Wasn't Hillary's healthcare speech quite revealing about her plans for the taxpayers?

Question

In addition to spending 110 billion of your tax dollars every year to pay for healthcare insurance, she wants you to foot the bill for anyone who can't afford to go to college and fund everybody's retirement too. All that in one speech. What other schemes will she unveil in order to buy votes from those whom she's promising to take care of at your expense?

Answer 1

look on the bright side , if Hillary gets elected all we have to do is wait 4 years and will be guaranteed a republican victory for life

Answer 2

As usual, the blind can't see the truth behind it. Actually, it provides TAX RELIEF on 90% of the American tax-paying population, which makes up for the majority of the overall cost. More importantly, her idea LIMITS tax relief on the richest 10% (herself included).That is the bigger picture that is often blacked out by greedy conservatives because once they have to pay for something they cry foul.

The legacy of the Republican party.

Answer 3

She's trying to get the Democratic nod right now. She'll tone down all the socialist rhetoric in the general election and try to fool as many people as possible to vote for her. Just the way her husband did by saying he wouldn't raise taxes and promptly doing so right after the election (largest tax increase in American history)

Answer 4

You know harryd - some of us actually are happy to contribute back to the society that offered us the opportunities we have.
Some of us recognize that a society which values and protects all of its members is going to be a healthy and prosperous one.

Answer 5

I'd rather pay 110 billion for people to have healthcare. Than the billions of dollars we are spending everyday for the war in Iraq. Your priorities are screwed up.

Answer 6

I just read the news summary; I didn't see the speech.

I gather it's a universal coverage proposal along the lines of what many states are considering.

I suppose it bears repeating that it's not national health insurance, or government insurance, but rather individual-mandate private universal coverage. That is, you'd have to get private insurance if you didn't already have it (as is the case with auto insurance); and companies would be required to offer it, or else pay into a government pool that would finance other insurance options for uninsured workers. It's designed to eliminate most of the figure of the 45 million uninsured, under the theory that regular health care improves worker productivity and therefore helps the economy, and under the theory that preventive checkups and so on would reduce overall healthcare expenditures (a highly dubious claim, in my opinion, given my understanding of the human body and its regular health and resiliency, the nature of human nature and hypochondria, and the nature of checkup costs and profit motive in healthcare).

The tax money seems to come largely from the corporations that wouldn't provide insurance, which, as I just said, would go into a pool to pay for uninsured workers' insurance through the government workers' insurance plan or through expanded Medicare.

Some of the funding would also come by rolling back the recent tax cuts to those who earn over about $300,000/yr.

So. Where would this cost you more?

Well, primarily in the fact that the plan (as described in the article I read) didn't seem to do much to curtail costs and to hold constant or reduce the rightward shift of the healthcare demand curve.

The problem, therefore, isn't really in her policy, but in the priority. The true priority is more macro than the question of the uninsured (which is a bit of a safe smokescreen for politicians to hide behind). It must be to either: (1.) find ways to pay for most of the demographic shift, increased technology, and demand for health care (requiring an increased percentage of GDP spent on health care, which in the case of gov't health programs would be financed through higher taxes); or (2.) to find ways to cut costs and have rationing of a greater degree through (a.) a more pure private marketplace with price signals (where rationing would be the poor not getting care) or (b.) national health insurance (where rationing would be HMO-style prioritized triage treatment, no frilly MRI's, discouragement of hypochondriacs, etc.).

(So therefore the healthcare question can really be summed up as such: We currently spend just under 20 percent GDP on healthcare in this country. That figure is rising. Do you want to continue to finance this rise, fueled by greater demand and higher costs? Or do you think it's healthier for the economy to hold to the 20 percent figure, or reduce it some? If allowing it to rise [which the Clinton plan so far seems to allow], then methods of paying for it must be set aside, and Americans must save more personally and publicly. If held constant or reduced [very difficult], then more rationing must occur. [Note: we already have rationing to a great degree.])

(That is to say, while both coverage and cost are indeed the two most important aspects of the healthcare problem, it's my opinion -- and I think rooted entirely in fact -- that cost is the overriding concern, since cost blatantly determines coverage. Many plans offered by candidates recently tend to focus largely on coverage. And they're relatively silent about cost.)

Back to the question of your taxes and more likely scenarios and their more direct effect on you: Likely cost-cutting proposals to buy more time for Medicare Part A (which will otherwise be insolvent in 10 years, possibly) are (1.) raising the retirement age, or (2.) increasing FICA payroll taxes. Or, to make the taxes progressive; or do things that alter it more from an entitlement program to more of a welfare program. Or the gov't could authorize increases in the percentage of the Part A budget that comes from general revenue. This, then, is financed either directly or indirectly through greater taxes on you.

The more concerning tax issues then, for you, in the likely scenarios of the next decade would be greater FICA payroll taxes or an increase in retirement age (which would mean more working years, and more taxes payed).

As it concerns the universal-coverage plans' repeal of the tax cut to those earning over $300,000 (the likely talking point against its enactment), such a tax increase (assuming you're not in the top bracket) could affect you economically in an indirect way through your employment or through product prices. (In terms of taxes, I don't know that it would affect you at all, since even if such a tax raise on the rich were to ruin the economy and you lost your job -- while in a worse financial position -- your federal income taxes would be lower and commensurate with your reduced income. So technically, you wouldn't be able to say /your specific/ tax rate led to your economic troubles (though one could say the taxes businesses or other people paid led to their troubles).

The FICA tax increases, as laid out in above paragraphs, would be a more direct and influential effect on your taxes.

None of these overall healthcare problems, and the only logical fixes as laid out, are things that have their solutions rooted in ad hominem thinking about specific politicians. Hillary could be dead tomorrow, and the problems and fixes as described would remain the same, the problems just as pressing.

Medicare Part A will still be insolvent in as near as 10 years regardless of her, Rush, Osama, China, whomever. The problems are quite bigger than personalities or individual people.

Answer 7

i'd rather the government stay out of my life and my paycheck. however i would feel better if my taxes went to healthcare and education than the black hole in iraq.

Answer 8

Hillary already has her hands in a wallets! She's PROMISED to raise taxes!

She thinks she knows the best way to spend OUR money!

Answer 9

That's the way it goes. You want more taxes, vote Democrat. Plain and simple.

Answer 10

why not, were currently wasting more than that every year in Iraq for absolutely nothing

what is the purpose of paying taxes if we are getting nothing back from them