And that, friends, is the current state of the art argument from libertarians. And people wonder why we just lump ‘em in with Republicans anyhow (or in my case, take them even less seriously than the uber-peaceniks on my side of the aisle).
I should also note that it was kind of funny that Reason editor Matt Welch was so driven in opposition to President Obama that he wrote an op-ed in the right-wing NY Post but way back when the Iraq War was going on he was just unable to pick a side.
As I tried to make them understand over there, but to little avail: I would actually prefer if we reserved the word “rationing” for when we print cards, and don’t allow people to buy or sell goods without them. Like in WW2. Everything else, we should just call scarcity or they won’t pay for it but you can still get it if you have the money.
But the funny part is: they, the glibertarians, the McArdles and who have you, were the first to use “rationing” in the fuzzy and imprecise sense. For the government to make you pay for your own boobjob is rationing, but its not rationing if your insurer won’t pay for the same operation.
And people wonder why we just lump [libertarians] in with Republicans anyhow
Most people who self-label themselves “libertarian” are really Republicans who think it makes them look cool. Megan McArdle is the textbook example. The handful of actual libertarians are plenty annoying (and unrealistic, misguided, and so forth), but Republicans Who Pretend to be Libertarians are about as annoying as it gets. Wankers.
If your insurance company won’t pay it’s called a smart business decision.
America already rations health-care based on ability to pay.
But it’s actually more complicated than that — there are plenty of people with private insurance who find out, after they discover a disease or have an accident, that the procedure they need won’t be covered.
What America has is far wore than rationing. We have lawyers making life or death medical decisions instead of doctors.
What good *isn’t* rationed, under this rather expansive definition of rationing you guys seem to prefer, whereby if you can’t afford something, it’s “rationed”?
What good *isn’t* rationed, under this rather expansive definition of rationing you guys seem to prefer, whereby if you can’t afford something, it’s “rationed”?
All goods are scarce, ergo all are rationed. We done here?
What America has is far wore than rationing. We have lawyers making life or death medical decisions instead of doctors.
But surely that’s better than the EEEEEEEVUL gubermint making the decisions! At least somebody’s making a profit!
We need single payer. Doctors still run their own practices and make their own decisions, not lawyers or accountants.
Simple.
Apparently, we’re not done here, Indeed, since you don’t seem to get it. Nothing is free in this world and someone needs to pay for the product or service called medicine.
What makes a family of five, where the father is the sole breadwinner and he brings home $275K a year, more worthy of taxation than a childless couple who both work but only pull down $80K?
Please, take a moment and rationalize that for me. I’d really like to know.
And Blender, you or your family can sue a lawyer or health insurance company for their decisions and be awarded monetary compensation. Try suing the government for denying a treatment. If you’ve never been laughed out of court, get your “calm reaction” down pat so you don’t freak out as the judge shoots water out his nose when he hears your case.
Lastly, Jaim…What will happen when the current government option program in HR 3200 runs out of the money budgeted to it? (As it will, because it already does, year after year after year for Medicaid and Medicare)
Will you tell all those who signed up that the program is out of money so they’ll just have to wait until Congress fills up the coffers again?
No? Oh, you’ll just go to Congress and ask for more. Wait, I thought the Democrats said their tax increase would make it debt neutral? Oh, you’ll just raise taxes on the “wealthy” again to cover it? Great! Will $125K be the new “wealthy” now since the $250K and up folks are tapped out, or will it be $75K this time?
There is no way in hell a single payer system would work, especially in this country (and they don’t work in other countries. The best of the bunch, France, recently upped taxes AGAIN to pay for theirs). Here, you’ll have doctors quitting faster than they could be replaced because of the low payment schedule and the long wait for payment to arrive (just like in Medicare). Add to that problem that you’ll have ten million new patients demanding to be seen in the first year alone.
I do love how the left puts up the VA system as a model. Apparently no one on the left has ever gone to a VA doctor or dentist. I can and have, but I choose to pay a fair amount so that I don’t have to because that system is atrocious.
