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.
The Americans that oppose it are dumber than those in the other countries that accept it.
Oh please!
Such, literal, half-assed analysis
Half-assed analysis? European countries exhibit exactly what is needed to fund the socialist goodies some want... Want more? Pay more. That's why their average income earners pay an average 45% national tax rate on their income.
Those who CHOOSE to not take personal responsibility for their waist size simply pay more, a lot more for insurance regardless if it’s public or private.
Those who can’t afford to pay more and not take personal responsibility, are SOL.
Does following doctor's orders to eat a low or no fat diet fall under the heading of taking personal responsibility?
If someone does everything that "common wisdom" says should be done and still cannot lose weight and/or develops diabetes or heart disease, is it still a "personal responsibility" problem?
Answer the question, give the details
Exactly how is the $3.5 trillion that we pay now (which is more than the $3.2 trillion that you say we will pay with universal healthcare) broken up. WHO pays and HOW much? And WHO doesn't pay?
If that's all wiped out when the Fed Gov takes over with MfA, it doesn't matter. The NEW reality would be WHO pays the additional $3.2 trillion/year needed in federal tax revenue to fund MfA.
Answer the questions... Exactly to WHOM would the new $3.2 trillion worth of tax bills needed to fund MfA be apportioned? WHO pays, and HOW much? And WHO doesn't pay?
WHY won't you answer those questions? Got something to hide?
Finland tried it. It didn't work.
Paid for by WHOM? Answer the question... Give the details... Exactly to WHOM would the new $3.2 trillion worth of tax bills needed to fund MfA be apportioned?
Finland's goal seemed to be to tide people over in a "gig" economy while they move around and seek work. For that purpose it did not do much.
I see future UBI goal being to keep masses of permanently unemployed people from going rogue South Africa style.
There are a lot of countries with universal healthcare. The vast majority of them do not have laws against obesity or doing extreme sports.
What's wrong with the US that it would need to be an exception?
The Japanese Diabetic Association took the bull by the horns. Getting an annual waist measure in Japan is the law. Those with waist sizes greater than X, must undergo mandatory counseling. Employers are fined if the number of employees with waist sizes greater than X, are not reduced.
The UK assigns a low priority or outright denies covering discretionary surgery to obese people. Joint replacement is the most common surgery that gets postponed or denied.
A US law banning obesity is silly stuff.
Premiums based on waist size is a realistic long term possibility. Just like smokers, those with waist sizes greater than X pay higher premiums.
Ideally, this would apply to all public and private insurance.
Here's the funny thing about this. You seem to think that somehow magically under our current system, that you will avoid that 45% effective tax rate (or whatever it really is).
The reality is that not only you will pay that - you will pay MORE if possible.
I doubt it. Here's why...
THIS is how European countries tax: regressively. Be sure to read the scatter plot chart and understand what it is telling us. There IS a distinct pattern:
There's even a link to the research on which the Washington Post article is based. It includes numerous additional citations.
Quote:
You might not pay it through taxes but I can assure you that by the end of your life that insurance companies, health care providers and big pharma will do everything in their power to take every single red cent you might have managed to put into the piggy bank during your lifetime. As long as an unregulated health care system continues it will only get worse.
That's an odd assumption. Everyone is free to choose not to accept such medical intervention. In fact, people even have legally drafted directives that prohibit such. Are you somehow unaware of that fact?
Does following doctor's orders to eat a low or no fat diet fall under the heading of taking personal responsibility?
If someone does everything that "common wisdom" says should be done and still cannot lose weight and/or develops diabetes or heart disease, is it still a "personal responsibility" problem?
You've obviously never watched "My 600 Pound Life." They ALWAYS say they "eat healthy" and next to nothing while gaining 30 lbs or so in 2 months time (example).
Seniors have to PAY for their Medicare in the form of premiums, deductibles, co-pays, and there are many things that aren't even covered. And that's AFTER pre-paying decades worth of Medicare premiums via the Medicare payroll tax.
I'd suggest the Medicare for All crowd propose a buy-in into Medicare, since seniors don't get it for free. Post your buy-in proposal.
They may also receive many, many more thousands of dollars worth of treatment than they paid in or currently pay for premiums, etc.
But no one ever advocates for only providing the dollar amounts worth of treatment that a given individual has actually contributed over their working life.
When I enroll in Medicare I will do so after prepaying old age insurance premiums for 50 years.
Under a “Medicare for all” thing, what might the Medicare premium be in absence of serious decades of prepayment?
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.