CMZ Posted December 17, 2016 Posted December 17, 2016 Mitt being Secretary of State doesn't mean he has to be a huge Trump fan. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted December 17, 2016 Author Posted December 17, 2016 In an earlier post, I said that though I'm no Trump supporter, I was delighted to see the "progressive" political establishment upended on Election Day. The following post from Smac97 on the "skirmish" thread serves to help explain my sentiment, so I am pasting it in here: Here's an interesting article that touches on this ongoing "skirmish": Quote How The Left Overreached In Court By ROD DREHER • December 16, 2016, 12:38 PM Sean Trende, on what the left has done over the last four years to attack and provoke religious conservatives: Quote Democrats and liberals have: booed the inclusion of God in their platform at the 2012 convention (this is disputed, but it is the perception); endorsed a regulation that would allow transgendered students to use the bathroom and locker room corresponding to their identity; attempted to force small businesses to cover drugs they believe induce abortions; attempted to force nuns to provide contraceptive coverage; forced Brendan Eich to step down as chief executive officer of Mozilla due to his opposition to marriage equality; fined a small Christian bakery over $140,000 for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding; vigorously opposed a law in Indiana that would provide protections against similar regulations – despite having overwhelmingly supported similar laws when they protected Native American religious rights – and then scoured the Indiana countryside trying to find a business that would be affected by the law before settling upon a small pizza place in the middle of nowhere and harassing the owners. In 2015, the United States solicitor general suggested that churches might lose their tax exempt status if they refused to perform same-sex marriages. In 2016, the Democratic nominee endorsed repealing the Hyde Amendment, thereby endorsing federal funding for elective abortions. On Eugene Volokh’s legal blog, David Bernstein cites this as reason why religious conservatives, even those who may have been averse to Donald Trump, voted for Trump anyway. What’s more, there was this exchange in SCOTUS oral arguments in the Obergefell case, between Justice Alito and the government lawyer arguing for same-sex marriage: Quote Justice Samuel Alito: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to taxexempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same sex marriage? Solicitor General Verrilli: You know, I , I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is it is going to be an issue. When liberals say the only reason conservative Christians oppose gay marriage is prejudice, they have to overlook facts like, oh, that a very senior Justice Department lawyer concedes in Supreme Court oral argument that their churches, schools, and charities may be severely penalized for following their religious beliefs. It’s not paranoia when people really are out to get you. "It's not paranoia when people really are out to get you" Aptly said. Quote Bernstein writes: Quote In short, many religious Christians of a traditionalist bent believed that liberals not only reduce their deeply held beliefs to bigotry, but want to run them out of their jobs, close down their stores and undermine their institutions. When I first posted about this on Facebook, I wrote that I hope liberals really enjoyed running Brendan Eich out of his job and closing down the Sweet Cakes bakery, because it cost them the Supreme Court. I’ll add now that I hope Verrilli enjoyed putting the fear of government into the God-fearing because it cost his party the election. Amen. Asking orthodox Christians to vote for a candidate whose party has been so explicitly and proudly hostile to their most important values and deepest interests was ridiculous. The left brought all this on itself. The article ends on a rather ominous note: Quote But here’s the thing: Obergefell is the law of the land now. Eventually there will be a Democratic administration that will seek to Bob-Jones an orthodox Christian institution (that is, take away its federal tax exemption). Christians had better hope that there’s a SCOTUS majority that will side with religious liberty, and reverse the Court’s holding in Bob Jones vs. United States (1983). If not, we’re done for. We had better use these next four years of what we hope will be a reprieve to prepare for the long resistance. The author of this piece makes the current conflict out to be something quite a bit more serious than a "skirmish". Given what we are seeing from Karger and his ilk, I think that's right. -Smac 2
