "sin" tax on fast food.

Yes, the idea of marking up your favorite fast food burger or pack of fries is actually being tossed around, and it's not settling well with many residents.

"They're taxing everything. Now you're gonna tax fast food? That's crazy," said Newark resident Miriam Robertson.

Added Livingston resident Tina Abrahamian: "No one wants to be taxed. I mean, it's a necessity to eat and people need to eat and with everything skyrocketing, that's the last thing we want to tax."

The thought of taxing a Big Mac or a Wendy's burger came up at a New Jersey Hospital Association meeting where Gov. Jon S. Corzine was asked if it could be an option to help fund struggling hospitals. At the meeting, he reportedly called it a "constructive suggestion."

A spokesperson for the governor, however, told CBS 2 on Wednesday:

"The governor is open to reasonable solutions to help solve our financing problems, but there are no plans for any fast food tax."

State Sen. Richard Codey has been quoted as saying a tax on fast food "is a tax on the poor." And plenty of residents agree.

"[It cost] $12.86 for [fries] and this little chicken wrap, and they want to tax that? You're serious?" asked Newark resident Saladine Fuller. "If they raise it, I'll stop buying it."

Still, some say taxing fast food isn't such a bad idea.

"I think this country has gone too much in the direction of fast and unhealthy food, and if people are taxed they may terminate that and turn toward more healthy foods," said West Orange resident Maureen Felix.

For now, the fast food tax is just an idea. Detroit lawmakers once toyed with it, but it never passed into law.

Taxing to control behavior...THIS is what scares me about gov't. And of course, some stupid liberals would applaud this as "brave" leadership. :rolleyes:

[lordairgtar]

You notice that everythng is a tax on the poor? Well, maybe they would make better food choices then. That's not a bad idea.

[T-Bag]

Um...isn't fast food already taxed? At least the window shows you pay tax....and I sure as hell don't pay the advertised price.

[Rocket Power]

Taxing to control behavior...THIS is what scares me about gov't. And of course, some stupid liberals would applaud this as "brave" leadership. :rolleyes:
Quoted for truth!

[Al]

You notice that everythng is a tax on the poor? Well, maybe they would make better food choices then. That's not a bad idea.

America! The only country where the poor people are the fattest members of society!

[Karps TA]

We need a big volcano to create another continent so we can try to make America #2. This one's not really turning out the way the founders expected I think....

[moels]

The previous 2 posts FTMFW!

[Karps TA]

Hey I got an idea. This worked in the past. Can we fill the New Jersey Harbor Port with Whopper's in protest?

[lordairgtar]

Hey I got an idea. This worked in the past. Can we fill the New Jersey Harbor Port with Whopper's in protest?

What! And get the EPA on your ass?:rolf

[Knyghtmare]

If I wanna be a fat ****, I will be a fat ****. Its not for ******* politicians to decide what I can and cant eat. This has nothing to do with "maybe if they have to pay more they wont buy it" (That worked with cigs right?) and it has nothing to do with trying to help people out by making them not want to eat fast food... What this has to do with is that A LOT of people eat fast food, more these days than ever before... Tax what people want and whats on demand just simply to make more money. Period.

Just like gasoline.

[Al]

Well, since about november, I somehow gained about 25 lbs. I think all of the Culvers and Qdoba I have been eating has done it. My waist has expanded to a serpentene belt of 32 inches, the biggest I've ever been.

I'm for a tax on unhealthy foods, but only if it is going to support a national universal healthcare system. Same thing for alcohol and cigs.

[Rocket Power]

I am against more/higher taxes, and universal heathcare.

[Al]

It is the Christian Conservative in me that makes me support universal healtcare. Just think about Luke 10: 25-37.


BTW- for the first time in my life, I am no longer "underweight"!!!

[Z28Roxy]

Just like gasoline.

The majority of gasoline taxes go toward building and maintaining roads and bridges. It's pretty fair that those who use the roads more often should pay more :confused

[Prince Valiant]

It is the Christian Conservative in me that makes me support universal healtcare. Just think about Luke 10: 25-37.The story of the Good Samaritan is a story of charity, pity, and personally helping your fellow man...not an passage advocating piousity with the rather indifferent spending of other people (ie gov't) money.

It's humorous when people wish to help other people out....but only if it doesn't require any of their money nor any of their time.

And this is the mantra of tax and spend liberals...we need to pay more taxes to do good works.

However, when the time comes to give personally, many fall short.

A study done very recently showed this...a comparison b/w blue and red state/county charitable giving showed that red state and counties tended to give larger percentages of their incomes (this also correlated to percentage of population that considered themselves "churchgoing"), and overall donated more money and more time to charitable causes despite having a lower income on average.

Nader captures the attitudes of what I would call the "typical liberal" when he stated (paraphrasing) "that charity would be obsolete in the presence of a responsible gov't"

And of course, we've seen how successful gov't programs that target the poor are...they really do a number on them poor souls.

[Knyghtmare]

The majority of gasoline taxes go toward building and maintaining roads and bridges. It's pretty fair that those who use the roads more often should pay more :confused

I misspoke. I didnt mean gas taxes, I was talking about the soaring of the gas prices as a whole not so much the tax.

