The class war of health care: end health care for government workers if health reform doesn’t pass
This weekend Congress will vote on a universal health plan.
It’s not actually a health-care plan- it’s a health-insurance plan, but, it’s at least a step in the right direction.
The fear mongering by Republicans has reached full scream, and many, even those who are uninsured, are screaming along with them. This has been positioned as the “all in” bet for the Obama administration.
All of that aside- I’d like to point out that there isn’t a single government worker who lacks health insurance. If the Republicans are against government provided health care, the first thing they should be forced to do is to cut all government spending on health care for every government employee. Leave the VA and the Military health care alone, since they have their own health care systems, but- all the rest- fend for yourselves.
The current “system” is absolutely a failure. With the number of uninsured continuing to climb, along with passing the costs on to those who are still able to afford it, the system is speeding the economic divide in this country.
We’re headed for a class war- the über rich, the great poor and the Government worker. Let’s force the largest union, government workers, to have to pick their side. Who will they want to administer health care? The corporate insurers who have paid executives millions, or government workers like themselves, who believe that they work in the best interest of this country (or so we hope).
Put this argument on the table and see how much support the “Party of NO!” gets for its anti-government-run health care program gets.
Me thinks, things would change.
If you like this idea- please forward it to everyone you know. Time is of the essence.
From a letter to the editor submitted a couple months back:
While health reform’s public popularity has waned, in part as a result of a messy legislative process and in part as a result of shameless Republican/Fox News demagoguery, Democrats need to steel themselves and pass health care. Why? Because the choice before Democrats whether they want to own a historic social achievement of making access to health care a right for all Americans or a political calamity that highlights the party’s incompetence to govern.
Democrats should pass health reform because:
· Tens of thousands (up to 45,000) Americans die each year because they do not have health insurance. Innumerably more suffer an enormous amount of chronic pain and infirmities.
· 30 million uninsured individuals will gain coverage as a result of reform.
· About 60% of the 1.5 million annual bankruptcies are party attributed to medical costs. Health reform will begin to address cost control.
Our health care system is the most expensive in the world, yet we fail to cover 16% of the population and we significantly lag on health outcomes when compared to other industrialized countries. We need health reform because we need a government that does something beyond starting wars and bailing out Wall Street, but delivers something that will directly benefit tens of millions of people. We need health reform because, in the end, it is the right and moral thing to do.
I agree with David, END ALL goverment health care, for everyone. THAT is a step in the right direction. Nationalized healthcare is a terrible idea, for many reasons: moral and financial, which I have posted many times with many articles that no one on this site has really been able to refute. The lets push it through party usually does so with ambiguous #’s and a misguided morality that they can neither define or stand by.
John Ise, you think it is moral to steal from a healthy person to give to a sick person? So, John Ise defines his morality with theft being ok. You might want to revisit what you deem as moral John.
The greatest Justification for this program is the idea that we have already implemented theft in other areas. Hey we stole here………so we should steal here as well. Instead of revisiting previous BAD ideas, we use them as justification for the next bad idea.
I challenge any sick person to come to my house and demand my property to sell for medicine. Or demand that I serve them and tend to them……………..you will not, but you will certainly cast a vote that hires someone to do it for you.
Can anyone justify this kind of crap without using previous programs of theft as justification?
@Robert- you really don’t get it. I was being sarcastic. If the government ended health care for government employees there would be a revolution on the spot.
Wake up.
