rehmwa 2 #26 March 29, 2009 Quote It is just cheaper/person when everyone is paying their share. useless what is their 'share'? is it the same dollars for everyone or some "fair" sliding scale you get to choose? is it more or less than I'm paying now? if it was the equal dollars for everyone, prove to me that it's less than the average of what everyone pays today Fine - make a basic level of health care nationalized - anything beyond that is pay as you go by the individual. Take that total cost of the basic portion and divide it in equal dollars among every single person in the country that has access (legal or illegal). We all pay the bill - even those that don't currently pay any taxes at all - treat it outside the tax cycle. It's a fee on each individual. If you have a family of 5, you pay exactly 5 times more than a family of 1 no matter where you live, no matter if you are rich poor legal resident illegal resident minority male female gay straight and etc. let me know how that flies any other proposal is a clear effort to make sure somebody gets something at someone else's expense. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #27 March 29, 2009 Quote any other proposal is a clear effort to make sure somebody gets something at someone else's expense. If the result of a new approach is that dimes on the dollar aren't spent determining proper payments, there could be considerable savings, though at the expense of a lot of lawyers and paper pushers. That said, it's very difficult to jump to a new approach, much like changing course on a fully loaded oil tanker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #28 March 29, 2009 QuoteQuoteAgain, what "plan" are you referring to? This is discussion on the Hill. Obama hasn't proposed anything, and if you think he will put forth one that taxes all without any base allowance, let me sell you some bank stocks. Ok... according to what you typed above... - there is no plan. - O hasn't proposed anything. But, you are able to tell me the content of the proposal that doesn't exist? You are absolutely certain that it will contain a base allowance (tax credit)? Because that was in the McCain plan that Obama ripped during his campaign. I believe he ripped the plan as a whole, not the tax credit element. Are you confused? You say it's Obama's plan, then you cite the Washington Times (a source that's had a bad week in SC, BTW) that continues to say that Obama is opposed to the concept, but won't rule it out. But yes - I'm absolutely certain that any legislation that gets at least 300 votes from Congress will have a base allowance. To believe otherwise is either fear mongering or political ignorance. As I've said, I'll be amazed if any proposal that makes substantive change to our system of health care would be passed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #29 March 29, 2009 equal is you pay what I pay. fair is you pay what you deserve and I pay what I deserve. both have merits and disadvantages, I am not touting either. the proof that the system is cheaper is already out there. The USA pays more per capita for healthcare that any other 'socialized medicine' country http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf http://www.cmwf.org/Content/Publications/Testimonies/2008/Mar/Testimony--Health-and-Wealth--Measuring-Health-System-Performance.aspx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm Glad we agree on socializing at least PART of the healthcare system. But which part? It is the extremely serious and the trauma stuff that people cannot afford. providing 'basic' healthcare will probably not solve the financial problems. Maybe we should provide the 'emergency' care, the trauma, accidents, cancer treatments and such and let people pay for their own 'basic' care. Or better yet, maybe we just just extend the bottom age limit of the Medicare system to 1 day of age. THat would be the simplest piece of legislation to fix the problem of who is paying for healthcare. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #30 March 29, 2009 Quoteequal is you pay what I pay. fair is you pay what you deserve and I pay what I deserve. ok, who gets to define what "deserve" means why isn't 'fair' and 'equal' the same thing? Even better - Why do people automatically ASSUME that fair and equal aren't the same thing? This is a fundamental indication of the direction of how much of society thinks today. The whole reason that people think fair and equal aren't the same thing is from people that want something more than what they pay for.... isn't it? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #31 March 29, 2009 QuoteI believe he ripped the plan as a whole, not the tax credit element. That is totally incorrect. From Factcheck.org QuoteOne Obama ad charges that McCain's plan would be "the largest middle-class tax increase in history." That's simply not true. QuoteThe Obama campaign's calculations look only at the tax that workers would pay on the value of employer-sponsored health benefits without accounting for the tax credit workers would receive. The Times article said that "the elimination of the [income tax] exclusion would generate $3.6 trillion over 10 years, according to the McCain campaign." The $3.6 trillion, the Obama camp reasons, would be the largest tax increase in history. But for most Americans, the increased tax bill would be more than offset