[wrath]

They already tax prepared food: it's called sales tax.

The only way they're going to get lower-income people to eat "healthier" is to make it cheaper to do so. Getting your caloric intake for the day costs $5 from McDonalds (or less if you buy off the dollar plan and don't get a drink). To prepare it yourself, and get FDA recommended amounts of everything, is over $13. We spend more money on "fresh" produce than we do on EVERY OTHER THING WE BUY that goes into our bodies. And we only buy it on sale and still don't get the "recommended" amount.

[Z28Roxy]

And this is the mantra of tax and spend liberals...


As opposed to borrow and spend conservatives.

[Mr Twigbert]

Another tax.. Just what we need..

[flyin_blue_egg]

maybe they need to stop worring about this sh!t and worry about getting our gas prices lower!!!!!

[Prince Valiant]

As opposed to borrow and spend conservatives.:rolleyes:

You simply highlight 2 things: 1) the problem of a gov't that is too large...something liberals aren't opposed to by any stretch of the imagination; and 2) that you lack any understanding of what fiscal conservatism is.

[Cjburn]

It is the Christian Conservative in me that makes me support universal healtcare. Just think about Luke 10: 25-37.


BTW- for the first time in my life, I am no longer "underweight"!!!

To FORCE me to pay for someone else's healthcare is neither Christian nor conservative. That response offends every fiber of my being. Christianity is ALL ABOUT CHOICE. You chose to sin, you chose to ask forgiveness, and you are forgiven. NOWHERE in the bible does it say we HAVE to be a loving, caring person is, but rather one's choice to pursue a life modeled after Jesus Christ is what our life (as a Christian) is all about. Christian's are asked to want to do good, for the willful choice to do good, rather than decision to be made under fear for repercussions later (forcible executions of said acts under fear). We understand our options (as a Christian) and we understand the consequences for such actions. Choice, not force, is what is defined as our greatest gift from a loving, forgiving god. If you think conservatism means a large government program you couldn't be farther left of the truth.l

[Al]

To FORCE me to pay for someone else's healthcare is neither Christian nor conservative. That response offends every fiber of my being. Christianity is ALL ABOUT CHOICE. You chose to sin, you chose to ask forgiveness, and you are forgiven. NOWHERE in the bible does it say we HAVE to be a loving, caring person is, but rather one's choice to pursue a life modeled after Jesus Christ is what our life (as a Christian) is all about. Christian's are asked to want to do good, for the willful choice to do good, rather than decision to be made under fear for repercussions later (forcible executions of said acts under fear). We understand our options (as a Christian) and we understand the consequences for such actions. Choice, not force, is what is defined as our greatest gift from a loving, forgiving god. If you think conservatism means a large government program you couldn't be farther left of the truth.l

Love thy neighbor.

[Prince Valiant]

Love thy neighbor with other peoples money. :rolleyes:

[Al]

:rolleyes:

Well, we all pitch in for the police and fire fighters...right?

[lordairgtar]

It is the Christian Conservative in me that makes me support universal healtcare. Just think about Luke 10: 25-37.

HMMMM, you use the story of the Good Samaritan to justify your support of universal healthcare, how strange.:shades I would say that Jesus meant for YOU to deal with your neighbor"s needs, not pawn him off to some government program. You speak more like the guy asking Jesus who his neighbor was.

[Karps TA]

The govt does such a standup job of running everything else on time and on budget, I can't see why people wouldn't want them handling something as trivial as healthcare. Just look at the prime condition of our VA hospitals which are run by the govt. Wow, that would be awesome to be given that kind of care for free! I can't tell you how lucky the folks are that actually had to serve our country are for getting that kind of attention and care.

[Prince Valiant]

Well, we all pitch in for the police and fire fighters...right?So where does that justification end?

"We shouldn't have unlimited welfare"

Response: "Well, we all pitch in for the police and fire fighters...right?" It's in the vien of "luvin' thy nieghbor, right"?

Ah touche!

Please. :rolleyes:

You know, all that Qdoba you purportedly eat could probably easily cover the cost of an individual health-insurance plan. 10 meals there a month would easily cover the cost...I've seen plans advertise as low as 47/month, and locally on tv for 65/month. Oh, but you could never sacrifice your Qdoba :rolleyes:

[lordairgtar]

You know, all that Qdoba you purportedly eat could probably easily cover the cost of an individual health-insurance plan. 10 meals there a month would easily cover the cost...I've seen plans advertise as low as 47/month, and locally on tv for 65/month.
Those are not true insurance plans or HMOs, they are more like discounts on meds and services and the choices of where and who you see are very limited. They will also NOT take you on if you have pre-existing conditions.

[Prince Valiant]

Those are not true insurance plans or HMOs, they are more like discounts on meds and services and the choices of where and who you see are very limited. They will also NOT take you on if you have pre-existing conditions.Nope, incorrect. To take part in an HMO and to recieve insured coverage requires as little as 47 dollars a month. Of course as in any HMO, the choices given to you as who you could see are restricted. What would you expect?

