Taxes, dear friend. And bureaucracy is bad at such a massive scale. I mean, whenever I go into the DMV, I always shake my head from just how poorly in shape it is; I can't imagine how they're going to manage a huge chunk of the US economy.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Taxes, dear friend. And bureaucracy is bad at such a massive scale. I mean, whenever I go into the DMV, I always shake my head from just how poorly in shape it is; I can't imagine how they're going to manage a huge chunk of the US economy.
However, it's a lot more expensive and difficult for the non wealthy to afford both higher taxes and insurance premiums.LJS9502_basicTaxes are not going to be exponentially higher to fund government health care. The cost of renovating one nuclear submarine is enough to cover healthcare for the whole of the UK for 30 years. You'll pay more in tax, but we're talking a LITTLE more, not a huge new burden to carry.
[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I'm not sure what you are talking about. Under a universal system not every WILL pay into it. So you still have an imbalance plus government restricts health care when the money isn't there. Which you don't have to worry about with private insurance.LJS9502_basic
No, not every single person will pay into it, however broadly speaking, yeah, pretty much everyone will be.
Seems an assumption......and I don't believe pretty much everyone will.Such a system would be paid for through taxes. So yeah, pretty much everyone would be paying into it.
Erm, I don't understand your meaning here. Is it a complaint against the analogy or is it just a statement that you'd have to go into the Republican party to garner any chance of influencing elections? I'm not being snarky, I'm rather confused.[QUOTE="T_P_O"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]Which tosses people like me with the Republican party. :?coolbeans90
No, not a complaint with your post so much as the reality of the two party system... somewhat depressing at times.
Ah, jolly good. I thought I'd made an arse out of myself. And I sympathize, the party system here isn't that great either. I don't identify as Labour, conservative or liberal democrat (used to until they sold themselves). Only 2 of them are ever going to get the amount of support needed for winning an election and the other seems like just a fad party (liberal dems) that bounces between 50-65 seats per election.Seems an assumption......and I don't believe pretty much everyone will.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
No, not every single person will pay into it, however broadly speaking, yeah, pretty much everyone will be.
worlock77
Such a system would be paid for through taxes. So yeah, pretty much everyone would be paying into it.
Everyone doesn't pay taxes.:|[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]However, it's a lot more expensive and difficult for the non wealthy to afford both higher taxes and insurance premiums.Ninja-HippoTaxes are not going to be exponentially higher to fund government health care. The cost of renovating one nuclear submarine is enough to cover healthcare for the whole of the UK for 30 years. You'll pay more in tax, but we're talking a LITTLE more, not a huge new burden to carry. I'm not sure you understand the cost increase by having what many consider "free" health care.
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]However, it's a lot more expensive and difficult for the non wealthy to afford both higher taxes and insurance premiums.LJS9502_basicTaxes are not going to be exponentially higher to fund government health care. The cost of renovating one nuclear submarine is enough to cover healthcare for the whole of the UK for 30 years. You'll pay more in tax, but we're talking a LITTLE more, not a huge new burden to carry. I'm not sure you understand the cost increase by having what many consider "free" health care.Um, refer to the previous statistic that the US has the highest healthcare expenditure per capita in the world. Not much of an increase, is it?
[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Seems an assumption......and I don't believe pretty much everyone will.LJS9502_basic
Such a system would be paid for through taxes. So yeah, pretty much everyone would be paying into it.
Everyone doesn't pay taxes.:|Hence where I said "no, not every single person will pay into it, however broadly speaking, yeah, pretty much everyone will be".
[QUOTE="sigh-_-"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I'm not sure you understand the cost increase by having what many consider "free" health care.LJS9502_basicUm, refer to the previous statistic that the US has the highest healthcare expenditure per capita in the world. Not much of an increase, is it?We're talking individually here....Yes, hence 'per capita'. I'm not sure what part of 'per capita' you don't understand, but I'll be glad to help you with it :)
[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Seems an assumption......and I don't believe pretty much everyone will.LJS9502_basic
Such a system would be paid for through taxes. So yeah, pretty much everyone would be paying into it.
Everyone doesn't pay taxes.:|wat. some people do. an awful lot, in fact.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sigh-_-"]Um, refer to the previous statistic that the US has the highest healthcare expenditure per capita in the world. Not much of an increase, is it?sigh-_-We're talking individually here....Yes, hence 'per capita'. I'm not sure what part of 'per capita' you don't understand, but I'll be glad to help you with it :)You have to take out the government health care that already exists to find out what is spent privately.;)
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="worlock77"]Everyone doesn't pay taxes.:|wat. some people do. an awful lot, in fact. Some =/= EVERYONE.Such a system would be paid for through taxes. So yeah, pretty much everyone would be paying into it.
sigh-_-
[QUOTE="sigh-_-"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]We're talking individually here....LJS9502_basicYes, hence 'per capita'. I'm not sure what part of 'per capita' you don't understand, but I'll be glad to help you with it :)You have to take out the government health care that already exists to find out what is spent privately.;)Well yes, c'est la basic arithmetic. It's also irrelevant.
wat. some people do. an awful lot, in fact. Some =/= EVERYONE.Um, then the expression you were looking for was 'not everyone pays taxes', which is syntactically different from 'everyone doesn't pay taxes'.[QUOTE="sigh-_-"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Everyone doesn't pay taxes.:|LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sigh-_-"]Yes, hence 'per capita'. I'm not sure what part of 'per capita' you don't understand, but I'll be glad to help you with it :)sigh-_-You have to take out the government health care that already exists to find out what is spent privately.;)Well yes, c'est la basic arithmetic. It's also irrelevant. It's not irrelevant. If you are trying to say the private system costs too much..then it's disingenuous to have publicly funded health care in the statistics.
It's not only conservatives who oppose government-run universal healthcare... I am fairly liberal and I do not support it...
They'll get used to it soon enough. My mom sometimes talks about the concern people had in 91 when we started using capitalism. We switched from free health care to a universal health care system where everyone pays the same amount regardless of wealth. The difference between income and outcome is then managed by taxes, especially luxury taxes, like a tax on more than two houses, on luxury yachts and stuff that only the really really rich have. I think that is the only fair solution.
Well yes, c'est la basic arithmetic. It's also irrelevant. It's not irrelevant. If you are trying to say the private system costs too much..then it's disingenuous to have publicly funded health care in the statistics.No it isn't, because I'm also criticising the state-capitalist practice of public funding going to the pockets of private healthcare providers.[QUOTE="sigh-_-"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You have to take out the government health care that already exists to find out what is spent privately.;)LJS9502_basic
I am against it becuase I realized that the government can't make health-care better by making everyone pay for it. 25% of our tax money is going to Medicare/Medicare and those are failing. Why would we want the government in charge of that to be in charge of all of our health-care?
I am against it becuase I realized that the government can't make health-care better by making everyone pay for it. 25% of our tax money is going to Medicare/Medicare and those are failing. Why would we want the government in charge of that to be in charge of all of our health-care?
Jacobistheman
How are they failing?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment