Are the $Richest on Earth under-$taxed? See what the $Billionaires said about it:

[Borg Refinery]

But you are indeed advocating a position when you say this:

I think it's important to bear in mind, "free" healthcare for everyone might seem a panacea. It is not. And worst case scenario, it may, particularly over millennia, substantially degrade the human race.
I think that's an error we should not make lightly.

Would you have deemed Stephen Hawking to be unworthy of birth had you known he would develop ALS later in life? Doctors can routinely detect these things now.

There are even gene editing options available now, there also cures for previously incurable conditions, there are also ways of improving intelligence too. You would deny all these people the chance of life? How humane.

BTW, Stephen Hawking actually warned against gene editing to create this sort of nightmare world:

[..] Hawking described an apocalyptic scenario should genetic engineering favor people who could afford to make themselves smarter, more disease resistant, and likely to live longer.

That's the kind of awful things your advocacy leads to in the future, IMHO.

 

[Shiftless2]

selection is already standard practice. "Troubled pregnancies" such as spina bifida, anencephaly, many etceteras are included among reasons for pregnancy termination.

And those are good and valid reasons. The alternative (bringing the pregnancy term) is hardly an option. I've always wondered how someone could knowingly do that to a child.

 

[sear]

But you are indeed advocating a position when you say this:

"I think it's important to bear in mind, "free" healthcare for everyone might seem a panacea. It is not." s #20

It may seem so. CERTAINLY I have an opinion. But I can argue both sides. And I don't have huge passion on it. The Human race will not, cannot survive cosmic heat death, and thus will expire by then, if not countless eons before that.

And those are good and valid reasons. The alternative (bringing the pregnancy term) is hardly an option. I've always wondered how someone could knowingly do that to a child.

But the more focused (central) point here is, we're tinkering substantially with the criteria of who procreates. Seems to me we should at very least open our eyes before we leap from the precipice of no return, into the abyss of Uh Oh ! A contaminated gene-pool is a bell that's very difficult to un-ring. That's how we get to hard-core eugenics.

PS BR #21
Genetic engineering:
We may not exactly be at the dawn of genetic engineering. Natural selection has been at it. It the big deal about sexual reproduction. But CRISPR and more seems to hold stupendous promise, including being able to cure genetic diseases. I'm not completely certain our wisdom has kept pace with our skyrocketing abilities.

 

[Borg Refinery]

And those are good and valid reasons. The alternative (bringing the pregnancy term) is hardly an option. I've always wondered how someone could knowingly do that to a child.

So you advocate killing disabled children?

I know many people with things as you describe and could not imagine killing them just because they are not perfect. How do you kniow they won't cure those conditions somewhere along the line in the future? New treatments are being developed all the time.

In the past, babies were terminated for even more trivial reasons. I think it's wrong. I don't agree with extremist republicans on the whole no exceptions anti-abortion laws crap, but I do think disablist stuff when it comes to terminating babies is pretty unsavoury.

You'd deny life to children such as this -

Her spina bifida may be curable one day. There already extremely effective treatments, but you'd just want to abort her because she's not perfect? Awful IMHO.

 

[Borg Refinery]

The language here is pretty Nazi-like - a 'contaminated gene pool', it just sounds Nazi I'm afraid.

The idea of selective breeding is pretty disgusting and probably the dream of people like Elon Musks of the world. Yuk.

 

[sear]

BR #24

So you advocate killing disabled children?

Do you deny the distinction between terminating the pregnancy, vs waiting until they complete their Master's Degree before dragging them out behind the barn, smashing them with a shovel, and burying them in a shallow grave?

BR:
I cannot speak for disabled children. BUT !! I have sibs. If I had a severe congenital abnormality detected early in pregnancy, would I have preferred that my mother abort me, so that my younger sib would thrive healthy? Certainly.
That's not mere speculative rhetoric. I volunteered for U.S. military service in time of War. I hadn't intended to trash my own life profitlessly. But but I thought the Cold War was worth winning. And I'd have considered it a worthwhile investment to die for a cause like that, if in so doing we preserved the democratic republic I swore to defend.
If I'd do that for complete strangers, you think I wouldn't do the same for a healthy younger brother or sister? OF COURSE I would !

