Thread: Health Care Mandate Tax

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31
  1. #1 Health Care Mandate Tax 
    Senior Member Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Western MI
    Posts
    2,358


    From: Pete Hoekstra
    What this chart shows is that 75 percent of the health care mandate tax will be levied on middle class families making less than $120,000 a year and families of four making $72,000 or less will bear nearly half of the tax.
    Good men sleep peaceably in their beds at night because
    rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.



    Real superheroes don't wear capes. They wear dog tags.
     

  2. #2  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post


    From: Pete Hoekstra
    What this chart shows is that 75 percent of the health care mandate tax will be levied on middle class families making less than $120,000 a year and families of four making $72,000 or less will bear nearly half of the tax.
    Is this a complaint? What is the bad part of this tax distribution?

    Are you saying it's a regressive tax? I thought Republicans loved regressive taxes that fall on the working class more than the wealthy.
    Are you saying it's unfair? If the tax is regressive, then the people who will benefit from it the most will pay a larger portion of it.

    Or are you saying it's a progressive tax and that's unfair?
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Western MI
    Posts
    2,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Is this a complaint? What is the bad part of this tax distribution?

    Are you saying it's a regressive tax? I thought Republicans loved regressive taxes that fall on the working class more than the wealthy. wrong
    Are you saying it's unfair? If the tax is regressive, then the people who will benefit from it the most will pay a larger portion of it.

    Or are you saying it's a progressive tax and that's unfair?
    First of all, I didn't say anything. I like to think there's people lurking who might not know this stuff. Second of all, the ACA sucks and must die. Does that answer your questions?
    Good men sleep peaceably in their beds at night because
    rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.



    Real superheroes don't wear capes. They wear dog tags.
     

  4. #4  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    First of all, I didn't say anything. I like to think there's people lurking who might not know this stuff. Second of all, the ACA sucks and must die. Does that answer your questions?
    Not really. I'm not happy with this law either, but I'm rather curious what you have against it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Western MI
    Posts
    2,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Not really. I'm not happy with this law either, but I'm rather curious what you have against it.
    I'm all for health care reform. I even like some of the stuff in the ACA (pre-existing conditions would be nice but the problem is, telling a company they by law HAVE to serve someone isn't Capitalism (which I support), I also support saving Social Security & Medicare (for retirees that have paid in and the disabled) but the reality is that there aren't enough workers to cover the coming load. It needs to be upgraded somehow and I'm not sure how. I liked Bush's plan of private accounts, but the recent wall st debacle makes you wonder. Even Medicaid is honorable, but we can't even afford SS/Medicare, how are we supposed to pay for everyman and his brother to have it? Keep it on the state level because the feds muck up almost everything they touch, and the state is closer to the recipients and can keep a better eye on things.

    In short, I'm a Federalist and I don't like the idea of the govt having control of 1/6th of the economy. It is an accident waiting to happen.
    Good men sleep peaceably in their beds at night because
    rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.



    Real superheroes don't wear capes. They wear dog tags.
     

  6. #6  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    I'm all for health care reform. I even like some of the stuff in the ACA (pre-existing conditions would be nice but the problem is, telling a company they by law HAVE to serve someone isn't Capitalism (which I support), I also support saving Social Security & Medicare (for retirees that have paid in and the disabled) but the reality is that there aren't enough workers to cover the coming load. It needs to be upgraded somehow and I'm not sure how. I liked Bush's plan of private accounts, but the recent wall st debacle makes you wonder. Even Medicaid is honorable, but we can't even afford SS/Medicare, how are we supposed to pay for everyman and his brother to have it? Keep it on the state level because the feds muck up almost everything they touch, and the state is closer to the recipients and can keep a better eye on things.
    Are you saying it would cost too much to have universal health care similar to Medicare?

    Why do you say this is true? It seems that health care reform and universal access would actually be cheaper. Other nations with universal systems that consistently rank higher on international health care ratings actually spend less money than we do, get better rated service, and are able to cover everybody.

    http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/33/38979719.pdf


    Health spending accounted for 11.4% of GDP in Canada in 2010, almost two percentage points higher
    than the OECD average of 9.5%. However, health spending as a share of GDP is much lower in Canada
    than in the United States (which spent 17.6% of its GDP on health in 2010). It is also slightly lower than in
    certain European countries such as the Netherlands (12.0%), France (11.6%) and Germany (11.6%).
    Each of these nations ranks higher than the US on health care, and they each spend significantly less of their GDP on health care costs.

