Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
afx114
ParticipantI also have a hunch that the people opposing the tyranny of soda tax fully support the tyrrany against other things — drinking a cold one on the beach, public display of boobs, enjoying a spliff, taking your own life. Just a hunch.
ParticipantI also have a hunch that the people opposing the tyranny of soda tax fully support the tyrrany against other things — drinking a cold one on the beach, public display of boobs, enjoying a spliff, taking your own life. Just a hunch.
ParticipantContinuing on the child obesity topic, there is talk of raising taxes on soda/juice drinks to help offset the healthcare costs that they contribute to (obesity, diabetes, etc). The opposition commercial is hilarious — something about trampling our freedom to enjoy a coke. When I saw it I couldn’t help but think, “aren’t there more important thing to be worrying about than the tyrrany of soda tax?” Apparently some people out there must really love their Mountain Dew because they’re paying big bucks to run these ads.
I can see it now: “You’ll have to pry my Ultra Mega Super Double Big Gulp Extreme Supreme from my cold, dead hands!”
ParticipantContinuing on the child obesity topic, there is talk of raising taxes on soda/juice drinks to help offset the healthcare costs that they contribute to (obesity, diabetes, etc). The opposition commercial is hilarious — something about trampling our freedom to enjoy a coke. When I saw it I couldn’t help but think, “aren’t there more important thing to be worrying about than the tyrrany of soda tax?” Apparently some people out there must really love their Mountain Dew because they’re paying big bucks to run these ads.
I can see it now: “You’ll have to pry my Ultra Mega Super Double Big Gulp Extreme Supreme from my cold, dead hands!”
ParticipantContinuing on the child obesity topic, there is talk of raising taxes on soda/juice drinks to help offset the healthcare costs that they contribute to (obesity, diabetes, etc). The opposition commercial is hilarious — something about trampling our freedom to enjoy a coke. When I saw it I couldn’t help but think, “aren’t there more important thing to be worrying about than the tyrrany of soda tax?” Apparently some people out there must really love their Mountain Dew because they’re paying big bucks to run these ads.
I can see it now: “You’ll have to pry my Ultra Mega Super Double Big Gulp Extreme Supreme from my cold, dead hands!”
ParticipantContinuing on the child obesity topic, there is talk of raising taxes on soda/juice drinks to help offset the healthcare costs that they contribute to (obesity, diabetes, etc). The opposition commercial is hilarious — something about trampling our freedom to enjoy a coke. When I saw it I couldn’t help but think, “aren’t there more important thing to be worrying about than the tyrrany of soda tax?” Apparently some people out there must really love their Mountain Dew because they’re paying big bucks to run these ads.
I can see it now: “You’ll have to pry my Ultra Mega Super Double Big Gulp Extreme Supreme from my cold, dead hands!”
ParticipantContinuing on the child obesity topic, there is talk of raising taxes on soda/juice drinks to help offset the healthcare costs that they contribute to (obesity, diabetes, etc). The opposition commercial is hilarious — something about trampling our freedom to enjoy a coke. When I saw it I couldn’t help but think, “aren’t there more important thing to be worrying about than the tyrrany of soda tax?” Apparently some people out there must really love their Mountain Dew because they’re paying big bucks to run these ads.
I can see it now: “You’ll have to pry my Ultra Mega Super Double Big Gulp Extreme Supreme from my cold, dead hands!”
Participant[quote=AN]Shuffling cost from taxpayer to the government? I’m a little confused, doesn’t the government get their money from tax payer? Tax credit for individual to buy their own insurance, tax credit for parents to help them w/ the cost of medical expenses.[/quote]
You are right, I phrased “shuffling cost from taxpayer to government” incorrectly. It was the taxpayers money to begin with, so how does Paul’s plan help at all? The customer is still having to pay way too much for healthcare, the only difference is that the government is sending them a credit for it. That money is coming from somewhere, right? If the taxpayer is coming out even in the deal, the government is the one coming out in the red — is that not subsidizing healthcare?
The issue is not who pays, it is that we are paying too much. Perhaps the malpractice part of Paul’s plans would help with a bit, but malpractice costs are less than 1% of total medical costs. Medical malpractice is the great healthcare cost boogey man.
And I agree that eating right and exercising is part of an individual’s responsibility to lower healthcare costs. But how will that help you if you get T-boned by an uninsured drunk driver? Or some machinery at your job blows up and shoots shrapnel through your eye socket? Is healthcare still a luxury then? Or does it then become a right?
Participant[quote=AN]Shuffling cost from taxpayer to the government? I’m a little confused, doesn’t the government get their money from tax payer? Tax credit for individual to buy their own insurance, tax credit for parents to help them w/ the cost of medical expenses.[/quote]
You are right, I phrased “shuffling cost from taxpayer to government” incorrectly. It was the taxpayers money to begin with, so how does Paul’s plan help at all? The customer is still having to pay way too much for healthcare, the only difference is that the government is sending them a credit for it. That money is coming from somewhere, right? If the taxpayer is coming out even in the deal, the government is the one coming out in the red — is that not subsidizing healthcare?
