[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

In response to Typhnoid:

I concur. I really don't understand this "what about me?" mentality that has people so against paying taxes for social programs and healthcare.

1) Immense waste
2) Poor service
3) Lack of innovation (Canadian health care depends greatly on investment by for-profit companies to create the newest and most effective drugs)*
4) Can't pay for it, and so it will inevitably be insolvent, and when it does collapse more people will suffer because they've been trained to suckle at the government's teat.

I like my tax dollars making people's lives better.

"Better" is a relative opinion. As for progress, you can thank self-interest for about 90% of societal progress, especially in health care. The latest and greatest equipment and treatments are created by medical companies that operate for a profit. The profit motive has done more to advance civilization than altruism ever could. In the end, we're all in it for ourselves, even if its just to make us feel better.

Emotions are informative. If you gave to charity (time or money) and didn't feel good about it, how would you know you were doing any good? If you felt nothing you would likely stop your activity because there would be nothing to let you know what you were doing achieved anything. In the end, we all GIVE because it makes US feel good, and that is not a bad thing. Motivation is a pointless argument. The results are all that matters, and profit motive has provided us with the greatest leaps known to man, especially in the 20th century concerning communications and again, health care.

Why would people argue about tax dollars helping someone get surgery but not argue with tax dollars being spent on illegal wars?

Legality of the wars aside, currently military spending as a percentage of GDP are at historical lows. This argument is a red herring.

Anyways, this may be financially burdening, especially in the short term, but feel good that the quality of living in your country will be increasing.

Question: If 80% of the country that has health care insurance will likely be asked to either a) lower their health care insurance to fall below the "Cadillac" threshold, b) pay the excise tax if their company elects to not to lower their plans, c) pay considerably more in taxes mandated by a "future congress" (its in the bill) how is this improving the quality of living in America?

Lowering everyone to the same level does not improve society. Lifting those in need does.

FYI - My company already announced its downgrading our health care plan. I now get less care thanks to this bill. My life has improved so much! Thanks Pres. Obama!

But the largest conceit out of all of these arguments are that they inherently deny that there are alternative plans or ideas. No one is saying that reform should not happen. NO ONE. Its an argument about what type of reform that is needed. For an example of an alternative plan, see Paul Ryan's Roadmap: http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/

I don't necessarily endorse the plan, as all I know are the Republican talking points on it, but it certainly sounds better than this monstrosity we have now.

The problem is that leftists deny that reform that is not centralized in the government is reform. Apparently without government control, nothing good can happen, and to me that is simply a sad state of affairs. It is the definition of "nanny state" thinking.

*The only good part about this bill is that it does virtually nothing to cut costs, so therefore innovation in drugs shouldn't be affected. The bad part is it does nothing to cut costs, and in fact inherently protects profits and reducing competition, which is unhealthy regardless.