    The economic argument doesn't hold up, because there are dozens of examples of health care systems that are both more universal and cheaper.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Western MI
    Posts
    2,358
    The countries you mention are considerably smaller than the US. I think you're a bit misguided, but it's funny so do go on.


    Are you saying it would cost too much to have universal health care similar to Medicare?
    That's what I'm saying. Medicare is slowly dying. In part (although I haven't read anything really nailing down the actual numbers, it's a lot of speculative numbers) because of millions being aborted since 1973. Having those people in the work force would most likely make a big difference.

    Like I said, I support reform because I think it's pretty valuable, but the funding is a problem and adding millions more would be insane and next to impossible to fund.


    Each of these nations ranks higher than the US on health care, and they each spend significantly less of their GDP on health care costs.
    The quality of our health care far outstrips the nations "better". The countries you list aren't full of people who like it.

    on edit: I support means testing.
    Good men sleep peaceably in their beds at night because
    rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.



    Real superheroes don't wear capes. They wear dog tags.
     

  8. #8  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    The countries you mention are considerably smaller than the US. I think you're a bit misguided, but it's funny so do go on.
    That's why we compare percentages and ratios, rather than comparing the numbers directly.

    It's like comparing body fat percentage. A really tall person and a really short person can have the same body fat percentage, even though the really tall person will clearly have more mass.

    A 6 foot 6 inches man may be far thinner and more lean than a 5 foot 2 man, even though the taller man technically has more total body fat. You can't compare their weight directly, but you can compare percentages and ratios.



    That's what I'm saying. Medicare is slowly dying. In part (although I haven't read anything really nailing down the actual numbers, it's a lot of speculative numbers) because of millions being aborted since 1973. Having those people in the work force would most likely make a big difference.

    Like I said, I support reform because I think it's pretty valuable, but the funding is a problem and adding millions more would be insane and next to impossible to fund.
    The numbers I quoted still stand, countries that have universal health care systems spend less of a percentage of their GDP than we do.

    Our current system is primarily private, leaves many people uninsured, and costs way more money than a medicare-like system.



    The quality of our health care far outstrips the nations "better". The countries you list aren't full of people who like it.

    on edit: I support means testing.
    Where are you getting these "facts"?

    Polls suggest otherwise: http://www.gallup.com/poll/8056/heal...in-canada.aspx

    One-fourth of American respondents are either "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with "the availability of affordable healthcare in the nation," (6% very satisfied and 19% somewhat satisfied). This level of satisfaction is significantly lower than in Canada, where 57% are satisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, including 16% who are very satisfied. Roughly 4 in 10 Britons are satisfied (43%), but only 7% say they are very satisfied (similar to the percentage very satisfied in the United States).

    Looking at the other side of the coin, 44% of Americans are very dissatisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, and nearly three-fourths (72%) are either somewhat or very dissatisfied. The 44% in the United States who are very dissatisfied with healthcare availability is significantly higher than corresponding figures in either Canada (17%) or Great Britain (25%).
    The views of Americans on the quality of medical care in their country are not overly different -- 48% of Americans, 52% of Canadians, and 42% of Britons say they are satisfied.

    The World Health Organization ranks these other health care systems superior than our own, using a variety of metrics and criteria. People in these other countries seem more satisfied. These other countries pay less of a percentage of their GDP on health care costs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Is this a complaint? What is the bad part of this tax distribution?
    When Obama said "tax the rich" did you really think he was talking about bachelors making over 59k/year?
     

  10. #10  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Are you saying it would cost too much to have universal health care similar to Medicare?

    Why do you say this is true? It seems that health care reform and universal access would actually be cheaper. Other nations with universal systems that consistently rank higher on international health care ratings actually spend less money than we do, get better rated service, and are able to cover everybody.

    http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/33/38979719.pdf
    And yet, Canadian politicians continue to come here for treatment. How do you explain that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Each of these nations ranks higher than the US on health care, and they each spend significantly less of their GDP on health care costs.

    The economic argument doesn't hold up, because there are dozens of examples of health care systems that are both more universal and cheaper.
    The WHO ratings use a number of factors which permit them to fudge the ratings. For example, they rate "Fair financial contribution" at 25% of a country's score, but fairness is about as subjective as it gets. Also, any rating that puts the UK's NHS ahead of our health system is obviously faking, and Cuba is only two places behind us, even though their doctors recently burned Hugo Chavez to a crisp while treating him for cancer. An article in the American Spectator put the lie to WHO's methods:

