(UTOPIA) Tax Alert : Stop 150% tax pledge increase

Bryan Sant bryan.sant at gmail.com
Fri Apr 18 12:56:53 MDT 2008

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Stuart Jansen <sjansen at buscaluz.org> wrote:
>  You're high paying Java position has blinded you to the situation. Sure,

Let me fist sincerly apologize for pursuing a discipline that
maximizes the earning potential for me and my family.  I agree that
people who work hard, study, apply themselves and are ultimately
rewarded by our evil, greed-driven, capitalist system are despicable
dogs and should have all that they've worked hard for stripped away
from them (by force if necessary), and distributed to Liberal Arts
majors and no-ambition professional welfare recipients (but I repeat
myself) nation wide.

>  America's system works for the upper middle-class and above. Maybe even
>  works better than other countries. But it's horribly inefficient. The
>  simple fact is, our current system subsidies other nation's health care.
>  How can can other countries get away with price controls on drugs? We
>  fund the research with our purchases, while they reap the benefits. It's
>  simple parasitism, perhaps even economic warfare.

Yes, our current system does subsidize other nation's health care.
Despite how crappy health care is in Canada, the UK, and France, these
programs wouldn't even be possible without the cheap drugs that they
copy from expensive American funded research.  These Drug companies
have a financial incentive to research and create drugs for consumers
here in the States.  Once we go with UHC, we'll eliminate the
incentive for drug research and new drug development will essentially

>  Our health care system puts a significant and growing strain on small
>  business. It increases employee lock-in. It abuses the poor and
>  financially vulnerable. It engenders an attitude of entitlement in those
>  that can afford insurance. It does little to value preventative care.

1) Small businesses may band together and negotiate for better
insurance programs and rates.  There are many offerings today that
cover this.

2) Salary increases employee lock-in too.  Given that line of logic I
think that we should have the government take over wage rates as well
and pay everyone the same regardless of their actual value to the
market.  I mean, as Marx said, "From each, according to his ability;
to each, according to his need".  Translation, "We'll take it all
thank you, and give you back whatever we deem to be fair...  And if
you complain, we'll throw you in prison."  Heath care packages are
just part of the compensation package that a company may use to
attract employees.  "Lock-in" is what you'd have when UHC destroys all
choice.  I can quit my job and go somewhere else whenever I want and
so can you.

3) If you're poor...  You should do something about that.  I'd start
by getting a job.  Maybe learning a trade or a new skill and then get
a better job, and so on.  I know, I know, how insensitive and CraZy of
me to expect a person to actually use the free eduction they were
provided with by our society and then continually work towards
increasing their skills and income.

4) Persons who can afford insurance don't have an "attitude of
entitlement".  They are literally entitled to the insurance they have
because they've earned it via hard work for their employers and paying
premiums and co-pays.  Entitlement is an attitude put forth by persons
who haven't earned or paid for something and yet feel entitled to it

5) Co-pays and high premiums incentivize preventative care.  I, for
example, have selected the lowest grade health care package where I
work because I don't want to pay high monthly premiums.  I and my
family are relatively healthy.  I watch what I eat.  I weight train.
I don't smoke crack.  Preventative care has allowed me to feel
comfortable with the wost plan my employer offers, and I get low
premiums in return.

>  Of course, not all blame can be heaped on the health care system
>  directly. A significant part of the blame should also go to our legal
>  system. Something is wrong when doctors stop practicing because
>  liability insurance is too expensive. Something is wrong when lawyers
>  force insurance companies to provide millions of dollars on
>  extraordinary care for a single patient at the expense of every other
>  person paying into the system.

Yes we need tort reform.  Call your Congressman.

>  It may strike you as inhuman to calculate the value of an eye compared
>  to a limb, but its an economic reality. I'd argue its more inhuman to
>  deny health care to the most defenseless in our population while lining
>  the pockets of CEOs with the money of those who can afford health care.

The economic reality is that good health care exists because it is
lucrative.  So lob bombs at the "rich CEOs" all you want, but it is
because of their risk taking, leadership, and sacrifice that we have a
vibrant health care industry to begin with.  Making money doesn't
automatically make a person evil you know.  Obviously some CEOs are
dirt bags, but some are really nice, charitable people.  When I see a
CEO, I typically admire them for applying themselves and doing
something well that I doubt I could ever do.  Good for them.  I don't
envy or hate them because they make big salaries.  When I see someone
who is poor and truly defenseless, I feel pity for them and routinely
give to charities that help people in those circumstances.

Should their be some government sponsored programs for children and
disabled persons who can't work to receive health care?  Sure.  But
even now it is too exploitable.  Many hospitals in California have
closed because they can't run a profitable business when they're
required by law to give free ER visits to anyone who can't pay.  Many
illegal immigrants (and others) used the ER as their primary care
provider.  There wasn't enough money to gouge from the "rich" patients
to pay for this form of socialized medicine and now many communities
are without a hospital at all.

>  Of course, I've strayed pretty far from the original topic, so let me
>  reiterate the thrust of my original response in a single sentence:
>  Privatization is not always better.

I'm waaaaaay off from the topic too.
Privatization is not always better, but it typically is.  The United
States is not a great nation because of massive governmental control
over the last 200 years, it's because of how limited our government
has been.


More information about the PLUG mailing list