Current Events > Would you be willing to pay higher taxes to fund healthcare for others?

(+) Yeah! (+)

In a country where incomes have stagnated and inflation has been high, the answer is not higher taxes.

---

Balrog0 posted...

correct, taxes only work if they're mandatory

Taxes are vastly more prone to regulatory capture than anything else. "Mandatory" is fantasy.

scorpion41 posted...

In a country where incomes have stagnated and inflation has been high, the answer is not higher taxes.

Sounds like the solution is to both raise min wage and raise taxes so everyone is guaranteed healthcare that won't bankrupt them.

---

No surprises here as to which posters are being selfish about the literal lives of other people.

Most first world countries have this figured out. If you support our current "healthcare" system, you're really not informed enough to be at the table on this discussion.

_Rinku_ posted...

No surprises here as to which posters are being selfish about the literal lives of other people.

Most first world countries have this figured out. If you support our current "healthcare" system, you're really not informed enough to be at the table on this discussion.

either that, or they're one of the people who benefits from for-profit healthcare. in which case they shouldn't get an opinion on it

---

Mo, the middle class will be paying the highest brunt of the cost for nothing in return, all the money I'm forced to pay in FICA taxs alone triggers the fuck out of me everytime I see that deduction.

---

_Rinku_ posted...

If you support our current "healthcare" system, you're really not informed enough to be at the table on this discussion.

That is a bad comment, unless you are suggesting that these people also do not have to pay for these higher taxes that you want so badly. I hope you were awake for those History classes that taught how the US was founded on the concept of not being taxed for things youre not allowed to discuss and consent to.


---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Taxes are vastly more prone to regulatory capture than anything else. "Mandatory" is fantasy.

well, it is true that rich people always have all the cards

---

https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/1231959925040939009

Hell yes


---

No. I'm getting taxcucked enough as it is.

---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

That is a bad comment, unless you are suggesting that these people also do not have to pay for these higher taxes that you want so badly. I hope you were awake for those History classes that taught how the US was founded on the concept of not being taxed for things youre not allowed to discuss and consent to.

This is assuming access to basic fucking healthcare shouldnt be a human right

which if you think that Ill redirect you to

_Rinku_ posted...

If you support our current "healthcare" system, you're really not informed enough to be at the table on this discussion.

---

Yes, while I have grave concerns over limiting the profitability of medical r&d. Pharma, hospitals, and insurance companies have worked together for decades to fuck over the average american with make believe pricing.

---

DezDroppedFreak posted...

This is assuming access to basic fucking healthcare shouldnt be a human right

What do you mean by a right, legally speaking? Which country are we talking about because I might be making the mistake that we are discussing the US, due to the upcoming election. I do not see this right in the Constitution of the United States.

---

_Rinku_ posted...

Most first world countries have this figured out. If you support our current "healthcare" system, you're really not informed enough to be at the table on this discussion.

i thought everyone was saying the issue was billionaires hoarding wealth, greedy corporations not paying their fair share of income taxes, etc, not that middle class workers arent being bled dry enough

---

Romulox28 posted...

i thought everyone was saying the issue was billionaires hoarding wealth, greedy corporations not paying their fair share of income taxes, etc, not that middle class workers arent being bled dry enough

sanders has always admitted that the middle class will pay higher taxes for medicare for all, but his argument is that you will save money because you will spend less on health care. that may or may not be true for your family but your shitty framing just makes you look like a shill

---

Bolle_Henk_ posted...

I will, but I'm already doing that since I live in a civilized country.

---

that won't be true for my family

---

Balrog0 posted...

sanders has always admitted that the middle class will pay higher taxes for medicare for all, but his argument is that you will save money because you will spend less on health care. that may or may not be true for your family but your shitty framing just makes you look like a shill

so, let me get this straight. I'll be taxed more, and to offset this, I should drop my private plan I have thru my work, then go with the nationwide plan, which will probably not be accepted by my doctor and have to change doctors?

Doesn't seem great.

---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

What do you mean by a right, legally speaking? Which country are we talking about because I might be making the mistake that we are discussing the US, due to the upcoming election. I do not see this right in the Constitution of the United States.

nice trolling bro I give this position a 7/10

---

MeltyAlert posted...

I should drop my private plan I have thru my work, then go with the nationwide plan, which will probably not be accepted by my doctor and have to change doctors?

You do not have this straight; doctors won't reject patients on the basis of what plan they have; everyone will have the same plan.
---

MeltyAlert posted...

so, let me get this straight. I'll be taxed more, and to offset this, I should drop my private plan I have thru my work, then go with the nationwide plan, which will probably not be accepted by my doctor and have to change doctors?

Doesn't seem great.

There won't be any other plans for your doctor to accept

---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

DezDroppedFreak posted...

This is assuming access to basic fucking healthcare shouldnt be a human right

What do you mean by a right, legally speaking? Which country are we talking about because I might be making the mistake that we are discussing the US, due to the upcoming election. I do not see this right in the Constitution of the United States.

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 25a)

Universal
---

Antifar posted...

You do not have this straight; doctors won't reject patients on the basis of what plan they have; everyone will have the same plan.

Ok I guess I can survive with that, but I'm not crazy about it.

Balrog0 posted...

There won't be any other plans for your doctor to accept

so what happens to all the health insurance companies? I'm so confused lmfao

---

Antifar posted...

You do not have this straight; doctors won't reject patients on the basis of what plan they have; everyone will have the same plan.

You seem to think that "concierge care" won't suddenly become a huge thing.

MeltyAlert posted...

so, let me get this straight. I'll be taxed more, and to offset this, I should drop my private plan I have thru my work, then go with the nationwide plan, which will probably not be accepted by my doctor and have to change doctors?

