Pay for it with a sales tax at the state level and you can have universal healthcare.
Sometimes i think people are more interested in using issues as a political club than actually putting some thought into solving the damn problem.
The Jordanian system is funded with sales tax. Why not here?
Somehow, it seems to me that imitating Jordan- a 3rd world country and a semi-democratic monarchy at best- seems to be a poor idea.
If it is done within one state, it will be abused.
QuoteIf it is done within one state, it will be abused.
How so?
By people from outside the state coming in and using it.
QuoteBy people from outside the state coming in and using it.
The state could set residency requirements and charge out of state fees for those who seek treatment from neighboring states.
Kind of like what they do for college tuition.
Somehow, it seems to me that imitating Jordan- a 3rd world country and a semi-democratic monarchy at best- seems to be a poor idea.
Jordan is not a 3rd world country. Maybe "2nd world" if there is such a thing. But if you look at the demographics that detail the country's infrastructure, education, literacy, birth and death rates, etc., you'll find it far above what you would typically see in a true 3rd world country.
How it is funded is really irrelevant to the healthcare debate.
QuoteHow it is funded is really irrelevant to the healthcare debate.
I don't see why. In fact i see it as central to the debate.
You are proposing a new service. How do you plan to fund it.
The feds can run a deficit. The states can't. Is this why you want it at a federal level?
"How it is funded is really irrelevant to the healthcare debate"
translation: gvt will just print the money or hide a tax in form of corporate tax or tax weathly, and we can offer "free" medical to illegals
you do think we should offer "free" medical care to illegals right?
after all if we can not deny them a DL how could we be so mean and deny them doctor visits for free too
Payroll tax is as regressive as sales tax yet it doesn't get contributions from everyone.
What rate are you proposing for FICA to cover all these new services?
We need a National Insurance tax with no upper limit ceiling.
QuoteWe need a National Insurance tax with no upper limit ceiling.
That may bring in more revenues but it doesn't alleviate the burden at the lower end.
And how do you make sure folks in the underground economy pay for these services?
With sales tax there is no cap and everybody pays.
I presume when you are speaking of a VAT you are speaking of a so called luxury tax. Otherwise we are back to a sales tax.
Using your model of a National Insurance Tax, and assuming Medicare and Medicaid would go by the wayside if it were replaced with UHC what percentage of wages would you tax to ensure the programs solvency. Currently we are at 7.65 % for SS and Medicare.
In a federal state such as the U.S.A. or Canada, mobility rights for citizens are essential.
Currently the United States pays more per patient and as a percentage of GDP than any other nation on Earth. So, does that mean that we are receiving the best care? Do we have the highest life expectancy, the lowest infant mortality rate, the best treatment for the most people?
No. According to the OECD, we do not have any of those. In fact, we run about middle of the pack.
| As the article itself notes, the U.S. has set life expectancy records in each of the last five years. And though the article quotes public health officials saying we need to do more to fight cancer and heart disease, deaths from both of those ailments have been in dramatic decline for 15 years. Whatever our ranking in comparison to other countries, the picture here is far from bleak. Deaths from cancer have actually declined overall the last two years, despite increases in population. In fact, overall deaths decreased in 2006, and by the largest margin in sixty years. |
| Nationalized health care? Well in the U.S. the mortality rate for prostate cancer is less than 20 percent. In Canada it's 25 percent. In the UK, it's more than 50 percent. Breast cancer? A 20 percent mortality rate in the U.S., 33 percent in France in Germany, and nearly half in the U.K. I find it difficult to believe that the lack of socialized medicine is what's behind our lagging in life expectancy figures. |
| First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country. |
We have private drug discount plans. We have privately run charity hospitals.
QuoteIn a federal state such as the U.S.A. or Canada, mobility rights for citizens are essential.
Why?
Why is it essential?
As we have seen, medicaid and healthy children programs differ state to state.
Sheesh.
In other nations a child born with such a deformity has corrective surgery. Why not here? How do you even begin to justify that?
States could offer different approaches to universal healthcare, so long as it met the requirement of being universal and free at the point of service.
It is only more regressive because we cap the maximum amount that allows contributions.
In other nations a child born with such a deformity has corrective surgery. Why not here? How do you even begin to justify that?
An ex-girlfriend of mine is a surgeon. She volunteers her time and skills - and her hospital volunteers the operating theatre - for the correction of these deformities. For free. In the US.
Do you know how long cleft palate repair has been treated by the governments in those nations? Yet, not here? Does that seem right?
But why is it necessary? Why should this be left to charity?
Why should this be left to charity?
Why shouldn't this be left to charity? If we had a government program, it would still be charity. It would just be government run charity. The thing is, government run charity won't solve the problem of the costs of health care. It will just hide the price from the average person.
But why is it necessary? Why should this be left to charity?
Why shouldn't this be left to charity? If we had a government program, it would still be charity. It would just be government run charity. The thing is, government run charity won't solve the problem of the costs of health care. It will just hide the price from the average person.
that the average middle-class American figures it's not his or her problem what happens to "those people" and instinctively discounts the stats because he knows if they only counted the people who matter (white people) the stats would look pretty good.
No more than the military is government run charity for defence.
It won't solve the cost? Then why are all the socialized health care systems so much less expensive than ours?