In the first place, if you think that if social security were eliminated it would cause your employer to give you all that money, you are nuts.
Really? I've watched the free market do it time and time again. In my own industry, I watch highly skilled workers being poached back and forth by successive companies by offers of a higher salary. I see multiple industry segments working on razor think profit margins (such as the airline industry). If companies could truly sponge up every single penny as you seem to claim, why isn't everyone being paid a $1/year wage? Surely those companies would want to commandeer all those extra dollars floating out there? It's almost as if some kind of force is acting to support the wages at the level they are at...
I completely understand this.
But if the government collapses your old age security pensions are the least of your concerns.
This apparently is the critical disconnect between your line of argument and mine, and I fail to understand why you believe what you believe. A government does not have to collapse for them to waste your money or fuck up your benefits. Just look at today...the wage gap is awful, retirements are meager and insufficient, and our healthcare is shit -- and this is all with Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security on the books and consuming 60-70%++ of our taxes. The reason I say they do (and will) fail is because I'm watching them spend nearly 2 trillion a year TODAY and seeing the futility of their actions.
Once again, are you nuts? It's 12.4% of the paycheck (http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/personal-income-taxes/social-security-taxes1.htm). Or do yo honestly think your employer is simply eating their share of the expense instead of passing it on to the employee via a reduced salary? I don't know about you, but a 12.4% increase in my salary would be a big deal to me, and to most people.
But what you don't seem to grok, is that there is no such thing a sure thing. When you invest you take a risk. It could be a very low risk, but a low risk is still a risk.
And what you don't seem to grok is that you take that exact same risk (probably a greater risk in fact) when you give the government your money and say "please make sure I still get this 40 years from now".
And if the entire stock market just goes horizontal or even experiences a net decline over the next 5 decades?
Then we likely have bigger problems to worry about (civil war, people rioting in the streets, invasion, you name it). Do you recognize what a 5 decade stock market decline would symbolize? That pretty much indicates negative growth over a 50 year period, in the face of a rising population. Negative growth over 50 years is a very tall order that would be indicative of a catastrophe.
But what you seem to be failing to get is that doing that doesn't guarantee you anything. You are merely choosing how much risk you are willing to accept. But you are still accepting risk, and you can still LOSE.
And you can still lose with the government promise. I fail to see why you don't understand this. You people that support "government as the solution to all woes" routinely fail to acknowledge that government can fuck up just as much as the free market, often more so. They aren't infallible, and your interests aren't their primary concern. They'll gladly raid your retirement fund to go start a war somewhere if it furthers their political career. They'd slash benefits, redefine terms, any number of things. Look at the chained CPI proposal...you think that's fair to current social security recipients? You think the government gives a damn?
Ultimately, there's risk in all things in life -- you can't walk out your door without accepting some kind of risk. And a decent investment strategy into a retirement account you own is an acceptable risk through and through, particularly if there's some other smaller government program backing it up.
That's a possibility, but once people start managing their own accounts, some of them are going to start losing everything.
Nothing says we have to let them manage their accounts. Or we can simply limit the options. The important thing is that it would be their money in an account they own, therefore immune from government "changing of the terms" or "robbing of the trust fund".
Ultimately social security isn't very much. There are plenty of other government programs to oppose before that.
You're joking, right? It's 800 billion a year. That's like 22% of the budget. It's actually the largest individual budget item in terms of total expenditures. How is that "not very much"?
Other people would invest but get unlucky and lose their entire investment (and it could be you)
This! a 1000 times this. People DO NOT GET THIS.
They think that if they "invest wisely", diversify, invest in index tracking funds, pay attention, and do all the right things, that they will be fine.
And this is idiotic.
Then you limit the investment options -- this isn't all that hard. Companies do it already with 401k programs. Very rarely do you get to wheel and deal in stocks -- more often than not, it's mutual funds or indexes -- some companies just enroll you in lifecycle funds that do all the risk-reward allocations for you based on your age profile. This isn't rocket science. Forced investments accounts can easily work with the bare minimum of handholding to make sure people don't "lottery" away their futures and to make sure a single short-term market dip can't wipe them out either.
There are a lot of government programs I oppose, but social security isn't one of them. Imagine if we got rid of it, what would happen?
