How can billionaires be so stoopid?

Could we consider the possibility that taxation is not theft?  My understanding of it is that when people form a society/polity, they decide together which costs will be borne by the whole and which by individual members.  They decide together how much they need or want to raise to cover the group costs.  They decide together how to divide up the bill.

Where's the theft here?

just for full disclosure, i think i would like pretty much all the people who post here, including those i don't agree with (which is most everyone, at one time or another), but i just can't like the actions of Grover Norquist and his troops.  I think they've done a lot of damage to the country, if only by leading people to think that the government is an enemy, and not in fact (or at least in principle) a function of all of us together.

DaveSchmidt said:

sprout said:

Charities tend to pinpoint their specialty, and funding goes in waves, subject to the whims of social media popularity. 
Taxes seem more like diversifying our human needs services portfolio. It lowers the risk of catastrophe for more people. 

That’s an interesting perspective; I hadn’t thought of it that way. Though I’m also thinking the political whims that set public funding priorities are subject to change, too. Just not as erratically?

It seems less erratic and more planned (programs may know they are falling out of favor; budgets for the year are known beforehand; challenges/appeals can be made to proposed budget cuts, etc.) 

drummerboy said:

terp said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

drummerboy said:
terp,
we're still waiting for an example of a successful free market health care system.
Well, I'm waiting at least.

The absence of a fully free market national healthcare system is not evidence that one would not work very well.  In fact, there is ample evidence that the fewer intermediaries you put between the patient and their healthcare, the better the outcome. 
Fee for service works very well.  I have experienced this first hand when I had eye surgery.  It was quick, straightforward, and cheap.   And it was a simple transaction.  Very little paperwork was involved.  In addition, as I've posted on this thread previously, fee for service hospitals are able to provide services at a fraction of the cost of traditional hospitals.   These hospitals take no federal $$.  
In addition, if you read this lancet study regarding healthcare access and quality, the systems that do keep market oriented aspects perform better(Singapore, Switzerland, the Netherlands) than ones that go the single payer route(Canada, UK).  The US doesn't fare especially well either, but as has been pointed out, the federal government is heavily involved in healthcare here, and most of our access is managed through intermediaries(either the government or private insurance). 

"Honey, I'm gonna go out this morning and shop around to see who can fix my broken arm for the best rate. See ya later!"
"OK dear. Just make sure that gangrene doesn't set in first!"



Thanks for the lancet study link, but I don't have time to skim through a 260 page paper this morning. Just wondering how a study that shows market orientation is a plus can do so without using the word "market"?

Anyway, I'm guessing that these are not conclusions you came to yourself by poring through the paper. So where's the link to that analysis?


ETA: Oh, what part of "market orientation" does Swiss's compulsory health insurance requirement fit into?


ETA2: hmmm, Singapore seems to mandate individual insurance too. What would Milton Friedman think?
ETA3: should I even bother to look at The Netherlands?

 You're mean. This is why I don't like to discuss things with you!

 such a snowflake!   

 Yeah, but I'm your snowflake! 

Anyhoo, I can try to find the article...but it doesn't look like I saved the article in my pocket.  I usually do.  I saved the study itself for some reason. 

I think the point is that the systems that do not have single payer tend to do better because they still maintain aspects of the market(patient discretion and some awareness of cost). 

ridski said:
Can you point me to a fee for service hospital here in NJ? If someone in my family has a severe asthma attack again and can't breathe, it would be nice to direct the ambulance there instead of the nearest one where they charge $5k and keep you there for 8 hours.

 There are some good ones.  I don't recommend them for ambulatory services though as there are no roads around them. 

tom said:

tom said:

I do not accept that someone has a moral right to something if it was gained by gaming the system.

 There, I tightened up that sentence a little.

 Thank you.   You believe in ownership.  I would agree that rent seeking is a problem.  I think that tax rates are a rather blunt instrument to attempt to solve it.  It doesn't get to the root of the problem IMO.