If you want single payer because you’re too lazy or too unskilled to hold a job with decent medical benefits, go live somewhere that has it. Don’t burden the American taxpayer with your Utopian myths that will only leave them diseased, maimed or dead.
The wrong wingers will cry about taxing the wealthy but have no problem with the middle class facing double digit increases in premiums. Corporations are always right and consumers are always wrong to them
What makes a family of five, where the father is the sole breadwinner and he brings home $275K a year, more worthy of taxation than a childless couple who both work but only pull down $80K?
Don’t be daft. A father supporting four dependents will not pay taxes on the full $275k he brings home. Assume a mortgage deduction, charitable contributions, 401k contributions, etc. and his taxable income will be far lower than that – maybe even approaching that of his less fortunate counterpart. Not to mention the fact that the married couple making only $80k a year gets hit pretty hard by the marriage penalty. Which I suspect you know, but it doesn’t fit the picture you wish to paint very well, does it?
More apropos would be to ask why a someone supporting a family of 5 on $80k a year should pay the same tax rate as someone supporting a family of 5 on $275k a year. Answer: disposable income. A family of 5 living on $80k a year doesn’t have any. That income goes towards food, shelter, clothing, with very little left over. The other family is in the more fortunate position of taking care of the basic necessities, having something at the end of the month to put away, and still being able to contribute their fair share to the general welfare.
And Blender, you or your family can sue a lawyer or health insurance company for their decisions and be awarded monetary compensation.
What Randian fantasy world do you live in? It’s rather difficult to sue your insurance company when you’re fighting cancer. Not to mention the fact that they have far more resources to call upon than their average client, and can draw the litigation out until you’re either broke or dead.
The other family is in the more fortunate position of taking care of the basic necessities, having something at the end of the month to put away, and still being able to contribute their fair share to the general welfare.
Missing in your evaluation is that Family #275 is ALREADY contributing their fair share to the general welfare. A turnip only has so much blood.
And Blender, you or your family can sue a lawyer or health insurance company for their decisions and be awarded monetary compensation.
That’s assuming a few things:
A. That the case will be resolved before the person keels over.
B. That they can afford a good attorney in the first place.
C. That they can win a case against a multi-million dollar corporation.
What makes a family of five, where the father is the sole breadwinner and he brings home $275K a year, more worthy of taxation than a childless couple who both work but only pull down $80K?
Because they can afford it?
If you want single payer because you’re too lazy or too unskilled to hold a job with decent medical benefits, go live somewhere that has it.
So you’re saying that there are over 300 million jobs with great health benefits, even after you guys fucked up the economy? No? Then what’s your point?
Don’t burden the American taxpayer with your Utopian myths that will only leave them diseased, maimed or dead.
So paying a little extra money in taxes will cause the country to keel over? Is this some sort of veiled threat?
Phil, apparently you don’t understand the existing costs of health-care. We’re wasting $200 billion a year on health care, due to the uninsured driving up the costs on the insured. Also, what portion of your income are you paying in health insurance premiums? Go ahead, tell me, I’m dying to know.
Wait a minute Zython.
I thought we were RATIONING care by not giving it to the uninsured?
Now you say that the uninsured are driving up the cost of care, doesn’t that assume that they are getting 200 BILLION in medical care (works out to like $4K per uninsured person)?
You lefties just love taking both sides of an argument….doesn’t the cognitive dissonance get to you sometimes?
Phil: What makes a family of five, where the father is the sole breadwinner and he brings home $275K a year, more worthy of taxation than a childless couple who both work but only pull down $80K?
What makes them less capable of paying taxes? While by no means perfect, there are many places in the current US tax code where a taxpayer with 5 children gets deductions and credits not available to the DINKs. So the immediate comparison of 2 people making $80k vs 7 people making $275k ($40k per person vs $39.3k per person) isn’t as straight-forward a compare as it may seem. For example, a house suitable for 7 people is unlikely to be 3.5 times as expensive as a house suitable for 2 people. Nor are the utilities that go with it.
