Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jun 4, 2013, 10:21 AM   #126
ugahairydawgs
Thread Starter
macrumors 68020
 
ugahairydawgs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrain View Post
In that case, I should be over 6 ft. tall instead of 5'nothing, have a booming deep voice, and have women falling all over themselves trying to date me. (edit)
Dream big, chief.
ugahairydawgs is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2013, 12:06 PM   #127
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs View Post
This is obviously a cyclical argument there we're having here.
Not really, you seem to feel that parents supporting their children a little through providing healthcare until they are 26 is bad, whereas supporting them a lot by giving them lots of money is OK.

I don't see how these positions are consistent.
__________________
If they have to tell you every day they are fair you can bet they arent, if they tell you they are balanced then you should know they are not - Don't Hurt me
Eraserhead is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2013, 12:08 PM   #128
NT1440
macrumors G3
 
NT1440's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hartford, CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs View Post

And for the vast majority of 26 year old people....that's perfectly fine. Someone that age hardly goes to the doctor as it is, so they really just need something in case of an emergency or a huge illness.
I'm sure cancer will easily be covered by such a plan
NT1440 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2013, 01:13 PM   #129
ugahairydawgs
Thread Starter
macrumors 68020
 
ugahairydawgs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
Not really, you seem to feel that parents supporting their children a little through providing healthcare until they are 26 is bad, whereas supporting them a lot by giving them lots of money is OK.

I don't see how these positions are consistent.
Because its like comparing apples and potatoes. They are completely different situations. The first is a person that can't (or won't) take care of themselves. The second is a person that inherits their family's money once the head of the family dies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NT1440 View Post
I'm sure cancer will easily be covered by such a plan
Once they pay their deductible......yes.
ugahairydawgs is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2013, 01:25 PM   #130
chown33
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs View Post
The second is a person that inherits their family's money once the head of the family dies.
You also stated that you oppose any gift tax. Therefore, you support freely giving any amount of money to children (or anyone else, really), without any tax being applied to that transfer, even while the giver is alive. How is the recipient of that gift substantially different from "a person that can't (or won't) take care of themselves."?

There is a legislated age-limit on "gifting" of health insurance coverage under a parent's plan. There is also a limit on who can receive it (children). According to your stated views, there is no age limit (or any other limit) on the "gifting" of simple cash. Why the double standard? Why should one group of adult children be embarrased to receive health insurance coverage, but another group not be embarrased to receive direct cash gifts?

In other words, if there were no gift tax at all, then why wouldn't I be able to offer my children health insurance coverage under my plan? Or why wouldn't I be able to simply give them direct funds to apply to their own plan? What's the difference?
chown33 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2013, 02:44 PM   #131
mcrain
Banned
 
mcrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by chown33 View Post
What's the difference?
There is only one difference. One involves a situation where the people involved are very wealthy, and therefore by definition good, productive members of society, while the other involves people who have to work for a living, if they can find a job, therefore, they are lazy and aren't doing enough to better their situations.
mcrain is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2013, 03:39 PM   #132
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs View Post
Because its like comparing apples and potatoes. They are completely different situations. The first is a person that can't (or won't) take care of themselves. The second is a person that inherits their family's money once the head of the family dies.
Both of them are cases of the children sponging off their parents - which when it comes to health insurance you disagree with strongly.

To be consistent, you'd have to support a 100% inheritance tax above a pretty low threshold so that the children have to be independent.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrain View Post
There is only one difference. One involves a situation where the people involved are very wealthy, and therefore by definition good, productive members of society, while the other involves people who have to work for a living, if they can find a job, therefore, they are lazy and aren't doing enough to better their situations.
Sadly, other than this, I don't see what else it is.
__________________
If they have to tell you every day they are fair you can bet they arent, if they tell you they are balanced then you should know they are not - Don't Hurt me
Eraserhead is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2013, 11:12 AM   #133
WestonHarvey1
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Health insurance isn't insurance at all, and that's the root of the problem. It's more like a subscription service. If homeowner's insurance was like health insurance, it would pay for all your utility bills, carpet cleaning, etc - and it would have huge deductibles and cost a fortune. It would also make all those utilities astronomically expensive and costs would be spiraling out of control like they are today.

There will never be a solution, because the idea of making people pay out of pocket for their non-catastrophic health care needs is anathema to practically everyone. Single payer would "fix" some of the worst problems of the ACA, but will still lead to massive debt, cost increases, and more and more rationing.
WestonHarvey1 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2013, 11:23 AM   #134
mcrain
Banned
 
mcrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestonHarvey1 View Post
Single payer would "fix" some of the worst problems of the ACA, but will still lead to massive debt, cost increases, and more and more rationing.
Single payor would help, but universal coverage would be better. There is no need for doctors, nurses, administrators, hospitals or clinics to be paid privately. In fact, there is no need for any of those to be private period. Everyone talks about how overpaid government employees are, but imagine the savings if hospitals and clinics were government owned, and all health care employees were government personnel.

