jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (64 posts)

You're sick and need a $25,000 surgery

  1. profile image60
    AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago

    Your neighbor comes up to you and tells you he can break into a rich guy's home, steal a bunch of jewelry, and pay for your surgery. Would you ask him to do that for you?

    1. aliasis profile image94
      aliasisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Are you trying to make a metaphor for the Affordable Care Act? Yikes. lol

      1. profile image60
        AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Would you ask your neighbor to do that or not?

        And no, this is an analogy to any disproportionate taxation. Most people wouldn't have their neighbor take money from another neighbor and give it to them, but they can be perfectly fine with the government taking that money from another neighbor and giving it to them.

        You either have to support both, or neither. Otherwise, it's just being dishonest.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So you don't send your children to public schools, drive on public roads, cross public bridges, use any public service like police or fire!

          Thought so.

        2. gmwilliams profile image82
          gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          +1,000,000,000,000,000,000!   You have found a KINDRED spirit in me.  No, I do not believe in disapproprionate taxation.   Each person should DO for self, support self, and have personal responsibility and accountability. The welfare state is the MAIN reason why America as a nation is the way that it is.  There are able-bodied people who expect to be rescued and uplifted by others.   They have the mentality that "the man" and/or "society" OWES them.   People have lost the sense of ownership and personality.   Don't people realize that when one is dependent upon a government entity, OWNERSHIP is no more and one becomes a SLAVE.

          The "WAY" America is going now is towards socialism, believe it or not.  There is an anti-success and anti-achievement mentality.   The concept of personal responsibility is eroding and the mentality of hand outs and being rescued is increasing.   What YOU have presented is a GREAT analogy of the CURRENT administration.   

          The government is becoming MORE INTRUSIVE in people's lives and IT'S TIME it STOPPED.   Btw, I am a Liberal but an intelligent, discerning one.   I believe in personal responsibility, not handouts.    I also do not believe in the socialization of America-leave America to be the capitalistic, free market enterprise it IS.    Health care should be a personal thing, not a government thing.   Obama"care" means a lower quality of care; besides, Obama"care" will eventually bankrupt the nation!

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Oh BS! there are people who desperately want to work but are not wanted.
            There is absolutely nothing socialist about that, socialism says that if a man doesn't work he doesn't eat.

            And since when has the USA been a free market?

            1. gmwilliams profile image82
              gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              John, your argument is so moot in its context.  Who ever WANTS to work, CAN find employment.  Please, stop with the excuses.  This is so typical of the LIEBERAL mindset.   There are PEOPLE who just want society to TAKE CARE of them instead of working for living!

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                How is it when the economy is booming most people work but when it isn't many people decide to live off other people?
                It doesn't make sense to me.

        3. aliasis profile image94
          aliasisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Except stealing does not equal paying taxes. That's a strawman argument - it makes no sense. I am happily supportive of taxing based on income.

          Also, I trust the government to collect taxes over um, vigilantism or whatever you described.

          1. profile image60
            AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            In one situation, you ask someone to take money from a wealthy neighbor that he doesn't want to give away.

            In another situation, you have the government take money from a wealthy neighbor that he doesn't want to give away.

            That's the whole point. If you are morally against theft, then you have to be morally against forced taxation. That's the point of an analogy, it's the same principle, just a different scenario... but you would accept one but not the other.

            "We are living in a sick society filled with people who would not directly steal from their neighbor but who are willing to demand that the government do it for them."

            1. gmwilliams profile image82
              gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Again, +1,000,000,000,000,000,000-however, these people refuse to realize that dependence upon the government is SLAVERY.  The government OWNS such people and THEY don't know it!   Well, there are some people who prefer to be slaves; however, I and other intelligent thinking people DON'T.  Independence is a WONDERFUL thing.  It is OWNERSHIP and POWER!   I have been TAXED enough-let others EARN theirs and stop the dependence game.

