Perhaps I haven't made it clear. This tax would have nothing to do with VAT. It would be a separate tax that went into a separate fund that was used to pay for universal health care. What one paid in VAT would have nothing to do with this tax. The total cost of providing universal health care would be divided equally among everyone and everyone would get a tax bill for their equal share. They would pay this tax, and that tax would go into a fund exclusively for universal health care. VAT would not be used to pay for universal health care. Only this tax would. Everyone would pay an equal share into the universal health care fund.
All taxes just go into the big pot. Tax raised from motoring doesn't just pay for the roads etc.. Public services are paid for from this.
I would give my opinion as a french because we have that. In France, both retirement and healthcare are taken in charge by the state, and there is too a heavy socialcare programm. All of that seems good, but the state is less and less there at essential missions like security. Its budget is already extremly big. The more missions a country take care of, the less it is skilled at his essential missions. Furthermore, all of that was instituted in the fifties, since, health cost more and more because of the extremly costy machines to heal people. I can't complain too much, I had a lot of health problems during my studies and I had to interrupt them, if I was in USA, I maybe would had both a huge student debt and health debt.
Why? Imagine going to the library and your book selection is reduce due to your income. Does a rich guy get to drive on a new road and a low paid guy take the dust road? I'm not a tax expert, just explaining how the NHS works in the UK. You will find that some just pay for their treatment to jump the queue. If your boss supplies BUPA, you receive health care anyhow.
You seem determined to not understand what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that not all taxes go into the big pot. I'm suggesting that the taxes used to fund universal health care go into a separate pot. Each person would receive a separate monthly tax bill for this different tax and the tax receipts would go into this special pot. This money would be the only money used to fund universal health care. For this monthly tax, each person's tax bill would be the same. Everyone would chip in the same amount to fund universal health care. Hopefully that clears things up.
The leeches scream about more efficient and cheaper care when run by government. But they have no intention of chipping in and paying equally for it. They want a mass subsidy wealth transfer scheme so they can keep more of their own money and receive more stuff at the expense of others. To them NHS means someone else subsidizes their portion
I agree. The idea that everyone should chip in an equal amount to provide national health care is anathema to them.
It has very much bearing. Along with roads, bridges, public buildings, parks etc.. all paid and maintained by the tax pot; healthcare would come under the same umbrella. So you pay your income tax, tax on fuel, tax on gas & electric & water, sales tax in shops etc.. Your tax burden would increase, the value depends on which services etc.. you use but you no longer pay monthly for healthcare. You are still able to pay into BUPA for private healthcare. I checked a number of years ago, £140 per month for a family of 4. So no healthcare premium, no road premium, no park premium etc.. Just like driving, if you don't wish to use public transport, buy a car and pay duty on fuel, tolls and VAT on the new car purchase.
You're conditioned with blinkers on with healthcare because it's something you've always done. That's why you struggle with the concept of an NHS. I'm a conservative in the UK, voted Tory and UKIP all my life. I'm pro NHS and private money should be kept out of it. Unfortunately, it was Tony Blair that implemented PFI into hospitals and schools.
I know what you said but taxation doesn't and can't work like that. It's not feasible and unworkable to do that.
I'm talking about paying for it not whether or not to have a NHS. Why don't folks want to pay a uniform fee for it? Answer: they want those that make more than them to subsidize them
No it's not. People get tax bills in the mail all the time. Real estate bills, water and sewer bills, etc. Then it's just a matter of accounting. Governments are great at accounting.
But, but, but,....how will we get free **** courtesy of those who earn more? You know, it's wrong that you should earn more and not have to pay for some of mine!
