Snoopy said:
1. Yes, they do get taxed a lot and they pay a lot more than any of us. It isn't even close. We shouldn't be taxing them this much. So what if they are rich? We are not entitled to their money. Also, those "loopholes" are tax laws that are available for anyone who falls in the category. Also, seems that particular "loophole" protects them from a discriminatory tax code that hurts a specific group. Giving money to poor people won't solve anything. If you don't know how to manage money, it won't do anything. That is why a lot of lottery winners or professional athletes who were poor before end up being poor again. Companies should keep the money so they can invest money in the next product. If I split 10 billion dollars for example to everyone in the United States, that might pay their cell phone bill for the month. If I let a company or investor keep it, they can make the next big product which will lead to more jobs and create more income for the United States. 2. Doesn't matter if it's difficult, which it isn't since you are rich you have a lot of resources. You can always find a way to visit the United States or move your family with you. Also, there are many ways to store your money in other countries without leaving the country. I don't think I have to go to much into that. 3. With the government subsidizing or paying someone's health care completely with Medicaid, companies have no incentive to lower prices for anything health care related. Again, look at my College example, it is very similar. Companies can charge a lot more and they know they will get the money because the government will just pay it and bill us. 4. Regarding the 40,000 people who die, that is a small fraction and their fault most of the time. Hospitals will not turn away someone and again Medicaid should cover it. Also, I'm not sure the 40,000 is an accurate number. According to this: https://fee.org/articles/if-american-healthcare-kills-european-healthcare-kills-more/ "The question is hotly contested, and approximations range from 0 to 45,000 people per year. The latter figure is obviously what most progressives prefer to cite," According to Fraser Institue, Canada has a similar problem. Increases in wait times for medically necessary care in Canada between 1993 and 2009 may have resulted in between 25,456 and 63,090 (with a middle value of 44,273) additional deaths among females. Keep in mind that the United States population is almost 9 times bigger than Canada. Life in 1885 was so way different, that traditional education wasn't as important for everyone. Kids still have to work to support their family and stay alive. Their work didn't call for a higher education. Around the 1920's, the nature of work was changing significantly which require higher learning. This was one of the reasons for the law. Also, you can get a higher education when you are older in 1885. America is about creating your own adventure. The government should step away from education allow the private sector to take over. Privatized education is much better than public schools. Lastly, we need to downsize the feder government and give power back to state and local so the last issue won't be a problem.
|
1. The rich got to where they are by stepping on poor people, one way or another. They both need each other. What was it, something like 12 people have more money than 50% of the earth's population? If those who earn a lot more don't also pay a lot more, society wouldn't function.
As for 'managing money', someone can be financially responsible and savvy their entire life, and still not be able to afford multiple extremely expensive heart surgeries for their new born child. I know some people like to think that poor and sick people just 'had it coming', but that's usually not the case.
I'm not talking about paying anyone's phone bills. Just the right to live. That's all.
2. And that's why all rich people don't just leave USA and move to a country with 0% taxation.
3. Neither Medicaid nor Medicare come close to covering everything. Even if you're insured, you may end up dead or bankrupt depending on what you need. And then there are the many millions who are completely uninsured. If your reasoning is that they would lower their prices to get more customers, they can definitely do that. But like @Final-Fan gave you an example of above, there are a lot of ways to make more money even if everyone can't afford your product.
4. How are you so convinced that it's "mostly their fault"? This is not something you can just base on a gut feeling. It's life or death. Yet I often see this BS justification from people.
Canada, just like every other developed nation have wait times for elective and non-urgent procedures. If it's something urgent, you do not wait.
And even regarding non urgent procedures where people had to wait, the link you posted even states:
"Of course, not all studies of delays in cancer treatment have found an increased risk of mortality. Coates et al. (1999) identify a potential problem in trying to establish a link between wait times and mortality for cancer. Depending on the study, it may appear that a greater incidence of mortality is associated with shorter wait times. This paradox occurs because late stage cancers are treated more immediately and often, if a cancer has progressed far enough, no cure can be provided. Thus, high rates of mortality may be correlated with short waits, while lower rates of mortality may be correlated with prolonged wait times."
If you want to, you can even make it look like short wait times lead to more death, and long wait times lead to more people living, as in the quote above.
But that's obviously really true. Just like there's no inherent connection between subsidized healthcare, and worse healthcare. It doesn't matter who pays for it.
Furthermore, each country handle their healthcare differently. Their policies for organ donations may differ, for example. Which may lead to a shortage for transplants. But that again has nothing to do with how the healthcare is funded.
And some countries have a mix of private and public healthcare. And some mixed or public healthcare systems have the same, or shorter wait times than USA to see a specialist, btw.
That doesn't mean you have to have private or mixed healthcare systems to get shorter wait times.
The one major difference however is that thousands die every year (and some 'lucky' people only go bankrupt) in the US because they can't afford healthcare.
That's not a thing in any other of the 30+ developed nations on Earth. And it really shouldn't be anywhere, if you have an ounce of compassion for people who have it worse than you. But of course, if you just tell yourself "it was their fault most of the time", then there's no problem.