It's cheaper for them if we die (stats, foreign, Washington)

[PCALMike]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

It's not nonsensical. Tax deductions reduce the corporate tax liability. A bigger tax = a bigger tax deduction = a bigger decline in corporate income tax revenue. How is that decline in tax revenue offset? Americans already think corporations pay too little in tax.

You're just spinning your wheels. Private health insurance costs are also deductible. That cost will largely be eliminated and no longer be the case with a Medicare-for-all system. There wont be a decline in corporate tax revenue. Dont worry about that.

[lifeexplorer]

Originally Posted by PCALMike

So just a new scam to rip people off.

Then don’t buy their scam products.

[Ohiogirl81]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Enabling the victimization of someone who self-sabotages their own health/life is not only repulsively patronizing (it assumes they're too stupid to know any better), it's remarkably cruel to both them and the taxpayers from whom money is taken to pay for the results of their self-sabotage.

What's cruel is to deny health care to people who need it.
Yours is a typical response of the type of people so well outlined in that Bill Maher piece embedded upthread: You want to deny services -- until you or someone you know needs them.

I've asked you this before: Are you planning to die young, or remain perfectly healthy until you get hit by a bus? How are you ensuring whichever choice you make?

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

The fact that the US left-wingers are too stingy to do so is why there are still unmet needs. They should be giving all their money away to meet those needs.

Do you have a mirror?

Stand in front of it, look at the reflection and repeat that paragraph out loud to yourself. Over and over and over.

Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie

Then you surely strongly support people begging for money from the streets to pay for their medical care. That way its voluntarily given.

Nah, she'd want to have them arrested for fouling up her perfect world.

Originally Posted by whogo

That was a puke worthy rant.

Do you have a mirror, as well?

Originally Posted by Crazee Cat Lady

the Empathy Gap

That was so spot on. I doubt many of the "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" crowd even watched that, though - and the irony would be lost on them anyway.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Everyone who has insurance has it voluntarily. No one is required to have insurance.

Even people who purchase insurance voluntarily are still paying into a pool, where the higher-risk members of the pool eat up more of the costs than the lower-risk members. I know you'd like to ignore that fact, but it's a fact just the same.

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

You want it, you have to PAY for it, it's that simple, that's life.

Then why is that same medicine half the price in other countries?

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Are any of those people sappily bemoaning the "empathy gap" on their TV show while simultaneously being hypocritically stingy like Bill Maher?

How is it that you're so intimately acquainted with Bill Maher's - or anyone else's - charitable habits?

You're not. So you have no business pontificating about it.

Originally Posted by Crazee Cat Lady

You haven't done your homework.

Par for the course for some folks.

Originally Posted by NomadicDrifter

Why should one person fund all of America's health care program. It's the duty of all American citizens to do their role. You contribute based on how much you can and what's deemed an acceptable burden for you. This is the pillar of society. You pay taxes to fund society - whether it's public education, police, military, and other essential services.

Right on. I can't even begin to figure out why this is such a difficult concept for some people to grasp.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Haven't you been reading this thread? Many on here want it for free.They want others to pay for them.

Seems as though you're the one that's not reading the thread - or perhaps you're just willfully ignoring anything that doesn't suit your narrative or that makes too much sense.

No one is advocating health care "for free". We all understand that any form of health care reform will have costs - for all of us. We will all pitch in based on our income and spending. People who earn more and spend more will pay more. That's not regressive taxation by any stretch of anyone's warped imagination.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

It will not save me money when I'm taxed through the nose for it. I'm sick and tired of WAY overpaying my fair share.

You sound stressed. Perhaps a move to a deserted island is in order? No pesky humans to interfere with your lofty ideals of perfection.

Originally Posted by whogo

So it won’t be no cheaper

Sir, you are employing a double negative.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

They think they need to see a doctor, they don't make an office appointment, they go to the ER. Easier for them, and they pay nothing. Taxpayers are stuck with a much larger bill.

I don't disagree with you on this. But restricting health insurance isn't the answer.

[PCALMike]

Originally Posted by lifeexplorer

Then don’t buy their scam products.

I wont but plenty of people will be denied the services they think they have paid for. And they'll end up in the ER room as the final attempt to save his or her life and we all have to pay for it. And the patient will likely die.

[NomadicDrifter]

Originally Posted by Hoonose

I don't want single payer socialized HC. Not as a patient, nor as a doc.

I think dropping Medicare to age 50-55 would suffice in relieving much of the HC risk off of the private sector.

Why keep Medicare to 50 and not expend it to everyone? If Medicare is so bad, why even expend it? And if it works, why not extend it to the logical conclusion?

Obamacare works well for those that need serious care. It is just too expensive. Especially those with lower risks and HC costs. We can work on that.

Obamacare is not really Single Payer, it's a form of subsidy to the insurance companies using taxpayer dollars. While it's good in that it strives to cover everyone, it's not anywhere near optimal.

The insurance companies need to be completely removed from the process. Why is a for-profit corporation more trusted for your needs than the government that protects you and educates your children for free?

[lifeexplorer]

Originally Posted by PCALMike

I wont but plenty of people will be denied the services they think they have paid for. And they'll end up in the ER room as the final attempt to save his or her life and we all have to pay for it. And the patient will likely die.

?

How would a patient die? It’s not legal for hospitals to refuse treatment and let patients die.

[PCALMike]

Originally Posted by lifeexplorer

?

How would a patient die? It’s not legal for hospitals to refuse treatment and let patients die.

Obviously because its too late to save that person after having been denied long term treatment and medicine by the corporation they trusted (whose profits rely on denying people care). Hospitals are not required to give anything else than emergency care, which is not adequate. So more people will die and people think this is a solution...

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by PCALMike

You're just spinning your wheels. Private health insurance costs are also deductible. That cost will largely be eliminated and no longer be the case with a Medicare-for-all system. There wont be a decline in corporate tax revenue. Dont worry about that.

How much will corporations have to be taxed to raise $3.2 trillion in tax revenue every year to fund it? The total US federal corporate income tax revenue for 2017 was $297 billion. You'd have to increase their total tax rate by a factor of more than 10. Won't happen. They spent a total of $160 billion on employee health insurance in 2017. They won't accept a jump up to a $3.2 trillion cost for the same.

And remember, not every employer is providing health insurance to every employee now, and even of the ones that do, not all pay 100% of the cost. The employer and employee cost-share. So, a payroll tax for health care would be a HUGE tax increase on them = huge tax deduction = huge decline in corporate income tax revenues.

And you STILL haven't explained how the decline in corporate income tax revenues would be offset.

[NomadicDrifter]

Originally Posted by PCALMike

Obviously because its too late to save that person after having been denied long term treatment and medicine by the corporation they trusted (whose profits rely on denying people care). Hospitals are not required to give anything else than emergency care, which is not adequate. So more people will die and people think this is a solution...

Not only is it inadequate but expensive. ER's in the USA get many poor and homeless for none-emergency needs simply because they cannot afford to see a physician elsewhere and the ER is required to take them. Sometimes they go there to relax for several days before disappearing. The bill is footed to the American tax payer.

Now imagine if America had healthcare for all, and provided basic food and subsidized housing for the needy? A lot of these abuses would stop.

[GearHeadDave]

Can't agree with the OP. They don't want us to die until the last red cent has been wrung out of our pathetic IRAs, 401Ks and savings accounts - warehoused in some hellhole of a "skilled nursing facility" at $12,000 a month. That's what this game is all about.