Yes, there would be escalating expenses necessary to ramp up the education of needed doctors and nurses, as well as develop the infrastructure to adequately treat everyone, but the overall savings compared to what we do now would be enormous.
mcrain is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2013, 12:14 PM   #135
SLC Flyfishing
macrumors 65816
 
SLC Flyfishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrain View Post
There is no need for doctors, nurses, administrators, hospitals or clinics to be paid privately. In fact, there is no need for any of those to be private period. .

Yes, there would be escalating expenses necessary to ramp up the education of needed doctors and nurses, as well as develop the infrastructure to adequately treat everyone, but the overall savings compared to what we do now would be enormous.
There would also need to be a system for forgiving debt that doctors and other health professionals have to undertake just to become health professionals. A few hundred grand in the case of many of my classmates...

Medical school is very expensive, and the only way it makes financial/life sacrifice sense to even do it is the notion that the debt is manageable and the salary is good.

I mean, I'm very passionate about medicine, and I'm most excited for what I'll be able to do for people. But I also need to get paid, and I've invested 10 years of my youth to this with ~8 more to go, and I did it with certain expectations/understanding about what I'm getting in to.

If all medical professionals were suddenly made federal employees, with all that goes with that type of thing, you'd see an even bigger exodus from active practice than we're already seeing. Tons of doc's are rushing to retire now just seeing what's coming down the pipeline with the ACA. There are a lot who are excited for it, but there are similar amounts who want nothing to do with it and will leave the workforce ASAP.

Last edited by SLC Flyfishing; Jun 5, 2013 at 12:19 PM.
SLC Flyfishing is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2013, 12:40 PM   #136
WestonHarvey1
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrain View Post
Single payor would help, but universal coverage would be better.
I'm still against single payer, but the biggest tragedy for me is that we got ACA instead, and that it baited the Supreme Court into deciding that the individual mandate is a "tax", which I think has created a template for all sorts of abuses down the road.

Single payer would have survived a constitutional challenge and we wouldn't have been saddled with the Roberts decision. I can think of no argument against single payer that is different than the challenges Medicare has already survived. All they really would have needed to do is extend the Medicare eligibility to all ages and go from there.
WestonHarvey1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2013, 12:55 PM   #137
skunk
macrumors Demi-God
 
skunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Republic of Ukistan
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
If all medical professionals were suddenly made federal employees, with all that goes with that type of thing, you'd see an even bigger exodus from active practice than we're already seeing. Tons of doc's are rushing to retire now just seeing what's coming down the pipeline with the ACA. There are a lot who are excited for it, but there are similar amounts who want nothing to do with it and will leave the workforce ASAP.
Those are probably the doctors you don't want anyway.
__________________
"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted the spoons." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
skunk is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2013, 01:27 PM   #138
chown33
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
If all medical professionals were suddenly made federal employees, with all that goes with that type of thing, you'd see an even bigger exodus from active practice than we're already seeing.
"Single payer" doesn't necessarily imply that all medical professionals will become Federal employees.

The simplest example I can think of is road construction. Various non-governmental construction companies bid on road construction projects. The winner does the work and receives payment. There's still a single payer (the Federal govt), but neither the construction company nor its workers are govt employees.

Defense contractors (especially small ones) work the same way. They bid on a project, win it, do the work, receive payment from the govt. Neither the company nor the workers are necessarily govt employees. The govt may dictate some requirements of employment, such as having a certain security clearance, being a citizen, etc. Those requirements don't necessarily make a company employee into a govt employee.

The Federal govt (or a Department thereof) simply becomes the single payer (or single largest payer) for medical treatments. It's the same as having a single large health insurance company. That wouldn't make medical professionals into employees of the insurance company.
chown33 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2013, 01:39 PM   #139
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestonHarvey1 View Post
Health insurance isn't insurance at all, and that's the root of the problem. It's more like a subscription service. If homeowner's insurance was like health insurance, it would pay for all your utility bills, carpet cleaning, etc - and it would have huge deductibles and cost a fortune. It would also make all those utilities astronomically expensive and costs would be spiraling out of control like they are today.