The issue is not who pays, it is that we are paying too much. Perhaps the malpractice part of Paul’s plans would help with a bit, but malpractice costs are less than 1% of total medical costs. Medical malpractice is the great healthcare cost boogey man.
And I agree that eating right and exercising is part of an individual’s responsibility to lower healthcare costs. But how will that help you if you get T-boned by an uninsured drunk driver? Or some machinery at your job blows up and shoots shrapnel through your eye socket? Is healthcare still a luxury then? Or does it then become a right?
Participant[quote=AN]Shuffling cost from taxpayer to the government? I’m a little confused, doesn’t the government get their money from tax payer? Tax credit for individual to buy their own insurance, tax credit for parents to help them w/ the cost of medical expenses.[/quote]
You are right, I phrased “shuffling cost from taxpayer to government” incorrectly. It was the taxpayers money to begin with, so how does Paul’s plan help at all? The customer is still having to pay way too much for healthcare, the only difference is that the government is sending them a credit for it. That money is coming from somewhere, right? If the taxpayer is coming out even in the deal, the government is the one coming out in the red — is that not subsidizing healthcare?
The issue is not who pays, it is that we are paying too much. Perhaps the malpractice part of Paul’s plans would help with a bit, but malpractice costs are less than 1% of total medical costs. Medical malpractice is the great healthcare cost boogey man.
And I agree that eating right and exercising is part of an individual’s responsibility to lower healthcare costs. But how will that help you if you get T-boned by an uninsured drunk driver? Or some machinery at your job blows up and shoots shrapnel through your eye socket? Is healthcare still a luxury then? Or does it then become a right?
Participant[quote=AN]Shuffling cost from taxpayer to the government? I’m a little confused, doesn’t the government get their money from tax payer? Tax credit for individual to buy their own insurance, tax credit for parents to help them w/ the cost of medical expenses.[/quote]
You are right, I phrased “shuffling cost from taxpayer to government” incorrectly. It was the taxpayers money to begin with, so how does Paul’s plan help at all? The customer is still having to pay way too much for healthcare, the only difference is that the government is sending them a credit for it. That money is coming from somewhere, right? If the taxpayer is coming out even in the deal, the government is the one coming out in the red — is that not subsidizing healthcare?
The issue is not who pays, it is that we are paying too much. Perhaps the malpractice part of Paul’s plans would help with a bit, but malpractice costs are less than 1% of total medical costs. Medical malpractice is the great healthcare cost boogey man.
And I agree that eating right and exercising is part of an individual’s responsibility to lower healthcare costs. But how will that help you if you get T-boned by an uninsured drunk driver? Or some machinery at your job blows up and shoots shrapnel through your eye socket? Is healthcare still a luxury then? Or does it then become a right?
Participant[quote=AN]Shuffling cost from taxpayer to the government? I’m a little confused, doesn’t the government get their money from tax payer? Tax credit for individual to buy their own insurance, tax credit for parents to help them w/ the cost of medical expenses.[/quote]
You are right, I phrased “shuffling cost from taxpayer to government” incorrectly. It was the taxpayers money to begin with, so how does Paul’s plan help at all? The customer is still having to pay way too much for healthcare, the only difference is that the government is sending them a credit for it. That money is coming from somewhere, right? If the taxpayer is coming out even in the deal, the government is the one coming out in the red — is that not subsidizing healthcare?
The issue is not who pays, it is that we are paying too much. Perhaps the malpractice part of Paul’s plans would help with a bit, but malpractice costs are less than 1% of total medical costs. Medical malpractice is the great healthcare cost boogey man.
And I agree that eating right and exercising is part of an individual’s responsibility to lower healthcare costs. But how will that help you if you get T-boned by an uninsured drunk driver? Or some machinery at your job blows up and shoots shrapnel through your eye socket? Is healthcare still a luxury then? Or does it then become a right?
Participant[quote=AN]If you want alternative plan, please see my post in the 2nd page. I posted a MD’s proposal. I’ll post it again: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html.%5B/quote%5D
Those are some good proposals (from 2006), but how do they address the issue of rising costs? From what I can tell those bills simply shuffle the cost from the taxpayer to the government (via credits). How will that actually lower costs? Those proposals seem happy to keep the insurance monopolies in the loop and do nothing to introduce more competition into the marketplace. They also do nothing to increase efficiency of the healthcare system. I’m not a tax/econonomics expert so I’d love to be convinced otherwise.
Participant[quote=AN]If you want alternative plan, please see my post in the 2nd page. I posted a MD’s proposal. I’ll post it again: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html.%5B/quote%5D
Those are some good proposals (from 2006), but how do they address the issue of rising costs? From what I can tell those bills simply shuffle the cost from the taxpayer to the government (via credits). How will that actually lower costs? Those proposals seem happy to keep the insurance monopolies in the loop and do nothing to introduce more competition into the marketplace. They also do nothing to increase efficiency of the healthcare system. I’m not a tax/econonomics expert so I’d love to be convinced otherwise.
-
AuthorPosts
