Post Number:#31 May 6th, 2010, 4:03 pm
Scott wrote:What you say to one who argues, when education is considered a right, then the country cannot become anything other than a completely socialistic country? What if they claimed, if government provides everyone with education, then it has the responsibility to regulate anything and everything that impacts the cost of that education; that includes virtually every aspect of the US economy?
I would say that if the federal government took over education, it might not necessarily lead to socialism because it doesn't have nearly the same economy-wide impact (in terms of expense and regulation) that federal healthcare would. Healthcare is a considerable portion of the US Economy; education isn't even close.
Still, I wouldn't advise a federal takeover of education because it would further facilitate a slide towards socialism.
In this thread, I'm not saying I support the government spending money to subsidize health care. If a government is spending money on health care, then I would prefer that that government at least in part tax unhealthy behaviors like smoking cigarettes to pay for that spending than solely tax things income and property; wouldn't you?
No, because it's an erosion of freedom. I'm not in favor of the government establishing a system of fining people for non-criminal behaviors, which is what such taxes are.
Scott wrote:Meleagar, if the government is going to get the same total amount of revenue either way, would you prefer taxes on unhealthy behaviors like purchasing cigarettes, alcohol or soda to be increased and have taxes on income and property to be decreased or not?
The reason I didn't respond to your O.P. and was instead responding to a later post was because I consider the question posed by your O.P. to be of the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" variety; you offer a rigged choice.
Instead of fining or taxing behaviors that might or might not cause health system burdens on down the road, how about we just fine or tax the actual health burdens when they show up by charging them (even if over time) for their health care?
That way we can make sure that those who actually need the
extra health care are those who pay extra for their burden, instead of using statistical and often unreliable medical information, which is subject to politicization and corruption, and which change over time.
Nor would it erode any freedoms or subject the population to behavioral-conditioning fines for non-criminal activity.