Scott Lloyd Posted December 17, 2016 Author Posted December 17, 2016 11 minutes ago, CMZ said: Mitt being Secretary of State doesn't mean he has to be a huge Trump fan. Indeed. They could have seen eye-to-eye on foreign policy while disagreeing on other things. Abraham Lincoln is an example of a president who appointed rivals and political opponents to his cabinet. 3
CMZ Posted December 17, 2016 Posted December 17, 2016 Yes. Let's hope in the next election the choice is between two (or more) actually honorable people (of either gender). 2
strappinglad Posted December 17, 2016 Posted December 17, 2016 (edited) Ideological differences can be argued all day, but few want to address the 20 trillion dollar gorilla in the room. If international interest rates ever start going north of 5% all HE double toothpicks will break out. To give a vision of what 20 trillion dollars can represent , consider that a dollar bill has a thickness of 0.0043 inches so it takes about 15 million dollars to cover a mile if stacked tightly. If we use new $100 bills that means each mile of bills would be about 1.5 billion dollars worth. So 20 trillion would need about 13,000 miles of $100 dollar bills. NY to LA a couple of times. Put another way, that means that every person in the US carries a debt of $60,000 before they start. Now , of course, there is no need to worry about it because , after all, it's just paper. I wonder how much universal health care could have been provided ? Sorry, missed a decimal. Edited December 17, 2016 by strappinglad
bcuzbcuz Posted December 17, 2016 Posted December 17, 2016 2 hours ago, bluebell said: I have a close friend from the US that lived in Sweden for 5 years. She adored it, except for the health care. She said it was horrible. It was practically impossible to get in to see a doctor and her kids suffered more there under the free system because you couldn't get in. She talks about a friend there who's infant had febrile seizures and the doctors refused to see her because it wasn't serious enough. Plus, when you did try to get in, you had no choice on the date or time of the appointment. It didn't matter if your mother had died and that day was the funeral, you went to the doctor when they said to go. Another very close friend of mine lived in Canada for a few years. They paid $80,000 in taxes the first year and they aren't rich. They received a raise to go work there but they actually brought home significantly less than they did in the US, even with the raise. She loved Canada but did not really like their health care. She had a baby there and ended up in a sharing a room and a bathroom with a woman who had hepatitis! And bathrooms are bloody places after having a baby. She was terrified to even use it. She also had trouble getting in to the doctor. Every system has negatives and positives (and ours needs to be fixed) but we have to be careful not to fall for the idea that good quality health care that everyone has access to is merely a matter of taxation and a socialized system. I've lived 27 years in Sweden and 39 years in Canada (5 years in the US). My experiences say that it depends when your friend and where your friend lived and if she took the sick children to the children's hospital. The system is definitely not equal throughout the country and it has not gotten better since the conservative governments have held sway. But most Swedes (I asked my wife who has lived here the last 24 years) do not agree with your friends analysis. Currently, you can see a doctor immediately if you go to an independant medical center but neither my wife nor I value that system. We go to the community health center and always see the same doctor (if on duty). Of course there are line ups but nothing anywhere close to what your friend describes. As I explained, between my wife and I, we have 9 children and we have never been turned away not unduly delayed. Adults usually have to wait longer than children. My oldest son's heart problems would never have been discovered were it not for the Swedish pre- and post natal care facilities that are required by law. My two youngest children were born in Canada. Again, it depends where your friend lived and when. I have a son birthed in Vancouver and a daughter birthed in the far north of Canada. I was in the delivery room both times. Nothing like the conditions you describe were prevalent in either of our experiences. The biggest problem we faced was taking a new born baby home in 40 degrees below zero (December, Ft. Nelson, BC.) My children who now live in Canada say that stays in maternity wards are more defined by how quickly the mother and child are sent home (sometimes in less than 36 hours) than by any shortages in quality of care. Your note about taxes in Canada, again depends on date and province but current federal taxes are: (2016 rates are:) 15% on the first $45,282 of taxable income, + 20.5% on the next $45,281 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $45,282 up to $90,563), + 26% on the next $49,825 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $90,563 up to $140,388), + 29% on the next $59,612 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $140,388 up to $200,000), + 33% of taxable income over $200,000. The provincial taxes are as follows: (also 20169 Newfoundland and Labrador 8.2% on the first $35,148 of taxable income, + 13.5% on the next $35,147, + 14.55% on the next $55,205, + 15.8% on the next $50,200, + 16.8% on the amount over $175,700 Prince Edward Island 9.8% on the first $31,984 of taxable income, + 13.8% on the next $31,985, + 16.7% on the amount over $63,969 Nova Scotia 8.79% on the first $29,590 of taxable income, + 14.95% on the next $29,590, + 16.67% on the next $33,820, + 17.5% on the next $57,000, + 21% on the amount over $150,000 New Brunswick 9.68% on the first $40,492 of taxable income, + 14.82% on the next $40,493, + 16.52% on the next $50,679, + 17.84% on the next $18,336, + 20.3% on the amount over $150,000 Quebec Go to Income tax rates (Revenu Québec Web site). Ontario 5.05% on the first $41,536 of taxable income, + 9.15% on the next $41,539, + 11.16% on the next $66,925, + 12.16% on the next $70,000, + 13.16 % on the amount over $220,000 Manitoba 10.8% on the first $31,000 of taxable income, + 12.75% on the next $36,000, + 17.4% on the amount over $67,000 Saskatchewan 11% on the first $44,601 of taxable income, + 13% on the next $82,829, + 15% on the amount over $127,430 Alberta 10% on the first $125,000 of taxable income, + 12% on the next $25,000, + 13% on the next $50,000, + 14% on the next $100,000, + 15% on the amount over $300,000 British Columbia 5.06% on the first $38,210 of taxable income, + 7.7% on the next $38,211, + 10.5% on the next $11,320, + 12.29% on the next $18,802, + 14.7% on the amount over $106,543 Yukon 6.4% on the first $45,282 of taxable income, + 9% on the next $45,281, + 10.9% on the next $49,825, + 12.8% on the next $359,612, + 15% on the amount over $500,000 Northwest Territories 5.9% on the first $41,011 of taxable income, + 8.6% on the next $41,013, + 12.2% on the next $51,329, + 14.05% on the amount over $133,353 Nunavut 4% on the first $43,176 of taxable income, + 7% on the next $43,175, + 9% on the next $54,037, + 11.5% on the amount over $140,388 If your friend paid $ 80,000 CDN in taxes, you can do the maths yourself, they must have earned in excess of 200,000. That's more than I ever earned in one year, by several degrees. If they ended up paying taxes in Canada and the US, then they should have consulted a tax lawyer, because Canada and the US have tax treaties. 1
bcuzbcuz Posted December 17, 2016 Posted December 17, 2016 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Here is where my numbers came from: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/sweden/personal-income-tax-rate Your numbers may be correct.....for someone earning more than several hundred thousand per year. My federal and municipal taxes in Sweden are 30%. My pension from Canada is taxed 11% (in Canada) and not taxed in Sweden. By the way, Tradingeconomics.com rates the US tax rate at 39%. Do you view that as correct?
Scott Lloyd Posted December 17, 2016 Author Posted December 17, 2016 41 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said: Your numbers may be correct.....for someone earning more than several hundred thousand per year. My federal and municipal taxes in Sweden are 30%. My pension from Canada is taxed 11% (in Canada) and not taxed in Sweden. By the way, Tradingeconomics.com rates the US tax rate at 39%. Do you view that as correct? I understood the numbers to be an average -- or more precisely a year-to-year range of averages. And yes, 39 percent strikes me as about right for the U.S. -- as an average. 1
bluebell Posted December 17, 2016 Posted December 17, 2016 1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said: I've lived 27 years in Sweden and 39 years in Canada (5 years in the US). My experiences say that it depends when your friend and where your friend lived and if she took the sick children to the children's hospital. The system is definitely not equal throughout the country and it has not gotten better since the conservative governments have held sway. But most Swedes (I asked my wife who has lived here the last 24 years) do not agree with your friends analysis. Currently, you can see a doctor immediately if you go to an independant medical center but neither my wife nor I value that system. We go to the community health center and always see the same doctor (if on duty). Of course there are line ups but nothing anywhere close to what your friend describes. As I explained, between my wife and I, we have 9 children and we have never been turned away not unduly delayed. Adults usually have to wait longer than children. My oldest son's heart problems would never have been discovered were it not for the Swedish pre- and post natal care facilities that are required by law. My two youngest children were born in Canada. Again, it depends where your friend lived and when. I have a son birthed in Vancouver and a daughter birthed in the far north of Canada. I was in the delivery room both times. Nothing like the conditions you describe were prevalent in either of our experiences. The biggest problem we faced was taking a new born baby home in 40 degrees below zero (December, Ft. Nelson, BC.) My children who now live in Canada say that stays in maternity wards are more defined by how quickly the mother and child are sent home (sometimes in less than 36 hours) than by any shortages in quality of care. Your note about taxes in Canada, again depends on date and province but current federal taxes are: (2016 rates are:) 15% on the first $45,282 of taxable income, + 20.5% on the next $45,281 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $45,282 up to $90,563), + 26% on the next $49,825 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $90,563 up to $140,388), + 29% on the next $59,612 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $140,388 up to $200,000), + 33% of taxable income over $200,000. The provincial taxes are as follows: (also 20169 Newfoundland and Labrador 8.2% on the first $35,148 of taxable income, + 13.5% on the next $35,147, + 14.55% on the next $55,205, + 15.8% on the next $50,200, + 16.8% on the amount over $175,700 Prince Edward Island 9.8% on the first $31,984 of taxable income, + 13.8% on the next $31,985, + 16.7% on the amount over $63,969 Nova Scotia 8.79% on the first $29,590 of taxable income, + 14.95% on the next $29,590, + 16.67% on the next $33,820, + 17.5% on the next $57,000, + 21% on the amount over $150,000 New Brunswick 9.68% on the first $40,492 of taxable income, + 14.82% on the next $40,493, + 16.52% on the next $50,679, + 17.84% on the next $18,336, + 20.3% on the amount over $150,000 Quebec Go to Income tax rates (Revenu Québec Web site). Ontario 5.05% on the first $41,536 of taxable income, + 9.15% on the next $41,539, + 11.16% on the next $66,925, + 12.16% on the next $70,000, + 13.16 % on the amount over $220,000 Manitoba 10.8% on the first $31,000 of taxable income, + 12.75% on the next $36,000, + 17.4% on the amount over $67,000 Saskatchewan 11% on the first $44,601 of taxable income, + 13% on the next $82,829, + 15% on the amount over $127,430 Alberta 10% on the first $125,000 of taxable income, + 12% on the next $25,000, + 13% on the next $50,000, + 14% on the next $100,000, + 15% on the amount over $300,000 British Columbia 5.06% on the first $38,210 of taxable income, + 7.7% on the next $38,211, + 10.5% on the next $11,320, + 12.29% on the next $18,802, + 14.7% on the amount over $106,543 Yukon 6.4% on the first $45,282 of taxable income, + 9% on the next $45,281, + 10.9% on the next $49,825, + 12.8% on the next $359,612, + 15% on the amount over $500,000 Northwest Territories 5.9% on the first $41,011 of taxable income, + 8.6% on the next $41,013, + 12.2% on the next $51,329, + 14.05% on the amount over $133,353 Nunavut 4% on the first $43,176 of taxable income, + 7% on the next $43,175, + 9% on the next $54,037, + 11.5% on the amount over $140,388 If your friend paid $ 80,000 CDN in taxes, you can do the maths yourself, they must have earned in excess of 200,000. That's more than I ever earned in one year, by several degrees. If they ended up paying taxes in Canada and the US, then they should have consulted a tax lawyer, because Canada and the US have tax treaties. I don't know where my friend in Sweden lived. She was there about 5 or 6 years ago. I've never been there so can only relay her experience. All I know is that her husband worked there as a chemical engineer. After living there the family moved to Saudi Arabia they haven't been back in the states very long. They have 6 children. My other friend lived in Ontario in a suburb of Toronto. They have been back in the US for 3 years. They have 5 children.
california boy Posted December 17, 2016 Posted December 17, 2016 5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Here is where my numbers came from: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/sweden/personal-income-tax-rate The numbers you used state quite clearly "The benchmark we use refers to the Top Marginal Tax Rate for individuals." That clearly distorts your statement that the tax rate is Sweden is between 57 and 61%.
Scott Lloyd Posted December 18, 2016 Author Posted December 18, 2016 5 hours ago, california boy said: The numbers you used state quite clearly "The benchmark we use refers to the Top Marginal Tax Rate for individuals." That clearly distorts your statement that the tax rate is Sweden is between 57 and 61%. From the website: Quote The Personal Income Tax Rate in Sweden stands at 57.10 percent. Personal Income Tax Rate in Sweden averaged 56.31 percent from 1995 until 2016, reaching an all time high of 61.40 percent in 1996 and a record low of 51.50 percent in 2000.