by McCain's tax credits. "...more than offset by McCains tax credits." The Obama campaign misrespresented the facts by excluding the tax credit. Then, they attacked it as a huge tax hike when it was obviously not. QuoteAre you confused? You say it's Obama's plan, then you cite the Washington Times (a source that's had a bad week in SC, BTW) that continues to say that Obama is opposed to the concept, but won't rule it out. First off - all the online sources are referring back to the original source. the NY Times There are hundreds of links/references and analysis being done. I just picked one. From the first lines of the NYTimes article: QuoteWASHINGTON — The Obama administration is signaling to Congress that the president could support taxing some employee health benefits, as several influential lawmakers and many economists favor, to help pay for overhauling the health care system. In the many, many articles, the Obama staff is careful to not take a stand. "Everything is on the table." Newsmax QuoteNow several Obama aides say that while the president won’t propose a tax on benefits, he won’t oppose the measure if Congress puts it forward. The McCain plan taxed health benefits with the tax offset. Obama attacked it as a huge increase when it was not AS McCain described it. Obama's plan is McCain's plan without the tax credit. So, it becomes the huge tax increase that he attacked so hard during his campaign. Since he said he wouldn't raise taxes... now he can't state that he supports it, just that he'll sign it. The best part is when his staff appear on tv and spend all their time dodging direct questions on the topic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #32 March 29, 2009 >why isn't 'fair' and 'equal' the same thing? An "equal" tax would mean every person in the US pays about $22,000 a year, no matter what your income. Taxing someone more than they make is a pretty good definition of "unfair" though - so to someone who makes $20,000 a year, such a scheme would be both equal and unfair. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #33 March 29, 2009 Quote>why isn't 'fair' and 'equal' the same thing? An "equal" tax would mean every person in the US pays about $22,000 a year, no matter what your income. Taxing someone more than they make is a pretty good definition of "unfair" though - so to someone who makes $20,000 a year, such a scheme would be both equal and unfair. That is a tax of an equal amount. Since probably no country in the world uses that method, it is unimportant and tangental to discuss it. It would be best to discuss equal tax as an equal tax rate. A percentage. For example, if everyone paid 4% of their gross income. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #34 March 29, 2009 CONGRESS gets to decide what is 'fair'. And the President gets to veto it if he does not like it. Like I said, i am not touting fair or equal, but they are NOT the same thing..... Injustices happen every day in this (every) country despite the 'equality' of law. It is not fair (to some). fair and equal are completely different in many cases - that is why I pointed it out as such..... They are the same is a few cases. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #35 March 30, 2009 Quote*** No one said health care is 'free' Universal healthcare means everyone pays for it, usually through income taxes. It is just cheaper/person when everyone is paying their share. This is actually what this proposal suggests - everyone pays for it. Plenty are unhappy because they want only the rich and the employers to pay and they will fight. I am heartened because there is an inherent sort of admission that the rich and the employers are tapped out - they simply lack the resources to pay for something like this. I can say I find it more equitable. On the other hand I am against anyone being compelled to pay for someone else's private affairs or business. So "fairness" is somewhat of a misnomer. When we all get screwed at least we all are treated equally. And when "everyone" will be expected to pay, I belive that you'll find everyone in sudden agreement with the "rich" and the "corporations" and the "employers" who are upset. Which means we aint all that different. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #36 March 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteI believe he ripped the plan as a whole, not the tax credit element. That is totally incorrect. From Factcheck.org QuoteOne Obama ad charges that McCain's plan would be "the largest middle-class tax increase in history." That's simply not true. QuoteThe Obama campaign's calculations look only at the tax that workers would pay on the value of employer-sponsored health benefits without accounting for the tax credit workers would receive. The Times article said that "the elimination of the [income tax] exclusion would generate $3.6 trillion over 10 years, according to the McCain campaign." The $3.6 trillion, the Obama camp reasons, would be the largest tax increase in history. But for most Americans, the increased tax bill would be more than offset by McCain's tax credits. "...more than offset by McCains tax credits." The Obama campaign misrespresented the facts by excluding the tax credit. Then, they attacked it as a huge tax hike when it was obviously not. You really are confused. Again, he attacked the proposal to tax health care benefits, not the use of a base exclusion. All you've shown here is that he didn't mention the exclusion when he attacked it. Gee, what a shock - campaigns misrepresenting the stance of the opposition. Just as you're grossly misrepresenting the current stance of the Obama administration. You're simply citing repeatedly that he'll sign something along these lines if Congress passes it. No clarity on base exclusion exists. This may also be similar to Bush's promise to sign an extension of the Assault Weapon ban if Congress passed it. He knew such an event would never happen. But if you really think the Democratic party wants to alienate every working voter (which still represents the bulk of their support), you can continue to keep your blood pressure jacked up over this non event. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #37 March 30, 2009 Quote You really are confused. Again, he attacked the proposal to tax health care benefits, not the use of a base exclusion. All you've shown here is that he didn't mention the exclusion when he attacked it. Not at all. Not even a little bit. This wasn't some silly hiccup. It was a $3 trillion difference. Not an unplanned blip in some campaign rhetoric. Let's see... the "minor math oversight" is "no cost" vs "the largest tax increase in history" (Obamas words). And you believe that? Uh-huh. Sign up for Flock-Leader. The difference was the McCain proposal, as stated, was workable and would not cost the taxpayer. The Obama campaign stated that it was the largest tax increase in history. My biggest question... Why aren't these budget wizards using the McCain plan ? Quote Gee, what a shock - campaigns misrepresenting the stance of the opposition. What is not a shock to read? That Dems have always been ok with it. Go ahead, type, "it was wrong to lie". Tryyyy... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #38 March 30, 2009 >That is a tax of an equal amount. >Since probably no country in the world uses that method, it is >unimportant and tangental to discuss it. It may be unimportant - but that is the question that Remwha asked. >It would be best to discuss equal tax as an equal tax rate. You are giving an example of why "equal" and "equal rate" are not the same thing - which is another reasonable answer to Remwha's question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #39 March 30, 2009 Quote The difference was the McCain proposal, as stated, was workable and would not cost the taxpayer. Difference? How many times must I repeat that there is no current proposal to compare to? This is a epitome of the strawman argument. Quote Go ahead, type, "it was wrong to lie". Tryyyy... It certainly worked for Rove. Seems to for you as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #40 March 30, 2009 QuoteQuote*** No one said health care is 'free' Universal healthcare means everyone pays for it, usually through income taxes. It is just cheaper/person when everyone is paying their share. This is actually what this proposal suggests - everyone pays for it. Plenty are unhappy because they want only the rich and the employers to pay and they will fight. I am heartened because there is an inherent sort of admission that the rich and the employers are tapped out - they simply lack the resources to pay for something like this. I can say I find it more equitable. On the other hand I am against anyone being compelled to pay for someone else's private affairs or business. So "fairness" is somewhat of a misnomer. When we all get screwed at least we all are treated equally. And when "everyone" will be expected to pay, I belive that you'll find everyone in sudden agreement with the "rich" and the "corporations" and the "employers" who are upset. Which means we aint all that different. I used to live in the socialist kingdom of Great Britain. I had to pay 9% tax for my health care (employer made the same contribution), it was capped at 40K a year ($60K, probably higher now). In the USA I pay 6.25% + 1.25% (IIRC) for social and medicare plus some state taxes for unemployment (employer pays the same) it is capped at about $100K for social, medicare is not capped. In addition I and my employer pay a huge chunk of medical insurance, it works out about double what I pay in the UK when you add in deductibles if you actually have to go and see a doctor. If socialized medicine did occur, like it is in the UK, my costs will go down even if they tripled medicare costs, I don't have a problem with that. The only people who have a problem are the insurance companies that skim 30%+ off our premiums and they are working real hard to make sure it doesn't happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #41 March 30, 2009 I wish the rich and the corporations and the employers had to pay for the military instead of me paying for it - that would be great...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #42 March 30, 2009 QuoteI wish the rich and the corporations and the employers had to pay for the military instead of me paying for it - that would be great...... Why? I'd prefer that no one had to pay for anything they didn't want. Wanting other people to pay for things is silly.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #43 March 30, 2009 QuoteI wish the rich and the corporations and the employers had to pay for the military instead of me paying for it - that would be great...... How about this? You pay for what you want and so does everybody else. Exception: commons like roads, fire, police, etc. Why is it that you want others to pay? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #44 March 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteI wish the rich and the corporations and the employers had to pay for the military instead of me paying for it - that would be great...... How about this? You pay for what you want and so does everybody else. Exception: commons like roads, fire, police, etc. Why is it that you want others to pay? I never go to Fresno. I don't even live in the same state, so its roads are not common to me. I don't want federal funds, to which I contribute by paying federal taxes, some of which go to California, used to repair that pothole in front of your house. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #45 March 30, 2009 Quote>why isn't 'fair' and 'equal' the same thing? An "equal" tax would mean every person in the US pays about $22,000 a year, no matter what your income. Taxing someone more than they make is a pretty good definition of "unfair" though - so to someone who makes $20,000 a year, such a scheme would be both equal and unfair. again, proof that "fair" is a totally subjective and politically driven term - net/net? someone wants a free ride at another's expense. and a plan that results on average with taxing a lot of people more than they make is a pretty clear indication that it's NOT an affordable system ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 362 #46 March 30, 2009 QuoteI'd prefer that no one had to pay for anything they didn't want. Out of curiosity, how do you suggest dealing with a situation where people may not want something, or wish to pay for something, but they still derive a benefit from it. A person may not wish to pay for the military, but situations can readily be imagined where the military is needed to protect the country/society that person lives in. Imagine what would follow if the US military were to be completely disbanded, for example; how long would it take before some other country decided to help themselves to our resources and assets? On the other hand, if financial support for the military were to be completely voluntary, how would it be possible to protect only those people/institutions who had previously contributed to the existence of the military? What possible process would allow some people to be protected, and others left to their own devices to defend themselves against an invading army? Also how would you thereafter deny the non-supporters access to all the aspects of US society that had to be defended, and that they refused to support defending? If you couldn't separate supporters from non-supporters in this manner, if non-supporters would benefit from the military as much as supporters, what possible incentive would anybody have to pay taxes to support the military (or anything else)? How would your system work? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #47 March 30, 2009 QuoteI wish the rich and the corporations and the employers had to pay for {insert ANYTHING here} instead of me {also contributing to it } for it - that would be great...... yay - honesty from someone that understands exactly what politics is all about ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #48 March 30, 2009 QuoteI never go to Fresno. I don't even live in the same state, so its roads are not common to me. I don't want federal funds, to which I contribute by paying federal taxes, some of which go to California, used to repair that pothole in front of your house. I like the way you think. I cannot necessarily disagree with the Interstate highway system. And other certain important arteries would fall within interstate commerce that the feds can regulate and fund. But I do believe that federal funds for capillaries like the road in front of my house is pretty silly. I think that should be city or county responsibility. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #49 March 30, 2009 QuoteQuote>why isn't 'fair' and 'equal' the same thing? An "equal" tax would mean every person in the US pays about $22,000 a year, no matter what your income. Taxing someone more than they make is a pretty good definition of "unfair" though - so to someone who makes $20,000 a year, such a scheme would be both equal and unfair. again, proof that "fair" is a totally subjective and politically driven term - net/net? someone wants a free ride at another's expense. Which is why the "Fair Tax (TM)" proposal is absurd. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #50 March 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteI wish the rich and the corporations and the employers had to pay for the military instead of me paying for it - that would be great...... How about this? You pay for what you want and so does everybody else. Exception: commons like roads, fire, police, etc. Why is it that you want others to pay? I never go to Fresno. I don't even live in the same state, so its roads are not common to me. I don't want federal funds, to which I contribute by paying federal taxes, some of which go to California, used to repair that pothole in front of your house. Me either. I'd prefer that we all pay for our own roads, on a local, or better yet, a fee for use basis.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
