How would liberals fund their entitlement nationalized health care system?

Question

The obvious answer is raise my taxes but Id like to hear ideas from the YA liberals.

Thank God we will never know!

If I pay for my health care and that of my family, why shouldnt you?

GOLDEN- If liberals can do that Im all for it. Quick question though, why is medicaid costing billions and a total abused failure?

PETEY- Thanks for another insightful, ingenius, brilliant answer. Nice to know I can always depend on you champ....

PETEY-Bush already did that, your career at Walmart is safe, no worries.

CORYGRPH- Why do you embarrass yourself? Im aware of the difference genius. Maybe now that you are aware youll finally admit that your hero Hillary is a socialist. Sorry you werent clever enough to pick up on that. Maybe next time...

Answer 1

1) They will have a special health care tax.
2) They will ration care. If you smoke, you won't get care. If you are old, you won't get care, and if you are cheering because you are young and don't smoke.....you won't get care if you are overweight or don't exercise properly.
3) People think it will be free but you will get next to no care.
4) All the rich will buy their own private healthcare.
5) All the best doctors will work for the rich who will pay for each visit.
6) Hospitals will close because they can't make any money.
7) Remember Hillary Care would be brought to you by the same people that handled our Passports.

Answer 2

First problem -- liberals have no nationalized health care system -- that's a socialist idea, not a liberal one.

Second -- as with any entitlement -- it would be govt funded -- and all govt funds come from either taxes or debt.

Third -- if you are paying the same amount of money, and getting the same health care for yourself and your family -- why do you care whether anyone else also gets benefits from that? Or are you more concerned about someone getting something for nothing than you are about the direct effect (or non-effect) on you and your family?

But you've already answered your question -- aside from confusing liberals and socialists, which many people who oppose both seem to do -- any national program would come from taxes. The question is -- if your only concern is really that you don't want your taxes raised -- and if the raise in taxes is equal to or less than what you are paying now for private health insurance -- what is your objection to the program?

Note that I personally opposed socialist mandatory national health care -- but for entirely different reasons. I'm just curious if your reasons are really about potentially higher taxes, or if there is some other reason you oppose people getting health care....

Answer 3

First off good question.
The funds will/would either have to come from additional taxes or but cutting funding for some other program.

Personally I'm split between whether the money should go to health care or education.... Probably education.

I'd personally rather mend a few hundred broken legs, or teach a few dozen children to read than build a bomb that can only either destroy someone's hard work or kill someone. -- I think anyone can find nobility in that, regardless of party affiliation or political leaning.

Answer 4

I'd legalize all drugs and use the taxes from that to fund it. I think social stigma is enough to keep most people from doing drugs even if they were legal.

You pay for the uninsured now as it is. When some homeless guy comes in off the street needing healthcare they don't turn him away. That cost is reflected in exorbitant healthcare prices which is reflected in your insurance premium.

The people who really get screwed are those right on the cusp who can't quite afford health insurance but aren't total deadbeats. They end up getting a $5,000 bill for a broken arm. Prices like this are absurd and unfair to those who don't buy health insurance but don't qualify for medicaid. Universal healthcare shores up gaps like this.

Privatized healthcare only works if hospitals are allowed to turn away those who can't pay. Obviously we're never going to allow that so our only suitable alternative is universal.

Answer 5

They'd raise taxes and tank the economy, then we'd all be back in jimmycarterville with odd/even gas days, stagflation and mortgage interest rates hovering around 20%

Answer 6

Oh I know Hillary will take a page from Bill. If I close this base, decommision this ship, that ship, cut this weapons program we can fund all sorts of entitlement programs.

Answer 7

Are you kidding me? I assume you are a Republican. Why do you care how something is funded? You just run a deficit right? Hell you can even lower taxes while you're at it. Debt is fine right? Don't even talk fiscal responsibility if you have voted Republican. This administration makes Clinton look like an ultra conservative miser.

Answer 8

It's an insurance program. You pay a premium, and you have coverage.

It wouldn't hurt to raise taxes on billionaires and corporations to help pay for Bush's lie-based quagmire in Iraq though.

Answer 9

Heck, projected estimates are well below the current figures for Iraq. Using the current Iraq War Budget as a template we could reduce troop presence to a minimum in Iraq (but of course still keep some there) and fund health care and still give you a tax cut.

Answer 10

we'll give you nice tax cut so you can go eat out for a night or go to the movies to fund one of us...

no problem bud...just imagine the surge to walmart or to the dollar store if we gave out a taxcut


no dude, I'm not a walmart employee, I go to college full time, but Im kind of happy they are building a superwalmart down the road so I dont have to go far AND I can buy the cheapest made low quality Chinese goods known to man