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.
You can't compare the United States to these other countries because they pay much higher taxes and also have a smaller population to cover. It's not analagous to a country with 300 million people who would not endorse paying 70-80% of their income in taxes.
You have to examine the model as how it applies to the United States. Most Americans are covered through their employers. Why would an employer pay higher premiums through private insurance for its employees when it can pay less through a government sponsored option. Therefore, the majority of Americans who enjoy their coverage under private insurance will lose their private insurance coverage. This is why the majority of Americans are opposed to this plan.
yes we can, the highest income tax rate in, for instance, Germany, is 45%, in the US it's 35%, Obama wants to increase that to 39.6% (because he's a socialist). Under Eisenhower it was 90%.
Europeans do not pay 70-80% income tax - patently false. They do pay more taxes on sales but even that is not 80%. Completely false.
You can't compare the United States to these other countries because they pay much higher taxes and also have a smaller population to cover. It's not analagous to a country with 300 million people who would not endorse paying 70-80% of their income in taxes.
OK, here comes the tax b.s. You don't want the Dems to turn back the clock to pre-WW2 top marginal income tax rate (>70%) do you? Maybe you should be quiet about that.
You can't compare the United States to these other countries because they pay much higher taxes and also have a smaller population to cover. It's not analagous to a country with 300 million people who would not endorse paying 70-80% of their income in taxes.
You have to examine the model as how it applies to the United States. Most Americans are covered through their employers. Why would an employer pay higher premiums through private insurance for its employees when it can pay less through a government sponsored option. Therefore, the majority of Americans who enjoy their coverage under private insurance will lose their private insurance coverage. This is why the majority of Americans are opposed to this plan.
Most French or Germans are covered through their employers too. And no one in Europe pays 70-80% of their income in taxes. That's silly.
This is why the majority of Americans are opposed to this plan.
Why does your side keep trotting out this proven falsehood? Do you think if you repeat it often enough, people will just believe you because you said so?
While many have criticized Mr. Obama's proposal for a public option, Americans generally see government involvement in health care in a positive light, and most support it. Fifty percent think the government would be better than insurance companies at providing medical coverage (up from 30 percent in 2007), and 59 percent think the government would be at better holding down costs (up from 47 percent in 2007).
More generally, 64 percent of Americans say the government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans. Just 30 percent think this is not its responsibility. Those percentages have been stable for many years.
When presented with the option of a government-administered health insurance plan similar to Medicare to compete with private health insurance companies, 72 percent are in favor and just 20 percent oppose. Even 50 percent of Republicans favor that option.
yes we can, the highest income tax rate in, for instance, Germany, is 45%, in the US it's 35%, Obama wants to increase that to 39.6% (because he's a socialist). Under Eisenhower it was 90%.
Europeans do not pay 70-80% income tax - patently false. They do pay more taxes on sales but even that is not 80%. Completely false.
I don't know where you got your numbers but according to this 2005 analysis from MSN.com, the income tax burden for a family with 2 in the United States is 11.9 percent. In Germany, it is 35.7 percent. Germany was not the highest. The highest was Turkey at 42.7% followed closely by Sweden at 42.4%. In addition, there were many other countries that exceeded Germany such as France (41.7) and Belgium (40.3%).
Remember, this just pertains to their income tax. When you account for overall taxes, many of thes countries do approach 70-80%. When you account for our total taxes, the highest tax bracket is under 50%.
Think your taxes are bad? - MSN Money (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P148855.asp - broken link)
I do think there needs to reform. And I do agree with you that these HMO's and other groups have abused the system. Nonetheless, would we be having this discussion if private insurance premiums didn't shoot through the roof? Of course not, people respect and enjoy the quality of our healthcare. The issue is access to that healthcare. I don't see why we should dismantle the quality of our healthcare when it's still possible to increase access to healthcare while maintaining quality.
You appear to equate a public (non-profit) system with lack of quality. My sister, who suffers from a large number of autoimune diseases, and who has severe osteoporosis, and who has recieved 4 or 5 surgeries for joint replacement and total bone collapse of the pelvis, in the past 8 years, recieves much better, and much lower cost medical treatment than I get. My plan (the HMO plan selected by my employer) costs me more than my sister pays, monthly, PLUS my employers contribution, and has high co-pays and very high deductibles. I am 2 years older than my sister and much healthier, with no major health problems, and only a few, mostly "accidental" rather than systemic problems, yet at 64 years of age , am prohibited from recieveing the screening procedures that my physician reccomends, due to excessive co-pay costs! Why would I have any reason to think that "public insurance" has less "quality" than the private plan that I now have? I can assure you that I will switch to Medicare as soon as I am 65 years old, and be grateful to have it. Is is so bad to wish that everyone had the good, affordable health insurance that my sister has?
