It is time to resurrect the broad American tradition of the tax revolt. Why? Because our biomedical industry is stealing from the unpleasant and giving to the rich.
Judge 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 approved vote to construct a ship. Everyone is assessed taxes in the build of labor. Each individual contributes the skills he or she has to offer– cutting trees, carpentry, nautical obtain, or miscellaneous manual labor. The government of your island, like the government of the United States, has evolved from providing basic necessities to funding great public works.
Now imagine that the island council decrees that only those with a determined minimum amount of wealth in bank accounts serve home will be allowed on board the ship when it sails for civilization. Furthermore, there will be shrimp hope of rescue for those who remain tedious.
Those left late on the island are analogous to those Americans who work and pay taxes but cannot afford health insurance. These working bad (and those who are denied coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions) are being denied the benefits of biomedical research, even though a principal fragment of their taxes is broken-down to fund biomedical research. The National Institute of Health (NIH) is benefiting from a noble 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. Fair like the bad castaways on our socially stratified island, a vast number of Americans are paying for something that benefits a group from which they are excluded.
The uninsured should attend 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 aid them. Deducting money from their income taxes, they could acquire 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 build this money in escrow. The IRS would object, but this would only give the campaign more publicity.
My possess mother, who lives in northern Minnesota (a situation known for its friendly 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 shroud the blood supply for the virus, and thousands of people were infected. She survived the infection, but the virus tranquil resides in her liver. Nobody will insure her for anything less than an exorbitant premium. She is a small-business owner and contributes a radiant 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 succor ward off a life-threatening illness. But if she stopped paying her section of the NIH pie and assign that money in a high-yield money market anecdote, she’d have a construct of self-insurance when she needs it.
To location it simply, uninsured awful are dying because they can’t afford medical care. One must demand 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 novel 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.
Deem 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 abet 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 shrimp ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
Henry David Thoreau once went on a six-year tax revolt, in command of the war against Mexico, which he believed to be unjust. His arrest and one-night end 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 shrimp solace of reading about the latest genetic manipulations of sheep funded by their tax dollars. Nor will the health of the unpleasant be improved by fresh 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 plot wing toward helpful health. Then the debate over the details can launch.
It is time to resurrect the huge American tradition of the tax revolt. Why? Because our biomedical industry is stealing from the unpleasant and giving to the rich.
Judge 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 choose 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 approved vote to perform a ship. Everyone is assessed taxes in the design of labor. Each individual contributes the skills he or she has to offer– cutting trees, carpentry, nautical construct, or miscellaneous manual labor. The government of your island, like the government of the United States, has evolved from providing basic necessities to funding expansive public works.
Now imagine that the island council decrees that only those with a definite minimum amount of wealth in bank accounts benefit home will be allowed on board the ship when it sails for civilization. Furthermore, there will be itsy-bitsy hope of rescue for those who remain slow.
Those left leisurely on the island are analogous to those Americans who work and pay taxes but cannot afford health insurance. These working terrible (and those who are denied coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions) are being denied the benefits of biomedical research, even though a distinguished part of their taxes is mature 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 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. Unprejudiced like the dreadful castaways on our socially stratified island, a titanic number of Americans are paying for something that benefits a group from which they are excluded.
The uninsured should help 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 earn 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 achieve this money in escrow. The IRS would object, but this would only give the campaign more publicity.
My bear mother, who lives in northern Minnesota (a residence known for its helpful 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 veil the blood supply for the virus, and thousands of people were infected. She survived the infection, but the virus collected resides in her liver. Nobody will insure her for anything less than an exorbitant premium. She is a small-business owner and contributes a glorious 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 section of the NIH pie and effect that money in a high-yield money market epic, she’d have a develop of self-insurance when she needs it.
To place it simply, uninsured unpleasant are dying because they can’t afford medical care. One must request 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 attend from. That’s how taxes work (and in fact a major conservative complaint is that the tax system redistributes wealth). But our unique 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 plan. 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 back from the distribution of goods that this infrastructure allows. The uninsured cannot determine to become insured by a simple act of will. They’re tied to their unmarketable bodies and are thus slash off from the potential benefits of biomedical research. If you have a pre-existing condition, you can be fairly determined 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 insist of the war against Mexico, which he believed to be unjust. His arrest and one-night quit 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 unpleasant 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 abominable be improved by modern 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 unpleasant 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 flee toward honorable health. Then the debate over the details can originate.