              1. profile image60
                AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You're correct. It is slavery. If I don't pay my taxes, the government will take away my possessions and even my freedom. Yet, a person just down the road from me doesn't pay their taxes, and gets large "refund" checks every year(paid for by people like me).

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, the government will lock you up like any other thief.

                  And are you trying to tell me that if you fell on hard times you wouldn't accept money out of the pot?

                  1. gmwilliams profile image82
                    gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    If I was unemployed with NO investments and other independent means of support, I would take a job, ANY JOB, to tide me over until I was on my feet.   When one is unemployed, he/she goes to the unemployment office where the counselors WILL find him/her a job.  John, you  AMAZE me really.   I will NEVER be on the government's dole.  I would work, even if the job is not to my liking.  Responsible and mature people WORK.

            2. junkseller profile image87
              junksellerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You might have a point if it was in fact "forced taxation". It isn't. We are a Democracy. Presumably you cast votes. You might not like the outcome. That happens occasionally to just about everyone, I despise the money the government takes from me to blow up kids on the other side of the world. Tough luck for me, though, and tough luck for you.

              You do have remedies. Leave. Or vote in representatives who will eliminate the taxes you don't like.

              The whole notion of it being "theft" and comparing it to an individual stealing from their neighbor is purposefully and daftly simplistic. Public monies are collected for the express purpose of advancing the public good. You calling it a name doesn't change that.

              And if you really wanted to examine this notion of a transfer of wealth, then you would have to do a full accounting. For example, where do you suppose the wealth of people today came from? Well, a good chunk of it is a direct result of the enormous subsidies following WWII that went to transportation, housing, and education, which built a gigantic middle class who had pocket money and free time.

              You know what is going to happen via the Affordable Care Act? More people will have insurance, more people will get to the doctor, more people will be healthy, more money will flow into the health system, and more people will be able to work or recreate than were able to before and so they'll be out making and spending money. Good for them. Good for EVERYBODY and that's the point.

              You, however, don't want to do such a full accounting. Why? I have no idea, but perhaps you ought to.

              1. profile image60
                AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Let's try another analogy. 3 people are in a room. Under the guise of democracy, two of the men vote to take the money of the third man. Does that make it ok?

                If you justify it with "well, it's ok, because Democracy", then you automatically think any Democratic action is moral. What if 55% of Americans voted to kill the other 45%? That would be Democratic...

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No,they aren't analogies either, time to get out your dictionary again.

                2. Silverspeeder profile image60
                  Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  What about if 55% of Americans wanted to help heal the other 45%? Would you rather let them die?

                  The system in the UK is rubbish but it works, if I am sick I go to my doctor, if my doctor sends me to the hospital and I have to stay a month (which I have had to do in the past) the one thing I know I will not have to stress over is whether my insurance or the money in the bank covers the bill. When I  am well I shall go back to work and pay my fare share of tax (even if I think it is a bit steep).

                  I am by no means a socialist (ask John) I see it as paying my insurance just in case I need it, what others pay doesn't concern me as long as I can call an ambulance, turn up at the doctors or hospital without checking whether I can afford it.

                  The problem comes of course when people decide they are not going to pay the taxes or government politics totally screw up the system.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Sorry about this, but 100% agreement with that smile

                3. junkseller profile image87
                  junksellerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  If the 3rd guy agrees to that framework of decision-making than absolutely it is right. As for the "all democratic actions being moral, of course not. That is why he have systems of checks and balances as well as the judicial system to correct for and/or prevent such egregious examples of wrong. That's another reason why your analogy doesn't work very well. It completely lacks the nuance, dynamism, and complexity of the larger system.

                  And the ACA has in fact been taken to the judicial system, it just hasn't agreed with your side (in bulk).

                  1. profile image60
                    AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    When did the 3rd guy agree? He was just placed into that situation, and has to play by the rules. Maybe if he immigrated you would have an argument, but if he was born into it, there's not much he can do, especially since the often cited "If you don't like it, leave" requires that you earn enough money inside the system to do so, pay a fee for the privilege of doing so, and passing interviews before you are allowed to do so.

