Health and Taxes (was: Re: government shut down)

[Bloodied Porcelain]

I had to. >.>

[Dashenka]

I had to. >.>

Hahaha

[gaggedLouise]

:)

You'd think it would be Texas threatening to secede over Obamacare...

[mia h]

Just for the sake of an argument...

You can't make money from people being ill but the government CAN make money from people who work hard and have a lot of responsibilities and make a lot of money?

Again, just for the sake of the argument in relation to rising taxes for the higher incomes. Isn't that just as immoral?

No.
Oliver Wendell Holmes “Taxes are the price we pay for civilization.” surely it's more civilized that those who are most able to pay do so.

If governments moved purely to a sales tax based then those at the bottom get hit hardest:
Say the sales tax is 20% someone earning $20,000 has to spend every cent to survive, so is paying 20% of their income in taxes. Now someone earning $1,0000,000 lives off half of that so they end up paying only 10% of their income in taxes.

And having a flat income tax makes no sense at all; if the minimum post-tax wage needed to survive at the most basic level is $20,000 and the flat rate tax is 30% then the minimum pre-tax wage is a little over $28,500. So small firms that employ people on those minimum wages have just seen their wage costs go up by over 40% which causes all kinds of inflationary pressures.
Now the sensible approach would be to make that first $20,000 tax free but that does things, firstly it puts a large hole in government finances and secondly you've just established a progressive tax system. Now back to that hole in the finances, if it was a flat rate above the minimum wage again there are the inflationary problems also you are reducing the chances of those people at the bottom to accumulate wealth and get themselves off the bottom. So why should that earn more, pay more?  It's fairer and like John Dillenger said when he was asked why he robbed banks "That's where the money is."

[Dashenka]

No.
Oliver Wendell Holmes “Taxes are the price we pay for civilization.” surely it's more civilized that those who are most able to pay do so.

If governments moved purely to a sales tax based then those at the bottom get hit hardest:
Say the sales tax is 20% someone earning $20,000 has to spend every cent to survive, so is paying 20% of their income in taxes. Now someone earning $1,0000,000 lives off half of that so they end up paying only 10% of their income in taxes.

And having a flat income tax makes no sense at all; if the minimum post-tax wage needed to survive at the most basic level is $20,000 and the flat rate tax is 30% then the minimum pre-tax wage is a little over $28,500. So small firms that employ people on those minimum wages have just seen their wage costs go up by over 40% which causes all kinds of inflationary pressures.
Now the sensible approach would be to make that first $20,000 tax free but that does things, firstly it puts a large hole in government finances and secondly you've just established a progressive tax system. Now back to that hole in the finances, if it was a flat rate above the minimum wage again there are the inflationary problems also you are reducing the chances of those people at the bottom to accumulate wealth and get themselves off the bottom. So why should that earn more, pay more?  It's fairer and like John Dillenger said when he was asked why he robbed banks "That's where the money is."

I do agree that is logical and perhaps fair but basically you are saying people who are ill shouldn't have to pay anything and people who are rich have to pay more. Emphasis on have to. What makes 'ill' people deserve that advantage. And what if you are ill but happen to have a lot of money? You have to pay it yourself while somebody with no money (for whatever reason) doesn't?
I can understand why some people don't think that's fair.

That does

[mia h]

I do agree that is logical and perhaps fair but basically you are saying people who are ill shouldn't have to pay anything and people who are rich have to pay more. Emphasis on have to. What makes 'ill' people deserve that advantage. And what if you are ill but happen to have a lot of money? You have to pay it yourself while somebody with no money (for whatever reason) doesn't?
I can understand why some people don't think that's fair.

How the government collects taxes and what it does with those taxes are two seperate issues. Also it's really short sighted to link the two together, I don't have any children but my neighbours have 3 kids all of them go to school, why should my taxes go to helping thier kids? Using that logic people should only pay taxes to pay for things they agree with and help them. But if I don't help out and pay for the education of my neighbours kids then those kids are going to be stuck in low paid jobs which means they won't be paying any significant taxes so when I eventually retire those kids won't be paying in enough to cover my retirement benefits. Same thing applies for healthcare, two people have the same illness; one person has good healthcare and gets back to work in two weeks, the other has lousy healthcare and it takes them three months to get back to work. That's three months that person isn't paying taxes and is claiming benefits which has to be paid by the person with the better healthcare, now if the person with good healthcare had helped pay for the healthcare of the other person then it turns out it would cost them less overall

[Dashenka]

I agree but let's say, again for arguments sake, that I work hard to keep my health up. I eat properly, I live healthy etc etc and I got a health insurance just in case. Why should my tax money be spend on people who drink, smoke and lunch and dine at McDonalds without working out?