Yep, significant cost may come out of pocket, however, devestating cost (such as one may incur if they needed treatment for cancer) would be covered after a high deductable is reached (usually 4-5K). Supplement that with a HSA (which is tax free and applies to the deductable), and you could recieve fairly significant coverage for less, MUCH less than traditional insurance cost after the first year (assuming you don't spend your the full amount of your HSA every year). Most of these plans include 1 yearly physical for free.

[Al]

$5,000 deductable plan?

I also don't see why some people have to pay more for conditions acquired at birth or inadvertently. I don't see how that can that be justified.

[STANMAN]

To FORCE me to pay for someone else's healthcare is neither Christian nor conservative. That response offends every fiber of my being. Christianity is ALL ABOUT CHOICE. You chose to sin, you chose to ask forgiveness, and you are forgiven. NOWHERE in the bible does it say we HAVE to be a loving, caring person is, but rather one's choice to pursue a life modeled after Jesus Christ is what our life (as a Christian) is all about. Christian's are asked to want to do good, for the willful choice to do good, rather than decision to be made under fear for repercussions later (forcible executions of said acts under fear). We understand our options (as a Christian) and we understand the consequences for such actions. Choice, not force, is what is defined as our greatest gift from a loving, forgiving god. If you think conservatism means a large government program you couldn't be farther left of the truth.l

We don't choose to sin, we are born into it.

[Z28Roxy]

:rolleyes:

You simply highlight 2 things: 1) the problem of a gov't that is too large...something liberals aren't opposed to by any stretch of the imagination; and 2) that you lack any understanding of what fiscal conservatism is.

Educate me then.

[HITMAN]

I'm for a tax on unhealthy foods, but only if it is going to support a national universal healthcare system. Same thing for alcohol and cigs.

:rolleyes:

I'm for taking your socialist head and pushing it down between your shoulders. This would this benefit you in a few ways. First, by making it impossible to see the menu board at your above mentioned favorite fast food eateries, you would have to order strictly by memory. Lacking variety, you would soon grow tired of the same old fare and eventually cut down on dining at those places as often. Second, you wouldn't be able to see or smell all of that delicious food being served, so you would not order as much, saving both money AND calories. Finally, because it would be extremely hard to eat in this condition, you would be back down to your formerly undernourished condition in no time.

Also, there would be one added benefit. This situation would leave you unable to see your keyboard or monitor very well so it might cut down on some of your rather bizarre posting. :thumbsup

[HITMAN]

Educate me then.

Fiscal Conservatism
Fiscal conservatism is the economic philosophy of prudence in government spending and debt. Edmund Burke, in his 'Reflections on the Revolution in France', articulated its principles:

...It is to the property of the citizen, and not to the demands of the creditor of the state, that the first and original faith of civil society is pledged. The claim of the citizen is prior in time, paramount in title, superior in equity. The fortunes of individuals, whether possessed by acquisition or by descent or in virtue of a participation in the goods of some community, were no part of the creditor's security, expressed or implied... The public, whether represented by a monarch or by a senate, can pledge nothing but the public estate; and it can have no public estate except in what it derives from a just and proportioned imposition upon the citizens at large.

In other words, a government does not have the right to run up large debts and then throw the burden on the taxpayer; the taxpayers' right not to be taxed oppressively takes precedence even over paying back debts a government may have imprudently undertaken.

[SSDude]

^^^Amen

[Z28Roxy]

Fiscal Conservatism
Fiscal conservatism is the economic philosophy of prudence in government spending and debt. Edmund Burke, in his 'Reflections on the Revolution in France', articulated its principles:

...It is to the property of the citizen, and not to the demands of the creditor of the state, that the first and original faith of civil society is pledged. The claim of the citizen is prior in time, paramount in title, superior in equity. The fortunes of individuals, whether possessed by acquisition or by descent or in virtue of a participation in the goods of some community, were no part of the creditor's security, expressed or implied... The public, whether represented by a monarch or by a senate, can pledge nothing but the public estate; and it can have no public estate except in what it derives from a just and proportioned imposition upon the citizens at large.

In other words, a government does not have the right to run up large debts and then throw the burden on the taxpayer; the taxpayers' right not to be taxed oppressively takes precedence even over paying back debts a government may have imprudently undertaken.

Ok.

So when the Chinese want their money back we just stiff them or just print more money? Do you realize what will happen to a money completely based on credit if we do that?

[Al]

[b]
In other words, a government does not have the right to run up large debts and then throw the burden on the taxpayer; the taxpayers' right not to be taxed oppressively takes precedence even over paying back debts a government may have imprudently undertaken.

Dollar for dollar, you would get a better return from a universal health care system than private. Per capita, it costs alot less. The only way you would spend more is if you were making 200k+/household.

Hypothetical Question:
If there was a universal health care system in the US, what would this do to labor unions? You always hear about benefits, so what if UAW necessitate their cost on vehicle production? The cost of a new car goes down %20?

[SSDude]

Hypothetical Question:
If there was a universal health care system in the US, what would this do to labor unions? You always hear about benefits, so what if UAW necessitate their cost on vehicle production? The cost of a new car goes down %20?

Get a clue.
The employer still bears the cost of the health care and the price of the vehicle stays the same.
Manufacturing will decline further in the US as it will become even more profitable to do it off shore.


Universal health care = Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
--Winston Churchill

[Prince Valiant]

Educate me then.Mission impossible.

[Prince Valiant]

$5,000 deductable plan?

I also don't see why some people have to pay more for conditions acquired at birth or inadvertently. I don't see how that can that be justified.No, you only see how people should just roll over and pay everything for you. Of course, the HUGE point you miss is that you claim healthcare to be unaffordable...yet right there in front of you is offered affordability, such that even someone working fast food could afford

But many carry such plans, using a tax-free HSA to pay anything toward the deductable. The beuaty of a plan like this is that it instills a true market into healthcare...

...now some argue that should not be; if you are sick, you should just be able to go to the doctor. However, it does bring back the concept of cost vs benifits.

Sure, if all we would ever get was benifits, we'd see no reason in ever doing without. Heck, we could have the gov't provide nanny's "free" of charge...however, there is a cost and society refuses to pay for it. It's simply not worth it.

There were 43,000+ deaths on the hwy's last year....if we had a strictly enforced speed limit of 15mph, we could probably reduce that number to nearly zero. Is it worth it?

One of the reasons for spiraling upward healthcare cost is that WE the consumer see little to none of the true cost of the services...we only see the benifits. Very few Americans actually KNOW what their premiums cost (mine is ~6250/year) nor what the cost per doctor/hospital visit actually run. Our employer's generally pay the premiums, and insurance pays the medical community. We rarely actually follow the bills and the cost.

eliminate that end of it, and we might actually begin to contain cost. Sure, things like cancer treatments would still be expensive, however, much of the ancillary cost would come down dramatically bringing down the overall cost of treatment.

Another benifit would be people with traditionally expensive conditions, say hemophilia. Should WE as a society have to pay for a hemophilliac that choses to engage in risky (especially for them) behavior such as skateboarding or skydiving just because they want to? Or is it not fair to introduce some cost to them so that they may moderate their activities so as to limit the overall amount of treatment and thus cost to themselves?

Also your statement of "Dollar for dollar, you would get a better return from a universal health care system than private. Per capita, it costs alot less." has been demonstrated false time and time again.

You can make a case on a "per capita" basis, but you then neglect the utilization factor. Stories of people being denied treatment easily avialable here aren't exagerated. Stories of people dying, waiting for treament that would have been done the next day here in the US aren't exagerated. Go to new york area hospitals...you actually do here a lot of "eh's?" and people do say "aboot" with alarming frequency. Canadian judges HAVE stated that they have a right to seek healthcare from private clinics and not just the gov't run ones. How great is canadian healthcare? watch dead meat and find out. (http://www.onthefencefilms.com/video/deadmeat/deadmeat.html)

Heck, on a "per capita" basis, we should just be like cuba then...it cost them 500/year for treatment (which is actually a 1/4 of what a typical cuban makes a year).

The problem with "per capita" comparisons is that you still are comparing apples and oranges.

[Syclone0044]

Christian's are asked to want to do good, for the willful choice to do good, rather than decision to be made under fear for repercussions later (forcible executions of said acts under fear).

What about the threat of being sent to "Hell" forever?

[Prince Valiant]

What about the threat of being sent to "Hell" forever?The threat of hell is used by only a small set of Christian demonimations to justify behaviour...nor is the promise of heaven even used to justify the majority of "good" behaviour in most theology.

[Z28Roxy]

Mission impossible.

You're cool. I so envy you.

Still butthurt that you contradicted yourself?

[Prince Valiant]

You're cool. I so envy you.

Still butthurt that you contradicted yourself?While it is uncertain as to whether or not you even know what the definition of "contradict" is; no, my pride is still hurt that even I couldn't explain a simple concept well enough for you to understand.

But that's a different continent/culture. :rolleyes:

[Al]

Get a clue.
The employer still bears the cost of the health care and the price of the vehicle stays the same.
Manufacturing will decline further in the US as it will become even more profitable to do it off shore.


BUT, this will dig into private profit, not corporate. That is, you will have to pay through the money brought home, not what is earned within the company. If you were to ship mfg off shore, you will still be taxed on that income you take home with you. aka:you will not come out ahead at a personal level if you send all of the jobs away. Besides, companies already pay alot for these bennefits. Once that expence is gone, more profit!



Universal health care = Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
--Winston Churchill

I don't think of this as a socialist theory. If it is, then so is public education, a national transportation infrastructure, and civil rights. You seem to be more of a libertarian than anything else.

Historically Speaking, the "glory days" of Wisconsin were back when we had a socialist government. Even at that, it was not as restrictive as our two-party system today.



No, you only see how people should just roll over and pay everything for you. Of course, the HUGE point you miss is that you claim healthcare to be unaffordable...yet right there in front of you is offered affordability, such that even someone working fast food could afford

But many carry such plans, using a tax-free HSA to pay anything toward the deductable. The beuaty of a plan like this is that it instills a true market into healthcare...

...now some argue that should not be; if you are sick, you should just be able to go to the doctor. However, it does bring back the concept of cost vs benifits.