Can I get some logic clarifications? Democrats should pass health reform because:· Tens of thousands (up to 45,000) Americans die each year because they do not have health insurance. Innumerably more suffer an enormous amount of chronic pain and infirmities. How do you die from lack of insurance? You might die from lack of services or products, but you can’t die from the lack of insurance. With regard to the second statement, how is spending (infinitely) more money on people to alleviate “chronic pain and infirmities” going to be possible regardless of the cost of any one treatment? Please note that I use infinite because you use innumerably. · 30 million uninsured individuals will gain coverage as a result of reform. To Rob’s point, at whose expense will they gain coverage? · About 60% of the 1.5 million annual bankruptcies are party attributed to medical costs. Health reform will begin to address cost control. How will pooling money and making more money available to medical services address cost control? I thought that as demand increases, costs increase. Our health care system is the most expensive in the world, yet we fail to cover 16% of the population and we significantly lag on health outcomes when compared to other industrialized countries. We need health reform because we need a government that does something beyond starting wars and bailing out Wall Street, but delivers something that will directly benefit tens of millions of people. We need health reform because, in the end, it is the right and moral thing to do. With regard to “health outcomes”, we actually have better outcomes when people receive treatment. I think you are referring to to one of the following myths: Myth: “Despite its higher costs, the World Health Organizations ranking show that the American health care system ranks only number 37 in quality”. Fact: No, it doesn’t show that at all. The ranking is actually only to a small extent a ranking of health care quality. If you check its details it measures mostly other things. What is being measured is mostly things like a population’s health level (why this is… Read more »
Yeah Rob! Don’t question our sacred cows! Just because we are all walking around naked and freezing to death doesn’t mean that we should revise our nakedness and put on clothes. We should double-down damn-it! Lets figure out a way to build an ice bath…maybe that will freeze us completely and some future people will figure out some other solution to the problem of global cooling that must be happening, then thaw us out.
David, I think Rob gets it. Do you?
David,
My eyes are wide open. Since you like to be so combatitive with my posts, I try to agree with you whenever I can, even if I know it is sarcastic jest. The purveyor of sarcasm not recognizing it when it is reflected back at them…………..is that irony?
Jesse,
I am cold, I thought the ice tub was going to ready by now, but the government keeps telling me that it is not “cold enough” to meet their standards.
How do you die from lack of insurance? You might die from lack of services or products, but you can’t die from the lack of insurance.
One way in which you might die from lack of insurance is by being reluctant to seek care for which you cannot pay. For examples, see this CNN story that tells about three people who “experienced symptoms, but didn’t seek care because they were uninsured and they worried about the hospital expense.” Also in this article the president of the National Center for Policy Analysis criticizes a Harvard study for overstating how many people die from not having insurance but nonetheless admits “a genuine crisis of the uninsured in this country.”
Another way in which you might die from lack of insurance is that without insurance you face a tougher battle getting treatment. See this MSNBC article that tells about a study that found that “uninsured cancer patients are nearly twice as likely to die within five years as those with private coverage.” This is in part tied to the first issue I raise, reluctance to seek care one can’t afford resulting in late detection, but also in part a result, as the article points out, “a patchwork health care system delayed [the patient in the article] from getting chemotherapy.” See also this report, entitled “Uninsured patients pay more but get less in cancer treatment.”
The reason, Jesse, that people die from lack of insurance is that lack of insurance too often results in lack of services or products. Saying people don’t die from lack of insurance is rather glib.
David L,
Nice articles. I think Jesse was simply pointing out the difference, I did not think it was glib. The article you linked to MSNBC shows, the survival rates for people with medicaid are barely above those of the uninsured. I thought it was funny that you had to read the chart to realize how bad the medicare stats were and the author did not bring it to the readers attention. It also shows that private insurance helps people with their screening schedules. So, private insurance according to this article helps increase life expectancy and medicaid is almost the same as not being insured. So, this article is a good reason to want private insurance and another reason why you would not want government insurance.
The stats are twisted alot of different ways. It does not account for people that could be insured, but choose not too. It does not account for insured people that would also not visit the hospital but do not and apply at least a percentage to the uninsured. It does not account for high deductible plans.
The world is not made of marshmallows and pillows. People die, sometimes too young. And yes, we could extend the lives of the sick if all the living labored specifically for them. But is this right? The program is financially unsustainable. The “ifs” that the researchers propose come with a giant price tag and that price is “forced” on a large portion of the populace, that given the choice would not choose it. This is anti-freedom and this is immoral.
A fun YouTube about the March 16th TEA Party protest against health care reform:
THE TEA PARTY & THE CIRCUS – Final Healthcare Reform Protest
The SLOG thread on the video, with lots of fun liberal Seattle comments:
After Watching Nine Minutes Of This… I’m ready to go before my death panel
To Jesse’s point: saying you can’t die from lack of insurance is like saying you can’t die from smoking, it’s the lung cancer that kills you. If the insured are significantly healthier than the uninsured (they are), then it stands to reason that they live longer and die in fewer numbers later in life compared to the uninsured. The number comes from a Harvard study that compared mortality between the insured vis a vie the uninsured. The uninsured have little to no access to preventative care resulting in the inevitable trip to the emergency room (where it should be noted, we already pay for the uninsured results at astronomical costs). If health coverage (coupled with healthy lifestyle and, if your lucky, good genes) didn’t result in better.. err.. health, then why would anyone bother with purchasing it.
