Should I pay for your health insurance? Or you for mine?

Question

OK, now that I have your attention, here's my point. When we say "the government should pay for [whatever]," some don't seem to realize that it's WE who pay for that, not some faceless entity.

Here's my modest proposal: let's match up the donors and the recipients! If part of my taxes go to welfare, Medicaid, etc., give me the names and addresses of the people I'm helping. And give them mine.

And expand it to other areas: for defense, tell me what my money bought, and for whom. If I helped supply soldiers, tell me who. If it bought equipment, tell me what, and from what company. Foreign aid: tell me what country. "Corporate welfare" (although I have yet to see anyone here demonstrate that cash payments, as opposed to tax deductions, are given to corporations): what company? And so on.

Yes, it's crazy. And any breakdown would be time-consuming and arbitrary.

My point is that if we did something like this, maybe the money would be more wisely spent.

Thoughts?

Maybe if, say, someone footing the bill for my college loans knew me personally, and knew that he or she was helping me financially, they'd be checking up on me, and I'd be more likely to act responsibly with the money. Yes, it's insane. But what the heck.

Yes, I have read Kurt Vonnegut's novel Slapstick. It indeed inspired the idea.

Answer 1

My tax reform would be as follows:
Federal taxes to the minimum to fund national defense, infrastructure, and welfare for the disabled only etc.
On the Federal tax return there will be added a box which reads:
Do you wish to pay additional taxes for:
Welfare benefits Yes or No If you checked yes the amount
Health Insurance for the uninsured Yes or No If yes how much?

This way everyone is happy. Those who like low taxes get low taxes and those who like high taxes get high taxes.
Those who believe in a nationaled health plan will be doing their part to fund it and those who do not believe in a national health plan will not have to fund it.

Result of the above makes everyone happy.

The government should also pass a non discrimination law which goes as follows:
A hospital or doctor has the right to give service to anyone for free but if they give one person free medical care they have to give everyone else free medical care regardless of insurance or income.
Another thing the government needs to do to encourage everyone to get health insurance is to change the tax laws which now favor those without health insurance. All health costs incurred by those without health insurance will not be eligible for the itemized deduction on their Federal return.
I would rather my taxes go to someone truly needy in another country rather then to a welfare recipient in this country.

Answer 2

Personally, I don't necessarily think that the government should pay for everyone's insurance, but isn't it the responsibility of our government to ensure that everyone can receive AFFORDABLE health insurance? I mean, I know a person that has to pay $1,800 per month (yes) for their health insurance. This is a single mother of 2 young children working for a law firm as a receptionist. And this is at $11.00 per hour. Where is the fairness in that???? Another I know pays $550 per month, making just about $10.00 per hour.

Insurance companies price the low wage earners out, and cause people to see it is better for them to get welfare than to work. You complain about those on welfare? Well, why not do something to make it more beneficial to work for a living than to get anything from the government? If the government would step in and regulate insurance costs and plans, then maybe there would be something less to the argument. For now, if it is with my tax dollars, and it would be used for something to benefit the citizens of this nation as opposed to supporting a stupid war (among other stupid spendings), then I really think that it would be fine. But if the governmnet would rather foster some sort of independence, then they would do something to make the insurance industry a more level playing field.

Answer 3

why stop there?

i don't have kids but pay for the money that goes to educating kids - how about that.

how about those who don't have cars, but have to pay for road maintenance and construction of new roads?

how about people who don't live in a given district but have to pay for infrastructure there anyway - like fema rescues for coastal flooding.

we live as part of a community and have become very reluctant to help out with the maintenance of that community.

that's why that bridge fell in minnesota and that gas line burst in new york.

as a nation we need to stop expressing surprise when this sort of disaster happens - we have been warned time and time again - but politicians who would rather have an 'appearance' of not raising taxes or really looking at the way we spend our money just want to get elected and hope that the problem gets passed along to the next in line.

we no longer want to pay for having a great nation.

after long, it won't be a problem anymore - our nation won't be great...

Answer 4

But that's what insurance IS. We all pay a little in, and the ones who get sick get paid alot out. It's not so crazy for the government to set up a system that makes it cheaper for everyone by requiring everyone to pay in, including the rich and the healthy, so that it lowers costs for everyone. That doesn't mean free, it just means it becomes affordable, and brings costs down. Everyone would benefit. But the government doesn't have to do this by creating a government-run insurance program either.

Answer 5

I oppose most such programs -- whether socialize health care, welfare, socialized education, or anything else that relies on mandatory contributions to services someone may never use.

But if the govt is absolutely determined to take our money and spend it on things -- health care and education for US citizens and legal residents is certainly a better choice than giving the money away to other countries.

Answer 6

Yep, that is criminal. businesses do no longer could supply reward for their workers, and in the event that they require the worker to pay into it, it is surely criminal. they might %. and decide a point of worker (say, supervisor over affiliate) on the organisation hierarchy the place the organisation alternatives up the value.

Answer 7

You are right, and NO. BUT, the government should take the excess profit out of ALL PHASES of medicine. Want TRUE socialized medicine? Then make the medical profession sociable, not socialist. Pay attention, Hillary!
__________________________________
KrazyKyngeKorny(Krazy, not stupid)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Answer 8

I love this question. Maybe if I know which illegal alien's baby I'm paying to have delivered...I can get that person to do some housecleaning and yardwork in return :)

Answer 9

I get mine for free at SF general.