Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-27-2017, 08:52 AM
 
Location: Austin TX
11,027 posts, read 6,453,318 times
Reputation: 13258

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Let's note the difference. Sanders had a real plan. Maybe it needed tweaking and discussed but he had a plan. Trump didn't.
I agree. I'm glad the Trump plan failed. It was ill-considered and rushed. You can't fix this overnight, and nobody should really expect that anyone can. That said, I hated the Sanders plan, too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-27-2017, 08:53 AM
 
Location: Land of Thought and Flow
8,323 posts, read 15,122,217 times
Reputation: 4957
Quote:
Originally Posted by marino760 View Post
To save time, I'm cutting and pasting from another thread.

Studies have shown that a basic 10 percent national sales tax is more than enough to pay for national healthcare. Everyone who buys anything from a 10 year old buying a toy, to a wealthy person buying a yacht is contributing. The money virtually pours in every day. Even the poor contribute when they buy a t-shirt or an inexpensive pair of shoes. Those who are in this country illegally are also forced to contribute using this method. The wealthy buy more goods and higher priced goods so they ultimately pay more.
Then take into account the middle class would no longer be paying insurance premiums with high deductibles. Money is not taken out of anyones paycheck or property taxes. They actually end up paying less with a sales tax. It's a win, win.
I'm curious to read these studies alongside accounting analytical data. Because basic logic says that a flat sales tax on all goods would be very disproportionate in impact towards those in income brackets that currently either pay no federal income tax or receive more back in the form of refundable credits like EITC and ACTC. T'would also drive up the cost of running small businesses (especially those with <5 employees) as they would be paying substantially higher prices in material costs downstream without any measurable payroll tax savings.

Also very curious how importing of goods would be handled, especially when many/most household goods can be imported from overseas, many times being cheaper than local costs... even without a national sales tax. Anyone with an internet access can purchase everything from clothing to technology to inexpensive shoes from AliExpress (or any of the many other TaoBao re-vendors for those who can't figure out TaoBao)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2017, 08:53 AM
 
9,732 posts, read 9,683,624 times
Reputation: 6407
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Because Wall Street isn't adding a premium now? So if in the end I pay exactly what I pay now but everyone is covered, I see that as a positive. No?
I don't want to pay $20K for insurance. I am 53 and have seen a doctor less than 3 times in the last 20 years. I would rather have that money to invest in my retirement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2017, 08:56 AM
 
9,732 posts, read 9,683,624 times
Reputation: 6407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nor Cal Wahine View Post
I agree. I'm glad the Trump plan failed. It was ill-considered and rushed. You can't fix this overnight, and nobody should really expect that anyone can. That said, I hated the Sanders plan, too.
This was NOT the Trump plan. This was the Paul Ryan plan. President Trump is a "deal maker" he will sign whatever is put on his desk. Now that Ryan has been exposed as a shill for the insurance lobby President Trump will have his own experts put something together.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2017, 08:56 AM
 
Location: Austin TX
11,027 posts, read 6,453,318 times
Reputation: 13258
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike View Post
Between $500 billion (this number assumes health care costs would be around 13% of GDP under a Medicare-for-all system) and $1 trillion (this number assumes no savings at all and we would pay 17.8% of GDP on health care).

The least we should be able to do is to manage to get health care costs down to about 14-15% of GDP. That would still be by far the highest in the world. It would mean roughly $750 billion and can easily be generated through a combination of a small payroll tax and a 5% national sales tax for example. The benefits of funding health care through taxation is of course that it takes into account ability to pay so people making millions pay more into the system than someone on $50k a year.
Aaand there's that ole wealth penalty coming out once again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2017, 08:57 AM
 
45,269 posts, read 26,773,195 times
Reputation: 23636
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
It doesn't have to be this way. I've acknowledged this point many times in the past and I've argued that the reason for it is the fault of those who want UHC. Generalizing, they have refused to condemn government waste and fraud. They have refused to hold accountable those responsible for that.

It doesn't have to be that way.
So we should give them control of the industry when they already mismanage what they have? How's that going to turn out?





Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Millions can NOT afford this. As noted a few posts back, the 20 something trying to make ends meet by being a waiter has to show up to work even though he has the flu as he can not afford any other option.

Untreated flu then ends up getting him a trip to the E.R. which you will pay for anyway.
Why is it not affordable? There are already to many hands in the pot. Now people want to put more hands in the pot. It's going to cost more.

Instead of trying to force people to pay for something that's already not affordable - why not fix the affordability problem? The price structure of health care is way out of whack. People believe throwing money at the problem will solve the problem - but the problem is not being addressed at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2017, 08:57 AM
 
Location: Austin TX
11,027 posts, read 6,453,318 times
Reputation: 13258
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinm View Post
This was NOT the Trump plan. This was the Paul Ryan plan. President Trump is a "deal maker" he will sign whatever is put on his desk.
I won't argue this. Whatever you want to call it is fine by me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2017, 08:57 AM
 
12,772 posts, read 7,924,835 times
Reputation: 4332
Quote:
Originally Posted by marino760 View Post
To save time, I'm cutting and pasting from another thread.

Studies have shown that a basic 10 percent national sales tax is more than enough to pay for national healthcare. Everyone who buys anything from a 10 year old buying a toy, to a wealthy person buying a yacht is contributing. The money virtually pours in every day. Even the poor contribute when they buy a t-shirt or an inexpensive pair of shoes. Those who are in this country illegally are also forced to contribute using this method. The wealthy buy more goods and higher priced goods so they ultimately pay more.
Then take into account the middle class would no longer be paying insurance premiums with high deductibles. Money is not taken out of anyones paycheck or property taxes. They actually end up paying less with a sales tax. It's a win, win.
Hmm, so I pay an extra 10% on a house and car purchase to get health insurance? A $40K car and a $500K house means I'm at a one time $54,000 contribution (not counting any other purchases) to health insurance? I'm going to have to pass on that "deal" if you don't mind. At this point in my life I haven't spent that much TOTAL on health insurance, certainly not a "win win" for me or a lot of other people in similar situations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2017, 08:57 AM
 
Location: Florida
76,855 posts, read 47,182,410 times
Reputation: 14731
Quote:
The tax implications of single payer healthcare
I have never seen a comprehensive comparison between the price people pay for private insurance vs what they would pay for single payer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2017, 08:59 AM
 
9,732 posts, read 9,683,624 times
Reputation: 6407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
I have never seen a comprehensive comparison between the price people pay for private insurance vs what they would pay for single payer.
Let's start by stripping away all the subsidies that people are getting so we are all on the same playing field.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top