I love being glib. My point is that you die from the inability to pay for services or the willingness to do so. It isn’t that you don’t have insurance, it is that the value of the service to be provided is worth more than you can afford to pay or more than you choose to pay. Therefore the only way that you can afford the service is by taking the money from someone else. In the system being discussed, I don’t have the option of “opting out” and not paying into the system. Therefore, in order to receive a service that you cannot afford, you are going to take my property and use it at your discretion. It isn’t the lack of insurance, it is the lack of money that kills people. Providing insurance for everyone doesn’t create more money. It takes the Fed to do that. I am so funny. Some other interesting facts: In 2004 the percentage of medical bills paid by the government 54%. It has gone up since then. With regard to the 47 million without insurance: This figure comes from the U.S. Census Bureau. What most people don’t know, however, is that the Bureau counts anyone who went without health insurance during any part of the previous year as “uninsured.” So if you weren’t covered for just one day in 2007, you’re one of the 47 million. That also includes 10.2 million illegal immigrants, and about 14 million people who are eligible for public health-care programs like Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program but have yet to enroll. And nearly 10 million of the “uninsured” have household incomes of more than $75,000 — so they can probably afford to buy health insurance but choose not to. Are you telling me that the households who make more than $75,000 a year are more likely to die because of lack of health care coverage than a person who makes $25,000 a year with health insurance? If this were true, wouldn’t it make sense to spend up to $50,000 a year on insurance? Come on…this is… Read more »
The data above about the 47 million came from Sally C. Pipes in an article for the Washington Times.
Jesus Frakkin Christ, God forbid that anyone get a single penny’s worth of something to which he’s not entitled and hasn’t earned himself — I guess that sums up Libertarian manifesto.
Of course you don’t have the option of opting out, Jesse. You live on a planet with other people. Like it or not. Whine that you’re unable to go all John Galt if you like, but Atlas Shrugged was a work of fiction.
Jesse & Robert, as noted ,we ALREADY pay for the uninsured when they hit the emergency room. Hospitals are mandated to treat everyone who shows up in the emergency room. The only difference is that the uninsured shift their costs onto everyone else. We can pay now to cover the uninsured in a preventative care system or pay (a lot more) later with catastrophic care in the emergency rooms.
Jesse – GREAT JOB getting David L all worked up!! ;)
David L – Can you explain your position a little bit more clearly, please. Is it OK that someone that’s not “entitled” to something go ahead and demand it? If someone’s not at least TRYING to earn something, it’s OK to go ahead and demand it any way? Is healthcare a “right”? Do you think it’s OK to take the people that are part of 15-20% of the economy and turn them into federal government employees which is what a single payer system will effectively do. (Yes, I know the bills that are being voted on do not create a single payer system although that is the stated ultimate goal of the President and Madam Speaker.) THANKS for taking the time to clarify things for me!!
David,
I am not asking to opt off of the planet. I am asking to opt out of compulsory insurance. I don’t think that the value proposition being put forth is a good investment of MY money. I don’t want to support it financially with MY money. I want to opt MY money out of the terrible system that is being proposed. The only reason you can say, “Like it or not” is that you have the guns. It isn’t really an argument; more like a threat. If you didn’t have the gun, I could say, “Not” and opt out.
John,
You can’t use the fact that you steal from me to say essentially, “We are already stealing from you. The uninsured already get treatment for which they can not pay. We are just saying that the reason the system is broken is that people actually have to be suffering before they can steal your stuff. We want people to be in no real discomfort to be able to steal your stuff to prevent them from ever being uncomfortable. ”
Forcing people into stupidity, then citing that stupidity that has broken the rational allocation of health care while demanding that it is the “free market system” that causes the problem is the stupidest argument ever.
Bubba,
Why don’t you use your real name?!?! Nobody can take you seriously. :)
Jesse – If you lived about 300 miles further South, you wouldn’t be questioning whether or not this was my real name or not! :) Just because “Bubba” isn’t common around these parts doesn’t mean it’s not common elsewhere. And, have I written anything yet that shouldn’t be taken seriously?! Was Ben Franklin any less credible under the name “Harry Meanwell”?
