Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What free stuff is there from invading other nations.. I looked around but didnt see any..
The wars....they must be free as we aren't paying for them. Maybe it's free mental health for yourself as you somehow feel safer with us creating bigger and bigger messes.
Quote:
Since when? You see what you want to see, but that doesnt make it the truth.. Show me where I've advocated trillion dollar deficits, for anything, let alone wars.. I'll wait
I don't see you advocating tax increases to pay for them. Are you now doing that? How do you propose we start paying for these wars?
Quote:
His way of paying for it is ridiculous, it doesnt add up mathmatically.. We spend over $3 trillion a year on healthcare.. raising taxes 3% on the "richest" americans, dont come close.
That isn't what he is proposing. All the same, even if he was I would support going in debt to pay for health care here as opposed to blowing things up and having to pay to fix them over there.
DEFICIT DILEMMA
-
When American government spends more by borrowing, it is violating the “will of the people.” Obviously, if the people wished to pay more taxes, they’d vote accordingly.
However, by allowing deficit spending (greater debt) the voters are passing on even higher taxes to the future.
But pursuant to Title 12 USC Sec. 411, the only way to authorize more “dollar bills” is for the Congress to increase the debt - for whatever reason.
-
Oh, right. I forgot. Americans are dumber than [insert favorite snark here].
-
Agreed, there is somethign wrong with it, but nationalizing it and making it free, wont reduce the demand.
No, but nationalizing it and eliminating the parasitic middle men (insurance companies) will drastically reduce the cost. Not that this will ever happen....
It's nothing like the ACA. The Swiss system puts the people first. The ACA puts the pharmaceutical and insurance industry first.
I disagree there, but we both agree that long-term health outcome is a much better measure of a health program than the quarterly profits of Big Pharma.
I'm not the least bit interested in whether someone thinks it is communist or not.
Agreed, there is somethign wrong with it, but nationalizing it and making it free, wont reduce the demand.
And making sure everyone has easy access to basic health care might in fact reduce demand - it's a proven fact that healthy people are less likely to submit large insurance claims.
I'm curious why posters in this thread feel that under a single payer system they would pay more in taxes than they would save in private insurance premiums every year. Has there been any studies about this?
I'm curious why posters in this thread feel that under a single payer system they would pay more in taxes than they would save in private insurance premiums every year. Has there been any studies about this?
I've addressed that before.....I pay around $500 a month and my employer pays more than that. So my taxes go up but I no longer pay the $500. My employer has a ton freed up. I imagine taxes will hit them also and I could argue that some of their savings could equate to a higher wage for me. Would they do that? I don't know but I get a yearly bonus based upon profits (and other things) so even if they don't pass it down in wages it would reflect in the end of year bonus.
I'm curious why posters in this thread feel that under a single payer system they would pay more in taxes than they would save in private insurance premiums every year. Has there been any studies about this?
It's not a difficult equation.
Current annual salary x 8.4% tax increase (2.2% personal and 6.2% payroll tax which comes from employee's total compensation) - cost of current annual premium, copays and Rx's = higher annual cost for lesser quality policy.
For our family that will be about $6,000.00 more per year over what we're paying in 2016. Which is already 15% more than what we paid in 2015.
When is enough enough? Should middle class Americans be required to lower their standard of living in order for poorer Americans to enjoy a better one?
Current annual salary x 8.4% tax increase (2.2% personal and 6.2% payroll tax which comes from employee's total compensation) - cost of current annual premium, copays and Rx's = higher annual cost for lesser quality policy.
For our family that will be about $6,000.00 more per year over what we're paying in 2016. Which is already 15% more than what we paid in 2015.
When is enough enough? Should middle class Americans be required to lower their standard of living in order for poorer Americans to enjoy a better one?
You aren't subtracting out what the employer is currently paying , what the employee is currently paying and the rising costs of having a middle man involved.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
