I'm going to introduce a certain scenario. A person goes off to an Ivy League university coming from the inner-city projects. He works extremely hard there and lands a very lucrative job upon graduation. He works and he works sacrificing in the hopes of rising to the uppermost ranks of his field. His salary increases and increases and the person lives an increasingly comfortable life. If this person has worked so hard for so long to reach a point where he is CEO, why should our government decide that he must give up more? The man deserves to keep what he has earned. It is unfair for our government to decide that the burden of taxes must be laid upon those who worked the hardest, had the most talent, and ultimately had the skills marketable enough to rise to the top and receive appropriate compensation in a free market economy.
Although the idea of healthcare for all is a just cause, diminishing incentive and taking from those who have toiled greatly to receive large salaries do not deserve to be discriminated and picked out to face extremely high marginal tax rates at the upper brackets of U.S. taxes.
Posts
3 comments:
So, one conversation I find myself having repeatedly involves the differences between Healthcare and Health Insurance. Noted, there are 47 million Americans without proper Health Insurance, but this is not the same as Healthcare, as this entails our diet, health education, exercise, nutritional awareness, etc.
I understand the ongoing debate over health insurance, something that is quite bizare in America because those of us who have health insurance typically have the most comprehensive coverage in the world, but what the reform debate has yet to address is the overall health of the nation. We live in a nation where 67% of Americans (and rising) are obese and many still abuse alcohol and tobacco; and thus more suscepible to costly treatments for diabetes, preventable cancer(s), and heart disease. These, in my opinion, are equally crippling to our nation as the lack of universal insurance. Yet, in true political fashion, if I may be reductionistic for a momeny, our two political parties seems to have simplified the issue of systemic overhall to a debate over a government-run public option. While I may be in favor of the use of a public option to complete universal insurance, specifically for major proceedures, I have to wonder why our legislatures are not even considering addressing these more important factors, which quite obviously, increase the costs of healthcare to a point where real-wages suffer and millions are left without comprehensive coverage.
Let me use myself as a personal example. As you know, just six-months ago I weighed over 300 lbs. and was on my way to being a "health disaster." I already had one bout with cancer and because of my weight, I was surely headed toward heart disease and possible Type-II diabetes. While I have the best health insurance available, I was probably headed toward being a burden to the system by requiring far more in treatment than I had paid for my health coverage. For whatever reason, and notably without monetary incentive from the government, I decided to take accountability for health (for personal reasons of course) and start eating properly and exercising regularly. Now, I am far more likely to be the opposite to the insurance system; a relatively healthy 30-year old who will, God willing, not require more expenses in treatment than I have paid into the system (plus interest!)
My point is this, at the heart of any legislative overhall to the system, shouldn't our lawmaking body be considering the recent success of the "Cash for Clunkers" program? When those on Capitol Hill decided it was "good" to "stimulate" the retail auto industry and also "good" to promote a shift from less to more fuel efficient vehicles, a federally subsidized rebate program was introduced to facilitate an increase in what our lawmakers had deteremined was "good" behavior. The result, unless you're an auto-mechanic or perhaps nostalgic for less fuel-efficient vehicles, was a large success in retail stimulation. Why are these same principals not being tested to achieve the "good" of lowering healthcare costs (really what I mean here is lowering the cost of insurance.)
Take for example the example of a "Cash for Body-Mass" program where overweight patients, under the supervision of their doctors and a nutritionist, are given a sizeable government rebate or tax-credit to lose weight by diet and exercise. Or a "first time Marathon" tax-credit (the play here is obviously on first time home buyers...) where runners who train and complete their first marathon are given, say a $10,000 tax credit. Along these lines, why do our lawmakers think about subsidizing local farmers and encouraging healthy eating based on food as oppossed to food-products (think Michael Pollan).
After all, people respond to incentives, and when the over 250 million Americans who do have health insurance start to live healthier and reduce to expenses of their coverage, I am sure that the remaining 47 million Americans (or their employers, or even the debt-burdened government) would be able to afford similar coverage.
Apologies, there was no spell-check feature, and I can't go back to edit my typos....
Well said T-Money. Creating incentives relating to people's bodies would be a tad more complicated than the Cash for Clunkers program. I know Safeway has created incentives for its employees to lose weight and live healthier lifestyles. Perhaps a similar plan could be instituted on a nationwide basis.
Post a Comment