Citizens Should Work and Pay a Tax to Qualify for Universal Healthcare [SPLIT]

[kallipolis]

It is far less costly to society as a whole to have a population that has access to health services than to have the high costs of episodic crisis intervention and long term chronic disabilities.

Noteworthy....

..pro rata the cost of healthcare in the United States exceeds that of most countries operating national health care systems.

I quote:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddhix...-care-costs-so-high/#2715e4857a0b77bfb4f54f67

The U.S. spent about $7,000 per capita in 2008 on health care. Peer countries, like Japan and the U.K., spend about half that amount and achieve equally good results, as measured, for example, by life expectancy at birth. That comparison is captured in the famous Mary Meeker graph, Chart 1. It shows that the gap is about $3,500 per person in the U.S. ($1.1 trillion for the 305 million U.S. residents).

 

[rareboy]

There has been no serious proposal for a national sales tax, which now is a state tax. Federal sales taxes on tobacco and alcohol are minimal. So far, the democrats propose to pay for any such scheme from the income tax, precisely because so many democrats do not pay the tax. Fewer than 50% of eligible voters pay any federal income tax. Among those who file, 40% pay 106% of the tax. That is because many who file get charity back and pay no tax. The single payer/ socialist scheme is that the entire and expanding burden will fall on a dwindling number of people who pay the income tax. Those who do pay will experience a degrading of their care as the get in line behind the welfare class and care is inevitably rationed. Is there any wonder that the proposed victims of the scheme resist it?

It doesn't have to be national tax, but there's no reason why not.

Americans are being raped by the inefficient health care system it now supports.

Better for everyone to get better value for their dollars and actually spend less by going to pooled single payer systems.

 

[Kabluey]

Re: Moderator Notice

This new title does not reflect my point. Many liberals like to say that health care is a right. But those words are meaningless unless someone else has the obligation to give you free health care.

For some reason the OP never questions the following:

• Everyone has the protection of the police without paying a fee.
• Victims of crimes don't have to pay for their offenders' prison stay.
• House fires and wild fires are extinguished without fees.
• Diseases outbreaks and public health hazards are controlled for all without individual fees charged to those who wish to be protected.
• You can drive on every suburban road across the country without paying a fee.
• You don't have to pay a fee for to be protected from terrorists, illegal immigrants or hostile countries.
• Fans of sports teams don't have to pay the entire cost of their team's stadium.
• Children receive an education without paying the whole cost themselves.
• Public libraries provide books for free.

If you accept these things that are not charged for, including those not attached to specific rights, why is health such a stretch?

You suggestion that rights have to granted is correct... just look at emancipation versus property rights.

 

[Benvolio]

Noteworthy....

..pro rata the cost of healthcare in the United States exceeds that of most countries operating national health care systems.

I quote:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddhix...-care-costs-so-high/#2715e4857a0b77bfb4f54f67

Part of that is the difference in expenditure for medical research. The US spends 44% of the worlds biomedical research expenditure versus 57% a decade ago, during the Bush years.http://www.npr.org/sections/health-...ealth-research-stalls-as-other-nations-rev-up

 

[Benvolio]

Re: Moderator Notice

For some reason the OP never questions the following:

• Everyone has the protection of the police without paying a fee.
• Victims of crimes don't have to pay for their offenders' prison stay.
• House fires and wild fires are extinguished without fees.
• Diseases outbreaks and public health hazards are controlled for all without individual fees charged to those who wish to be protected.
• You can drive on every suburban road across the country without paying a fee.
• You don't have to pay a fee for to be protected from terrorists, illegal immigrants or hostile countries.
• Fans of sports teams don't have to pay the entire cost of their team's stadium.
• Children receive an education without paying the whole cost themselves.
• Public libraries provide books for free.

If you accept these things that are not charged for, including those not attached to specific rights, why is health such a stretch?

You suggestion that rights have to granted is correct... just look at emancipation versus property rights.

You are really suggesting that because those who do pay tax have all these burdens why should they object to the whole burden of giving health care to everyone as well?
My point is that implicit in the concept of a "right" to health care, is an obligation on someone else's part.

 

[kallipolis]

Part of that is the difference in expenditure for medical research. The US spends 44% of the worlds biomedical research expenditure versus 57% a decade ago, during the Bush years.http://www.npr.org/sections/health-...ealth-research-stalls-as-other-nations-rev-up

Were you to research further you would discover that pharmaceutical companies in the UK, Switzerland, and elsewhere also spend huge sums on research into new products, that the relevant national health care systems must pay for, to ensure that those drug companies remain in business. No one here is suggesting that pharmaceutical companies should not make a fair profit.

 

[Kabluey]

Re: Moderator Notice

You are really suggesting that because those who do pay tax have all these burdens why should they object to the whole burden of giving health care to everyone as well?
My point is that implicit in the concept of a "right" to health care, is an obligation on someone else's part.

Likewise your right to freedom is dependent on fellow citizens not enslaving you and claiming you as property.
Why - apart from ideology - do you believe healthcare is somehow different from the above examples?

