Universal healthcare - Yay or nay?

[autisticdragonkin]

You keep going on about a "social contract" but this is not applicable here no matter how much you want it to be. It's a philosophical theory which a lot of Libertarians seem to want but it's not something that is currently in effect. If it is, I'd love you to point out to me where it's written into our constitution. Until then, it's a pipe dream and has no validity so stop bringing it up.

I do not believe that there actually was an explicit social contract ever but I do believe that there was an implicit one that occured in the 1700s and has been broken. I do not consider modern states legitimate because there wasn't an explicit social contract unaniously agreed upon but I consider them to be less illegitimate when they act as though there was a social contract through behaviours such as very strict rule of law and policies that benefit descendants from original citizens over immigrants or descendants of immigrants and I consider redistribution of wealth to be a violation of this very strict rule of law.

Secondly, the rich do not pay their fair share. They pay a lot of money but it's not proportionally higher than most of the middle class in part due to things like loopholes and the like. I'm sure you've heard of Warren Buffet? One of the wealthiest Americans and possibly one of the most philanthropic. He revealed that he only paid 17.4% in income tax. His staff on the other hand were paying somewhere around 23%. Now 23% of let's say $75,000 is going to be lower than 17.4% of one million or whatever he gets paid in a year but we're talking percentages here. That 23% is a lot more onerous than the 17.4% even if the total amount being paid on the 17.4% is going to be higher. And the billionaire is going to have more money left over at the end of the year than the employee even though he's paying a higher amount.

I understand how it works but I think that a "fair share" would mean everyone paying an equal or relatively equal amount in order to pay for public goods and only public goods. Also due to diminishing returns people with high incomes need increeasingly more additional money to achieve the same value so increasing they amount they are taxed means that they are proportionally losing more value. I do consider progressive taxation as being potentially legitimate during times when a large amount of revenue needs to be collected as in wartime but I do not consider wealth redistribution to be legitimate

Are you serious or just trolling?

I am being serious. As a relatively new invention wealth redistribution can be said to have been in violation of previous arrangements but if it was explicitly rationally and unaniously agreed upon for the very long term (centuries) then I would be all for it. I do think that it is socially optimal but that doesn't change that there was not unanimous agreement to it which I consider necessary for a legitimate social contract. Since I do not believe in natural rights it still can be done but we should at least acknowledge that due to lack of unanimous consent we are engaging in violent oppression and I will no go after the rich for resisting it

 

[Sperglord Dante]

The United States has a lot of political pressure to keep taxes as low as possible as well as a massive welfare/underclass. Any universal healthcare program would quickly collapse into bankruptcy unless we reformed our entire society.

You should, America's social programs blow ass. Universal healthcare and superior education should be way above in the list of priorities than tardbux.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

You should, America's social programs blow ass. Universal healthcare and superior education should be way above in the list of priorities than tardbux.

I would also consider them to be far more socially optimal too as well as more legitimate due to having positive externalities that could constitute public goods

 

[Phil Ken Sebben]

I do not believe that there actually was an explicit social contract ever but I do believe that there was an implicit one that occured in the 1700s and has been broken. I do not consider modern states legitimate because there wasn't an explicit social contract unaniously agreed upon but I consider them to be less illegitimate when they act as though there was a social contract through behaviours such as very strict rule of law and policies that benefit descendants from original citizens over immigrants or descendants of immigrants and I consider redistribution of wealth to be a violation of this very strict rule of law.

I understand how it works but I think that a "fair share" would mean everyone paying an equal or relatively equal amount in order to pay for public goods and only public goods. Also due to diminishing returns people with high incomes need increeasingly more additional money to achieve the same value so increasing they amount they are taxed means that they are proportionally losing more value. I do consider progressive taxation as being potentially legitimate during times when a large amount of revenue needs to be collected as in wartime but I do not consider wealth redistribution to be legitimate

I am being serious. As a relatively new invention wealth redistribution can be said to have been in violation of previous arrangements but if it was explicitly rationally and unaniously agreed upon for the very long term (centuries) then I would be all for it. I do think that it is socially optimal but that doesn't change that there was not unanimous agreement to it which I consider necessary for a legitimate social contract. Since I do not believe in natural rights it still can be done but we should at least acknowledge that due to lack of unanimous consent we are engaging in violent oppression and I will no go after the rich for resisting it

Yeah, I'm done here.

