| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/07/2008 05:40:19 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by karmat:
so, if my father had worked hard, made smart investments and accumulated a lot of wealth, whether in capital, land, or what-have-you, and paid taxes on all that he earned, then left it to me and my siblings when he died so that we, too, were "wealthy," that is unfair because there are some have-nots in the world?
Should I not be allowed to give where I see fit or contribute to the causes that I deem important?
Or should everything above x-amount go straight to the government so that it can be given to those in need?
I'm not trying to be antagonistic. Promise. I'm simply trying to get at what exactly you think should happen.
It may not be fair that there are people with obscene masses of wealth and others can't afford to buy their a piece of bread. But, how is that remedied?
Robin Hood? |
To put the argument into context: in a world with a finite amount of wealth and a limited number of jobs, should those people with no inherited wealth and no job be thrown onto the street to starve?
If you are going to institute a system of collective responsibility for the most vulnerable members of society, should people pay only what they choose, or an equal tariff per person, or one that is relative to their income/wealth?
One factor that you might not have thought about is the need to preserve public order. In 1989 a flat tax (the poll tax) was introduced in the UK and has the glorious distinction of being the only tax reversed as a consequence of widespread public rioting (it also brought down Margaret Thatcher's government).
Modern western governemnts tend to adopt a sophisticated combination of methods for collection of tax, from sales taxes, to income and capital gains taxes, stamp duties, customs duties, business rates, corporation tax, compulsory insurances, environmental tax, witholding tax etc etc and these are compensated by allowances and tax breaks.
The purposes of so many taxes are to promote efficient tax collection (if any one tax is too high, it tends to be evaded) and to influence behaviours (in a free market economy, it is one of the few ways that the government can interfere).
Applying the principles of efficient business to tax collection, the taxing authorities should demand the most amount of tax from each taxpayer that they are willing and able to bear without evasion. If less tax is required, then the amount demanded should (IMO) be reduced rateably for each person. The eternal trick with this is in setting rules that accurately predict what level of tax each taxpayer is willing and able to bear.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2008 05:46:31 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by karmat:
so, if my father had worked hard, made smart investments and accumulated a lot of wealth, whether in capital, land, or what-have-you, and paid taxes on all that he earned, then left it to me and my siblings when he died so that we, too, were "wealthy," that is unfair because there are some have-nots in the world?
Should I not be allowed to give where I see fit or contribute to the causes that I deem important?
Or should everything above x-amount go straight to the government so that it can be given to those in need?
I'm not trying to be antagonistic. Promise. I'm simply trying to get at what exactly you think should happen.
It may not be fair that there are people with obscene masses of wealth and others can't afford to buy their a piece of bread. But, how is that remedied?
Robin Hood? |
To put the argument into context: in a world with a finite amount of wealth and a limited number of jobs, should those people with no inherited wealth and no job be thrown onto the street to starve?
If you are going to institute a system of collective responsibility for the most vulnerable members of society, should people pay only what they choose, or an equal tariff per person, or one that is relative to their income/wealth?
One factor that you might not have thought about is the need to preserve public order. In 1989 a flat tax (the poll tax) was introduced in the UK and has the glorious distinction of being the only tax reversed as a consequence of widespread public rioting (it also brought down Margaret Thatcher's government).
Modern western governemnts tend to adopt a sophisticated combination of methods for collection of tax, from sales taxes, to income and capital gains taxes, stamp duties, customs duties, business rates, corporation tax, compulsory insurances, environmental tax, witholding tax etc etc and these are compensated by allowances and tax breaks.
The purposes of so many taxes are to promote efficient tax collection (if any one tax is too high, it tends to be evaded) and to influence behaviours (in a free market economy, it is one of the few ways that the government can interfere).
Applying the principles of efficient business to tax collection, the taxing authorities should demand the most amount of tax from each taxpayer that they are willing and able to bear without evasion. If less tax is required, then the amount demanded should (IMO) be reduced rateably for each person. The eternal trick with this is in setting rules that accurately predict what level of tax each taxpayer is willing and able to bear. |
There in lies the issue? How much tax is too much? At what threshold is business sent underground to make/receive payments under the table? To some, any tax is too much tax. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 06:17:55 PM · #153 |
I just wanted to put it out there that many other countries rely on the US's innovations in the health care industry. If the health care in the US was not for profit then there would not be so many amazing medical breakthroughs so often because there would be no incentive (or too small a benefit for the cost) for people to continue looking for cures for diseases.