Few want to get rid of it. Many want reform. Such as a conversion to a forced retirement contribution to an account that you own, perhaps with a smaller supplement that is similar to Social Security in its current state.
That's the point, you can't keep speed. You have to slow down to well under the speed limit to keep creating gaps.
Which has the additional side-effect of pissing off the people behind you and then immediately move to the next lane over to get around you. The act of slowing down to maintain gap distance may actually be far less safe than simply following closer (because of the frequent braking, as well as the additional passing triggered as a result of the behavior).
I don't really care if it is malice or stupidity. Either way, the handling of the Fukushima event has turned me from an ardent nuclear supporter to mildly anti-nuke.
...which in turn just guarantees that no new plant with better safety measures will ever be built, instead ensuring the future collapse of yet another 50++ years old reactor.
I think Obama (naively) believed that congress was staffed by reasonable people who wanted to work together for the betterment of society. He "reached across the isle", they took one step back and he fell flat on his face in the middle. Neither side has rushed to help him to his feet.
You should look again -- Obama didn't "reach across the aisle" in any real sense until maybe his second term when he started inviting them to dinners and actually spending time with them. Obama's idea of "reaching across the aisle" in his first term was having them "see the error of their ways" and come over to his side. Seriously, look back and see how the healthcare debates went down. When Obama didn't need the Republicans, he made very little effort to give any credence to any of their suggestions. Just read this story that summarizes Snowe's book: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/snowe-presses-bipartisanship-new-book
She was a reasonably moderate Republican with reasonably moderate-right ideas that Obama simply refused to entertain, simply expecting that she come over to his side and support his bill. It wasn't a discussion or a debate, it was vote buying.
250k is well above doctor or standard career salaries.
No it isn't. That's 250k HOUSEHOLD (that's two people -- 125k per person). In some high cost-of-living regions (such as say NY or California, which comprise 46 million people total, or 15% of the total populace of the US), 125k/yr is far from "make it rain" cash. The median salary is like 60k. Doctors tend to make anywhere from ~150k to ~300k. Lawyers are somewhere in the 6 figures depending on stage of career. Late career white collar (say senior computer engineers or something like that) easily are in the low six figure range. Even a late career government employee (GS-13) is in the low 6 figures.
If you can't live off 250k and pay fair taxes then the cost of living in your country is ridiculous.
There is some truth to this. But it doesn't change the reality of the situation.
How many people went to jail for crashing the world's economy?
That's a ridiculous statement. For one, nothing illegal was done. For two, what are you going to do, also arrest all the homeowner participants in the housing bubble? You're deluded in you think derivatives alone caused this mess. I might also add that even if what you say was true, it does nothing to prove your statement -- the rich haven't co-opted the government -- No one is forcing people to continue to vote in corporate stooges, or to continue to expand government -- yet they always fall for the promises of bread and circuses. If a government is only working in the interests of the rich, you should be attempting to shrink it, not enlarge it.
People from the US always claim that US states are the same thing as European countries. It's nonsense.
Bullshit, I'd wager there's a larger difference between a Californian and a Texan in almost any measure than between a German and a French person. Take your pick if you call mine a red herring. Culture? Diet? Political leanings? Exercise habits? Diversity of ethnicity? Level of tolerance/racism/prejudice? Just because a person's language is different doesn't mean they are cultural opposites.
nteresting you should mention doctors and late career employees. Those people are not the rich. They might just about pay top tier tax on the last few percent of their earnings if they are lucky. They are well off but still middle class.
Except that these are the people that politicians go after when they're looking for money. Obama himself drew the line in the sand at 250k w/ the Bush tax cut expiration. And the reason they do it is because there simply isn't enough money in the super upper echelon to pay for all the programs our bloated government wants to run. You can't just gouge the.1% -- you could take all their money and it wouldn't put a dent in our budget. And that's why they go after the "upper middle class", as you refer to them. And it's also why we rail against it and claim government should be smaller.
You fell for one of the oldest tricks in the political book. You think you are rich because you earn, say , $100,000 and that when people talk about rich people paying their fair share that means you. It doesn't.