Hello everyone, I'm new to the forum! =P Healthcare has always been a fascinating topic. The idea of nationalized healthcare, free healthcare, socialized medicine (whatever you want to call it) sounds like a very good idea. What country wouldn't want all their citizens to have access to healthcare? I think most people would agree that healthcare is one of the most important things in our lives. So I understand people who support nationalized healthcare. They genuinely want everyone to be taken care of. No matter which side you are on, I think that's everyone's ultimate goal. We all agree on that What we disagree in is, HOW, we're going to achieve that goal. I do not believe that nationalized healthcare is the best way for a country to give people healthcare. I have 4 reasons why. It's a socialist based system The system uses force, which makes it anti-freedom It's not actually free Lack of independence in healthcare 1. Starting with number one. It's a socialist based system because you are giving the government control over our healthcare. When you do this, many negative things happen. The first thing that happens is that people take advantage of the system because it's public based. Public based things are free. So people who have nationalized medicine end up having to wait in incredibly long lines because everyone wants to be taken care of for free. This is unfortunate because the people that can't actually afford healthcare most likely don't get the help they need because the line is too long. Canada, which has nationalized healthcare, has about 42,000 citizens every year fleeing their system to the American healthcare system to get the treatment they need. I don't think a healthcare system that turns away 42,000 people every year is a good system. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...dians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care The other negative thing is that when you give government control over medicine, essentially what is happening is that the government is becoming a monopoly. There is no other alternative for people to go to when they get sick. When this happens there is an apparent lack of competition in the medical industry. When there is a lack of competition, quality stagnates. When quality stagnates people will never be able to get better healthcare in the future. It's as good as it gets. The other thing that happens with lack of competition is that the price of healthcare also rises. It may not impact anyone directly because nationalized medicine is "free" but I don't think anyone wants to pay more money for a service when they could pay less. Lastly, just want to add, if a nationalized healthcare system is actually the best system there is, why don't we nationalize everything? Why don't we nationalize the car industry, the food industry, and clothing industry... Everyone can have everything for free =P 2. When the government takes over healthcare, you're essentially using violence to achieve your medical goals. In order to pay, the government taxes the people regardless of whether or not they want to pay the tax. If they refuse, they are thrown in jail. The government heavily regulates the medical field as well. Doctors can't perform procedures and practices the way they think. Doctors have to perform medicine based on what bureaucrats (who have no medical knowledge) think it should be performed. Doctors salaries become fixed. Meaning, again going back to number one, there is little incentive for a doctor to work harder or do research because their salary isn't related to how well they do their job. Doctors pretty much become slaves under the government. A nationalized system turns doctors away. Many doctors choose to become ophthalmologist or dentists where the government isn't prominent. 3. Nationalized medicine isn't free. I think it's crazy that people think that they can get healthcare for free by paying absolutely nothing. The taxes are going to be raised, and it's going to cripple everyone financially. Not only are the taxes being spent on healthcare being spent inefficiently, but think about all the potential economic growth that is lost because people have less money to spend on themselves and more money to spend on inefficient healthcare. 4. I'm a big support of freedom and independence. But to be free means that government isn't going to be taking care of you when bad things happen. If you get sick and can't pay for your expenses, then yeah you'll probably die. But that's why we have things like insurance. And I think people should have a choice whether or not they want to pay for insurance. If you choose not have insurance and you get really sick, then in a free society, no one should be expected to help you. I think it's a fair and just system. Everyone is responsible for their own health problems. If you eat really unhealthy and get fat and get heart disease, why should anyone be responsible for your health bills? I think it's really unfair to everyone else who has to pay such high taxes to take care of people who don't take care of their health. And if you do take of your health, then there shouldn't be a problem with paying for your own health bills. There is also charity, friends, and family that can help pay for your expenses as well. Which I think is much better because you are being given money because people love you and want to help you. Not because they are forced to. And if a charity, friends, or family don't want to pay for your medical expenses, there's probably a good reason for it. And lastly for this point, I think it's dangerous to rely on the government for any kind of economic help. The government, in my opinion, is full of power hungry people, who's only purpose is to get votes, and can't be held accountable for their bad decisions. Relying on the private sector is much better for healthcare because in order for a business to make money, in order for a doctor to make money, they have to provide excellent service. Especially when there's many other people trying to provide excellent service. If a business fails to help you, they lose their ability to make a living. Which leaves me to my last point. I think the free market is the best option we have at creating excellent healthcare for our citizens. In the free market there is competition. When there is competition, quality goes up, prices go down, and there is vast selection of different healthcare choices for people. This is especially good for poor people because they will be able to actually afford healthcare, and actually receive healthcare for a cheap price especially when innovation and advancements in the medical field allowing more and more people being able to access more and bet
Name me a country where vehicle tax collected is solely spent on roads? Name me a country where stamp duty (real estate tax) collected is solely spent on social housing? Name me a country where tax on water collected is solely spent on supplying water? Etc.. etc..
It can be done in many ways. Why do you always pick the ways that allow you to pay less than your neighbor that earns more than you. Do you have some God given right to his income?
