Yes, you have the right to work and gain enough money to purchase whatever you want.

But others do not necessarily have the duty to exchange their labour (or wealth created from it) for your labour.

 

I never got (or must have missed) the answer for my question.

Somebody argued that "in the end all americans would pay for everyone's health care" and I replied with the following question:

 

How so? Half of them don't pay federal income taxes. How would "all Americans" pay?

I thought this system was supposed to work via taxes? Maybe I'm wrong.

 

Can someone explain to me how in a system that is financed by taxes, which less than half of people pay "everyone" would pay for everyone's health care?

I am beginning to think that "everyone" is a liberal code word meaning "them" when it comes to paying and "us" when it comes to receiving. Any counter examples?

 

Ultimately, your country is what you want it to be. That is the essence of democracy.

I may not agree with some of your opinions on what "right" or which values your society as whole should treasure.

If the majority should agree that your rights include the right to sell your organs to whoever they want (yes, you may not do so) - then it becomes your right under god and country. Of course, some squeamish minority might complain that this reduces the poorer population to nothing more than sentient cattle - but if people lived long enough in a society where it's common to sell your liver to be able to afford a bit of luxury - or to pay bills or face bankrupcy - then it will be hard to change back to a society where living donations are banned. Some people will believe that it's their right to do what they want with their bodies, some will argue that without living donations wait times for transplantations will become too long. Some will proclaim - loudly and on TV - that banning organ trade will spell the death of many people in need for a new kidney and that this 'death bill' must be stopped ... and some will argue that this will spell the doom for a whole industry.

Selling your organs is banned for ethical reasons. Organs may not be traded either even though doing so would immediatly generate a gigantic market of basically live saving services. It is a conscious choice to not let profit devalue human life.

 

So, what was the point of all that rambling?

You americans now have to opportinity to define anew what should be important in your society. To decide what is your 'right'. You have arguments on both sides of the issue and it's an important issue. It's important to discuss it, it's important to discuss about what values are important and it's important to be informed before you commit to a path.

But look around you, how are these topics discussed? TV shows invite pundits who appeal to emotions rather than your intellect. Lies are being told and repeated until they are treated as fact. Examples from other countries are being misrepresented or glorified, promising socialist hell or welfare heaven while concrete numbers and evidence are ignored or twisted to fit a preconceived opinion. Nothing is true if the other one said it.

It's really just a matter of what americans think what american values are and what they should be. If you are clear about that, make your country act upon these values.

For the majority of my life I've had insurance.  I am retired but not old enough for medicare but I still have insurance.  My heart attack with a Quad bypass totaled out at $110,000 of which I co-payed about $500 or so.  The insurance company only payed about 1/3 of the total.  The rest wassucked up by all concerned.  Just some facts.

I don't think there should be a new health care (Gov.) system.  If the Gov. wants to cover all citizens, expand the medicare system.  At least that way ya only have 1 corrupt system instead of 2. But there needs to be a better controls to eliminate waste and corruption. 

Now, can we afford it?  They keep wasting money bailing out everyone and then they have parties and give out bonuses.  How can one justify a bonus when all ya did was run a company into the ground.  They say to keep the best people so they don't go else where.  I say let them go.  Hell, hire me, I can run a company into the ground for a lot less pay.

This may sound cynical...

But in my time on this planet, no matter what country you live in, when you are talking about politics...

You will ALWAYS find your answer by asking "Who is in position to gain power and influence?" and "Who is going to make the money?"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you aware that we cannot buy health insurance from a company outside of the state we live in?  I think deregulation would go a looooooong way in reducing health insurance costs for the individual.

There will NEVER be a "PLAN" to reduce healthcare costs without TORT REFORM.  The malpractice insurance hospitals and doctors pay is a good portion of our healthcare costs.  Who to blame for that... LAWYERS!

Immigration is yet another problem... millions of illegal immigrants, who cannot buy health insurance are driving up healthcare for everyone else.   Side note... California is definatlely broke because of it's socialist ideas involving illegal immigrants. (sarcasm: hey, I got an idea let's take this to the national level).

 

 

Let's presume 100% of people pay their income taxes.

Who's working & being cured when sick? Those who need it.

That's the Canadian model of Universally available public option.

Nowadays, the Corporate industries are aiming to infiltrate such a system by implementing a network of private clinics. Doctors are hired, staff is being used, offices are managed, resources are **extracted** from the regular public hospitals network.

Who's STILL working & being cured when sick? Those who can afford it. But they are STILL paying their income taxes, aren't they? Sure? Absolutely? Provincial & Federal? Weekly? On their pay-checks? Filed yearly for verifications? Deductibles? Capital gains & other plans to escape state(s) taxing? Do they drive on roads built by all? Do their kids receive education? Do they remain healthy or receive care when they STILL need to?

Then we're all (as in, your everyone terminology) double-charged for the same service. And the theft is on the illicit alternate system of industrialized privately owned & operated for profits system.

Since, income taxes are expenditures collectively ***already*** invested into the PUBLIC option.

You immigrate here, you're covered.

You're poor & unemployed, you're covered.

Because **I** & my neighbors pay taxes which are managed by state for more than just health care of everyone.

