English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Would you be willing to pay 60% of your income to get it?

If you make $30K a year, that means you're bringing home $1,000 a month. $15K? $500 a month. Is my math right?

Even if it's excellent care, I'm betting you're not. I'm betting that those who so vehemently support Hillary's socialism literally want FREE medical care. They want free medical care and they want someone else to pay for it. I could be wrong, which is why I'm asking. Such an attitude, to me, would be the very picture of greed and I have a difficult time believing that Americans could be that self serving.

2007-08-14 12:17:35 · 20 answers · asked by The emperor has no clothes 7 in Politics & Government Politics

Sorry. That was the tax rate in Australia when I lived there and was provided with socialized medicine. That's pretty much the tax rate in Canada. What did ya'll think it would be? How else did you think she'd pay for it? Thin air?

2007-08-14 12:40:03 · update #1

Yeah, that's what I thought. Thanks for the responses. They're quite revealing.

2007-08-14 12:47:51 · update #2

20 answers

You know what ?? As many damned taxes as my wife & I both pay together, between the federal & state govt's they already get a very tidy sum of our money & since the political elite live high on the hog, & since that same political elite wants to support everyother freakin country in the world, then HELL yes I would like very much if my govt gave me something, (other than that paltry $300.00 Bush held out for) & come to think of it it was the same 300.00 that ALL the dems were against.
But am I willing to give up 60% of my income ? HELL NO !!!!. Lets start looking out for Americans for a change, let the rest of the world look out for themselves. I for one am sick & tired of being taxed & not having a say so where it goes..........& I sure as hell dont need anyone to tell me its MY DECISION, just VOTE different. All those
b a s t a r d s are alike.

2007-08-14 12:33:49 · answer #1 · answered by Job1000 4 · 4 0

First of all, Hillary Clinton does not and never ever has proposed "socialized medicine" or free health care or government-provided health care. That's a lie her opponents made up. I read her bill, the actual bill from 1993, and it's nothing like that.

Second, yes, you are wrong. I don't want free health care or insurance. I just want it to be affordable. The problem with insurance is that it is way too expensive for some. Ever try to get a private policy when you're self-employed? Do you know how much the premiums are for that? They can be over $1,000 a month. If you're worried about the cost of a reform, you have to start with what the costs are already.

The government could find a way to lower the cost of insurance and of health care without completely taking it over. And if you actually take the time to look into it, you'd find that Hillary's plan did a pretty good job of that. It used PRIVATE insurance, but strengthened the bargaining ability of small employers and the self-employed to get policies at a lower price by letting them join together in groups to get the same rates that group policies get at large employers. Nothing socialist, no government takeover, no big tax increase, nothing like that. Just a clever way of making the free market work better for everyone.

Imagine how much better things would be if people actually relied on truth instead of the crap they hear out there from the whackos and the manipulators.

2007-08-14 12:31:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

If I make 30K a year, then that is $2,500/month gross.

I don't understand why you say that it would cost 60% of my income to afford it.

For-profit insurance companies run with a margin of at least 18%. Medicare does the same with 2%. Medicare runs much more efficiently, since it does not have the mandate to continually increase earnings for shareholders. We can argue about level of care provided, but my point is the efficiences gained by a wider risk pool ( all Americans) and not endlessly trying to deny treatment or cherry-pick clients.

Going to a single-payer medical insurance will be done over the literal dead bodies of the health insurance carriers. It would probably be more money in taxes, but I wouldn't have to pay medical insurance premiums in the end. I also wouldn't have to worry about medical insurance if I ever lost my job... I've been there and done that, and I have had to pay full price for medicines. Don't want that again.

The devil is in the details. There has to be a better system than what we have now.

2007-08-14 12:28:39 · answer #3 · answered by John T 6 · 3 1

unhappy, isn't it? as a remember of actuality that our present day political climate punishes applicants mercilessly for admitted they have made blunders interior the previous. So in spite of if all the Democrats have faith that Patriot Act replaced right into a foul concept, they could't say they made a mistake. yet while we learn the Democrats to the Republicans, then a minimum of we've some reason for desire. The Republicans are easily pathetic while it is composed of civil liberties. Willard Mitt "Double Guantanamo" Romney is a appropriate occasion.

2016-10-15 08:43:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Your assertions are heavy on scary rhetoric and light on facts---using "socialism" as a boogeyman slur without any concrete or specific references. If you find fault with Hillary Clinton's health care reform proposals, do you have any alternative proposals to offer besides making snide remarks?

The fact is the USA spends more money on health care as a % of our GDP but gets very little for our money in terms of our life expectancy and general health statistics compared with other industrialized countries. And did you know that between 40-50 million Americans do not have health care coverage? And even if you do, are you satisfied with your health care provider?

The greed and the self-serving sentiment in the USA that exists with respect to health care lies more with the health insurance companies rather than with individual Americans.

And I think we need to see health care as a public good that everyone is entitled to, instead of something that we accuse people of being greedy and entitled to like a luxury item. Heck, if we make it affordable, maybe people will use it for preventive medicine instead of major procedures - and it will be less costly for everyone in the long run. Shouldn't a healthier citizenry be in society's interests?

2007-08-14 12:33:33 · answer #5 · answered by Silverkris 4 · 2 2

Been talking to Hillary in person huh? I have yet to hear her idea for accessible healthcare.
Obama on the otherhand, has his printed right on his website, that I doubt you have even read.

60% of our income to acquire group health insurance is a lie.
Thanks for playing, please come again when you get your facts straight.

The new healthcare plans i have read, involve restructuring the socialized welfare program to provide an incentive for welfare recipients to quit using the emergency room for preventative healthcare, which is costing 6 times more than it needs to. that is 5 more people who could be covered for the same cost if the program is fixed to be handled by private insurance providers, and you people are arguing against it??!!!

I assume you like paying for other people's medical bills in the form of higher medical expenses for yourself then...huh?

2007-08-14 12:32:55 · answer #6 · answered by Boss H 7 · 1 2

And don't forget the 6 month wait to be seen by a doctor because some Mother's will take their kids to a doctor for every little thing.

2007-08-14 12:45:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

But that's not trading freedom for security...

A 15% tax increase for "free" healthcare is a conservative estimate, which doesn't take into account the inevitable increase in health care usage, or the red tape resulting from government oversight.

2007-08-14 12:23:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

Where did you get the 60% number from?

I already have a lower paycheck due to healthcare, not just in net pay, but overall pay. Plus I pay all this money out of pocket for copays.

2007-08-14 12:21:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3 3

well... first off... odds are we wouldn't be...

your probably basing your stats off of European countries that have MANY MORE social programs than we do that go far beyond just healthcare and our welfare... so it's not even close to being accurate

and even beyond that... most people are paying $500 a month for healthcare for a family now... so, even if your example wasn't way off... it wouldn't be that much different...

but studies say that European nations pay much less per person on average for healthcare... even figuring in their taxes on average...

2007-08-14 12:23:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

fedest.com, questions and answers