Sure, if all we would ever get was benifits, we'd see no reason in ever doing without. Heck, we could have the gov't provide nanny's "free" of charge...however, there is a cost and society refuses to pay for it. It's simply not worth it.

There were 43,000+ deaths on the hwy's last year....if we had a strictly enforced speed limit of 15mph, we could probably reduce that number to nearly zero. Is it worth it?

Most accidents are caused by the irresponsibilty of drivers who are NOT following the set laws. Some are speeding, some are drunk, some are not wearing their seatbelts. Remember, going 1 over the speed limit is breaking the law.

So, if an old lady trips over her shoe laces and falls down a set of stairs, we should deny her insurance because she was irresponsible?

Private insurance should make a move to ban all sports because of the injuries that can occur. Risky behavior is unacceptable. :alcoholic



One of the reasons for spiraling upward healthcare cost is that WE the consumer see little to none of the true cost of the services...we only see the benifits. Very few Americans actually KNOW what their premiums cost (mine is ~6250/year) nor what the cost per doctor/hospital visit actually run. Our employer's generally pay the premiums, and insurance pays the medical community. We rarely actually follow the bills and the cost.

eliminate that end of it, and we might actually begin to contain cost. Sure, things like cancer treatments would still be expensive, however, much of the ancillary cost would come down dramatically bringing down the overall cost of treatment.

This system seems to work against the small business owner. Yes, there is strength in numbers. The greatest strength in numbers comes from a whole nation united to solve a single problem.



Another benifit would be people with traditionally expensive conditions, say hemophilia. Should WE as a society have to pay for a hemophilliac that choses to engage in risky (especially for them) behavior such as skateboarding or skydiving just because they want to? Or is it not fair to introduce some cost to them so that they may moderate their activities so as to limit the overall amount of treatment and thus cost to themselves?

I just don't understand why someone with a condition such as heophilia should have to pay so much more at a standard rate because of a condition that preexisted. This is a true violation of human rights. The condition is expensive, yes, but these people don't wake up one day and decide to be that way. In education, should parents have to pay more for their special needs child, or is it public responsibility to ensure that they recieve a proper education?

Skydiving? Where the hell did that come from? When was the last time I heard about hemophilliacs skydiving? I would be more concerned about a hemophilliac recieving a paper cut and requiring medical attention for that. Stop being so quick to judge.




Also your statement of "Dollar for dollar, you would get a better return from a universal health care system than private. Per capita, it costs alot less." has been demonstrated false time and time again.

Corporate structure is designed to make the maximum profit for service provided. If you cannot see this and its ill effects, you certainly are blind.




You can make a case on a "per capita" basis, but you then neglect the utilization factor. Stories of people being denied treatment easily avialable here aren't exagerated. Stories of people dying, waiting for treament that would have been done the next day here in the US aren't exagerated. Go to new york area hospitals...you actually do here a lot of "eh's?" and people do say "aboot" with alarming frequency. Canadian judges HAVE stated that they have a right to seek healthcare from private clinics and not just the gov't run ones. How great is canadian healthcare? watch dead meat and find out. (http://www.onthefencefilms.com/video/deadmeat/deadmeat.html)

Heck, on a "per capita" basis, we should just be like cuba then...it cost them 500/year for treatment (which is actually a 1/4 of what a typical cuban makes a year).

The problem with "per capita" comparisons is that you still are comparing apples and oranges.

The US has the most expensive health care system in the world. BUT, the life expectency of the insured continues to go down. Pay more, live less...I don't get it? IS their something you know that I do not?

Explain This:
When you look at the insured population of the US, they do NOT live as long as the entire populations of European countries. If you pay more, you should live longer...right?

[SSDude]

BUT, this will dig into private profit, not corporate. That is, you will have to pay through the money brought home, not what is earned within the company. If you were to ship mfg off shore, you will still be taxed on that income you take home with you. aka:you will not come out ahead at a personal level if you send all of the jobs away. Besides, companies already pay a lot for these benefits. Once that expense is gone, more profit!


I see you struggle with basic economics.
If I am the shareholder, then I am the corporation. Whenever I or the company I work for or invest in, are overburdened by taxes and benefits, a companies bottom line can become minimally or less than profitable. If a company doesn't provide a decent return on my investment I will gladly take my money elsewhere.

Corporations and for that matter small businesses exist to make a profit. If they don't make a profit they often outsource, close or get bought out.
In our free market the incentive to start a company is the rewards and they can be huge with a successfully company.

My incentive to go to work is to make enough to take care of my families current needs and my future ones as well. We are blessed to live in a country that provides an educational system to everyone. A country that nearly gives away college to low income persons and if your motivated you can work your way through school. All this is available to anyone here if you want to improve your lot in life.

There are many amongst us that have little or no motivation to improve their situation in life. They want others who work hard or who risk their hard earned investments to provide them with free everything including health care.

There are others who are disabled and can't provide for themselves. They the less fortunate are already able to receive Social Security and Medicare courtesy of the hard working American tax payers.

