Tax on rich for healthcare.

hom36rown

Well-Known Member
I think everyone can agree we need some form of healthcare reform. But what should be done? I personally think that we need some form of government subsidized healthcare, but we should fix our budget problems beforehand, and higher taxes should not be the solution.

More work is needed on proposed health care legislation to make sure that it doesn't add to the budget deficit, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Sunday.
Health Secretary Kathleeen Sebelius said it may be necessary to tax the wealthy to pay for health care reform.





Appearing on the NBC program "Meet the Press," Sebelius said a tax surcharge on wealthy Americans is "a legitimate way to go forward."
The taxes would start with people making $350,000.
She noted the tax surcharge provision in a House proposal was one of several options under discussion to help pay for overhauling the nation's ailing health system.
A final bill "will be paid for -- it will not add to the deficit," Sebelius said of health care reform, which is President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
Both the House and Senate are working on proposals that would create a government-funded public health insurance option intended to drive down costs of private coverage.
However, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported last week that the measures currently under consideration in both chambers would not pay for themselves, increasing the budget deficit.
Don't Miss



Democrats pushing the health care bills argue the CBO analysis lacks the impact of cost-cutting measures under discussion for existing programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
Sebelius said that all proposals include provisions to decrease fraud and improve efficiency of the current system.
"In all the plans, more than half the money to pay for the proposal is already in the system,"Sebelius said, referring to what she called misdirected money for ineffective programs and other instances of waste and inefficiency.
Watch report on President Obama's efforts on his top domestic priority »
Republican opponents so far say the government is over-reaching by seeking to reform the whole system, which is draining the federal budget while leaving 46 million Americans uninsured.
Also appearing on "Meet the Press," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky called for expanding the tax deduction on health care costs for employers to include individual taxpayers -- what the Republicans call equalized tax treatment -- and limiting medical malpractice lawsuits that he said drive up the cost of medical care.
"I'm not in favor of doing nothing," McConnell said. "It's important to reduce the number of uninsured. The question is how to do that."
Both the House and Senate proposals so far include mechanisms to raise revenue through increased or new taxes.
The Senate Finance Committee wants to create a new tax on medical benefits provided by employers, a plan that Obama opposes.
Sebelius said the new tax could cause employers who provide coverage for 180 million Americans to change or drop their programs, which could "dismantle the private market."




"He's reluctant to move in that direction," she said.
Obama continues to favor reducing the limit on income tax exemptions for high-income Americans, Sebelius said.
 

ChChoda

Well-Known Member
I think everyone can agree we need some form of healthcare reform. But what should be done? I personally think that we need some form of government subsidized healthcare, but we should fix our budget problems beforehand, and higher taxes should not be the solution.
We should deny treatment to the elderly, the obese, smokers (of anything), the chronically handicapped, those with dementia, pregnant women, and some more groups later. In other words, we should implement government run health care. Then all will be well with the world.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Appearing on the NBC program "Meet the Press," Sebelius said a tax surcharge on wealthy Americans is "a legitimate way to go forward."

I saw the program this morning. At no time did anyone ask Sebelius from where she derives the constitutional authority to introduce federal health care into the states. I wonder why?

Vi
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
We don't really use our Constitution any longer, we should auction it off to the highest bidder. I think if the government got completely out of health care things would improve. Just getting them into it deeper is only going to make things worse IMO.
 

hom36rown

Well-Known Member
We should deny treatment to the elderly, the obese, smokers (of anything), the chronically handicapped, those with dementia, pregnant women, and some more groups later. In other words, we should implement government run health care. Then all will be well with the world.
Plenty of other nations on earth with socialized medecine...they do not deny treatment to the elderly or obese or pregnant, that I know of.
 

ChChoda

Well-Known Member
Plenty of other nations on earth with socialized medecine...they do not deny treatment to the elderly or obese or pregnant, that I know of.
If you looked into it, you'd find they do. Start with Britain and Canada. It really is disgraceful, government run health care.
 

hom36rown

Well-Known Member
We don't really use our Constitution any longer, we should auction it off to the highest bidder. I think if the government got completely out of health care things would improve. Just getting them into it deeper is only going to make things worse IMO.
Let's see, we have 50 million uninsured...so that number would go up under a government subsidized sytem? In what way would things get worse, and why?
 

hom36rown

Well-Known Member
If you looked into it, you'd find they do. Start with Britain and Canada. It really is disgraceful, government run health care.
Dropping people off at skid row when they are sick is pretty disgraceful.

So let's see some data...I can't find any info on the UK denying treatment to elderly. All the Brits I have spoken to on this site seem to enjoy their healthcare system.
 
K

Keenly

Guest
Dropping people off at skid row when they are sick is pretty disgraceful.

