Ambulances for the Ample Posted Friday, October 23, 2009 8:59 AM | By William Saletan Everywhere you look, fat people are being charged extra. More for plane seats. More for health insurance. More, in the form of reduced incentive payouts, under proposals for Medicare and Medicaid.
Now, more for ambulance service.
We've talked about ambulances before. Along with toilets and coffins, they're part of a global size upgrade for bigger bodies. And it's expensive. Heather Hollingsworth of the Associated Press does the math:
Transporting extremely heavy people costs about 2 1/2 times as much as normal-weight patients. It takes more time to move them and requires three to four times more crew members, who often must use expensive specialty equipment. ... [One] unit in Topeka recently spent about $10,000 to retrofit an ambulance with equipment that accommodates patients weighing up to 1,600 pounds. Ambulance services with helicopters also are creating larger patient compartments and adding stronger gurneys. Sales of specialized lift systems nationwide are expected to reach $193 million by 2012, up from $75 million in 2004, according to EMS Insider, an industry newsletter. The sale of specialized stretchers is expected to nearly double to $50 million in 2012.
Now there's a movement to pass on the costs. Hollingsworth reports:
Ambulance companies say it's time for insurance providers, Medicaid and Medicare, or patients themselves to begin paying the added costs, which are cutting into their razor-thin profit margins. In the past, ambulance companies often absorbed the extra expense of serving the obese. Now they are adding charges similar to those already imposed on intensive-care patients, people requiring multiple medications and patients on ventilators.
The surcharge is significant. In several cities, ambulance services are billing nearly double for anyone over 500 pounds. In raw numbers, that's around $500 to $700. Fat-rights activists say the extra fees are discriminatory. The president of one group tells Hollingsworth, "Ambulance services are a critical public service and should accommodate the needs of all of those who require them at a fair cost."
I don't have a quick answer to this problem, but maybe we can start to think it through. First, we need to decide whether privately operated ambulances are, as the fat-rights spokesman says, a public service. It seems pretty clear, for example, that private airlines can make you pay double if you don't fit in a seat. Do ambulances have to play by nicer rules because medical services are inherently public? If so, shouldn't the public reimburse them?
Second, to the extent that fat is an issue of personal responsibility, does that really apply to ambulance service? Nobody's going to lose weight so they can save $700 on their next ambulance trip. To the extent that motivation can overcome obesity, the reason people are going to lose weight is to stay out of the hospital altogether.
Third, if you think fat people should bear the extra cost of transporting them, what does that say about your overall views on insurance for preexisting conditions? The health-care reforms being debated in Congress would bar insurers from excluding people with pre-existing conditions. The argument is that people aren't responsible for such conditions and shouldn't be priced out of the insurance market on account of them. Therefore, we would socialize their extra cost. Is that OK with you? If so, to the extent that obesity is genetically or environmentally induced, shouldn't we treat it the same way?
I worked on an ambulance for a couple of years, and I have two fat people stories.
One, where we got a call of a lady in distress. She was located in a second-story apartment. She was screaming and thrashing about because she was passing a kidney stone. We loaded her on the gurnery and tried to take her down the stairs. The gurney wouldn't make the turn, so I went back and got an ambu-chair. It is a cross between a chair and a gurney. So my partner and I are struggeling to get this 400 pound bag of cheeseburgers down the stairs and she's flailing about. I yell at her to stop moving because we are in danger of dropping her. Finally we get her to the bottom of the stairs, and we start to transfer her back to the gurney. The neighbors are all out to see what the commotion is and they are all laughing at her predictiment. She stands up and runs in to the back of the ambulance. My partner and I look at each other, pissed we had to struggel to get her heftyness down the stairs, yet at the same time happy we don't have to lift her big butt into the cab. The whole time she is yelling at the top of her lungs in pain. When we get to the ER, everybody is looking at her, until an ER doc blurts out, "Beached whale. Thar she bows!" Everyone turned away to laugh.
Another time we had a very large man who was having a heart attack. My partner and I tried to get him on the gurney, but we weren't strong enough. So we called in another ambulance team. All for of us couldn't hardly budge the guy. So we called the fire department. They came, we padded a long ladder, put him on it and with the strenght of ten men we were able to slide him on the ladder in to the back of the ambulance. We had to bungie cord the back door closed because the ladder stuck out, and I had to sit in the back with my feet on the bench because this hunk of humanity took up the entire floor. The ambulance springs didn't take this weight lightly, because we now looked like some kind of low rider with the front up and the back bottoming out. We drove code three (siren and lights) to the hospital. We couldn't safely get faster then 50 mph on the freeway, and people were pulling up to the back of the moving ambulance to see what they could. Upon arrival at the hospital, a team of workers looked at the patient, surveyed the situation and announced they did not have the resources to handle such a hugh patient. After some phone calls, we were able to locate a hospital that could handle this guy, a hundred miles away. So with the sirens on and lights a flashing we were off down the freeway at 50mph. More than two hours later we arrived at the hospital. The local fire department was waiting to assist and maintance had welded together some enormous bed. Later I found out the man wieghed more than 900 pounds!
