The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sun Nov 24, 2024 3:17 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 5:10 pm 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
And there are far far more people who earn income solely based on what level others value their time. FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR more.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:07 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
The richest man in America started with Jack. I don't have time to look up the list, but iirc most people on the top 10 list are the same way.

I don't argue the fact there are people who work hard and are fullfilled in ways other than riches though. However in many cases the medical system we have now encourages laziness and waste. More entitlement will only make this worse as when people have stuff given to them they take for granted what it "costs"

Less waste= less rationing.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
Ienan wrote:
I rather wealth being the factor than an arbitrary bureaucrat making the decision. At least wealth is generally a good indicator of someone who worked hard and contributed more to society. So if it has to be rationed, which I don't think is necessarily a given under a free market capitalist system, I rather the contributors to society reap the benefits, rather than picking some arbitrary means, such as a compassion vote or someone who might live longer than another based on statistical analysis.


The richest people generally did not create anything useful themselves, they were instead good at running a business and marketing things other people created. See: Bill Gates, Ray Kroc, Steve Jobs, etc.

Regardless, you cannot use a pure capitalist system to dole out health care without implementing some socialism to give people without some kind of hope. If I need a liver/kidney/bone marrow transplant to live and I know there is absolutely no way I can get it without coming up with $250,000 I don't have, I'm going to start robbing banks. What do I possibly have to lose?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:24 pm 
Offline
Explorer

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:31 am
Posts: 480
Location: Garden State
Aizle wrote:
Based on common sense.

There are plenty of wealthy people who inherited their wealth, and haven't contributed anything worthwhile to society at all.

There are also plenty of people for whom money is not a powerful motivator who have contributed huge amounts to society.

Inheritance just doesn't keep itself up. You need to retain the wealth still. Otherwise, you just spend it until there's no more left. So to say they haven't contributed to society is preposterous. Wealth = value of your labor. Therefore, being a teacher isn't as valuable as say, a CEO. I'm not saying teachers don't contribute, but their contributions are worth less than a CEO, who adds considerably more to society and increases the wealth of others as well. And I would gather that most CEO's put in a greater time investment compared to most teachers.

Xequecal wrote:
The richest people generally did not create anything useful themselves, they were instead good at running a business and marketing things other people created. See: Bill Gates, Ray Kroc, Steve Jobs, etc.

Regardless, you cannot use a pure capitalist system to dole out health care without implementing some socialism to give people without some kind of hope. If I need a liver/kidney/bone marrow transplant to live and I know there is absolutely no way I can get it without coming up with $250,000 I don't have, I'm going to start robbing banks. What do I possibly have to lose?

Well done. All three guys you named created incredibly useful things. They built upon the legacy of others certainly, but they built their product into a feasible one. Ray Croc, for instance, invented the idea of the franchise, for which many fast food and other businesses are based on now. Bill Gates created Windows from IBM's DOS. Steve Jobs successfully marketed and created a brand out of a basic computer system. It's like saying the wheel was invented already, so Henry Ford didn't build anything useful when he built the car.

That's not at all what would happen in a capitalist system Xequecal. Pricing pressures would force the price of those surgeries down as the rich shopped around and utilized them more, allowing more people to get those surgeries which would further reduce the price of those surgeries. Eventually, it filters down all the way, until it reaches a point of equilibrium when it would be available to the masses. That's capitalism in a nutshell. Competition breeds more access.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
While that is true, there will always be a large amount of people that cannot afford the lifesaving treatment. The doctor still expects to be paid well for his 10 years of school and medical/drug companies will still want money for their equipment. Also capitalism doesn't remove the idea of exclusive patents to the discoverer of a drug or treatment, and when you have a monopoly prices are generally very high.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:36 am
Posts: 4320
Once you reach a certain level of income, it's completely possible to just hire people to invest your money for you and live amazingly comfortably on the gains from that.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:06 am 
Offline
Asian Blonde

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:14 pm
Posts: 2075
Unfortunately certain things have to be rationed based on price. But how far do you go? Found this article on a guy who had his HIV cured by having a blood stem cell transplant.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wo ... 5971730744

Spoiler:
AN unusual blood transplant appears to have cured an American man of HIV, but doctors say the approach is not practical for wide use.
The man, who is in his 40s and lives in Berlin, had a blood stem cell transplant in 2007 to treat leukemia.

