I would prefer to see a VAT implemented in America, and removal of the Federal Income tax. It would simplify things quite a lot. There's too much complication in the tax code. While they'll never get rid of the FIT, maybe they could have a simple, graded tax system, and get the bulk of revenue from sales tax.
Not a huge fan... it's a start, but it's just too vague. I like killing off deductions and loopholes, though. Should be something like the following, regardless of source of income:
10% VAT on all goods/services.
Income tax 10% on $0-50K 20% on $50-100K 30% on $100-250K 40% on $250K-1M 50% on $1M+
Corporate transaction tax: 20%
It's ridiculous that people like Mitt Romney pay a lower percentage than I do, only because his income is from investments. Some of us still work for a living. I don't think the upper tax limit should be lowered -- I think they need to revise things, such that "sources of income" doesn't matter. A person shouldn't pay the marginal 15% tax because they're so wealthy that all their income comes from dividends. Income is income. Capital gains tax is not double taxation, because one is not taxing the invested money, but rather, the income created by that money.
I'm sure there's other taxes I haven't thought about, but basically, this would be a good foundational framework.
I'm pretty sure a person making $5M a year would bitch about this sort of taxes, but they'd still get ~$2.6 million take home.
I didn't say Medicare. I meant in general. Look at revenue collected at IRS.gov. Federal spending, which comes from Federal Income Tax, benefits everyone, and yet only half the population foots the bill. That seems reasonable to you? The other half can't pay *anything?* If we had a VAT, everyone would at least pay *something.* It strikes me as a little ridiculous when I see tricked-out late-model Escalades in the ghetto, and my car is old enough to vote.
Dude, please re-read the post you responded to because you managed to somehow miss the point entirely.
What he said was that under the US's current model, that stuff happens, but under Canada's (where he lives) system it does not. Not to be a jerkass (like I was, admittedly, being on purpose) but I'm honestly not sure how you missed that.
Uh, I think I was pretty clear with my emphasis that while they don't have problems with abuse in Canada, we, in America, do have them. Our Medicare system is frequently abused, and it's not because they can't afford a doctor -- Medicare covers doctors visits. It's because some people feel they have been given a blank check when it comes to receiving medicine. So how, exactly, is spreading the "medicare" like system to all 310 million people in America going to suddenly solve the abuse problem?
First, we've already talked about how claiming half don't pay taxes, wah wah wah isn't really a great point. Second, if you are trying to say you think that's how a single payer system would run in America when our current socialized healthcare IS NOT run in that manner, than you can't say you have a suspicion based on how things are right now. Because based on how things are right now, a socialized medical system would be run off of payroll taxes.
A single payer system in America would fix *nothing*. My entire point is that one does not need to be either a privatized system (what we have now), nor a state-run system, but rather, a mandated, balanced system (Switzerland.) All I have been saying is that the Swiss model would be a lot better for America than the apparent "two choices" that have been put out there. I support a mandate, but want open competition and a bidding system. I don't like the idea of government running the show -- haven't we seen how great the American Government has been with trillions of dollars already?
You do realize that the government health program that has the greatest rate of approval in the US--the military and congressional health plans--work the way you say would never work in the United States, right?
Yeah, but that's not related to the point I was making. You were saying that you don't like the idea of a government run system because you think that the cost won't be paid for by everyone. You then proceeded to say that suspicion was based on the current situation, but the current situation doesn't back up your claim.
Right, that's because they've had to pay for it themselves until then, and all of a sudden they don't have to do that. It's a novelty thing. After they get over it, it stops being novel, and they stop caring. Make health care run that way from the get-go, and there isn't such a novelty period. There may be overuse of it within the first couple years as people realize they can do it, just like when people first get on medicare, but then the novelty will wear off and it will just be how things are done; overuse will practically vanish. Once the new shininess wears off, people will stop caring.
Also, a significant number of people will be using the health care system to deal with ailments they were unable to afford to take care of until then, because they weren't covered by their insurance. That is not to be confused with overuse, that's just use.
I don't think America could handle a "single payer" system. I don't think it would solve anything. Suppose they create on, based on payroll taxes. Who's to say that the system won't be woefully underfunded, like Medicare.