Imagine having to turn either of these patients every two hours. No wonder back injury is the number one career ender for nurses.
Ambulances for the Ample Posted Friday, October 23, 2009 8:59 AM | By William Saletan Everywhere you look, fat people are being charged extra. More for plane seats. More for health insurance. More, in the form of reduced incentive payouts, under proposals for Medicare and Medicaid.
Now, more for ambulance service.
We've talked about ambulances before. Along with toilets and coffins, they're part of a global size upgrade for bigger bodies. And it's expensive. Heather Hollingsworth of the Associated Press does the math:
Transporting extremely heavy people costs about 2 1/2 times as much as normal-weight patients. It takes more time to move them and requires three to four times more crew members, who often must use expensive specialty equipment. ... [One] unit in Topeka recently spent about $10,000 to retrofit an ambulance with equipment that accommodates patients weighing up to 1,600 pounds. Ambulance services with helicopters also are creating larger patient compartments and adding stronger gurneys. Sales of specialized lift systems nationwide are expected to reach $193 million by 2012, up from $75 million in 2004, according to EMS Insider, an industry newsletter. The sale of specialized stretchers is expected to nearly double to $50 million in 2012.
Now there's a movement to pass on the costs. Hollingsworth reports:
Ambulance companies say it's time for insurance providers, Medicaid and Medicare, or patients themselves to begin paying the added costs, which are cutting into their razor-thin profit margins. In the past, ambulance companies often absorbed the extra expense of serving the obese. Now they are adding charges similar to those already imposed on intensive-care patients, people requiring multiple medications and patients on ventilators.
The surcharge is significant. In several cities, ambulance services are billing nearly double for anyone over 500 pounds. In raw numbers, that's around $500 to $700. Fat-rights activists say the extra fees are discriminatory. The president of one group tells Hollingsworth, "Ambulance services are a critical public service and should accommodate the needs of all of those who require them at a fair cost."
I don't have a quick answer to this problem, but maybe we can start to think it through. First, we need to decide whether privately operated ambulances are, as the fat-rights spokesman says, a public service. It seems pretty clear, for example, that private airlines can make you pay double if you don't fit in a seat. Do ambulances have to play by nicer rules because medical services are inherently public? If so, shouldn't the public reimburse them?
Second, to the extent that fat is an issue of personal responsibility, does that really apply to ambulance service? Nobody's going to lose weight so they can save $700 on their next ambulance trip. To the extent that motivation can overcome obesity, the reason people are going to lose weight is to stay out of the hospital altogether.
Third, if you think fat people should bear the extra cost of transporting them, what does that say about your overall views on insurance for preexisting conditions? The health-care reforms being debated in Congress would bar insurers from excluding people with pre-existing conditions. The argument is that people aren't responsible for such conditions and shouldn't be priced out of the insurance market on account of them. Therefore, we would socialize their extra cost. Is that OK with you? If so, to the extent that obesity is genetically or environmentally induced, shouldn't we treat it the same way?
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009, Lady Veteran wrote: >> The surcharge is significant. In several cities, ambulance services are >> billing nearly double for anyone over 500 pounds.
> That is OK as long as they bill ALL 500 pound patients.
>> In raw numbers, that's >> around $500 to $700. Fat-rights activists say the extra fees are >> discriminatory.
> They are if fat people are being seen as sources of income rather than > patients who deserve the same good care than their thinner > counterparts get.
What if someone doesn't weigh 500 lbs, what if they only weign 490. They might as well be 500, but they don't reach that magic number. I doubt if the lack of the extra 10 lbs really makes much of a difference to the crew, but it makes a shit load of difference on the bill.
What if they charged like a moving company? A flat rate to show up, then a per box fee... Only in this case, a per pound fee... Now, fat people aren't discriminated against, because ALL people are treated the same, as dehumanized slabs of meat. All people are screwed equally.
>> I don't have a quick answer to this problem, but maybe we can start to >> think it through. First, we need to decide whether privately operated >> ambulances are, as the fat-rights spokesman says, a public service. It >> seems pretty clear, for example, that private airlines can make you pay >> double if you don't fit in a seat. Do ambulances have to play by nicer >> rules because medical services are inherently public? If so, shouldn't the >> public reimburse them?
> Posting anonymously to a fat acceptance group and diet groups at the > same is trolling. It will not garner you any sympathy for your cause > except from zealots that think fat people have no right to exist.
If you don't fit in an airline seat, they charge you double because you can take up two seats... If you don't fit in one ambulance... What, they going to send you to the hospital in two of them? Like to see how they pull that one off...
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009, Karyn wrote: > Third, if you think fat people should bear the extra cost of transporting > them, what does that say about your overall views on insurance for > preexisting conditions? The health-care reforms being debated in Congress > would bar insurers from excluding people with pre-existing conditions. The > argument is that people aren't responsible for such conditions and > shouldn't be priced out of the insurance market on account of them. > Therefore, we would socialize their extra cost. Is that OK with you? If so, > to the extent that obesity is genetically or environmentally induced, > shouldn't we treat it the same way?
I love this argument... If I may summarize:
We pay for social programs for people. We found a group that we don't want to pay for. We want to exclude them from the benefits, but still force them to pay "their fare share".
