And so part of the problem with that is everyone sort of views the system as free and doesn't realize the cost. That's why they think they can throw as many foreigners as they want into the system and don't expect it to change anything. The government's been importing lots of foreign healthcare workers for decades as well, trying to keep costs down. Someone more cynical than myself would say there's a lot of Indian quack doctors who don't really know what they're doing. (i.e. sacrifice of quality to lower cost) Last study I read, only about 60% of NHS doctors were born in Britain. Think about that. It implies the government can't afford to pay going healthcare labor costs to hire healthcare workers from the local population to treat local people.
They use the argument of cost and efficiency, but what they're really looking for is someone else to pay their tab
No. When you buy gas, electric, water etc.. you pay tax. When you buy goods in a shop, it attracts 20% vat. When you earn a wage, you pay income tax and NI. When you own a house, you pay council tax. There's vat on your mobile phone. You pay yearly Vehicle Excise Duty when you own and drive your car. There's duty on alcohol, cigarettes and vehicle fuel. Everyone pays tax. The more you earn, the more you spend and, thus, the more tax you've paid.
Now it sounds like you're saying that the more a person spends on medical care the more he should pay.
So we're all going to chip in equally to pay for this healthcare then? And then each of us uses what she wants?
Right, so as @squidward said, some people will pay more for this universal health care and other will pay less or even nothing at all. Yet another plan to take from some and give to others.
Many Americans are smart enough to see what other nations have done and will not repeat the error of those nations. Of course, other people under the blinding glare of their political masters will demand the USA make those same mistakes.
Everyone, even the homeless pay tax. If the homeless buys a coffee and there's a sale tax, then he/she has just paid tax. If you earned $20,000 dollars or $100,000 dollars, when you spend and consume, a percentage has gone in the form of various taxes. Many believe to get the rich to contribute more towards healthcare, education etc.. is to alter their income tax. Income tax is just one tax of the many that contribute to the big pot of taxes that public services are funded by. The vat (sales tax) levied on most purchases in the UK is 20%. If you had higher wage and it allowed you spend an extra £50,000 in the shops, then you've paid £8,333 more in vat (tax) than the person earning less. That's a basic example but you get the drift. I think some just see income tax as the only tax method and the basis they think people have contributed to public services.
Hint, high income earners pay non income taxes too. People want a great state run insurance program, they should pay the same for coverage as me
But national health care has an average cost per person. So each of us should pay that average cost. You know, everyone should get the same national health care bill and each chip in the same amount.
You need to read my whole post, taking snippets has taken that out of context. Either quote my entire quote or none at all
I might be okay with a national healthcare system if it were paid for by a separate tax bill and each adult chipped in the exact same amount.
Do you chip in the same amount for the cost of roads, maintain city parks, libraries, government buildings and public transport etc.. That means a rich person would have to pay a lower sales tax on his/her shopping compared to a poor person. How would the homeless guy foot his/her fair share? Just trying to see how your solution here is supposed to work?
My preference would be that everyone should get an itemized tax bill for all these services, with everyone paying the same amount. Of course, public transport should probably be paid for by those actually riding the buses and trains, so there probably wouldn't need to be a tax for that. My suggestion was to have the health care be paid for by a tax bill sent to individuals that was independent of vat. It would be a new tax that everyone paid equally. Someone would have to pay on his behalf, or maybe just homeless people don't receive a bill, which makes sense because they have no mailing address. The average cost of healthcare would be divided up equally among all adults and each would receive a national health bill in the mail (monthy, quarterly) for their equal share of the cost.
So if you don't use public transport, that reflects in a reduced tax bill sent to you. But if you don't use healthcare, the average cost is divided up and sent to everyone and someone picks up the tab for the homeless. How would you be independent from vat? Two guys, one earns £10,000 and one earns £1m. Them go to buy a pair of jeans that costs £50, that £50 includes vat @20%. To buy those jeans, each has to hand over £50 (£41.66+£8.34 vat). As the guy with £1m buys more goods, he's giving the government more tax. The £10,000 guy saves up and buys a £10,000 car, £1,666 of it is vat (value added tax). The guy with £1m saves up and buys a £700,000 sports car, £116,666 of it is vat (value added tax). So the government receive £1,666+£116,666 in tax from those two purchases and goes into the tax pot. So somehow, you suggest we all manage to record what we've all spent on tax and average it out; but omit some (transport) and add others in (hospitals)? What a bizarre system. And on top of this, you would have to count on honesty? Not sure who you got your economic knowledge from but I would sue them.
I don't trust the federal government to do it nor do I want CA to have more say about what my Healthcare is like than my state or any other in the USA. If states want to cover Healthcare for themselves then they can do it but they don't because they cannot just print or borrow money to cover the costs.
Some folks fail to realize that veteran's care (like that given to politicians) is a form of socialized medicine. Nobody objects when they get such treatment.
You named a bunch of taxes, including income taxes. I pay all those in addition to income tax. If one wants to pay a prorated insurance premium because of lower income, they should get prorated service.
