After reading earlier posts about the swine I bet it's a tax scam or something.

[ReneGade]

Vaccines prevent spreadability, swine flu is no more deadly than regular flu but its not something that people have come in contact with so their immune system are more susceptible to it. They want people to get the vaccines to prevent it spreading to the real at risk people, the very young, very old, and already sick. The real important people that need to get the vaccine are people who live in high population density areas specifically city apartments and dorms.

[PotshotPolka]

It's not even "should" in the UK......it IS subsidized by someone else.

 

 

But yeah......if you want to suggest to me that my normative statement and opinion isn't enough because you yourself have proof that medical care shouldn't be free at all.....then go ahead.

 

Why it shouldn't be free? It can't be free. Everything has a cost. It's arrogant to assume something is free, and should be free for everyone, when in fact it's being paid for in full by some for the sake of all. What do they teach you over there?

[Eskomo]

Why it shouldn't be free? It can't be free. Everything has a cost. It's arrogant to assume something is free, and should be free for everyone, when in fact it's being paid for in full by some for the sake of all. What do they teach you over there?

 

Instead of their government spending $636 billion dollars of tax payers money on their military, the UK uses that money to provide their population with free health care, which includes this swine flu vaccine. It's not "free", most of us pay taxes .

[PotshotPolka]

Instead of their government spending $636 billion dollars of tax payers money on their military, the UK uses that money to provide their population with free health care, which includes this swine flu vaccine. It's not "free", we all pay taxes .

 

We don't all pay taxes. Poor, and for that matter unemployed citizens that enjoy welfare benefits, as well as healthcare in Britain do not pay for the same level of service that their working class, upper class, or whatever you want to call them DO have to pay. Moreover, some pay a higher percentage, which is an inequitable method of taxation to begin with.

 

Hence: At a 10% tax rate (LOL)

 

Man makes $0.00 dollars annually, still gets Social Security checks.

 

Man makes $10,000, pays $1,000 in taxes, gets his checks, same amount.

 

Man makes $100,000 pays $10,000 in taxes, gets his checks, same amount.

 

Man makes, say $250,000+ pays $25,000 in taxes, or more since there are progressive tax brackets, and I believe gets less in his Social Security checks.

 

Make sense?

 

If you want to mandate in the United States that every citizen must be immunized, or rather vaccinated, I'd be willing to accept it, since it would be on the principle of the virus spreading via individuals to the masses. But only the condition the costs are split equally.

 

 

Now wrap your head around that.

[Flash_whAt.?]

swine=fail flu

[Lux]

Why it shouldn't be free? It can't be free. Everything has a cost. It's arrogant to assume something is free, and should be free for everyone, when in fact it's being paid for in full by some for the sake of all. What do they teach you over there?

 

Obvious much? I think I grasp the fact that money doesn't grow on trees.

 

We don't all pay taxes. Poor, and for that matter unemployed citizens that enjoy welfare benefits, as well as healthcare in Britain do not pay for the same level of service that their working class, upper class, or whatever you want to call them DO have to pay. Moreover, some pay a higher percentage, which is an inequitable method of taxation to begin with.

 

Hence: At a 10% tax rate (LOL)

 

Man makes $0.00 dollars annually, still gets Social Security checks.

 

Man makes $10,000, pays $1,000 in taxes, gets his checks, same amount.

 

Man makes $100,000 pays $10,000 in taxes, gets his checks, same amount.

 

Man makes, say $250,000+ pays $25,000 in taxes, or more since there are progressive tax brackets, and I believe gets less in his Social Security checks.

 

Make sense?

 

If you want to mandate in the United States that every citizen must be immunized, or rather vaccinated, I'd be willing to accept it, since it would be on the principle of the virus spreading via individuals to the masses. But only the condition the costs are split equally.

 

 

Now wrap your head around that.

 

I do study Economics...

 

What is the point of giving free medication when everyone has to pay the same amount? It just makes it pointless unless you aren't including some people who you believe shouldn't have to pay (children?).