Guess what? I don't fucking want to pay for your sorry ass either. So how about we end ALL social programs, slash taxes across the board, and try making people liable for their own plight in life. No more food stamps, no more energy assistance, no more low income housing, so more social security, no more medicare or medicaid, and NO NO NO Obama care.
But that's not an option, hu? You don't mind paying for sack of shit poor scum suckers who take from the government tit while offering nothing in return? You like paying for people that even Karl Marx said society owed NOTHING to? That's all fine, but you go ape shit over fat people in an ambulance?
If I could, I'd make my own little nation, called Masterstan, population 1... I pay no income taxes, no property taxes... In exchange, I will take NO police protection, no fire protection, no public schools, etc... You see, I am fed up with fuck heads bitching about the cost of covering me under social programs that I don't fucking want in the first place!
> >> The surcharge is significant. In several cities, ambulance services are > >> billing nearly double for anyone over 500 pounds.
> > That is OK as long as they bill ALL 500 pound patients.
> >> In raw numbers, that's > >> around $500 to $700. Fat-rights activists say the extra fees are > >> discriminatory.
> > They are if fat people are being seen as sources of income rather than > > patients who deserve the same good care than their thinner > > counterparts get.
> What if someone doesn't weigh 500 lbs, what if they only weign 490. They > might as well be 500, but they don't reach that magic number. I doubt if > the lack of the extra 10 lbs really makes much of a difference to the > crew, but it makes a shit load of difference on the bill.
> What if they charged like a moving company? A flat rate to show up, then > a per box fee... Only in this case, a per pound fee... Now, fat people > aren't discriminated against, because ALL people are treated the same, as > dehumanized slabs of meat. All people are screwed equally.
> >> I don't have a quick answer to this problem, but maybe we can start to > >> think it through. First, we need to decide whether privately operated > >> ambulances are, as the fat-rights spokesman says, a public service. It > >> seems pretty clear, for example, that private airlines can make you pay > >> double if you don't fit in a seat. Do ambulances have to play by nicer > >> rules because medical services are inherently public? If so, shouldn't the > >> public reimburse them?
> > Posting anonymously to a fat acceptance group and diet groups at the > > same is trolling. It will not garner you any sympathy for your cause > > except from zealots that think fat people have no right to exist.
> If you don't fit in an airline seat, they charge you double because you > can take up two seats... If you don't fit in one ambulance... What, they > going to send you to the hospital in two of them? Like to see how they > pull that one off...
> . > . > . > . > . > ..
This just be my Pollyanna side but, whatever happened to "one for all and all for one"? -- "When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist." -Archbishop Helder Camara
> I worked on an ambulance for a couple of years, and I have two fat > people stories.
> One, where we got a call of a lady in distress. She was located in a > second-story apartment. She was screaming and thrashing about because > she was passing a kidney stone. We loaded her on the gurnery and tried > to take her down the stairs. The gurney wouldn't make the turn, so I > went back and got an ambu-chair. It is a cross between a chair and a > gurney. So my partner and I are struggeling to get this 400 pound bag > of cheeseburgers down the stairs and she's flailing about. I yell at > her to stop moving because we are in danger of dropping her. Finally > we get her to the bottom of the stairs, and we start to transfer her > back to the gurney. The neighbors are all out to see what the > commotion is and they are all laughing at her predictiment. She stands > up and runs in to the back of the ambulance. My partner and I look at > each other, pissed we had to struggel to get her heftyness down the > stairs, yet at the same time happy we don't have to lift her big butt > into the cab. The whole time she is yelling at the top of her lungs in > pain. When we get to the ER, everybody is looking at her, until an ER > doc blurts out, "Beached whale. Thar she bows!" Everyone turned away > to laugh.
400lbs or more and she ran into the back of the ambulance???? Bullshit. “You lie”. Lol. I also highly doubt an ER doctor would say something like that before he or she knew what kind of medical emergency they were dealing with. Either he was the mose unprofessional clown on the planet or again “you lie” lol.
> Another time we had a very large man who was having a heart attack. My > partner and I tried to get him on the gurney, but we weren't strong > enough. So we called in another ambulance team. All for of us couldn't > hardly budge the guy. So we called the fire department. They came, we > padded a long ladder, put him on it and with the strenght of ten men > we were able to slide him on the ladder in to the back of the > ambulance. We had to bungie cord the back door closed because the > ladder stuck out, and I had to sit in the back with my feet on the > bench because this hunk of humanity took up the entire floor. The > ambulance springs didn't take this weight lightly, because we now > looked like some kind of low rider with the front up and the back > bottoming out. We drove code three (siren and lights) to the hospital. > We couldn't safely get faster then 50 mph on the freeway, and people > were pulling up to the back of the moving ambulance to see what they > could. Upon arrival at the hospital, a team of workers looked at the > patient, surveyed the situation and announced they did not have the > resources to handle such a hugh patient. After some phone calls, we > were able to locate a hospital that could handle this guy, a hundred > miles away. So with the sirens on and lights a flashing we were off > down the freeway at 50mph. More than two hours later we arrived at the > hospital. The local fire department was waiting to assist and > maintance had welded together some enormous bed. Later I found out the > man wieghed more than 900 pounds!
