Why exactly are you unwilling to pay for other people's medical care?

[Arianrhod]

I've always thought that taxation should be allocated by taxpayer preference. I believe we'd be involved in far fewer wars, and the infrastructure in South Carolina would have been upgraded long before all that rainfall.

People allocating their money according to their preference isn't taxation. It's the free market. And you're right, if more money was allocated via taxpayer preference, and less via state mandate, there'd be far fewer wars and the things that matter most to us would get the most funding.

While I agree with the rest of your post, I don't see how preferential taxation could be considered the free market ...

Which means you don't really agree with the rest of my post, eh?

On the contrary. Let's establish that before I answer the rest.

 

[Conservative65]

I've always thought that taxation should be allocated by taxpayer preference. I believe we'd be involved in far fewer wars, and the infrastructure in South Carolina would have been upgraded long before all that rainfall.

I've driven on many of the roads that were damaged. I guess you don't think almost 2 feet of rain in a 24 hour period can damage even the best of situation.

 

[Arianrhod]

I've always thought that taxation should be allocated by taxpayer preference. I believe we'd be involved in far fewer wars, and the infrastructure in South Carolina would have been upgraded long before all that rainfall.

I've driven on many of the roads that were damaged. I guess you don't think almost 2 feet of rain in a 24 hour period can damage even the best of situation.

I was thinking of the TVA-era dams that collapsed because they hadn't been upgraded.

 

[Conservative65]

I've always thought that taxation should be allocated by taxpayer preference. I believe we'd be involved in far fewer wars, and the infrastructure in South Carolina would have been upgraded long before all that rainfall.

I've driven on many of the roads that were damaged. I guess you don't think almost 2 feet of rain in a 24 hour period can damage even the best of situation.

I was thinking of the TVA-era dams that collapsed because they hadn't been upgraded.

So you don't think that much rain could damage even the best of situations. Got it.

 

[dblack]

I've always thought that taxation should be allocated by taxpayer preference. I believe we'd be involved in far fewer wars, and the infrastructure in South Carolina would have been upgraded long before all that rainfall.

People allocating their money according to their preference isn't taxation. It's the free market. And you're right, if more money was allocated via taxpayer preference, and less via state mandate, there'd be far fewer wars and the things that matter most to us would get the most funding.

While I agree with the rest of your post, I don't see how preferential taxation could be considered the free market ...

Which means you don't really agree with the rest of my post, eh?

On the contrary. Let's establish that before I answer the rest.

Well, the rest [ of my post ] was laying out why I'd say we don't actually agree. When I think of giving taxpayers their 'preference', I'm not imagining constraining it to pre-approved boxes. I guess what you're aiming for is some system that might give them a little more input into how their tax dollars are spent. But voters who are frequently in the minority find little comfort in that, as the only options likely to be approved for selection will be those that the majority deems acceptable. (eg. if there were majority support in Congress for a given war, it's unlikely they'd allow it as an optional choice for taxpayers)

 

[Arianrhod]

I've always thought that taxation should be allocated by taxpayer preference. I believe we'd be involved in far fewer wars, and the infrastructure in South Carolina would have been upgraded long before all that rainfall.

People allocating their money according to their preference isn't taxation. It's the free market. And you're right, if more money was allocated via taxpayer preference, and less via state mandate, there'd be far fewer wars and the things that matter most to us would get the most funding.

While I agree with the rest of your post, I don't see how preferential taxation could be considered the free market ...

Which means you don't really agree with the rest of my post, eh?

On the contrary. Let's establish that before I answer the rest.

Well, the rest [ of my post ] was laying out why I'd say we don't actually agree. When I think of giving taxpayers their 'preference', I'm not imagining constraining it to pre-approved boxes. I guess what you're aiming for is some system that might give them a little more input into how their tax dollars are spent. But voters who are frequently in the minority find little comfort in that, as the only options likely to be approved for selection will be those that the majority deems acceptable. (eg. if there were majority support in Congress for a given war, it's unlikely they'd allow it as an optional choice for taxpayers)

What if there were a box for "Other...please specify"? (Although people seldom do specify; I'm not sure why that is.) Then you could do a social media blitz to find others who shared your "Other" and create a new subgroup.

