Question for libertarians & conservatives

It's irrelevant what "they want", because they don't matter as far as the law, society, Constitution, etc is concerned.

Thankfully our founders designed a system of government where the whining of illiterate and unimportant idiots is irrelevant in regards to the governing of a nation, and elected and appointed officials provide a bulwark preventing the mob or the rabble from having any more pretense of a say in things than absolutely necessary. (Their anti-American views be damned).

(Another reason I'd favor getting rid of the popular vote entirely and letting the electoral college be the sole source of votes in presidential elections).

 

Per the US constitution, the government has a legitimate claim on a portion of income.

A 'claim' means it's not your money, that money belongs to the government.

You can say I"m against taxpayer funds being spent on........ or "I'm against government spending on.....blah blah." Or, I'd even accept 'our money' (because it is collectively owned by everyone, 'we the people', etc.)

But, per the US Constitution, you cannot say 'my money'. Or, you can say it, it's just that you are wrong.

It's not your money. It's everyone's money, it's the taxpayers money, as a collective body, which IS the government.

Your money is that portion of income not claimed by the government. You can spend YOUR MONEY anyway you choose.

As for government taxation funds, how it' spent, that is determined by elected officials. It all goes back to democracy ( however imperfect ours is ).

Now, you can complain it's too much, or it's not being spent the way you want, but, note that, well, welcome to the club.

Everyone has that complaint. Spending policy, by it's very nature, cannot please everyone. What you like, someone else doesn't, and vice versa.

Personally, I agree the government should embark on an ad campaign to persuade the population to eat better, exercise, etc, just as they had invested in a campaign to get people off of cigarettes, which was very successful ( in the 50s, what, some 50% of the nation smoked, and now it's 1/4? So, the government can be effective on this if they choose to, and they should ),

However, I'm not for ending medicare or similar programs.

 

The CDC stats prove the opposite. Thinking has nothing to do with it, it's either true or false. The stats indicate you are incorrect.

 

You have said that before and it still does not justify the irresponsibility and corruption that has food giants enjoying record profits from causing illness and death.

Since we are discussing denying services to certain people, why not deny companies producing unhealthy products our tax dollar?

 

Yes, and I am more in the middle on that

 

Too bad I can't shorten your quoted post. You might consider shortening your future posts.

I just want to respond to your first point: What to do to reduce the demand for ICU hospital beds due to the pandemic?? Answer: Consider hospitalizing just the chronically hospitalized due to dire Covid reaction and those close to death. Ya know, worrying about number of Covid cases puts a tremendous stress on hospitals. That and, IMO, approximately 25% of the population is adversely affected by Covid.

 

Ditto! I do a LOT of exercise, but very little of it is intentional. I never got any pleasure in exercise for its own sake.

 

What the hell is the point of family at all, if they can't back each other when needed?

 

The problem is that isn't 'some', it's many.

I'm a staunch defender of public health, but it MUST come with limitations if it's to condinue to serve the majority.

 

Your article doesn't say that. It says 99% were not fully vaccinated. So how many became sick or infected with only one shot? It doesn't want to talk about that, does it.
Vaccinated people are being hospitalized in almost the same numbers everywhere else on the planet with the identical Pfiser vaccine. As a matter of fact, vaccinated people globally are 27 times more likely to be hospitalized than those who already had Covid and are not vaccinated.

People who already had Covid have stronger immunity than vaccinated people do.

So you want to explain why the US is the only country with only unvaccinated filling up hospitals.

 

I've never advocated for no UHC. I'm very much FOR public health.

My point is that we cannot continue to supply the universally high standard of care we know supply (in my country .. which has had UHC for decades), when we see an ever increasing proportion of patients seeking treatment for self-inflicted disease. Something will have to give. Services should be denied or limited - for those whose conditions meet specific 'self harm' criteria.

 

My preference would be to administer 'battle field' emergency treatment only, then turn the individual over to whoever they nominate to continue their care (presumably privately engaged). All non-emergency treatment should be denied unless it has nothing to do with their 'risk' behaviour.

 

It's not about being saintly, at all. It's a few very obvious things - things even lay people know are contra-indicated for good health. Smoking, drug use, heavy drinking, obesity, dangerous recreational activities .. these are the only things which would exclude you. It's not like any of these things are essential in any way - and besides, you'd still have plenty of options for bad decisions and bad habits ... just not these few.

 

Good luck with that. Progressives will shut it down before it starts - because it will be regarded as Fat Shaming (or something).