I think one can completely avoid this sort of situation by merely adhering to the Swiss model. It's also the highest rated system in terms of satisfaction.
I understand your opinion, I just don't get how you came to certain conclusions that you put out previously. I was simply arguing that your basis for your belief that not everyone would pay into the system was nonexistent considering Medicare, the current example of our government-run health insurance, isn't paid for by Federal income tax. You're missing the point entirely.
Actually, that source seems to indicate that Belgium outperforms Switzerland almost across the board when it comes to actual quality of care/insurance.
Health care gets A or B grade: Luxembourg: 69% Belgium: 57% Switzerland: 52% France: 51% Canada: 50%
Satisfied with performance of health care system: Belgium: 41% Switzerland: 37% UK: 34% France: 33% Canada: 32%
People think their health care system is better than others: France: 55% Luxembourg: 52% Switzerland/Germany: 46% Belgium: 42% Canada: 41%
People who think their care is the best in the world: Switzerland: 57% France: 50% Belgium: 44% Germany: 42% Canada: 38%
Satisfied with their primary care physician: Mexico: 83% Brazil/Belgium: 76% Canada: 75% Luxembourg/Switzerland: 74% U.S.: 73%
Satisfied with a recent hospital experience: Canada: 78% U.S.: 77% Mexico: 72% Switzerland: 71% Germany: 69%
People who think they are well insured: Belgium/Luxembourg: 42% Switzerland: 38% Canada/France: 37% U.S./Germany: 35% UK: 32%
And although they're not directly indicitave of quality of care, a few I think are interesting:
People think they're in good health: U.S.: 61% UK: 56% Canada: 55% Brazil/Luxembourg: 53% Mexico/Switzerland: 48%
People feel they understand the health care system: Switzerland is tied for third-last of surveyed countries, ahead of Luxembourg and Portugal and tied with Germany
People who didn't see a doctor last year due to cost: U.S.: 49% Belgium: 39% China: 35% Mexico: 34% Switzerland: 27% (Canada is at the bottom of this one at 5%, incidentally)
People think at least 50% of health care spending is wasted: Mexico: 65% U.S.: 51% Portugal: 50% Switzerland: 40% France: 37%
Your source that says Switzerland has the highest rated satisfaction doesn't actually say that. It says that Switzerland is up there, but it's not at the top. Purely looking at numbers in the ones indicative of quality of care, these countries beat out Switzerland x number of times out of 7:
Belgium: 4 Luxembourg: 3 and tied once Canada: 2 Mexico: 2 Brazil: 1 U.S.: 1 France: 1
Also, just for the record, the only relevant question where Switzerland came first was "do you think your country has the best care in the world." Unless the respondents have had care in other countries, all answers to that question and the similar one about best system in the world are pure speculation, and thus meaningless.
Uh, I think I was pretty clear with my emphasis that while they don't have problems with abuse in Canada, we, in America, do have them. Our Medicare system is frequently abused, and it's not because they can't afford a doctor -- Medicare covers doctors visits. It's because some people feel they have been given a blank check when it comes to receiving medicine. So how, exactly, is spreading the "medicare" like system to all 310 million people in America going to suddenly solve the abuse problem?
I would be interested in hearing why it is you think Americans are so much more prone to abusing a system like Canada's. I honestly don't think Americans are some kind of horrible people who are just looking for ways to rip each other off, so I don't understand where this perception comes from. Maybe looking at the root problem of the abuse problem would be more productive than taking it as something that can never be changed.
I omitted the "one of the" which is what I had intended. These kinds of surveys usually end up with flip-flops of the top five from year to year, so the best rated from 2011 likely isn't the same for 2012, but you get the idea. (Ditto education -- it's always a toss up between ROK, Finland, and a few other countries.)
I'm not saying they're looking for ways to rip other people off directly, but rather, are generally looking out for #1 for the most part. It says a lot when you realize America is a lawsuit nation...
Okay, maybe I'm a little late with this post. But did I just witness an argument along the following?
A: If we have universal health care in America, people will abuse the system. B: Canada has that type of system, but that abuse doesn't occur. A: If it comes to America, it will occur here. B: It doesn't happen in this system.
Yet I don't think I saw anyone point out that that abuse occurs because of our fucked up system.
