Mike Harris did nothing wrong.

[Guest eureka]

What is "carrying their weight" supposed to mean in relation to the poor/ Since they have no surplus fat to pay for more thanthey get, how can there be any notion of "carrying their weight?

They pay what they can; they do what they can. That is, they have to give their all.

what part would you like to get a pound of flesh from when you are already close to the bone.

[Renegade]

One would wonder, with all of your huffing and puffing about "proving that the poor carry their weight", what you have against the poor... When, as we have already discussed, corporate and wealthy people are able to "legally" avoid paying huge sums of money... yet you have not once commented on a need for tax reform... just that the poor don't carry their weight, and that they get too much...  Your protestations (above) seem rather hollow..

Haven't I commented on tax reform? I guess you haven't read other threads. Tax Policy

Let me quote from my previous statements:

A major inequity in the income tax system is that corporations are taxed on profit and individuals are taxed on revenue. It makes no sense to me why there should be this disparity. If individuals were taxed on "profit" they could deduct all their expenses (eg mortgage interest, food, clothing, cars, etc) from their income and only pay on what was not spent. Conversely if corporations were taxed on revenue, they would lose the ability to avoid paying taxes by hiding profits.

So it does seem even when I agree with you, you're still looking to quibble because you disagree with my position on other issues, and you insist on making assumptions on my position.

Would you rather pay for all services as you use them... supposing you need a pacemaker... and just have to come up with $20,000 to pay for it... or die... You say that you like choices, which one would you choose ??? And what if you didn't have the $20K... Then what's your choice... I like the fact that I live in a system that I may pay more into than I receive... if I'm lucky.... that I don't have to be the recipient of such services....

Personally, yes I would prefer to pay for systems as I use them or based upon risk that I would use them. That is the principle of insurance, and if I had my way, health care would be structured as an insurance.

I would suggest a brief course in reading comprehension... I think we need more government... not less...

I guess it is hard to read the sarcasm in my response. Of course I know you think we need more government. Of course I know you think we should remove any incentive to earn income by forcible redistribution of income. Guess what, such a system has never worked on a large scale.

[Renegade]

What is "carrying their weight" supposed to mean in relation to the poor/ Since they have no surplus fat to pay for more thanthey get, how can there be any notion of "carrying their weight?

They pay what they can; they do what they can. That is, they have to give their all.

what part would you like to get a pound of flesh from when you are already close to the bone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Carrying their weight" means paying for the cost of the services they consume. Same criteria for rich, middleclass or poor. It makes no difference if they "give their all", my contention was that if they are not covering the cost of services they consume, then they are not carrying their weight.

I see that you have gone from protesting that the poor are indeed carrying their weight and my statement was false, to now protesting that the poor are doing all they can.

[Guest eureka]

I have not shifted at all. There is no distinction between the statements. Your Darwinian turn of mind is leading you into murky moral waters.

Perhaps you do need a course in reading comprehension.

[Renegade]

I comprehend just fine thank-you. I didn't say that you had contradictory statements but that the basis of your argument has shifted.

Let me give you an example.

Let's say it cost the government $10000 to provide health coverage on average for Mr. Smith. Let's say Mr. Smith is poor and "pays what he can", which is only $100 in taxes toward health coverage.

Is Mr. Smith carrying his weight in this example despite "paying what he can?"

In my view, he is not.

BTW, what "murky moral waters" are you talking about? Maybe my comphrension would improve in direct proportion to the clarity of your writing.

[Guest eureka]

Because , morality enters into the question of who pays and how much one pays. The basis of my argument has not shifted an inch. A person carries his weight simply by doing whatever he is capable of doing. Any human has an absolute and natural right to equal care.

That is humanity and the human experience. Today's reduction of everything to economic inputs and outputs is a modern form of barbarism.

For much of human evolution, there was no economic cost to treatment. How have we progressed in humanity or economically if some members of society because they lack goods for barter. or beads for exchange?