Or would that be likely to end up with the Ministry of Silly Walks?

 

[Arianrhod]

I've always thought that taxation should be allocated by taxpayer preference. I believe we'd be involved in far fewer wars, and the infrastructure in South Carolina would have been upgraded long before all that rainfall.

I've driven on many of the roads that were damaged. I guess you don't think almost 2 feet of rain in a 24 hour period can damage even the best of situation.

I was thinking of the TVA-era dams that collapsed because they hadn't been upgraded.

So you don't think that much rain could damage even the best of situations. Got it.

No, you don't "got it." You're attributing things to me that I neither stated nor implied.

Now, unless you can prove that every single one of those dams would have collapsed even if they'd been upgraded the week before, maybe you should try something else.

 

[dblack]

People allocating their money according to their preference isn't taxation. It's the free market. And you're right, if more money was allocated via taxpayer preference, and less via state mandate, there'd be far fewer wars and the things that matter most to us would get the most funding.

While I agree with the rest of your post, I don't see how preferential taxation could be considered the free market ...

Which means you don't really agree with the rest of my post, eh?

On the contrary. Let's establish that before I answer the rest.

Well, the rest [ of my post ] was laying out why I'd say we don't actually agree. When I think of giving taxpayers their 'preference', I'm not imagining constraining it to pre-approved boxes. I guess what you're aiming for is some system that might give them a little more input into how their tax dollars are spent. But voters who are frequently in the minority find little comfort in that, as the only options likely to be approved for selection will be those that the majority deems acceptable. (eg. if there were majority support in Congress for a given war, it's unlikely they'd allow it as an optional choice for taxpayers)

What if there were a box for "Other...please specify"? (Although people seldom do specify; I'm not sure why that is.) Then you could do a social media blitz to find others who shared your "Other" and create a new subgroup.

Or would that be likely to end up with the Ministry of Silly Walks?

More likely, The Department of Deposit My Money in my Checking Account.

I hope you can appreciate what I'm getting at. If government spending is truly necessary, then it shouldn't be up to taxpayers whether they fund it or not. And if it isn't necessary, it should not be a matter of government in the first place.

 

[Arianrhod]

While I agree with the rest of your post, I don't see how preferential taxation could be considered the free market ...

Which means you don't really agree with the rest of my post, eh?

On the contrary. Let's establish that before I answer the rest.

Well, the rest [ of my post ] was laying out why I'd say we don't actually agree. When I think of giving taxpayers their 'preference', I'm not imagining constraining it to pre-approved boxes. I guess what you're aiming for is some system that might give them a little more input into how their tax dollars are spent. But voters who are frequently in the minority find little comfort in that, as the only options likely to be approved for selection will be those that the majority deems acceptable. (eg. if there were majority support in Congress for a given war, it's unlikely they'd allow it as an optional choice for taxpayers)

What if there were a box for "Other...please specify"? (Although people seldom do specify; I'm not sure why that is.) Then you could do a social media blitz to find others who shared your "Other" and create a new subgroup.

Or would that be likely to end up with the Ministry of Silly Walks?

More likely, The Department of Deposit My Money in my Checking Account.

I hope you can appreciate what I'm getting at. If government spending is truly necessary, then it shouldn't be up to taxpayers whether they fund it or not. And if it isn't necessary, it should be a matter of government in the first place.

So, um, where does the revenue come from, then?

 

[Flopper]

Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?

That depends on your morals.

 

[dblack]

Which means you don't really agree with the rest of my post, eh?

On the contrary. Let's establish that before I answer the rest.

Well, the rest [ of my post ] was laying out why I'd say we don't actually agree. When I think of giving taxpayers their 'preference', I'm not imagining constraining it to pre-approved boxes. I guess what you're aiming for is some system that might give them a little more input into how their tax dollars are spent. But voters who are frequently in the minority find little comfort in that, as the only options likely to be approved for selection will be those that the majority deems acceptable. (eg. if there were majority support in Congress for a given war, it's unlikely they'd allow it as an optional choice for taxpayers)

What if there were a box for "Other...please specify"? (Although people seldom do specify; I'm not sure why that is.) Then you could do a social media blitz to find others who shared your "Other" and create a new subgroup.

