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.
How much will corporations have to be taxed to raise $3.2 trillion in tax revenue every year to fund it?
Now you're just rambling yet again. No one has said that a national health care system should be funded simply by increasing corporate income taxes to the level to get the necessary revenue. $3.2 trillion is what anti-single payer advocates claim ($2.5 trillion in 2017 and increasing steadily, there is no such thing as "fixed health care costs every year"). And a payroll tax does not mean an employer payroll tax only and no payroll tax on the employee. If the employer pays a 6% payroll tax, the employee can pay a 1.5% payroll tax for example, for a 80/20 split. Your "huge decline in corporate tax revenue" is pure fiction.
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.
Yes, I've seen reports that ending homelessness nationally would actually save money in the long run.
Its like with healthcare, we deliberately make people suffer and reject the idea of paying less and getting more in return. Only to preserve the power, status and privileges of some people at the very top of the pyramid.
What's cruel is to deny health care to people who need it.
You or anyone else is free to pay for it. No one is stopping you. So why don't you?
Quote:
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?
Still healthy as of now. 5'8", 130 lbs, no high blood pressure, diabetes, etc., no arthritis, I'm on no prescription meds. Swim a lot. Bicycle a lot. I'll walk into town to run errands sooner than I'd get in my car and drive to do the same.
If I become seriously ill/injured, it'll dramatically negatively impact my quality of life, and I'm free to choose to not suffer any longer.
Quote:
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.
Not as much as would happen with national health care. Insurance premiums are determined according to risk analysis.
Quote:
Then why is that same medicine half the price in other countries?
Less regulation.
Quote:
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.
Yeah, we all know what that means. Just like federal income tax and FICA. 45% of 1040 tax filers pay no federal income tax whatsoever, and 27% pay neither that nor FICA as well due to refundable tax credits. No thanks! The 78 million who actually pay any federal income tax at all CANNOT fund health care for 325 million people.
Quote:
You sound stressed. Perhaps a move to a deserted island is in order? No pesky humans to interfere with your lofty ideals of perfection.
I'm annoyed that so many want to stick their hands in my wallet, again. Pay your own way (general you, not specifically you), or get someone to voluntarily pay for you.
Quote:
I don't disagree with you on this. But restricting health insurance isn't the answer.
Well, then... enjoy paying those the ever-growing Medicaid ER bills.
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?
There isn't funding to do that. That would put us at another tax a lot more to pay for it problem.
Quote:
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?
Because THIS is the result of "trusting" the government to do anything.:
Quote:
"This exam [OECD's PIAAC], given in 23 countries, assessed the thinking abilities and workplace skills of adults. It focused on literacy, math and technological problem-solving. The goal was to figure out how prepared people are to work in a complex, modern society. And U.S. millennials performed horribly...
But surely America’s brightest were on top?
Nope.
U.S. millennials with master’s degrees and doctorates did better than their peers in only three countries, Ireland, Poland and Spain...The ETS study noted that a decade ago the skill level of American adults was judged mediocre. “Now it is below even that.†So Millennials are falling even further behind.
Top-scoring US millennials – the 90th percentile on the PIAAC test – were at the bottom internationally, ranking higher only than their peers in Spain. The bottom scorers (10th percentile) also lagged behind their peers."
Actually, it's due to more regulation. The US government bans generic brands from selling while those companies have patent protections. This in turn effectively allows them to charge whatever they want.
If there were no regulations, and some company comes out with a miracle drug, other companies could copy it and produce it en masse and pretty soon all the drugs would be as cheap as it takes to make them.
The way around this is simple - have the government in the business of negotiating prices. That way these companies can have their patent protections but understand since the government is enforcing their patents, the government can choose the prices they set. If they don't agree, the government can remove their patent privileges.
There isn't funding to do that. That would put us at another tax a lot more to pay for it problem.
The US government already pays more per head for health expenses than most countries do with single payer. I think a simple restructuring of how health care is administered, combined with reallocating some government spending can go a long way if not the whole way.
Quote:
Because THIS is the result of "trusting" the government to do anything.:
You posted again something nonsensical. What is so sad is to see how thoroughly brainwahsed you really are. You cannot think for yourself can you? Instead you're some attack dog for the insurance lobby. Pathetic. Really.
Then why do I pay the same premium as everyone else in my group?
Its risk management, everyone in your "group" has a statistical average of how likely you are to get sick, as well as how sick. There are a ton of stats behind it all and the expected cost is spread over that risk.
Coal miners have one risk, office workers have another.
Now you're just rambling yet again. No one has said that a national health care system should be funded simply by increasing corporate income taxes to the level to get the necessary revenue. $3.2 trillion is what anti-single payer advocates claim ($2.5 trillion in 2017 and increasing steadily, there is no such thing as "fixed health care costs every year"). And a payroll tax does not mean an employer payroll tax only and no payroll tax on the employee. If the employer pays a 6% payroll tax, the employee can pay a 1.5% payroll tax for example, for a 80/20 split. Your "huge decline in corporate tax revenue" is pure fiction.
Let's see your plan to raise the required $3.2 trillion/year ($32 trillion is the ten year additional cost projected by the Urban Institute). How would you raise that much tax revenue? Remember, employers spent a total of $160 billion on employee health insurance last year. There's a pretty large gap between what they paid and what's needed to fund national health care.
Total US payroll is $6.5 trillion. A 7.5% payroll tax increase (employer + employee) will only raise $487.5 billion in tax revenues. You're still short over $2.7 trillion.
The US government already pays more per head for health expenses than most countries do with single payer. I think a simple restructuring of how health care is administered, combined with reallocating some government spending can go a long way if not the whole way.
Rationing. And government-administered like the the VA? That won't be acceptable to Americans.
Quote:
What is so sad is to see how thoroughly brainwashed you really are. You cannot think for yourself can you? Instead you're some attack dog for the insurance lobby. Pathetic. Really.
Perhaps you'd like to take a stab at suggesting how the US can raise the additional $3.2 trillion/year in tax revenue needed to pay for national health care.
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.
Just like federal income tax and FICA. 45% of 1040 tax filers pay no federal income tax whatsoever, and 27% pay neither that nor FICA as well due to refundable tax credits. No thanks! The 78 million who actually pay any federal income tax at all CANNOT fund health care for 325 million people. 
Because THIS is the result of "trusting" the government to do anything.:
