It is time to resurrect the large American tradition of the tax revolt. Why? Because our biomedical industry is stealing from the bad and giving to the rich.
Contemplate the following analogy. Imagine you are stranded on a remote island with a group of fellow survivors of a shipwreck. After a few weeks of lying around eating coconuts, you determine to do something. You organize a simple government. It starts democratically. Everyone shares the tasks as well as the benefits of various civic projects: a sanitation pit, a garden, a cooking fire, and so on.
At some point, the island government decides by favorite vote to invent a ship. Everyone is assessed taxes in the create of labor. Each individual contributes the skills he or she has to offer– cutting trees, carpentry, nautical compose, or miscellaneous manual labor. The government of your island, like the government of the United States, has evolved from providing basic necessities to funding gigantic public works.
Now imagine that the island council decrees that only those with a positive minimum amount of wealth in bank accounts succor home will be allowed on board the ship when it sails for civilization. Furthermore, there will be minute hope of rescue for those who remain unhurried.
Those left tedious on the island are analogous to those Americans who work and pay taxes but cannot afford health insurance. These working awful (and those who are denied coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions) are being denied the benefits of biomedical research, even though a indispensable part of their taxes is weak to fund biomedical research. The National Institute of Health (NIH) is benefiting from a edifying Congress– even the Republicans want to give it more money. The NIH budget has increased from fair under $11 billion in 1993 to almost $16 billion in 1999. Meanwhile 44 million Americans lack health insurance. This means that about half the nation’s low-wage workers are without coverage. Impartial like the terrible castaways on our socially stratified island, a grand number of Americans are paying for something that benefits a group from which they are excluded.
The uninsured should succor health care reform by resorting to a time-honored American tradition and starting a tax revolt, refusing to pay for biomedical research that does not attend them. Deducting money from their income taxes, they could manufacture a nonprofit organization that would lobby for health care reform. They could deduct from their taxes an amount that is equivalent to the percentage of the tax revenues spent by the federal government on biomedical research, and establish this money in escrow. The IRS would object, but this would only give the campaign more publicity.
My absorb mother, who lives in northern Minnesota (a dwelling known for its salubrious health benefits), is one of the potential tax rebels (despite her placid temperament). In 1980 she contracted hepatitis-c from a blood transfusion during an operation. The government did not yet camouflage the blood supply for the virus, and thousands of people were infected. She survived the infection, but the virus level-headed resides in her liver. Nobody will insure her for anything less than an exorbitant premium. She is a small-business owner and contributes a blooming amount of tax money to the federal government. Even though the NIH spends increasing amounts of her tax money on research projects– some of them are directly related to hepatitis-c– my mother cannot afford treatments that might support ward off a life-threatening illness. But if she stopped paying her fragment of the NIH pie and do that money in a high-yield money market anecdote, she’d have a do of self-insurance when she needs it.
To situation it simply, uninsured awful are dying because they can’t afford medical care. One must query the ethical principles of a wealthy society that does not care for the health of a whole class of its people. The society becomes even more unethical by forcing the uninsured class to fund the research leading to the next round of cures for the insured class.
Yes, everyone pays for things they don’t succor from. That’s how taxes work (and in fact a major conservative complaint is that the tax system redistributes wealth). But our original system of medical insurance redistributes wealth from those who cannot afford a visit to the doctor to those who already can. This is a regressive redistribution; it goes against the American ideal of fairness.
Reflect about it this procedure. Even if I don’t drive a car, I’m forced to fund the building and maintenance of roads and highways- but at least I serve from the distribution of goods that this infrastructure allows. The uninsured cannot resolve to become insured by a simple act of will. They’re tied to their unmarketable bodies and are thus slice off from the potential benefits of biomedical research. If you have a pre-existing condition, you can be fairly obvious that the insurance companies are sharing your medical records and effectively forming a cartel of non-access. Thus, taxing the uninsured to further medical research takes from their already little ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
Henry David Thoreau once went on a six-year tax revolt, in dispute of the war against Mexico, which he believed to be unjust. His arrest and one-night halt in jail led to the writing of the essay “Civil Disobedience.” It may be that our war on disease in research labs at every major university is also an unjust war; not unjust because of who the victims are (germs and microbes), but because of who does not benefit– mainly children and women living in poverty who lack basic medical care. The working abominable need state-subsidized insurance, not the shrimp solace of reading about the latest genetic manipulations of sheep funded by their tax dollars. Nor will the health of the awful be improved by unique treatments for the diseases of those who, because of lives lived with continual access to medical care, are fortunate enough to live so long.
Of course, forcing health insurance companies and HMOs to disregard a person’s medical history, however well-intentioned, may not always be an unmitigated good; it amounts to a redistribution of wealth from the healthy to the sick. We should therefore be forthright about our desire to care for the sick and the awful by instituting a system of subsidized health insurance for those who need it. The ship’s hull needs to be enlarged so that all the inhabitants of the republic can site cruise toward superb health. Then the debate over the details can launch.
