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.
Not true. Other countries who don't play the role of "world police" charge VAT taxes to fund their social programs. The only way to get national health care here in the US is to start charging everyone a LOT in regressive VAT taxes.
They also don't bribe other countries with billions of dollars annually. We should end the wars, end the bribes and see where we are at.
Not everyone needs that. Healthy people cover their own basic healthcare out-of-pocket and then have very inexpensive catastrophic policies to cover a serious accident or illness. Doing so significantly reduces their overall health care costs.
They also don't bribe other countries with billions of dollars annually. We should end the wars, end the bribes and see where we are at.
Good luck with that. If we already know how wasteful our government is and how they don't really listen to what we want (less war, less waste) then why would we want to entrust them with running a healthcare system?
A NATIONAL HEALTH CARE System would be cheaper. What the US would pay in a healthcare tax is more than made up currently in insurance premiums, copays, deductibles, inflated charges if you don't have private health insurance, very expensive ER and direct fed funding to hospitals.
A NATIONAL HEALTH CARE System would be cheaper. What the US would pay in a healthcare taxes is more than made up currently in insurance premiums, copays, deductibles, inflated charges if you don't have private health insurance and direct fed funding to hospitals.
How much do you think the average American would pay? What percent of their income?
Good luck with that. If we already know how wasteful our government is and how they don't really listen to what we want (less war, less waste) then why would we want to entrust them with running a healthcare system?
Because it's better than spending the money in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, Syria, etc.
Because it's better than spending the money in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, Syria, etc.
Obviously it is, you don't have to convince me. The question is, how are you going to convince the government? Both parties are very fond of this type of spending.
Because the states only portion is contradicted by other parts of the law, and the CBO scoring, etc etc. Basically the supreme court will look at the intent. And the intent of congress seems clear.
Its not the "clear language" that you seem to think when other parts of the law contradict it.
Nothing in the law contradicts it, and the ACA even defines "state" as "each of the 50 states plus the Disctrict of Columbia.
There is no getting around the fact that the law was specifically written to supply subsidies only to those who bought insurance on state exchanges.
Gruber has even repeatedly confirmed that fact, even before the case was filed.
Here's what I found on an article from wise geek about the pros and cons of regressive taxes. The following are cons.
Quote:
Opponents of regressive tax often share the conviction that fairness in taxation is important but define fairness differently than those who support them. They generally believe that it is more important to avoid imposing tax burdens that impose an undue hardship than to avoid imposing taxes at unequal rates. In this view, progressive taxes, which fall most heavily on people with the greatest ability to pay, are fairer, as they cause less economic hardship.
This argument is the one you hear most often. I am willing to bet if we truly goto a Europe system (Conservatives don't want that though because it is "Socialist" after all) that this argument will be mitigated. The problem is you have to do both, change our progressive tax system to a national regressive tax system AND enact social programs. Sadly most people don't want one or the other making such talks, a non-starter. That is the part that makes the change over hard to do.
Quote:
A further argument against any kind of regressive tax hinges on the importance of maintaining a strong middle class. Supporters of this position typically hold that tax policy should be designed to foster the growth of a middle class by making it relatively easy to rise into that class but relatively difficult to become tremendously wealthy. A regressive policy, they believe, leads to the opposite situation and makes it easier to leave the middle class in either direction.
This is something that I think most democrats and even moderates like myself look at, does this crush the chances of expanding the middle class. As we all know, the middle class is shrinking as is, now we want to try and tax people to prevent entering into the middle class? Something don't work here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
They also all have VAT taxes to pay for it. Are you on board with that? VAT taxes are regressive. The greatest tax burden is borne by those with the least income.
VAT taxes:
Japan: 8% now, going to 10% in October
Italy: 22%
UK: 20%
I'd be fine with a relatively low VAT, maybe Japan's rate, not into the rate of the fair tax proposal like Italy's is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
They also don't bribe other countries with billions of dollars annually. We should end the wars, end the bribes and see where we are at.
What does the US do to bribe countries? The US only can "bribe" up to $500 USD for international business. This is why we have the bribe allegations with FIFA over past and future World Cups.
I agree that we should try to end war but the problem is where we have gone to war you basically have to turn into a parking lot with a wall to prevent any similar conflicts in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
Good luck with that. If we already know how wasteful our government is and how they don't really listen to what we want (less war, less waste) then why would we want to entrust them with running a healthcare system?
A perfect argument for returning to the private marketplace for insurance except we've seen the evils with that. Pre-existing conditions could cause you to lose it. Individual plans ended each year and replaced with similar plans at a little bit higher price (sound familiar?) Plans rising in price year to year with some changes to your deductible (again sound familiar?) The fact is Obamacare's problems already mostly was the same as the previous private markets. The only difference is that there is limited catastrophic plan exceptions now.
They were kicked off plans that didn't meet basic healthcare needs, but were able to buy into plans that did.
I had a pretty decent policy that i could afford. Yeah, it was a catastrophic policy, which kicked in if my medical expenses hit $100K, but I have $100K I could cover the difference.
I lost that plan, now I still have the $100K, and collecting Medicaid. I suppose I should be thanking the government and taxpayers for picking up my insurance, but the whole notion that I need government to cover for me is ridiculous.
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.
) that this argument will be mitigated. The problem is you have to do both, change our progressive tax system to a national regressive tax system AND enact social programs. Sadly most people don't want one or the other making such talks, a non-starter. That is the part that makes the change over hard to do.