No sir, I'm afraid you fell for it. You're letting the politicians fan the flames of intense hatred people you have of the financial fatcat to raise taxes on the upper middle class and "lesser rich". Look at the legislation yourself. None of it targets the millionaires and billionaires. Every single tax break cuts off or phases out somewhere in the 100k - 200k range. Every single tax hike tends to target the 125k+ individual or the 250k+ joint. If what you said was true, this would not be the case. Hell, just look at the Obamacare tax that is 250k+ joint: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/04/obamacare-investment-income-tax_n_2236687.html
But whatever form, once itr becomes collectively less powerful than th wealthiest individuals, it becomes their private property.
And how, praytell, does a government become less powerful than the wealthiest individuals? Does Bill Gates have a standing army and a stash of cruise missiles we're not aware of? Or did Warren Buffet pay off millions of poor people to vote for Obama? Sorry, I don't see it -- in fact, the times I've seen governmental abuse rise, it's been due to the complacency of the populace along with the willingness to give up control of their own lives for promises of bread and circuses.
That's debatable, considering how much it costs to replace batteries.
The last time I checked, the break-even point for electrical vehicles compared to gasoline powered ones was 7 years, if disregarding buying incentives. And quite soon after that, you'll need the batteries replaced...
Well with respect to the Tesla at least, with its unlimited battery warranty, the battery component adds next to nothing in additional maintenance costs.
So the not as rich guys banded together and formed some sort of thingy to decide what the law of the land was instead of the king. Some sort of thingy to govern things, I wonder what we should call it....I KNOW! We can call it GOVERNMENT!
I didn't just read the words when studying history, I understood them.
Not well enough, with respect to the US at least. This country was founded with a strong respect for federalism (dates all the way back to the 10th amendment in 1791). Not wanting another king or other central authority ruling over us, our founding fathers intentionally entrusted the bulk of governmental powers with the people and the states. What was once a federal republic may as well be a unitary state. These days, no one ever tries to solve their problems at the state level -- it's federal or nothing.
Sure. But they are not different in the way that say Germany and France are different.
Try ordering Missouri food with your Missouri English in Texas and you won't have a problem. Now try speaking German in France..
Why are you stuck on language though?
Ask a Texan if homosexuality is a good thing. Then ask a Californian. Now do the same thing in Germany and France. The Europeans end up being more similar.
The cultural differences between US states exist, but they are NOTHING compared to the cultural differences between european states. Why? because these states don't have centuries of independent histories and different languages and literatures and tradition.
Many of our states are roughly equivalent in size to your countries and I'd argue each has it's own unique culture. Texas, for example, is vastly different from Maryland. And that's in many ways: accent, racial composition (+ level of racism), foods, culture, hobbies, government, etc, etc. -- Florida has alot of Cuban influence -- New Mexico/California has alot of Mexican influence. And so on.
Americans are very mobile: they move from one state to another to study, work, marry, etc
I don't consider that "highly mobile" -- unless they're in the army where they get shuffled around alot from base to base. And that's why language differences don't matter much -- because no one really knows anything outside of their home state anyways.
Insurance is already bad enough with the current level of regulation. People get screwed all the time. If you think less regulation is going to improve that you are delusional.
As you too are also delusional. Regulation in healthcare have been growing every single decade ever since the government first intruded in the 40s. That's more than half a century of increasing government regulation and all we've seen is ever increasing costs -- yet you put your faith in regulation???
Those who don't are not greatly harmed because they are still rich.
That's not a fair statement. For one, there's wide ranging definitions of "rich", and whereas Bill Gates may not feel it if you take a million from him, a "lesser rich household" pulling in ~250k a year will impact their lives if you raise their taxes. Sure, they're not going to be starving or destitute, but their lives will be affected. They earned their money and deserve it -- who are we to say "fuck you, live an average lifestyle, now give me your wallet"? -- you seem to believe that if people aren't starving, they shouldn't be complaining -- as if the purpose of life is simply to exist. You are wrong when you claim we know the value of nothing -- as a matter of point, we know the value of our money. We know how precious each dollar is and how being taxed an extra 10% means I have to allow my cancer stricken mother w/ no savings to continue working because I don't have the funds to say "go ahead and retire, I got your back." I can't tell my starving bartender friend, "Sure man, lemme hook you up with a pub of your own." Or hell, even something so simple as having the money to retire a few years earlier than normal -- life is precious and short -- who the hell are you to tax me heavily such that I'm forced to spend an extra half decade toiling away at a job and claim it isn't going to "impact" me??? We know price AND value. You are the one who seems not to understand these things. And that's immensely obvious when you think you can take a substantial chunk of a rich man's money and assume it's going to have zero impact because he still have more than the average.
