Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Madman

Americans want Government to solve all our problems. Well, that's what were getting - then we complain when Government get too big - sound like a vicious cycle of circle jerks. Obama is doing what the Democrats have wanted all along - big Government in a socialistic atmosphere under a democratic label.

Not all Americans want big Gov't. Many want less and always have.

Originally Posted by Madman

...during the address President Obama made to Congress a couple of weeks ago. I waited for the part on "How would this be paid for?" to come up. It finally did... as a matter of fact... Obama had transitioned with that very question...

"How is this going to be paid for?" He said it... I heard it...

He never answered it.

It very simple - the productive members of society will pay for themselves and everyone else.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by classicman

It very simple - the productive members of society will pay for themselves and everyone else.

Isn't that the current system?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

...It very simple - the productive members of society will pay for themselves and everyone else.

Riiiiiiight, because every person who can't afford insurance nowadays is an unproductive member of society.

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Riiiiiiight, because every person who can't afford insurance nowadays is an unproductive member of society.

You cant just say it...you must show it in a graph.

Nearly one out of four (38+%) of the uninsured are in households with income over $50K and just over one out of five (21%)in households of over $75K.
Presumably, most are self-employed or employees of small businesses....productive members of society.

Add the 32% in households between $25-50K (productive, but many still below the poverty level) and that brings it to at least 70% of the uninsured that are in working families.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

You cant just say it...you must show it in a graph.

Nearly one out of four (38+%) of the uninsured are in households with income over $50K and just over one out of five (21%)in households of over $75K.

Presumably, most are self-employed or employees of small businesses....productive members of society.

Add the 32% in households between $25-50K (productive, but many still below the poverty level) and that brings it to at least 70% of the uninsured that are in working families.

Thanks for the graph. It's about time! Does that say how many choose not to purchase insurance? What again is the "poverty level"?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Riiiiiiight, because every person who can't afford insurance nowadays is an unproductive member of society.

Shut the Fuck up - mmmkay? People without incomes aren't going to pay for shit - Its a given and my offhand simplistic comment to another poster being taken out of context is getting really tiresome.
Now run along and go hug a tree or something.

Originally Posted by Madman

I understand England has 12% coming out of their citizens paychecks every payday to pay for their health care (I may be wrong). If that happens in this country... it will undoubtedly help many but, it will also bankrupt many.

We have 6% (fica tax) coming out of our paychecks every payday to pay for Social Security (and another 1+% for Medicare)...that is, until your salary hits $100,000....at which point, one does not pay more in Social Security taxes. So if you make $200k, your tax rates is in effect 3%. The more you make, the lower the total percentage of fica taxes.

Applying that 6% rate on all income over $100k could very well cover the cost of the proposed health care reform.

Originally Posted by classicman

It very simple - the productive members of society will pay for themselves and everyone else.

Its very simple.....apply the same fica tax rate to all!

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Its very simple.....apply the same fica tax rate to all!

As long as the person making $400 a month still has to pay.

[Flint]

...

[Idemosaka]

Originally Posted by Flint

...

LOL

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Madman

Can't blame Bush for the health care dilemma. This has been growing all along - as far back as I can remember. Heck, in the 70's ther was talk about health care problems and people not bing covered. I wasn't concerned because I was in the military and my family was covered.

I remember the divorcee across the lawn in another apartment. Single mom raising two children and no health care. Not an uncommon situation even back then. Honestly, the only thing that has changed it the cost of everything associated with health care. It's an ugly situation.

Americans want Government to solve all our problems. Well, that's what were getting - then we complain when Government get too big - sound like a vicious cycle of circle jerks. Obama is doing what the Democrates have wanted all along - big Government in a socialistic atmosphere under a democratic label. He just happens to be the first democratic presidential candidate who hasn't had a stream of mud clinging to his past.

If this thing doesn't pass, I'll be surprised.

One thing that has puzzled me and I hoped would be answered during the address President Obama made to Congress a couple of weeks ago. I waited for the part on "How would this be paid for?" to come up. It finally did... as a matter of fact... Obama had transitioned with that very question...

"How is this going to be paid for?" He said it... I heard it...

He never answered it.

I understand England has 12% coming out of their citizens paychecks every payday to pay for their health care (I may be wrong). If that happens in this country... it will undoubtedly help many but, it will also bankrupt many.

So wait... are you saying you had free health care in the military?

And the question isn't how much will cost us, the real question is, how much will cost us if we do nothing, and things continue the way they are now?

[classicman]

So a tax increase of 6% on all households with incomes of $100,000 or more - Is that what you are saying?

Originally Posted by classicman

So a tax increase of 6% on all households with incomes of $100,000 or more - Is that what you are saying?

I should have said the 6% fica rate should apply to all wages/salaries, not all income.

The higher one's income, generally, the percent of that income from wages/salaries (as opposed to investment and other sources of income) goes down.

[classicman]

glatt - of course. It seemed like the simplest answer to the question posed.

Redux, so there is a 6% tax increase on all household wages and salaries of $100,000 or more - That correct?

Originally Posted by classicman

Redux, so there is a 6% tax increase on all household wages and salaries of $100,000 or more - That correct?

They already pay 6% on on the first $100k...but effectively only pay 4.5% on their total wages (not tax on the last $50k)

Why should someone making $150k pay a lower rate than someone making $80k.

It is the reverse of the long standing concept of taxing according to ability to pay (the concept of progressive taxation that I know you dont agree with).

But this wouldnt even be a progressive tax.....6% on all wages/salaries....same rate for all.