I don't know if you're maybe first year of college or just took a philosophy course or what have you, but you're definitely crazy and I'm not interested in dealing with crazy people.

 

[John Titor]

As a Britfag, I like universal healthcare. The NHS isn't perfect, but it's better than being the pharmaceutical companies' bitch. Although I do like the choice of a private healthcare company such as BUPA being available if you so choose.

Convenient timing to bring this up: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-stories-to-remind-you-that-u.s.-could-always-be-worse/
ATB (aka, the guy Cracked readers dislike) claims the UK's health system is not what it's cracked up to be. Britbongs came out of the woodwork and called him out on it.

 

[CWCissey]

Convenient timing to bring this up: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-stories-to-remind-you-that-u.s.-could-always-be-worse/
ATB (aka, the guy Cracked readers dislike) claims the UK's health system is not what it's cracked up to be. Britbongs came out of the woodwork and called him out on it.

ATB is a cunt. I can destroy his argument with three words.

Stephen. Fucking. Hawking.

Dude constantly praises the NHS as the reason why he's still alive.

 

[Pikimon]

ATB is a known cunt, he says that National Parks are a waste of money and that they suck because he doesn't like to go outside.

 

[Vitriol]

The problem is most countries with successful universal healthcare programs have 70+% tax rates and very low unemployment.

tax in the uk and germany always hovers around 45% and france is around 50% its only the nordic countries tha really breach 60% reguliarly. But i think your broad point about raising taxes being unacceptable stands.

Secondly, the rich do not pay their fair share. They pay a lot of money but it's not proportionally higher than most of the middle class in part due to things like loopholes and the like

Eh yes and no- the top 10% generally pay 30% ish of the revenue in most developed countries. That said they generally do not pay in proportion to their wealth. The thing is this wealth is also the securities that allow them to start the majority of businesses (bear in mind the top 10% are those earning over $140 000) these securities in turn provide the stable base from which the banks can lend to poorer people from.

Taxing the rich is complex, remove the loop holes and they may emigrate or see their wealth reduced. If you tax wealth then they will take fewer risks, start fewer businesses and you weaken the wider economy and may have a net smaller revenue.

That said some of the corporate tax avoidance is a joke starbucks and amazon in particuliar spring to mind.

 

[AnOminous]

tax in the uk and germany always hovers around 45% and france is around 50% its only the nordic countries tha really breach 60% reguliarly. But i think your broad point about raising taxes being unacceptable stands.

I didn't say what you quoted.

 

[Vitriol]

I didn't say what you quoted.

Weird I must have fucked up a quote. I didn't mean to quote you, ignore it.

Edit the wee arrow link still goes to ruins post, no idea what happened.

 

[Lorento]

Taxing the rich is complex, remove the loop holes and they may emigrate or see their wealth reduced. If you tax wealth then they will take fewer risks, start fewer businesses and you weaken the wider economy and may have a net smaller revenue.

That said some of the corporate tax avoidance is a joke starbucks and amazon in particuliar spring to mind.

I've often thought of taxing the rich as a bit like riding a unicycle while juggling balls that are on fire, while you are coated in gasoline. It's all a very tricking balancing act, and eventually there will be one cunt in the audience who wants to act uppity and throw a petrol bomb at you (the equivalent of Starbucks or Amazon.)

 

[Jack Haywood]

@autisticdragonkin Good fucking Christ, you're like Ayn Rand on LSD...

 

[autisticdragonkin]

@autisticdragonkin Good fucking Christ, you're like Ayn Rand on LSD...

Ayn Rand believes in morality and takes sides far more firmly than I do.

 

[Jack Haywood]

Ayn Rand believes in morality and takes sides far more firmly than I do.

"Takes sides far more firmly"? You've pretty much consolidated yourself as a far-right libertarian of her variety! And are you implying you don't believe in morality? The one thing all us inconsequential mortals possess that stop us from being a 7 billion strong group of sociopaths, opportunists and monsters? How much do your peers hate you because of your psychotic attitude?

...I'm actually close to weeping right now! I wish I had access to that oh-so-glorious deviant rating so I could plaster it on all of your god-forsaken posts on this thread, you equally god-forsaken twit!