All I’m doing is asking questions as I love to know what makes people tick.
Jesse, I suggest you not take Medicare when you hit 65, nor Social Security, since both these programs are funded by “theft” as you put it. But why stop there? Don’t send kids to public schools, don’t go to public parks, don’t use public utilities, never call the fire department, and don’t accept police protection. Also, don’t travel on any muncipal road, don’t walk down any public sidewalk, drink from a public water fountain, or use a public library. Plus, let’s dismantle our military and civil service since all this too is “theft”. Ten years ago, I lived in Haiti where almost nobody paid taxes, the government does little to nothing, and it’s dog-eat-dog. Is that, really, where we want our society to go?
I have been stolen from to such an extent that I am owed…yes owed…my money. I didn’t go to public schools, I don’t go to public parks, “public utilities” are a state imposed monopoly, I pay more for the fire department than I have ever used, the police don’t do anything for me (except give me tickets for speeding).
Why does nobody in Haiti pay taxes? http://www.heritage.org/index/country/Haiti
Great example as to how the government can mess up an economy. Congrats.
Sorry for cutting my response short. I had to get on a plane.
I think though, John, that you miss the point. I actually pay more for all of the services than I should be paying. I paid more than the $5,136.7 that I should have paid in Ohio taxes. I paid more than the $10,992.81 that I should have in Federal taxes. I generally over pay by between three and four times the amounts that I should be paying.
The point isn’t that I shouldn’t have to avoid the services because I think they are being supported via coercion. I am the one being coerced. I can’t opt out. In 20 years you are going to tell me that I shouldn’t be able to get healthcare because the government provides it too. They will only provide it with my money or fiat, play money printed by the Fed. Either way, I hold the bag and you tell me that I should refuse the services. I should use the services constantly. I should call out the fire department, police, and take books out by the hundreds, because I fund it all!
You can steal from me if you want but don’t have the gall to tell me that I should abdicate my right to enjoy the product of my wealth because you have “spread it around”. Acting sanctimonious about your use of my wealth because you vote that you should be able to commander it is absurd.
I went to public school until the 6th grade at which point my parents realized it was a sham and I wasn’t learning anything. Thank God for private education; it allowed me to realize that what was being taught in public school was nationalistic rhetoric.
History was Made!!!
From The New Republic:
Let me offer a ludicrously premature opinion: Barack Obama has sealed his reputation as a president of great historical import. We don’t know what will follow in his presidency, and it’s quite possible that some future event–a war, a scandal–will define his presidency. But we do know that he has put his imprint on the structure of American government in a way that no Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson has.
From The Atlantic’s James Fallows:
…the significance of the vote is moving the United States FROM a system in which people can assume they will have health coverage IF they are old enough (Medicare), poor enough (Medicaid), fortunate enough (working for an employer that offers coverage, or able themselves to bear expenses), or in some other way specially positioned (veterans; elected officials)… TOWARD a system in which people can assume they will have health-care coverage. Period.
Bubba,
David L rarely defines his position. He snipes from the sidelines, usually on a tertiary portion of a topic. He always manages to find interesting articles though.
John Ise,
My original post asked if anyone could justify this without using other forms of coercion as the basis. This is all you have done. Your stats in your original post are not accurate. You read the same articles that I did that DL posted. Did you see medicare’s stat? You might as well be uninsured. So, considering that SS is a huge problem running out of money and medicare is not financially well to do…………….why exactly do you presume to think the government program will be an improvement? Have you ever thought about the details as related to your brain instead of your swollen heart emotions? The group we are asking to run it have a history of being terrible. It is financially unsustainable. To me, it is immoral. These combined aspects over time will make our nation poorer and worse off.
It is not that I simply feel that this is theft. I think that the country will be worse off with this program.
One question John. If the country could go full blown socialism or communism……….would you recommend it?
why is it OK for the US government to send hundreds of millions of dollars to other country to help with their health care needs but not to take care or the people at home???
http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/us-foreign-aid.htm
why not cut this and take care of Americans??