> Imagine having to turn either of these patients every two hours. No > wonder back injury is the number one career ender for nurses.
That’s unusual, Heart attack patient (sirens on???) A knowledgeable EMS worker knows in a case like that its lights ONLY. Sirens add to the victim’s anxiety and when dealing with a heart attack even a clueless dork like you knows this.
Also ten men to move him on a makeshift ladder thing? Springs in the vehicle crushed under his weight and various hospitals without the resources to handle him and you had no clue he weighed upwards of 900? Are you blind as well as dumb?
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009, Billy wrote: >> If you don't fit in an airline seat, they charge you double because you >> can take up two seats... If you don't fit in one ambulance... What, they >> going to send you to the hospital in two of them? Like to see how they >> pull that one off...
> This just be my Pollyanna side but, whatever happened to "one for all > and all for one"?
That's a line used by the "have nots" to force/trick the "haves" to share.
In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.0910271445030.5...@sdf.lonestar.org>, The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009, Billy wrote:
> >> If you don't fit in an airline seat, they charge you double because you > >> can take up two seats... If you don't fit in one ambulance... What, they > >> going to send you to the hospital in two of them? Like to see how they > >> pull that one off...
> > This just be my Pollyanna side but, whatever happened to "one for all > > and all for one"?
> That's a line used by the "have nots" to force/trick the "haves" to share.
You mean like us and them? You mean "We".
There are many requirements that the "have nots" and the "haves" have in common ,some are mentioned below where us, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Seems that under general welfare "We" could include clean water and air, freedom from pollutants in our food, honest politicians, and health care.
If "We" need fire departments to keep fires from spreading from our neighbors house to ours, then "We" need medical care to keep sickness from spreading from house to house.
Once upon a time, the "We" were Americans, and the "them" were the Brits.
Then there was a "We" that only included land owners and the "them" was those who worked for their living.
Then there was a "We" that only meant "white" men.
Then there was a "we" that only meant "men".
Then there was a "We" that only meant Protestant.
The top one percent of households received 21.8 percent of all pre-tax income in 2005, and only pay 15% income tax (capital gains). You think that this happened by accident? http://www.demos.org/inequality/numbers.cfm
If this Keptocracy has become a "if you snooze, you lose" kinda ranch, where "We" are the sheep that are raised just to be sheared by the "haves", maybe "We" ought to reconsider who "We" are. -- "When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist." -Archbishop Helder Camara
On Oct 27, 7:46 am, The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009, Billy wrote: > >> If you don't fit in an airline seat, they charge you double because you > >> can take up two seats... If you don't fit in one ambulance... What, they > >> going to send you to the hospital in two of them? Like to see how they > >> pull that one off...
> > This just be my Pollyanna side but, whatever happened to "one for all > > and all for one"?
> That's a line used by the "have nots" to force/trick the "haves" to share.
> . > .
And then all the have nots got together and TOOK what they wanted. Problems arise when you have too many have nots.
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Billy wrote: >>> This just be my Pollyanna side but, whatever happened to "one for all >>> and all for one"?
>> That's a line used by the "have nots" to force/trick the "haves" to share.
> You mean like us and them? You mean "We".
> There are many requirements that the "have nots" and the "haves" have in > common ,some are mentioned below where us, > "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect > Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the > common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of > Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this > Constitution for the United States of America."
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"
> Seems that under general welfare "We" could include clean water and air, > freedom from pollutants in our food, honest politicians, and health care.
It is also clear that while we are born equal, there exists no promise of equal outcome. That you have the right to the pursuit of happiness, but not the right to actually get happy. The right to clean air and water is one thing, the right to a job and a house are quite another. No one has the right to property they do not own, only the right to protect that which they do.
Arguments like the "greater good" or the "collective good" or other phrases to represent the whole of society, in order to bring about universal change, are dangerous. Arguments for clean water and air can be made at the individual level, and people will agree with it universally. However, arguments for wealth redistribution are normally accepted by those that would gain while being rejected by those that would pay. That is why such arguments MUST be made concerning the collective, it would never be accepted otherwise.
> If "We" need fire departments to keep fires from spreading from our > neighbors house to ours, then "We" need medical care to keep sickness > from spreading from house to house.
First off, you are talking to a minarchist. Fire protection, as well as police protection, should be ran as a capitalistic business that charges per use. If you don't need the police, you should not be forced to pay for their continued existance. When you need the service, however, you should pay fair market value for that service.
Likewise, you should pay fair market value for medical procedures. As harsh as it sounds, you do not have the right to health care or insurance. If you believe you have the "right" to fire protection, do you also believe we have the right to fire insurance that is paid for from the common treasury?
> The top one percent of households received 21.8 percent of all pre-tax > income in 2005, and only pay 15% income tax (capital gains). You think > that this happened by accident?
Do you believe I think that is a bad thing?
The top 1% of households earned that much money because they were successful capitalists, offering goods and services that the other 99% of the population needed or wanted. Income taxes punish those that earn money, punish those that directly drive the economy. I support the Fair Tax proposal, a nation wide sales tax that would REPLACE national income tax.
