Universal Health Care Reform in the United States

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janvanvurpa

On the things I bother to take issue with, yes.
It IS within the realm of human experience that a great many people my be significantly better read than you, and possibly have a BROADER viewpoint than your patently rah! Rah! America's No.1 line that you tirelessly and constantly push.
I have, after all, been listening to people tell a similar simplistic stories about US History for 50+ years, and oddly, the stories keep getting simpler and simpler and simpler which is odd now that we speak to a world wide readership now and info is so much easier to find. It would seem that one may have re-thought some of the simple " 'merica best, everybody else sucks" stories which are now the essential story behind all stories here.

You lot NEVER respond to a single point EVER, never engage in any give and take and you 'turn around' things and act as if you are the victims of some unprovoked 'attack' when all you are getting is exactly what you give.

Why are you surprised when somebody presents a strong opinion----and backs it up with references to things well known?

By the way, you and Footsie and Chuckies totally disregarding and brushing aside any and all opinions differing from your truly odd and slanted views is one is the reasons why the public became fed up with the previous Administration and the corrupt gang of crooks infesting the Republican Party.

Notice the last election results?
That's what happens when people think of clowns who dismiss all discourse and only fire dud broadsides.

That's why I asked the delicate Foutinitio who he was presuming to speak for when he said "WE"..
Simple question really, too bad he can't answer it.

---

First off your rambling discourses often require about 3 readings for me to discover a point of argument I can identify and respond to.

Secondly, you keep advocating public healthcare options to someone who HAS PUBLIC HEALTHCARE, who has 4 nurses in the family (Mother, aunt, 2 cousins) who have dealt with public healthcare and live in a country where the nationalized public healthcare system is either a source of pride or concern. I have pointed out more than once that the system does have its advantages, But I think it is the wrong time and choice for Americans. For you to try to stand there on your ivory tower and lecture me how superior my system is ludricious. I know the cost I pay in every pay check where there is a large sum of my money going to the Provincial government to fund it. I know there is a waiting list for procedures any schmuck in Buffalo could get by Tuesday for stuff like knee replacements, Isotopic Cancer treatments. Hell, we used to have to wait months for MRI's. Don't tell me how public healthcare is going to make things better in the US. I know that many politicians of all stripes in this country have tried to improve and truly make out system work and they have all failed to a degree. The US economy is teetering on the edge and you have idiots like Nancy Pelosi promising public healthcare for all at no extra cost. Only a naive fool would believe that, no matter how much he wants public healthcare.

Furthermore, you continue to insult where you think my opinions come from without knowing who I am, or where I put this opinion to gether. That's fine. Do what you want, I am not going to cry over it, but you do realize of course what a pompous argument you are giving at times.

As for the last US Administration, well they certainly wet the bed for John McCain, I wont quibble that. Perception of the public will turn or approve of any politician, but it is usually historians 100 years hence that are able to accurately judge the actions of any leader. Dubya isn't going to make any list of best Presidents, but he isn't the boob many think he is either. As for the current man in the White House, the jury is out, but this maddening rush to provide public healthcare for all in the US that Obama keeps trying to sneak in is proof positive the man is on his way to be a one term President. A majority of Americans when shown the truth about public healthcare are saying no.

Musings.

The biggest problem with healthcare is the cost of the stuff. I can see no reason why healthcare goods and services should carry the price tag that they do. I'm sure we are all familiar with the aspirin tablet that, after being sent through the hospital system, shows up on the bill at anything from $1 to $10.00 per tablet. Thats hard to justify but not much different from the way large businesses do business. I worked for a company that expanded our amount of personal desks in the shop. Because of their ordering procedures, the chairs came in last, behind the desks by 3 weeks. We figured, after everything, that the company had paid $500.00 each for 6 chairs that we could have bought at Wal Mart for 69.95 at any time.

The healthcare battle is also being obscured and muddied by the terminology being used. Although the term healthcare insurance is being used, healthcare assurance is what is wanted. Healthcare insurance does not address the fact that basic healthcare itself is too expensive. I think a lot of services and minor surgeries should be priced where people can afford them out of pocket or spread out over 1-2 years. What many have in mind, but are not saying out loud, is a program of health assurance where anybody can walk in and expect at no cost to themselves anything from a band-aid to a liver transplant. Thats going to cost a lot of money. Tax money. Therein lies the rub. People that pay taxes now and provide their own health insurance, do not want to pay the medical bills of the worthless also.