His donor was not only a good blood match but also had a gene mutation that confers natural resistance to HIV.

The recipient now shows no signs of leukemia or HIV infection, according to a report in the journal Blood.

"It's an interesting proof of concept that with pretty extraordinary measures a patient could be cured of HIV", but it was far too risky to become standard therapy even if matched donors could be found, said Michael Saag of the University of Alabama at Birmingham. He is past chairman of the HIV Medicine Association, an organisation of doctors who specialise in treating AIDS.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
.End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
Transplants of bone marrow - or, more commonly these days, of blood stem cells - are done to treat cancer, and their risks in healthy people are unknown. The process involves destroying the person's native immune system with powerful drugs and radiation, then replacing it with donor cells to grow a new immune system.

Mortality from the procedure or its complications can be 5 per cent or more.

"We can't really apply this particular approach to healthy individuals because the risk is just too high", especially when drugs could keep HIV in check in most cases, Dr Saag said.

Unless an HIV patient also had cancer, a transplant was unlikely to be considered, he said.

When the Berlin case first surfaced two years ago, Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the procedure was too expensive and risky to be practical as a cure.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:49 pm
Posts: 3455
Location: St. Louis, MO
Aizle wrote:
Once you reach a certain level of income, it's completely possible to just hire people to invest your money for you and live amazingly comfortably on the gains from that.

And employing people does not qualify as contributing to society?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 7:03 am 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
We have this wall in our hospital. It's full of names of evil rich people. Some of whom have donated millions of dollars over their lifetimes to pay other peoples medical bills. If we could cut waste that money would go so much farther.

The government isnt the only answer.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 7:16 am 
Offline
Oberon's Playground
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:11 am
Posts: 9449
Location: Your Dreams
Rorinthas wrote:
We have this wall in our hospital. It's full of names of evil rich people. Some of whom have donated millions of dollars over their lifetimes to pay other peoples medical bills. If we could cut waste that money would go so much farther.

The government isnt the only answer.


You guys make it sound as if UHC is guaranteed to be less efficient than an entirely private system--this despite examples of other countries right now that have more cost-efficient and less wasteful health care than America's (before "obamacare") and have maintained the same or better quality of care and patient outcome as America, while truly giving universal access. Hey, and those countries still have walls in their hospitals full of the names of "evil rich people" who have donated millions to improve healthcare.

Just because Obama's **** it up more, doesn't mean it cannot be done right.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me

█ ♣ █


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 7:30 am 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
on a curious note. What kind of taxation model does Canada have? I know consumption taxes are huge there, but what about income. Is it flater than the American system?

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:07 am 
Offline
Explorer

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:31 am
Posts: 480
Location: Garden State
Xequecal wrote:
While that is true, there will always be a large amount of people that cannot afford the lifesaving treatment. The doctor still expects to be paid well for his 10 years of school and medical/drug companies will still want money for their equipment. Also capitalism doesn't remove the idea of exclusive patents to the discoverer of a drug or treatment, and when you have a monopoly prices are generally very high.

There's nothing saying you're entitled to life-saving treatments for free, though. If you cannot afford it, look to private charities and the like or make a deal with an institution to pay the debt over time.

Doctors going to expensive medical schools and drug companies charging as much as they do is all a function of government regulation. With as much government regulation as their is in medicine, medical schools need to charge more and drug discovery becomes an expensive proposition with testing and clinical trials. The average drug takes 10 years to go to market in the US from when it's first discovered. That's a lot of built-in cost right there.

And patent laws don't mean you have a monopoly on the market, they mean you have a monopoly on that specific drug for that condition. That doesn't stop another company finding another drug that treats the same condition. Statins are the prime example. If every company stopped producing a statin after Pfizer came out with Lipitor, you might as well give up. But that's not what happened. Merck came out with Zetia, etc. etc.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:08 am 
Offline
Explorer

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:31 am
Posts: 480
Location: Garden State
shuyung wrote:
Aizle wrote:
Once you reach a certain level of income, it's completely possible to just hire people to invest your money for you and live amazingly comfortably on the gains from that.