It is time to resurrect the tremendous American tradition of the tax revolt. Why? Because our biomedical industry is stealing from the awful and giving to the rich.
Assume the following analogy. Imagine you are stranded on a remote island with a group of fellow survivors of a shipwreck. After a few weeks of lying around eating coconuts, you determine to do something. You organize a simple government. It starts democratically. Everyone shares the tasks as well as the benefits of various civic projects: a sanitation pit, a garden, a cooking fire, and so on.
At some point, the island government decides by accepted vote to earn a ship. Everyone is assessed taxes in the create of labor. Each individual contributes the skills he or she has to offer– cutting trees, carpentry, nautical earn, or miscellaneous manual labor. The government of your island, like the government of the United States, has evolved from providing basic necessities to funding tall public works.
Now imagine that the island council decrees that only those with a obvious minimum amount of wealth in bank accounts aid home will be allowed on board the ship when it sails for civilization. Furthermore, there will be petite hope of rescue for those who remain slack.
Those left leisurely on the island are analogous to those Americans who work and pay taxes but cannot afford health insurance. These working dreadful (and those who are denied coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions) are being denied the benefits of biomedical research, even though a notable section of their taxes is conventional to fund biomedical research. The National Institute of Health (NIH) is benefiting from a favorable Congress– even the Republicans want to give it more money. The NIH budget has increased from impartial under $11 billion in 1993 to almost $16 billion in 1999. Meanwhile 44 million Americans lack health insurance. This means that about half the nation’s low-wage workers are without coverage. Honest like the awful castaways on our socially stratified island, a grand number of Americans are paying for something that benefits a group from which they are excluded.
The uninsured should aid health care reform by resorting to a time-honored American tradition and starting a tax revolt, refusing to pay for biomedical research that does not wait on them. Deducting money from their income taxes, they could design a nonprofit organization that would lobby for health care reform. They could deduct from their taxes an amount that is equivalent to the percentage of the tax revenues spent by the federal government on biomedical research, and establish this money in escrow. The IRS would object, but this would only give the campaign more publicity.
My contain mother, who lives in northern Minnesota (a residence known for its edifying health benefits), is one of the potential tax rebels (despite her placid temperament). In 1980 she contracted hepatitis-c from a blood transfusion during an operation. The government did not yet mask the blood supply for the virus, and thousands of people were infected. She survived the infection, but the virus level-headed resides in her liver. Nobody will insure her for anything less than an exorbitant premium. She is a small-business owner and contributes a exquisite amount of tax money to the federal government. Even though the NIH spends increasing amounts of her tax money on research projects– some of them are directly related to hepatitis-c– my mother cannot afford treatments that might benefit ward off a life-threatening illness. But if she stopped paying her fragment of the NIH pie and save that money in a high-yield money market epic, she’d have a do of self-insurance when she needs it.
To situation it simply, uninsured unpleasant are dying because they can’t afford medical care. One must expect the ethical principles of a wealthy society that does not care for the health of a whole class of its people. The society becomes even more unethical by forcing the uninsured class to fund the research leading to the next round of cures for the insured class.
Yes, everyone pays for things they don’t succor from. That’s how taxes work (and in fact a major conservative complaint is that the tax system redistributes wealth). But our recent system of medical insurance redistributes wealth from those who cannot afford a visit to the doctor to those who already can. This is a regressive redistribution; it goes against the American ideal of fairness.
Assume about it this arrangement. Even if I don’t drive a car, I’m forced to fund the building and maintenance of roads and highways- but at least I encourage from the distribution of goods that this infrastructure allows. The uninsured cannot decide to become insured by a simple act of will. They’re tied to their unmarketable bodies and are thus nick off from the potential benefits of biomedical research. If you have a pre-existing condition, you can be fairly obvious that the insurance companies are sharing your medical records and effectively forming a cartel of non-access. Thus, taxing the uninsured to further medical research takes from their already itsy-bitsy ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
Henry David Thoreau once went on a six-year tax revolt, in reveal of the war against Mexico, which he believed to be unjust. His arrest and one-night stop in jail led to the writing of the essay “Civil Disobedience.” It may be that our war on disease in research labs at every major university is also an unjust war; not unjust because of who the victims are (germs and microbes), but because of who does not benefit– mainly children and women living in poverty who lack basic medical care. The working dreadful need state-subsidized insurance, not the puny solace of reading about the latest genetic manipulations of sheep funded by their tax dollars. Nor will the health of the dreadful be improved by unique treatments for the diseases of those who, because of lives lived with continual access to medical care, are fortunate enough to live so long.
Of course, forcing health insurance companies and HMOs to disregard a person’s medical history, however well-intentioned, may not always be an unmitigated good; it amounts to a redistribution of wealth from the healthy to the sick. We should therefore be forthright about our desire to care for the sick and the abominable by instituting a system of subsidized health insurance for those who need it. The ship’s hull needs to be enlarged so that all the inhabitants of the republic can station glide toward obedient health. Then the debate over the details can open.