[err]

Let me quote from my previous statements:

A major inequity in the income tax system is that corporations are taxed on profit and individuals are taxed on revenue. It makes no sense to me why there should be this disparity. If individuals were taxed on "profit" they could deduct all their expenses (eg mortgage interest, food, clothing, cars, etc) from their income and only pay on what was not spent. Conversely if corporations were taxed on revenue, they would lose the ability to avoid paying taxes by hiding profits.

I think you'll find that disparity does not just lie between corporate Canada and the citizens of Canada... There is HUGE disparity between the treatment of the wealthy and the poorer classes. A good percentage of the wealthy pay less percentage tax than the poorer and middle classes... because they can make avail of capital gains exemptions and so many other vehicles to "disguise" income...

However, you somehow don't see this reality... granted, the wealthier, the business community, et al. aren't exactly going to publicly advertise their advantages, for fear that a public outcry will force the government to fix the gross disparities...

So it does seem even when I agree with you, you're still looking to quibble because you disagree with my position on other issues, and you insist on making assumptions on my position.

I disagree with much that you have to say... It is nice that we do agree on the quoted statement that you provided above.

I think you could easily expand your perspectives. I recommend that you read more. I highly recommend Linda McQuaig.... and then we'd probably agree on a great deal more than we currently do.... because the way she exposes the realities of our tax system, our culture and attitudes (the way our many of our politicians and business leaders will not) is revealing... I can honestly tell you that I have learned a ton from her books, and that is why I continually plug them... (although I have to admit, a royalty would be nice)

Personally, yes I would prefer to pay for systems as I use them or based upon risk that I would use them. That is the principle of insurance, and if I had my way, health care would be structured as an insurance.

Everybody has some risk of having to use the system. Insurance is a "for profit" business, and hence it's business model should not apply to health care. And pay as you go... come on man... that's Russian roulette... and trying to change our system so others are forced to play Russian roulette is downright evil...

I would suggest a brief course in reading comprehension... I think we need more government... not less...

I guess it is hard to read the sarcasm in my response. Of course I know you think we need more government. Of course I know you think we should remove any incentive to earn income by forcible redistribution of income.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Those who make more money ususally don't do it by themselves. There is an infrastructure that allows them to do well... an infrastructure that was primarily built and paid for by "other people".... They (the wealthy) have a duty to support our infrastructure that allowed them to get where they are....

[Renegade]

Because , morality enters into the question of who pays and how much one pays. The basis of my argument has not shifted an inch. A person carries his weight simply by doing whatever he is capable of doing. Any human has an absolute and natural right to equal care.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then it would seem we differ in what we mean by carrying one's weight. Then I will rephrase my statement to be less ambiguious to you. The taxes the poor pay do not cover the cost of the services they consume. This isn't a moral condemnation of the poor. It is simply a fact.

Frankly I don't know where you have derived that any human has the absolute natural right to equal care. For virtually all of history and today people have had unequal positions in life and unequal care. It is self-delusional to think that it will ever be otherwise.

That is humanity and the human experience. Today's reduction of everything to economic inputs and outputs is a modern form of barbarism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is exactly NOT the human experience. The human experience and history is that there have always been wealthy and powerful who have had access to better services than others.

For much of human evolution, there was no economic cost to treatment. How have we progressed in humanity or economically if some members of society because they lack goods for barter.  or beads for exchange?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There has always been an economic cost to treatment. We have come to a point where that cost has mounted considerably. Our expectations of health now are very different than if we lived 100 years ago. (Witness our changing life expectancy). I don't see it as a "right" for those who are poor to be entiled to an unlimited set of services funded by others at a growing and indefinate economic cost.

[Renegade]

I think you'll find that disparity does not just lie between corporate Canada and the citizens of Canada... There is HUGE disparity between the treatment of the wealthy and the poorer classes.  A good percentage of the wealthy pay less percentage tax than the poorer and middle classes... because they can make avail of capital gains exemptions and so many other vehicles to "disguise" income...