There is also the assumption that having private companies provide services at the request of individuals would be more efficient than having the government doing it. Apart from the difficulty of organizing certain services there is no evidence that this method would be any better. Do you have any evidence?
History. Both the government and the free market have their flaws, but the free market has a far better history of accomplishing efficiency than governments (likely because there is no motivation to cut costs or to compete in government).
It's not about transferring wealth. It's about stopping theft.
Another talking point...you do realize there's a large swath of "rich society" that ISN'T financial fatcats gaming the system? They are the vast majority, btw. Doctors, lawyers, small business owners? Senior employees in their 30s and 40s in their prime earning years? These people aren't stealing shit from anyone -- they're living day to day just like everyone else trying to improve their own lives or the lives of their families. The theft you speak of is trying to excessively tax them because you believe their desire to pursue more wealth so that they might live a more comfortable life outside of work is "frivolous" -- that their goal of trying to retire earlier or maybe get enough money to be able to help out their friends or family -- this too is "frivolous" to you. And it's bullshit.
I could never afford it. I have chronic health issues. Insurance companies won't touch me, unless I agree to exclude those issues. It's hard to see how any insurance company would take on someone it knows will take out more money than will pay in, especially if there were no regulation preventing them from doing things like genetic testing or refusing people with certain illnesses.
Insurance companies are in it for the money. You are their cattle. They are only interested while you are healthy.
If insurance worked on a contractual basis, this would be easily solved. Basically, when you enter into a long-term agreement with a health insurance company, ensure that the contract can't be trivially terminated by either party. This would require a very small amount of regulation, not a government takeover of healthcare. To handle the case of "lock in", require that other insurance companies allow transfers of people with current policies with other companies w/ a cap on premium increases vs the average industry rate. Piece of cake.
There are always ways to solve real problems with a minimal amount of governance. However, our politicians rarely resort to those (which is why every bill is thousands of pages long, and why our tax code requires a team of accountants to decipher).
This is possible because taxation is somewhat proportional to income, and because companies that wish to operate in and benefit from our society also pay taxes. I realize this is quite offensive to some people who view it as theft, but I'm not debating that. I'm just pointing out the obvious way that the majority get more out than they put in.
I think the problem here is that when libertarians argue the societal benefits of taxes, they do so with respect to society, not individuals. Society as a whole does not get more out of taxes than they put in. They get far less (due to corruption, waste, spending on things that don't interest the general populace, etc, etc). For instance, society put a whole lot of money into the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, but saw little actual benefit from them. It is only when you view taxes in the perverse "theft of one individual from another" perspective can a "benefit" actually be achieved.
That's rather ironic, btw, as libertarians are typically seen as the greedy/self-serving ones with liberals being the generous/society-focused ones -- yet liberals couldn't give a damn about society as a whole, so long as money is being transferred from the affluent to the less affluent.
You'd think there'd be at least one country of cancer-prone obese chain smokers that would out rank us, but we're at the top but a good margin
Why do you think anyone would outrank us? We're at the top of all the nations in all the cultural stats that would lead to poor health: high stress worklife, service economy (deskjobs over physical labor), decadence outside of work (gluttony, sloth, generally a far easier life than most other countries), generally rich populace can afford all the vices of society (cigarettes, drugs, etc), reasonably long life expectancy. Combine that with a government unwilling to let any of its citizens die at any cost and I'm shocked anyone is surprised our healthcare costs are higher than everyone else's.
The thing with the European solutions is many of them have health care that's cheaper overall - not just for the individuals, but the total healthcare spending per person is lower than in the US, including private and public costs.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. It's an irrelevant statistic. For instance, if they were a nation of diet-freak olympians and we were a nation of cancer-prone, obese chain smokers, it wouldn't matter if we had their system and they had our system -- our healthcare costs per person would still be higher (because we'd be a sicker nation). More factors determine the cost of healthcare than "the system of government" that rides atop it. It may be a factor, but there's simply no proof that it's the driving one.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? I've watched the free market do it time and time again. In my own industry, I watch highly skilled workers being poached back and forth by successive companies by offers of a higher salary. I see multiple industry segments working on razor think profit margins (such as the airline industry). If companies could truly sponge up every single penny as you seem to claim, why isn't everyone being paid a $1/year wage? Surely those companies would want to commandeer all those extra dollars floating out there? It's almost as if some kind of force is acting to support the wages at the level they are at...