Remember, the existance of money does the rich man no good. It is when that money is used to purchase goods and services, that a benefit is gained. That transaction directly creates the life style, and as such the need for services. Therefore, that transaction is how taxes should be generated. Taxing income, generated by the selling of goods and services, is nothing short of double taxation.
> "The richest 1 percent have more financial wealth than the bottom 95 > percent combined."
I would imagine you would read the above, and become quite angry at the rich. How dare they rob you of your wealth, right?
I read the above, and become quite angry at the government. How dare they get in my way, I want to be rich too!
> "When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask > why the poor have no food, they call you a communist." > -Archbishop Helder Camara
When you want to teach the poor how to grow or otherwise make their own food, so they are no longer dependent upon the saints, the communists call you evil.
*** George Bush left horse shit on the floor of the barn. Barack Obama is "cleaning up the mess" by smearing more horse shit all over the rest of the barn, so the floor will no longer seems messy.
In article <wldbilly-8499A5.11052827102009@c-61-68-245- 199.per.connect.net.au>, wldbilly@without_a.net says...
> There are many requirements that the "have nots" and the "haves" have in > common ,some are mentioned below where us, > "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect > Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the > common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of > Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this > Constitution for the United States of America."
> Seems that under general welfare "We" could include clean water and air, > freedom from pollutants in our food, honest politicians, and health care.
> If "We" need fire departments to keep fires from spreading from our > neighbors house to ours, then "We" need medical care to keep sickness > from spreading from house to house.
That depends on what the "sickness" is. If my neighbour is obese, there is zero danger of transmission to me. Therefore, using my tax dollars to treat her, has nothing to do with common interest or "general welfare."
> In article <wldbilly-8499A5.11052827102009@c-61-68-245- > 199.per.connect.net.au>, wldbilly@without_a.net says...
> > There are many requirements that the "have nots" and the "haves" have in > > common ,some are mentioned below where us, > > "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect > > Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the > > common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of > > Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this > > Constitution for the United States of America."
> > Seems that under general welfare "We" could include clean water and air, > > freedom from pollutants in our food, honest politicians, and health care.
> > If "We" need fire departments to keep fires from spreading from our > > neighbors house to ours, then "We" need medical care to keep sickness > > from spreading from house to house.
> That depends on what the "sickness" is. If my neighbour is > obese, there is zero danger of transmission to me. Therefore, > using my tax dollars to treat her, has nothing to do with common > interest or "general welfare."
What a narrow and simple mind you have. Maybe it is the lady who watches the homes in her area when residents are on vacation, or grows the beautiful flowers that brightens your day, or lets you barrow her car, when yours is kaput. There is a lot of your kind of cost/benefit analysis going around these days. The kind that tells you that a person is only worth the 97¢ it would take to buy the minerals that compose them. 97¢ for your mom, Einstein, Beethoven, or the nice fat lady. It must be boring to see the world in black and white. -- ³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.² -Archbishop Helder Camara
> In article <wldbilly-8499A5.11052827102009@c-61-68-245- > 199.per.connect.net.au>, wldbilly@without_a.net says...
> > There are many requirements that the "have nots" and the "haves" have in > > common ,some are mentioned below where us, > > "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect > > Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the > > common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of > > Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this > > Constitution for the United States of America."
> > Seems that under general welfare "We" could include clean water and air, > > freedom from pollutants in our food, honest politicians, and health care.
> > If "We" need fire departments to keep fires from spreading from our > > neighbors house to ours, then "We" need medical care to keep sickness > > from spreading from house to house.
> That depends on what the "sickness" is. If my neighbour is > obese, there is zero danger of transmission to me. Therefore, > using my tax dollars to treat her, has nothing to do with common > interest or "general welfare."
You are right. Her health problems may not touch you, but does she take in kids whose parents who are late, grow flowers for everyone to see, loan you her car when yours is kaput? It seems that should come under the heading of general welfare. Who knows, maybe the fat lady has some humanity that might rub off on you.
Or are you one of those cost/benefit freaks, who would tell us, that we are only worth the 97¢ that it would cost to buy the minerals in us?
"A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing." - -- Oscar Wilde 97¢ for Einstein, Beethoven, Mother Teresa, your mom? -- ³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.² -Archbishop Helder Camara
Your neo-liberal attitudes are so much simple minded trash. They have never worked and only serve as justification for the World Bank to separate the citizens of the Third World from their money.
Under your system, how would an accident victim have a chance to get pre-approve ambulance service?
If the police are for hire, do you negotiate with them while you're being mugged? Can you pay, not to be profiled? What if the crooks want to hire the police (or Blackwater). Do you only get the justice you can afford?
Children only get educated, if their parents have the money? You would save the rights of the individual at the cost of society.
We presently have the greatest concentration of wealth since the Great Depression. A coincidence? Mr. Got-Rocks pays 15% on his capital gains income. I pay 30% on for my wages, earned with sweat.
Franklin Roosevelt had a different take on the situation.
Roosevelt's "The Economic Bill of Rights" Excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union[1]: It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people--whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth--is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure. This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights--among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty. As our nation has grown in size and stature, however--as our industrial economy expanded--these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness. We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all--regardless of station, race, or creed. Among these are: The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education. All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being. America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. - Franklin D. Roosevelt
I can see that you are a dilettante of philosophies and master of none.
> >>> This just be my Pollyanna side but, whatever happened to "one for all > >>> and all for one"?
> >> That's a line used by the "have nots" to force/trick the "haves" to share.
> > You mean like us and them? You mean "We".
> > There are many requirements that the "have nots" and the "haves" have in > > common ,some are mentioned below where us, > > "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect > > Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the > > common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of > > Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this > > Constitution for the United States of America."
> "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, > that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, > that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"
> > Seems that under general welfare "We" could include clean water and air, > > freedom from pollutants in our food, honest politicians, and health care.
> It is also clear that while we are born equal, there exists no promise of > equal outcome. That you have the right to the pursuit of happiness, but > not the right to actually get happy. The right to clean air and water is > one thing, the right to a job and a house are quite another. No one has > the right to property they do not own, only the right to protect that > which they do.
> Arguments like the "greater good" or the "collective good" or other > phrases to represent the whole of society, in order to bring about > universal change, are dangerous. Arguments for clean water and air can be > made at the individual level, and people will agree with it universally. > However, arguments for wealth redistribution are normally accepted by > those that would gain while being rejected by those that would pay. That > is why such arguments MUST be made concerning the collective, it would > never be accepted otherwise.
> > If "We" need fire departments to keep fires from spreading from our > > neighbors house to ours, then "We" need medical care to keep sickness > > from spreading from house to house.
> First off, you are talking to a minarchist. Fire protection, as well as > police protection, should be ran as a capitalistic business that charges > per use. If you don't need the police, you should not be forced to pay > for their continued existance. When you need the service, however, you > should pay fair market value for that service.
> Likewise, you should pay fair market value for medical procedures. As > harsh as it sounds, you do not have the right to health care or insurance. > If you believe you have the "right" to fire protection, do you also > believe we have the right to fire insurance that is paid for from the > common treasury?
> > The top one percent of households received 21.8 percent of all pre-tax > > income in 2005, and only pay 15% income tax (capital gains). You think > > that this happened by accident?
> Do you believe I think that is a bad thing?
> The top 1% of households earned that much money because they were > successful capitalists, offering goods and services that the other 99% of > the population needed or wanted. Income taxes punish those that earn > money, punish those that directly drive the economy. I support the Fair > Tax proposal, a nation wide sales tax that would REPLACE national income > tax.
> Remember, the existance of money does the rich man no good. It is when > that money is used to purchase goods and services, that a benefit is > gained. That transaction directly creates the life style, and as such the > need for services. Therefore, that transaction is how taxes should be > generated. Taxing income, generated by the selling of goods and services, > is nothing short of double taxation.
> > "The richest 1 percent have more financial wealth than the bottom 95 > > percent combined."
> I would imagine you would read the above, and become quite angry at the > rich. How dare they rob you of your wealth, right?
> I read the above, and become quite angry at the government. How dare they > get in my way, I want to be rich too!
> > "When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask > > why the poor have no food, they call you a communist." > > -Archbishop Helder Camara
> When you want to teach the poor how to grow or otherwise make their own > food, so they are no longer dependent upon the saints, the communists call > you evil.
> *** > George Bush left horse shit on the floor of the barn. Barack Obama is > "cleaning up the mess" by smearing more horse shit all over the rest of > the barn, so the floor will no longer seems messy.
> S.top > O.bama's > S.ocialism
-- "When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist." -Archbishop Helder Camara
> "I rode a tank and held a general's rank > When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank."
> ---Sympathy for the Devil-The Rolling Stones > -------------------------------------------- > "We are all born ignorant, but we must work hard to > remain stupid.
> ---Benjamin Franklin > ---------------------------------------------- > "Some people are only alive because it is > illegal to kill them."
> ---Anonymous > ---------------------------------------------- > "Only the weak are cruel. Gentleness can only be expected > from the strong."
> ----Leo Buscaglia > ---------------------------------------------- > "I am mad as hell and I will not take it anymore!"
> ---Network
-- "When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist." -Archbishop Helder Camara
In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.0910272005370.13...@sdf.lonestar.org>, The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote:
> The top 1% of households earned that much money because they were > successful capitalists, offering goods and services that the other 99% of > the population needed or wanted. Income taxes punish those that earn > money, punish those that directly drive the economy. I support the Fair > Tax proposal, a nation wide sales tax that would REPLACE national income > tax.
The top 1% pays 15% income on their capital gains, we pay, roughly, 30% on our income. The richest 1% of America nearly tripled their after-tax percentage of our nation's income, while the bottom 90% dropped over 20%. The bottom 20% basically have zero wealth. They either have no assets, or their debt equals or exceeds their assets. Productivity has gone up, wages haven't. Money buys access to government, which writes the spending and tax laws. It seems like we live in two separate worlds.
Most of the goods and services that are sold are shoddy. Sex sells cars. Cute guy stuff sells beer. Nutrient deprived junk food is sold in the name of the latest nutritional "buzz words", cholesterol free. Deodorants are sold because commercials tell you that you stink. Is this stuff obvious? No, advertisers spend billions of dollars to get you to buy their product, and advertising works. Presently, we have two elective wars, that do nothing for freedom but make arms manufactures rich.
Sales tax is a regressive tax, that falls mainly on the poor. Why not have a tax that reflects the profits that one has made from our economy? -- "When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist." -Archbishop Helder Camara
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Billy wrote: >> The top 1% of households earned that much money because they were >> successful capitalists, offering goods and services that the other 99% of >> the population needed or wanted. Income taxes punish those that earn >> money, punish those that directly drive the economy. I support the Fair >> Tax proposal, a nation wide sales tax that would REPLACE national income >> tax.
> The top 1% pays 15% income on their capital gains, we pay, roughly, 30% > on our income.
Do you honestly believe that as a percentage of income a rich man uses just as much services, or even more so, then you do?
Money, as it's own device, does the rich man no good at all. In it's own right, it offers no benefit. He cannot eat it, he cannot wear it, he cannot live in it. He cannot drive in it, take a vacation on it, or watch football on it.
Rather, what benefit the rich man obtains through the collection of money is what that man does with it. It is the food he buys, the clothes he buys, the house he buys. It is the car he drives, the hotel room he gets, or the HD TV that he owns. It is therefore by that measure, the goods and services that the man collects, that he should be taxed. Not only is that the source of his benefit, but also the measure by which he needs services like police and fire.
Likewise, the middle class man needs governmental services in direct relationship to the goods and services he or she purchases. The rich man may need police protection more then you or I do. However, his need of that service is in direct relationship to the property he owns, just like it is with me.
Taxing sales and not income would greatly encourage savings, an act that today is punished since income gained from the risk is taxed.
> The richest 1% of America nearly tripled their after-tax percentage of > our nation's income,
GOOD! They worked hard and deserved it!
> while the bottom 90% dropped over 20%.
Perhaps that bottom 90% needs to work harder.
> The bottom 20% basically have zero wealth.
And therefore suck up many times more services then they pay for. Under the fair tax, people are given a refund for the taxes paid at the poverty level income, allowing these people to remain tax free.
> They either have no assets, > or their debt equals or exceeds their assets.
Then they stupid as hell, hu? Perhaps they should be more responsible with their money, rather then demand socialism paid by the rich person paying most of the taxes as it is now.
> Productivity has gone up, wages haven't.
My wage has... The people who's wage hasn't gone up are unskilled labor, jobs that are not intended to be live long careers. No one should work at McDonalds as a burger flipper for 40 years.
> Money buys access to government, which writes the spending and tax laws. > It seems like we live in two separate worlds.
Those that pay the bills, and those that bitch about how they don't get enough stuff paid for by those that pay the bills.
> Sales tax is a regressive tax, that falls mainly on the poor.
And progressive income tax should be considered a violation of the 13th amendment.
However, I would also be ok with a flat income tax. Everyone pays a specific rate, no deductions and no exceptions. That way, as a percentage of income, rich or poor, we all pay the same. How would you feel about that?
> Why not have a tax that reflects the profits that one has made from our > economy?
I'd rather a tax that reflects what services are obtained from society.
On Nov 5, 4:10 pm, The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote:
> Do you honestly believe that as a percentage of income a rich man uses > just as much services, or even more so, then you do?
Yes I do.
The rich require the infrastructure to accumulate wealth and preserve it. The rich require the police and military to protect their wealth. The rich have more write-offs, tax breaks, incentives, and subsidies. The rich benifit from an educated work force. They benifit from a system of non-corruption..
The poor on the other hand are poor if the system in democratic, socialised or under a dictator. Upheavel allows the chance to rise above their station. And I don't want to hear about America's upward mobility; it may have been true when the top income tax rate was above 80%, but today there is a downward sinking of the average Americans' class -- fewer middle class and greater numbers in poverty.
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009, Mrs Irish Mike wrote: >> Do you honestly believe that as a percentage of income a rich man uses >> just as much services, or even more so, then you do?
> Yes I do.
> The rich require the infrastructure to accumulate wealth and preserve > it.
So does everyone else. I said AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME... A rich man, who earns 30X my income every single year, does NOT need the infrastructure 30X more then I do. You can argue that he needs it more, and I won't fight back. But all 30X more? Come on, you can't seriously believe that... Do you?
> The rich require the police and military to protect their wealth.
The rich needs police and fire to protect their property, not wealth. As for the military, all free men need it to protect their freedom, no matter how much wealth or property they may have.
> The rich have more write-offs, tax breaks, incentives, and subsidies. > The rich benifit from an educated work force. They benifit from a > system of non-corruption..
And that is 100% fair! Progressive taxes punish the rich. Even with the "tax breaks" that they get, they still pay for far more governmental services then they use. It is by their labor, by their work and investment, that social services are provided for the poor, by robing the rich of their money.
> The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote >> Do you honestly believe that as a percentage of income a rich >> man uses just as much services, or even more so, then you do? > Yes I do.
More fool you.
> The rich require the infrastructure to accumulate wealth and preserve it.
Nope, they can afford to pay for their own protection and usually do that too.
> The rich require the police and military to protect their wealth.
Like hell they do. They can afford to employ their own goons to protect their wealth and the military isnt involved in protecting their wealth at all.
> The rich have more write-offs, tax breaks, incentives, and subsidies.
Yes, but they end up paying a hell of a lot more tax than say the individuals in the bottom 20% of society too.
> The rich benifit from an educated work force.
That depends entirely on where their wealth comes from.
In some areas they benefit from having stupid uneducated consumers to buy the shit they flog, most obviously with the Waltons. They dont even need an educated work force, just being able to read and write is about all they need from most of their apes and they can afford to pay for the education of those that need better than that too.
> They benifit from a system of non-corruption..
Many of them benefit even more from corruption.
> The poor on the other hand are poor if the system in democratic, socialised or under a dictator.
Mindlessly silly.
> Upheavel allows the chance to rise above their station.
That chance is available in any modern first world country even without upheavel now.
> And I don't want to hear about America's upward mobility;
Its a fact anyway.
> it may have been true when the top income tax rate was above 80%,
And still is today. Look at what so many immigrants manage even today.
> but today there is a downward sinking of the average Americans' class
Like hell there is.
> -- fewer middle class and greater numbers in poverty.
Another pig ignorant lie.
The only ones 'in poverty' today are those who are entirely dependant on welfare who are too stupid to live frugally, and 'the homeless', most of whom are quite literally barking mad, just not kept in locked wards anymore.
The middle class isnt shrinking at all, it keeps increasing in numbers every single year.
> > The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote > >> Do you honestly believe that as a percentage of income a rich > >> man uses just as much services, or even more so, then you do? > > Yes I do.
> More fool you.
> > The rich require the infrastructure to accumulate wealth and preserve it.
> Nope, they can afford to pay for their own protection and usually do that too.
> > The rich require the police and military to protect their wealth.
> Like hell they do. They can afford to employ their own goons to protect > their wealth and the military isnt involved in protecting their wealth at all.
> > The rich have more write-offs, tax breaks, incentives, and subsidies.
> Yes, but they end up paying a hell of a lot more tax than > say the individuals in the bottom 20% of society too.
> > The rich benifit from an educated work force.
> That depends entirely on where their wealth comes from.
> In some areas they benefit from having stupid uneducated consumers to buy the shit > they flog, most obviously with the Waltons. They dont even need an educated work > force, just being able to read and write is about all they need from most of their apes > and they can afford to pay for the education of those that need better than that too.
> > They benifit from a system of non-corruption..
> Many of them benefit even more from corruption.
> > The poor on the other hand are poor if the system in democratic, socialised or under a dictator.
> Mindlessly silly.
> > Upheavel allows the chance to rise above their station.
> That chance is available in any modern first world country even without upheavel now.
> > And I don't want to hear about America's upward mobility;
> Its a fact anyway.
> > it may have been true when the top income tax rate was above 80%,
> And still is today. Look at what so many immigrants manage even today.
> > but today there is a downward sinking of the average Americans' class
> Like hell there is.
> > -- fewer middle class and greater numbers in poverty.
> Another pig ignorant lie.
> The only ones 'in poverty' today are those who are entirely dependant on > welfare who are too stupid to live frugally, and 'the homeless', most of > whom are quite literally barking mad, just not kept in locked wards anymore.
> The middle class isnt shrinking at all, it keeps increasing in numbers every single year.
You have to see modern America. We have people who are hungry. We have obese people because they are corn fed junk, everything has high fructose corn syrup in it. That is why we have so many obese people, they crave nutrition, so they eat. Instead of nutrition, they get empty calories. The corn farmer is highly subsidized, the family farm is gone and all they is remaining are food factories that turn out corn, corn fed animals and corn by-products. The poor in this country are fat because the non-nutrious foods are subsidized and so the cheapest.
The education system is geared to producing consumers. Everyone knows the lyrics to the latest boy-band song, but few can balance a check book, let alone understand compounding intrest.
We have entire families living in cars, under bridges, and in the basements of relatives. Predators prey on our children, marriage is a temporary thing, government wants the man out before they will help, strip dancing is considered a valid career choice, higher education means years of debt. Bankruptcy is no longer an option for the middle class. Living wage jobs are outsourced overseas. Military service is one of the few opportunities for the poor.
Today the average CEO makes more than 400 times the wage of an average worker. The unemployment rate is given to be 10% but may be in reality above 25%. Those who work are only a paycheck or two from being homeless.
America used to be the land of opportunity. After WWII, the idea was that by hard work, frugal living, innovation and a little luck, one could buy a house, raise a family, send the children to college and retire in comfort. Today, it is investors who take the lion's share of the wealth. Credit card companies take a percentage of nearly every purchase. Laborers are expendable, education is useless when the job you train for is out sourced or over run with 'guest' workers. Money is made by having money and the worker is tolerated only until he can be replaced.
|