To begin to start having something more reasonable to compare between the two families, you’d have to look at something other than just gross income. AGI, for example would be at least a better place to start.
Phil: If you want single payer because you’re too lazy or too unskilled to hold a job with decent medical benefits,
Phil, do you truly believe the only reason someone doesn’t have a job is because they are too lazy or lack skills?
Do you truly believe that anyone who DOES have a job but is not satisfied with the benefits they get from their employer remains in that job because they are too lazy or too unqualified to get a different one?
Do you really believe there are some employers somewhere with great benefits who have lots of job openings that they can’t fill because they can’t find anyone driven or skilled enough to hire?
SaveFarris: Missing in your evaluation is that Family #275 is ALREADY contributing their fair share to the general welfare
In your view, what is “their fair share”? And, please, (please please please) provide a link to support your view.)
You know what Phil, fuck you and your “Utopian” myths. You come to the table with this “if you’re too lazy’” bullshit and expect to be taken seriously?
Listen bud, I am neither unskilled nor lazy. I work in the field of architecture, certainly not rocket surgery but by no means a vocation that does not require one to be skilled. A couple of years ago I left the firm at which I had been working to start my own business. And insofar as far as I understand it, the idea of capitalist entrepreneurship is something that both Glibertarians and Republicans hold in some esteem.
But here’s the rub: while at that last job, I made the mistake of actually using my health insurance. I went to see a mental health professional, using both first the limited benefits promised (and delivered) under our group policy and then paying out of pocket…with my own dollars that I earned.
Nevertheless, this resulted in my otherwise spotless medical records – clean as a whistle stretching back to my college days – now having a mark for “depression”. I’ve since applied for individual health insurance but the various underwriters have declined to offer me a policy at any price, despite even having offered to sign their waivers declining any sort of mental health coverage.
Pre-existing conditions, well ain’t that just a bitch…
So interestingly I find myself in the position of only being offered the option to purchase insurance by a single entity, the government of the beautiful state in which I live, via their “high risk” pool.
Extrapolating your inane comment to address my particular situation, perhaps it is your position that I had no business leaving someone else’s employ. Perhaps it is your position that is the exemplar of a well-functioning market. Perhaps you don’t even care that being yoked to someone else’s employ when I would rather not would rob me of my freedom just as certainly as some pernicious (& I might add, hypothetical) action by the government. I don’t know because the position you stated was binary, when the world is wonderfully cloaked in a thousand shades of grey.
This is not abstract theory. This is my goddamned life, right now, empirically described. And in light of such you will have to do much better job of persuasion if you ever expect those of us caught crossways in this ‘market’ to take your arguments with any more seriousness than a toddler’s temper tantrum.
Okay Farris, lets look at your evaluation a bit more closely. Let’s say that the Smith family has an AGI of $275 – the father’s income after exemptions and deductions (because we want an honest analysis of the Obama proposal, right?) is then $25,000 a year higher than the Obama limit of $250. I’d say they’re doing pretty well, wouldn’t you?
3% of $25,000 is $750/year.
And yeah, I’d say that’s fair, considering the tax code for the last two decades has largely benefitted the wealthy at the expense of the lower and middle classes.
Let’s say Mr. Lucky #275 owns a small business in Manhattan. That means he owes:
35% to the Feds
15.3% to FICA
3.6% to NYC
So we’re already at 54% paid in taxes, and we haven’t paid our property or sales taxes yet. Add those in and we’re looking at 60-75% of your paycheck going to the “general welfare”. And according to you, they’re STILL not paying their fair share.
I guess this is just one of those issues where we’ll have to disagree.
I love how conservatives keep making the argument that if you can’t find a job where you are living with good health benefits then you should just move cross country to a place with jobs like that (SFC B made this argument in a thread once and I’ve seen it repeated). But SaveFarris’s poor Manhattanite business owner (Really?!?) is so burdened by having a Manhattan based company with no benefits from their taxes whatsoever can’t move to New Jersey or Baltimore for more favorable tax situations.