You are suggesting shifting the cost burden to us hard working taxpayers. This would essentially create an unaffordable situation for all American workers unless they received equivelant pay raises. It's still just shifting the burden from one pocket to another.

I for one have studied and work to hard for what i have to be asked to give any more to my government to pay for the care of people who want a free hand out.

[Cjburn]

B
Explain This:
When you look at the insured population of the US, they do NOT live as long as the entire populations of European countries. If you pay more, you should live longer...right?

[Prince Valiant]

Bluebunny, you make some of the worst constructed, poorest arguments that have seemingly no facts to back them up.

Many times, you drone on about completely unrelated topics of discussions as you assume that the volume of your response makes up for it's lack of content.

However, I feel like taking a quick point-by-point look at what you are saying:
Most accidents are caused by the irresponsibilty of drivers who are NOT following the set laws. Some are speeding, some are drunk, some are not wearing their seatbelts. Remember, going 1 over the speed limit is breaking the law.Regardless of what you may believe causes deaths now, a hard-set, strictly enforced 15mph speed limit would likely reduce deaths to near 0. It's pretty simple that low-speed accidents rarely, if ever, cause deaths to occupants.

Alas, taking a simple hypothetical point of cost-vs-benefits scenario and translating it into some verbose argument about what causes deaths on the roadways currently hardly makes a point for national healthcare, nor refutes the cost-vs-benefits point.

However, obliviously you kind of make my point:

Private insurance should make a move to ban all sports because of the injuries that can occur. Risky behavior is unacceptableBut the cost of giving up sports is unacceptable to the masses...despite the benefits of reducing a huge source of injuries. Same with banning cars. Same with Sex. Same with swimming. Same with construction work. So on and so forth.

We do many things because we perceive a benefit that outweighs the cost.


This system seems to work against the small business owner. Yes, there is strength in numbers. The greatest strength in numbers comes from a whole nation united to solve a single problem.Okay, this was just mindless blathering that seemed wholly unrelated to what you quoted from me....and worse yet, it contains no ideas that can even stand on it's own right.

Oh, so this system works so good for the corporation? The individual? The gov't? The farmer? What the hell you talkin' 'bout?!?

And THEN, who is advocating the continuation of the current system unchanged? That's not a point I've ever made (however, I've pointed out how even in it's current form the system outperforms any other in the world).


I just don't understand why someone with a condition such as heophilia should have to pay so much more at a standard rate because of a condition that preexisted. This is a true violation of human rights. The condition is expensive, yes, but these people don't wake up one day and decide to be that way. In education, should parents have to pay more for their special needs child, or is it public responsibility to ensure that they recieve a proper education?Your assumption that a hemophiliac has to pay at a greater rate is wrong. They don't.

Hemophiliacs will have challenges, and cost an average of 250,000/year for treatment...but many are insured at the same rate of others...it's shared risk.


Skydiving? Where the hell did that come from? When was the last time I heard about hemophilliacs skydiving? I would be more concerned about a hemophilliac recieving a paper cut and requiring medical attention for that. Stop being so quick to judge.Where did I say you were talking about hemophiliacs sky-diving? You didn't. I did...as an illustration as to why some should incur increased cost (particularly where deductibles are concerned). Your incredulity does more or less prove your obliviousness to the cost-vs-benefits concept however, as that was the point of the scenario.

If a hemophiliacs risky behavior incurs no cost to him, then there is nothing to moderate his behavior, since he'll receive treatment at no direct cost to him. Sky-diving is a risky behavior that'll result virtually every time in bruising which for a hemophiliac requires treatment. The more treatment he seeks, the higher his cost to society. What would stop him?

Why do I use that example? Because it was based on an insurance companies suit against a hemophiliac in TX...the guy would partake in all-sorts of behaviors (skydiving, skateboarding, skiing, boxing, etc) that he felt entitled to participate in...his treatment cost were sky-high. Finally they were able to win suit that said the individual is absolutely free to do these activities (as anyone is), however, the insurance company was not to be held responsible for payment of his resultant treatments. They'd cover him for normal conditions and normal risk resulting from normal activities that an "active" hemophiliac (which can include competitive sports, running, hiking, biking, etc, etc).

How much do you wanna bet that when the cost of doing these activities were significant to him, he moderated or ceased those activities that resulted in bleeds?

Corporate structure is designed to make the maximum profit for service provided. If you cannot see this and its ill effects, you certainly are blind. You are right. However, in order to make any profit, one must have a product that the consumer wants and needs. If you cannot see that, you certainly are dumb.

The way you paint it, insurance companies pay nothing for nobody...yet for some reason, everyone pays on their premiums and companies or individuals can never move their business. :rolleyes:

The US has the most expensive health care system in the world. BUT, the life expectency of the insured continues to go down. Pay more, live less...I don't get it? IS their something you know that I do not? Apparently, there is ALOT I know that you don't.

First, life expectancy is NOT a direct measure of a country's health care system...it's not even as close measure of it (maybe...MAYBE 10% of the total).

It's a measure of lifestyle risk factors including lack of exercise, overeating (poor diet), smoking, genetic predisposition (different races have different life expectancies in a given country...if it was truly a medical care thing, then relative wealth would be a bigger factor than race, alas, it's not) environmental factors.