    The WHO rankings are based on a constructed index of five factors. One factor is "health level," defined as a country's disability-adjusted life expectancy. Another is "health responsiveness," which includes desirable characteristics of healthcare like speed of service, protection of privacy, and quality of amenities.
    Both of these are sensible indicators of health quality, but they constitute only 37.5 percent of each country's score. The other 62.5 percent encompasses factors only tenuously connected to the quality of care -- and that can actually punish a country's ranking for superior performance.
    TAKE "FINANCIAL FAIRNESS" (FF), worth 25 percent of the total. This factor measures inequality in how much households spend on healthcare as a percentage of their income. The greater the inequality, the worse the country's performance.
    Notice that FF necessarily improves when the government shoulders more of the health spending burden, rather than relying on the private sector. To use the existing WHO rankings to justify more government involvement in healthcare is therefore to engage in circular reasoning, because the rankings are designed to favor greater government involvement. (Clinton's plan would attempt to improve the American FF score by capping insurance premiums.)
    The ostensible reason to include FF in the health index is to account for people landing in dire financial straits because of their health needs. Yet the FF factor worsens for every household that deviates from the average percentage of income spent on healthcare, regardless of whether the deviation is on the high side or low side.
    That means the FF factor doesn't just penalize a country because some households are especially likely to become impoverished from health costs; it also penalizes a country because some households are especially unlikely to become impoverished from health costs.
    The other two factors, "health distribution" and "responsiveness distribution," are no better. Together worth 37.5 percent of a country's score, these factors measure inequality in health level and responsiveness. Strictly speaking, neither measures healthcare performance, because inequality is distinct from quality of care. It's entirely possible to have a healthcare system characterized by both extensive inequality and good care for everyone.

    Suppose, for instance, that Country A has health responsiveness that is "excellent" for most citizens but merely "good" for some disadvantaged groups, while Country B has responsiveness that is uniformly "poor" for everyone. Country B would score higher than Country A in responsiveness distribution, despite Country A having better responsiveness for even its worst-off citizens.

    What if the quality of healthcare improves for half of the population, while remaining the same for the other half? This should be regarded as an unambiguous improvement: some people get better off, and no one gets worse off. But in the WHO index, the effect is ambiguous because the improvement could increase inequality.

    THE WHO RANKINGS have also been adjusted to reflect efficiency: how well a country is doing relative to how much it spends. In the media, however, this distinction is often lost.

    Costa Rica ranks higher than the United States (number 36 versus number 37), but that does not mean Costa Ricans get better healthcare than Americans. Americans most likely get better healthcare -- just not as much better as could be expected given how much we spend. If the question is health outcomes alone, without reference to spending, we should look at the unadjusted ranking, where the U.S. is number 15 and Costa Rica is number 45. (And even the number 15 rank is problematic, for all the reasons discussed above.)

    The WHO rankings implicitly take all differences in health outcomes unexplained by spending or literacy and attribute them entirely to health system performance. Nothing else, from tobacco use to nutrition to sheer luck, is taken into account. These variables were excluded largely because of underlying paternalist assumptions about the proper role of the health system.

    If the culture has a predilection for unhealthy foods, there may be little healthcare providers can do about it. Conversely, if the culture has a pre-existing preference for healthy foods, the healthcare system hardly deserves the credit. Some people are happy to give up a few potential months or even years of life in exchange for the pleasures of smoking, eating, having sex, playing sports, and so on. The WHO approach, rather than taking people's preferences as given, deems some preferences better than others, and then praises or blames the health system for them.

    Those who cite the WHO ranking to justify greater government involvement in the health system -- like the plans pitched by the leading Democratic presidential candidates -- are assuming what they're trying to prove. The WHO healthcare ranking system does not escape political bias. It advances ideological assumptions that most Americans might find questionable under the guise of objectivity.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    That's why we compare percentages and ratios, rather than comparing the numbers directly.
    Again, too easy to fudge. The real means to determine the quality of health care is to look at specifics, such as cancer survival rates.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    The numbers I quoted still stand, countries that have universal health care systems spend less of a percentage of their GDP than we do.

    Our current system is primarily private, leaves many people uninsured, and costs way more money than a medicare-like system.
    Your numbers fall. They were debunked by the article that I cited above, as well as in a number of studies, such as one by the Pacific Institute (http://www.pacificresearch.org/docLi..._Ten_Myths.pdf). The


    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    The World Health Organization ranks these other health care systems superior than our own, using a variety of metrics and criteria. People in these other countries seem more satisfied. These other countries pay less of a percentage of their GDP on health care costs.
    Which they fudge in order to get the outcomes that they want. Or do you really believe that the UK, which is notorious for its shoddy system, is an order of magnitude better than ours? Wait, what am I saying? You're a Marxist. You'll believe anything.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •