Perhaps Canada has half the external debt per capita, but the USA has 9 times the population (34 Million Canadians vs 309 Million Americans) List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Question: Under a Nationalized System, what is the strain and cost on the Health system to cover 309 Million people? To make matters worse, under today's tax laws 47% of U.S. households pay NO federal income tax. That means a huge financial burden on remaining Americans to pay for welfare and social service safety nets. 47% of households owe no tax - and their ranks are growing - Sep. 30, 2009
Zackman wrote, in response to the question, "On what terms would you prefer to see health care offered the American people for their real health care needs, the mixed provision of services which exists, with some tinkering around the edges or, if you had the chance, start over again with something different?" Thanks for taking the time to reply, Zackman, but before I respond to these points, I wonder if you'd look them over, and change any that do not fully reflect the way you'd prefer to see the health care needs of the American people provided for.
V you can be as sarcastic as you want. You can throw big words around, and be hateful. I don't attack you personally, rather attack a bill that makes no sense right now. The point was the gov't is suppose to protect us. The military, police, and fire departments are not socialized entity rather a privledged resource.
btodde, I know I didn't use any big words, but I was being a bit sarcastic. I know you know that most of those things you mentioned didn't exist at the time the country was founded, many of them having been created in my lifetime. Sometimes people say things, when the subject is political and they get wound up, that just don't make any sense at all; when, if they slowed down and thought a little more about it, they probably wouldn't. These issues are complex, and deserve a little deeper thought than we usually give them. In a democracy, the future of the country depends on the ability of the people to understand the issues of the day, and it's not easy.
we have many of the same problems you guys do. All I am saying is that it is possible. the greater population on net should help you more than our population does us. Geographically we are larger which inevitiably means we spend more on infrastructure per capita. To pay for a system with similar coverage levels (be it provided by industry or the public) you probably do have to raise taxes some. Compared to what I pay on my salary and for goods and services (taxes) yours are pretty low. I think most European countries are in a similar position. I guess where I am coming from is that I have lived my whole life under a government paid health care system and I don't see the horror stories that are touted in the US saying that all that will be left are witch doctors and medical leeches.
We can all cheer the sentiment contained in this, Gonzo, but what does it tell us about how we're going to provide for the health care needs of our citizens?
Btodde hit right on what the primary issue is. There are so many free loaders on the US social express that there are less and less people paying for it. Consider that last year the top 1% of taxpayers paid more in tax than the bottom 95%. Think about that for a minute. Where does that leave a system where hard work and fortitude are the factors for success? More and more I hear "Why should I bother to work harder or longer or better? The government just takes it from me anyway." Not one of you who goes all ga-ga over Obama has to pay for this program or any of his other ideas. Not one of you will be directly affected by Obamacare. Yet we hear over and over how great an idea it is. How about we tax those of you who are in favor of it instead of those of us who work and pay taxes here in the US? Would you still favor this program? If you could just sit in my chair for one tax season and see the folly of these government programs you would change your tune dramatically. We have a program called the earned income credit. The purpose of it is to help the working poor. So far, it sounds like a great idea , right? If you work, the government will pay you. Very Utopian ideal to say the least. So here's the end result of this wonderful government program. A woman comes in who has one child and she lives with some guy who pays nothing for the child but does provide the house they live in. Now she has had another child by this same guy. She works and earns $19,000. Certainly she qualifies as the working poor by most definitions. With all the federal and state programs to help out this "working poor" person, she now receives refunds of over $10,000. Had she had no children, she would just receive the normal tax treatment like anyone else. We have generations in this country who do nothing but suck from the system and contribute nothing. As a nation our days are numbered if this cannot be corrected. Government health care is not a correction of the problem but a major increase in the problem.
twinimini, I appreciated what I considered to be a thoughtful reply from you to my post where you detailed those things you'd like to see happen regarding health care for American citizens. But, neither you, nor Zackman proposed eliminating a single government program that provides health care to the American people, nor even any serious reduction in the benefits they provide. What gives? Is this just a gripe session, with no serious intent to propose any real change, yourselves?