                    This has nothing to do with the larger system. You argued for it being OK because it's a Democracy(it's not, actually a Democracy), so I showed why that argument doesn't hold up. A Democracy would not have those checks, if 55% voted for something it would happen.

        4. Zelkiiro profile image84
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Oh no! All the nation's wealthy have to pay an extra 0.04¢ because of my surgery!

          HOW DARE THE GOVERNMENT ADD A FRACTION OF A FRACTION OF A CENT TO SOMEONE'S TAXES IN ORDER TO SAVE HUMAN LIVES

          THAT IS PURE EVIL

  2. profile image60
    AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago

    Are we going to stick to the topic this time John?

    I don't send my children to public schools, because I don't have any children. Yet, I still have to pay for those public schools. That argument backfires on you.

    I drive on public roads, and pay a tax for every mile that I do, just like everyone else who uses them. That's not a disproportionate tax. Again, backfire.

    Bridges are the same.

    Police and fire are the same.

    So now that I've responded to you, why don't you answer the first question I asked. Would you ask your neighbor to steal from another to pay for your bills?

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I bet you make use of other peoples children though don't you? You know, when one serves you in a shop, or bandages your wounds or whatever.

      The taxes you pay for the use of roads do not cover the cost of those roads, even none drivers pay!

      Bridges are not only paid for by those who use them, they are paid for by everybody. Likewise fire and police, both paid for by people who may never use them.

      Though I wouldn't expect my neighbour to steal for me you have obviously considered it.

      1. aliasis profile image94
        aliasisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yup. I don't see why health insurance should be treated any differently than public education. Whether or not you use it (and you should use it) it makes society healthier and better well off, particularly the underprivileged who can't afford private.

        I am very happy to pay taxes that support "socialist" government programs like education, public parks, city infrastructure, police, and yes, people's health.

      2. gmwilliams profile image82
        gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        John, there are essential and necessary taxes and there are superfluous and unnecessary taxes.   Health care and welfare comes into the category of the latter.   I, for one, feel that socialized health care is unncessary.   Socialized health care diminishes the quality of health care.  Obama"care" is a TOTAL WASTE of taxpayer's dollars.   I WILL NEVER support such inanity, NEVER!

        There are ways of affordable health care that DOES NOT require everyone to be part of it.  Individuals can work out their own particular health care through hospital and medical insurance programs without trying to bankrupt the nation.   Individuals can also WORK for living instead of expecting other people's TAX monie$ to support their indolent way of life!  YES, I SAID IT and AM PROUD!  Socialism WILL NEVER happen in this great and wondrous country.   I may be a Liberal but NEVER a naive LIEBERAL.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          GM, I explained to you in another post in another thread about how the evils of socialised medicine had helped me quickly to an almost full recovery from a stroke, how my ongoing medication was not a burden to me.

          Explain to me how none socialised medicine is better than me not having to worry about the costs of hospitalisation and medication?

          Obamacare is a move in the right direction but it is nothing like socialised medicine and to say that it is is divisive.

        2. Mighty Mom profile image91
          Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The US spends close to $3 trillion per year, accounting for almost 18 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  We spend 2X to 4X more than any other industrialized country on healthcare. Yet for all this outrageously high spending, our ROI is notoriously low. 
          I can cite you many studies on that.
          Here is one one how this is hurting US global COMPETITIVENESS.
          Hmmmm.
          http://healthcarecostmonitor.thehastingscenter.org/

      3. profile image60
        AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, I engage in voluntary trade that includes the work of minors, and they get paid for it. What is your point? That has no relevance to the topic of disproportionate taxation.

        The taxes I pay for the use of roads are exactly what other drivers pay, therefore that is not disproportionate either. Why don't you go back and read what the topic is about? It's about stealing from one person to pay for another. Completely different.

        I have obviously considered it? Where did you get that conclusion? I have said that it would be immoral to do so.