Or would that be likely to end up with the Ministry of Silly Walks?

More likely, The Department of Deposit My Money in my Checking Account.

I hope you can appreciate what I'm getting at. If government spending is truly necessary, then it shouldn't be up to taxpayers whether they fund it or not. And if it isn't necessary, it should be a matter of government in the first place.

So, um, where does the revenue come from, then?

Taxpayers. Though I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

[dblack]

On the contrary. Let's establish that before I answer the rest.

Well, the rest [ of my post ] was laying out why I'd say we don't actually agree. When I think of giving taxpayers their 'preference', I'm not imagining constraining it to pre-approved boxes. I guess what you're aiming for is some system that might give them a little more input into how their tax dollars are spent. But voters who are frequently in the minority find little comfort in that, as the only options likely to be approved for selection will be those that the majority deems acceptable. (eg. if there were majority support in Congress for a given war, it's unlikely they'd allow it as an optional choice for taxpayers)

What if there were a box for "Other...please specify"? (Although people seldom do specify; I'm not sure why that is.) Then you could do a social media blitz to find others who shared your "Other" and create a new subgroup.

Or would that be likely to end up with the Ministry of Silly Walks?

More likely, The Department of Deposit My Money in my Checking Account.

I hope you can appreciate what I'm getting at. If government spending is truly necessary, then it shouldn't be up to taxpayers whether they fund it or not. And if it isn't necessary, it should not be a matter of government in the first place.

So, um, where does the revenue come from, then?

Taxpayers. Though I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Just realized I had a type in my post that was surely confusing. Corrected above: "And if it isn't necessary, it should be a matter of government in the first place." should read "And if it isn't necessary, it should NOT be a matter of government in the first place.

 

[Arianrhod]

Well, the rest [ of my post ] was laying out why I'd say we don't actually agree. When I think of giving taxpayers their 'preference', I'm not imagining constraining it to pre-approved boxes. I guess what you're aiming for is some system that might give them a little more input into how their tax dollars are spent. But voters who are frequently in the minority find little comfort in that, as the only options likely to be approved for selection will be those that the majority deems acceptable. (eg. if there were majority support in Congress for a given war, it's unlikely they'd allow it as an optional choice for taxpayers)

What if there were a box for "Other...please specify"? (Although people seldom do specify; I'm not sure why that is.) Then you could do a social media blitz to find others who shared your "Other" and create a new subgroup.

Or would that be likely to end up with the Ministry of Silly Walks?

More likely, The Department of Deposit My Money in my Checking Account.

I hope you can appreciate what I'm getting at. If government spending is truly necessary, then it shouldn't be up to taxpayers whether they fund it or not. And if it isn't necessary, it should not be a matter of government in the first place.

So, um, where does the revenue come from, then?

Taxpayers. Though I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Just realized I had a type in my post that was surely confusing. Corrected above: "And if it isn't necessary, it should be a matter of government in the first place." should read "And if it isn't necessary, it should NOT be a matter of government in the first place.

Yes, that does make more sense - thanks!

So then we come down to the definition of "necessary," which will vary widely depending on who you ask. My list springs from that funny little phrase that goes "to promote the general welfare."

Of course, to the ignorant, "welfare," as in a state of wellbeing has been conflated with "OMFG, teh EVUL WELFARE," i.e., "people who don't work and want free stuff" and, unfortunately, they may be ignorant, but they're also extremely loud.

 

[dblack]

What if there were a box for "Other...please specify"? (Although people seldom do specify; I'm not sure why that is.) Then you could do a social media blitz to find others who shared your "Other" and create a new subgroup.

Or would that be likely to end up with the Ministry of Silly Walks?

More likely, The Department of Deposit My Money in my Checking Account.

I hope you can appreciate what I'm getting at. If government spending is truly necessary, then it shouldn't be up to taxpayers whether they fund it or not. And if it isn't necessary, it should not be a matter of government in the first place.

So, um, where does the revenue come from, then?

Taxpayers. Though I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Just realized I had a type in my post that was surely confusing. Corrected above: "And if it isn't necessary, it should be a matter of government in the first place." should read "And if it isn't necessary, it should NOT be a matter of government in the first place.

