Topic: Government shouldn't outlaw Private Insurance and Democrats know that (Read 505 times)

There should never be a monopoly on any product. This includes health insurance. In some ways a government monopoly is even worse than a private corporation monopoly.

If public health insurance is good enough, people should not find any reason to use private plans. Private insurance exists because there is a market for it. People who feel that what the government provides is inadequate should be free to spend their money for a product they want.

It doesn't work that way, a lot of people have became better off by sound investments, with quite low incomes.

Given that you don't even comprehend basic income strata in the USA, I'm hesitant to discuss taxation policy.

I'm just confused what you think the best method for taxing the super wealthy would if taxing the super high income doesn't work and you oppose taxing wealth directly.  If you can't turn high income into high wealth then you are just terribly irresponsible with money or sick enough to benefit from outlawing private health insurance. 

Not at all, I'm just noting that "Super Wealthy" refers to assets, not income.

And no, high income doesn't "should lead to high wealth."

And I'm not advocating for stealing from anyone, that's strictly you, the commie, that is taking from anyone you can slap a label on to justify the taking.

So are you advocating for a direct wealth tax? because under the current tax system, income is the main thing being taxed and income tax purposes was the context of the argument.  Over time, high income should lead to high wealth and that is indeed the correlation.  This could be a cunning way of moving the goalposts though.

I'm cool with you paying for your private doctor.

But the idea that you can join a pool of "privileged" individuals to negotiate with private doctors on your behalf is silly.

If a doctor's not helping save your life, report them to their guild/certification board/license people, duh? The Hippocratic oath is a thing.

I don't think I'd call someone "super wealthy" who was making 1, 2 or 3 million USD per year.

"Super wealthy" would really be an issue of looking at assets rather than yearly income. But for sure, someone with net assets > 100M most people would agree would be "super wealthy." Or even 50M, or 25M. Maybe.

I know people that are making millions per year and save nothing after buying a lot of fancy cars and bling.

I'm not interested in your judgmental, hypocritical comments on people you don't know.

No more than your judgmental, critical attitude in assigning "super wealthy" to people making > 300k a year.

I had not intended for this topic to have gotten out of hand in going off-topic and such, though I'm going to be locking this topic to ensure that the two of you (and others involved) find a dedicated thread for this discussion.

Maybe make a dedicated healthcare thread? Could make things interesting.

Nothing against either one of you guys though.

Edit: Has been unlocked after further discussion

Well your description of these alleged people is unconvincingly vague.  If true, its probably on them then.  I'd say they need to learn how to better manage money.  Either that or they have astronomical healthcare costs.

I know people making >300k who are just getting by. There's no reason to doggedly pursue your claim that they are Super Rich. They're not.

I'm starting to think your goal is just to derail the thread because your alleged gripe with the graphs don't have anything to do with the points that were being made and at this point, you are ignoring most of what I say.  Its like a mercator projection is being used to show the path from Florida to Mexico and you are arguing that I am fooled about the size of Greenland. 


Standard way to make THIS graph as I have demonstrated from multiple sources.

Its just not relevant in this case because that visual impact is actually contrary to my the main arguments pre-derailment.

a. There aren't many people making around 300k
b. 300k is far above "middle income"

The graph you desire to see would actually present both of those points in a more clear way.  You might have a relevant argument point if my original argument was something that matched the visual impact you are describing like " People making 250k+ are one of the largest groups of earners" / "Greenland is one of the largest land bodies" .  Me being unaware to it being used that way would be completely irrelevant unless we were talking about the size of Greenland. That should also give you more insight as to why so many organizations make the same graph the same way.  Its practical.  There just isn't much useful information by splitting all those people out to barely visible bars while making the graph several times bigger AND STILL having to do the same thing to a lesser degree at the newly defined "end".  The one you posted does it at 250 and the one I posted does it at 500.

Context, motive, and relevance are always important aspects of critical thinking
"Who is doing it?" "Why are they doing it?" "Who is it benefiting?" and "How does it apply to this discussion?" are questions you should think about before derailing the thread. 

I never claimed you made the graph. No it is not the "standard" way to make graphs, graphs are literally just pictures in a set scale that can take any form the creator desires. You are ignorant because you don't understand the mechanism used to create more visual impact using a specifically formed graph than the actual number support. There is also no lack of data to do it correctly as you proved immediately after by linking a graph without the manipulated spike by cutting off the upper end and jamming all it into the last bar. Now you are making arguments based on the authority of data collectors? Every statement you make just exposes your ignorance more. The data is fine, the way it is presented is manipulative, and the fact that you don't know how this works as a self proclaimed educator is honestly terrifying.

I know there is no table after $250k, are you now switching positions and arguing my point now so you can claim you were the one right all along? That's pretty pathetic. All you are doing is making excuse after half baked excuse why they couldn't have used an extended chart, and all of it is bullshit. The chart you originally presented was designed to be manipulative and you took the bait hook line and sinker, now you are desperately trying to pretend you didn't because you know it makes you look exceptionally ignorant. Also, I never said anything about "cherry picking" you did. I simply pointed out that you are unaware of how this graph format can be used manipulatively, and there is just no excuse for this as some one who claims to be an educator.

