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.
The 'free market' is what inflates healthcare costs in the US. Every country with a form of UHC has net lower costs. Taxing the wealthy and paying for things like healthcare and education is how we lower the overall costs.
Incorrect. The countries that have UHC and lower health care costs tax much more regressively than does the US.
Pay close attention to what that scatter plot chart at that link tells us... Note that the highest levels of redistribution including UHC are provided by countries (Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Belgium) in which taxes are flat (everyone pays the same tax rate) or regressive (shown as the negative values along the bottom axis, meaning a greater tax burden is placed on those with lower incomes). And note where the USA falls on the graph. The USA has the most progressive tax system and therefore is least able to fund things like UHC because the US tax base is too narrow and overly dependent on the top.
"...the progressivity of countries' tax codes is negatively correlated with the amount of redistribution they do.'
That's very succinct, and as we can see from the research... true.
I would also advise you read the book recommended in the WaPo article, Growing Public, by Peter H Lindert, PhD. It, too, explains why it takes regressive taxation to develop, grow, and fund government social program spending programs like UHC to the point that effective redistribution actually takes place. Note that it does not in the US due to our overly progressive tax system.
If you want UHC, free college, extended paid family leave, etc., the US needs to change the way we tax and move to a Euro-style regressive tax system.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,610,214 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by albert648
We don't have a free market. We have a market distorted by insurance, medicare, and other special interests.
Healthcare costs are down and outcomes are better in the very few segments of healthcare that haven't been distorted by government and insurance companies.
Your speaking of cosmetic surgery (which isn't covered by insurance or medicare), and the costs are still out of reach for the lower 90% of income earners though. It can still cost $2k for laser eye surgery, one of the cheapest forms of plastic surgery, and at least 90% of the American population doesn't have $2k in cold hard cash lying around
That might be OK, as long as all income is consider equally. No lower rates for capital gains. No tax shelters. No deductions for mortgage interest or charitable donations.
Why no charitable deductions? The only people that would harm are the people who depend on those charities. Like children with cancer, homeless people who cant afford food, etc.
When I decide to donate to a charity, I always take into account the deduction when deciding how much to give. If I give $5000, I do so knowing that I won't be paying taxes on that $5000. If there were no charitable deductions, I would likely only give $2500 instead of $5000, not because I am being selfish, but because that is the new amount I am comfortable in giving.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,610,214 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD
Why no charitable deductions? The only people that would harm are the people who depend on those charities. Like children with cancer, homeless people who cant afford food, etc.
When I decide to donate to a charity, I always take into account the deduction when deciding how much to give. If I give $5000, I do so knowing that I won't be paying taxes on that $5000. If there were no charitable deductions, I would likely only give $2500 instead of $5000, not because I am being selfish, but because that is the new amount I am comfortable in giving.
The majority of charity funds go to the salaries of those who administer the funds, less than 30% of the money actually goes to the causes. It's basically money laundering
Your speaking of cosmetic surgery (which isn't covered by insurance or medicare), and the costs are still out of reach for the lower 90% of income earners though. It can still cost $2k for laser eye surgery, one of the cheapest forms of plastic surgery, and at least 90% of the American population doesn't have $2k in cold hard cash lying around
If you can't scrape together $2k between credit cards and savings, you have bigger problems.
The government paying for it isn't going to solve that problem.
A BMW is out of reach for the vast majority of earners, doesn't mean the government should nationalize BMW. Some things are out of reach for poor people, period. Not a damn thing anyone can do about it.
Your speaking of cosmetic surgery (which isn't covered by insurance or medicare), and the costs are still out of reach for the lower 90% of income earners though. It can still cost $2k for laser eye surgery, one of the cheapest forms of plastic surgery, and at least 90% of the American population doesn't have $2k in cold hard cash lying around
Because now you are talking about luxury items, not health care. There are different market forces driving up the price of luxury items.
And on that note, when I had my laser eye surgery, I wen to a doctor that charged $6k, knowing that there are doctors out there that charge $2k. My eyes are too important to me to go bargain shopping, so I will only trust them to the person with the best reputation. Same would go for cosmetic surgery if that is something I wanted. I have seen too many botched jobs that have to be fixed by more skilled practitioners.
The majority of charity funds go to the salaries of those who administer the funds, less than 30% of the money actually goes to the causes. It's basically money laundering
If you think that isn't true in government, you're out of your mind.
Privatized airport security costed less than a billion a year nationwide. When TSA took over, that bill went up to 8 billion for TSA alone.
The majority of charity funds go to the salaries of those who administer the funds, less than 30% of the money actually goes to the causes. It's basically money laundering
This is the Information Age. There are many resources at your disposal to figure out which charities overspend on administration costs vs those that don't. Should we just get rid of charities all together?
But that doesn't really address the point I made in my post.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,610,214 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by albert648
If you can't scrape together $2k between credit cards and savings, you have bigger problems.
The government paying for it isn't going to solve that problem.
A BMW is out of reach for the vast majority of earners, doesn't mean the government should nationalize BMW. Some things are out of reach for poor people, period. Not a damn thing anyone can do about it.
Cosmetic surgery is a luxury, making people pay for necessary life saving surgeries the same way would just raise the mortality rate and lower life expectancies. Heart surgery or chemo are not the same as a BMW, if you don't know that, you're being obtuse
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.
Some things are out of reach for poor people, period. Not a damn thing anyone can do about it.