Calm Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 (edited) 14 hours ago, bluebell said: I have a close friend from the US that lived in Sweden for 5 years. She adored it, except for the health care. She said it was horrible. It was practically impossible to get in to see a doctor and her kids suffered more there under the free system because you couldn't get in. She talks about a friend there who's infant had febrile seizures and the doctors refused to see her because it wasn't serious enough. Plus, when you did try to get in, you had no choice on the date or time of the appointment. It didn't matter if your mother had died and that day was the funeral, you went to the doctor when they said to go. Another very close friend of mine lived in Canada for a few years. They paid $80,000 in taxes the first year and they aren't rich. They received a raise to go work there but they actually brought home significantly less than they did in the US, even with the raise. She loved Canada but did not really like their health care. She had a baby there and ended up in a sharing a room and a bathroom with a woman who had hepatitis! And bathrooms are bloody places after having a baby. She was terrified to even use it. She also had trouble getting in to the doctor. Every system has negatives and positives (and ours needs to be fixed) but we have to be careful not to fall for the idea that good quality health care that everyone has access to is merely a matter of taxation and a socialized system. We had problems getting into specialists...took me three months to get to a doctor to find out what I thought was an inner ear infection was a rebound migraine...at which time I was thoroughly addicted to the medication I had been taking to 'decongest' to control the dizziness and which was the actual cause of the problem (I had gotten something for a few days that had been aggravated by a plane trip...but it likely cleared up shortly). They refused to let my daughter try the insulin pump until she was 18 and demonstrated perfect control...her sugars were all o re the place, especially at school to the point she had to be homeschool as she was constantly sick from them. When we got down to the states and she got one on the first trip to her new specialist, her sugars were pretty much controlled over night and the massive issue of her needle phobia only needed to be faced once a week instead of several times daily (insulin burns her as well when a needle is used, the slower dispensing of the pump avoids that). If we had gotten the pump immediately, who knows, maybe the whole severe anxiety social shutdown wouldn't have happened and she would have managed school, gone to college, dated...instead she is classified as disabled and rarely leaves the house. Otoh, two surgeries were free for me, though for the last I got stuck in the hospital in constant pain because the doc went on a skiing trip for three days and no one else was assigned to care for me so I couldn't be released and I was in constant pain because they wouldn't change the meds. When I got home I found out ibuprofen was enough and I would have likely been without much pain if I had been allowed it. Also it cost us nothing or very little for a several day stay in the hospital when my daughter was diagnosed with diabetes (don't send home until parents have run through training and proved they can care for them). Insulin and supplies were dirt cheap, cost the same or less than with insurance down here (but we max out every year and get some free, this year because my husband had surgery in August, we have only paid the copay for office visits since Sept...given that I don't know which ends up cheaper long term). We have had friends who have had to go without insulin or diabetes drug because couldn't afford it. Also those who couldn't get drugs to control severe rls. If we in our middle class neighborhood know several, I imagine it is quite more extensive overall. When I got a second consultation because my doctor just blew me off on a chronic health issue (she was great for the acute stuff), my doctor I had been with for ten years instantly dropped me and refused to put me on again because they were already overbooked. And this was in Alberta which at that time had a much better reputation than some other provinces (we would hear of people dying of cancer due to having to wait almost a year to start treatment elsewhere). We have had tons better care down here in the States though I realize that those who do not have insurance can have big, big issues. I am for some form of universal health care, our system is majorally screwed up with health care costs (in part due to malpractice laws...such was very limited up in Canada and that is something I think we can learn from them, there should be penalties for frivolous or needing to blame someone lawsuits, malpractice should be limited to financial costs and not emotional damages, etc). I just haven't seen a working system yet. Just piling more stuff on rather than starting from scratch won't fix the problem, but lawyers fixing it when lawyers making a living off of it being a substantial part of the problem isn't likely to work. Edited December 18, 2016 by Calm 3
Calm Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 Canada did have a great system for helping with medical training costs by subsidizing on the agreement of being assigned to a rural area after graduation for several years that normally would not be able to attract doctors due to small practices and lower income communities. I had a friend who could not have afforded becoming a doctor without crippling debt who was pretty much going to have everything paid off within five years of graduating, at which time he could seek upgrading his practice without putting his family at risk or innhardship to begin with. Unfortunately at the time, because of the cap on earnings, we heard of many doctors moving to the states. One friend who was a pediatric neurosurgeon worked for free the last three months of the year and moved to the states because he wouldn't be able to afford to help his large family get through college or go on missions. They lived in a too small house in an older middle to lower income neighborhood as well. This was a guy who was in the highest paid bracket in the states.