So let's see some data...I can't find any info on the UK denying treatment to elderly. All the Brits I have spoken to on this site seem to enjoy their healthcare system.
the man is right

ill say it before and ill say it again

this is the exact same healthcare plan the nazis had


if your part of the baby boomer generation, which is a HUGE amount in this country...and you go in for treatment, chances are you will be deemed "unfit to live" because your so old

this is serious shit
 

sash125

Well-Known Member
Ha ha! As a Canadian, I can tell you that people are NOT! denied treatment in this Country because they are deemed unfit to live. My grandmother was given a replacement hip at 90 years of age. I have a morbidly obese uncle who has never been denied treatment.

From my experience people in Canada are happy with the Health Care system. I don't mind paying extra tax to insure everyone will be given treatment if they need it, and not left to fend for them self if their insurance isn't good enough.
 

hom36rown

Well-Known Member
So you are saying if we had gov't subsidized healthcare, old people will be deemed "unfit to live"? Does anyone actually have a real argument?
 

hom36rown

Well-Known Member
Ha ha! As a Canadian, I can tell you that people are NOT! denied treatment in this Country because they are deemed unfit to live. My grandmother was given a replacement hip at 90 years of age. I have a morbidly obese uncle who has never been denied treatment.

From my experience people in Canada are happy with the Health Care system. I don't mind paying extra tax to insure everyone will be given treatment if they need it, and not left to fend for them self if their insurance isn't good enough.
'bout time a Canadian chimed in. There you have it ChCHoda, elderly and obese are not denied treatment in Canada.
 

hookbills

Active Member
Let's see, we have 50 million uninsured...so that number would go up under a government subsidized sytem? In what way would things get worse, and why?
And what percentage of those are illegal aliens? How many choose not to spend the money on insurance and play the odds. How many are in between jobs and refuse COBRA. It is neither the governments nor an employers job to insure everybody. Constitutionally the congress does not have the right to force it upon us.
 

hookbills

Active Member
'bout time a Canadian chimed in. There you have it ChCHoda, elderly and obese are not denied treatment in Canada.
To keep costs manageable, health care has to be rationed. At the basic level all will be okay but when a specialist is needed there in lays the problem. Stage 2 cancer treatment...sorry, elderly health care...sorry

It's people. Soylent Green is made out of people. They're making our food out of people. Next thing they'll be breeding us like cattle for food. You've gotta tell them. You've gotta tell them!.....Det Thorn
 

hom36rown

Well-Known Member
We would have plenty of money for healthcare if we did not spend it on, say, policing the world, or giving billions to Israel and other countries in foreign aid, fighting the war on drugs, etc. etc.....theres money out there. Also, private insurance could still exist...so those with money can still get their cancer treatment or what have you, if there were indeed rationing. But there is no reason whatsoever that we should not have enough money to provide healthcare.
 

ChChoda

Well-Known Member
http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/hl856.cfm

or maybe...

Gore Endorses Canada's Medical System

Mises Daily by William L. Anderson | Posted on 11/20/2002 12:00:00 AM



http://www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1102

or how about....


http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/socialized.html#canada



 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
Let's see, we have 50 million uninsured...so that number would go up under a government subsidized sytem? In what way would things get worse, and why?
Because the uninsured, being forced to have insurance would no longer be able to afford to get healthcare. For at least the fifth (possibly the tenth) time this irrational, idiotic attempt to equivocate Health Care and Health Insurance is a sign of a lack of intelligence, a lack of critical-thinking ability, and a lack of willingness to ask that most human of all questions, "Why?"

Of course, the answer as to why, is that the government (specifically the Democrats) desire to reward their supporters in the insurance industry with monopolies via government interference in the markets.

As far as how this benefits any one. It doesn't. As one of the 50 Million "Uninsured" I have no interest in insurance, I'm quite capable of paying out of pocket, because medical care (for preventative medicine) really isn't that expensive. $250/year for vision is what I pay to my eye doctor, another $500 to the dentists. Suddenly being obligated through the threat of force, coercion and fraud to have insurance would be a lot more expensive than the minimal amount of health care I need, and it would of course not provide health care.

Though, I must admit that I do not know how many of the 50 Million "Uninsured" are like me, and thus can not speak for them, but I would imagine that a good chunk of them are entreprenuers, executives, and other people that are trying to make their own path, thus the government's imbecilic, self-centered, power-mongering attempts to force them to get health insurance is the typical tyrannical pursuits of socialists and all that follow that ideology of stupidity.
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/hl856.cfm

or maybe...

Gore Endorses Canada's Medical System

Mises Daily by William L. Anderson | Posted on 11/20/2002 12:00:00 AM



http://www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1102

or how about....


http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/socialized.html#canada



http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/candentist2.html

Health Minister Philippe Couillard said Thursday that the government is prepared to issue a decree to force the dentists to treat those eligible for dentistry under Medicare. The decree would come into effect on Friday, April 4, the soonest possible by law.
Tyranny, Imbecility, and self-serving egotistic power-mongering.

I wonder how long that area will have dentists if the State forces them into Slavery. My guess is they all pack up and leave, giving the State a nice big, "F U 2"
 
Top