And employing people does not qualify as contributing to society?

This. Employing people is one of the most valuable things in our society. It produces more wealth for more people, allowing more people to life better lifestyles.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:22 am 
Offline
Oberon's Playground
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:11 am
Posts: 9449
Location: Your Dreams
Rorinthas wrote:
on a curious note. What kind of taxation model does Canada have? I know consumption taxes are huge there, but what about income. Is it flater than the American system?


Not really more flat, no.

Canadian Federal income tax rates are:
•15% on the first $40,970 of taxable income, +
•22% on the next $40,971 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $40,970 and $81,941), +
•26% on the next $45,080 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $81,941 and $127,021), +
•29% of taxable income over $127,021.

Note that the tax rate is only charged on the amount in that bracket. So if I make $150,000, I pay 15% on the first 41k, 22% on the next 41k, 26% on the next 45k, and 29% on any amounts over 127k--so you cannot bring home less if you jump a tax bracket.

"Taxable income" is basically defined as amounts made over $10,000ish after any deductions. (So that first $10,000 is tax free, for everybody. It doesn't count as taxable income. If deductions - such as retirement plan or charity contributions, etc. - push you below $10,000, you pay no tax at all.)


Provinces may apply additional income tax. In Ontario, the combined federal and provincial top tax raket is about 40% even (29% federal, 11% provincial), on amounts over $127,021.

Other differences: Spousal incomes are not added together. If I make 50k and my husband makes 60k, we do not pay tax as if we made 110k. We pay it separately. If there are any deductions (such as for dependants,) you can choose which person claims them.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me

█ ♣ █


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:33 am 
Offline
Deuce Master

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:45 am
Posts: 3099
Xequecal wrote:
The richest people generally did not create anything useful themselves, they were instead good at running a business and marketing things other people created. See: Bill Gates, Ray Kroc, Steve Jobs, etc.

This is freaking retarded. If they grow the success and size of a company they've created something. Just because it isn't tangible doesn't mean it's worthless. Working smarter but not harder is getting demonized now? Do you even notice you're thinking like a Chinese communist here? Should these CEO's and marketers be forced to go work on farms to learn the purity of physical labor?

_________________
The Dude abides.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:41 am 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
(Taly)
Thank you. Problem is I look at the health insurance my government already runs (called medicare, and it's full if fraud and waste) and don't see them as being the answer to our problems.

I admit that somehow the Candians have done a better job running the whole healthcare system than the American government has done with part of it. If you have a lousy part time worker do you say "ill promote him to CEO, he'd do better"?

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:15 am 
Offline
Oberon's Playground
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:11 am
Posts: 9449
Location: Your Dreams
The flat taxes do not always mean less taxation, even for the wealthy.

Alberta has a flat income tax rate of 10%. There is no basic personal deduction of $10k from that, either. You need to make an obscene amount of money in Ontario before Alberta is taxed less, though.

Think about it, in Ontario: 0% on the first 10k, 5% on the next 40k or so (so $2k), 8% on the next 40k or so (so $3600),11% on everything over that.

The break-even point between the albertan tax rate and ontario is just under $500k. Below that, Ontarians pay less; above that, ontarians always pay less than 1% more.

I like flat taxes, but not if they cause the middle-income brackets to pay more.

(Alberta is still a cheaper place to live because they have no provincial consumption tax, though.)

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me

█ ♣ █


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
The main reason UHC doesn't work in the US is Americans don't trust their government. Europeans do, and that's why it works. If the government tries to put up UHC, every American will immediately assume it will fail, and that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:09 pm 
Offline
Lean, Mean, Googling Machine
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 2903
Location: Maze of twisty little passages, all alike
Do they?

Confidence in Government and Happiness in EU and US (Sergiu Baltatescu University of Oradea).

If anything, the general trend seems to be that the U.S. has higher confidence in government institutions than the EU on the whole, or Canada. This also seems to hold true specifically for civil services as a subset.

Edit:

Also interesting is that pretty much everyone has higher confidence in the police and military than they do in the legislature or civil services.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 272 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group