Someone in the US Dies every 12 minutes from Lack of Health Care

[Storm]

I did read your post. Do you donate any of your funds (at least 3%) to a healthcare-related cause?

No. You don't trust government, I don't trust private charities.

That's assuming that national healthcare would actually only increase taxes and costs to citizens by 3% - where did you get that optimistic figure?

I didn't say it would only increase taxes by 3%. I made a wild guess that a national sales tax of 3% would cover the program.

Countries that pay higher tax rates per GPD than the US:

And the relevance of that was...?

A huge chunk of many of these countries' taxes are directly contributable to government-subsidized health care.

No, really?

 

[Kathryn]

Your three percent figure was laughable. That's why I posted those statistics from other countries.

 

[idea]

What does that have to do with anything? Yes, some people are going to be unhealthy who could be healthy. Oh well. I help pay for police for people who do dangerous and stupid things, too. Oh well. You really need to realize that life's not fair.

People who speed/steal/ etc. etc. are fined/put in prison etc. etc.

People who eat unhealthy food/smoke/do drugs - what punishment should they recieve?

Again - what steps are being taken to make people accountable for their health? We should not have to pay to enable smokers/drinkers/druggies to continue their habbits - to baby them in hospitals after they OD.

There are also religious/moral issues:
Those who are pro-life should not have to pay for someone to get an abortion.

Those who are against suicide should not have to pay for "end of life counseling"

etc. etc. etc.

 

[Kathryn]

I think that if we are going to have a public option, it only makes sense to tax the hell out of products and lifestyles that lead to or directly increase the chances of disease - tobacco products, alcohol, fatty foods, refined sugars, fast foods, motorcycles, tax via the amt of miles you commute each year, tax based on BMI - that sort of thing.

Give tax credits to people with healthy BMIs, who exercise regularly, etc.

Hey, I know it sounds crazy but actually I think it's a very consistent concept. Not that it will ever fly. It makes WAY too much sense and (gasp) it might OFFEND someone.

 

[Magic Man]

I find it so ironic that people who make little or no money are the ones who are the first to cry out, "I'd give other people money for their healthcare - IF I HAD ANY MONEY TO GIVE!"

Who said that? I don't remember seeing anyone say that. What I said was that I'd be willing to give an extra bit right now.

The thing is - we already DO support the healthcare of others through our taxes. Medicare, Medicaid, the VA (such bastions of excellence!) -

Exactly, now we just need to extend that a bit to other who need it. And, yes, those programs work pretty well, actually.

There ain't no free lunch. Someone is going to pay -

Yes, we hear this all the time. It's like the conservative rallying cry. We know someone has to pay. I said I'm willing to be one of those people. However, to make it really effective, we should take a little more from those who really have some to give, as in those who got tax cuts from Bush and others.

 

[Storm]

Your three percent figure was laughable. That's why I posted those statistics from other countries.

Do you have any idea how much revenue a 3% sales tax would generate?

 

[Magic Man]

I think that if we are going to have a public option, it only makes sense to tax the hell out of products and lifestyles that lead to or directly increase the chances of disease - tobacco products, alcohol, fatty foods, refined sugars, fast foods, motorcycles, tax via the amt of miles you commute each year, tax based on BMI - that sort of thing.

That's fine with me. I have no problem with taxing unhealthy things. The only problem that could come up is drawing a line between what's healthy and unhealthy. If we can find a good guideline to go by, that's perfectly acceptable.

 

[Magic Man]

People who speed/steal/ etc. etc. are fined/put in prison etc. etc.

People who eat unhealthy food/smoke/do drugs - what punishment should they recieve?

Again - what steps are being taken to make people accountable for their health? We should not have to pay to enable smokers/drinkers/druggies to continue their habbits - to baby them in hospitals after they OD.

And this is the problem. I'm caught up with trying to get people healthcare. You're caught up with trying to make it all fair. I'd rather have unfair healthcare for everybody that we can then fix than have some people just not covered. Besides, it's not like all of the people who aren't covered right now are unhealthy or have health problems they could easily fix by not eating certain foods.

Anyway, the main point is that there are always going to be peopel with problems who need others' help. I'm just willing to offer them that help, I guess. I'd expect you to do the same, seeing as how it's WJWD.

There are also religious/moral issues:
Those who are pro-life should not have to pay for someone to get an abortion.

And I shouldn't have to pay for a war that is completely unnecessary and goes against all of my sensibilities. However, when you live in a large society as we do, sometimes these things happen.

Those who are against suicide should not have to pay for "end of life counseling"

etc. etc. etc.

You don't seem to understand end-of-life counseling. Most people already have it as part of their insurance. It has nothing to do with suicide. It's about what to do about people who are on the brink of death. It's about counseling people on the options for treatment in such cases and counseling concerning living wills and that sort of thing.

 

[yossarian22]

I think that if we are going to have a public option, it only makes sense to tax the hell out of products and lifestyles that lead to or directly increase the chances of disease - tobacco products, alcohol, fatty foods, refined sugars, fast foods, motorcycles, tax via the amt of miles you commute each year, tax based on BMI - that sort of thing.

because private profit driven companies wont do this.

 

[jamaesi]

I think that if we are going to have a public option, it only makes sense to tax the hell out of products and lifestyles that lead to or directly increase the chances of disease - tobacco products, alcohol, fatty foods, refined sugars, fast foods, motorcycles, tax via the amt of miles you commute each year, tax based on BMI - that sort of thing.

Give tax credits to people with healthy BMIs, who exercise regularly, etc.

Hey, I know it sounds crazy but actually I think it's a very consistent concept. Not that it will ever fly. It makes WAY too much sense and (gasp) it might OFFEND someone.

You really want to base it on the BMI? Okay, let's do that. I'm not even going to go into how the BMI is junk science, I'm just going to roll with it.

People who are considered overweight or mildly obese by the BMI have a lower death rate than people with a normal BMI. Yes, fat people live longer than thin people. (This isn't taking into account severely underweight or morbidly obese peoples- they have an increased chance of death.)

People who are "fat" are better protected from and more likely to survive infections, heart and lung disease, rheumatoid arthritis, cancer, anemia, high blood pressure, osteoporosis, and type 2 diabetes. Yes, even the DIABETUS. Hello, obesity paradox!

There's no proof overweight people exercise less and eat more than thin people. Check out this book for more information on that.

Yes, eating bad food and living a sedentary lifestyle is bad for people of all sizes and shapes but you can not tell what someone is eating or doing by just looking at them.


You said people might find your idea offensive. It's offensive because it's completely untrue and no, there's not a lot of sense in it.

 

[Kathryn]

That's fine with me. I have no problem with taxing unhealthy things. The only problem that could come up is drawing a line between what's healthy and unhealthy. If we can find a good guideline to go by, that's perfectly acceptable.

Amazing! WE AGREE ON SOMETHING! :faint:

But special interest groups will never allow such a common sense approach.

 

[Kathryn]

Do you have any idea how much revenue a 3% sales tax would generate?

Yes.

Do you have any idea what it would cost the the US government to offer quality healthcare coverage to every US citizen?

Hint: It's closer to the Congressional Budget Committee's figure than to Obama's. Though I assure you both estimates fall very short of the actual amount.

 

[Storm]

Yes.

How much, and where do you get your answer?

Do you have any idea what government run healthcare in the US would cost?

It depends on what kind of system you're talking about.

 

[Kathryn]

How much, and where do you get your answer?


It depends on what kind of system you're talking about.

Ezekial Emmanuel, brother of Rahm Emmanuel and VAT (Value Added Tax, aka federal sales tax) estimates that to coverevery American not entitled to Medicare or Medicaid to enroll in a health plan , we would have to add a VAT of 10%. Yale law professor Michael Graetz estimates 10-14% would do it.

Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look - washingtonpost.com

That would only cover healthcare costs. Even WITHOUT the healthcare reform, our national deficit this year is nearly 2 trillion.

Unacceptable.

 

[Storm]

Ezekial Emmanuel, brother of Rahm Emmanuel and VAT (Value Added Tax, aka federal sales tax) estimates that to coverevery American not entitled to Medicare or Medicaid to enroll in a health plan , we would have to add a VAT of 10%. Yale law professor Michael Graetz estimates 10-14% would do it.

A doctor of medicine and political science, and a professor of law. Why should I listen to them on matters of economics?

ETA: BTW, VAT is not the same as sales tax.

 

[Kathryn]

Why don't you read the article before you spout off? I know you haven't because you haven't had time to do so before replying.

If you're not going to even examine something before flipping past it, I really don't think I will put much time into responding to you.

But thanks for the clarification on how you approach things. I should be able to save a bit of precious time here and there in the future.

 

[Storm]

Why don't you read the article before you spout off? I know you haven't because you haven't had time to do so before replying.

If you're not going to even examine something before flipping past it, I really don't think I will put much time into responding to you.

But thanks for the clarification on how you approach things. I should be able to save a bit of precious time here and there in the future.

Right. I'm inconvenient, so you'll just ignore me. Typical.

 

[Kathryn]

Right. I'm inconvenient, so you'll just ignore me. Typical.

No, but your actions imply that you refuse to even contemplate the possibility that a differing POV may have merit. You did not even read the source that I offered - which, by the way, you asked me for. I gave you the source as a courtesy - and to further our possible understanding of each other's perspective.

Your refusal to even read a short article tells me what I need to know about your modus operandum.

 

[Smoke]

People who eat unhealthy food/smoke/do drugs - what punishment should they recieve?

People who put their children out of the house for being gay or for driving them to despair and even suicide with their homophobic religious teachings -- what punishment should they receive?

People who support religions that oppose medical advances on the grounds that a blastocyst is a person -- what punishment should they receive?

There are also religious/moral issues:
Those who are pro-life should not have to pay for someone to get an abortion.

Those who are against suicide should not have to pay for "end of life counseling"

Those who believe in limiting family size should not have to pay for Mormons and Catholics to have six (or twelve) kids.

Those who believe in responsible sex education programs should not have to pay for backwards communities where abstinence only is taught in lieu of sex education.

 

[shortfade2]

Those who believe in limiting family size should not have to pay for Mormons and Catholics to have six (or twelve) kids.

.

A friend of mine is the second oldest in a family of 12 and hes a protestant. My cousins are Mormons and they have three kids. My other cousins have four. My grandma had three....all mormons. Stereotypes=bad