 

 

Texas capped the malpractice insurance to 1/2 mil.  But the cost didn't come down.  Hehe.

Not everyone has an income.

And some income isn't even taxed.

 

That is still being argued in courts by LAWYERS and the ACLU, who are afraid of losing all that money.

Surely, the decision will not come until the U.S. Supreme makes a ruling.  (Months to Years down the road of argument, and after some more lawyers stretch the argument out making money all along the way.)

True, the state did place that cap in Texas courts (not in effect yet: see above).

Call it an Utopic dream or the idealistic hope of inclusive & fair societies, everyone should *EARN* a taxable income. And all legal incomes should be taxed.

We already live in that society. Everyone already should earn a taxable income.

But some people don't.

But the utopian society where everybody *SHOULD* earn a taxable income already exists.

 

Florida passed Tort reform in 2003 and it has reduced auto insurance a small bit. However, the Lawyers are still pissing vinegar and it's likely to be overturned by some ex-lawyer judge on consititutional grounds.

 

I like the one where people can be responsible for themselves and their family........and government can just provide for infrastructure and national defense......kinda like the framers intended.

Canadian here.

Okay healtcare in canada is not the best in the world and anyone can know this. But I do know that the top 5 contries with the best healtcare rated systems in the world are Japan, Taiwan, Switserland, Germany and soem otehr contry I forget. All of those contries prior to havign the now best heatl care in the world had private for profit healthcare systems like the U.S. currently does. In their process for fixing their healthcare they all looked at teh Canadian healtcare system as others around the world and based their new system on those example whill fixing the problems they had. So they wetn from beignt he worth to beign the best prety much, all of those contries adopted healthcare systems were everyone was covered equaly.

in Canada our healtcare has 2 major problems, one is a Canadian problem the otehr is caused by the U.S. havign a for profit healthcare system.

Problem 1: Beauracracy, paper pushers, the Canadian problem, these represent a to substantical amount of cost. Thsi section of the healt care department in Canada is absorbing to many funds thus reducing the funds available for treatment. Currently last I saw in Canada the beauracracy is consumming 15% of the healtcare funds. In comparison Switserland onyl has a beauracracy cost of about 5% of the healtcare fund. They have the msot stramlined beauracracy.

Problem 2: Shortage of doctor, the U.S. problem, canada is experiencing a shortage of doctors for the simple reason that Canada is not the contry were doctors have the biggest paycheck. We can't afford such a big paycheck if we want to be able to care for all. However the U.S. is the BIGGEST pay check int he world if you are a doctor because it's a for profit privately own uncontroled system. Competition is feirce for for hospitals to higher doctors and give them the biggest fattes paycheck. Hell that is what you pay for the most in the U.S. system is the paycheck of your doctor and not the threatment he is giving you. So for that doctors beign people they go to the U.S. to make mroe money. So in the end if the U.S. were to reform their healtcare system and bring it under control it would fix half the problems in Canada.

The opposition to Obamas healtcare reform liek to point at the flaws of the Canadian system but they sure won't tell you what causes some of those flaws. And why would they, your best interest is not their best intrest, taking your money is their best interest. Private healtcare is not there to serve you it's there to get payed by you. Their just like you TV and Phone compagny if you don't pay they cut you lose, if you need healtcare that means your sicks and dieing and got no money they throuw you out in the street to die. Public healtcare system is there to serve you like the police or the fire department. Their like a family or none lucrative organisation, they will help you the best they can and trat you equaly to everyone else.

I can tell you I prefer a public healtcare system over a privete for profit one. Even if I have to wait atleast I will recive threatment and get taken cared ofve.

 Food for thought: Cuba has a better healthcare system then the U.S. and it's a 3rd world contry. Were as the U.S. system is one of the worst rated if not the worst.

The Wealth Distribution

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2004, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.3% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.3%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.2%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2007).

 

Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2004

	Total Net Worth
	Top 1 percent	Next 19 percent	Bottom 80 percent
1983	33.8%	47.5%	18.7%
1989	37.4%	46.2%	16.5%
1992	37.2%	46.6%	16.2%
1995	38.5%	45.4%	16.1%
1998	38.1%	45.3%	16.6%
2001	33.4%	51.0%	15.6%
2004	34.3%	50.3%	15.3%
	Financial Wealth
	Top 1 percent	Next 19 percent	Bottom 80 percent
1983	42.9%	48.4%	8.7%
1989	46.9%	46.5%	6.6%
1992	45.6%	46.7%	7.7%
1995	47.2%	45.9%	7.0%
1998	47.3%	43.6%	9.1%
2001	39.7%	51.5%	8.7%
2004	42.2%	50.3%	7.5%

Reconcile this with the absurdity of the perspective of the left presented by Republicans. Isn't it the Hollywood elite, the media, the college professors, and a number of other people who make enough to suffer from taxation who are the elites, and the hard-working, god fearing, gun-toting blue collar Americans who support the Republicans? I envy you though, every time I eat my cake I don't have it anymore.

That supports my claim that not everybody contributes. But it doesn't answer my question.

 

Shall we see if we can find stats on who voted for whom?

I remember that Draginol posted statistics that showed the percentage of tax payers and who they voted for.