However, you somehow don't see this reality... granted, the wealthier, the business community, et al. aren't exactly going to publicly advertise their advantages, for fear that a public outcry will force the government to fix the gross disparities...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right there is income which is taxed preferentially such as capital gains, but conversely the higher incomes are taxed at a much higher rate. In addition the poor are given numerious benefits (eg Child Tax Benefit, OAS, etc). I have yet to see evidence that given all these both positive and negative influences on tax burden that overall the poor are paying their share. In my analysis, the middle-class and the employed wealthy are paying more than their share, and the self-employed, corporate, and the poor are paying less than their share.

I disagree with much that you have to say... It is nice that we do agree on the quoted statement that you provided above.

I think you could easily expand your perspectives.  I recommend that you read more.  I highly recommend Linda McQuaig.... and then we'd probably agree on a great deal more than we currently do.... because the way she exposes the realities of our tax system, our culture and attitudes (the way our many of our politicians and business leaders will not) is revealing... I can honestly tell you that I have learned a ton from her books, and that is why I continually plug them... .

While I have my own perspective I am open to changing it based upon evidience I see. I am happy to read other perspectives even if I disagree. I may take up your suggestion to look at her book, despite the fact that I think her view is very biased.

Everybody has some risk of having to use the system.  Insurance is a "for profit" business, and hence it's business model should not apply to health care.  And pay as you go... come on man... that's Russian roulette... and trying to change our system so others are forced to play Russian roulette is downright evil...

Insurance is only a "for profit" business when it is operated by a "for profit" entity.

I think you misunderstand me if you think I advocate pay-as-you-go. I don't advocate paying for a health-care service (eg an operation) as you use it. That just doesn't make sense for health insurance any more than it makes sense for car insurance. I advocate paying a perodic payment of health insurance which is proportional to the risk of using the system. I would also advocate a deductable each time the system is used.

Those who make more money ususally don't do it by themselves.  There is an infrastructure that allows them to do well... an infrastructure that was primarily built and paid for by "other people"....  They (the wealthy) have a duty to support our infrastructure that allowed them to get where they are....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't disagree with the statement that those who earn income should pay for the infrastructure that allows them to earn the income. What I dispute is that much of the infrastructure is not necessary to earn the income, as well, there is a "charging" for the infrastructure well beyond the cost of that infrastructure. That is why I would prefer a more line-of-sight relationship between the infrastructure used and the taxes used to pay for that infrastructure.

[err]

Frankly I don't know where you have derived that any human has the absolute natural right to equal care. For virtually all of history and today people have had unequal positions in life and unequal care. It is self-delusional to think that it will ever be otherwise.

That is humanity and the human experience. Today's reduction of everything to economic inputs and outputs is a modern form of barbarism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is exactly NOT the human experience. The human experience and history is that there have always been wealthy and powerful who have had access to better services than others.

And do you see this as the right direction to continue in???

I think that morality dictates that we try to even the playing field as far as the basic necessities goes... Basic necessities of life that is... because we can, as a society, easily afford to help our poorest...

Sadly, it would seem to me that the good will to help is harder to get than the actual money to pay for the help...

[Renegade]

And do you see this as the right direction to continue in???

I think that morality dictates that we try to even the playing field as far as the basic necessities goes... Basic necessities of life that is... because we can, as a society, easily afford to help our poorest...

Sadly, it would seem to me that the good will to help is harder to get than the actual money to pay for the help...

What I am against is not the sentiment. It is a noble sentiment to help the poor. It is charitable, generous and for many part of religious faith. What I am against is the forcible funding of these programs by the government.

It is only a noble sentiment when it comes voluntarily, where each person's individual concieience dictates if and how much they should contribute.

We would all agree that we don't want a government to dictate to us in areas of morality. Why should this be different?

