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.
Again, taxes that fund defunct government HC programs would cease under a new single-payer HC program for all. As such, the funding for single-payer HC for all would have to be levied. That can be done with a 30% VAT.
Hmmm....should I explain it to you one more time Sure seems like a waste of time
Quote:
Why are you balking? You tout your Scandinavian heritage but refuse to implement a Scandinavian-style tax model. Why?
Because we don't need all those taxes you are trying to push for. If you like Scandinavian taxes so much, you should consider moving there.
Right if you want full on cradle to grave care you need more income pretty simple. That means you need to expand your tax base. Here in the US the rich are a much larger (and wealthier group) then in the Scandinavian countries
I'm going to stop you right there because Sweden has more billionaires per capita than the US. Even still, Sweden taxes regressively and their citizens don't whine and complain when asked to pay their share.
I'm going to stop you right there because Sweden has more billionaires per capita than the US. Even still, Sweden taxes regressively and their citizens don't whine and complain when asked to pay their share.
I'm going to stop you right there because Sweden has more billionaires per capita than the US. Even still, Sweden taxes regressively and their citizens don't whine and complain when asked to pay their share.
We have more millionaires per capita. We also have more wealth per capita. We also have much greater income inequality. All of which leads to we have a larger and wealthier pool at the top to pull from then the other countries mentioned. I'm not saying taxes wouldn't go up they would. I'm just saying that unless we model the whole system of welfare after those countries there is no reason to model then entire tax system either. I'm fine with my taxes going up for UHC. My employer pays $15,000 a year in premium I pay another $6,000 (family plan) So really my taxes could go 6k a year with no effect at all. And yes I would ask for additional compensation knowing my employer no longer had that 15k bill.
Also note the effective tax rates (what is actually paid) are less progressive then they appear looking at the rates. While still more progressive then Sweden it gets surprisingly close.
Actually that's only for one year. The other 4 years are renewable by option. Read the footnotes. And that's just for processing claims. Add that to the other overhead expenses: SS/Medicare staffed offices located throughout the US, processing applications, issuing Medicare ID cards, etc., etc.
Grasping for straws? Even it were for one (which it is not): 4.3 / 650 = 0.7%. Everything else that you mention is included, that's why the total is 2%.
For the 12 A/B MACs that were in operation as of January 2014, the total
estimated value for the 5
-year contract period—if all option years are
exercised—is over $5.2 billion, with the total estimated contract values
ranging from about $326 million to $609 million per A/B MAC
I'm going to stop you right there because Sweden has more billionaires per capita than the US. Even still, Sweden taxes regressively and their citizens don't whine and complain when asked to pay their share.
Republicans feel that healthcare is a responsibility and NOT a right. This is total Hogwash! If Joe Blow decides to be irresponsible about his own personal healthcare, because he wants to be a miser and sacrifice his health, by not paying insurance premiums or co-pays, he will then place his entire community at risk. If he has a contagious disease or an easily communicable illness, the American public may be at risk for a pernicious epidemic. A severe health crisis could then quickly ensue.
Our government has the responsibility to insure our right to excellent, readily accessible, and completely affordable healthcare! Anyone not exercising that right should be severely penalized for not doing so...
Republicans feel that healthcare is a responsibility and NOT a right. This is total Hogwash! If Joe Blow decides to be irresponsible about his own personal healthcare, because he wants to be a miser and sacrifice his health, by not paying insurance premiums or co-pays, he will then place his entire community at risk. If he has a contagious disease or an easily communicable illness, the American public may be at risk for a pernicious epidemic. A severe health crisis could then quickly ensue.
Our government has the responsibility to insure our right to excellent, readily accessible, and completely affordable healthcare! Anyone not exercising that right should be severely penalized for not doing so...
It isn't a right. It is simply something a decent country should do.
It isn't a right. It is simply something a decent country should do.
It's absolutely imperative that a rich country such as ours protect the health of its citizens. Protecting the health of citizens also protects the country's future development. It therefore, becomes a responsibility of that most fortunate country (the USA) to draft laws that assures the excellent health of its citizenry. To that extent, it becomes a right. A right that is long past due!
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.
Sure seems like a waste of time 
