I agree with this.
In your real world, Canadians are all good hardworking people and only America deals with layabouts who mooch off the state, so you’ll excuse me if I’m a little skeptical.
Well if you want to to live in our country you have to pay your share for maintaining it a decent standard.
What that standard should be is left to the wishes of the voters and the people they choose to represent them.
tl:dr we ain’t gonna be a 3rd world hell hole cause you’re a greedy bastard
also!
ITT:Brazil84 hosts KKK meetings in his ivory tower.
I would love for a cite that Canada, and England don’t have people like this. If you’re not still being to chicken shit to honestly debate you coward.
Remember folks. This anal troll, that runs away from honest debate is the kind of person that is against UHC. I think that someone would use vague terms to try weasel out of argument speaks volumes for the weakness of this drooling morons position.
Only liars fear honest debate.
We aren’t a third world hell hole yet, but you keep taxing the crap out of the middle class and you will end up dragging us into poverty. Then you’ll have Mexico - a few really rich people and hundreds of thousands living in dirt.
There is nothing greedy about wanting to be able to keep at least some of what we have worked for these past decades.
You’re starting to sound like a parrot. As I noted previously, we haven’t had a tax hike in nearly 20 years. There is no grand conspiracy to “tax the crap out of the middle class”.
Do you even know what the middle class is? Hint: it’s a bit smaller than you seem to think.
cite that we want to take it all. If anything healthcare costs would be cheaper anyway. In the US it’s average $6,000 per person and you pay for those without insurance anyway through increased medical bills to cover the no pays. In Canada it’s around $3,000 per person.
Put a different way, which countries have the healthiest and happiest populations? Which ones don’t? I’ll give you a hint. Generally 3rd world countries have fewer government programs. Where as stable 1st world democracies tend feature things like universal healthcare.
Put another way how come Sweden, Norway, England, and Canada aren’t in the poor house right now? How come people there have on average a higher standard of living then the average American?
Don’t you want some of this success for your home country? I personally love my home country and want it to do well. We need to stop this Fuck you I’ve got mine nonsense and really look at our problems as a society so we can fix them.
Finally I ask you what Mexico has to do with anything? Please give me a reputable cite backed argument that Mexico’s problems stem from over taxing the rich, or retract your false claim.
And as I noted previously, the lack of a federal tax hike doesn’t mean that the states, counties and cities haven’t been making up for it. (One of the reasons I look like a parrot to you is I keep having to repeat myself.)
Yup, shrinking all the time, tho the current size depends on what definition you want to use. Tell me which one you like and I’ll tell you if we still are. Quite possible that we have been taxed into lower class! 
Did I say you want to take it all? Didn’t I indicate that I’d have enough left to qualify as in poverty, rather than destitute? Besides, you couldn’t really cite something like that, since it is a long term on going problem covering a wide area - it isn’t just the fed that thinks that the answer to a budget problem is to get money from the taxpayers.
Dunno. Do you think it is just because they have some sort of UHC? Wow.
Pay attention. This is not “I’ve got mine” this is “I gotta stop this bleeding before I die”. Maybe when you get a bit older and closer to retirement, you’ll begin to realize that income is finite and it stops when you can no longer work.
It was an example of a condition, stupid. I have no idea how they got where they are now (tho I’d be willing to believe the Catholic church might be at fault), I merely use them of an example of a country with no real middle class left (if they ever had one).
There’s a lot of posts in this thread. Please define destitute in actual numbers.
No it’s because they look out for their people; UHC is just one part of that. They tend to feature social safety nets, and educational opportunities.
If only there was some kind of successful government program to pay retirement benefits to seniors so they could socially secure… oh snap. Or some way to save money for retirement such as a bank or 401k.
Do you pay for your own health insurance? How much do you pay a month?
So what does Mexico have to do with anything? Since you’ve admitted you think it’s the catholic church why bring it up in a tax debate?
I want to keep the middle class too. Part of keeping the middle class is giving people the tools to look after themselves such as healthcare and making sure one unlucky health problem doesn’t cripple them with debt for the rest of their lives. Also it’s giving them a net to fall into so they can dust themselves off and try again.
One of Mexico’s biggest problems is the lack of educational opportunities. The poor stay poor because they never have a chance to learn skills and be skilled labor. The Mexican education system isn’t providing them with what they need. Providing the children, middle class, poor, and rich alike with better educational opportunities requires funding which needs to be raised through taxes or loans. Loans have to be paid back so they’re ultimately tax funded anyway.
In short Mexico is an example of what can happen when a government can’t provide basic services to it’s population.
Oh piss off. I only play that game when it looks like it might be interesting. Or if I’m very very bored.
And what to you want to bet that their people use those nets and opportunities to become responsible for themselves, rather than just demanding more?
Social security? HA! I’ll be lucky if it’s still there by the time I turn 65. And we do have 401Ks and pensions, at least for now. Wonder if I’ll have to cash out anything before I can retire? Wonder how many taxes there will be on that sort of thing by then?
About $400 for just the medical part.
I’ll try using little words. I wanted a visual of what it might look like once the middle class is gone and all we have are the really rich and the poor. Since I have been to Mexico many times, I used that. I’m sorry that the concept of a visual confuses you, and that is the last time I am going to explain it to you.
No, it is not the middle class that a US UHC is aimed at, it would be for those working poor.
The US is already providing far more than basic services to it’s population, and far far more than Mexico is.
With respect to the current system, I would say “is” not “will be.” I would not be surprised to learn that under the current system, there is a lot of waste, mismanagement, manipulation by special interests, and so on.
The thing is, it’s unfair to take the current system with such problems and compare it to some platonic ideal of national health care. Not that I’m accusing you of doing that, but it does seem to happen.
Anyone willing to advocate opening more medical schools to train more doctors, with or without the assent of the AMA, has my support. And if it uses a theory of free competition, fine. Maybe the free market can work if we open up the supply side as well as the demand side.
[/QUOTE]
The really poor (working or not) are already covered by Medicaid. UHC is for the lower middle class (ie., minimum wage retail jockeys, laborers, etc.) and the self-employed or small business owners.
Have you ever tried purchasing an individual health insurance plan? It’s not easy, and it’s really, really expensive.
Then when advocates for UHC say it is to cover those who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but “can’t afford” private insurance, and call these people the working poor, they lie?
I really don’t think that anyone living on minimum wage is “lower middle class” unless the definition of middle class has changed radically.
I already addressed this.
You’re the one reading in, “middle class should be happy to pay for it,” that’s not what we’re saying. Socialized medicine is only being advocated so strongly because regular middle-class & working-class joes think it would be a better deal for them.
That may not be true. Opening more med schools & nursing schools may be more constructive than “Medicare for All.” But you’re reading in a straw man.
Of course it’s material, it’s part of the debate. See the thread title?
I wonder this myself. Why are these numbers hard to find? Why are med schools underwritten by Medicare, & why was I never taught this in school when we discussed social policy?
If you’d taken the time to skim one-half the links we provided, you could have saved yourself reading all our blather here 5x over. :rolleyes:
You are asking us to prove your misrepresentation. In no way are we advocating a rise in taxes in middle-class disabled persons. Could that be an unintended consequence? Yes, policy changes are full of risk. But to avoid any policy change because you don’t know what will happen is to lock one’s polity into stasis.
_
OK, brazil84, this next bit is for you: This thread was the spinoff for you, for you in particular, to explain in painful detail why America’s underclass is different from Canada’s/New Zealand’s/Australia’s/the UK’s/Germany’s–I’ll add Ireland’s to that. It is not derailing the thread; it is the function of the thread.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
I’m sorry you have such a persecution complex.
Myself, I would love to raise top marginal income tax rates & index them to inflation, so the rich are being ground at over 55% while the median incomes pay <30%. But a lot of people were seduced by Reagan the tax cutter & Steve Forbes’s flat tax, & the government is disproportionately influenced by the rich. That said, as a proportion of income, you are not supposed to be paying more than a rich person, unless his income is largely in capital gains or he has a lot of tax shelters.
…
Well, after page 5 of this thread starting to look like a Turing machine, I think I’m calling it, at least re curlcoat &** brazil84**.
Unlike some in this thread, I’m not convinced brazil84 is a KuKluxer. I think, as I thought when I started this thread, that he’s working from a certain ignorance of how vile the underclass is outside the US.
I think curlcoat shows a certain Californiano prejudice, seeing a high correlation between more Mexican & more low-class.
So it’s pretty much a matter of generalizing from local experience & being unaware of problems in distant countries, which is normal. However, the refusal to read source posts while willingly trudging through this snarkfest of a thread is just making the thread longer, snarkier, & more trollsmacked.
So, anyone else who wants to discuss this cogently, I may try to respond to. I thought Shodan made some interesting points without being trollish, Martin Hyde did call me on my crap in the other thread, & I appreciate welby’s question.
But I’m going to try to restrain myself from poking the automatic-response tarbabies.
I’m sorry, that made no sense. What I meant was, you apparently have read this thread, which must have taken 5 times as long as skimming some links & seeing the stats would have.
We have a privatized medical system. Some claim that is the best way. Well. it works very well for the rich. It works less well for the middle and not at all for the poor. That is not the system I would recommend . Our system fails more and more when compared to other industrial nations.
What advocates are these?
Universal healthcare will do as much for me as it does for anyone else. Sure, my employer pays for 100% of my health insurance now, but I might be unemployed tomorrow, or back in retail, or running my own business, or uninsurable due to chronic illness…
Incidentally, great post, foolsguineau… I agree with everything you said.