[Guest eureka]

Human experience did not begin with the advent of Capitalism; nor of Feudalism. Not even with the gathering for protection into City States.

It began long before that when there was more or less equality. That earlier state pertained for the greater part of human existence. Development into "civilized" community does not require the weaker and poorer to abandon their right to fairness.

Carrying their weight, however it may be defined, is the case from the simple fact of existence and behaving as a citizen. It is not a reflection of wealth and power and it was not an economic choice - something that is being forgotten in the modern view of humanity as "stakeholders" and consumers. People are those but they are also people.

[err]

What I am against is not the sentiment. It is a noble sentiment to help the poor. It is charitable, generous and for many part of religious faith. What I am against is the forcible funding of these programs by the government.

If it were left to people to volunteer money for health care, there would be no health care... except for the wealthy.... You know that lots of people around you, maybe even yourself, would like that extra week at the cottage, or maybe a new flat-screen tv, or whatever... and procrastinate your good intentions.... This is not to say that there is anything wrong with people wanting to improve their personal comfort, but the reality of it is that the funding wouldn't be regular enough to support the costs.

And then there's the business side of it. A public company has to please their stockholders... and won't be donating any money to health care... I'm sure there are lots of business owners who would, but they would be a small minority...

I think logistically, the only way to pull it off is to force payment... or forget about having a health care system....

It is only a noble sentiment when it comes voluntarily, where each person's individual concieience dictates if and how much they should contribute.

And we cannot be a noble group ??? Who share a desire to make life better for everyone ???

We would all agree that we don't want a government to dictate to us in areas of morality. Why should this be different?

I don't agree. I think that, although you an/or I may not need to be "controlled" to stay within certain moral bounds, there are many who do need to be controlled, or we would have anarchy. Thus, I accept the control under which I must live, as I know it is for the common good....

[Guest eureka]

BTW. err, don't go to far. We can sympathise with the Plebes but let's not join them. Your offer of a beer was generous but I would prefer a bottle of Glen Fiddich.

[cybercoma]

Any human has an absolute and natural right to equal care.

How do you figure it's a "natural" and "absolute" right?

You're gonna have to explain this one.

And err, legislating morality is a terrible idea.

[Renegade]

Human experience did not begin with the advent of Capitalism; nor of Feudalism. Not even with the gathering for protection into City States.

It began long before that when there was more or less equality. That earlier state pertained for the greater part of human existence. Development into "civilized" community does not require the weaker and poorer to abandon their right to fairness.

Carrying their weight, however it may be defined, is the case from the simple fact of existence and behaving as a citizen. It is not a reflection of wealth and power and it was not an economic choice - something that is being forgotten in the modern view of humanity as "stakeholders" and consumers. People are those but they are also people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm really struggling to see what era you are talking about when there was equality. Pretty much every era from cavemen until today had classes and a class hierchy. Care to be specific on what "earlier state" you are referring to?

People are not naturally equal on many different levels, so I don't see how you justify a claim that equality has preexisted prior to "civilized" society.

[Guest eureka]

Cavemen would have had equal access to healthcare. Probably any society that was not based on monetary rewards would also give equal access.

Don't struggle too hard. Put on your "compassionate Conservative" hat.

[Renegade]

If it were left to people to volunteer money for health care, there would be no health care... except for the wealthy.... You know that lots of people around you, maybe even yourself, would like that extra week at the cottage, or maybe a new flat-screen tv, or whatever... and procrastinate your good intentions....  This is not to say that there is anything wrong with people wanting to improve their personal comfort, but the reality of it is that the funding wouldn't be regular enough to support the costs.

So if people don't want to do it because, as you say, they prefer to spend their money elsewhere, isn't that a deliberate choice they should be allowed to make?

I agree that left to themselves some part of the population would not contribute to social programs. I doubt it is becaue they procrastinate. I believe it is because they are making a deliberate choice. But isn't that what freedom is? The are speaking louder with their actions than with their words.