What many folks from out of town don't understand is how many people in this country actually little or no income taxes. Because of our progressive tax system, many people get the taxes back at the end of the year that they paid in during the year. In addition, there is a boatload of exemptions, credits, and deductions on all manner of taxes that reduce taxes across the spectrum. In general, the poorer you are, the less likely you are to pay taxes.

The solution is simple. An across the board, no exemptions, no deductions, 25 percent Federal income tax on any and all income. Interest income, dividend income, employment income, government benefit income, Social Securitity income. If you find a dollar on the street, you owe the feds a quarter of it. Got a winning lottery ticket or have a good night at the casino?...The feds get 25 percent of it at the time of payout. Getting food stamps?...you either pay the feds 25 percent of the cash value of the card or have 25 percent of the card's cash value deducted from it.

Item #2, a 20 percent federal sales tax on everything bought, sold, or traded.

Once you get everybody, rich and poor, proportionally jacked by the government, they won't mind socialized healthcare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janvanvurpa

By the way, you and Footsie and Chuckies totally disregarding and brushing aside any and all opinions differing from your truly odd and slanted views is one is the reasons why the public became fed up with the previous Administration and the corrupt gang of crooks infesting the Republican Party.

---

You do a lot, and I mean a LOT of brushing others opinions aside. So look in a mirror first my friend.

You want to talk about crooks and corruption now. We're only a few months into the new admin, and there sure seems to be a bunch of corruption and collusion going on. But that's just the "Chicago Way" right? I don't understand it, right? I'm too stupid, right? I'm not well read enough, right? I haven't lived enough places, right? Therefore my opinion doesn't count, right?

Mirror, mirror on the wall ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

Musings.

The biggest problem with healthcare is the cost of the stuff. I can see no reason why healthcare goods and services should carry the price tag that they do. I'm sure we are all familiar with the aspirin tablet that, after being sent through the hospital system, shows up on the bill at anything from $1 to $10.00 per tablet. Thats hard to justify but not much different from the way large businesses do business. I worked for a company that expanded our amount of personal desks in the shop. Because of their ordering procedures, the chairs came in last, behind the desks by 3 weeks. We figured, after everything, that the company had paid $500.00 each for 6 chairs that we could have bought at Wal Mart for 69.95 at any time.

The healthcare battle is also being obscured and muddied by the terminology being used. Although the term healthcare insurance is being used, healthcare assurance is what is wanted. Healthcare insurance does not address the fact that basic healthcare itself is too expensive. I think a lot of services and minor surgeries should be priced where people can afford them out of pocket or spread out over 1-2 years. What many have in mind, but are not saying out loud, is a program of health assurance where anybody can walk in and expect at no cost to themselves anything from a band-aid to a liver transplant. Thats going to cost a lot of money. Tax money. Therein lies the rub. People that pay taxes now and provide their own health insurance, do not want to pay the medical bills of the worthless also.

What many folks from out of town don't understand is how many people in this country actually little or no income taxes. Because of our progressive tax system, many people get the taxes back at the end of the year that they paid in during the year. In addition, there is a boatload of exemptions, credits, and deductions on all manner of taxes that reduce taxes across the spectrum. In general, the poorer you are, the less likely you are to pay taxes.

The solution is simple. An across the board, no exemptions, no deductions, 25 percent Federal income tax on any and all income. Interest income, dividend income, employment income, government benefit income, Social Securitity income. If you find a dollar on the street, you owe the feds a quarter of it. Got a winning lottery ticket or have a good night at the casino?...The feds get 25 percent of it at the time of payout. Getting food stamps?...you either pay the feds 25 percent of the cash value of the card or have 25 percent of the card's cash value deducted from it.

Item #2, a 20 percent federal sales tax on everything bought, sold, or traded.

Once you get everybody, rich and poor, proportionally jacked by the government, they won't mind socialized healthcare.

---

Flat tax system works for me. Other than the lottery and casino winning tax I am all for it.

I pay 33 % of every pay to various taxes and pensions, and I am not wealthy by any stretch. I may get back maybe 4% of that in a rebate. So a 25% flat tax for me would be a 4% cut in taxes for me.....bring it on...oh wait a minute...I am in Canada..lol..someone would mess THAT up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

What many folks from out of town don't understand is how many people in this country actually little or no income taxes. Because of our progressive tax system, many people get the taxes back at the end of the year that they paid in during the year. In addition, there is a boatload of exemptions, credits, and deductions on all manner of taxes that reduce taxes across the spectrum. In general, the poorer you are, the less likely you are to pay taxes.

The solution is simple. An across the board, no exemptions, no deductions, 25 percent Federal income tax on any and all income. Interest income, dividend income, employment income, government benefit income, Social Securitity income. If you find a dollar on the street, you owe the feds a quarter of it. Got a winning lottery ticket or have a good night at the casino?...The feds get 25 percent of it at the time of payout. Getting food stamps?...you either pay the feds 25 percent of the cash value of the card or have 25 percent of the card's cash value deducted from it.

Item #2, a 20 percent federal sales tax on everything bought, sold, or traded.

Once you get everybody, rich and poor, proportionally jacked by the government, they won't mind socialized healthcare.

---

It's worse than that really. Quite a few people get back taxes they never paid. In reality it's welfare by means of "taxation".

If we used a flat tax, or consumption rather than income taxes, I'd bet we could get the rate even lower than 25%. Personally I'd prefer all taxes be based on consumption taxes because nobody can cheat. Even the illegal money gets spent. ;)


And to me, the tax system in this country is enough evidence that they would completely screw up health care. No thanks, I'll get my own insurance or pay my own bill. I'd rather not pay an additional $2500 in taxes to get $1000 worth or coverage and provide another $1500 in coverage for those that sit on their butts.



And all of you should know by now to ignore Janvan. His tin foil hat often wears thin at months end.

The "Medicare Levy" in Australia is a 1.5% tax payable by everyone except the poorest and most vulnerable in society (ie the unemployed, pensioner and war widows and veterans).

For all visits to a GP and most non-elective hospital stays the Medicare system in Australia more than pays for all of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

If we used a flat tax, or consumption rather than income taxes, I'd bet we could get the rate even lower than 25%. Personally I'd prefer all taxes be based on consumption taxes because nobody can cheat. Even the illegal money gets spent. ;)

---

I really hate consumption taxes in principle, because the burden of the tax invariably falls on poorer people, who aren't able to command higher wages or save money in the first place.

Assume for me if you will that we have 4 people, all earning Ÿ30,000, Ÿ40,000, Ÿ60,000 & Ÿ100,000. What's a Ÿ? Well, in economic theory books, I is usually reserved for Interest so Y is the symbol for Income, or in this case Yncome.

If a weekly budget includes Ÿ250 in rent, Ÿ50 in petrol, Ÿ30 in electric bills, Ÿ10 in water bills, Ÿ10 in services rates and Ÿ100 in groceries then all up that would be Ÿ450/week or Ÿ23,400 a year. At a 10% Consumption Tax that works out to be Ÿ2340 in tax.

But we'd also have to assume that as people's income increases, then obviously they can spend more right? Well almost, but not quite. For as people's income does go up, although they might buy nicer things, their absolute capability of buying stuff stops at some point. No-one for instance can fill their car with petrol anymore than full (of course they can obviously buy a bigger car with a bigger fuel tank etc etc etc). No-one can buy more groceries than they can fit in their house.

So instead of Ÿ23,400 being spent for each of our four consumers, they might in fact be only able to spend Ÿ23,400, Ÿ24,440, Ÿ24,960, Ÿ26,000 and therefore pay Ÿ2340, Ÿ2440, Ÿ2496 and Ÿ2600 in GST respectively. Or if you will...

Ÿ30,000 = tax Ÿ2340 = 7.8%
Ÿ40,000 = tax Ÿ2440 = 6.1%
Ÿ60,000 = tax Ÿ2496 = 4.1%
Ÿ100,000 = tax Ÿ2600 = 2.6%

Obviously I'm making assumptions all over the place here but as an illustration it works well enough.

The question is "Is this equitable?" "Is it fair?". Quite frankly, I don't think that it is. Especially considering that in the majority of cases, people's wages are not determined by them; in fact the poorer a person is, the less power that they have to determine their wage. The inverse of this is also true, in that if you give poorer people extra cash in the form of a stimulus payment, the more likely they are to spend it, simply because they need to survive (hence the reason why poor people around the world got given StimPak, Rudd Cash etc)

In essence, to increase a consumption tax from 10% to 25% as possibly suggested means that the tax becomes more regressive and therefore falls even harder on poor people:

@10% Consumption Tax

Ÿ30,000 = tax Ÿ2340 = 7.8%
Ÿ40,000 = tax Ÿ2440 = 6.1%
Ÿ60,000 = tax Ÿ2496 = 4.1%
Ÿ100,000 = tax Ÿ2600 = 2.6%

@25% Consumption Tax

Ÿ30,000 = tax Ÿ5850 = 19.5%
Ÿ40,000 = tax Ÿ6100 = 15.25%
Ÿ60,000 = tax Ÿ6240 = 10.4%
Ÿ100,000 = tax Ÿ6500 = 6.5%

The burden is still three times harder on poor people than on the rich at a rate of 25% than at 10% but what this doesn't tell you is that the total amount of money that they have at the end of the year is even tighter than it was before. It decreases from Ÿ4260 to only Ÿ750, and the poorer you are the more hurtful that is.

A Consumption Tax also taxes people in retirement who have been diligent in saving their money their whole life. Such people in a lot of cases aren't saving anymore but dissaving and therefore the actual effective taxation rate could be infinite because they're still paying tax despite not having an income.

Rollo,

Though I've seen such examples and agree, I didn't give any details of consumption taxes as I would like to see them.

Such taxes could easily be set up with varying levels of taxation based on needs vs wants vs luxuries. Though it sounds difficult my state already does this to a lesser level with state taxes, with certain basic food items taxed at a lower rate. The same could be done with real estate, vehicles and just about anything they wanted.

I agree it's next to impossible to figure out any system that is always fair and equitable, but that's also the case when you base taxes solely on income. And personally I think once you help people above a certain point, you must give them incentive to do better or many will chose not to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janvanvurpa

On the things I bother to take issue with, yes.
It IS within the realm of human experience that a great many people my be significantly better read than you, and possibly have a BROADER viewpoint than your patently rah! Rah! America's No.1 line that you tirelessly and constantly push.
I have, after all, been listening to people tell a similar simplistic stories about US History for 50+ years, and oddly, the stories keep getting simpler and simpler and simpler which is odd now that we speak to a world wide readership now and info is so much easier to find. It would seem that one may have re-thought some of the simple " 'merica best, everybody else sucks" stories which are now the essential story behind all stories here.

You lot NEVER respond to a single point EVER, never engage in any give and take and you 'turn around' things and act as if you are the victims of some unprovoked 'attack' when all you are getting is exactly what you give.

Why are you surprised when somebody presents a strong opinion----and backs it up with references to things well known?

By the way, you and Footsie and Chuckies totally disregarding and brushing aside any and all opinions differing from your truly odd and slanted views is one is the reasons why the public became fed up with the previous Administration and the corrupt gang of crooks infesting the Republican Party.

Notice the last election results?
That's what happens when people think of clowns who dismiss all discourse and only fire dud broadsides.

That's why I asked the delicate Foutinitio who he was presuming to speak for when he said "WE"..
Simple question really, too bad he can't answer it.

---

interesting read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

I really hate consumption taxes in principle, because the burden of the tax invariably falls on poorer people, who aren't able to command higher wages or save money in the first place.

Assume for me if you will that we have 4 people, all earning Ÿ30,000, Ÿ40,000, Ÿ60,000 & Ÿ100,000. What's a Ÿ? Well, in economic theory books, I is usually reserved for Interest so Y is the symbol for Income, or in this case Yncome.

If a weekly budget includes Ÿ250 in rent, Ÿ50 in petrol, Ÿ30 in electric bills, Ÿ10 in water bills, Ÿ10 in services rates and Ÿ100 in groceries then all up that would be Ÿ450/week or Ÿ23,400 a year. At a 10% Consumption Tax that works out to be Ÿ2340 in tax.