Spend my tax money on people who really need it and who 'deserve' it.


The point I'm trying to make is you either treat everybody as (roughly) equal, or you treat them as different as they are. Not a bit in between like I feel is going on now in the US.

[Oniya]

'Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed.' Robert A. Heinlein 'The Notebooks of Lazarus Long.' (cited in 'Time Enough For Love.)

What this basically means is that not all of the things that an individual is taxed for are things that they make use of.  As mia pointed out, there's a local tax that goes to school districts, paid by all residents of that district - childfree or not.  Taxes are used to fix roads that I may never use, or maintain parks that I may never visit, or to pay police and firefighters that I may never (hopefully) have to call on.  Taxes are (or should be) used to maintain the infrastructure that keeps society together.  If a large proportion of your society is suffering from the lack of a certain service, that's where the money should be directed.

[gaggedLouise]

"People in this country just don't think they ought to pay taxes"

-heard this line from a British taxation officer who had been invited to Pakistan to help them establish a more efficient methods of collecting taxes.

Winks at Kythia, but actually it's getting to be a more widespread attitude than in just some -stan's.

[Dashenka]

'Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed.' Robert A. Heinlein 'The Notebooks of Lazarus Long.' (cited in 'Time Enough For Love.)

What this basically means is that not all of the things that an individual is taxed for are things that they make use of.  As mia pointed out, there's a local tax that goes to school districts, paid by all residents of that district - childfree or not.  Taxes are used to fix roads that I may never use, or maintain parks that I may never visit, or to pay police and firefighters that I may never (hopefully) have to call on.  Taxes are (or should be) used to maintain the infrastructure that keeps society together.  If a large proportion of your society is suffering from the lack of a certain service, that's where the money should be directed.

Yes I understand that. But why should the rich pay more tax than the poor. In a very black and white world, the rich worked harder to get their money so they deserve it. Why punish them with higher taxes, so they can pay for healthcare for somebody who just doesn't give a fuck.

I said it before, I'm perfectly willing to pay more taxes because I can miss it. But that doesn't mean I want to spend my hard earned money on people who I feel don't deserve it. All those services you said are needed for society to run but my tax money is also being used to pay for the pro Deo attorney of a homeless rapist. It's being spend to help a drunk driver with no insurance in hospital.

I refuse to pay taxes for that, let alone more taxes than the lower incomes.

I'm convinced that everybody with an income higher than they need, is willing to help out society with more taxes but why can't they decide where to spend their taxes on?

[Bloodied Porcelain]

Yes I understand that. But why should the rich pay more tax than the poor. In a very black and white world, the rich worked harder to get their money so they deserve it. Why punish them with higher taxes, so they can pay for healthcare for somebody who just doesn't give a fuck.

I said it before, I'm perfectly willing to pay more taxes because I can miss it. But that doesn't mean I want to spend my hard earned money on people who I feel don't deserve it. All those services you said are needed for society to run but my tax money is also being used to pay for the pro Deo attorney of a homeless rapist. It's being spend to help a drunk driver with no insurance in hospital.

I refuse to pay taxes for that, let alone more taxes than the lower incomes.

I'm convinced that everybody with an income higher than they need, is willing to help out society with more taxes but why can't they decide where to spend their taxes on?

There's very very little evidence to support that every rich person making more money "worked harder". The studies have largely shown the opposite... low income workers work longer hours in more physically demanding jobs. The big difference between what makes someone a high income worker and a low income worker has very little to do with the amount of labor, but the opportunities afforded to them. (Quality of schooling, whether or not they had family that was able to help them get off the ground either by simply being a co-signer on a loan to start a business or paying their kid's way through college, etc) Most low-income workers end up having to work multiple jobs just to make ends meet, working all hours of the day and night, while you have high income workers who work 9-5, steady schedule, paid vacation and benefits, etc.

As someone who fairly recently made the jump from "low wage" to at least moderate wage, I worked FAR harder in the minimum wage job than I do now. The only difference between what I did then and what I did now in terms of how I got here is that this job requires more education and experience, which is something most people in this country who don't come from upper middle class and above income families can't afford to pay for. And heaven forbid you fall firmly in to the middle class... Parents make too much for you to get a pell grant unless you move out (which of course you can't afford because you can't get better than a minimum wage job because you haven't been to college yet), but they make too little to be able to really help with the costs of your schooling because they have to keep a roof over your head and food in your belly. Honestly, in a lot of instances, you're almost better off being low wage than middle class because at least at low wage you can get help. Admittedly not much, but some is better than none.