This apparently is the critical disconnect between your line of argument and mine, and I fail to understand why you believe what you believe. A government does not have to collapse for them to waste your money or fuck up your benefits. Just look at today...the wage gap is awful, retirements are meager and insufficient, and our healthcare is shit -- and this is all with Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security on the books and consuming 60-70%++ of our taxes. The reason I say they do (and will) fail is because I'm watching them spend nearly 2 trillion a year TODAY and seeing the futility of their actions.
Once again, are you nuts? It's 12.4% of the paycheck (http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/personal-income-taxes/social-security-taxes1.htm). Or do yo honestly think your employer is simply eating their share of the expense instead of passing it on to the employee via a reduced salary? I don't know about you, but a 12.4% increase in my salary would be a big deal to me, and to most people.
And what you don't seem to grok is that you take that exact same risk (probably a greater risk in fact) when you give the government your money and say "please make sure I still get this 40 years from now".
Then we likely have bigger problems to worry about (civil war, people rioting in the streets, invasion, you name it). Do you recognize what a 5 decade stock market decline would symbolize? That pretty much indicates negative growth over a 50 year period, in the face of a rising population. Negative growth over 50 years is a very tall order that would be indicative of a catastrophe.
And you can still lose with the government promise. I fail to see why you don't understand this. You people that support "government as the solution to all woes" routinely fail to acknowledge that government can fuck up just as much as the free market, often more so. They aren't infallible, and your interests aren't their primary concern. They'll gladly raid your retirement fund to go start a war somewhere if it furthers their political career. They'd slash benefits, redefine terms, any number of things. Look at the chained CPI proposal...you think that's fair to current social security recipients? You think the government gives a damn?
Ultimately, there's risk in all things in life -- you can't walk out your door without accepting some kind of risk. And a decent investment strategy into a retirement account you own is an acceptable risk through and through, particularly if there's some other smaller government program backing it up.
Nothing says we have to let them manage their accounts. Or we can simply limit the options. The important thing is that it would be their money in an account they own, therefore immune from government "changing of the terms" or "robbing of the trust fund".
You're joking, right? It's 800 billion a year. That's like 22% of the budget. It's actually the largest individual budget item in terms of total expenditures. How is that "not very much"?
Then you limit the investment options -- this isn't all that hard. Companies do it already with 401k programs. Very rarely do you get to wheel and deal in stocks -- more often than not, it's mutual funds or indexes -- some companies just enroll you in lifecycle funds that do all the risk-reward allocations for you based on your age profile. This isn't rocket science. Forced investments accounts can easily work with the bare minimum of handholding to make sure people don't "lottery" away their futures and to make sure a single short-term market dip can't wipe them out either.
Few want to get rid of it. Many want reform. Such as a conversion to a forced retirement contribution to an account that you own, perhaps with a smaller supplement that is similar to Social Security in its current state.
Which has the additional side-effect of pissing off the people behind you and then immediately move to the next lane over to get around you. The act of slowing down to maintain gap distance may actually be far less safe than simply following closer (because of the frequent braking, as well as the additional passing triggered as a result of the behavior).
...which in turn just guarantees that no new plant with better safety measures will ever be built, instead ensuring the future collapse of yet another 50++ years old reactor.
You should look again -- Obama didn't "reach across the aisle" in any real sense until maybe his second term when he started inviting them to dinners and actually spending time with them. Obama's idea of "reaching across the aisle" in his first term was having them "see the error of their ways" and come over to his side. Seriously, look back and see how the healthcare debates went down. When Obama didn't need the Republicans, he made very little effort to give any credence to any of their suggestions. Just read this story that summarizes Snowe's book: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/snowe-presses-bipartisanship-new-book
She was a reasonably moderate Republican with reasonably moderate-right ideas that Obama simply refused to entertain, simply expecting that she come over to his side and support his bill. It wasn't a discussion or a debate, it was vote buying.