The language here is pretty Nazi-like - a 'contaminated gene pool', it just sounds Nazi I'm afraid.

I wouldn't allow semantics to snow you. That's what it is. It's already happening.

The idea of selective breeding is pretty disgusting

But it's been going on for millennia.
For the most part we choose our mate. There are exceptions. But in the 3rd millennium it's quite common. And however distasteful, is throwing open the flood-gates really that much better?

 

[Borg Refinery]

What flood-gates?

Do you realise you're denying life to people who could become the next Stephen Hawking? And you're prioritizing people who could be the next Donald Trump; yes that's right, his family probably all had Very Stable Genius IQs and were blonde and blue eyed perfect Aryan PERFEKT VOLK who were so wunderbar and amazing.

How did that turn out?

How do you know that the most severely disabled child, one who could theoretically be blind, deaf and dumb and who presented a threat to the life of the twin they're being born with - how do you know that we won't eventually develop some technology to allow them to communicate with the outside world; that they won't go on to develop cures for cancer in the future using the new sensory perceptions they've gained by way of new technologies we can use to communicate to them with?

THIS is my point. You can't know - you can't play God like that - Look at history and all the people who have tried to play God.

NEVER play God or you end up going down the path of Pol Pot, Hitler etc, it leads to very dark places indeed. The problem with playing devil's advocate too much is you can end up embracing evil - 'act as if and youll be as if' as my old Dad would say. There is a lot of truth in that.

There is a fair balance here, if one twin will be born in constant agony and will likely die anyway shortly after birth and will kill the other twin by way of being born, then that is different, of course there are HUMANE limits when it comes to pregnancies, but aborting children purely because of disabilities unless there are exceptional circumstances such as that is just wrong IMHO, you guys are saying to abort htem because they are born with spina bifida because they're imperfect and you only want perfect children?

Well perfection is an illusion and the most imperfect people have served our planet in ways others could only have dreamt of, time to open your minds.

 

[sear]

THIS is my point. You can't know - you can't play God like that - Look at history and all the people who have tried to play God.

NEVER play God or you end up going down the path of Pol Pot, Hitler etc,

BR #27
You're vehemently responding to only half the equation. "Playing god" means artificially altering the outcome. My counterpoint to you is, we are already altering the outcome wholesale, on nationwide if not continent wide basis.
I'm willing to attribute the best of intentions. BUT !! The road to Hell is PAVED with good intentions.

The point BR, for most of Earth history, millennia before man, but including man up until we developed the capacity to alter course, breeding status was awarded (by god) on basis of meritocracy. Socialized medicine destroys that.

you guys are saying to abort htem because they are born with spina bifida because they're imperfect and you only want perfect childrenI suspect you understand this BR, but:

"Precision & clarity in the use of language leads to precision & clarity of thought. All thought is is a conversation with yourself." G. Gordon Liddy

"abort htem because they are born with spina bifida" #27

You know. But for clarity:
- if they're aborted, they're not born, &
- if they're born, abortion is no longer an option in that case.

It's probably best to not conflate socialized medicine with terminating troubled pregnancies. They're not the same.

"perfection is an illusion" BR

In this context it may seem to be. My summer-school teacher told our class: even if you only want to get by, even if you're willing to settle for a C grade, strive for an A grade. You may learn more, and at worst you may get a better grade.

PS
Pol Pot killed lots of people, out some nutty notion, political ambition perhaps. Likening Pol Pot to a pregnant woman with a severely deformed fetus is akin to likening lightning, & the lightning bug.

You and I agree BR. These are not decisions that should be made casually. But while we fiddle, Rome burns. Socialized medicine alters the course of evolution.

