How is it "impractical" to propose a non-profit health care system when the government practically gives awa

Question

Under the current tax system, all working americans, even those who make more than enough money to be financially secure, have the potential to recieve tax returns, the amount being based on factors ranging from family size to, in some cases, the amount of money an individual makes, as in the more you make the bigger your refund. It was previously suggested by John Kerry that the tax cuts could be eliminated for individuals who make enough money to be financially secure, and that the resulting deficit could be used to fund health care and other programs that are underfunded in the Bush administration. After hearing this from Kerry, and then voting for Bush, I think it is completely absurd for any close-minded conservative, or anyone else to suggest that non-profit health care systems such as the one being proposed by Dennis Kucinich are impossible to come by when billions are being more or less wasted (by going to individuals who do not need them) under the current tax system.

Answer 1

Because a main motivation for people to invest the time to become doctors will be taken away. What's the point of free healthcare if you have no doctors to administer it?

Answer 2

Universal health care, Yes. Otherwise count me in as a poor skeptic - meaning my income is slightly less than the poverty rate. I oppose a non profit health system. Basically, such a system would have to be almost entirely funded & run by the government. When revenues are low, social services are usually the first to be cut, & recut. This is what has happened in Canada & the UK, with the long waiting times for treatment & the rich paying their way to the front of the line.

There are plans that would bring all the health resources we now have under one overall plan. Basically, a veteran could use the VA, working people could use private plans partially paid by their employer, & an overall plan like Medicare which all be in competition with each other. Thus a factory worker might want to change to the Medicare plan or a retiree may wish to stick to the private plan which is part of his pension coverage. All the different options have advantages. Keeping all the options open allows change when it becomes necessary. Three examples of this type of plan are the ones in Massachusetts, California, & the one Hillary has proposed. There are others.

No one has come up with the "Perfect Health Care Plan" yet. By using all the options currently available, we stand a better chance of finding a different way that works better than any other universal plan out there. Until we get there, we also have the option of backing up & starting over when we goof.

EDIT: Your assumptions on tax returns are wrong. A person receives a tax return only when they have overpaid their taxes due to excess deductions. Thus, it isn't the government's money they are "giving away"; the money already belonged to the taxpayer receiving the return.

Answer 3

First of all, you mean surplus, not deficit.

HELL NO!

Why should the government determine when a private citizen "makes enough money". What you are also failing to realize is that the top 1% of income earners pays 29% of ALL taxes. The top 5% bear 50% of the ENTIRE U.S. tax burden. So, wouldn't it make sense that if you are paying more taxes, when the government makes refunds, you would get a refund proportional to the amount you overpaid?

That's the other thing people do not realize. The government isn't just "giving" out refunds. The money that comes back to you in the form of a refund, is money that was withheld OVER TOP of what you actually owe, and it was never the government's to begin with. Do you realize that when the incom tax money is withheld from your paycheck, anything they withhold over top of what you owe, is basically being lent to the government interest-free? Then they tur around and give it back to you when they feel like it. Wouldn't you rather have that money in your pocket or in a bank account where you can earn interest off of it?

Also, how in the blue fu** do you think that such a program could EVER be non-profit. Do you realize the BILLIONS of dollars it would cost to just start the program? You need office buildings, equipment, and thousands of employees to run this thing. You need to pay for vehicles, and travel for administrators. And how then will the people, corporations, and facilities who actually administer the medical services be paid? You are sadly mistaken my friend. I hear your X-Box calling for you.

Answer 4

No one is suggesting that such a system is impossible. What we're suggesting is that such a system is socialism, and a big overstep of the Constitutional authority granted to the federal government, which will lead to more people not being able to get access to health care, long lines for even the most basic services, and abuse and overuse of the system by people who already abuse and overuse the system.

I think it's completely absurd for anyone in a supposedly free-market economy to propose handing over any portion of the economy, especially one as essential as health care, to the most inefficient entity in the country, the federal government.

Answer 5

Do you consider a program that will cost over $500,000,000,000 a year to be non profit. Our current system will save more money than any kind of universal health care program. Also I don't know about you, but I don't want the government in control of my health or my health records. They have a long history of failure.

Answer 6

i don't prefer to sound aggressive or disrespectful, yet i might prefer to assert here, "whats up, bucko, that REFUND you're speaking approximately is funds that the government took faraway from those people". the government TAXED that funds, involuntarily from that man or woman - they simply took it. To do what? supply it to somebody else? to assert that "billions are being wasted" via money being given back to the folk from which it replaced into taken is an uneducated fact.

Answer 7

When something doesn't make sense then follow the money trails. Health Insurance company influence and contributions to political parties and candidates keeps any single payer system stymied before it has a chance. Insurance companies are in the middleman business, and they want to survive - they won't if a single payer health plan is made law..

Answer 8

The founding fathers are turning over in their graves about now.