I personally don't agree with sales taxes at all. I think there should be a luxury tax... if you pay more than X for an item (IE 100 bucks for tennis shoes), then you can obviously afford to pay more so you should have to pay a tax on it. And that's an across the board rule. If you make 20k a year but still want to go dump 100 bucks in to a pair of Adidas tennis shoes? Then you should have to pay a tax on it, the same as a professional athelete would.

[ofDelusions]

Yes I understand that. But why should the rich pay more tax than the poor. In a very black and white world, the rich worked harder to get their money so they deserve it. Why punish them with higher taxes, so they can pay for healthcare for somebody who just doesn't give a fuck.

I said it before, I'm perfectly willing to pay more taxes because I can miss it. But that doesn't mean I want to spend my hard earned money on people who I feel don't deserve it. All those services you said are needed for society to run but my tax money is also being used to pay for the pro Deo attorney of a homeless rapist. It's being spend to help a drunk driver with no insurance in hospital.

I refuse to pay taxes for that, let alone more taxes than the lower incomes.

I'm convinced that everybody with an income higher than they need, is willing to help out society with more taxes but why can't they decide where to spend their taxes on?

Why should this fantasy world have any effect on how taxation works?

Besides even though they pay higher taxes, rich are generally less affected by those taxes. 1000$ is not a same amount of money to someone who makes that in an hour as it is to a person who makes that in two or more weeks.

Also people get to decide how their taxes are spent on by voting.

[mia h]

Yes I understand that. But why should the rich pay more tax than the poor. In a very black and white world, the rich worked harder to get their money so they deserve it. Why punish them with higher taxes, so they can pay for healthcare for somebody who just doesn't give a fuck.

I said it before, I'm perfectly willing to pay more taxes because I can miss it. But that doesn't mean I want to spend my hard earned money on people who I feel don't deserve it. All those services you said are needed for society to run but my tax money is also being used to pay for the pro Deo attorney of a homeless rapist. It's being spend to help a drunk driver with no insurance in hospital.

I refuse to pay taxes for that, let alone more taxes than the lower incomes.

I'm convinced that everybody with an income higher than they need, is willing to help out society with more taxes but why can't they decide where to spend their taxes on?

I suggest you go read a little bit of John Rawl's work especially about the veil of ignorance.

Put simply you are going to 'choose' how your life is going to turn out by picking a random stone from a bag, that stone decides if you are born into a rich family or a poor family, if you have good health or poor health, how smart you are, how good looking you are etc.
Now before you draw that stone you have to decide on a system of Government and general tax and spending policies.

As for

I refuse to pay taxes for that, let alone more taxes than the lower incomes.

so if someone doesn't like you or something about your lifestyle why should they pay taxes to help fund that?

[Dashenka]

Also people get to decide how their taxes are spent on by voting.

Now THAT'S a dreamworld :D


BloodPorcelain,

I think I should have explained the working harder part. I didn't necessarily meant working harder as in physical labour or working hours. It's also the responsibility that gets paid a lot.

For example... a pilot's job, when the airplane is autopilot and everything is well, is the easiest in the world. He sits at the computer and watches the plane fly itself. Yet still, he has the responsibility for everybody and everything aboard that plane. So he 'deserves' more money than let's say, a shop clerk or a city worker. The CEO of a big company 'deserves' more because he has the responsibility (if not shared) over the entire business. These jobs bring a lot more stress than the other jobs I mentioned.

So saying they work harder wasn't really what I meant.

If the system is so that the low income gets help and the middle income earning just a bit more doesn't, thus making it more attractive to stay in the low income, there is something fundamentally wrong with the system AND with the mentality of the people. One law or rule won't change that.

Your tax idea is good and in a way already in place in some countries. I believe that here in the UK, you pay taxes on the products you buy, called VAT (Value Added Tax) although I haven't really dug into how that exactly works but more countries in Europe have that. I know that in the Netherlands you pay 21% tax on products. So the more expensive something is, the higher the tax will be.

As forso if someone doesn't like you or something about your lifestyle why should they pay taxes to help fund that?

Up to a point yes. What I meant is why should I try and stay healthy and still pay for somebody who doesn't give a shit about his/her health?