The burden argument doesn't wash, you're constantly wanting additional policing on things like borders, which come at a cost to taxpayers too. Why are your interests more worthy of other peoples' money than others?

 

[kallipolis]

Re: Moderator Notice

You are really suggesting that because those who do pay tax have all these burdens why should they object to the whole burden of giving health care to everyone as well?
My point is that implicit in the concept of a "right" to health care, is an obligation on someone else's part.

One way, or another everyone pays taxes whether it be a sales tax on food, or drinks, or fuel for cars, or bus, or train, or air tickets. Income tax is just one form of taxation. All government revenues raised through various taxes are used to fund government expenditure.

The parable of The Good Samaritan teaches us that the victim, mugged and lying on the side of the road could be you, or me. The Samaritan not only transported the victim to an inn for treatment, and convalesence...but also paid for the victim's accomodation, and food.

In a just society we all contribute to the common good, according to our means.

 

[Benvolio]

Were you to research further you would discover that pharmaceutical companies in the UK, Switzerland, and elsewhere also spend huge sums on research into new products, that the relevant national health care systems must pay for, to ensure that those drug companies remain in business. No one here is suggesting that pharmaceutical companies should not make a fair profit.

My point is that part of the reason US health care costs are high is the high amount paid for research.

 

[kallipolis]

My point is that part of the reason US health care costs are high is the high amount paid for research.

Countries with national health care systems, also buy pharmaceutical products from drug houses that invest huge sums in research, and development.

Why should United States health care costs be higher, than other countries, when other countries are also obliged to buy medicines from drug houses that incur huge development costs?

 

[Benvolio]

Re: Moderator Notice

One way, or another everyone pays taxes whether it be a sales tax on food, or drinks, or fuel for cars, or bus, or train, or air tickets. Income tax is just one form of taxation. All government revenues raised through various taxes are used to fund government expenditure.

The parable of The Good Samaritan teaches us that the victim, mugged and lying on the side of the road could be you, or me. The Samaritan not only transported the victim to an inn for treatment, and convalesence...but also paid for the victim's accomodation, and food.

In a just society we all contribute to the common good, according to our means.

In the US the states have their own taxes and the Federal government its. The Federal government has the income tax, which supports most things, and it borrows trillions with no intention to repay. There is no federal food sales tax.the fuel tax goes to highways, air fare tax to air enforcement. Alcohol and tobacco to enforcement. 47% of people get some form of welfare. More get charity in the form of a credit/cash when they file their income return.
The net result of this is that only a minority of people pay any NET federal tax i.e. in excess of freebies they get back. Any universal health care would have to be federal, and ALL the expense would be born by a shrinking percent of the population; the same people who already pay all the federal income tax. Any system which started differently would soon be amended by the democrats to target the same victims.

 

[kallipolis]

It matters not which government agency, state, or federal collects taxes...for state, and federal expenditure is financed through various taxes collected either at sales source for a product, or service provided. The end result is that taxation finances government expenditure.

How a country finances its health care system, is its affair. The UK health care model is replicated here in Greece. I am well aware that the German national health care system may well be a much more attractive model for the United States to emulate.

I am certain that the United States can construct a national health care system that takes into consideration its particular needs, by consulting with those countries that operate a variety of universal health care systems.

 

[rareboy]

It is a constant mystery that the Benvolio's of the world, who sincerely believe the US to be the fastest, smartest and most innovative nation in the history of the planet, seem to think that it is utterly incapable of solving universal access to health services for all citizens while even many of the most 'backward' countries seem to have figured it out quite nicely.

 

[Benvolio]

It is a constant mystery that the Benvolio's of the world, who sincerely believe the US to be the fastest, smartest and most innovative nation in the history of the planet, seem to think that it is utterly incapable of solving universal access to health services for all citizens while even many of the most 'backward' countries seem to have figured it out quite nicely.

Yes of course we can, but the democrats will insist that it be paid entirely by the dwindling minority of people who even now pay all the income tax. For them it will be a degradation of medical care. Beyond that, socialist/single payer medicine will lack the ability to innovate that we now have. That cannot be fixed by government spending and more bureaucracy. It will be better for the welfare class, and some with huge expenditures.

 

[Willie Boy]

I am certain that the United States can construct a national health care system that takes into consideration its particular needs, by consulting with those countries that operate a variety of universal health care systems.

The question is not a matter of capability, but a matter of desirability..... The US government will NOT construct a national healthcare system simply because, despite the benefits to so many citizens, it would bite them in the asses..... Or more precisely their wallets. They get so much lobby money from the big drug companies to keep the system as is that they will not change it. Politicians are not about what is best for the Nation, but what puts the most money in their own pockets. Granted, there are some who are not corrupt, but they are precious few and far between.

 

[T-Rexx]

It is a constant mystery that the Benvolio's of the world, who sincerely believe the US to be the fastest, smartest and most innovative nation in the history of the planet, seem to think that it is utterly incapable of solving universal access to health services for all citizens while even many of the most 'backward' countries seem to have figured it out quite nicely.