        Nevermind. I think I'll just have to refrain from discussing any topic with you if you're always going to act like this.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          But what about the taxes that none road users pay for the upkeep of the roads?

          Those minors that you use have been educated and not by the amounts you pay them.

          And act like what? Showing up your arguments for being so selfish and ill considered?

    2. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Instead you could just pay another fee that is basically a tax (mandated insurance), and get the surgery.

      Problem solved, everybody happy.

  3. profile image60
    AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago

    Still just changing and shifting things John. Acting like I said something different from what I actually said.

    cor·dial  (kôrjl)
    adj.
    1. Warm and sincere; friendly:

    Has absolutely nothing to do with agreement.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If you say so!

      I didn't actually see any debate/discussion between the two of you.

  4. profile image60
    AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago

    There you go again. Debate and discussion are not the same thing.

    What we were doing is called discussion.

    dis·cus·sion
    disˈkəSHən/
    noun
    noun: discussion

        1.
        the action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.

    You struggle with the simplest of definitions, so I'll ask again. Is English your second language?

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So, you've got a dictionary!

      I get along fine without one but in your case I may start using one.

  5. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 3 years ago

    Look,here is my first use of the dictionary

    de·bate  (d-bt)
    v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
    v.intr.
    1. To consider something; deliberate.
    2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
    3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
    4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.
    v.tr.
    1. To deliberate on; consider.
    2. To dispute or argue about.
    3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
    4. Obsolete To fight or argue for or over.
    n.
    1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
    2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
    3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
    4. Obsolete Conflict; strife.

    This is fun isn't it?

  6. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 3 years ago

    Oh look, and here we go again -

    dis·cuss  (d-sks)
    tr.v. dis·cussed, dis·cuss·ing, dis·cuss·es
    1. To speak with another or others about; talk over.
    2. To examine or consider (a subject) in speech or writing.
    [Middle English discussen, to examine, from Anglo-Norman discusser, from Latin discussus, past participle of discutere, to break up : dis-, apart; see dis- + quatere, to shake; see kwt- in Indo-European roots.]
    dis·cussa·ble, dis·cussi·ble adj.
    dis·cusser n.
    Synonyms: discuss, argue, debate, dispute, contend

    Are you sure English is your first language?

  7. profile image60
    AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago

    If you take from someone who didn't agree to it, then it is absolutely forced. How can you say otherwise?

    It can be forced, or voluntary. There are no other options. Having the option to vote for someone who might change it if they get elected doesn't change the fact that I have more of my money taken than my neighbor, and I don't do it voluntarily.

    In the theft analogy, you could argue that the stolen goods are going to the public good too... It's no different.

    With ACA, insurance premiums are rising tremendously. You think that's good? More people are losing their insurance and are going to be forced to pay for something they can afford. It won't take long for you to see the results if you're not willing to look at the effects now though. Oh, and not everybody is going to be insured. Estimates of 30 million are presented by the government itself.

    1. junkseller profile image87
      junksellerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You agree to it when agree to be a citizen of a democratic nation. For every decision there is someone on the losing side. That's part of the deal. You take it or leave it.

      You can choose to characterize it as taking from you to give to your neighbor, that doesn't make that correct. The taking is from the citizenry to the public. We all take and we all give. And you can not argue that the individual theft is going to the public good. By what way is it being determined to be the public good? It has no publicly agreed to framework for such a determination (as in a democratic vote).

      As for the ACA, I think the government and the punditry and the media are all wrong. They haven't been in touch with the street in a long time. The vastly greater numbers of people showing up to the healthcare sign-up page is pretty good evidence of this. They have no clue what this means to people (people who are largely disaffected) and so they won't accurately assess the results. That's just opinion, but at this point, I trust my gut over the government and punditry by quite a bit.

  8. profile image60
    AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago

    People often don't like analogies, because it can force them to face their own inconsistencies of opinion. I've been there myself many times.