[Kythia]

Up to a point yes. What I meant is why should I try and stay healthy and still pay for somebody who doesn't give a shit about his/her health?

Because being healthy is better.  Sure, if I'm fat and a heavy smoker and an alcoholic then your taxes are supporting my health through the NHS (sidelining the issue of taxes on those products - in this country nicotine tax almost pays for the NHS so technically I'm supporting you.  But that's a side issue).  But I'm unhealthy.  I have a lower quality of life.  Why should you try and stay healthy when the government will pay for your care if you're not?  Because being healthy is objectively better.  There are many people on E with various health issues, some quite severe.  Ask any of them, your choice, whether they'd want to be rid of the health issue or not even if their care was free.  Of course they would.  You should stay healthy purely because of self interest.

[Dashenka]

Because being healthy is better.  Sure, if I'm fat and a heavy smoker and an alcoholic then your taxes are supporting my health through the NHS (sidelining the issue of taxes on those products - in this country nicotine tax almost pays for the NHS so technically I'm supporting you.  But that's a side issue).  But I'm unhealthy.  I have a lower quality of life.  Why should you try and stay healthy when the government will pay for your care if you're not?  Because being healthy is objectively better.  There are many people on E with various health issues, some quite severe.  Ask any of them, your choice, whether they'd want to be rid of the health issue or not even if their care was free.  Of course they would.  You should stay healthy purely because of self interest.

Oh let me get this straight then. Being unhealthy because of mother nature should be funded and I'll gladly pay taxes to everybody with a medical condition he/she can't do anything about. Hell I'll even pay 70% taxes if that helps those people get better or have a better quality of life. But I refuse to pay for the diabetes treatment if you smoke, don't excercise and eat only junkfood. Or pay for your lung cancer treatmemt if you keep smoking.

Let me ask you this. I like cars and I like driving (too) fast. One a night, bit of rain, bit of fog, I'm doing 90mph over a provincial road, lose control and wrap my 911 around a tree. Should you pay for that?

[Misterme]

Because being healthy is better.  Sure, if I'm fat and a heavy smoker and an alcoholic then your taxes are supporting my health through the NHS (sidelining the issue of taxes on those products - in this country nicotine tax almost pays for the NHS so technically I'm supporting you.  But that's a side issue).  But I'm unhealthy.  I have a lower quality of life.  Why should you try and stay healthy when the government will pay for your care if you're not?  Because being healthy is objectively better.  There are many people on E with various health issues, some quite severe.  Ask any of them, your choice, whether they'd want to be rid of the health issue or not even if their care was free.  Of course they would.  You should stay healthy purely because of self interest.

My wife has been battling an illness for the better part of 8 years that the doctors can not diagnose. I would love to see her live pain free and illness free but at what cost. If it were possible i would take it from her and put it on me. We are not financially well off and dont know if we ever will be. Health insurance isn't cheap by any means. Here is my thinking (not intended to make people upset just my opinion) take some poor hillbilly who has to make is food by farming and hunting who has no money and watch the national debt start going down. Watch the nation start to prosper. Watch the cost of insurance and doctors visit decline. I think its time to stop all the Chicago politics.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

BloodPorcelain,

I think I should have explained the working harder part. I didn't necessarily meant working harder as in physical labour or working hours. It's also the responsibility that gets paid a lot.

For example... a pilot's job, when the airplane is autopilot and everything is well, is the easiest in the world. He sits at the computer and watches the plane fly itself. Yet still, he has the responsibility for everybody and everything aboard that plane. So he 'deserves' more money than let's say, a shop clerk or a city worker. The CEO of a big company 'deserves' more because he has the responsibility (if not shared) over the entire business. These jobs bring a lot more stress than the other jobs I mentioned.

So saying they work harder wasn't really what I meant.

If the system is so that the low income gets help and the middle income earning just a bit more doesn't, thus making it more attractive to stay in the low income, there is something fundamentally wrong with the system AND with the mentality of the people. One law or rule won't change that.

Your tax idea is good and in a way already in place in some countries. I believe that here in the UK, you pay taxes on the products you buy, called VAT (Value Added Tax) although I haven't really dug into how that exactly works but more countries in Europe have that. I know that in the Netherlands you pay 21% tax on products. So the more expensive something is, the higher the tax will be.