The modern American Republican does not believe the USA is capable of doing much.

We can't do healthcare. We can't reduce carbon emissions. We can't repair our infrastructure. We can't build automobiles. We can't do green energy. We can't allow gays to marry.

Can't, can't, can't, can't, can't. Everything is impossible. We are the most incapable nation in history.

 

[T-Rexx]

The question is not a matter of capability, but a matter of desirability..... The US government will NOT construct a national healthcare system simply because, despite the benefits to so many citizens, it would bite them in the asses..... Or more precisely their wallets. They get so much lobby money from the big drug companies to keep the system as is that they will not change it. Politicians are not about what is best for the Nation, but what puts the most money in their own pockets. Granted, there are some who are not corrupt, but they are precious few and far between.

National health care would reduce our expenses on healthcare by at least HALF, while nevertheless extending coverage to every citizen for every disease, while improving disease outcomes.

The problem for Republicans is that a national healthcare system would save the USA too much money, and save too many lives.

 

[frankfrank]

^ Yes, it might even save the lives of mud-people, and people who might *GASP* vote Democrat.

i would gladly shell out some good money to go back in time, and fix the system so that I WOULD BE HEAVILY TAXED FOR A NATIONAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. In comparison between the U. S., and heavy-tax countries where health care is a right, I feel I would be at least $30,000 ahead under one of those systems. I was paying close to $10,000 a year for health insurance toward the "end" (i.e. until I reached Medicare age), often not using it AT ALL in some of the years because I only had a policy for two years which even paid for ANY routine clinic visits, routine tests, or prescriptions. I have probably paid $50,000 out of my own pocket over the years for NON-covered care, and I've gotten off FORTUNATE because, with one exception, I've had exceptionally good health.

In the global financial juggernaut that the U. S. would be (even more than it is now), because its population would actually be much healthier because of not postponing care until it becomes an emergency, I would probably also be getting a more robust demand for my merchandise. My customers in Europe, Japan, etc. have always been more able to buy, in general - with my one-third who are overseas spending somewhat more than the two-thirds who reside in the U.S. Both of these ratios have been remarkably consistent over the past more-than-thirty years.

Americans are not, for those who believe in American Exceptionalism, living as long as they should. If "America is so exceptional," people shouldn't be living ONLY as long as those in Hungary or Uruguay. (I don't know the statistics, but "we" are NOT exceptional on life spans.) No, those who believe in the concept of American Exceptionalism, to the degree that they may also shout "USA! USA! USA!" at rallies etc., usually want the USA to fail.

 

[frankfrank]

Fucking EDIT was completely lost by the damned Captcha thing that came up, where I had to confirm I wasn't a bot. I don't usually "save" my edit before I post, there usually isn't any reason to. After I did the Captcha thing, I ended up with a BLANK jub page, literally nothing at all on it, with no way to get back to what I had added.

i was going to add that my estimates of being tens-of-thousands "behind the game" because of the inferior pay-as-you-go health care that exists in the U. S. (and, often, huge gaping holes left by what insurance will not cover), would be even more dire if not for me generally being unusually healthy over my lifetime. When I had my left kidney removed in 2003 (because of cancer), my biggest worry was that, if there was a diagnosis which required extremely pricey follow-up treatment, the insurance company would merely renege on their CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS and refuse to pay for anything. I was more worried about that than the cancer, because it would have been the failure to pay for anything, more than the cancer itself, that would have killed me. (In other words, the Death Panels do exist, but they aren't the same thing that Sarah Palin later said they were...Death Panels were the insurance companies.) Indeed it took more than FIVE MONTHS for them to pay anything, and my huge bills were on the verge of going to Collection agency, which would have added THOUSANDS of dollars to it.

Worrying about NOTHING being paid on a bill of Tens Of Thousands, by an insurance company that was already getting $7,000 (or may have been $6,000 - that WAS a while ago, 2003) a year from me for such protection, is NOT the chief worry that somebody should have. In Canada, my entire bill would have been $0. Instead, even after the insurance paid, and they excluded virtually everything outside the hospital and some of the stuff inside and there was the co-pay etc., I still had to shell out $14,000 I think it was.

I was worried that the insurance would say that the insurance was being rescinded, with nothing covered, because I *DARED* to get cancer. Under the old system, that would have made it impossible, ever again, to have insurance...unless I could hold on for NINE MORE YEARS to get Medicare. "Rescission" of insurance was a relatively common thing that was going on back in those days, too, but it was not being talked about...at all. I've known people who got fucked over that way by insurance companies who cancelled coverage completely by canceling the contracts. JUST GO AND DIE, MOTHERFUCKER, WE'RE CANCELING YOUR ASS.

 

[TX-Beau]

I don't know why y'all are arguing with Benvolio about how to fund universal healthcare. The problem is that he doesn't think that certain people he dislikes should get any healthcare at all - they don't deserve it. So of course his panties bunch when you say that we all should pay for everyone together, the method of payment is utter moot, the problem is that he thinks certain people should just crawl off and die.

There it is.