Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
"Putting special taxes on medical related goods and services isnt going to improve medical care any more that putting special taxes on tobacco increases the sale of tobacco products."
False analogy. The idea is to reduce the costs in the long run, not increase the revenue stream.
How does taxing something reduce the cost of it?
We the People through their elected reps disagree with you.
That's not the way representative democracy works in the U.S.
Democracy isn't viable unless the minority can trust that the majority won't be able to run roughshod over everyone else. Without that trust - without reliable limits on what can be imposed on us by government - there is no democracy and no social contract, only brute tyranny. And brute tyranny always fails.
Constitutional, electoral process upheld by SCOTUS is not tyranny.
The minority, when protected as it has been through the entire process, does not dictate to the majority.
You could also look up that obesity is much higher in the US than in those countries. Do you think the obesity rate might be a reason why they live longer and have fewer medical problems, thus costing them less in medical care?"Putting special taxes on medical related goods and services isnt going to improve medical care any more that putting special taxes on tobacco increases the sale of tobacco products."
False analogy. The idea is to reduce the costs in the long run, not increase the revenue stream.
How does taxing something reduce the cost of it?
By making sure everybody is covered will drive down the cost. The industrialized West, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand's populations pay less, live longer, for less per person than here in the U.S.
You could look it up, but you won't because you don't want to know the truth.
Taxing bad behavior
It is common knowledge that the government can reduce bad behavior by taxing or penalizing it.
Tobacco and alcohol use are the perfect examples. Every time the tax rates increase on tobacco products, some people quit using tobacco. It happens with alcohol also. Some people quit or reduce consumption because they cant afford it anymore. Some because they just dont want to pay the increased taxes.
A few years, the city of Chicago instituted a 5 cent tax on bottled water. They said they needed the tax money because all those empty bottles were getting into landfills. I guess they sort of forgot about their recycling programs. The sales of bottled water dropped, and Chicago didnt get the revenue stream they anticipated and wrote into their budget.
By the way, the reason I know this about Chicagos bottled water tax is because I am the IT person for a fortune 100 retailer that had to develop the reporting so that our company could collect and pay the tax to the city. Our sales of water have dropped dramatically since the tax was introduced.
Part of the health care bill calls for a tax on so-called Cadillac health care plans. Just like tobacco, alcohol and water, this will price some people out of the market. Instead, they will settle for a sub-prime health care plan. The government wont get its anticipated revenue stream, and some person will end up not getting the type of medical care they really wanted to and was willing to pay for.
Another part of the health care bill calls for taxing manufacturers of medical equipment. I am willing to bet, those costs will be passed on and some doctor or hospital will just buy less medical equipment. The anticipated taxes wont be realized, and the medical services that could have been provided with that equipment wont be available.
Anybody with a lick of common sense knows that unfairly taxing something reduces a persons propensity to engage in that behavior. Putting special taxes on medical related goods and services isnt going to improve medical care any more that putting special taxes on tobacco increases the sale of tobacco products.
I'm not sure why the government thinks medical care is bad behavior.
"Putting special taxes on medical related goods and services isnt going to improve medical care any more that putting special taxes on tobacco increases the sale of tobacco products."
False analogy. The idea is to reduce the costs in the long run, not increase the revenue stream.
How does taxing something reduce the cost of it?
By making sure everybody is covered will drive down the cost. The industrialized West, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand's populations pay less, live longer, for less per person than here in the U.S.
and as we know through many times in our own history, price controls are bad things.How does taxing something reduce the cost of it?
By making sure everybody is covered will drive down the cost. The industrialized West, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand's populations pay less, live longer, for less per person than here in the U.S.
In every case of socialized medicine I've looked into (and yes I've read up on several of these) if costs are brought down at all it's through price controls. Without such price controls, blanket insurance has the opposite affect on health care prices.
That's not the way representative democracy works in the U.S.
Democracy isn't viable unless the minority can trust that the majority won't be able to run roughshod over everyone else. Without that trust - without reliable limits on what can be imposed on us by government - there is no democracy and no social contract, only brute tyranny. And brute tyranny always fails.
Constitutional, electoral process upheld by SCOTUS is not tyranny.
It certainly can be, when Congress oversteps its bounds, and the Court fails to stop them.
The minority, when protected as it has been through the entire process, does not dictate to the majority.
The minority was not protected in the ACA decision. In any case, I was responding to your comment: "We the People through their elected reps disagree with you.", which you seemed to be offering up as justification for abuse of the taxation power. Majority will isn't the deciding factor in constitutional matters.
Nothing that alan1 offers up can stop the fact that the industrialized west lives longer, healthier and less cost than the USA.
Those are the facts.
alan1 offers nothing to counter that fact that we in the USA could as well.
This is also a fact: the ACA, in itself or in romeny clone, will survive.
The minority has been protected by ACA is the point. SCOTUS had decided.
The point is that you refuse to accept constitutional, electoral process, dblack.
But you don't speak for the minority, only yourself.
and as we know through many times in our own history, price controls are bad things.By making sure everybody is covered will drive down the cost. The industrialized West, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand's populations pay less, live longer, for less per person than here in the U.S.
In every case of socialized medicine I've looked into (and yes I've read up on several of these) if costs are brought down at all it's through price controls. Without such price controls, blanket insurance has the opposite affect on health care prices.
If it's a price floor, all prices drop to it. If it's a price ceiling, all prices rise to it.
And they stay there.
Taxing bad behavior
It is common knowledge that the government can reduce bad behavior by taxing or penalizing it.
Tobacco and alcohol use are the perfect examples. Every time the tax rates increase on tobacco products, some people quit using tobacco. It happens with alcohol also. Some people quit or reduce consumption because they cant afford it anymore. Some because they just dont want to pay the increased taxes.
A few years, the city of Chicago instituted a 5 cent tax on bottled water. They said they needed the tax money because all those empty bottles were getting into landfills. I guess they sort of forgot about their recycling programs. The sales of bottled water dropped, and Chicago didnt get the revenue stream they anticipated and wrote into their budget.
By the way, the reason I know this about Chicagos bottled water tax is because I am the IT person for a fortune 100 retailer that had to develop the reporting so that our company could collect and pay the tax to the city. Our sales of water have dropped dramatically since the tax was introduced.
Part of the health care bill calls for a tax on so-called Cadillac health care plans. Just like tobacco, alcohol and water, this will price some people out of the market. Instead, they will settle for a sub-prime health care plan. The government wont get its anticipated revenue stream, and some person will end up not getting the type of medical care they really wanted to and was willing to pay for.
Another part of the health care bill calls for taxing manufacturers of medical equipment. I am willing to bet, those costs will be passed on and some doctor or hospital will just buy less medical equipment. The anticipated taxes wont be realized, and the medical services that could have been provided with that equipment wont be available.
Anybody with a lick of common sense knows that unfairly taxing something reduces a persons propensity to engage in that behavior. Putting special taxes on medical related goods and services isnt going to improve medical care any more that putting special taxes on tobacco increases the sale of tobacco products.
I'm not sure why the government thinks medical care is bad behavior.
The minority has been protected by ACA is the point. SCOTUS had decided.
The point is that you refuse to accept constitutional, electoral process, dblack.
But you don't speak for the minority, only yourself.
Not really sure what you're going on about here - other than trying to avoid the point. Which was that your "We the people have decided" comment was ignorant and has nothing to do with the topic. Well done.
The minority has been protected by ACA is the point. SCOTUS had decided.
The point is that you refuse to accept constitutional, electoral process, dblack.
But you don't speak for the minority, only yourself.
Not really sure what you're going on about here - other than trying to avoid the point. Which was that your "We the people have decided" comment was ignorant and has nothing to do with the topic. Well done.
Stay on track, and stop deflecting. Your ignorance is that you refuse to accept constitutional, electoral process as defined by the Constitution and the will of We the People. You are in the minority, you lost, SCOTUS decided against you, it's over.
And the Mandate Tax is taxing NON-behavior.....
The only thing that will slow health costs is ACA, proven in Mass (2%/yr now.) 2% tax on medical equipment will cost the patient 0%, dupes.
Health care costs are increasing much faster than the growth in the economy, gross domestic production (GDP), and wages. Such increases, if unchecked, threaten the financial stability of individuals and businesses, and the future viability of our gains in health care access. Massachusetts is a national leader in health care. In the Commonwealth, we benefit from highly ranked health plans and hospitals, and we also have strong market reforms protecting access to health care that are a national model. As a result of Chapter 58, Massachusetts has expanded coverage to 97% of the population through the shared responsibility of individuals and employers. These landmark gains in access, however, are jeopardized by unsustainable increases in health care costs in Massachusetts.
Nothing that alan1 offers up can stop the fact that the industrialized west lives longer, healthier and less cost than the USA.
Those are the facts.
alan1 offers nothing to counter that fact that we in the USA could as well.
This is also a fact: the ACA, in itself or in romeny clone, will survive.
Among the seven nations studiedAustralia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United Statesthe U.S. ranks last overall, as it did in the 2007, 2006, and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last on dimensions of access, patient safety, coordination, efficiency, and equity. The Netherlands ranks first, followed closely by the U.K. and Australia. The 2010 edition includes data from the seven countries and incorporates patients' and physicians' survey results on care experiences and ratings on various dimensions of care.