A cook in a restaraunt that only makes 8 bucks an hour (more than minimum wage, I'm rounding up just to make it easier) is literally cooking something that will go inside people's bodies. All it takes is one slip up from him and everyone who eats his food gets ill, possibly dies depending on what exactly his fuck up (or wrong headedness if he does it on purpose) is. Statistically, you're more likely to die from some kind of food-bourne illness than you are in a plane, and more people on average will eat in a busy restaraunt in one night than people who will fly on a plane per trip. So exactly what makes the two different aside from the level of schooling involved? Garbage workers drive massive metal trucks around, usually at the ass-crack of dawn shortly after waking up, and are taking the lives of everyone they drive near in to their hands. All it takes is the guy behind the wheel nodding off (fatigued is just as dangerous as drunk driving) and he can take out joggers on the side of the road, a family of four up early to go to the kid's practice/game that's hours away, etc etc. Literally almost every single job out there requires you to take the lives of those around you in to your hands, even if it's not overt, and most lower paying jobs have far more risk associated with them than higher paying, for both the person doing the job and the people around them.

Incidentally, I totally agree that the system is flawed that it shafts the middle class. I AM middle class. I make just enough to not qualify for help anymore, and too little to be able to realistically do much for anything. I'm VERY lucky I qualify for the pell grant, but only because they lifted the cap on it. A couple years ago, I was making too much. It's getting better for the middle class, but it's a slow climb and it's only happening in small places.

Up to a point yes. What I meant is why should I try and stay healthy and still pay for somebody who doesn't give a shit about his/her health?

And who are you to make the call what someone's lifestyle quality should have to be? Why do you get to decide that your health regimine makes you more deserving than someone else's? Who are you to make the call that your money is more important than their life?

Oh let me get this straight then. Being unhealthy because of mother nature should be funded and I'll gladly pay taxes to everybody with a medical condition he/she can't do anything about. Hell I'll even pay 70% taxes if that helps those people get better or have a better quality of life. But I refuse to pay for the diabetes treatment if you smoke, don't excercise and eat only junkfood. Or pay for your lung cancer treatmemt if you keep smoking.

Let me ask you this. I like cars and I like driving (too) fast. One a night, bit of rain, bit of fog, I'm doing 90mph over a provincial road, lose control and wrap my 911 around a tree. Should you pay for that?

Yes. Why? Because it's better to pay for your care and get you back on your feet and working ASAP than to let you suffer and take longer to get better (or potentially never get better) and be a drain on the system for the rest of your life because you can't work and thus can't pay taxes. The fact that you don't understand that making sure that affordable care for everyone is the best option and for the greater good simply baffles me. It's simple economics, and you're trying to make it a matter of you having the right to pass judgement on others.

[Kythia]

Let me ask you this. I like cars and I like driving (too) fast. One a night, bit of rain, bit of fog, I'm doing 90mph over a provincial road, lose control and wrap my 911 around a tree. Should you pay for that?

The alternative, Dashenka, is people dying.  People dying.  I know you realise that but I wanted to make it explicit.  Let's be clear, the majority of cases treated by the NHS aren't caused by the conscious actions of the patients.  So the majority of what tax I pay that goes to the NHS goes to the issues you say you'll have no problem with funding. 

Without going in to my finances too deeply, I pay about three hundred per month income tax.  A fraction of which goes to the NHS, a fraction of which goes to care for the people you don't want to pay for.  According to here roughly 23% of my income tax goes to the NHS.  In my case, £69 per month.  Lets say I could drop it to £59 if I was somehow able to refuse to pay for the types of patients you don't want to pay for.

Your question is "Are you willing to pay a tenner a month for people not to die."  Yes.  Yes I am.

[Dashenka]

The drain I become when I end up in a wheelchair because of my own stupidity is why? Because the government pays for me. The government pays me for being an utter imbecile and driving too fast and because the government is paying, you are paying.

If you stop paying, the government will stop paying (or the other way around) and I will be nobody's drain because I have to work it out myself. I caused it to myself, I'll have to fix it.

Car insurances in Russia are insane because nobody bothers to take driving lessons and they don't care when they crash because the insurance company or the government will pay.

Stop paying for people who are a drain on the economy. Not just you and me, but the government as well. If you wrap your car around a tree because you are drunk YOU fucked up, YOU un-fuck it. Not the government, not the tax payer.

This is a free-pass for everybody to mess up their finances and their health because there's always a bail-out. It's kindergarten on a global level.

[Oniya]

Here is my thinking (not intended to make people upset just my opinion) take some poor hillbilly who has to make is food by farming and hunting who has no money and watch the national debt start going down. Watch the nation start to prosper. Watch the cost of insurance and doctors visit decline. I think its time to stop all the Chicago politics.

Not a new idea, but maybe one that people have lost sight of.

Car insurances in Russia are insane because nobody bothers to take driving lessons and they don't care when they crash because the insurance company or the government will pay.

In America, people who take driving lessons and maintain a clean driving record (no DUIs, accidents, speeding tickets, whatever) pay less on insurance.  Out of pure self-interest - that is, not wanting to spend insane amounts on car insurance - more people take lessons and drive more safely.  You also can't get a license at all without having taken a modicum of instruction, so 'not taking lessons at all' simply isn't an option.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

The drain I become when I end up in a wheelchair because of my own stupidity is why? Because the government pays for me. The government pays me for being an utter imbecile and driving too fast and because the government is paying, you are paying.

If you stop paying, the government will stop paying (or the other way around) and I will be nobody's drain because I have to work it out myself. I caused it to myself, I'll have to fix it.

Car insurances in Russia are insane because nobody bothers to take driving lessons and they don't care when they crash because the insurance company or the government will pay.

Stop paying for people who are a drain on the economy. Not just you and me, but the government as well. If you wrap your car around a tree because you are drunk YOU fucked up, YOU un-fuck it. Not the government, not the tax payer.

This is a free-pass for everybody to mess up their finances and their health because there's always a bail-out. It's kindergarten on a global level.

And now you're basically saying that there should be 0 morals involved in anything and that you only have a right to live if you do things completely perfectly. Survival of the fittest, basically, which is a view that completely puts humanity out the window and leaves no place for it. And it's not just you and your care after your accident that the tax payers have to pay for. We also have to pay for the people you may have hurt, the damage you did to the things you hit provided they were public property, the money the hospitals have to pay to try to make YOU pay your debt to them, etc etc etc. If someone gets in to a position where they can't pay, then they obviously won't. And the rest of us have to keep spending money to offset that problem, even if we don't ever touch the debt itself. Chances are that person goes to their grave never paying their debt. What do you think happens to that money when they die because they're starving because they couldn't work because there was no care system in place to help them get better in order to go back to work? That debt either ends up falling on their family, who had nothing to do with their fuck up, or it falls on the tax payers in the end anyway. Only now it's WAY worse because of interest, extra incurred prices we dealt with trying to make them give us money they didn't have, etc etc. It's fiscally irresponsible to leave people on their own that way.

[Kythia]

The drain I become when I end up in a wheelchair because of my own stupidity is why? Because the government pays for me. The government pays me for being an utter imbecile and driving too fast and because the government is paying, you are paying.

Woah there soldier.  Steady on.  My boss is wheelchair bound and is a productive member of society and a taxpayer.  Lets try not to equate "disabled" with "drain on society" shall we?  We have a blind MP for god's sake.

You had a good job and paid taxes - we know that from the fact you can afford a 911.  After we patch you up, you'll still have a good job and still pay taxes.  Will the taxes gained equal the cost of care in every case?  No, probably not.  I have no idea of the stats in all honesty.  But they will in some, certainly.

Are you suggesting we conduct a ruthless cost benefit analysis of how much tax a patient will pay over their working life vs. the cost of healing them?

[Bloodied Porcelain]

Woah there soldier.  Steady on.  My boss is wheelchair bound and is a productive member of society and a taxpayer.  Lets try not to equate "disabled" with "drain on society" shall we?  We have a blind MP for god's sake.

You had a good job and paid taxes - we know that from the fact you can afford a 911.  After we patch you up, you'll still have a good job and still pay taxes.  Will the taxes gained equal the cost of care in every case?  No, probably not.  I have no idea of the stats in all honesty.  But they will in some, certainly.

Are you suggesting we conduct a ruthless cost benefit analysis of how much tax a patient will pay over their working life vs. the cost of healing them?

Few people will ever completely tap out their insurance and use every penny they pay in toward it. They don't get the money back like you do in grants or things of that nature, it goes in to a fund. That's where the extra money to make up for those who DO basically use it all up comes from.

[Kythia]

Few people will ever completely tap out their insurance and use every penny they pay in toward it. They don't get the money back like you do in grants or things of that nature, it goes in to a fund. That's where the extra money to make up for those who DO basically use it all up comes from.

Well, there you have it.  Our costs of care are orders of magnitude lower than the US's and even over there healing people is normally an economic winner.

Even if "People will die" isn't enough for you (and dear god, why not?), even if you do want to be ruthlessly fiscal about it all - it still makes sense.