NerblyBear wrote:I make my income from a job. That job has been made available to me by a society which values the sort of work that I am able to do. Therefore, I owe back to society a certain chunk of that income, for two reasons:
1) It's the generous thing to do.
2) In the long run, it's in my own self-interest because it will (hopefully) make society an even better place in which to live.
Seconded, and let's throw into the mix that people don't make money in a vacuum. When a manufacturer makes money s/he does it over whose roads? Using labor (hopefully) educated in schools paid for by whom for the first 12 years? I say give something back because we all pitched in to the infrastructure and education that you're using to make money.
Sure, the tax money could be spent more efficiently, but maybe would could focus on that, rather than this obession that taxes are bad and how it's one's "right" to live in this great country with little or no investment.
In my opinion, the first priority for a Democratic Congress is to achieve a workable, federal health-care system. Taxes'll pay for that, Chief, and I'll be happy to spend them on it since, when I pull my back, I'll have somewhere to go.
Agreed. The fact is we already spend more per person on healthcare than countries with national health programs.
I've heard all of the lines about how we have the "greatest health insurance system in the world" but the fact is, the people who have no access to it is pushing 20% of the population. If you don't like the nat. health system, then buy out of it like the rich people in Canada, Australia and the UK do, but for those who don't have that option, providing basic healthcare prevents larger losses of tax revenue later.
For example: Untreated diabetes often results in amputations. Now we have a disabled person to care for on our tax dime. Public Health 101 dictates that a problem prevented is the cheapest option.
Example #2: The SARS problem in Toronto was stopped dead in it's tracks because the National Health database traced the vectors immediately and a lockdown ensued. We don't have an interconnected system and it's guaranteed that the same outbreak here would have burdened us with wasting valuable time figuring things out while the germs spread. Seconds count in an outbreak.
What would that have cost us? Use the same example for bioterrorism if you'd like.
The nation's health is too important to be entrusted to bean counters who currently are doing a lousy job. I sit in an insurance office all day and can't believe how bad it is compared to the very well run Property and Casualty industry.
Nicely written all the way around, Nerbly.
-A