 

People who earn more pay more because they can afford to. They get taxed higher, but not enough by any means that it is not worth becoming a lawyer instead of an office worker.

 

If you want a good economy you want to avoid poverty, people being in high debt, bankruptcy etc, unless you agree that people who do the academically less demanding but still vital jobs should be living on the bare minimun or maybe not even able to live because they have to pay as much tax as a millionaire?

 

Maybe the view is on the socialist side, so what? I think that without any socialism in society it'd be worse.

 

For some things I agree that people should pay their own bills, I've already given some examples etc...but I don't think for diseases such as swine flu, it's in the publics best interest that this medication is subsidised so that it doesn't spread.

[PotshotPolka]

 

People who earn more pay more because they can afford to. They get taxed higher, but not enough by any means that it is not worth becoming a lawyer instead of an office worker.

 

If you want a good economy you want to avoid poverty, people being in high debt, bankruptcy etc, unless you agree that people who do the academically less demanding but still vital jobs should be living on the bare minimun or maybe not even able to live because they have to pay as much tax as a millionaire?

 

Maybe the view is on the socialist side, so what? I think that without any socialism in society it'd be worse.

 

A little socialist brah? That's the entire Marxist dogma in a nutshell. You think a "society" is better because you reallocate wealth in regards to one's needs as opposed to their ability.

 

So I'll say it again. Who the hell are you to say a millionaire should pay out more for the same service? It's irrational, and for that matter arrogant.

 

The point of "free medication" if you insist on calling it that is the same as free healthcare, welfare, and other benefits allocated by your state.

 

I know a Poli Sci professor that I detest, but atleast has the nerve to say it like it is, that he believes limiting the freedom and power of the minority (rich) is (BIG NORMATIVE BATMAN) more preferable since it can be reallocated to the majority (poor).

[Lux]

A little socialist brah? That's the entire Marxist dogma in a nutshell. You think a "society" is better because you reallocate wealth in regards to one's needs as opposed to their ability.

 

So I'll say it again. Who the hell are you to say a millionaire should pay out more for the same service? It's irrational, and for that matter arrogant.

 

The point of "free medication" if you insist on calling it that is the same as free healthcare, welfare, and other benefits allocated by your state.

 

I know a Poli Sci professor that I detest, but atleast has the nerve to say it like it is, that he believes limiting the freedom and power of the minority (rich) is (BIG NORMATIVE BATMAN) more preferable since it can be reallocated to the majority (poor).

 

You aren't reallocating ALL your wealth, it's not like doctors and disabled people get the same amount of pay....by a LARGE AMOUNT. On the dole you get what? A few thousand a year. I'm not saying that is acceptable but it's not like millionaires are being taxed to any level that they are that poor.

 

The government has to spend money for us, if you average the pay out so that Bill Gates pays the same as a trash man then either Bill Gates will be paying a few thousand or two a year and the government will be EXTREMELY under funded and collapse, or you will be charging a trash man far more then he can afford, no low paid jobs will be taken up as it is not worthwhile, crime will rise, poverty will rise, and MANY of the things ESSENTIAL to our society won't be done.

 

Ok lawyers will have all their money, good.....but the country will be a big shit hole for it.

 

That is why it is rational to for richer people to pay more money in taxes, because they have to. If you don't want to do that then what is going to happen? Give me a scenario where the rich can keep their money, the poor or at least the less well off can survive, there isn't a revolution because the minority rich are taking all the money and leaving the rest in a mess, and all aspects of modern society continue to run smoothly.

[PotshotPolka]

 

God I love Europeans.

[Lux]

 

God I love Europeans.

 

So that is it? Am I being naive in believing that you are happy to stick to your irrational idea and not prove how it would work or are you going to say something instead of trying to make a joke of me because I don't agree with you, which is merely because the idea wouldn't work. (but feel free to prove why it would)