Do you think any new plan provided by the government will not pick and choose what they wish to cover? I think your beef is more with the insurers ability to exclude preexisting conditions. If that practice were banned, would you be less intense about this issue?
Preventing Corruption w/ Gov Controlled Health Care
- Thread starter dreadpirate
- Start date
Do you think any new plan provided by the government will not pick and choose what they wish to cover? I think your beef is more with the insurers ability to exclude preexisting conditions. If that practice were banned, would you be less intense about this issue?
Um, France's universal health care system has been rated #1 in the world. It's our system that leaves people out in the cold because they can't pay, not theirs.
Some anecdotal evidence: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=4647483&page=1
And an in depth analysis: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447687
Basically the French system would be perfect for the US to model itself after.
If a new system practiced cherry-picking then it wouldn't contain one iota of meaningful reform. In order to be considered a universal system it would have to:
- Cover everyone, poor included
- no profit made on basic care
- doctors and hospitals must accept one standard set of fixed prices
My question was pertaining the the intensity only. He was calling people selfish & pompous, and his overall tone was pretty belligerent. I was only asking about the intensity.
1. Cover every single American.
2. Cover everything barring cosmetic surgery.
3. Do so without raising taxes to the breaking point.
Until this standard is met, I will not be any less "intense" on the issue.
I am with you all the way. I would like to check out point #3. We here in California have been taxed to the breaking point. Businesses are leaving and anybody that lives here that makes 50K or more is paying more than 50% to the government in a state where housing is very expensive. We have a state gasoline sales tax, at the pump, charged on a Federal tax that we pay to Washington.... I could go on and on. It really is not to be believed what the working man is paying in California. It is so bad here that even the liberal politicians know they can't raise taxes. They are going to charge "FEES"!
I already buy in Nevada and Oregon and have them freight the stuff to my home.The point that I am making is that there has to be a sane and well though out medical plan or we will become a bankrupt third world country.... think it can not happen, look at California. We have an economy that is about the 8th largest in the world, the entire world, and we are very close to having our bonds being classified as "junk" bonds. That is why many of us are frightened about all this! It is a logical and understandable fear!
Take Care,
Richard
Yup.
Unfortuneately, Waxman and Schumer have essentially written up a small, weak, alternative HMO that is very poorly-funded (has no other source save funds paid into it directly by recipients).
I wish we could fully adopt the French or Italian system, but this current proposal is a joke imo. It's a shame we have such cowardly old democrats in Congress, as the public (both democrat and republican) broadly supports an actual public option (72%) with funding similar to medicare.
Does this mean that you would like the government to cover the Bill Gates and Warren Buffets of our country too? I don't make all that much money, and I paid in over $24k in federal income taxes alone this year. Should people like me get covered too even though I can afford to take care of my own health care and don't want the government to do it? Should I be forced into the system? I mean seriously, you and I both know that taxes will increase dramatically to cover anything that meets your first requirement. Is 50% of income paid in total taxes enough?
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are minorities in this country. They, of course, are entitled to this plan just as much as you and I, if not more, since Bill Gates pays more taxes in one week than you and I combined in a lifetime.
Unfortunately, like all social programs in this country, we can't pick and choose what particular program we can opt out of paying for with our taxes. However, if you have the money to afford your private healthcare then by all means, keep it. I don't agree with American Welfare in general, but I sure as heck can't opt out of paying for it simply because I don't want to take part in it.
And if half your income goes to federal taxes richmodesi, you must be a millionaire, and if that is the case, why are you arguing taxes to me? Even a single man making 400,000 a year is only going to have 35% of his income taxable. By my estimation you would have to be a single man making several million dollars a year before you even stand a chance of paying half your income in taxes. Or, you could live in Massachusetts and have the misfortune of NOT being a Kennedy.
Last edited:
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are minorities in this country. They, of course, are entitled to this plan just as much as you and I, if not more, since Bill Gates pays more taxes in one week than you and I combined in a lifetime.
Unfortunately, like all social programs in this country, we can't pick and choose what particular program we can opt out of paying for with our taxes. However, if you have the money to afford your private healthcare then by all means, keep it. I don't agree with American Welfare in general, but I sure as heck can't opt out of paying for it simply because I don't want to take part in it.
And if half your income goes to federal taxes richmodesi, you must be a millionaire, and if that is the case, why are you arguing taxes to me? Even a single man making 400,000 a year is only going to have 35% of his income taxable. By my estimation you would have to be a single man making several million dollars a year before you even stand a chance of paying half your income in taxes. Or, you could live in Massachusetts and have the misfortune of NOT being a Kennedy.
I didn't say federal income tax was 50%. I said total tax. Figure all your state taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and the taxes that we pay that are built in to prices of everything that we buy... because we both know that big corporations don't "pay" taxes, the consumer pays taxes for them.
EDIT to add: I was a tax accountant before I realized how much I hated it
Last edited:
I didn't say federal income tax was 50%. I said total tax. Figure all your state taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and the taxes that we pay that are built in to prices of everything that we buy... because we both know that big corporations don't "pay" taxes, the consumer pays taxes for them.
EDIT to add: I was a tax accountant before I realized how much I hated it
Ah, I misread your post. I thought you were saying you were in the 50% bracket. If that were the case and you were a multi-millionaire, you should get on your yacht and quit worrying about us "commoners" on B&B.