    You can face it, or try to rationalize it, but only one choice will lead to your growth.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A crass statement isn't an analogy.
      For it to be an analogy it has to include two similar events, not totally unconnected events.
      You liken taxation to theft, which it isn't however much you begrudge paying your way.

    2. junkseller profile image87
      junksellerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I love analogies, but they have to be apt, not crafted to support a predetermined narrative.

      1. profile image60
        AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Crafted to demonstrate a principle, but that doesn't make it right.

        You try to rationalize it, presenting all these other options and arguments, without actually discussing the morality of the majority voting to take from the minority.

        Would you, or would you not, call the analogy with 3 men an act of morality? What about 55% killing 45%?

        1. junkseller profile image87
          junksellerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          We don't really NEED to talk about morality. We are talking about frameworks for decision-making. You either can agree to the democratic model or not, but agreeing to it and then not liking the result and throwing a tantrum is just the work of a child.

          1. profile image60
            AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What do you mean we don't NEED to talk about morality. That's what this thread is about.

            Why do you resort to insulting tactics? Is it not possible to discuss this rationally and maturely?

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Hm, where have I seen this reaction before?

              It seems to me that you don't understand the meaning of "rationally" or "maturely".
              Time to reach for your dictionary again.

            2. junkseller profile image87
              junksellerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              YOU are trying to make the thread about morality, that doesn't mean that is what it is about. You are trying to equate an immoral individual act to be the same as a non-moral rational establishment of a framework for decision-making. They are nothing alike and there is no reason anyone has to accept that. I have no clue what exactly you consider me having said that is insulting or irrational so I can't really comment about that.

              1. profile image60
                AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I'm not allowed to say what the thread that I started is about? The first post very definitely was about morality, and you're demonstrating my point exactly. Just because you wrap an action up in "Democracy" doesn't change the nature of the action.

                The insulting part was "throwing a tantrum" and "work of a child".

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  But you thought you were allowed to say what the thread I started was about!

                  Double standards here I think.

                2. junkseller profile image87
                  junksellerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You can say whatever you want. Go for it. So can I.

                  The first post may have been about morality, you have since tried to also make the ACA about morality. I have completely disagreed with that and have provided my reasoning (The ACA is simply a result of a rational decision-making framework). You can ignore that or address it, but what possible reason could I have to not say it?

                  Not only have you tried to make the ACA about morality but you have tried to state the NATURE of that morality as being a bad one (i.e. one of unjustified taking and theft). Several of us have also disagreed with that. The motivation for the ACA is nothing more than a desire to improve the public well-being (a positive morality). But the motivations for why either side does what they do isn't relevant. If you agree to the framework ahead of time, you accept that a wide variety of moral motivations might go into people's decisions. People's moral motivations dont really change much, so you can't after the fact all of sudden decide you don't like those motivations, therefore the previous decision is invalid. It doesn't make sense. If you don't agree with the moral motivations of people and you are worried about how they will vote for things than don't agree to be a citizen bound to that framework. Simple.

                  Personally, I consider shutting down the government to be a tantrum and the work of children, though, it wasn't necessary to state in such a way and so I apologize for any offense.

        2. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I wouldn't even call it an analogy, where are the similarities?
          It is not enough to describe something as "being under the guise of democracy", for it to work you have to show that democracy has sanctioned something similar.

  9. profile image60
    AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago

    Ok, I think a big area where we disagree is with the 'agreeing' to that framework. My position is, as it currently stands, you are forced into the framework through no agreement of your own, and you have to actively work to have a chance to remove yourself from it.

    1. junkseller profile image87
      junksellerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Well heck, I'm on the wrong side of almost everything, so I feel your pain in that regards, but overall I think the framework of Democracy is pretty good and so I try and defend it. That doesn't mean I don't think there aren't serious problems with our government. There are. And I'm all for challenging them and working on them, but shutting down the government, to me, seems like completely throwing Democracy out the window. There's just no way we can function if a minority party can get their way via threats like that.

 
working