WE should have a sliding scale similar to this: Any family earning less than $150,000 per year qualifies for a tax credit for any insurance premiums they have to personally pay for, all the way down to families making at least $70,000 per year. Families making less than $70,000 per year get a much smaller tax break, but also get a discount of up to 50% of the cost of their health insurance. So they would have to go out and get their insurance and the insurance company can bill the fed government for the part the customer did not pay(50% of premiums). Families or households making less than $25,000 per year, get free healthcare if they can provide proof of citizenship.
Supply and demand will also affect this plan, because most health care providers who accept this government program will be busier, and those who do not accept it will be less busy. So consumers could decide to self insure entirely and go to less busy providers. That would be their choice.
2007-08-28 15:56:33 · 5 answers · asked by ningis n 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I'm all for it...as long as I don't get taxed for it if I opt out. Sound fair??
2007-08-28 16:01:52 · answer #1 · answered by evans_michael_ya 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Socialism. This will help you to understand.
"Tax Cuts - As Explained By A Democrat
If you don’t understand the Democrats’ version of tax cuts (and you are not alone), maybe this will help explain it:
50,000 people go to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund was then due.
The team was about to mail refunds when the Congressional Democrats stopped them and suggested that they send out refund amounts based on the Democrat National Committee’s interpretation of fairness.
After all, if the refunds were made based on the price each person paid for the tickets, most of the money would go to the ticket holders of the most expensive tickets. That would be unfair and unconscionable.
People in the $10 seats will get back $15, because they have less money to spend. Call it an “Earned Income Ticket Credit.” Persons “earn” it by demonstrating little ambition, few skills and poor work habits, thus keeping them at entry-level wages.
People in the $25 seats will get back $25, because that’s only fair.
People in the $50 seats will get back $1, because they already make a lot of money and don’t need a refund. After all, if they can afford a $50 ticket, then they must not be paying enough taxes.
People in the $75 luxury seats will have to pay another $50, because they have way too much to spend.
The people driving (or walking) by the stadium who couldn’t afford to watch the game will get $10 each, even though they didn’t pay anything in, because they need the most help (sometimes known as Affirmative Action!).
Now do you understand?
If not, contact Representative Nancy Pelosi, Senator Ted Kennedy or Senator Hillary Clinton for assistance."
2007-08-28 23:00:39 · answer #2 · answered by a bush family member 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
First off, health care based on ones ability to pay is still socialized health care. Rents are based on ones ability to pay - as are other necessities of life - food, heating oil and so forth.
The sad thing is that we are all paying for those who can't pay anyway because the rate structures are geared toward profit and the federal government mandates that any hospital with an emergency facility has to treat anyone seeking attention - including illegal immigrants.
Your idea might simply redistribute these costs more equitably, in my opinion. I really don't see a down side.
2007-08-28 23:08:14 · answer #3 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
how about we just keep the government out of this one and let the free market decide
all I have ever seen the government do is...
Take something simple and complicate it
seems to be their specialty
2007-08-29 00:34:39 · answer #4 · answered by crazy_devil_dan 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
so if I make a couple of mil I would have to pay for the meth heads and bums who cant help themselves?
2007-08-28 23:01:54 · answer #5 · answered by Petey V3.3 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