That brings up something I've often wondered about. Do millionaires frequent B&B? I wonder if there's any hidden celebrities here. (I'm actually Robert DeNiro. I come here to pretend I'm some other guy. It's research for a movie role).
... because we both know that big corporations don't "pay" taxes, the consumer pays taxes for them.
EDIT to add: I was a tax accountant before I realized how much I hated it
I'd promised to myself not to post in this thread again, but I cant let misleading information go unanswered:
The following info comes from the audited financial statementes of a big corporation successfully operating in the US:
Total Revenue: 51.5 Billion
Operating Expenses: 46.5 billion
Operating Profit: 5.0 billion
Income Taxes: 2.0 billion
Operating Expenses: 46.5 billion
Operating Profit: 5.0 billion
Income Taxes: 2.0 billion
Any accountant could figure out that this corporations pays 40% of the Operating Profits in taxes
I guess that corporation wasn't very good at hiding their money. There are plenty of
loopholes and tax shelters for corporations.
The whole idea is a sham doomed to failure. All we don't need is more New Deal-type legislation. As long as demagogues seek to convince "us" (the people) that we need "whatever" and that "they" (the government) can deliver it "take your pick: better, faster, more efficiently" then the market.....a huge red flag should pop up.
Check out George Santayana on this.....
Check out George Santayana on this.....
Your chart is misleading? I live in California and the TOTAL amount that anybody that makes 50K a year to the government state and federal is over 50%. Let us count all the taxes paid. $400 a year for a Chevy for registration, taxes on the phone, taxes on the beer and bottles that it comes in, taxes on the water meter, taxes on the electricity, taxes on the fast food, taxes on whatever these pieces of work can think up! To say that anybody in the US is paying less than 40% taxes is uninformed! When the government takes a dollar from me and puts it in the "GENERAL FUND" that is a tax. I can't not pay it without going to jail and that is a tax my friends.
Later,
Richard
Later,
Richard
Last edited:
What do the multiples of other countries around the world have, that the US apparently lacks, that allows them to provide health care to all of their citizens? This really isn't an "us versus them", a "left versus right", or a "republican versus democrat" issue, and to reduce it to that is completely ridiculous and serves no useful purpose. Maybe I answered my own question. These other countries must have come to this conclusion, stopped being bickering idiots, and ended up doing what was right.
I don't think the chart is misleading, it shows the Federal tax rate. If half your income goes to taxes, your beef should be with California, not the Feds. A single man making 50,000 dollars would only be in the 20% bracket, which means only 20% of your income is even taxable by the feds, which you can bet means that only 10% of it at the most even goes to the Federal government. That would mean that as a single person in California making 50,000 dollars a year paying half your income in taxes, at the MOST you would be paying the Feds 5,000 dollars and the state of California 20,000 dollars. Assuming that your truly do pay half your income to taxes, that's a huge disparagement between state and feds, and is a reason that California is almost bankrupt.
I don't know about the average American paying 40% of his income to taxes being truthful. I know that it's not in my case, and I don't get any tax breaks. I would say that at best, I pay about 20% of my income to taxes. But then again, North Carolina has always had a fairly low tax rate. The devil is in the details, though, and something as simple as a pack of cigarettes can be taxed twelve ways to Sunday.
But all of this is somewhat irrelevant towards the conversation at hand, because we're still talking federal monies now. If the states were to similarly raise their taxes, it would be out of greed and not necessity. Once more, not the fault of the federal government, but by the jackasses at the state level. Again, referencing tobacco, when the SCHIP increase in tobacco tax went into effect to fund "health care" earlier this year, my state similarly increased the tax on cigarettes to fund "education." Well, we're pretty good on our education budget, but when it comes to passing an unpopular law, tax, or idea (like our "Education Lottery"), it always helps to piggyback a similar federal tax increase whether it's warranted or not and claim it's for "the children". It's just a greedy way of doing business, but it all depends on how crooked your state is when it comes to piggybacking Federal taxes. Lots of people gripe at the Feds when, say, the Federal Gasoline tax jumps .003 cents a gallon, but their state and county at the same time enact tax jumps that raise the tax to .03 a gallon. They hear all about the "big wigs in Washington" raising taxes high, but fail to realize that the Federal increase was so insignificant compared to their own state's piggyback tax. Sneaky, sneaky, sneaky.
I agree 100%. Health care should never be a partisan issue, and I don't think it is until people reduce the argument to partisan rhetoric. If you look at many of the countries that enacted such plans, it was due to an overwhelming bi-partisan support.
I dislike the notion that nationalizing health care is "what's right". We stand at the brink of a boondoggle that can dwarf even the idiocy of FDR and his creations. I like this paragraph from "Great Myths of the Great Depression" by Lawrence W. Reed:
"Are you tired of politicians blaming each other, scrambling to cover their behinds and score political points in the midst of a crisis, and piling debts upon debts they audaciously label "stimulus packages"? Why do so many Americans want to trust them with their health care, education, retirement, and a host of other aspects of their lives? It's madness writ large. The antidote is the truth. We must learn the lessons of our follies and resolve to fix them now, not later."
"Are you tired of politicians blaming each other, scrambling to cover their behinds and score political points in the midst of a crisis, and piling debts upon debts they audaciously label "stimulus packages"? Why do so many Americans want to trust them with their health care, education, retirement, and a host of other aspects of their lives? It's madness writ large. The antidote is the truth. We must learn the lessons of our follies and resolve to fix them now, not later."
Similar threads