No it isn't. That's 250k HOUSEHOLD (that's two people -- 125k per person). In some high cost-of-living regions (such as say NY or California, which comprise 46 million people total, or 15% of the total populace of the US), 125k/yr is far from "make it rain" cash. The median salary is like 60k. Doctors tend to make anywhere from ~150k to ~300k. Lawyers are somewhere in the 6 figures depending on stage of career. Late career white collar (say senior computer engineers or something like that) easily are in the low six figure range. Even a late career government employee (GS-13) is in the low 6 figures.
There is some truth to this. But it doesn't change the reality of the situation.
That's a ridiculous statement. For one, nothing illegal was done. For two, what are you going to do, also arrest all the homeowner participants in the housing bubble? You're deluded in you think derivatives alone caused this mess. I might also add that even if what you say was true, it does nothing to prove your statement -- the rich haven't co-opted the government -- No one is forcing people to continue to vote in corporate stooges, or to continue to expand government -- yet they always fall for the promises of bread and circuses. If a government is only working in the interests of the rich, you should be attempting to shrink it, not enlarge it.
Bullshit, I'd wager there's a larger difference between a Californian and a Texan in almost any measure than between a German and a French person. Take your pick if you call mine a red herring. Culture? Diet? Political leanings? Exercise habits? Diversity of ethnicity? Level of tolerance/racism/prejudice? Just because a person's language is different doesn't mean they are cultural opposites.
Except that these are the people that politicians go after when they're looking for money. Obama himself drew the line in the sand at 250k w/ the Bush tax cut expiration. And the reason they do it is because there simply isn't enough money in the super upper echelon to pay for all the programs our bloated government wants to run. You can't just gouge the .1% -- you could take all their money and it wouldn't put a dent in our budget. And that's why they go after the "upper middle class", as you refer to them. And it's also why we rail against it and claim government should be smaller.
No sir, I'm afraid you fell for it. You're letting the politicians fan the flames of intense hatred people you have of the financial fatcat to raise taxes on the upper middle class and "lesser rich". Look at the legislation yourself. None of it targets the millionaires and billionaires. Every single tax break cuts off or phases out somewhere in the 100k - 200k range. Every single tax hike tends to target the 125k+ individual or the 250k+ joint. If what you said was true, this would not be the case. Hell, just look at the Obamacare tax that is 250k+ joint: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/04/obamacare-investment-income-tax_n_2236687.html
And how, praytell, does a government become less powerful than the wealthiest individuals? Does Bill Gates have a standing army and a stash of cruise missiles we're not aware of? Or did Warren Buffet pay off millions of poor people to vote for Obama? Sorry, I don't see it -- in fact, the times I've seen governmental abuse rise, it's been due to the complacency of the populace along with the willingness to give up control of their own lives for promises of bread and circuses.
Well with respect to the Tesla at least, with its unlimited battery warranty, the battery component adds next to nothing in additional maintenance costs.
Not well enough, with respect to the US at least. This country was founded with a strong respect for federalism (dates all the way back to the 10th amendment in 1791). Not wanting another king or other central authority ruling over us, our founding fathers intentionally entrusted the bulk of governmental powers with the people and the states. What was once a federal republic may as well be a unitary state. These days, no one ever tries to solve their problems at the state level -- it's federal or nothing.
Why are you stuck on language though? Ask a Texan if homosexuality is a good thing. Then ask a Californian. Now do the same thing in Germany and France. The Europeans end up being more similar.
Many of our states are roughly equivalent in size to your countries and I'd argue each has it's own unique culture. Texas, for example, is vastly different from Maryland. And that's in many ways: accent, racial composition (+ level of racism), foods, culture, hobbies, government, etc, etc. -- Florida has alot of Cuban influence -- New Mexico/California has alot of Mexican influence. And so on.
Says who? Most people never relocate after their first job/marriage. They at best would experience two states, their birth state and their death state. Over 50% never leave the state they grew up in: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2008/12/17/who-moves-who-stays-put-wheres-home/
I don't consider that "highly mobile" -- unless they're in the army where they get shuffled around alot from base to base. And that's why language differences don't matter much -- because no one really knows anything outside of their home state anyways.
