Obama would tax wealthy to pay for universal health care

Originally posted by dawnstar
unconstitutional as all heck!!

It's not unconstitutional, the Constitution allows the Congress to create any kind of taxes they like.

Originally posted by iori_komei
It's not unconstitutional, the Constitution allows the Congress to create any kind of taxes they like.

That is very debatable.

However, what would be the point of providing health care via taxes?

I said it before, no one has more right to my money than me.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
That is very debatable.

Alright, I think I should have said that differently, obviously the Congress can't pass a
breathing tax, or a fun tax, but I meant they can pass taxes that are deemed to be
helpful of society and to fund the government.

However, what would be the point of providing health care via taxes?

Well, taxes are one of the few ways for the government to actually fund something,
so that's really one of the routes they'd have to go down.

I said it before, no one has more right to my money than me.

The good of the many outweigh the wants of the one.

Of course there is a point where that can no longer apply, like if taxes were actually so
much that you were not bringing enough money home to live.

Originally posted by iori_komei

The good of the many outweigh the wants of the one.

Of course there is a point where that can no longer apply, like if taxes were actually so
much that you were not bringing enough money home to live.

This is fundamentally untrue in a nation such as America. The good of many is of no concern to me aside from the things I choose to provide for the good of others.

Personally I think it's shameful that they take the food from my children's plate to give to another for any reason at all.

I am having a hard time paying for my living and the living of my family for these very reasons (coupled with other things, many caused by the centralization of money and big government).

No one has any right to the work I do or the money I earn except for my family. There is no question about it.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
This is fundamentally untrue in a nation such as America.

The concept transcends the lines people draw on Maps.

The good of many is of no concern to me aside from the things I choose to provide for the good of others.

It is not important if the good of others concerns you or not, as a part of society you
have to give up something to benefit society.

If you don't want to, than create an artificial island in international waters and do not
use any facet of society.

There is a difference between giving for the benefit of all (roads, cops, etc) and redistributing wealth.

I am fine with the former and would banish all forms of the latter. Also, America is more (or was supposed to be) than lines on a map. It was intended to be a bastion of liberty, where people were kings and queens on their respective property. Personal property rights are the foundation of freedom, including the fruits of ones own labor.

Obviously things have changed quite a bit in our "progress", most of which was ill conceived and implemented worse.

May come as no surprise that I think FDR was one of the worst presidents ever, if not a traitor.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by KrazyJethro]

I think it's unconstitutional....

it's estimated that the lack of insurance will cause about 18,000 unnecessary deaths this year....making it the sixth leading cause of premature deaths. There are 43 million people in this nation that are uninsured.....the chances are very good, that there are many, many of these that are taxpayers, they are paying for the healthcare others are enjoying, while not being able to enjoy this luxury themselves. and many, many of these are not enjoying it because they can't afford it any more than the ones that are being helped, it's a choice between health insurance, and shelter, or food, or heat, or gas to get to work.....there just isn't any way...

so, what is the government doing, they certainly ain't making any move to make sure that ALL are enjoying this luxury, are they? Na, that would be too costly, so instead, they devise some lambrained scheme to chose who is worthy, who isn't, who should live, and who should die...
they certainly ain't treating they all as equals, as our fine constitution proclaims them to be, are they? no, because if they were, they would not be able to chose that 25% or whatever of those in need that fit their profile of those that are worthy of their aide...worthy of life!!

then to top it all off, they take $$ that the rest of the group could be using for their own healthcare, hey maybe, just maybe that might be enough to fill in the gap, and they could afford the danged family plan at work! and by doing so, they actually inflate the cost of the healthcare....but providing the system a steady stream of customers who can afford it regardless of what the costs are...since well, the good ole US Government will pay it, heck they will even create the money if they have to to do it!!

if they made up a system that ensured all had the service, it wouldn't be unconstitutional, but by knowing danged well that so many that they are taking money from cannot have access to those services, and then using it to give these services to others that fit their criteria, they are chosing.....they are not treating the citizens as equals....some are worthy, some are not.....life, liberty, persuit of happiness is to be enjoyed by just are few...those that fit their criteria.


if you are wondering where I got the number of uninsured, and the effect that being uninsured has....

www.abovepolitics.com...



[edit on 3-6-2007 by dawnstar]

Originally posted by dawnstar
if they made up a system that ensured all had the service, it wouldn't be unconstitutional, but by knowing danged well that so many that they are taking money from cannot have access to those services, and then using it to give these services to others that fit their criteria, they are chosing.....they are not treating the citizens as equals....some are worthy, some are not.....life, liberty, persuit of happiness is to be enjoyed by just are few...those that fit their criteria.

It would be unconstitutional, and it would further increase the cost of medical care, in my estimation. My research into the subject is very young, so I turned to Milton Friedman. His belief was that the massive cost of medical care today is caused by reliance on payment from an outside source - namely, your employer.

www.hoover.org... This is very nice, definitely worth a read.

[edit on 3-6-2007 by Johnmike]

yes, well, the system we have today where your health insurance is provided mainly through your employer, with family coverage at a much more expensive coverage is discrimatory against women and children, since children don't have employers, and women are predominately the full time caretakers of these children and therefore don't have employers. I bet the ratio of those uninsured between male, and female would show more females uninsured.

I agree though, going back to the good ole days were the consumer actually got the bill, and paid it, would cut down the costs involved. Doctors might have to get used to getting paid with chickens, but it would help with the high costs...

I've read where some doctors have decided not to accept any form of insurance. they save alot of money that's wasted on unnecessary paperwork, and well, pass that down to the patients, which makes the costs a little more affordable. wish I would could find one of these doctors.