Shouldn't we Tax for accountabililty?

[KazooSkinsFan]

A basic tenant in libertarianism is responsibility for our choices. Shouldn't taxes work the same way? Why do people who make choices that cost society money pay lower taxes? It isn't right and it isn't personally accountable. Some ideas:

- We tax the snot out of alcohol and cigars, calling it a "sin" tax. But realistically who's costing society more, weekend drinkers and occasional cigar smokers like me or lard butts who bring down productivity and drive up health care costs? Sure, they can chose to break the scale, but in a personally accountable system why should I pay for that?

So, why not share the joy of taxes on the poor choices that cost us all money. Say soda, snack crackers, sweetened breakfast cereals as well as lard butt inducing restaurants like MacDonalds and Dennys?

And what about people who take risks and pass us their medical bills? Sky diving, bungee jumping, motorcycle riding.

Also, rather then debating over whether wearing a seatbelt or wearing a motorcycle helmet should be "legal" why not just add personal choice to the equation? You can do it, but you pay a tax for that.

People making their own choices is fine, it's their making mine for me, and costing me money I object to. We should do something about it.

[Irn-Bru]

If healthcare is a government-run service, then when someone smokes or drinks it does cost you money. Or does practically anything else, for that matter.

[welch]

If healthcare is a government-run service, then when someone smokes or drinks it does cost you money. Or does practically anything else, for that matter.

It already does.

Uninsured people go to the local emergency room because they have no family doctor. The ER cannot turn someone away, but an internist can refuse to see a patient who cannot pay because they have no insurance coverage.

Even if it's a private hospital, we end up compensating their ER. Further, if someone gets sicker, we pay for their hospital stay.

[Irn-Bru]

It already does.

Uninsured people go to the local emergency room because they have no family doctor. The ER cannot turn someone away, but an internist can refuse to see a patient who cannot pay because they have no insurance coverage.

Even if it's a private hospital, we end up compensating their ER. Further, if someone gets sicker, we pay for their hospital stay.

I agree. But I still think that the implications of what Kaz is saying conflict with things he's proposed elsewhere.

[Bob 0119]

It already does.

Uninsured people go to the local emergency room because they have no family doctor. The ER cannot turn someone away, but an internist can refuse to see a patient who cannot pay because they have no insurance coverage.

Even if it's a private hospital, we end up compensating their ER. Further, if someone gets sicker, we pay for their hospital stay.

I agree. But I still think that the implications of what Kaz is saying conflict with things he's proposed elsewhere.

They do, but he's just trying to stir up discussion by posting topics contrary to his usual positions.

At least, that's the way it looks to me.

[BossHog]

Instead of taxing them more, we could just give all the 'lard butts' bibles...



That way they can learn good Christian values AND do arm curls.

Am I in the right thread?

[KazooSkinsFan]

It already does.

Uninsured people go to the local emergency room because they have no family doctor. The ER cannot turn someone away, but an internist can refuse to see a patient who cannot pay because they have no insurance coverage.

Even if it's a private hospital, we end up compensating their ER. Further, if someone gets sicker, we pay for their hospital stay.

I agree. But I still think that the implications of what Kaz is saying conflict with things he's proposed elsewhere.

They do, but he's just trying to stir up discussion by posting topics contrary to his usual positions.

At least, that's the way it looks to me.

Ding, ding ding, we have a winner! I actually started by just for fun deciding to write the best post I could on socialized medicine. I never thought anyone would believe I supported it, but they did! Then I kept going, cap and trade, bible in school and then this one. What I learned?

1) Liberal arguments are easy. You just focus on what you want to happen and ignore that you don't have a clue how do to it or that your positions won't lead to the desired effect.

2) All I had to do to make it plausible I believed it was throw in some references to personal accountability and bash liberals. I was actually disappointed it was that easy.

3) People sadly no longer understand distrusting government or they never would have believed I believed any of this nonsense no matter how I put it. Government is now for almost everyone just a way to get what they want. Both sides argue for it doing the things they want when they want it and against government only when that's the way to get what they want. The sheep of this country don't grasp not trusting it. What could a fox tell you to convince you to let him care for your chicken coup. The only right answer is, "nothing."

So Bob, you were the closest from the beginning. I know some don't think I have a heart, but you broke mine in the socialized medicine thread when you said, "not you too." I'm kidding, they're right I don't have a heart. Had it removed at orientation entering business school. Not that it was major surgery, actually outpatient. Sort of like swatting a fly. But if I did have one you'd have broken it. Then again I'm glad I don't have a liberal heart which justifies harming the people you claim to want to help just so you can feel better about yourself.

Anyway, I was getting tired of it, so I appreciate you outing me now.