Face it, many Europeans walk more, eat healthier (both in terms of healthier foods and amounts), and generally have purer populations that don't skew the our life expectancy data downward (face it, african-americans and mexicans don't do much to help our life-expectancy numbers). Much of the other factors aside from healthcare are a wash.

Birth-surviva/infant mortalityl statistics also follows a similar vein. Factors such as genetics, age of expectant mothers (this country has higher average age of birth moms), sexual activity of women prior to birth (our highschoolers have more opportunities to engage in activity due to fewer % working/higher % of free time and college presents many opportunities to aquire many conditions that'll complicate pregnancy), what is considered a spontaneous abortion vs a pre-mature infant who dies (this country BY FAR delivers premeies more successfully than any other country, whereas many countries don't even try...1 month early? So sorry about your spontaneous abortion that doesn't count against infant mortality rates) and the fact that many countries such as cuba/china have abortion rates of near 40% (which still may be fudged numbers considering it's self-reported), and many other developed countries may have rates as high as 25% while ours is as low as 2%.



Explain This:
When you look at the insured population of the US, they do NOT live as long as the entire populations of European countries. If you pay more, you should live longer...right?Long answer, see above. Short answer, it's a non sequitur.

The fact that you easily observed this, yet could not remedy the discourse in your head points to the fact you wish not to come to the correct answer (which is different than you've been arguing along), you wish to stick to your conclusion, facts be damned.

If, as you point out, coverage related to life-expectancy, our richest of the rich would also be the longest lived people in the world...however, this is rare (I can only think of few truly wealthy who lived past 100...most recently Brooke Astor who married into the Astor family, lived to be 105 years old and was worth 10's of millions)...again, by the arguments put forth by the universal coverage crowd, this should be a normal occurence.

And you neglect that it's not our truly poor who are uninsured(medicaid)...just those that refuse to go get it.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. I sincerely believe that if you want big-brother care, canadia is probably in need of professional student-pizza-delivery drivers and would take you with open arms. Your friends are probably as welcome.

[Al]

Lets keep this civil.


Bluebunny, you make some of the worst constructed, poorest arguments that have seemingly no facts to back them up.

Many times, you drone on about completely unrelated topics of discussions as you assume that the volume of your response makes up for it's lack of content.

What we have here is a conflict between inductive and deductive reasoning. I have made points, but a true and complete argument to your comments would require supplementary information. What I have done instead was make short and particular answers.



However, I feel like taking a quick point-by-point look at what you are saying:Regardless of what you may believe causes deaths now, a hard-set, strictly enforced 15mph speed limit would likely reduce deaths to near 0. It's pretty simple that low-speed accidents rarely, if ever, cause deaths to occupants.

You are right. Most low-speed accidents with fatalities involve seniors plowing through crowded marketplaces. So, would we still crash test vehicles? (sarcasm)



Alas, taking a simple hypothetical point of cost-vs-benefits scenario and translating it into some verbose argument about what causes deaths on the roadways currently hardly makes a point for national healthcare, nor refutes the cost-vs-benefits point.

However, obliviously you kind of make my point:
But the cost of giving up sports is unacceptable to the masses...despite the benefits of reducing a huge source of injuries. Same with banning cars. Same with Sex. Same with swimming. Same with construction work. So on and so forth.

We do many things because we perceive a benefit that outweighs the cost.

Okay, this was just mindless blathering that seemed wholly unrelated to what you quoted from me....and worse yet, it contains no ideas that can even stand on it's own right.

I would expect you to pick up on the sarcasm in that post. Life is full of risk. We have life jackets, seat belts, hard-hats, and all sorts of other things to make our life safer. There is active on-going work to make this world safe as it evolves.



Oh, so this system works so good for the corporation? The individual? The gov't? The farmer? What the hell you talkin' 'bout?!?

There is strength and security in numbers (most of the time). Insuring people tends to cost less when you are part of a bigger group. I'm for a 300 million person group!



And THEN, who is advocating the continuation of the current system unchanged? That's not a point I've ever made (however, I've pointed out how even in it's current form the system outperforms any other in the world).

Your assumption that a hemophiliac has to pay at a greater rate is wrong. They don't.

Hemophiliacs will have challenges, and cost an average of 250,000/year for treatment...but many are insured at the same rate of others...it's shared risk.

Where did I say you were talking about hemophiliacs sky-diving? You didn't. I did...as an illustration as to why some should incur increased cost (particularly where deductibles are concerned). Your incredulity does more or less prove your obliviousness to the cost-vs-benefits concept however, as that was the point of the scenario.
Check post #41 of this thread?



If a hemophiliacs risky behavior incurs no cost to him, then there is nothing to moderate his behavior, since he'll receive treatment at no direct cost to him. Sky-diving is a risky behavior that'll result virtually every time in bruising which for a hemophiliac requires treatment. The more treatment he seeks, the higher his cost to society. What would stop him?