thesometimesaint Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 (edited) 20 hours ago, strappinglad said: Ideological differences can be argued all day, but few want to address the 20 trillion dollar gorilla in the room. If international interest rates ever start going north of 5% all HE double toothpicks will break out. To give a vision of what 20 trillion dollars can represent , consider that a dollar bill has a thickness of 0.0043 inches so it takes about 15 million dollars to cover a mile if stacked tightly. If we use new $100 bills that means each mile of bills would be about 1.5 billion dollars worth. So 20 trillion would need about 13,000 miles of $100 dollar bills. NY to LA a couple of times. Put another way, that means that every person in the US carries a debt of $60,000 before they start. Now , of course, there is no need to worry about it because , after all, it's just paper. I wonder how much universal health care could have been provided ? Sorry, missed a decimal. You do know the difference between using debt and being used by debt? While I dislike using household debt as a model for governmental debt it is useful in this example. Unless you are very rich you can't afford buy outright a modern house to live in. So most of us take a mortgage, and pay it off over time. Usually in the 30 year range. That is using debt to get the things you need over the long haul. On the governmental level debt is best used for infrastructure for things like roads, bridges, schools, and the like. Being controlled by debt is when we must use credit to buy daily living expenses, like food. Much depends on if you think health care as a right, or as a privilege reserved for the very rich. Edited December 18, 2016 by thesometimesaint 1
Scott Lloyd Posted December 19, 2016 Author Posted December 19, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: You do know the difference between using debt and being used by debt? While I dislike using household debt as a model for governmental debt it is useful in this example. Unless you are very rich you can't afford buy outright a modern house to live in. So most of us take a mortgage, and pay it off over time. Usually in the 30 year range. That is using debt to get the things you need over the long haul. On the governmental level debt is best used for infrastructure for things like roads, bridges, schools, and the like. Being controlled by debt is when we must use credit to buy daily living expenses, like food. Much depends on if you think health care as a right, or as a privilege reserved for the very rich. False dichotomy. It is neither. Health care is like other necessities of life like food and shelter. It's something that ought to be provided for those who cannot afford it but that each should provide for himself and his own to the extent he is able pursuant to a goal of self reliance. That moral obligation to pursue self-reliance keeps health care and other necessities of life from being an entitlement. Regarding your thoughts on governmental debt, the problem comes when the public servants are irresponsible in the way they use it or they go back on their word with regard to how it is used. For example our local school board barely got a bond issue passed in an election by promising voters in different segments of the school district that the bonded indebtedness would fund separate construction or improvement projects in separate schools. Once the bond was safely passed, the board closed our neighborhood middle school and used the money that had been allocated for remodeling to build a new school miles away. At the same time, they used bond proceeds to rebuild a middle school in a favored section of the district but one where enrollment has been continuously diminishing over time and where it would be languishing now had the board not redrawn boundaries and imposed busing to shore up the flagging enrollment. Result: Kids in some of our neighborhoods had their middle school closed and were obliged to board buses to attend a school miles away from home, just so a favored school could be kept open. And not just kept open, but torn down and rebuilt from scratch. Our only option by then was to vote the board members out of office (which we did, for the most part but by then, the damage had been done). Had we known what was in the offing, we surely would have voted down the bond issue in the first place, given the closeness of the election. Edited December 19, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 2
bcuzbcuz Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: False dichotomy. It is neither. Health care is like other necessities of life like food and shelter. It's something that ought to be provided for those who cannot afford it but that each should provide for himself and his own to the extent he is able pursuant to a goal of self reliance. That moral obligation to pursue self-reliance keeps health care and other necessities of life from being an entitlement. Regarding your thoughts on governmental debt, the problem comes when the public servants are irresponsible in the way they use it or they go back on their word with regard to how it is used. For example our local school board barely got a bond issue passed in an election by promising voters in different segments of the school district that the bonded indebtedness would fund separate construction or improvement projects in separate schools. Once the bond was safely passed, the board closed our neighborhood middle school and used the money that had been allocated for remodeling to build a new school miles