Who is arguing that it is good for America to steal from its citizens and give it to foreigners? I don’t even want to be “nation building” in Iraq and Afghanistan.
From TIME’s Joe Klein:
The Republicans, stuck in a hermetically-sealed intellectual cyclone of extremist fantasies, are moving farther and farther from the American mainstream. Their willful confusion of socialism (or, more mildly, “government control”) with government regulation of an untrammeled and imperfect market was an act of breathtaking dishonesty. Their use of this Big Lie almost derailed a middle-of-the-road health care reform bill. But it didn’t succeed. They didn’t prevent Barack Obama, and the American people, from enjoying this historic victory.
That is the thing about it. Where does any of this end? It is just tax tax tax…
I am against the current health care plan but I am for some plan that includes everyone in this country. And a tax will need to be collected. But people would also have to PAY when they go to the doctor or hospital.
I am not against taxes. I am against taxes for bs things, and I am against not taxing EVERYONE. Every person should pay taxes, a bottom line number just to live in this country. $500.00 a year for everyone. 7% federal tax up to the first $50k, and 7.5% for every thing between $50K up to $100k, and .5% increase for every other $100k with a max tax of 10%. And then our government can learn to live with that amount of money. The rich pay more (like they do now) and everyone must participate in a bottom line tax. This way everyone is involved. And then cut cut cut cut cut spending to next to nothing. 86 eighty percent of the budget. Keep the money in the pockets of those who earn it….
John Ise,
Good job, avoid facts along with any question that someone may pose and clip an article from a liberal author. You have not a clue how nor why you believe what you believe, you simply feel empowered by being on a side with momentum. I applaud your ignorance, may it reap all my wealth into your hands.
Convincing Libertarians they’re wrong is something I’ll admit I can’t do and thus won’t again try, but I have felt the need to write about obscenities, on my own blog where I can choose my own curse words.
How are Libertarians wrong? And what then makes you so right? This does not have to be a lengthy explanation, but just stating “you are wrong” is hardly a valid argument. Why is it ok to take from one person (ie money via taxes) and give to another? You defend it, which is fine, but by that logic I should just take from you. Where does it end? Why can’t a person be responsible for him or herself? Or has that ship sailed?
Gene, I’ve admitted I can’t convince Libertarians they’re wrong.
It may not seem fair that I don’t try harder to convince Libertarians why they’re wrong, but as Jesse points out above (“you have the guns“), the majority of people in this country are not voting Libertarian, which means, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, if Libertarians can’t convince a majority of people to vote Libertarian, Libertarian philosophy won’t be implemented (“they better be able to explain it to people; otherwise they’ll never get what they want“).
I will give you and other Libertarians a tip, however. I don’t think you’re going to convince a majority of Americans that any redistribution of wealth or taxation whatsoever is equivalent to robbing people at gunpoint. But you needn’t take my advice. You all decide the best way to advance your cause.
A) Exactly how are they wrong? Any party may have things that are “out there” but how overall how are they wrong?
B) A Majority of people don’t support gay marriage
C) A Majority of people don’t know their own Senators
D) A Majority of people have bad breath
E) When a Majority of people think and believe in Libertarian philosophy, what are you going to do? Cry like a baby? Oh, wait, you already do that. You are against protests as well, how DC of you.
F) Redistribution of wealth? Ahhh, explain to me how I was distributed wealth in the first place. I have never received any distribution, therefore how can it be redistrubuted from me? A vast majority of people have never been “distributed” anything, especially wealth.
G) Libertarians don’t mind taxes, they just want lower taxes, fair taxes, and taxes not to be wasted. Liberals want more taxes, unfair taxes agaisnt the rich, want poor people to live off of rich people, and don’t give a shit if any tax money is wasted.
So at least try to answer the questions. BTW, everyday there are more and more libertarians. Good luck stopping the real progressive thought.
Majority…….?………. WTF does that mean?
http://www.redstate.com/jrichardson/2010/03/22/cnn-poll-59-percent-now-in-opposition/
I guess it does not matter what the MAJORITY think………
I would like to point out that I don’t care at all about the majority. Be the vote 99 to 1. The 1 is still a person, still has rights, and still shouldn’t be coerced.
Kind of my point. But a liberal was defending the majority, and they are all for the rights of the minority (or so they say.) See, it is double trouble for the super libs….
Liberals don’t understand when the trip over their own words, like DL. He presses the button and we do the rest, Harry and Carry think this is a mess, and all very true we love that you do…. thank you for being you.
Liberals love rich people money, are always concerned with “who has what” yet don’t like the boot on the other foot. Boot…. huh. Defend them, but shoes are way more popular, in fact shoes are the majority. So maybe the shoes should 86 all boots….. Shoes are the majority in this country. But go to Alaska, there are more boots, so they say.
David,
Thanks for sending people my way. Keep them coming!
Sorry multiple Davids, I was addressing David Lauri.
I just read a fun article by Melissa Harris-Lacewell entitled “Is this the Birth of a Nation?“. I do not offer it in an attempt to convince Libertarians they’re wrong — I can’t do that, and, having heard Harris-Lacewell, at the 2008 Fair Housing Luncheon, and having seen the comments that follow her article, I don’t think she can either.
I do think Esrati.com Libertarians will also be aghast at some of what she says, however. Gene’s just got done comparing taxation by the government to theft by individuals; Harris-Lacewell says, “If an individual takes his neighbor’s money, it is theft; if the state does it, it is taxation,” having pointed out that “The state is the entity that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, force and coercion.” The idea that the state may legitimately use force and coercion is, I know, part of what’s getting Libertarians so riled up.
(It’s also an idea that a majority of Americans have always accepted. Taxation is not something Obama invented. The colonists didn’t revolt against taxation but rather against taxation without representation.)
However, Harris-Lacewell also puts her finger on something else that seems to be getting so many people (some of whom self identify as Libertarians) riled up. She posits that Tea Party participants are “arguing that this government has no right to levy taxes or make policy” out of a “rising tide of racial anxiety” and “bigotry” that remind her of the 1916 film Birth of a Nation.
That’ll be a challenge Libertarians will have to overcome if they want to convince a majority of Americans to adopt Libertarianism, especially as the United States becomes majority non-white.
READ MY COMMENTS ABOVE, DL…..
or read them here, again:
G) Libertarians don’t mind taxes, they just want lower taxes, fair taxes, and taxes not to be wasted. Liberals want more taxes, unfair taxes agaisnt the rich, want poor people to live off of rich people, and don’t give a shit if any tax money is wasted.
That means I don’t mind taxes….. Or was that too hard for you to understand. And why are you unable to answer any of my questions? Is it because the tea-baggers have confused you into thinking it is always the weekend?
You don’t get it. Or when you do you are so drunk you are not sure what you did…. haha…
Gene,
I think David means that Jesse doesn’t think that coercion and force should be assumed by some and foisted upon others. I gladly claim the position. What makes the State different? What divine right imbues the State with this power?
Not divinity in solitary splendour,
But humanity in a writhing throng.
http://mises.org/etexts/longanarchism.pdf
You know, Gene, you’re not terribly consistent in your comments. At 10:25 am you say, “Why is it ok to take from one person (ie money via taxes) and give to another? You defend it, which is fine, but by that logic I should just take from you,” yet at 1:13 pm you say, “Libertarians don’t mind taxes, they just want lower taxes, fair taxes, and taxes not to be wasted.” So why get upset at me for saying that “Gene’s just got done comparing taxation by the government to theft by individuals“? Perhaps it’s not I who’ve been drinking too much.
http://mises.org/daily/4213
Best theoretical article I have read about the Healthcare debacle.
Taxes are fine, but not the way you (and all liberals) want to spend them. Stop handing my money to someone else, that is bad. My taxes should go to things like roads and schools along with other important areas. And those tax monies should be spent to the best of our monies ability, not wasted as the government always does. There is a lot you left out, Mr. Weekend at Ernies. Just taking from those who have and GIVING it to those who do not (via housing and food and straight welfare cash, along with a whole lot more on all levels of government) is wrong. Taxing everyone less is important, and taxing everyone fair is important. But not collecting taxes on those who simply take is an insult to all of us. Why do some go through life and not contribute a dime. There are a lot of urban folk that do this, white, black, purple. But that is just the tip of this huge ice cube sticking out of my 7-up. The waste is way worse, and that is just taking from one and giving it to other (via employment or contracts for work that is not need, etc ) and resulting in frickin nothing. Government takes from me to employ people who do nothing or add nothing. They get paid to show up. There are a million examples of waste, and too many worthless employees, too many worthless programs are a part of that. My taxes should go to things that are important, and frankly most things are not important. Why are we feeding every student in poor districts? Certainly that is tax money, and certainly some parents can afford to feed their child, but no one gives a fuck anymore and it is take take take. One example of millions. Taxation in itself is not theft, but it is when it is used for things that are not needed, that are wasteful, that are just plain unfair then it is a form of theft . That is what we need to get rid of Mr.… Read more »
Oddly, I disagree with Gene here. I do not think that “taxes are fine” or that my money should go to “things like roads and schools along with other important areas.” The best of our monies abilities are determined by the market and cannot be governmentally imposed.
Well Body, taxes are a reality, and at some point you need to understand that they will be collected. Therefore, if you want them lower, you need to recognize the importance that taxes are not wasted and go towards things we need. Privatization of roads will never happen, so why bother discussing it in real terms. In philosophy I agree with you, but in reality the discussions regarding taxes need to be focused on less taxes and less waste. You can note that DE new posting is in regards to taxing hospitals. Well the appropriate mission and course of action would be to convince liberals like him that taxing or raising taxes is not the answer. In the end taxing a hospital will be ultimately be paid by you and me and every other taxpayer. It is the ultimate liberal illusion. A hospital will not pay tax, rather charge people more and therefore we get it from behind and socked in the mouth all at once. I don’t love taxes, but i do find them important for some things. But I think handing tax money to people is wrong, and all the waste in government is bull shit.
Gene,
Taxes are a reality like slavery once was. They are not a reality like gravity is and always will be. It is important to note that a significant difference exists in the “reality” created by man and “reality” that is natural, predated man and will likely postdate him. It is beneficial to discuss any and all of the negative “realities” that are man made. Taxes are a negative reality created by mankind. They are theft and an affront to the acting of man qua man.
The reason that “our side” loses these discussions is because we sacrifice reason and morality because we need to be “incrementalists” or “compromisers”. The thought that we need to find common ground with those who wish to steal from us is, to paraphrase a line from Ayn Rand, like “agreeing to compromise with your neighbor who, while you want to drink milk, desires to drink poison, mixing the two together and dividing the spoils.” You both die!
Compromise is impossible when the other party starts from a position of “we want to control your life.” You can’t agree to only let them control a little bit of your life. To whom does your life belong? It is either you or them, compromise is impossible in this realm. It is like trying to compromise with a terrorist who wants to destroy you. Should you agree eventually to acknowledge “reality” and say, “we will compromise and let you destroy us a little bit.”?
Taxes are here to stay. That will not change, so therefore you must argue for less taxes and less waste. Hammer all you want against taxes as I will, but I rather argue and believe I will have way way way way way way way more success arguing to tax less and not waste tax dollars.
I agree with you, but I must take the stance of living in this world, not a made up world. Taxes are made up by humans, and so is the world you want. It is not a compromise, it is a reality. Taxes will never go away, so why get yourself all wound up over it. Rather live with some tax and fight like hell to reduce taxes and make it less wasteful. Philosophy is wonderful, but people do die and therefore I must work within the here and now. Sorry Socrates and Plato. They did not have a tanning tax to deal with, or a bus tax, or a rail tax, or a sewer tax, or a tax on tax, or a tax on that tax on tax.
Less is more. Less is more fair. Most fair may be no tax, but that ain’t gonna happen in my life time. Baby steps, baby steps.
BTW, you did compare it to slavery. Good analogy. And it is still is taking time to get rid of slavery, it did not happen all at once. It was years and years and years of slow compromise as the older generations died off and younger generations had more progressive ideas. Baby steps, these things take time.
Compromise is impossible
Jesse, I do not believe that you do not compromise your beliefs. Are you telling us that you have declined to pay your taxes, that you’ve declined to file income tax returns?
If “compromise is impossible,” then surely refusing to participate in this oppressive system that violates your civil liberties is the only way to avoid compromise, to avoid acquiescing to the violation of your principles.
Or are you just waiting until other Libertarians who truly believe that “compromise is impossible” go first, declining to pay their taxes, declining to participate in the system that so oppresses them, before you follow their lead?