So if we all pay, we can cut the price in half. For the purposes of this thread, lets assume thats true. Its around $8K/yr on average now, so thats $4K/yr if we HC4A. Thats 6% of the average American's income. Would you support making it a Constitutional Amendmendment, something like- "All citizens are guarranteed healthcare in exchange for the removal of no more than 6% of the national average income from their personal income"? This would alleviate the concern that HC4A is just a ploy to tax us to hell by starting small and gradually raising once precedent has been set, as has happenned with the Fed Inc tax. This would make HC an actual right, but limit how much we can be leveraged with it by TPTB. Of course, quality might suffer if people take advantage of it...
Question about the following: "All citizens are guarranteed healthcare in exchange for the removal of no more than 6% of the national average income from their personal income" Are you envisioning that every person (1) will pay the exact same amount for government provided healthcare coverage or does that imply (2) that some will pay less than 6%? If it is #1, I might be okay with the experiment, although I voted for option 4 in your poll. But it won't be #1. It will be nothing more than a wealth redistribution program where millions will receive healthcare for absolutely free, and others will pay many multiples of what their own healthcare should cost, because they will also be footing the bill for the drug dealers, criminals, ne'er-do-wells, the lazy, professional students, and the rest of the parasites. It will be nothing less than following along with the communist doctrine of "from each according to ability, to each according to need." Also, back to what I quoted above... are you implying that if someone does not pay the 6% of the national average income, then they do not receive healthcare?
In this scenario, everyone pays, everyone has coverage, and presumably everyone pays the maximum (6)%, because I don't see our government ever taking less money than it is allowed to Though I think adding to the amendment that everyone be charged the same % would be prudent.
Thanks for the clarification. I could be persuaded to agree to that option. But we both know it could never be a reality, because there would be some who could not/would not pay. In the case of non-payers, would that be a criminal issue, or would those people simply not get healthcare? I don't like the idea of basing what you pay on the size of your income, because it is unfair. A person who has no income or hides his income (example: drug dealer) gets healthcare for free, and others pay not only for their own healthcare, but for many others also. That is not fair. I hope I am not derailing the direction of your thread too badly.
Sorry, still forcing someone to buy something, under penalty of law, no matter how noble the cause rubs me the wrong way. Maybe if we took a little holiday from being the world's self-appointed policeman and bottomless pockets sugar-daddy there might be more for OUR people. I was raised under the principle you take care of your own first.
This would give government control over our healthcare and control over the healthcare industry and control over how our money is spent. Not a good move to create political cash and more power tools for politicians to control.
Dems wouldnt accept this. 1) undocumented immigrants not covered 2) poor paying their fair share isn't fair 3) rich are least impacted (see #2) No point in even attempting this funding mechanism I would lose money in the deal with this ir just about any 4A version bbn if health care. I would accept it. But I'd definitely lose in this plan.
National sales tax or VAT would help with the underground economy. The dems would tap about that being unfair as well.
Its certainly interesting that NO ONE supports HC4A if we put a cap on how much can be charged for it... even thought its sposed to only cost 'half of what we pay now.' 'Wealth redistribution scheme' is seeming more and more likely.
There is nothing the Government can do that will make my health care cost less than it does or provide better coverage than what I have. If Uncle Sam takes over health care it is a lose/lose situation for me. My costs would go up to help pay for deadbeats and the quality and timeliness of my care would go down.
No other country pays anywhere near as much as we do. Yet, once you get to roughly half what we pay, the health outcomes are the same. If they pay more, then the quality is better than what we have. There is also the option some countries have for supplemental insurance that covers the things the national plan does not.
Forcing a person to buy something just because they are citizens of this country is unconstitutional! Obamacare is unconstitutional! If the government makes you buy insurance to operate a car on public streets, that IS constitutional, because nobody requires you to own and drive a car in the first place. See the difference...? But buying HEALTH INSURANCE is an entirely different, personal decision that a person makes, AND PAYS FOR, himself! The government can provide charity/welfare medical care in the form of Medicaid, but it should stay out of all other personal matters (even though we were saddled by liberal Democrat president Johnson with Medicare decades ago -- an EARNED 'benefit').
I already have fantastic insurance coverage both primary and supplemental which has a very low cost. Can you explain to me how I would be better off with Health Care for All. I see my costs going up and the quality of my care coming down. And yes, I feel each and every person is looking out for number one first and foremost. If you can show me how I can keep my cost and care the same then I will support trying to get health care for those who don't have coverage.
I'm not much interested in lesser nations that cannot guarantee what they claim. A commodity cannot be guaranteed because you cannot simply fill shortages or stifle demand at will. That is particularly true about healthcare, you can't just make a doctor or nurse, it takes time to train them, and also to ensure they are up to the standards we require...
It's not a commodity. In medicine, what you are talking about is usually surge capacity. That means you have people and resources you can call on in an emergency. While we definitely need more, we do have some surge capacity. Designing it into the system is not hard. It's also going to be a potential problem in pretty much any health care system, as Covid just proved. Or to put it simply, you aren't saying anything.
Prior to my retirement, I also had great corporate insurance. I'd ask the same question you asked -- why do I want to participate in this 'socialized-medicine' crap? "I WORKED for better health care insurance, I DESERVE better health care insurance!" But, 'free stuff' and heavily-subsidized stuff is always popular with a mobs that don't want to have to pay for ANYTHING!
Wasn't looking for an argument so much as looking for a guarantee that my insurance costs and quality of care will not change. If I am able to keep my current costs and quality then I would be willing to work towards getting health care for those who don't have it. I am in no way trying to say that I don't want people to have health care. The idea of everyone being covered is a great concept. The biggest problem I have with health care for all is that I see it ending up like food stamps. Government gets involved and my care goes down while I pay out more money to provide for someone else's care. Like now with food stamps; I pay taxes to the government some of which goes to fund food stamp program. Then I stand in line at the grocery store and watch some guy (who appears to be healthy and younger than I) pay for more expensive food than I am buying and he does it with his EBT card. On leaving the store I see the same guy sitting in a better car than mine, smoking, while he waits for his fat wife to waddle across the parking lot from the espresso stand with two $7 drinks. Anyway, I will get off my soapbox now. Rich