Caught in the Grip of Two National Traumas
3 days ago
Exploring Philosophy, Religion & Atheism In The Context Of Contemporary Urban Life
These programs were instituted to make the increasingly expensive medical care more affordable to the poor and the elderly. However, since such programs represent an even further collectivization of costs than collectivized insurance, drawing their funding as they do from the entire body of taxpayers rather than from a smaller body of insurance holders, they have lead to the pricing of medical care beyond the reach of the uninsured middle class. As a result, their implementation has lead to the current call for complete socialized medicine.
First, of course, is the increase in prices which necessarily follows when one is able to bid on a limited supply of goods and then pass the expense off to an anonymous group. Such bidding on government-supplied goods leads inevitably to government-imposed price controls and rationing as the only possible means of controlling costs, followed thereafter by the government's further refusal to allow anyone to bid the price up any further even using their own money.
Source: Mother Jones |
For decades the cost of health care, unlike the cost of other economic goods, has risen relative to prices in general and to people's incomes. The cost of health care is now so high that a radical reform is necessary. The current type of reform being advanced by the Clinton administration, however, is an anachronism. It is, to be exact, the enactment of a full system of socialized medicine, a system based on the mistaken and discredited tenets of Marxism, which will aim to reduce the cost of our partially socialized medical system by means of its full socialization accompanied by price controls and rationing.
![]() |
Image via halbertwealth.com |
As a woman you are better off in life earning your own money. You couldn't prevent your husband from leaving you or taking another wife, but you could have some of your dignity if you didn't have to beg him for financial support.
Income amount | Tax rate | ||
0 – 2,500 | 0.00% | ||
2,500 – 10,000 | 10.00% | ||
10,000 – 40,000 | 15.00% | ||
40,000 – 90,000 | 25.00% | ||
90,000 – 150,000 | 28.00% | ||
150,000 – 250,000 | 33.00% | ||
250,000 – 500,000 | 35.00% | ||
500,000 – 1,000,000 | 40.00% | ||
1,000,000 – 10,000,000 | 43.00% | ||
10,000,000 – above | 45.00% | ||
Women are making 81% of what men make and for women of color it’s even less. That's nothing but sexism and discrimination. #EqualPayDay— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) April 4, 2017
Larry Elder makes the point that government education is similar to an item on a restaurant menu that not even the waitress would order.
Roughly 11% of Americans send their kids to private school, but nearly 30% of parents who work in public schools do so. In urban areas such as Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and Cincinnati it hovers closer to 40%. To reiterate, these are government education providers choosing to send their kids to the competing private schools.
What about the government officials themselves? 37% of Representatives send their kids to private school. For US senators, that number is a staggering 45%. President Obama, himself a product of private education, made a big show of vetting DC public schools when he was elected. After all of the hullabaloo, he sent his daughters to the most elite private school in the capital. If government education is so great, why do its biggest advocates avoid it like tap water in Mexico?