And then there's the business side of it.  A public company has to please their stockholders... and won't be donating any money to health care... I'm sure there are lots of business owners who would, but they would be a small minority...

Again the shareholders own the business, if it is their prioirty for the business to contribute to social programs, management will follow those priorities. If it is not their priority to do so, why shouldn't they not have the choice to vote on where to spend their funds.

I think logistically, the only way to pull it off is to force payment... or forget about having a health care system....

I was thinking more of social programs in general than health care in specific. I think with health care in specific people woudl contribute because they would recieve a benefit, namely health coverage which they would not have without a contribution.

And we cannot be a noble group ??? Who share a desire to make life better for everyone ???

We can be a noble group if we respect eveyones free will and choice. Nobility doesn't require that we force choices upon people which they wouldn't have made on their own.

I don't agree.  I think that, although you an/or I may not need to be "controlled" to stay within certain moral bounds, there are many who do need to be controlled, or we would have anarchy.  Thus, I accept the control under which I must live, as I know it is for the common good....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is hard for me to believe you want a govenment which dictates moral standards to you. Do you want a government which tells you you must go to church, must not "live-in-sin", must not commit adultery, or only marry people of the opposite sex, and then uses its force to punish you when you don't abide by its moral code? Perhaps you prefer a religious state like Iran.

Most people would agree that ours should be a secular state where our government doesn't dictate its moral code to us but our morals are the result of our own concienience.

[Renegade]

Cavemen would have had equal access to healthcare. Probably any society that was not based on monetary rewards would also give equal access.

Don't struggle too hard. Put on your "compassionate Conservative" hat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Caveman were very much an unequal society. Within the tribe, the stronger woudl have more priviliges than the weak. The women were treated a property, and one tribe murderously attacked other tribes.

This is your example of an equal society?

[Guest eureka]

I said that they would have had equal access to healthcare.

As for equality, it could be argued that they would have it. Inherent abilities would determine privileges, not money. The strength to wield the biggest club or the coordination to be the fastest dodger, not the number of beads.

[Renegade]

I said that they would have had equal access to healthcare.

As for equality, it could be argued that they would have it. Inherent abilities would determine privileges, not money. The strength to wield the biggest club or the coordination to be the fastest dodger, not the number of beads.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah but we have evolved as money as our way to measure inherent abiliites. Sure, some of the value of the skills have changed but the fact is if you have valuable skills now you are rewarded just like you were rewarded if you were a caveman and you had valuable skills then. The only difference is we are better at quantifying that reward with money.

I cannot imagine what healthcare they had back then, but it is likely that both because of the power of the stronger members and because of the self interest of the tribe, they would give priority healthcare to the stronger over the weaker.

[err]

err, legislating morality is a terrible idea.

Certain aspects of morality should be enforced. For example, rape, murder, assault, blacmail, etc... are all immoral acts... And you don't think that some form of enforcement of standards relating to these behaviours is appropriate ???

[Renegade]

err, legislating morality is a terrible idea.

Certain aspects of morality should be enforced. For example, rape, murder, assault, blacmail, etc... are all immoral acts... And you don't think that some form of enforcement of standards relating to these behaviours is appropriate ???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Those acts should be enforced not because they are immoral but because they infringe on others individual or property rights.

Behavious which are immoral but do not infringe on people individual rights should not be enforced by anyone but only by the moral standards of that individual.

[err]

I agree that left to themselves some part of the population would not contribute to social programs. I doubt it is becaue they procrastinate. I believe it is because they are making a deliberate choice. But isn't that what freedom is? The are speaking louder with their actions than with their words.

Some part... what part... the majority...

And then there's the business side of it.  A public company has to please their stockholders... and won't be donating any money to health care... I'm sure there are lots of business owners who would, but they would be a small minority...

