Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Are you trying to argue that since the public has elected to spend tax dollars on one set of things, that it's ok to justify the same expenses on anything else?
No, but nice job declaring yourself the winner because of an argument I never made
Isn't this what you're basically arguing? That since we use a progressive tax system to fund lots of other things, I shouldn't complain about using a progressive tax system to fund socialized medicine?
If not, then what were you trying to say?
Quote:
I'm saying that ******** about universal health care on the basis of what percentage you pay for it versus what percentage someone else pays for it is silly. Nearly everything in government is funded identically.
Right. So you were making that argument! So since "nearly everything else in government is funded identically" it's ok to fund this program? Look. I oppose socialized medicine. Period. The fact that we're funding it with a progressive tax system is just icing on the cake of badness involved. That was hardly my entire argument.
Quote:
I might as well throw a fit because I'm funding more of our national museums via my taxes than Hobo Joe down at the railyard so it "costs" me more to visit the Air & Space museum than it costs Hobo Joe.
Sure. Except that you get exactly the same benefit from the museum as Joe does, right? Arguably more, since you're probably far more likely to visit the museum then he is, but if we assume a Hobo with a taste for art, he's able to enjoy it just as much as you are. Same deal with the protection we receive from our military. And in fact most legitimate tax funded programs (I'm of course defining what I consider to be "legitimate").
My real problem isn't as much with the progressive taxes, but with the idea of using tax dollars to focus funds at specific individuals/groups within society. Singling people out to receive entitlements is problematic IMO. We can argue that things like cancer research, public utilities, water systems, road systems, etc all benefit society as a whole, but don't involve specific payouts or focus on one person or another. Once you start putting direct services aimed at individuals, the government ceases to be about creating an environment where people can succeed, but becomes about micromanaging the lives of the citizens. It becomes social engineering, which I think is a really bad idea.
This is part of what I was trying to get after with my question about there being some kind of differential between "universal health coverage" and "socialized medicine". It's semantic at best, right? While we can say "But everyone gets the same thing back", it's not the same as a case say with funding for a museum (to use your own example). It's unlikely that I would collect some artwork on my own to enjoy, and a museum does not put that art into a single persons hands. It's not like the government buys art and then gives some to various citizens based on some perceived need. It's there for everyone. Medical care doesn't fit that model. Your putting a specific service into each individuals hands. And it's a service that most taxpayers already pay for. Unlike their inability to buy their own museum, they can afford their own health care.
So the government is effectively taking money from them to provide them with something they already have. As I've argued many times, this is an intrusion on liberty in both directions. You lose your property rights with regard to some of your wealth *and* your ability to choose your own medical care as well. Of course, you still have that, but the opportunity cost for an alternative has just gotten much much higher. Most people aren't going to be able to afford to pay the taxes for the government funded health care *and* pay for their own private care as well. Thus, the power of choice is taken from them.
This problem exists even if you call it "universal health care". The progressive tax system only highlights the degree to which this screws over the middle class. They're the ones making enough money that they could have obtained their own health care before the program existed, but can't afford additional health care and the program. And that's the majority of taxpayers who are so affected...