I didn't make the graph and its the standard way of presenting those graphs.  Thats just the way things are. Me being stupid wouldn't change that.  If it doesn't make sense or is dishonest then you're just smarter than everyone who makes these.    It saves spaces AND  the tradeoff is that its not really effective splitting hairs over just how rich the rich people are.  That also has to do with the availability of the data.  Since the data collectors understand this, they don't bother wasting resources trying to track exactly how many people make precise amounts above an amount most people agree on is really high.   So is the entire industry trying to mislead the public in the same way because it is the standard way?  

You can download the census data for yourself.  There is no table after 250k.  They just throw everyone into a total because they all have super high income and the trouble wouldn't be worth the limited application of precision in that data.  

Watch your argument that I cherrypicked a strangely presented graph get vaporized.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44705.pdf
CRS made the graph the same way

US census also made it that way


The BBC used a graph that works the same way


and researchgate



and HMRC



Look at that towering bar on the end! By your logic the British are even more dishonest.

It is very relevant, and I explained why already. Simply declaring it not the case is not an argument. You are the one who came up with the "saving space" horse shit story to make excuses for why the graph could not be extended out, not me. The point is the chart is deceptive in that it looks like all of a sudden there are a huge amount of people that make proportionally way more money by cropping the graph in such a way. The fact that we even need to have this discussion tells me you are either totally incompetent as an educator or quite disingenuous. Perhaps a bit of both?

You are doing some pretty crazy semantic back flips and inversions to try to make this make sense some how. You sourced the graph as part of your argument, now when I am critical of it I am nitpicking. You don't get to present an argument based on a source then cry when I deconstruct it, then call it irrelevant, unless you are arguing your own premise is irrelevant of course. This is all just a bunch of rhetoric and sophistry on your part. You are the verbal and intellectual equivalent of a little mechanical wind up monkey banging cymbals together.

That change is not even relevant in the context of the point.  You haven't thought about a motive for making it look bigger other than saving space.  You talk about critical thinking but never stop to think about why I would want to show a chart that made it look like there were a lot more  of these "poor rich" people than there really are.  What does that change? It makes it look like a smaller chunk of the people making 250k+ are making close to 250k.  But why stop there?  Why not add a 300,000?  350,000? 400,000?  Every chart has to draw the line somewhere or it will just go on forever until it includes the highest earner.  

Remember back to my main point that most earners are making around 60k.  A big peak at 250k+ does not help that point because it makes it look like all of those people are making arbitrarily "250k" when many of them are making several times that much.  The more precise chart actually supports my point that the hypothetical doctor/lawyer making 300k and scraping by in San Francisco is an extreme example and their situation is not representative of the typical person earning that much.  My point needs the bars to appear as small as possible because I am arguing that a system which benefits everyone who makes less than 300k is a system that improves life for the overwhelming majority of Americans. 

In summary, you are angry that I posted a standard graph and not a graph that would have been in even stronger support of my point.  The last post makes me wonder if you even understand what the graphs are showing.  Shorter bars= less people  which means less people would be in the income range of the adverse affects you are worried about from the tax increase. Ie, they can afford it.  Most income distribution graphs are done like the one I originially posted.  I'd say that is the standard.  Pew research has a reputation of not being biased.   Here is another stretched out one for you.  


All of them convey the same point that most earners make a lot less than $300,000 and that that is in fact, on the high end of the distribution.   Theres an infinite number of ways to scale graphs and people who are familiar with the concepts being portrayed are generally able to interpret the visual deficiencies and scale tradeoffs of the graphs.  I guess when you run out of points you can start nitpicking graphs in ways that aren't relative to the argument being made.

It amazes me how densely the ignorance is packed into almost every one of your statements. Graphs can take any form the creator decides. It is called scale. The fact that you have seen so many manipulated charts that purposely scale in such a way to bring the most visual impact regardless of the numbers, and you think that is just how charts work demonstrates to me clearly you have zero awareness of how this is used to manipulate perception.  

https://econographics.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/household-income-distribution.jpg]https://econographics.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/household-income-distribution.jpg]https://econographics.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/household-income-distribution.jpg

Here we show just the next $50,000 increment of earnings up, and oh look at that, suddenly that huge spike on the end is not so imposing is it? Charts are all about scale. Try not to be so impressed by flashy gifs and pretty charts. This is why I always demand sources from you, because you don't have the capability to do this kind of critical examination yourself. This again is terrifying from some one who's claimed profession is that of an educator.

The graphic stops for the simple reason that a scale graphic that went all the way to the top income would be several times wider than the screen. 
Most of them are but that doesn't mean you can't laser focus on the tiny percentage of them who make a lot more than the typical salary to end up over 300k.  No understanding of outliers...

They absolutely can.   San Francisco is the most expensive housing market in the country and there are homes under 1.7M all over the city.  
Never said that.  You just made that up.  Probably changed the second to last word from "any" to "a" which completely changes the statement.  You can't quote someone and change the words around.   Its probably the most dishonest thing you could do.

Well thats the point.  The top 5% are "few" people.  They can save up 170k making 25k per month.  Even if they are frivolous and only save 5k per month, they would have 170k in about 31 months.   Keep in mind providing the entire country with top quality healthcare is only costing them an extra $666 per month. (%4-10,000)

 You just completely ignored the pew research graph I posted to continue the narrative that these people are middle income.  Show me anything that says 300k per year is middle income or that someone in the 95 percentile is in the "middle".  Thats mathematically absurd.