I think what people really need to see here is that if every country had free health care, that innovation in the health care market would be very minimal. Although it is nice to think that health care can be free, I believe that health care existing as it is now in the US can actually be more beneficial in the long run than government run health care due to increased innovations in care. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 06:20:37 PM · #154 |
I don't know of any country that provides free healthcare.
Canadian doctors and other professionals in the medical field have been at the forefront of many medical breakthroughs. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 06:30:16 PM · #155 |
| Socialized health care would be the closest to "free". The oldest socialized health care system in the world is Germany. Increased taxes pay for increased medical expenses. Some of the world's biggest pharmaceutical companies are German. Funding for medical technologies , research and innovation comes from the government (taxpayers). Canada and France, also, belong on this list. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 06:52:48 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by jay6850:
I just wanted to put it out there that many other countries rely on the US's innovations in the health care industry. |
Hmm - maybe, but then the US also relies on the innovations of the rest of the world. For example, CAT scans and ultrasound scans were invented in the UK where the National Health Service (free at source since 1948) is the world's fourth largest single employer.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2008 07:16:48 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by jay6850:
I just wanted to put it out there that many other countries rely on the US's innovations in the health care industry. If the health care in the US was not for profit then there would not be so many amazing medical breakthroughs so often because there would be no incentive (or too small a benefit for the cost) for people to continue looking for cures for diseases.
|
Here's an interesting thread from '06 that discusses exactly this.
Message edited by author 2008-04-07 19:17:14. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 07:16:51 PM · #158 |
Matthew...."Hmm - maybe, but then the US also relies on the innovations of the rest of the world. For example, CAT scans and ultrasound scans were invented in the UK where the National Health Service (free at source since 1948) is the world's fourth largest single employer."
//www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/speeches/01-56.htm
CAT Scan Patent Issued November 25, 1975
X-ray system saves lives by early detection of illness and injury
Robert S. Ledley, born in 1926 in New York City, received patent # 3,922,552 on November 25, 1975 for the diagnostic X-ray system, also known as the CAT (Computed Axial Tomography) scan.
Ledley's invention, the ACTA (Automatic Computerized Transverse Axial) diagnostic X-ray scanner, was the first whole-body computerized tomography (CT) machine, and provided views of the body and brain not seen with traditional X-rays. This was achieved using computers to generate three-dimensional images from flat X-ray pictures of cross-sections of the body, called slices. Ledley's technology allowed early diagnoses of illness and disease, thus saving lives.
Ledley also used computerized tomography in radiation therapy and in the diagnosis of bone disease. He was inducted into the National Inventor's Hall of Fame in 1990.
Ledley's patents, as well as the more than six million patents issued since the first in 1790, can be seen on the Department of Commerce's U.S. Patent and Trademark Office web site at //www.uspto.gov.
From: The Boston Globe | Date: 5/9/1998 | Author: Tom Long, Globe Staff
Print Digg del.icio.us
Allan MacLeod Cormack, a "modest genius" whose "hobby" of research on X-ray tomography led to the development of the CAT scan and a Nobel Prize for medicine, died Thursday at his home in Winchester. He was 74.
Mr. Cormack was a professor of physics at Tufts University from 1957 until his retirement in 1995. Colleagues described him as a modest man who was as happy dawdling over dinner in the faculty dining room discussing the news of the day as he was in his research lab wrestling with arcane ...
Message edited by author 2008-04-07 19:18:50.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2008 07:24:32 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by karmat:
It may not be fair that there are people with obscene masses of wealth and others can't afford to buy their a piece of bread. But, how is that remedied?
Robin Hood? |
What would Jesus do? (Not meant to be snide at all!). The making of money by the lending of money (interest or usury) is forbidden in Islam, and I believe the principle derives from the Bible ... (unregulated) Capitalism, with its overarching goal of using money to accumulate/maximize material wealth, would seem about as anti-Christian a societal scheme as can be imagined.