Again the shareholders own the business, if it is their prioirty for the business to contribute to social programs, management will follow those priorities. If it is not their priority to do so, why shouldn't they not have the choice to vote on where to spend their funds.

"if it is their priority" if my aunt had ball, she'd be my uncle...

You know damn well that there would be negligible conribution from business... You know that the general public won't donate if they don't want to... So what are you advocating... the demise of health care..

I think logistically, the only way to pull it off is to force payment... or forget about having a health care system....

I was thinking more of social programs in general than health care in specific. I think with health care in specific people woudl contribute because they would recieve a benefit, namely health coverage which they would not have without a contribution.

My sentiments apply to all social programs... People are inherently greedy... you are our poster-boy for this... you don't want to help anyone else do you... or sorry..... you want the choice not to help anyone else...

And we cannot be a noble group ??? Who share a desire to make life better for everyone ???

We can be a noble group if we respect eveyones free will and choice. Nobility doesn't require that we force choices upon people which they wouldn't have made on their own.

Do you know what the word "group" means... here's one definition: any number of entities (members) considered as a unit If the "members" choose not to be members of the group... they aren't members of the group ... are they.... If there are no members in the group, then it isn't a group is it.... maybe you should think about that for a while...

I don't agree.  I think that, although you and/or I may not need to be "controlled" to stay within certain moral bounds, there are many who do need to be controlled, or we would have anarchy.  Thus, I accept the control under which I must live, as I know it is for the common good....

It is hard for me to believe you want a govenment which dictates moral standards to you. Do you want a government which tells you you must go to church, must not "live-in-sin", must not commit adultery, or only marry people of the opposite sex, and then uses its force to punish you when you don't abide by its moral code? Perhaps you prefer a religious state like Iran.

Then you think it's ok for people to murder and rape... steal, malign, extort, and all, because God knows, we'd hate to be called Iranians.....

Most people would agree that ours should be a secular state where our government doesn't dictate its moral code to us but our morals are the result of our own concienience.

... and then they can CHOOSE whether they want to rape the cute girl next door, or maybe rob the guy down the street..... or maybe they could CHOOSE not to...

[Renegade]

Some part... what part... the majority...

Ah so what your saying is that if that is what the majority choses to do you don't think their wishes should be followed.

  "if it is their priority"  if my aunt had ball, she'd be my uncle...

You know damn well that there would be negligible conribution from business... You know that the general public won't donate if they don't want to... So what are you advocating... the demise of health care.. 

If noone chooses to support healthcare then its death is warrented.

My sentiments apply to all social programs... People are inherently greedy... you are our poster-boy for this... you don't want to help anyone else do you... or sorry..... you want the choice not to help anyone else...

I am quite used to you resorting to name-calling when you have no argument to make. And yes, I do want the choice to help or not help if I so choose. That is freedom.

What you instead advocate is dictatorship based upon your own sense of morality. You don't give a damm about what what anyone else thinks they ought to do, you want the govenment to be your own personal thugs to force people in a behaviour which you deem appropriate.

  Do you know what the word "group" means... here's one definition: any number of entities (members) considered as a unit If the "members" choose not to be members of the group... they aren't members of the group ... are they....  If there are no members in the group, then it isn't a group is it.... maybe you should think about that for a while...

being considered as a unit does not mean making all the same choices does it? Where does it say anywhere being a member of a group precludes individual choices? Maybe you are thinking of a cult.

  Then you think it's ok for people to murder and rape... steal, malign, extort, and all, because God knows, we'd hate to be called Iranians.....

  ... and then they can CHOOSE whether they want to rape the cute girl next door, or maybe rob the guy down the street..... or maybe they could CHOOSE not to...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps you didn't see my previous reply:

Those acts should be enforced not because they are immoral but because they infringe on others individual or property rights.

Behaviours which are immoral but do not infringe on people individual rights should not be enforced by anyone but only by the moral standards of that individual.