 

Your own links. Back in May, one in two hundred of those in the hospital had shots. Now it is a one in twenty nine. I am 84 and my odds of getting into the hospital are around seven times greater than previous estimates. It is either that or the odds of those not having to go the hospital went down. You can't have it both ways.

Now they tell me I must wait another month before I can get a booster.

 

Not to pay the bills a perfectly competent adult acquired! I don't feel a duty to pay the mortgage my Dad signed. I don't feel a duty to pay the back taxes, he did not bother to pay. I don't feel a duty to pay his overdue water bill, or his library fines, his gambling debts, or pay off his timeshares for that cabin he thought was a great investment. I did not sign those contracts, so its not my promise to keep. I did not smoke for 30 years. My Dad did. I did not choose a high stress job. My dad did. I did not make his high fat menu out. He did. I did not choose his doctors, his nursing home, or decide his medical insurance plan, or which of his doctors recommendations he's going to abide by. He's a grown ass adult with all that decision-making power, just as the hospitals, doctors and specialists are capable of picking and writing the contracts, agreements, leases and policies on which they decide their business and professional risk/benefit and profit margins . His life choices created all the assets of his estate on which those debts are balanced.
I have nothing to do with either side of this ledger.

 

I'm talking about normal families - in which all members are responsible. Normal people don't risk burdening other members of the family by living irresponsibly, because they wouldn't want the same done to them. That's what having each other's backs means ... being a back which can take a little extra weight now and then, but which also works hard not to produce extra weight.

As for not assisting your father with his medical stuff and life decisions, I find that very odd. If he's younger than 70 and in sound mind then fair enough - but if he's elderly that seems remiss to me.

 

WE DON'T TAX WEALTH in this country. Wealth has NOTHING to do with income taxes, they are disconnected. We tax INCOME. The top 1% earn 20% of the income and pay 40% of income taxes. If that is not their fair share what would be? The top 10% of earners pay 80% of income taxes if that is not their fair share what would be? BTW I am in the top 10% of wealth by have no earned income but Social Security, what are you going to do tax that away because of the wealth I scrimped and saved all my life? That is typical, your highest earning years are when you are in your working years where you start with little wealth, then after you have gained your wealth and retire you have little income.

So why are you surprised the upper 50% own 98% of the wealth, those are the people who have worked long enough to have wealth, most people starting out working when they are twenty years old have little wealth And all those estimates about wealth and who has what are speculations and extrapolations. If YOU want wealth then do the things necessary to gain it, no one is stopping.

 

Their estate would pay any outstanding bills. We don't transfer debt to children or siblings in this country.

 

There was no healthcare in 1787? No hospitals? No doctors? No medicines? Without a gun I can't enjoy my liberty and right to keep and bear one is it the obligation of the government to supply me with one? Your rights are guarantied and protected FROM the government in the Constitution it says nothing about providing them to you.

 

The amendment that was necessary in order to have a direct tax on the citizens in this case their income on says it can tax THEIR income. It is the income tax payers income FIRST, the government taxes it from them. They "claim" a portion of it through that tax AFTER you have earned it.

 

BTW the way Biden lied his way through his short question and answer thing today when he was trying to ramp up the envy and jealousy of the more successful to justify his huge tax increase saying "You get a W-2 and then the IRS gets access to your bank account and the bank pays your taxes" Now there's not a transcript yet from the WH but that is basically what he said. That's a flat out lie. The IRS does not get access to your bank account because you get a W-2 a W-2 has nothing to do with your bank account and NO the bank does not do your taxes. All they do is issue a 1099-INT on any interest you may have earned. He's trying to set up the new law he wants where the IRS can go an look at any bank accounts they want to with a search warrant or even probable cause to be doing so.

 

Tell if this is not fair


https://www.heritage.org/taxes/comm...abvhx8n-NDSwyepAhlh4u0QrXV5W69J68Er0yxvuPxBrk

Tell me what would be and be specific. How much more would you shift the tax burden to the highest earners to make it fair?

 

'Responsible' is a subjective term. Who's to tell anyone else what is 'responisible' in their lives. In normal families, people make their own calls about what they want to sacrifice in their lifestyles for a few more years or even a decade more time, and what they want that 'living will' to say after that stroke or that heart attack or dementia dx.
'Assisting' means giving advice. I have found older people just about as proud and stubborn as anyone else wherever that advice comes. Whether they smile sweetly and nod appreciatively, or growl and snap, they end up doing their own thing most of the time - especially when no one else is hanging around to disapprove or judge.

 

So much wrong. Do little time. You are certainly captured by false narratives.