Message edited by author 2008-04-07 19:25:48. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 07:30:39 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Socialized health care would be the closest to "free". The oldest socialized health care system in the world is Germany. Increased taxes pay for increased medical expenses. Some of the world's biggest pharmaceutical companies are German. Funding for medical technologies , research and innovation comes from the government (taxpayers). Canada and France, also, belong on this list. |
It would only be free if no tax was collected to fund it. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 07:38:46 PM · #161 |
Please do not confuse "socialized medicine" where the medical facilities are owned and run by the government and government employees, and a "Single-payer" health plan where the government acts as the single, non-profit collector of premiums and disburser of benefits. The health facilities maintain their current ownership, but have only one billing form to fill out. Stockholders in health insurance companies will have to look elsewhere for their 10-15% annual profits ...
It is single-payer plans (essentially MediCare for everyone) which are currently being promoted by Clinton and Obama, not socialized (government owned-and-operated) medicine (such as is currently enjoyed by the President, Members of Congress, and the military). |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 07:53:14 PM · #162 |
> GnlIE
Both Germany and France refer to their health care systems a "social", Canadians like the term MediCare, but I note the distinction you're making. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 08:43:37 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
...Canadians like the term MediCare... |
I thought we just called it plain old health care? :-/ |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 08:49:34 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
...Canadians like the term MediCare... |
I thought we just called it plain old health care? :-/ |
Sits fine with me, too. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 08:52:04 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Robert S. Ledley, born in 1926 in New York City, received patent # 3,922,552 on November 25, 1975 for the diagnostic X-ray system, also known as the CAT (Computed Axial Tomography) scan. |
Ledley didn't invent it. It was invented by Godfrey Hounsfield, and Englishman, and Allan Cormack, a South African and naturalized American. The Hounsfield actually built the first one in 1972, before Ledley got the patent for it.
Ian Donald, a Scot, and Karl Theodore Dussik, an Austrian, invented ultrasound. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 10:09:52 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Socialized health care would be the closest to "free". The oldest socialized health care system in the world is Germany. Increased taxes pay for increased medical expenses. Some of the world's biggest pharmaceutical companies are German. Funding for medical technologies , research and innovation comes from the government (taxpayers). Canada and France, also, belong on this list. |
It would only be free if no tax was collected to fund it. |
I'd rather pay a tax and be guaranteed health care than to have my ability to access health care dependent on my employer's willingness to subsidize it.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2008 10:12:56 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'd rather pay a tax and be guaranteed health care than to have my ability to access health care dependent on my employer's willingness to subsidize it. |
AMEN!!!
|
|
|
|
04/07/2008 10:14:01 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by jay6850:
I just wanted to put it out there that many other countries rely on the US's innovations in the health care industry. If the health care in the US was not for profit then there would not be so many amazing medical breakthroughs so often because there would be no incentive (or too small a benefit for the cost) for people to continue looking for cures for diseases.
I think what people really need to see here is that if every country had free health care, that innovation in the health care market would be very minimal. Although it is nice to think that health care can be free, I believe that health care existing as it is now in the US can actually be more beneficial in the long run than government run health care due to increased innovations in care. |
So, you'd rather have great, innovative health care for the few who can afford it and to Hell with the rest?
I think you overestimate the US role in developing new health care procedures and medicine. |
|
|
|
04/08/2008 08:43:25 AM · #169 |
So I see how bad the insurance companies are for the US health care market, at least as expressed here. I will not argue that, as I agree to large extent. But here is a question:
In most markets competition drives better performance, tight or modest profits, innovation, efficiency. WHY do you think the medical insurance market is so lousy at providing it's product?
|
|
|
|
04/08/2008 09:53:07 AM · #170 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
So I see how bad the insurance companies are for the US health care market, at least as expressed here. I will not argue that, as I agree to large extent. But here is a question:
In most markets competition drives better performance, tight or modest profits, innovation, efficiency. WHY do you think the medical insurance market is so lousy at providing it's product? |
Because they are not "bad" at providing their "product" -- which is maximum profits for shareholders; they do that very well. To do so is the "fiduciary responsibility" of corporate boards under US law.
