First off you didn't even ask a real quistion, you asked this:Your premise (less than half pay) precludes and answer to the question (how does everyone pay). So since your question cannot actually be answered any more than "explain to me how down is up" I responded with how it's possible for half the country to pay for all the country's health insurance, and I intentionally didn't get into whether it's right or wrong to force them to.I'd be interested to see it, though I'm skeptical of course since people's votes are private issues, it would depend on how their votes are deduced or elicited.

Even if you do propose it's the poor people who don't pay taxes who are voting democrat (which I highly doubt) it'll only highlight the absurdity of the liberal elitism claim which you didn't put forward but is common sentiment in the conservative backlash culture.

If that isn't the proof that performance at work requires money & healthy conditions, nothing else ever will. We either live to be exploited or HAVE TO suffer trying to gain enough to simply survive when a specific 1% holds control of resources that most (as in extremely VAST majority) can't afford.

Your stashed fortunes already killed plenty.

 

BTW, the top 20% may have 50% of the "financial wealth" (though I'm dubious on how that amount is measured as it's extremely subjective).

But the top 20% pay about 80% of the federal taxes. (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html) an amount that isn't subjective.

So one can easily make the argument that the wealthiest are already paying, even by the left's highly subjective valuation, more than their fair share of the taxes right now.

Apparently, it was so important to 'discuss what values are important' that the bill had to be passed before the August recess, before anyone, including our elected representatives, had the opportunity to know what 'values' were in it.  Since that effort to ram it through sight unseen failed, the somber calls from Obama & his various shills for 'vigorous but calm discussion and debate' and to 'get it right' ring as hollow as anything I've ever heard.  How he thinks he has any credibility on this issue is beyond me.

Also, most of the rich movie stars are NOT republicians.

Just want to repeat this:

20% of the people own 50% of the financial wealth and contribute 80% of the federal taxes.

 

That is true and it manifests in your society in many paradoxical actions -  on a local, personal level as well as on a global, geopolitical level. I don't want to elaborate because that will only invite hate speech. A rather harmless one: Freedom is (as I understand it) one of the american key values - yet you have the world's highest prison population, even higher than russia, which has plenty of political prisoners.

Politics is merely a way for a society to determine how to act as a whole. Political parties claim for themselves to fight for a certain set of values and goals and promise for a vote to accomplish their objectives. Occasionally it's wise to check if the party of your choice still acts upon their promise of if their values are still the same as yours.

I suppose you hint at communism? Is that what a public option sounds like to you? Taxing is confiscating property?

I never understood how that can be. Are 40% of americans unemployed or illegal immigrants?

HR 3200 doesn't state anywhere that private insurers will be outlawed. I can't point you to the exact page where it doesn't stand, but I'm pretty sure. Further, Obama stressed the point that the public option will be an option. You are one of the 13 out of 15 people with health insurance and are happy with it? Keep it. 

What I'm not sure about is if you have private insurance you don't have to pay the extra health care tax - like in germany.

I also don't know what happens to the non-illegal americans that don't pay taxes (due to reasons I don't understand yet). In germany, social welfare pays for the public health insurance. And yes, it's a drag on the federal budget, which gives heavy incentives to the state to get them working again.

They are advertised as moral. They usually stop being moral when you have a different opinion than your government. Let's say there are at least two different readings in operation Iraqi Freedom.

If both sides act on their beliefs then both sides act moral - even if the other side disagrees. This is not a statement anyone can refute. But this again comes down to the values - for only if you act according to your values (whatever they are) you act moral. Moral behaviour is highly subjective. Values on the other hand are absolute.

Everyone can ask himself this question: How many Little Match Girls are you willing to save?

 

You're begging the question here though. No one is arguing whether the wealthy pay a large amount of taxes, the implied question is what amount is actually fair, so claiming they pay more than their fair share precludes a discussion of it.

It is a good question though. At what salary range do you feel income taxes creep up to unacceptably punitive levels? Are we talking the 800k range or the mega salaries of CEOs and celebrities?

Also you are right, the figures are subjective but I haven't seen anyone who disputes trend of increasing disparity.

1 SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT
2 COVERAGE.
3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV
4 ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of
5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov
6 erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health
7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance
8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the
9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef
15 fective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.

If private insurers can't enroll new people, how do they stay in business?

The bill (HR 3200) is full of Newspeak like that - 'Protecting the choice to keep current coverage' - which does just the opposite of what its proponents, and the carefully misleading language, would lead you to believe.  Precisely the reason they wanted it passed by the end of July, before anyone might notice.

Yes, that paragraph does mean that all insurance companies would be put out of business permanently after whenever Y1 is. The problem though is that's in such plain text that if that were all there is to it it'd be a slam dunk on proving the bill is going to eliminate private insurance. However I haven't seen pundits or politicians pointing that out so I assume there's more to it than that section. I'll see what I can dig up.

*edit*

Okay, looked a bit more and I was wrong, the media has been running wild with this section.

The way new policies are created after Y1 is in participation in a "health insurance exchange." In spite of its unusual wording, as I suspected the bill goes on to explain how it's possible to keep creating those private policies.

So instead of focusing on this claim we should shift instead to what in the hell is a health insurance exchange and how will it affect things?

Yeah, that paragraph only means currently existing policies will be exempt from whatever provisions the final bill. New policies will be allowed, and changes to existing policies will be possible, but they will need to conform to the provisions of the bill.

The US tax system is sort of bizarre that way. The personal exemption means the first few thousand dollars are untaxed; each dependant adds additional income that is untaxable. Add in other considerations for things like interest on various types of loans and it's not too difficult to have a taxable income of zero. Depending on circumstances, a person can have an income above $30,000 and still have zero taxable income.

Obscenitor may be correct that insurers, under this language, can not enroll new members in existing non-qualifying benefit plans, but may be able to enroll (? roll over) members to new, qualifying plans which meet the requirements of the exchange after Y1.  This may mean that, technically, they aren't being denied new policyholders, just being told they will have to offer the same set of benefits as every other insurance company, no more no less, after Y1, and force those prior, so-called non-qualifying plans to wither on the vine.  Presumably, this would also prohibit anyone from buying a so-called 'rich benefits' plan after Y1.  

However, this clearly means that you or I would not be able to 'keep our existing plan' indefinitely, particularly if the insurer looked at the exchange qualification requirements & said screw it, we're outta here.  This is a classic example of 'having it both ways' - but the ultimate effect would be to make offering private insurance less attractive, which I believe is the objective.  Actually, I don't have to believe it, it's what Obama, Frank and a bunch of others have openly proclaimed is the objective.  Where's the incentive to compete when the referee's in the game & you know he intends for you to lose?

Whatever the end result, there's not a chance in hell it will be what candidate Obama said he was going to fight for as president: that everyone have a plan just as good as the one he had as a senator.

I think Obama sorely misguaged how popular that would be.