 

[autisticdragonkin]

"Takes sides far more firmly"? You've pretty much consolidated yourself as a far-right libertarian of her variety! And are you implying you don't believe in morality? The one thing all us inconsequential mortals possess that stop us from being a 7 billion strong group of sociopaths, opportunists and monsters? How much do your peers hate you because of your psychotic attitude?

...I'm actually close to weeping right now! I wish I had access to that oh-so-glorious deviant rating so I could plaster it on all of your god-forsaken posts on this thread, you equally god-forsaken twit!

What I said is that I believe that socialized medicing (and wealth redistribution in general) is a violation of the social contract and that if I were in the position of the 1% I would not tolerate such a betrayal. I do not believe in morality so as a result I do not take a side on the issue for moral reasons and merely admire strong people who do not tolerate violations against their will but do not condemn the violations themselves. This entire thread I have been condemning the weak rich people who are tolerating such actions rather than condemning those who seek universal healthcare and will benefit from it (I think that the creation of the slave morality was an ingenious plot especially when used by those who are able to avoid falling for it themselves and that the rich should treat them as honorable opponents). Since I am currently not rich I want to keep Socialized Medicine until I become rich and then get rid of it in order to defeat my enemies

I do not believe in morality. God is dead and we have killed him. If you have evidence that morality does exist then please present it now

 

[Vitriol]

"Takes sides far more firmly"? You've pretty much consolidated yourself as a far-right libertarian of her variety! And are you implying you don't believe in morality? The one thing all us inconsequential mortals possess that stop us from being a 7 billion strong group of sociopaths, opportunists and monsters? How much do your peers hate you because of your psychotic attitude?

...I'm actually close to weeping right now! I wish I had access to that oh-so-glorious deviant rating so I could plaster it on all of your god-forsaken posts on this thread, you equally god-forsaken twit!

Calm down. He just has autism.

 

[Jack Haywood]

Calm down. He just has autism.

@Vitriol, ok, I got a little A-loggy on him, so what? Autism only causes a loss of mutual attachment and understanding of other people and social skills, besides other things. It typically does not lead someone to disbelieving in something that goes beyond mere social convention unless they also have anti-social personality disorder or some horrid shit like that. It does not cause outright stupidity, either.*

Autisticdragonkin is capable of acting like a normal person, so I'll treat him as if he's a normal person. I have no mercy or sympathy for anyone who disregards the only means people have of not being self-centred arseholes.

Spoiler: NOTE

*Well, unless said autism happens to be severe enough, but that's another story.

I do not believe in morality. God is dead and we have killed him. If you have evidence that morality does exist then please present it now

Furthermore, you are misinterpreting what Friedman said like most other people who read his work. He meant that people no longer needed religion to give them a moral compass when they can simply form their own morality not based on the whims of a deity.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

@Vitriol, ok, I got a little A-loggy on him, so what? Autism only causes a loss of mutual attachment and understanding of other people and social skills, besides other things. It typically does not lead someone to disbelieving in something that goes beyond mere social convention unless they also have anti-social personality disorder or some horrid shit like that. It does not cause outright stupidity, either.*

Autisticdragonkin is capable of acting like a normal person, so I'll treat him as if he's a normal person. I have no mercy or sympathy for anyone who disregards the only means people have of not being self-centred arseholes.

Spoiler: NOTE

*Well, unless said autism happens to be severe enough, but that's another story.

My special interest is ethics so I talk about it a lot and think about it a lot. I feel like I have been moved towards thinking critically about society due to my status as an outsider and the way I have been treated which may result in a personal bias but I think I am able to avoid being influenced by my own personal experience through engaging in self critique

 

[Jack Haywood]

My special interest is ethics so I talk about it a lot and think about it a lot. I feel like I have been moved towards thinking critically about society due to my status as an outsider and the way I have been treated which may result in a personal bias but I think I am able to avoid being influenced by my own personal experience through engaging in self critique

And that's worked out SO well for you, hasn't it(?)

 

[autisticdragonkin]

And that's worked out SO well for you, hasn't it(?)

I actually have looked over my positions and realized that I was very wrong several times in the past and it is visible from some of my posts. It is very likely that it will occur in the future too. I may even someday find evidence to believe that universal classical morality does exist but I think that is quite unlikely and it is more likely that I will change more minor things such as how I define individual utility