It you want to provide the best care for the most people at the lowest cost, you'll have to remove the profit motive from the operation. It only makes sense that overhead plus supplies plus personnel plus profits will have to cost more than overhead plus supplies plus personnel alone ... |
|
|
|
04/08/2008 10:03:52 AM · #171 |
But the profit motive has created better cars, better communications, better razor blades. Why not better insurance? Why hasn't competition driven much better response, much lower profit margins, much higher quality product overall? I know, you are against any profit motive in health care. Dealing with the facts as they are, not as how you want them to be, why is there not better insurance in general?
|
|
|
|
04/08/2008 10:06:14 AM · #172 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
But the profit motive has created better cars, better communications, better razor blades. Why not better insurance? Why hasn't competition driven much better response, much lower profit margins, much higher quality product overall? I know, you are against any profit motive in health care. Dealing with the facts as they are, not as how you want them to be, why is there not better insurance in general? |
For insurance companies to make maximum profit they can't pay out claims. If they did actually pay out claims on all that they should be then premiums would have to rise even higher than they currently are.
Message edited by author 2008-04-08 10:07:02. |
|
|
|
04/08/2008 10:56:49 AM · #173 |
Interesting.
I'm a Canadian who has moved abroad to Taiwan. Health care system = light years ahead.
I went to get a toothache looked at and I just wanted a quote. He found 4 caries that were not visible on the surface as well as a big bad problem requiring a root canal and a crown on another tooth. I was getting a bit freaked out, doing the math in my head, trying to remember what it cost to get a filling back in Canadiana... The guy was busy fiddling with stuff and I was trying to ask him a question about the quote. He looked at me funny.
"Why get a quote?" he asked. "We'll have three of those fillings taken care of in 20 minutes and you can come back later for the last one and get started on that root canal.
Yeah, I had to pay about 300 bucks US for the crown, but the three (not the amalgum type, the ___ dang can't remember the word) fillings cost me 50 NT dollars. Currently valued at around $1.80 US.
True to his word, I was on the street 24 minutes later.
Wow.
I've had some other stuff done, as has my sister and it's all been very, very, very affordable.
Most of the stuff I've been to the doctor for in Canada isn't covered by medicare.
Dental? Nope.
Chiropractor? Nope.
Athlete's foot treatment? Nope. (over a hundred bucks for just the first treatment - I got it taken care of here for a bit less than five bucks)
Dermatologist anything? Nope.
Allergist visits? Nope.
Glasses? Contacts? Nope.
Antibiotics? sometimes
here in TW, they tend to overprescribe, under-dose (most doctors don't take into consideration your body weight since most of their patients are around the same size) and have a nasty habit of giving medicine in 3-4 day courses which is usually much too short for antibiotics... and the Taiwanese people go to the doctor for virtually everything, BUT, most stuff can be done quickly and efficiently and you are generally in and out in a short time... and the increased demand has brought a lot of prices down. |
|
|
|
04/08/2008 11:06:38 AM · #174 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
But the profit motive has created better cars, better communications, better razor blades. Why not better insurance? Why hasn't competition driven much better response, much lower profit margins, much higher quality product overall? I know, you are against any profit motive in health care. Dealing with the facts as they are, not as how you want them to be, why is there not better insurance in general? |
Really? You believe that products are better today? By what measure? By the number of useless gewgaws, gizmos and gadgets shoved into the same box?
As a product engineer, I have to disagree. Products on the whole are far shoddier than they used to be.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2008 11:21:30 AM · #175 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
So I see how bad the insurance companies are for the US health care market, at least as expressed here. I will not argue that, as I agree to large extent. But here is a question:
In most markets competition drives better performance, tight or modest profits, innovation, efficiency. WHY do you think the medical insurance market is so lousy at providing it's product? |
In business, efficiency and, consequently profits, are maximized by reducing costs through minimizing risk.
In the insurance industry that's done by charging high premiums/deductibles, denying coverage completely to those who are most likely to actually need care, fighting claims etc.
The insurance companies are motivated to limit their coverage to those who are healthiest and thus more unlikely to file claims that will cut into the company's profits and impact their rating on Wall Street.
|
|