There will never be a solution, because the idea of making people pay out of pocket for their non-catastrophic health care needs is anathema to practically everyone. Single payer would "fix" some of the worst problems of the ACA, but will still lead to massive debt, cost increases, and more and more rationing.
No, the thing about universal single payer is it replaces medicare and medicaid and to the health benefits part of SSDI. Not only these but it get rid of the state implementation of all of above. You kill three federal agencies replace it with one and states don't require any administrative agencies.
GermanyChris is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2013, 02:10 PM   #140
mcrain
Banned
 
mcrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
There would also need to be a system for forgiving debt that doctors and other health professionals have to undertake just to become health professionals. A few hundred grand in the case of many of my classmates..
In a well designed system, all medical education is free, as are all continuing medical education. Oh, and completely eliminate the concept of medical malpractice. No more insurance, no more suits, no more any of that. If there is an injury, you get a set amount period.
mcrain is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2013, 03:04 PM   #141
SLC Flyfishing
macrumors 65816
 
SLC Flyfishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrain View Post
In a well designed system, all medical education is free, as are all continuing medical education. Oh, and completely eliminate the concept of medical malpractice. No more insurance, no more suits, no more any of that. If there is an injury, you get a set amount period.
That's all fine and good, but what happens to those of us who are taking on years worth of debt for our educations right now? Our schooling isn't free, not by a long shot.

My tuition is nearly $50K a year, and that doesn't cover living expenses or books.
SLC Flyfishing is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2013, 03:06 PM   #142
Technarchy
macrumors 68040
 
Technarchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrain View Post
In a well designed system, all medical education is free, as are all continuing medical education. Oh, and completely eliminate the concept of medical malpractice. No more insurance, no more suits, no more any of that. If there is an injury, you get a set amount period.
Oh yeah a set amount makes perfect sense.

You go in for infected tooth and some doctor cuts your legs off because he didn't read your chart right. Now you get $100,000. Good luck with no legs!
__________________
Steve Jobs, January 9th 2007, 10:44am: "We filed for over 200 patents for all the inventions in iPhone and we intend to protect them."
Technarchy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2013, 03:19 PM   #143
skunk
macrumors Demi-God
 
skunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Republic of Ukistan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Technarchy View Post
Oh yeah a set amount makes perfect sense.

You go in for infected tooth and some doctor cuts your legs off because he didn't read your chart right. Now you get $100,000. Good luck with no legs!
It's good enough for the army...
__________________
"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted the spoons." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
skunk is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2013, 06:24 PM   #144
hulugu
macrumors 68000
 
hulugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: the faraway towns
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
...I was merely trying to make a point. My father's life's savings shouldn't be taxed when they're used for the purpose they were created for.
Sure, but now we're trying to build financial policy based on intent, which is a terrible idea. ...

Quote:
Ideally, in my mind there shouldn't be a tax on this type of wealth transfer but if I had to compromise I'd say that life savings being passed on to children should be exempt.
It's still a wealth transfer to the recipient, who should pay the tax as income. This attempt to break out exemptions for different structures is why the tax system is so complex.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Technarchy View Post
Oh yeah a set amount makes perfect sense.

You go in for infected tooth and some doctor cuts your legs off because he didn't read your chart right. Now you get $100,000. Good luck with no legs!
Malpractice insurance doesn't necessarily keep the above from happening.
__________________
I look like a soldier; I feel like a thief

Last edited by SandboxGeneral; Jun 5, 2013 at 06:52 PM. Reason: Fixed broken quote tag
hulugu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2013, 12:55 AM   #145
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by hulugu View Post


It's still a wealth transfer to the recipient, who should pay the tax as income. This attempt to break out exemptions for different structures is why the tax system is so complex.
I'm wondering how this shakes out in the case of things like family run businesses where the family doesn't survive on the value of the assets but the money generated by the business.
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.
thekev is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2013, 02:14 AM   #146
chown33
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekev View Post
I'm wondering how this shakes out in the case of things like family run businesses where the family doesn't survive on the value of the assets but the money generated by the business.
There isn't a single answer. It depends on how the business is structured: corporation (there are different types), sole proprietorship, LLC, etc. It also depends on the relationship of each family member to the business: director, employee, stock holder, partner, etc.

A couple of examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability_company

In particular, note the links along the right side of the article, for various types of business structure.
chown33 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2013, 08:38 AM   #147
mcrain
Banned
 
mcrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekev View Post
I'm wondering how this shakes out in the case of things like family run businesses where the family doesn't survive on the value of the assets but the money generated by the business.
It's called life insurance. If you are too stupid to realize that when you die, your assets have a certain value, and that it will require a certain amount of taxes, then you deserve to have your assets reduced. It is your own ignorance that is causing the reduction of assets, nothing more. LIFE INSURANCE.
mcrain is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2013, 01:27 PM   #148
CaptMurdock
macrumors 6502a
 
CaptMurdock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Quote:
Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs View Post
The rich are a pretty massive minority in this country and we like to rag on them at times solely because of the wealth they possess.
Yeah, they have it so hard.
__________________
13" MacBook, 2.4 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 320 GB HD, OS 10.9.2 | iPhone 4, 32 GB, iOS 7.1
"I got no reason, it's all too much/You'll always find me out to lunch"

Last edited by CaptMurdock; Jun 16, 2013 at 01:32 PM.
CaptMurdock is offline   1 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:36 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC