What's ridiculous about it? The government knows how much it spends every month. It could split that by the number of citizens and send everyone a monthly bill. It's basic accounting.
It's a matter of principle, not a matter of maths. Everyone should pay their fair and equal share of the costs of government.
There's this website, published by the Center for Medicare/Medicaid Studies, that puts out some great information. Perhaps you should give it a go. https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statis...ata/Downloads/PieChartSourcesExpenditures.pdf The problem with "health care spending" is that it's not all "health care services". I'm a construction worker. The majority of my time is spent building hospitals or other medically focused facilities. As a result the majority of my pay and benefits are counted in the spending total for health care. That and no nation on earth(that I'm aware of) offers anywhere near as expansive as what is current proposed. So exactly what I said.
I'd be willing to bet the cost of taxes raised to provide national health care would be far less than the cost of paying monthly insurance premiums for the failed system we have now.
First off, most of those are not tax shelters. Ford Motors has operations in Asia, and if a profit is made in their Asian market, by an Asian subsidiary, and used to expand operations to meet demand in that market, how can the US tax it? That's how you lose revenue and jobs, not bolster it. As to just put the level of tax revenue into perspective, the current Medicare FICA rate, at 2.9% and 3.8% for income above $200,000 is uncapped and is levied on every dollar made. In 2017, it generated $260 billion. To fully fund the cost of Medicare for all you'd need a FICA rate equal to 18%, which is in line with the current legislation's proposal of increasing payroll taxes from the current 15.3% to 30.3%.
The only real issue is if the US implimented Medicare for all would the percentage of GDP spent on healthcare increase or decrease. Currently the US spends a much higher parcentage of GDP on healthcare thsn any other country and does not achieve better oversll results.
Yes it is amazing how many countries seem to spend way less than the US and achieve belter overall results. But I have no doubt our politicians and corporations could figure out a way to screw it up.
Based on our existing system, I'd agree with you. Now the question is, can they work together & fix it?
No. It will have to be done like Medicare, Social security and Obamacare, with a strong liberal majority in govt. and support of a majority of the electorate and with minimal corporate influence. There is no compromise or working together with a minority faction that thinks that America was greater before these other social programs were instituted...
Agreed. Conservatives on this forum offer ample proof that your post reflects the truth. With this continuing extreme form of polarization dividing us as a nation and a community, I feel deeply saddened for America today. Greatness is not on its horizon.
I feel sadden for the world where nationalism has replaced rationalism and ignorance is the norm. I remember reading decades ago that intelligence agencies were predicting mass migration everywhere with resulting turmoil. Climate change is Having a huge effect on Central America. Nationalism and climate change coupled with the greed of the GOP is a breeding ground for Trumps. At one time, the gop believed their own long term intel; not anymore. https://www.yahoo.com/news/climate-...-american-migration-us-experts-001108536.html
I hadn't actually connected climate change to immigration from Central America. Thank you for that link, and for drawing my attention to that connection. I agree with your post completely.
Our intel units have been making the connection for decades. We can literally see it before our eyes. Imagine the devastation in Fla, and the same happening in CA. Help does not come from fema and state govt. . but only comes in the form of looters and drug dealers because of the lack of a central govt. They loose their crops, their homes and literally flee northward.
It would require a wholesale stripping of privileges from large, powerful corporate interests and a reordering of priorities with restructuring to make it what it should be, and no politician has the guts or financial independence required to do it. It's always a matter of shuffling the current corporate-dominated design to create some minor advantage or appearance of advantage for the public while keeping the game squarely in the pockets of the corporate interests.
They have a conflict. They want to end the immigration and refugees, but they don't want to raise concerns about global warming so as to protect the profits of the fossil fuel industry.
