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)
 
Old 08-31-2019, 01:48 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
18,504 posts, read 15,564,431 times
Reputation: 11937

Advertisements

If I were American, I would be furious that nearly half the population pays no income tax.

I would be furious on the over spending on the military.

I would push for those things to change.

In the meantime, it doesn't matter if your country is 37 million or 300 million. That's an excuse. You've built highways, cities, electrical grids, farms, etc for 300 million. Surely you can figure out how to get UHC that fits for you. As they say, " if you can put a man on the moon?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-31-2019, 02:18 PM
 
Location: Knoxville, TN
5,818 posts, read 2,672,260 times
Reputation: 5707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
Taxes are a minefield when you try and compare them between the US and Canada, since each province/state is going to be different.

In general, property taxes are lower in Canada. Yes we have a GST, but it's 5 percent and not on everything.

Even if you compare two families who live in similar circumstances in either country, and one pays slightly less than the other, who in then end is better off? In Canada that family isn't paying anything extra for healthcare, except perhaps for prescriptions, but many are covered through work. I pay nothing, for example as I'm on my partners plan. Anyway, the point is that family in the US will have to pay MORE out of pocket for healthcare.
I promise you, you pay significantly more taxes than I do living in Tennessee. NY or CA would probably be different. There is no state income tax, property tax is $100 a month (For an upper-middle class house) and we are 48/50 in the nation for overall tax burden.

And I guarantee you my healthcare through my private insurance is better than yours, and I pay way less taxes and less money overall for a high QOL.

Our health insurance is $230 a month for excellent coverage. Like I said, I had an emergency appendectomy and a nurse made a house call to come check on me, even though I was recovering fine. No government plan would offer anything like that.

But yes, you are all covered. But it's not my problem if others in America don't have great coverage, you have to work for it here. In Canada most of society contributes. In America, half doesn't. It's ridiculous and completely unfair and unfeasible to expect half of the country to, on top of what they do already, pay for the other half's full blown healthcare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2019, 02:22 PM
 
Location: Knoxville, TN
5,818 posts, read 2,672,260 times
Reputation: 5707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
If I were American, I would be furious that nearly half the population pays no income tax.

I would be furious on the over spending on the military.

I would push for those things to change.

In the meantime, it doesn't matter if your country is 37 million or 300 million. That's an excuse. You've built highways, cities, electrical grids, farms, etc for 300 million. Surely you can figure out how to get UHC that fits for you. As they say, " if you can put a man on the moon?"
Yes, it does. You answered your own question. Half of America pays no income tax and we have 330mm people to cover. You don't even have to do any math, you can just "think" to know it would never work here.

And yes, again, on top of the 45% who pay no taxes, many of those actually take from the government on top of that.

I'm not footing the bill for half of America's health care.

It would never work here, nor happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2019, 02:48 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
18,504 posts, read 15,564,431 times
Reputation: 11937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister 7 View Post
I promise you, you pay significantly more taxes than I do living in Tennessee. NY or CA would probably be different. There is no state income tax, property tax is $100 a month (For an upper-middle class house) and we are 48/50 in the nation for overall tax burden.

And I guarantee you my healthcare through my private insurance is better than yours, and I pay way less taxes and less money overall for a high QOL.

Our health insurance is $230 a month for excellent coverage. Like I said, I had an emergency appendectomy and a nurse made a house call to come check on me, even though I was recovering fine. No government plan would offer anything like that.

But yes, you are all covered. But it's not my problem if others in America don't have great coverage, you have to work for it here. In Canada most of society contributes. In America, half doesn't. It's ridiculous and completely unfair and unfeasible to expect half of the country to, on top of what they do already, pay for the other half's full blown healthcare.
Like I said a minefield. I had an uncle who lived in Nashville.

I'm not going to get into a dither about comparing each and every town and city in both countries. Suffice to say that ANY place I would choose to live in the US, wouldn't be a bargain for me. Sorry Tennessee. I live in a high end condo, in a desirable neighbourhood in Vancouver. My property taxes are $800 a year. I don't find that unreasonable. My healthcare cost per month, is nothing.

Hope you recovered fully from you appendectomy. As far as " government plans " not offering home care, wrong.

My mother after her brain tumour had a 24 hour nurse in her home for a few weeks..2 or 3 I can't remember.

A friend who lives alone, and was recovering from throat cancer, had a nurse dropping by to check up on him.

So get his notion of what YOU believe to be " government care " out of your mind. You are simply incorrect.

As for what one considers unfair and fair, well different mindsets. A larger percentage of Canadians don't pay tax than there used to be, because they don't earn enough. Doesn't mean they aren't working. Wages haven't kept up, liken many places. So what's the choice? Forcing companies to pay more is a struggle. Having these poor receive less because of a tax burden that would put them on the street. Paying for the homeless and all those costs is going to be more, and not just finical costs, than any tax we would have received. So the choice is to keep them in a place where they at least have a chance to succeed eventually, and yes there is a breaking point if the tax system doesn't change. Large corporations could pay much more of their fair share.

Last edited by Natnasci; 08-31-2019 at 03:14 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2019, 02:51 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
18,504 posts, read 15,564,431 times
Reputation: 11937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister 7 View Post
Yes, it does. You answered your own question. Half of America pays no income tax and we have 330mm people to cover. You don't even have to do any math, you can just "think" to know it would never work here.

And yes, again, on top of the 45% who pay no taxes, many of those actually take from the government on top of that.

I'm not footing the bill for half of America's health care.