This isn't the only large problem with today's system, but it's a very good question. Why wasn't this done during the previous EIGHT YEARS? The GOP side of the aisle had no incentive to take profits out of the pockets of the large healthcare insurors. Now, being out of political power, they have that incentive. This is telling, of course. And why their point of view should be DISCOUNTED in these discussions. They have been ENABLERS of at least one of the big problems in the current system.
It's too bad some people cannot deal wth the situation at hand. Just because it has not been done, it does not mean it needs to be done RIGHT NOW when Democrats dismiss even reading the bill as stupid and a waste of time. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING TO BE DONE OVERNIGHT!
It's too bad some people cannot deal wth the situation at hand. Just because it has not been done, it does not mean it needs to be done RIGHT NOW when Democrats dismiss even reading the bill as stupid and a waste of time. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING TO BE DONE OVERNIGHT!
I don't know where you got your numbers but according to this 2005 analysis from MSN.com, the income tax burden for a family with 2 in the United States is 11.9 percent. In Germany, it is 35.7 percent. Germany was not the highest. The highest was Turkey at 42.7% followed closely by Sweden at 42.4%. In addition, there were many other countries that exceeded Germany such as France (41.7) and Belgium (40.3%).
Remember, this just pertains to their income tax. When you account for overall taxes, many of thes countries do approach 70-80%. When you account for our total taxes, the highest tax bracket is under 50%.
Think your taxes are bad? - MSN Money (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P148855.asp - broken link)
the Economist. and you're still totally wrong on the issue. I've already adressed the difference between income taxes and other taxes and you've still yet to realise, after being told by more than just myself in this short thread, that nobody in europe even comes close to not only 70-80% income tax but 70-80% total tax. You are spreading lies.
A canadian is "taxed" on their health care depending on which provence they live in (there is no "national" plan in this sense) and their income and because tax is such a dirty word in america we have no stomach for it. but there's no doubt that what a canadian pays in tax each year is less than what we americans pay in monthly premiums, yearly deductables, co-pays, higher co-pays for specialists etc.
our tax base is lower but we are nickled and dimed at every opportunity. if a canadian needs emergency heart surgery they get it and walk out of the hospital knowing they won't have to declare bankruptcy or are going to lose their house.
I've already read that. Again, those facts don't account for the defensive medicine practices that are made to avoid malpractice. Those costs approach 200 billion according to the recent nonpartisan Price Waterhouse Coopers study.
Quote:
I assume the exact opposite. I believe that employers will be even more likely to include health care coverage as part of their benefits package, because it will attract better employees and help with retention if the plan they offer exceeds the benefits of the public option. Who's to say you're right and I'm wrong?
What logic or evidence are you using to support your assumptions? I base mine on the fact that unemployment is rising and people are struggling to find work. Given that scenario, it's unlikely the majority of job seekers will refuse to work for a company based on their health benefits alone.
Quote:
As the system currently stands, when someone loses their job, if they were one of the lucky ones who had health care coverage through their employer, they lose any health care coverage at all. A public option provides a safety net, especially in times of economic crisis.
This is a valid point and I agree that employees should have a safety net in case they are laid off. However, I don't we need to resort to a public option to provide this. Just as private insurance has agreed to not deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, we can negotiate extended coverage should a person be laid off.
Quote:
I don't understand your thought process here. Above, you claim that private health insurance providers will never lower their executive pay if a public option is on the table. But somehow if it's not, they'll suddenly become more altruistic? If not in executive pay, where else would you suggest that they pare down their overhead so they can pass along the savings to us?
When faced with elimination through the creation of a public option, private insurance companies have no choice but to make concessions as we are seeing. They are not doing it out of altruism but rather survival. I agree that they should cut their executive pay to absorb the costs while still maintaing service to patients. However, that isn't the way companies work. Companies rarely absorb costs through lowering executive pay. When forced to absorb higher costs, companies will lay off employees and/or increase price. This principle applies isn't limited to private insurance. You can see this phenomenon in airlines, retail, auto companies etc. Private insurance will lower service when forced to charge premiums.
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.
