That is only federal income taxes, and actually a rather unfair number. The actual number is closer to 10% when you take into account payroll taxes and other federal taxes.Chevy235 said:
USA health system... umm... what the hell?!
- Thread starter Zhukov
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Countries with socialized medicine pay less per capita than the US is paying now, in tax money. The argument that you're saving money right now is absolutely bogus... you are NOT saving tax money right now.spartan231490 said:
The current system is wasteful and costly compared to socialized medicine. Why claim wanting to save tax dollars is a valid motivation when it's proven that you aren't?
Where is that tax money going? Certainly not into Alison's shoulders.
If you honestly believe that you are basing your opinion on anything other than sheer hatred for those who differ from you ideologically, then you are an idiot. And a hilariously unaware one at that.Liudeius said:
And it's not spin, Cadet. If you accept that your news sources are incredibly biased (and MSNBC is, to the point of radicalism), then your perception of Fox as HIDEOUSLY TEH EBIL is automatically suspect. Pointing out that a major news source relied upon by people who hate Teh Fox, and one that helps them form their perceptions thereof, is biased is not spin; it's the introduction of evidence that said perceptions are in themselves not necessarily based in reality.
Of course, for lefties like yourselves, if you can't argue, you just attack the messenger. Or try to scare and/or demonize people, whichever works. Logic, reality, debate, they don't matter. Just personalize, paint, and attack. Predictable, so sadly predictable.
In closing, there's one more point: I don't watch Fox. I can't stand channels that are 70% devoted to opinion pieces (at least Fox denotes them as such, far more honesty than you get from CNN), and the format annoys me...the weird "breathless" style of speaking wears me out...and a lot of other channels have adopted it (see: Cenk Uygur).
My grandfather died at the age of 55 because he couldn't afford to get a medical treatment that guarranteed could have saved his life. He knew it was developing and there was absolutely nothing he could do about it without leaving his entire family in debt for years to come.
Proven where? How does this even make any legitimate sense? We can barely afford medicare and medicaid, how would a socialized health care system any cheaper? How do we pay for our current system in tax dollars? I just don't see it. Socializing health care would mean paying the salaries of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of nurses, doctors, and their retirement. Not to mention medication and utilities and machines.DracoSuave said:
We may pay more per capita, but it's not tax money.
Yeah,. but I dont think they can actually tax you more so as a proportion thing.spacewalker said:
I mean, I could be wrong, but I;m pretty sure thats why each person doesnt get an exact tax on income, and instead gets a range and stuff like that.
Hmm, payroll taxes, that's a good point. This fellow (http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/) claims that the top 5% of tax payers pay 50% of all income taxes, including payroll, but he also does state that the groups that pay 0 taxes is less than 43%.scott91575 said:
My bad, looks like I stated some misleading data...sorry about that.
Completely unrelated note however; even if socialized medicine were the cure (which I do not believe), the ACA doesn't do that. It just forces you to buy from private insurers, the biggest ones (since private health insurers still have many intrastate trade barriers to deal with)...which is a corporatist/fascist kind of mutual parasitic arrangement.
He is talking about reigning in health care costs. You would not be paying their salaries, you would be paying per procedure. When you do that, you can dictate the cost of procedures and drastically reduce costs. Sounds simple, but would take a long time to implement. There is also the issue of medical malpractice and other areas. So yes, costs are out of control, so that is one side of it.spartan231490 said:
Like I have mentioned before, I have no problem with tackling this from both ends. The system does not need to be complete social health care, but costs also need to be tackled. I would normally be on the side of free market, but with inelastic demand like health care it often requires government intervention otherwise the consumer is gouged. Of course, as stated before, the US marketplace drives innovation that is seen across the globe. People not in the US should be happy. The US drives costly R&D that otherwise would never happen, and then countries with government controlled health care can use those innovations while controlling cost.
BTW...I am not stating US companies are the only ones making medical breakthroughs, but the ability to charge a premium in the US market can finance a companies bottom line. In essence, the US citizens help fund world health care. Not exactly something the US should be interested in, but if the US is able to reign in costs it will slow innovation for the entire world.
there are some things a government should provide for everybody who is a citizen, just because.
like healthcare or transportation or water or electricity. I am not saying that private companies should not be allowed to meddle in those but the problem with companies is that they have one goal: make money. And the number one goal of healthcare should be to keep people healthy, not to line your pockets with sick peoples money.
like healthcare or transportation or water or electricity. I am not saying that private companies should not be allowed to meddle in those but the problem with companies is that they have one goal: make money. And the number one goal of healthcare should be to keep people healthy, not to line your pockets with sick peoples money.
Well said. My opinion is that costs need to be cut and frivolous malpractice lawsuits(like most of the lawsuits that target anesthesiologists) need to be stopped completely. That would go a long way towards making health-care affordable. You also need to take into account that hospitals aren't the only ones gouging you. In fact, because of all the staff regulations require them to have, many hospitals here are closing down. Health-insurance companies also gouge you quite a bit. Their profit needs to be limited.scott91575 said:
Exactly. If you're paying more and getting less, then how can one rationally claim their system is better than systems that pay less and get more?
'But it will cost more!?!' 'Then you're doin' it wrong!'
Yeah, america's debt is out of control, but it ain't healthcare that's doin' it. You -can- provide health care AND take care of the deficit.
You need to wake up, look at the american budget, see what's costing the money, and look there to trim the fat. People are dying because of money going to the wrong places.
'But it will cost more!?!' 'Then you're doin' it wrong!'
Yeah, america's debt is out of control, but it ain't healthcare that's doin' it. You -can- provide health care AND take care of the deficit.
You need to wake up, look at the american budget, see what's costing the money, and look there to trim the fat. People are dying because of money going to the wrong places.
Agreed. There are plenty of people with solutions to America's problems. Everyone's solutions just piss off enough of the rest of the people here so that NOTHING IS EVER ACCOMPLISHED.MakerOfRoads said:
You know who gives politicians money? Lobbyists. You know whose money politicians care about? Their own and lobbyists. What? You want me to cut spending to myself and/or lobbyists? Naw, that can't be an appropriate solution.DracoSuave said:
Nobody ACTUALLY CARES about their constituents any more. The constituents only do so much when it comes to voting people into office, otherwise it's all campaign funding, and whatnot.
It certainly doesn't help that those who profit from the current corrupt system will actively lie about proposed changes, stating things like death panels, etc... which is such a horrible idea that it could only have arisen from the real advisory boards the insurance companies use to determine who does not receieve health care.conflictofinterests said:
There were senate hearings about this. The companies cannot be trusted to take care of their customers.
The USA has too large a fear of socialism hanging over from the cold war, when a Russia that was as much socialist as the rigged middle eastern elections are democracy threatened them.
They are too afraid of things that are common sense for most of the developed world such as socialized health care because if they allow it then they will instantly become Communist Russia.
They are too afraid of things that are common sense for most of the developed world such as socialized health care because if they allow it then they will instantly become Communist Russia.
