Tax question

[Hurlshort]

Fuel in Quebec is taxed at 60% Same with cigs.

 

That makes sense, since those two things are major causes for medical expenses.

[Guard Dog]

Well, it is better than nothing that a good chunk of us have. When a kid dies due to a toothe ache because his mother can't afford to go to dentist or have insurance to cover it there is something seriously wrong with our society.

 

Beyond that I do think that we do need to get back to our roots, back to the government as prescribed in the Constitution.

The problem with healthcare in America is the costs. But almost 45% of the cost is regulatory compliance. So the government is creating a BIG part of the problem you guys are asking it to solve. If we get the FDA and DHHS out of the way, cost of service will drop. Add in tort reform for punative damages and it will drop again.

 

Here is a GREAT example of how things should work. Last November I noticed one of my dogs was having trouble walking. So I checked her over and found she was in pain in her abdomen. I call the Vet, she gets me in there the next day. They examine her and find she has a hernia. Two days later they perform a simple surgery to repair the tear. The whole thing cost $450 and was over in two days.

 

Now if that were me in pain, it would take weeks to see the doctor. weeks more to shuffle though the bueracracy, and then an outpatient surgery that will probably cost more than a used car. Why is there a difference? There is no federal and very little state regulation of veterinarians. US health care once worked exactly like my example.

 

As the great American Ronald Reagan once said, "Government is the problem, not the solution.

[Sand]

You do have a point, I guess but if you get rid of the FDA and DHHS, deregulating what we have already, I can see it causing more problems because at that point there would be no accountability nor any controls of any kind against malpractice or corporations making dangerous drugs that can do more harm than good.

[Guard Dog]

You do have a point, I guess but if you get rid of the FDA and DHHS, deregulating what we have already, I can see it causing more problems because at that point there would be no accountability nor any controls of any kind against malpractice or corporations making dangerous drugs that can do more harm than good.

 

There is always a legal recourse against malpractice, and against drug manufaturers if needed. Besides, as heavily regulated as it is, is the healthcare system perfect now? Are there bad drugs now? Is there ever medical malpractice now? Of course there is. So what good has come from regulation?

 

Besdes, I tend to believe free market economics will keep prices low and quality high, just like they do in veterinary medicine.

[Enoch]

Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 1: "The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

 

What could be more appropriately considered "general welfare" that bodily health?

The general welfare of the United States. Not the welfare of the citizens. I believe that is the duty of the citizen to take care of themselves. Not ask me, or you, to do it for them.

So, according to your logic, the U.S. military does not have the authority to launch operations to rescue American civilians trapped in hostile foreign nations-- that would be defence "of the citizens," not of the United States.

 

What can protecting the welfare of a country possibly mean, if not protecting the welfare of its citizens? What can defending a country possibly mean, if not the defense of its citizens?

[Guard Dog]

My Vets office has it's own lab. Does surgery on premises. They have their own anesthesiologists, and even their own dispenary and pharmacy. My doctor has NONE of those things. Heck most hospitals contract out their lab work because of the amount of insurance the law requires them to carry for it.

 

The government has made a bloody mess out of things.

[Gfted1]

There is always a legal recourse against malpractice, and against drug manufaturers if needed. Besides, as heavily regulated as it is, is the healthcare system perfect now? Are there bad drugs now? Is there ever medical malpractice now? Of course there is. So what good has come from regulation?

 

Besdes, I tend to believe free market economics will keep prices low and quality high, just like they do in veterinary medicine.

 

A couple of counterpoints. What good has come of regulation? None you say? This reminds me of the mentality displayed by others in the "legalize all drugs" thread. That if something isnt 100% effective we might as well chuck it in the trash and have a free for all. Of course malpractice and bad drug still occur, but could you image what wouldnt be caught and ruled out if no oversight was performed?

 

I feel it is a mistake to equate vets and doctors. Prices would not stay stable simply because we are who we are and when our day comes we would pay anything to extend our lives or cure our ills. In addition, the medicine, machines and test for humans are vastly more complex, hence expensive. Of course, you may have poor insurance and thats why you wuld have to wait weeks and pay through the nose but those are localized examples and IMO, cannot be applied as a "rule of thumb".

[Enoch]

Well, it is better than nothing that a good chunk of us have. When a kid dies due to a toothe ache because his mother can't afford to go to dentist or have insurance to cover it there is something seriously wrong with our society.

 

Beyond that I do think that we do need to get back to our roots, back to the government as prescribed in the Constitution.

The problem with healthcare in America is the costs. But almost 45% of the cost is regulatory compliance. So the government is creating a BIG part of the problem you guys are asking it to solve. If we get the FDA and DHHS out of the way, cost of service will drop. Add in tort reform for punative damages and it will drop again.

 

Here is a GREAT example of how things should work. Last November I noticed one of my dogs was having trouble walking. So I checked her over and found she was in pain in her abdomen. I call the Vet, she gets me in there the next day. They examine her and find she has a hernia. Two days later they perform a simple surgery to repair the tear. The whole thing cost $450 and was over in two days.

 

Now if that were me in pain, it would take weeks to see the doctor. weeks more to shuffle though the bueracracy, and then an outpatient surgery that will probably cost more than a used car. Why is there a difference? There is no federal and very little state regulation of veterinarians. US health care once worked exactly like my example.

 

As the great American Ronald Reagan once said, "Government is the problem, not the solution.

Ah, but veterinary medicine also usually doesn't involve insurance companies. And people don't die because they can't afford veterinary treatment.

 

In my experience, most of the red tape that complicates healthcare in America is foisted upon providers by private insurance companies, not federal regulations. Private insurance also dramatically inflates costs through moral hazard problems-- because the people who are buying the services do not pay directly for them, they are not sensitive to price and have no incentive to look around for the best deal. That, of course, leads to healthcare providers and drug manufacturers jacking up prices to ridiculous levels (which slowly trickles down to consumers in the form of higher insurance premiums). These informational problems are a failure of the free market, which makes regulation appropriate. (Of course, the regulation we have currently isn't very good, but that's a separate issue.)

[Kaftan Barlast]

In Sweden, we tax everything, sometimes we do it twice just to be sure

[Guard Dog]

So, according to your logic, the U.S. military does not have the authority to launch operations to rescue American civilians trapped in hostile foreign nations-- that would be defence "of the citizens," not of the United States.

 

What can protecting the welfare of a country possibly mean, if not protecting the welfare of its citizens? What can defending a country possibly mean, if not the defense of its citizens?

Of course they have the AUTHORITY to do so. Or rather the President has the Constitutinal authority to order it. It does not assign the OBLIGATION to do so. But your example has nothing to do with your original point. As to your second point you an I are coming to a difference of opinion on the interperetation of the word "welfare". To me the welfare of a person is best served when they have the means and enviroment to take care of themselves. And no, I do not think the Constitution gives the authority to tax me into the ground to give me healthcare I do not want. If an amendment is passed and ratified, that is different.

[Enoch]

So, according to your logic, the U.S. military does not have the authority to launch operations to rescue American civilians trapped in hostile foreign nations-- that would be defence "of the citizens," not of the United States.

 

What can protecting the welfare of a country possibly mean, if not protecting the welfare of its citizens? What can defending a country possibly mean, if not the defense of its citizens?

Of course they have the AUTHORITY to do so. Or rather the President has the Constitutinal authority to order it. It does not assign the OBLIGATION to do so. But your example has nothing to do with your original point. As to your second point you an I are coming to a difference of opinion on the interperetation of the word "welfare". To me the welfare of a person is best served when they have the means and enviroment to take care of themselves. And no, I do not think the Constitution gives the authority to tax me into the ground to give me healthcare I do not want. If an amendment is passed and ratified, that is different.

This wasn't about interpretation of "welfare," it was about interpreation of "of the United States." Your argument earlier was that the "general welfare of the United States" does not mean the "general welfare of the citizens of the United States." I was merely pointing out that the modifying clause "of the United States" applies to both the "general welfare" provision and the "common defence" provision. It is wholly inconsistent with the text of the Constitution to suggest that Congress has the authority to legislate to provide for the common defence of the citizens of the United States, but lacks it to provide for the general welfare of the citizens of the United States. By admitting that it's constitutionally permissible to do the former, you must admit that it is constitutionally permissible to do the latter as well.

 

Now you're arguing that "welfare" can not include payment for medical treatment. That's just silly. From Dictionary.com: "1. the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being." I assure you that it had much the same meaning in 1789 when that clause was written.

 

Really, your argument is more about how the government should provide for the welfare of its citizens. That is entirely a political matter, and you are free to write your Congressperson and voice your opinion.

[Sand]

Arguing over semantics is fun!

[Enoch]

Arguing over semantics is fun!

It's not semantics-- its Constitutional Law!! I got 5 credits for this a few years back!

[metadigital]

Funny to think that the British invented income tax as a temporary fillip to fight Napoleon at Waterloo.