Well we all know that there are no small businesses in Manhattan.
Apparently, we’re not done here, Indeed, since you don’t seem to get it.
What did I get wrong? Good fucking grief, all I wrote was “goods are scarce and therefore rationed.” What, exactly, was incorrect about that? Holy fucking shit are you ignorant.
Nothing is free in this world and someone needs to pay for the product or service called medicine.
No shit, Sherlock. This is why I favor a health care system which is less expensive to run than the current one run by Hugeass Insurance. See also Wendell Potter.
Now you say that the uninsured are driving up the cost of care, doesn’t that assume that they are getting 200 BILLION in medical care (works out to like $4K per uninsured person)?
You know what? You’re absolutely right. The $200 billion figure is caused by obesity, not the uninsured (although the obese also include some of the uninsured as well).
Also, the uninsured are being treated for late stages of preventable illnesses, which they couldn’t get fixed because they were, you guessed it, uninsured.
That means he owes:
35% to the Feds
He pays 35 percent on the entire $275K? He needs to find a new accountant.
We all know health care needs to be paid for.
One of the problems is that America has the most bloated, over-priced system in the world. It’s highly non-efficient for what it is, and it only covers 4/5 of Americans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778.html?sub=AR
People in France, Korea, England, etc. not only get better health care, but they pay less per person than Americans do.
Wait Jaim, haven’t you read the playbook? Whatever shady schemes they’ve got going on in France, et. al. are “socialist” and therefore “bad”. Measured outcomes are not what is important. Adherence to ideology is. Therefore whatever results we get here in America are by definition “good” because this is what the “market” has decided is the optimal distribution of this scarce “resource”. Also, I believe that our system is unassailable by virtue of the name of our nation, but I’ll need to go back and review Chapter 1 because I oftentimes cannot remember the tricky & specific exemptions to this rule.
Another thought about Phil’s screed:
The economy is regulated by the Fed to keep unemployment at a target rate of around 10%. “Full employment” is not a desirable state of economic affairs given the the problems with extreme wage inflation in such a scenario. Therefore at any given time approximately one in ten people will be out of work. This is by design. Phil, am I being uncharitable to guess that your reaction would be the English equivalent of c’est la vie?
C’mon Farris, let’s be honest. If Mr. Lucky has an AGI of $275k, he’s actually making roughly $360,000 a year. (Taking into account exemptions and deductions – including the phase out of exemptions above $225,000 because I am being honest) He pays about $47,164 in federal taxes on that $360,000, leading to a federal tax rate of 13%. That’s if all of his income is salary, since capital gains are taxed at a lower rate.
So his actual overall tax burden is closer to 32% of his total income, and probably a bit smaller since I didn’t take into account deductions for state tax.
Meanwhile, Mr. and Mrs. DINK with an AGI of $80,000 are paying a federal tax rate of about 12% on their $104,000, for an overall tax burden of 31%
The truth of the matter is that the U.S. has one of the lowest tax rates and most regressive tax structures in the developed world.
Canada, Great Britain etc. limit care in certain ways in order to care for everyone, our system, limits care in order for a few people to make a lot of money.
If you think this is a just state of affairs say so, everything else is just noise.
Sorry that should say “merely noise”
Actually, southern quaker it is much less. Remember FICA only applies to the first $105k, so the effective FICA rate on the $360k is less than 5%. Even figuring farris’ dishonest figure of $275k, it is about 6-7%.
Thank you, EL. So Mr. Lucky’s total federal tax burden (income + FICA) is 18% of his $360,000 while Mr. & Mrs. Dink pay over 24% on their $104,000.
Any other cons out there still want to argue that the rich in this country pay an unfair share of taxes? If anything, this analysis shows that federal taxes fall disproportionally onto those without dependents.