But we'd also have to assume that as people's income increases, then obviously they can spend more right? Well almost, but not quite. For as people's income does go up, although they might buy nicer things, their absolute capability of buying stuff stops at some point. No-one for instance can fill their car with petrol anymore than full (of course they can obviously buy a bigger car with a bigger fuel tank etc etc etc). No-one can buy more groceries than they can fit in their house.

So instead of Ÿ23,400 being spent for each of our four consumers, they might in fact be only able to spend Ÿ23,400, Ÿ24,440, Ÿ24,960, Ÿ26,000 and therefore pay Ÿ2340, Ÿ2440, Ÿ2496 and Ÿ2600 in GST respectively. Or if you will...

Ÿ30,000 = tax Ÿ2340 = 7.8%
Ÿ40,000 = tax Ÿ2440 = 6.1%
Ÿ60,000 = tax Ÿ2496 = 4.1%
Ÿ100,000 = tax Ÿ2600 = 2.6%

Obviously I'm making assumptions all over the place here but as an illustration it works well enough.

The question is "Is this equitable?" "Is it fair?". Quite frankly, I don't think that it is. Especially considering that in the majority of cases, people's wages are not determined by them; in fact the poorer a person is, the less power that they have to determine their wage. The inverse of this is also true, in that if you give poorer people extra cash in the form of a stimulus payment, the more likely they are to spend it, simply because they need to survive (hence the reason why poor people around the world got given StimPak, Rudd Cash etc)

In essence, to increase a consumption tax from 10% to 25% as possibly suggested means that the tax becomes more regressive and therefore falls even harder on poor people:

@10% Consumption Tax

Ÿ30,000 = tax Ÿ2340 = 7.8%
Ÿ40,000 = tax Ÿ2440 = 6.1%
Ÿ60,000 = tax Ÿ2496 = 4.1%
Ÿ100,000 = tax Ÿ2600 = 2.6%

@25% Consumption Tax

Ÿ30,000 = tax Ÿ5850 = 19.5%
Ÿ40,000 = tax Ÿ6100 = 15.25%
Ÿ60,000 = tax Ÿ6240 = 10.4%
Ÿ100,000 = tax Ÿ6500 = 6.5%

The burden is still three times harder on poor people than on the rich at a rate of 25% than at 10% but what this doesn't tell you is that the total amount of money that they have at the end of the year is even tighter than it was before. It decreases from Ÿ4260 to only Ÿ750, and the poorer you are the more hurtful that is.

A Consumption Tax also taxes people in retirement who have been diligent in saving their money their whole life. Such people in a lot of cases aren't saving anymore but dissaving and therefore the actual effective taxation rate could be infinite because they're still paying tax despite not having an income.

---

Good points all. I just know what you are prescribing is a graduated scale where the poor would pay less proportionatly. The issue becomes tho politicians messing with it to the point where half the US population is paying no income tax and the upper 5% is paying over 30%. What is more, if the rich decide they don't like being the golden egg and take their money offshore or themselves offshore with it, it really hurts in general revenue.

The flat tax IS unfair in the sense that under current payments and wages, the poor would be in a pickle. Where it of course would have to change is if everyone was paying a 20% flat tax, the lower wage scales would have to come up. However, since employers would likely be paying LESS tax over all, they likely could afford to raise wages. What is more, people wont work for wages they cannot justify. No one will work for minimum wage if they can get unemployment benefits or welfare paying more. This alone drives the businesses not paying enough to raise their rates to get people. What is more, to get quality people, you cannot pay minimum wage and expect to keep them.

The flat tax has many people NOT likeing it from the proponents for the poor like Rollo, or some of the rich but I think in the end, once society adapted to a form of this, revenue from the population at large in the form of income tax would be far more reliable. What is more, it would eliminate the costly and stupid exercise of doging the tax man in the tax forms every year, not mention the tax prep firms. THEY are against this to be sure.

Of course tho, it wont happen for that reason......

That, and the poltiticians would still find a way to mess it up. It is the reason I suppose we are having this thread. Should gov't be trusted to look after your healthcare needs when it messes up so many other tasks that it could do much easier?