It would never work here, nor happen.
I take your point, however what about government spending? What about the wealthy paying their share? What about Trumps spending hundreds of millions on golf?

It's not like the US doesn't have the money to create a good UHC system. It's just the money isn't flowing properly to make it so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2019, 03:06 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
21,868 posts, read 25,161,984 times
Reputation: 19091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister 7 View Post
https://www.foxbusiness.com/healthca...lass-americans

My jaw literally dropped when I saw that amount. That's almost a thousand dollars a month.

He defends it by saying a family that pays $20,000 a year for health insurance and care would be saving money.

Well I fall into the middle class and my health insurance for my spouse and myself is like $230 a month, for excellent coverage. We spend maybe $2850 a year for total everything, rxs, etc.

So under his plan I would be forced to lose that, and pay nearly quadruple for Government run crap.
That's not what your insurance costs however. Either you're on welfare or you're paying much more for it as part of the benefits you get from your employer. It's around $4,000/year for me with a $6,500 deductible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2019, 03:23 PM
 
Location: Knoxville, TN
5,818 posts, read 2,672,260 times
Reputation: 5707
With respect to your friend and family who had home health care, that was cancer and a brain tumor not a plain-jane surgery. Wish them the best.

Do you really think the government would send a nurse to your home just to check up on you for a routine lasocsopic (sp?) appendectomy, though? I couldn't believe everything I got when I got appendicitis. Packets, phone calls, house calls, itinerary on what to do, etc. They made my follow up appointment, etc.

Incorrect to you or not I vastly would prefer my private health insurance over any government plan. The US government is not efficient and/or good with money. I have no problem with there being a government plan, as long as it's not mandatory. These socialists want to take away our private insurance.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
I take your point, however what about government spending? What about the wealthy paying their share? What about Trumps spending hundreds of millions on golf?

It's not like the US doesn't have the money to create a good UHC system. It's just the money isn't flowing properly to make it so.
To explain all this in detail would take time I don't want to use right now, but I promise you the bottom line is we can't afford it.

The wealthy have paid their fair share over their lives. Taxpayer money always goes towards Presidential BS, and it's always whined about, it's nothing new.

M4A would cost somewhere around 40 trillion over 10 years. No, we simply don't have that kind of money.

And regardless only 45% pay taxes so why should my household's tax bill increase by at least $10,000?

This is a Fox News article which half won't even read but it brings up some valid points:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/medi...justin-haskins

If "Medicare-for-All"’s total cost for the first 10 years is in line with projections produced by the American Action Forum, Mercatus Center, and Urban Institute—roughly $32 trillion to $38 trillion—I estimate 40 million to 60 million households would end up paying more in new taxes than they would receive in health care benefits. Millions of these households would lose more than $10,000 annually, even if it is assumed they would otherwise need to pay a full health insurance deductible and some out-of-pocket expenses under a private health insurance model.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2019, 03:25 PM
 
Location: Knoxville, TN
5,818 posts, read 2,672,260 times
Reputation: 5707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
That's not what your insurance costs however. Either you're on welfare or you're paying much more for it as part of the benefits you get from your employer. It's around $4,000/year for me with a $6,500 deductible.
What is your point?

I have a great private insurance plan through my employer. They absorb most of the cost. Millions and millions of other Americans do, too. That's how the USA works. You work hard, and get a good job that offers good health insurance.

Most times you don't even need that, high paying "good" job to get medical insurance. Plenty of employers offer it.

My basic employees making hourly have the same plan I do, or are offered it. Mine isn't even the "best" one out of the several options, and it's still excellent as I have described.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2019, 03:37 PM
 
Location: Knoxville, TN
5,818 posts, read 2,672,260 times
Reputation: 5707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
. Sorry Tennessee. I live in a high end condo, in a desirable neighbourhood in Vancouver. .
Sorry Vancouver, I live in a high end house, in a desirable neighborhood in the nicest part of my city.

I never in a million years would live in Canada.

Stop with the Canadian elitism, it's a joke.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2019, 03:43 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,548 posts, read 37,151,051 times
Reputation: 14011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
Like I said a minefield. I had an uncle who lived in Nashville.

I'm not going to get into a dither about comparing each and every town and city in both countries. Suffice to say that ANY place I would choose to live in the US, wouldn't be a bargain for me. Sorry Tennessee. I live in a high end condo, in a desirable neighbourhood in Vancouver. My property taxes are $800 a year. I don't find that unreasonable. My healthcare cost per month, is nothing.

Hope you recovered fully from you appendectomy. As far as " government plans " not offering home care, wrong.

My mother after her brain tumour had a 24 hour nurse in her home for a few weeks..2 or 3 I can't remember.

A friend who lives alone, and was recovering from throat cancer, had a nurse dropping by to check up on him.

So get his notion of what YOU believe to be " government care " out of your mind. You are simply incorrect.

As for what one considers unfair and fair, well different mindsets. A larger percentage of Canadians don't pay tax than there used to be, because they don't earn enough. Doesn't mean they aren't working. Wages haven't kept up, liken many places. So what's the choice? Forcing companies to pay more is a struggle. Having these poor receive less because of a tax burden that would put them on the street. Paying for the homeless and all those costs is going to be more, and not just finical costs, than any tax we would have received. So the choice is to keep them in a place where they at least have a chance to succeed eventually, and yes there is a breaking point if the tax system doesn't change. Large corporations could pay much more of their fair share.
Well said Natnasci.
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. The time now is 03:23 PM.

© 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