away. At the same time, they used bond proceeds to rebuild a middle school in a favored section of the district but one where enrollment has been continuously diminishing over time and where it would be languishing now had the board not redrawn boundaries and imposed busing to shore up the flagging enrollment. Result: Kids in some of our neighborhoods had their middle school closed and were obliged to board buses to attend a school miles away from home, just so a favored school could be kept open. And not just kept open, but torn down and rebuilt from scratch. Our only option by then was to vote the board members out of office (which we did, for the most part but by then, the damage had been done). Had we known what was in the offing, we surely would have voted down the bond issue in the first place, given the closeness of the election. Everything you stated as problems that arose around your local school board mis-representing a bond issue and their misuse of funds are exactly the same problems that arise with your solution to health care. You suggest that those who can't afford should receive it while those who can pay for it should pay for it. Yeah, right. In a perfect world. You named taxes and I responded that I gladly pay because the system offers the same high quality to everybody. Everybody pays the same upon entrance to the hospital or medical care center. There is no differentiation between rich or poor. I don't view that as a bad thing. Not everyone agrees. Back to your original question about Romney being in the Trump government. He may have been offered the job but refused. That would give Romney a definite boost in my appraisal. Just because someone offers a job doesn't make it advisable to accept. (If the devil offered fame and fortune, would it be a good job?)
Scott Lloyd Posted December 19, 2016 Author Posted December 19, 2016 (edited) 58 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said: Everything you stated as problems that arose around your local school board mis-representing a bond issue and their misuse of funds are exactly the same problems that arise with your solution to health care. You suggest that those who can't afford should receive it while those who can pay for it should pay for it. Yeah, right. In a perfect world. You named taxes and I responded that I gladly pay because the system offers the same high quality to everybody. Everybody pays the same upon entrance to the hospital or medical care center. There is no differentiation between rich or poor. I don't view that as a bad thing. Not everyone agrees. Back to your original question about Romney being in the Trump government. He may have been offered the job but refused. That would give Romney a definite boost in my appraisal. Just because someone offers a job doesn't make it advisable to accept. (If the devil offered fame and fortune, would it be a good job?) That's not what happened. Romney told a media outlet (KSL) that he would not be receiving the offer. Shortly thereafter, the Trump team announced the name of the man who did. Apparently, Romney had declined to apologize, but that's not the same as receiving and refusing an offer. Regarding the socialized sytstem of health care you champion, it promotes an attitude of entitlement. From posts on the board, we have seen the drawbacks: extremely high taxes and undesirably long wait times. Edited December 19, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
sjdawg Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 (edited) What does this thread have to do with Mormonism or even religion in general? This seems like a social hall conversation Edited December 19, 2016 by sjdawg
Scott Lloyd Posted December 19, 2016 Author Posted December 19, 2016 1 hour ago, sjdawg said: What does this thread have to do with Mormonism or even religion in general? This seems like a social hall conversation As it started out, the thread did have to do with Mormonism, and I have clearly explained why. As it developed, this thread (like its two predecessor threads) became a place for airing political gripes, mainly about the election of Trump to the office of president. That's not what I had intended, and at that point, I expressed my indifference as to whether or not the thread continued. When it did continue, I simply joined in on the conversations to the extent I felt like doing so. In any case, no, I don't believe it's a Social Hall conversation. As I understand it, Social Hall is primarily for friendly, non-contentious or non-controversial interaction. This thread very definitely has clashing opinions. But you, like all of us, are free to limit your participation here or to not participate at all.
thesometimesaint Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: That's not what happened. Romney told a media outlet (KSL) that he would not be receiving the offer. Shortly thereafter, the Trump team announced the name of the man who did. Apparently, Romney had declined to apologize, but that's not the same as receiving and refusing an offer. Regarding the socialized sytstem of health care you champion, it promotes an attitude of entitlement. From posts on the board, we have seen the drawbacks: extremely high taxes and undesirably long wait times. Allowing the government to subsidize a poor person for private insurance is not your dreaded socialized medicine. For a model of how socialized medicine works in the US it is the VA(Biggest health care provider in the US). While getting in can be a problem(which is being worked on) once in it is some of the best care in the world.
Recommended Posts