 

[Borg Refinery]

Socialised medicine has saved countless lives of people with high IQ s that would otherwise be dead right now, which is the first counter to your point that renders it DOA.

Secondly, you knew exactly what I meant even if my post was awfully worded re abortion and birth, you knew that I meant that if drs detected spina bifida in a foetus, the parents might selectively abort thus killing a disabled child - one who had a chance at someday being cured or even if not cured, living a fulfilling life.

Being pedantic rarely wins people over to your point of view.

We've had socialised medicine in other forms in old societies where the medicine man or local healer would heal anyone, it just isn't as we know it today. If we had the cures we have today back then then we'd have a similar form of socialised medicine back then.

 

[Borg Refinery]

You're still confusing assets (wealth) and income.

If someone owns a million dollars in stock and the value appreciates to two million that's not income. It's not income until it's sold and they realize that gain. Until then it's just paper. And if you were to somehow tax that increase in value (without them selling the stock) where are they going to get the money to pay the tax?

Or something a little more mundane. The original purchase price of a 1960 Corvette was $3,900. Today that same car is worth about $100,000. Suppose you're fortunate enough to own one of those things - should you be taxed on the $96,000 increase in value or shouldn't you pay taxes on that gain until you sell the car?

Or you bought your house for $200,000 and today it's worth $500,000. That's an increase in your net worth (i.e., wealth) but it's not income. If you had to pay tax on that $300,000 increase in value without selling the house, where are you going to get the money to pay those taxes?

And what makes you think that these individuals and companies are ripping off the American people? After all, not all of them are American. And not all of them live in the US.

But back to tax payable - regardless of where the "money" is located, Americans are still required to pay US income tax on any income earned. All that it being in a tax haven (whatever you mean by that) means is that it's not taxed by the tax haven - it does not mean that it's exempt from US taxes.

And if someone lives in (and is a citizen of) a so called tax haven and is doing business there, why should the US have any right to their income and why should the US think it has a right to force that country to change their tax laws to correspond with the US's.

What makes me think that companies like Facebook and rich individuals like Bezos are ripping off the US?

Hmm... let me think..

 

[sear]

Socialised medicine has saved countless lives of people with high IQ s that would otherwise be dead right now, which is the first counter to your point that renders it DOA.

No. It does not, for two reasons.

a) MY argument is that socialized medicine CHANGES the tributaries to the gene pool. You are agreeing. The difference is, you are declaring the change an improvement. AND IT INDEED MAY BE !!! BUT !!
Not necessarily.

b) Do you have any persuasive statistic that indicates the desirability of the gene pool feed is improved by socialized medicine? Your assertion is that it's different, that "Socialised medicine has saved countless lives of people with high IQ s". Indeed so. BUT !!
Does it do so preferentially?

Or are you simply failing to mention that it also EQUALLY saved countless lives of people with low IQ s?

You have conspicuous passion on this BR. And if you'll indulge an argument vector tilt, you're making the human compassion argument. Splendid. Good on you.

But you can't have it both ways, both that it's a change, and that it only does good. IF socialized medicine is extended to the population uniformly then it will promote survival among geniuses and imbeciles alike.

 

[Borg Refinery]

It's easy enough for me to counter your point with the same: how do you know it has saved the lives of people with mostly low IQs ie imbeciles? You keep labouring this point - but there's no proof for it whatsoever; you put it forward first and I simply countered it by suggesting that it may in fact be improving the gene pool.

Do you see my point? If 50% of the population have a below-average IQ then that would indicate it's probably about 50/50. And therefore, you can't say socialised medicine makes things better or worse, as you simply have no proof either way.

That hasn't stopped you proffering an opinion on it regardless and asserting it as fact.

 

[sear]

It's easy enough for me to counter your point with the same: how do you know it has saved the lives of people with mostly low IQs ie imbeciles? You keep labouring this point

Wrong.
a) YOU keep making the point. I merely refute it. I'll stop refuting it when you stop repeating it.
b) YOU mention only the "high IQs". My repeated counter is: it CHANGES the criteria. I don't recall you ever refuting that. Thus my point is made, and not refuted.

"Do you see my point? If 50% of the population have a below-average IQ then that would indicate it's probably about 50/50." BR

I thought I'd made that clear: "Or are you simply failing to mention that it also EQUALLY saved countless lives of people with low IQ s?" s #31

It CHANGES the criteria.
We can hope it improves it. BUT !! In my subjective opinion the fate of the human race is too valuable to wager upon ignorantly.

 

[Borg Refinery]

[..] In my subjective opinion the fate of the human race is too valuable to wager upon ignorantly.

So you have no proof for your premise in the first place yet accuse me of wagering 'ignorantly' upon something that already exists..?

 

[sear]

So you have no proof for your premise in the first place yet accuse me of wagering 'ignorantly' upon something that already exists..?

"So you have no proof"
I consider proof unnecessary. Water is wet. Can I prove it? One of two things is true:
- either socialized medicine CHANGES the human gene pool, - or -
- it doesn't.
If it doesn't, what's the justification for squandering such a high %GDP on it?

"So you have no proof"
I consider it an absolute statistical certitude. Figure it out. If ONE 5 year old child dies for lack of healthcare, that child's genetic contribution ends. If that ONE 5 year old is kept alive to breed, the human gene pool is DIFFERENT. Can YOU prove it isn't?

"yet accuse me of wagering 'ignorantly'" BR #34
a) I don't recall accusing YOU.
b) I wasn't aware YOU are responsible for socialized medicine in the U.K.
- if you are, then indeed I did indirectly accuse you.
- if you are not, then you are blameless for the policy, REGARDLESS of what you advocate.

 

[Borg Refinery]

You suggested it negatively impacts the human gene pool yet offer no proof for your hypothesis. I suggested that 49% of the population have below-average IQ and we already know that IQ isn't even correlated with a whole range of disabilities anyway? You can be heavily disabled and still be extremely intelligent, and this is what it comes down to for you right - intelligence is your measure of whether someone is worthy of living?

 

[sear]

BR #36
The engine of evolution is adversity. Stealthier lions make swifter more agile gazelles.

"You suggested it negatively impacts the human gene pool yet offer no proof for your hypothesis." BR

You inferred what I implied. It needn't be stated. Indeed it needn't be proven in this thread. My direct assertion is that it is "DIFFERENT" [s #35]. BUT !!
You are correct that the change is likely to be detrimental. Dr. Carl Sagan outlines the fossil evidence for this in his Pulitzer Prize winning book The Dragons of Eden. I've forgotten the name but I remember the principle. During great adversity (ice age?) the cranial volume of proto-humans skyrocketed. We may infer from this that survival in that era was so difficult, it was the more intelligent* ones that survived to breed.
We even see this adversity engine at work in things like aviation. WWII for example saw rapid development in aircraft technology, the jet engine for example.

"and we already know that IQ isn't even correlated with a whole range of disabilities anyway?" BR

And thus it is wrong of you to confine your total impact analysis to IQ?

"and this is what it comes down to for you right - intelligence is your measure of whether someone is worthy of living?" BR

Again you make this transcendent error. I am not yet Emperor of the Cosmos. When my promotion is finalized I'll let you know.

My oft' repeated point: socialized medicine CHANGES the criterion by which we are evolving. Specifically: the change in healthcare availability alters adversity. You continue to demand proof. I wouldn't waste my time. I consider it too obvious.