Doesn't seem great

There is no logic in thinking your doctor wouldn't accept a single payer system. Just like there is no logic in your employer continuing to provide health insurance with a single payer system.

So instead of your choice being limited to who your employer picked and who is in their network, you'd be covered anywhere that accepts insurance. You also wouldn't have to worry about gotchas like if you need surgery and even though you went to an on hospital network the anesthesiologist is out of network and you have to pay that bill.

A single payer system also allows a much stronger negotiation point on prices so single aspirins don't cost $5. And in the case of our current insurance mess, it's one of the few areas where adding the government would reduce bureaucracy.

Anyone who says definitely that you will pay more or less is trying to push an agenda. There are too many complicated variables to have an answer.

But let's say it does go up and you're spending an extra $100/mo than what you are now. In exchange for that you personally get your choice of care. If you have any nagging injuries you don't want to pay the deductible and or copay on, you can schedule that care rather than hope it doesn't get worse.

And maybe someone you know is apart of the 27 million uninsured who would get coverage or apart of the 29% of people who are insured, but their plans qualify as underinsured due to the high deductible and out of pocket cost.

Those are worth while reasons to spend a little more in tax if it comes to it. And there still exist the possibility of by reducing the terrible fake prices of services now, that it could be less. And there is the optimistic view that by eliminating cost from being a factor people will be more likely to get preventive care which further reduces cost.

---

Hell yeah, I'm willing to pay "more" in taxes.

- A portion of my insurance fees and taxes already go towards subsidizing uninsured patients

- Prevention is cheaper than treatment. Loads of people avoid going to the doctor early on because they lack insurance, only to REALLY need the doctor later leading to a net larger bill which I, again, already subsidize.

- Removal of for-profit middlemen will lead to lower healthcare costs
---

thank you for explaining :)

---

Balrog0 posted...

For one, the argument isn't that 'we' can't afford health care, the argument is that we can if we pool our resources. Also, the proposal isn't for government to administer health care services but for the government to provide the financing for those services.

If the government's role is not to administer health services, then significant and comprehensive cost-cutting measures alone with respect to bloat in healthcare/insurance prices would go a very long way before the question of raising taxes, assuming cronyist inclinations can be eradicated.

That does also include administration, but as others have indicated, it streamlines (i.e., reduces the bureaucracy) of our current multipayer system. There are ways we can reduce costs but even with generous assumptions we almost certainly need to raise taxes to cover the costs of any reasonable health care system even

Both single payer and multipayer systems have abundant room for bureaucratic streamlining. While streamlining and cost-cutting measures alone might not cover funding for everyone after the fact, gutting other bloated sectors (see: defense) would go a very long way with respect to accomplishing this without further burdening taxpayers.

---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

That is a bad comment, unless you are suggesting that these people also do not have to pay for these higher taxes that you want so badly. I hope you were awake for those History classes that taught how the US was founded on the concept of not being taxed for things youre not allowed to discuss and consent to.

This is hands down one of the dumbest and most over-reactionary comments ever. Educate yourself if you want to be part of the discussion.

Depends.

By healthcare, do you in any way mean wall?

---

TheMikh posted...

If the government's role is not to administer health services, then significant and comprehensive cost-cutting measures alone with respect to bloat in healthcare/insurance prices would go a very long way before the question of raising taxes, assuming cronyist inclinations can be eradicated.

So I'm gonna use slightly inflated numbers here just so the math is easy and my point is easy to follow. Just wanted to say that upfront.

Let's say out of pocket expenses and private insurance currently pay for 50% of our health care expenditures. That means, if we eliminate those things, we will have to double the amount of public spending on health care. Do you really think we could cut the costs 50% across the board? Because that's what it would take to expand coverage to everyone without raising taxes in this scenario

---

My effective tax rate is pretty low, so yeah, Id have no issues if it went up so long as it wasnt absurd. Like a 100% increase would be affordable.

---

_Rinku_ posted...

This is hands down one of the dumbest and most over-reactionary comments ever. Educate yourself if you want to be part of the discussion.

You do not get to advocate taking peoples money and then also claim they arent allowed to discuss it because you think a different opinion means they are not educated.

---

Balrog0 posted...

Do you really think we could cut the costs 50% across the board? Because that's what it would take to expand coverage to everyone without raising taxes in this scenario

If we replace "have to deal with several dozen insurers trying to lowball us" with "have to deal with one bureaucracy that mandates lowballing us", then yeah.

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

You do not get to advocate taking peoples money and then also claim they arent allowed to discuss it because you think a different opinion means they are not educated.

you do not get to frame publicly funded healthcare is "taking people's money"

and "a different opinion" is for people who listen to musical soundtracks in the car. not for people who think it's ok for people to go into massive debt because they have cancer

---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

You do not get to advocate taking peoples money and then also claim they arent allowed to discuss it because you think a different opinion means they are not educated.

Damn dude, you need to get over your anger about taxes. Educate yourself.

Questionmarktarius posted...

If we replace "have to deal with several dozen insurers trying to lowball us" with "have to deal with one bureaucracy that mandates lowballing us", then yeah.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3033.html

I guess you might be right!

---

Balrog0 posted...

I guess you might be right!

Between reducing administrative burden, and plain old price controls, of course costs will be cut.
The issues involved with price controls create its own problems, though.

the point is to really make hospital board members and shareholders pay more in taxes, you fucking. fucks

---

fucking morons

---

That's a super hell nah for me.

---

Nah why should I give a shit about others

Knowledge_King posted...

That's a super hell nah for me.

DarthAragorn posted...

Nah why should I give a shit about others

see. this is why socialists are given no choice but to turn evil

---

i hope you ants are happy about yourselves

---

We already pay for those people anyway
---