CPAPtalk.com

KSMike wrote:it sounded more and more like there was an axe to grind with the U.S. system. If my impression was wrong, I apologize.

KSMike wrote:But neither myself nor anyone I know claims that the U.S. system doesn't need to be overhauled.

Sounds like you have an axe to grid with the U.S. system in the same way I do, if not more so. Pointing out a system's flaws does not make one anti-that-system. You even advocate for an overhaul.

What would your overhaul entail? What do you see as the flaws in the U.S. system that need to be overhauled?

KSMike wrote:Per capita GDP... I'm missing something. How does that define an obscene income?

Since per capita GDP is each individual's share of the country's wealth, it gives you an objective reference point for an amount that would allow a person to live a nice, comfortable life. When you get beyond that point, it's just obscene excess.

So I'll ask the question again: what total, combined percentage of your gross pay are you willing to give up for all this utopia?

What utopia? I think your biggest mistake is that spend so much time appealing to emotion than looking at things logically.

Finally, do you really, seriously think health care run by the U.S. government would be good health care? (And please, don't invoke Medicare when answering that - do you think Medicare would be as good as it is if the entire U.S. population was dumped into it?)

Um, just because you want to ignore Medicare doesn't mean it's a bad system. Medicare would be better if the entire US population were signed up for it and paying premiums because you'd have a much larger and healthier pool. As it is the pool is the old and the sick and it does a pretty dang good job with that.

"[quote][/quote]So I'll ask the question again: what total, combined percentage of your gross pay are you willing to give up for all this utopia? Finally, do you really, seriously think health care run by the U.S. government would be good health care? (And please, don't invoke Medicare when answering that - do you think Medicare would be as good as it is if the entire U.S. population was dumped into it?)"








YES

JeffH wrote:BTW, Mike, Bob Dole, from your state, came out today in favor of healthcare reform.

Well, yeah as it stands right now we are going to be mandated to pay the private industry even more money with no public option to choose from. NO THANKS! I'm surprised that there's no outrage about that, it'd be a downright crime if that's what we end up with!

KSMike wrote:So I'll ask the question again: what total, combined percentage of your gross pay are you willing to give up for all this utopia?

Gee, I didn't know Australia was a utopia... Our tax rates are here: http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/conte ... /12333.htm

I'm willing to pay the rates I pay in this country for what I receive. As you can see, our top bracket is 45%.

KSMike wrote:Finally, do you really, seriously think health care run by the U.S. government would be good health care? (And please, don't invoke Medicare when answering that - do you think Medicare would be as good as it is if the entire U.S. population was dumped into it?)

Do you really, seriously think that free market run without more extensive regulations results in good health care? Last I checked, they weren't clamouring to overhaul the system. You say the system needs an overhaul. How does that happen without some outside force?

KSMIKE wrote

Finally, do you really, seriously think health care run by the U.S. government would be good health care? (And please, don't invoke Medicare when answering that - do you think Medicare would be as good as it is if the entire U.S. population was dumped into it?)

YES and YES to your two questions. I am very pleased with my Medicare coverage and would love to have my family and friends insured with Medicare. Medicare is more efficient, has lower overhead (2 - 3% vs 25- 30 %), and isn't making anyone insanely rich - when compared to my prior employer-paid insurers: Aetna, United Healthcare, BC/BS.

In case it is important to you, please note that I was born and schooled in Ohio, and subsequently worked and lived in Pennsylvania, New York, Florida, and California.

nobody wrote: Since per capita GDP is each individual's share of the country's wealth, it gives you an objective reference point for an amount that would allow a person to live a nice, comfortable life. When you get beyond that point, it's just obscene excess.

That is your opinion. Others believe a person ought to be able to make whatever the market allows them to make. The potential of making a lot of money is one of the cornerstones on which this country was built, and what allowed this country to survive two world wars and become the one place people from all over the world want to get to. Destroy that potential, and you go a long way toward destroying the country as we know it - not that that isn't the goal of many on the left.

As I said, neither side is ever going to convince the other, and so in the interest of not being banned from this board I choose to drop it at this point. It's shocking, but not surprising to me that there are so many people lining up to have the U.S. government take over the entire economy and invade their lives to a degree that they cannot even imagine now. Keep on marching down that path, but don't complain when you wake up and realize every bit of liberty you ever had has been eliminated "for the greater good."

KSMike wrote:That is your opinion.

Per capita GDP is not based on my opinion, it is a fact based on the wealth our economy is capable of producing given our available resources.

Destroy that potential, and you go a long way toward destroying the country as we know it

You are absolutely correct, but for the wrong reasons. A Laissez-faire system eventually leads to a concentration of power and wealth in only a small number of the overall population, we are seeing this now. The great depression showed us that Laissez-faire does not work to sustain an economy, and will eventually lead to failure for the majority. That is why the government interferes in the economy.

As I said, neither side is ever going to convince the other

Well, yeah, when your arguments are based on your emotions it is difficult to influence more reasonable people.

It's shocking, but not surprising to me that there are so many people lining up to have the U.S. government take over the entire economy and invade their lives to a degree that they cannot even imagine now. Keep on marching down that path, but don't complain when you wake up and realize every bit of liberty you ever had has been eliminated "for the greater good."

I don't tend to base my outlook on such serious matters on talk radio fear-mongering. I prefer real facts and figures and rational arguments.

KSMike wrote:and invade their lives to a degree that they cannot even imagine now.

Like it or not, the US government already "invades the lives" of its citizens (and the citizens of other countries, without their consent) to a much higher level than other Democracies, and that has been the case for quite a long time now.

True freedom means so much more than simply making a lot of money so that others can be disadvantaged/oppressed.

I am quite aware that GDP is not subjective. An opinion of how one's income compares to GDP or a share of GDP is just that - an opinion. As far as radio talk shows are concerned, I don't know where that accusation is coming from, but it does not apply to me.

As to invading the lives of it's citizens, my point is not getting across... but that's OK. And BTW, I don't make a lot of money. I try my best to get from one check to the next, just like the majority of people. That doesn't mean principles that don't apply to me, aren't important to me. Stand up for liberty in all its forms, or sooner or later they will get to one you do care about.

You all can have the last word, since you will anyway. I'm out.