Yes, that does make more sense - thanks!

So then we come down to the definition of "necessary," which will vary widely depending on who you ask. My list springs from that funny little phrase that goes "to promote the general welfare."

Of course, to the ignorant, "welfare," as in a state of wellbeing has been conflated with "OMFG, teh EVUL WELFARE," i.e., "people who don't work and want free stuff" and, unfortunately, they may be ignorant, but they're also extremely loud.

More narrow-minded than ignorant. The problem with setting up government to provide for our welfare is that everyone has a different vision of "the good life". And when government is in charge of deciding who gets what, getting what you want becomes a matter of manipulating government (which has the power to force others to comply) rather than persuading others to give it to you voluntarily.

 

[Arianrhod]

More likely, The Department of Deposit My Money in my Checking Account.

I hope you can appreciate what I'm getting at. If government spending is truly necessary, then it shouldn't be up to taxpayers whether they fund it or not. And if it isn't necessary, it should not be a matter of government in the first place.

So, um, where does the revenue come from, then?

Taxpayers. Though I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Just realized I had a type in my post that was surely confusing. Corrected above: "And if it isn't necessary, it should be a matter of government in the first place." should read "And if it isn't necessary, it should NOT be a matter of government in the first place.

Yes, that does make more sense - thanks!

So then we come down to the definition of "necessary," which will vary widely depending on who you ask. My list springs from that funny little phrase that goes "to promote the general welfare."

Of course, to the ignorant, "welfare," as in a state of wellbeing has been conflated with "OMFG, teh EVUL WELFARE," i.e., "people who don't work and want free stuff" and, unfortunately, they may be ignorant, but they're also extremely loud.

More narrow-minded than ignorant. The problem with setting up government to provide for our welfare is that everyone has a different vision of "the good life". And when government is in charge of deciding who gets what, getting what you want becomes a matter of manipulating government (which has the power to force others to comply) rather than persuading others to give it to you voluntarily.

See, and that's not at all what I have in mind when I think of "promote the general welfare." YMMV.

 

[dblack]

See, and that's not at all what I have in mind when I think of "promote the general welfare." YMMV.

I understand that. That's exactly why I'm saying having government decide what constitutes the general welfare, outside narrowly defined constitutional powers, is a bad idea. It certainly shouldn't be up to a vote. I think the freedom for each of us to strive for our own individual vision of "welfare" is more important than a guarantee of someone else's.

 

[Arianrhod]

See, and that's not at all what I have in mind when I think of "promote the general welfare." YMMV.

I understand that. That's exactly why I'm saying having government decide what constitutes the general welfare, outside narrowly defined constitutional powers, is a bad idea. It certainly shouldn't be up to a vote. I think the freedom for each of us to strive for our own individual vision of "welfare" is more important than a guarantee of someone else's.

I'd say the only guarantees should be life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but none of those is as simple as it seems. And any individual vision has to be predicated on the degree to which that vision can be realized. For one thing, "all men are created equal" - from the pen of a slave-owner - is pretty heavy on the irony.

 

[Cecilie1200]

LOL The dog's on his hind legs again.

So all you've got is non sequiturs. Okay.

You have no fucking clue what that word means, do you? You just saw it in my post, thought, "Fancy foreign insult I can parrot back", and included it in every post since.

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but I can't say I'm all that interested in being flattered by you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The fact that I am in medicine has nothing to do with me having to pay for someone else's care. I have no obligation to do so.

But you'd refuse care to someone who couldn't pay.

Ohmigod, I am so sick of ignorant leftist conflation of "if you don't give me money to pay for things, you are preventing me from having them!"

Big difference between a medical person refusing to provide care, and refusing to pay for someone else to provide it. Duhhh.

He's quite the idiot, is he not?

He'd be a dancing monkey in a circus if he had twenty more IQ points and was a whole lot cuter.

 

[Arianrhod]

So the "must post content before you flame" rule only applies to some, I see.

However, I remember back before the PPACA how all of you rose up with one voice decrying the fact that your hospital and clinic costs were going up because people were using ERs for non-emergent conditions and you all demanded insurance reform.

Oh, wait.