Why do I use that example? Because it was based on an insurance companies suit against a hemophiliac in TX...the guy would partake in all-sorts of behaviors (skydiving, skateboarding, skiing, boxing, etc) that he felt entitled to participate in...his treatment cost were sky-high. Finally they were able to win suit that said the individual is absolutely free to do these activities (as anyone is), however, the insurance company was not to be held responsible for payment of his resultant treatments. They'd cover him for normal conditions and normal risk resulting from normal activities that an "active" hemophiliac (which can include competitive sports, running, hiking, biking, etc, etc).

How much do you wanna bet that when the cost of doing these activities were significant to him, he moderated or ceased those activities that resulted in bleeds?

You are right, that is a good example. BUT do not let one bad apple represent everyone else.



You are right. However, in order to make any profit, one must have a product that the consumer wants and needs. If you cannot see that, you certainly are dumb.

The way you paint it, insurance companies pay nothing for nobody...yet for some reason, everyone pays on their premiums and companies or individuals can never move their business. :rolleyes:
To increase profit, one can either increase price or decrease service provided. My complaint is that this emphasis is always present within the corporate structure. Have you ever experienced an auto insurance company that refuses to properly repair a vehicle? Now think health insurnace. (this is only part of the problem, as I see it). Automobiles have no heart or soul...but people do. Life is not to be ####ed with in such a manner.


Apparently, there is ALOT I know that you don't.

First, life expectancy is NOT a direct measure of a country's health care system...it's not even as close measure of it (maybe...MAYBE 10% of the total).

It's a measure of lifestyle risk factors including lack of exercise, overeating (poor diet), smoking, genetic predisposition (different races have different life expectancies in a given country...if it was truly a medical care thing, then relative wealth would be a bigger factor than race, alas, it's not) environmental factors.

I am very aware of all of this. If you think that I do not, I must inform you that you are wrong.



Face it, many Europeans walk more, eat healthier (both in terms of healthier foods and amounts), and generally have purer populations that don't skew the our life expectancy data downward (face it, african-americans and mexicans don't do much to help our life-expectancy numbers). Much of the other factors aside from healthcare are a wash.
There are many other ills of society that we have. universal healthcare will not solve some of them.



Birth-surviva/infant mortalityl statistics also follows a similar vein. Factors such as genetics, age of expectant mothers (this country has higher average age of birth moms), sexual activity of women prior to birth (our highschoolers have more opportunities to engage in activity due to fewer % working/higher % of free time and college presents many opportunities to aquire many conditions that'll complicate pregnancy), what is considered a spontaneous abortion vs a pre-mature infant who dies (this country BY FAR delivers premeies more successfully than any other country, whereas many countries don't even try...1 month early? So sorry about your spontaneous abortion that doesn't count against infant mortality rates) and the fact that many countries such as cuba/china have abortion rates of near 40% (which still may be fudged numbers considering it's self-reported), and many other developed countries may have rates as high as 25% while ours is as low as 2%.
This seems a bit irrelevant to my points. Lets focus on Europe.



Long answer, see above. Short answer, it's a non sequitur.

The fact that you easily observed this, yet could not remedy the discourse in your head points to the fact you wish not to come to the correct answer (which is different than you've been arguing along), you wish to stick to your conclusion, facts be damned.

If, as you point out, coverage related to life-expectancy, our richest of the rich would also be the longest lived people in the world...however, this is rare (I can only think of few truly wealthy who lived past 100...most recently Brooke Astor who married into the Astor family, lived to be 105 years old and was worth 10's of millions)...again, by the arguments put forth by the universal coverage crowd, this should be a normal occurence.
Our richest of the rich are not the longest lived people in the world.

Jeanne Louise Calment lived to be 122 years old...in France.



And you neglect that it's not our truly poor who are uninsured(medicaid)...just those that refuse to go get it.
And it is usually these people who are complained about when the idea of universal health care is mentioned. They are already covered.



You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. I sincerely believe that if you want big-brother care, canadia is probably in need of professional student-pizza-delivery drivers and would take you with open arms. Your friends are probably as welcome.
Canada? I like it more here.
We live in a democracy. If I feel that change is needed here in the sates, I will do what I can to see that it is carried through.

I will find some of the articles mentioned in a recent presentation at my school, which is one of the most conservative in SE Wisconsin. I took from it what I found to be important. These facts are not made up by me. Life expectancy is down in the US.

[Al]

Bluebunny
blast from the past? Ice cream? No more blue car?


by the guy who used to claim to have a some 500+ hp prelude
I might have been wrong in the past, but that does not make you always correct in the present.


dumbass
hmm...would you please explain to me the complement system and the membrane attack complex in your own words (no hyperlinking)? Okay, lets save that for another time and focus on the issue at hand. The human body is a very complex system that we have a very light grasp of its internal workings.


thoroughly owned al
I chose to disagree...


professional student-pizza-delivery drivers
Get with the times.

FYI- I don't deliver pizzas any more. I build furniture, with an emphasis on 18-19th century styles such as King Louis XIV and Hepplewhite. I also build wooden kayaks and canoes via the stripwood technique. But that is my part-time occupation. I am in my senoir year of school. I did have some difficulties and a shift in major after the first year of college, but I kept my GPA up and scholarships have paid for most of it.