As you too are also delusional. Regulation in healthcare have been growing every single decade ever since the government first intruded in the 40s. That's more than half a century of increasing government regulation and all we've seen is ever increasing costs -- yet you put your faith in regulation???
That's not a fair statement. For one, there's wide ranging definitions of "rich", and whereas Bill Gates may not feel it if you take a million from him, a "lesser rich household" pulling in ~250k a year will impact their lives if you raise their taxes. Sure, they're not going to be starving or destitute, but their lives will be affected. They earned their money and deserve it -- who are we to say "fuck you, live an average lifestyle, now give me your wallet"? -- you seem to believe that if people aren't starving, they shouldn't be complaining -- as if the purpose of life is simply to exist. You are wrong when you claim we know the value of nothing -- as a matter of point, we know the value of our money. We know how precious each dollar is and how being taxed an extra 10% means I have to allow my cancer stricken mother w/ no savings to continue working because I don't have the funds to say "go ahead and retire, I got your back." I can't tell my starving bartender friend, "Sure man, lemme hook you up with a pub of your own." Or hell, even something so simple as having the money to retire a few years earlier than normal -- life is precious and short -- who the hell are you to tax me heavily such that I'm forced to spend an extra half decade toiling away at a job and claim it isn't going to "impact" me??? We know price AND value. You are the one who seems not to understand these things. And that's immensely obvious when you think you can take a substantial chunk of a rich man's money and assume it's going to have zero impact because he still have more than the average.
History. Both the government and the free market have their flaws, but the free market has a far better history of accomplishing efficiency than governments (likely because there is no motivation to cut costs or to compete in government).
Another talking point...you do realize there's a large swath of "rich society" that ISN'T financial fatcats gaming the system? They are the vast majority, btw. Doctors, lawyers, small business owners? Senior employees in their 30s and 40s in their prime earning years? These people aren't stealing shit from anyone -- they're living day to day just like everyone else trying to improve their own lives or the lives of their families. The theft you speak of is trying to excessively tax them because you believe their desire to pursue more wealth so that they might live a more comfortable life outside of work is "frivolous" -- that their goal of trying to retire earlier or maybe get enough money to be able to help out their friends or family -- this too is "frivolous" to you. And it's bullshit.
If insurance worked on a contractual basis, this would be easily solved. Basically, when you enter into a long-term agreement with a health insurance company, ensure that the contract can't be trivially terminated by either party. This would require a very small amount of regulation, not a government takeover of healthcare. To handle the case of "lock in", require that other insurance companies allow transfers of people with current policies with other companies w/ a cap on premium increases vs the average industry rate. Piece of cake.
There are always ways to solve real problems with a minimal amount of governance. However, our politicians rarely resort to those (which is why every bill is thousands of pages long, and why our tax code requires a team of accountants to decipher).
I think the problem here is that when libertarians argue the societal benefits of taxes, they do so with respect to society, not individuals. Society as a whole does not get more out of taxes than they put in. They get far less (due to corruption, waste, spending on things that don't interest the general populace, etc, etc). For instance, society put a whole lot of money into the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, but saw little actual benefit from them. It is only when you view taxes in the perverse "theft of one individual from another" perspective can a "benefit" actually be achieved.
That's rather ironic, btw, as libertarians are typically seen as the greedy/self-serving ones with liberals being the generous/society-focused ones -- yet liberals couldn't give a damn about society as a whole, so long as money is being transferred from the affluent to the less affluent.
Why do you think anyone would outrank us? We're at the top of all the nations in all the cultural stats that would lead to poor health: high stress worklife, service economy (deskjobs over physical labor), decadence outside of work (gluttony, sloth, generally a far easier life than most other countries), generally rich populace can afford all the vices of society (cigarettes, drugs, etc), reasonably long life expectancy. Combine that with a government unwilling to let any of its citizens die at any cost and I'm shocked anyone is surprised our healthcare costs are higher than everyone else's.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. It's an irrelevant statistic. For instance, if they were a nation of diet-freak olympians and we were a nation of cancer-prone, obese chain smokers, it wouldn't matter if we had their system and they had our system -- our healthcare costs per person would still be higher (because we'd be a sicker nation). More factors determine the cost of healthcare than "the system of government" that rides atop it. It may be a factor, but there's simply no proof that it's the driving one.