YOU can guess at whether that change is good, bad, or indifferent. So can I.
But one thing we can not legitimately do is assert that over the millennia it can have zero affect. We CAN speculate on whether that change will be good, or bad. I would severely like to avoid that, beyond this simple observation: modern society complicates this enormously. A few millennia ago, the blink of an eye in biological evolutionary terms, human evolution was more like it is among the other animals. Survival traits were simpler: physical strength, good eyesight, etc. The qualities that make for a superior Systems Analyst may not have been that useful a few thousand years ago. Today not only can it get you a home in a nicer, safer neighborhood, and a car more likely to survive a severe auto-crash. But with the advent of $money, it may also help get your daughter into Harvard, thus paving the way for evolutionary advantage for generations to come.
ALL of this has changed the adversity profile that evolves us. I'm not advocating bulldozing all the $cash on Earth into a big pile and setting it alight.

Instead I call attention to the change, with the addendum that socialized medicine is cause for consideration, if not concern. That is entirely different from advocating eugenics.

* Incidentally Sagan goes on to say, we are made of star stuff, thus in a sense "we are a way for the cosmos to know itself."
Miss you Carl.

 

[Borg Refinery]

Well, implicit in your reply is an admission that it's complex and difficult and more importantly, unquantifiable, we don't know whether it's good or bad, you also talk about burning pileso f cash on earth (presumably to fund socialised medicine) but I put it to you that it's more costly to run healthcare the American way, look at any graph on google to back my point and compare it to the cost (for the taxpayer!) compared to Euro medicine? It costs more - and more people can't work because they can't get the treatment they need for their illnesses, thus costing more also their opportunities wrt work are more limited etc. It costs more and reduces opportunities and probably lowers intelligence (untreated patients who could otherwise have a normal life /normal brain function if their illnesses were being properly treated) to have non-socialised medical systems such as in America.

The American system is a travesty. I see no reason to want any country to emulate that system.

 

[sear]

Well, implicit in your reply is an admission that it's complex and difficult and more importantly, unquantifiable,

My apologies.
If that is the case I will make it explicit. It's complex and difficult and more importantly, unquantifiable.

we don't know whether it's good or bad

I believe I've asserted that. "YOU can guess at whether that change is good, bad, or indifferent. So can I." s #37

BUT !!
It's exceedingly likely to have negative affect. It's likely to have net negative affect. Why? Because adversity is the engine of evolution. More specifically: the SPECIFIC adversity promotes specific survival traits (evolutionary advantage in that adversity). For example, an ice age may favor those that endure cold well.
We see adaptive human evolution in examples such as skin tone. Humans are imagined to have begun in or near equatorial regions. There they needed dark skin to protect them from the equatorial sun, to prevent malignant melanoma. BUT !! Too much melanin in Sweden would prevent the human body from obtaining the Vitamin D needed for vital body functions including maintaining a strong skeleton, and generally in being able to metabolize Calcium, an essential nutrient. Thus far Northerners lost melanin, and even developed blonde hair (lack of dark hair pigment) and blue eyes.

we don't know whether it's good or bad

You're welcome to harbor the opinion that it's not a certitude, that it might not be bad. Generously I'd suspect that's wishful thinking. Wild guess: you like socialized medicine.

but I put it to you that it's more costly to run healthcare the American way

It hadn't occurred to me there was any question about that. Certainly correct. BUT !!
That has no bearing on socialized medicine altering evolution. If your intended point is: we save some money, so dealing a perpetual severe blow to the human race is an acceptable price to pay,
I will acknowledge yours as a subjective and largely unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[Borg Refinery]

I've given you plenty of objective reasons why it (the US system of medicine) is bad and actually has the potential to stymie people and prevent healthcare being rendered, thus reducing people's opportunities and indirectly (or even directly) their intelligence as well by way of NOT treating disabilities from their onset, you completely skipped those points.

Even without socialised medicine, people would still be born unwell/with disabilities etc, people lived to just 30 in the 19th century in many cases as their lives were severely shortened: do you think a better upbringing would have increased their intelligence from an earlier age? What about heritability and thinking about the lives their parents led? If their parents were malnourished/badly off/untreated medical conditions, how does this affect the children they give birth to?

You don't factor any of this in.