Survey on the Rich

[foureyes]

You cannot nationally institute a change of heart. Besides that, you cannot possibly come up with a national program that could cater the needs of the people properly in the US -- a community could really take care of each other on a more intimate and real basis. It's not up to the government to be selfless for us -- it starts with the individual, then the community, then the nation. Not the other way around. It's very unrealistic, inefficient, and otherwise somewhat ignorant to expect it work that way...although the idea is nice, I'll admit.

Government isn't meant to make everyone happy. It's meant to take care of the decision-making process of and for the people, and make sure that things on the national level run smoothly. I'd much rather my government concern itself with quality in terms of laws and enforcement, etc, then a neighborly interest in the private lives of the people. A government is neither selfish nor selfless -- it's management, and it should stay that way. People should have access to happiness, but that doesn't mean it should be handed to them. And a government should clean up it's processes to make sure it runs smoothly before trying to conquer every humanitarian problem they see.

Well we already know medicare runs smoothly. That's why I support Medicare for all. All the other proposed ideas seem too messy. (imo)
And I also agree with Shai Gar though I'm hoping that a real healthcare bill gets passed as opposed to just increased regulation. But seeing as there's already several threads about healthcare, I'm not sure we should turn this into another one.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Well...the thing with universal healthcare is, that although it works in many ways, the American system isn't set up for it. We're too big, too slow, and we don't have the right base to support it. We have a lot of work to do before we get the right system.

 

[Shai Gar]

The people who voted obama are the base to support it. Because Universal HealthCare is what he got in on.

 

[foureyes]

We're too big, too slow, and we don't have the right base to support it.

I don't necessarily agree with any of those things, but because they're such general statements, purely opinon, I don't think debating such points would really lead us any where.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

The people who voted obama are the base to support it. Because Universal HealthCare is what he got in on.

It's not about the people, necessarily. It's about the government. Being a capitalist society, it would be a lot more difficult to make a healthcare program that would fit the system. There are a lot of things that have to go into planning it -- money involved, enforcement, legislation, etc. etc. And the state of the government is not really the best for that.

Besides, there's actually a pretty clear division on healthcare in America. Just because we voted in a president that proposed it doesn't mean everyone supports it.

 

[foureyes]

It's not about the people, necessarily. It's about the government. Being a capitalist society, it would be a lot more difficult to make a healthcare program that would fit the system. There are a lot of things that have to go into planning it -- money involved, enforcement, legislation, etc. etc. And the state of the government is not really the best for that.

Besides, there's actually a pretty clear division on healthcare in America. Just because we voted in a president that proposed it doesn't mean everyone supports it.

My thoughts: private insurance is too expensive and doesn't really provide healthcare to those who need it.

To the second part about the country being evenly split it isnt really. The majority of the nation wants healthcare but the Republicans don't at all. They are just a very loud minority.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

My thoughts: private insurance is too expensive and doesn't really provide healthcare to those who need it.

To the second part about the country being evenly split it isnt really. The majority of the nation wants healthcare but the Republicans don't at all. They are just a very lound minority.

Oh, I never said the split was even But I do think both sides are being a little too rash. Then again, I think that of most political issues.

And private insurance is a business. I do think they could do something to relieve that and make it more accessible -- I don't believe that healthcare is impossible; I just think that there is going to have to be a lot of consideration involved, especially in terms of our system. We are not going to be able to apply a European-style program, just out of the blue.

 

[foureyes]

Oh, I never said the split was even But I do think both sides are being a little too rash. Then again, I think that of most political issues.

And private insurance is a business. I do think they could do something to relieve that and make it more accessible -- I don't believe that healthcare is impossible; I just think that there is going to have to be a lot of consideration involved, especially in terms of our system. We are not going to be able to apply a European-style program, just out of the blue.

I agree with you! That's why I'm hoping medicare for all is eventually what gets passed.

 

[Shai Gar]

And yet you're ignoring the fact that other nations have provided universal basic free healthcare, and still have medical insurance companies.

The Medical Insurance companies provide actual services though. Otherwise noone would get membership. This is something your US companies don't do. They take money easily enough, but don't offer their services beyond that.

My nation is extremely capitalist, and works well with universal health care.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

And yet you're ignoring the fact that other nations have provided universal basic free healthcare, and still have medical insurance companies.

The Medical Insurance companies provide actual services though. Otherwise noone would get membership. This is something your US companies don't do. They take money easily enough, but don't offer their services beyond that.

My nation is extremely capitalist, and works well with universal health care.

Comparing nations doesn't do much when trying to create the most beneficial program for that nation. It's useful for coming up with inspiration and ideas, but beyond that it can be very foolish to just do what other nations have done without considering in what ways the nation, government, and people are different.

I think you and I will agree that Australia and the US have very different attitudes in their population, and, though I don't know much about Australia, I'm sure the history and government up to this point probably have enough differences to allow some hesitance in simply applying concepts to each other.

America still has a lot it needs to work out, and there is enough conflict on this subject to show it. True, the groups on each side of the conflict are not necessarily easily distributed, but as far as politics go, you can't just brush one side away and do it anyways. I personally am wary of free universal healthcare...because nothing in this world is "free," and I'm not sure people in my country have realize that yet.

 

[HaHa]

Comparing nations doesn't do much when trying to create the most beneficial program for that nation. It's useful for coming up with inspiration and ideas, but beyond that it can be very foolish to just do what other nations have done without considering in what ways the nation, government, and people are different.

I think you and I will agree that Australia and the US have very different attitudes in their population, and, though I don't know much about Australia, I'm sure the history and government up to this point probably have enough differences to allow some hesitance in simply applying concepts to each other.

America still has a lot it needs to work out, and there is enough conflict on this subject to show it. True, the groups on each side of the conflict are not necessarily easily distributed, but as far as politics go, you can't just brush one side away and do it anyways. I personally am wary of free universal healthcare...because nothing in this world is "free," and I'm not sure people in my country have realize that yet.

Yes you can. You just need to offer something in exchange. Let's grant amnesty for all of the catholic priests who "play" with their altar boys and make a deal!

 

[ec3khrl]

1) I don't know as I don't live in the US, everywhere has a different price level and tax rate. But consider making money enough to make no difference whether you live in expensive cities like Tokyo, or tax rate high as the US to be rich.

2) Yes, talking about real income

3) They only need to pay for taxes, it would be better for the society to have a higher tax rate for the rich but it's not their obligation to pay for more.

4) Inequality is as natural as it is, get over it. Experiments have been conducted in computer simulations with everyone starting with same wealth in a well-defined "world", and things just develop this way again and again. Let alone a world as complicated as ours.

I've been watching some things on the news lately about the rich and wealthy, and I had a few questions.

1. How much would one have to make per year in order to be considered 'rich'? What about a working couple?

2. Would your figure change based on the amount of money that is taken away by taxes?

3. Do the rich have an obligation (moral or other, please specifiy in your response) to pay for services provided to others (such as healthcare, insurance, government assistance programs, etc).

4. What are your own thoughts/perceptions concerning the rich and wealth in general?