Free health care?

Quote:

---

The law, described by its supporters as a national model, requires all residents of the state to have health insurance. It includes a tax penalty for people who don't buy insurance

---

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/PollVault/story?id=1834807

A little discussed fact about health care in the USA is that
poor people are already receiving health care.
My opinion is that the politicians view "the uninsured"
not as needy people to be helped, but as a source
of additional funding, by forcing them to buy insurance.

It's no secret that big insurance companies favor this
approach, as does every demographic group
polled, with middle class and wealthy looking at the
uninsured as scofflaws who are receiving free care
and not paying their share of the costs.
:cool:

First of all, I don't like the way this article was written. It seems to me like it was made to sound like a national issue--not a single state's. Furthermore, only 1,027 persons were polled and still incurred a 3% margin of error. That's not exactly alot of people polled. :mad: Anyway....

Quote:

---

The plan is most popular in the Northeast (63 percent support) and least so in the Midwest (47 percent). Its support peaks among middle-aged Americans, 40 to 64 years old. Younger adults tend to have fewer health care needs, and older adults have Medicare.

---

Extremely true. While I am still covered under my parent's healthcare because I'm in college, if I had to pay for it myself...I wouldn't. I already bracing for when I get raped for car insurance in 2 months when I sign....

Quote:

---

The law, described by its supporters as a national model, requires all residents of the state to have health insurance. It includes a tax penalty for people who don't buy insurance, a $295 per-worker fee for businesses that don't provide it, and subsidies to help poor and low-income residents pay premiums.

---

I'm curious as to how much tax is billed to those whom don't purchase health insurance, and what income level is the cut-off to being considered poor and a benefitiary of such program.

Personally, I hate welfare programs. I don't think it's the government's place at all to force me to pay money to a company that will only screw me out of my dues on the potential possibility that maybe, someday, I might be harmed, get into an accident, etc.

If people get into an accident, they go to a court and get it settled. If someone gets hurt and has a hospital bill, they pay the bill. What if someone can't pay the bill? You enforce it; liquidations, fines, penalties, jail sentences, you name it. Just enforce it and people will pay. Insurance was one of the most brilliant, yet evil corporate schemes ever to grace this planet.

Interesting,

Over here we pay "National Insurance" which is a sort of tax, and the government provide free/subsidised healthcare.

BUT, if your employer provides you with free medical insurance you have to pay tax on it as it is classed as a "benefit" even though it would reduce the government's costs! Also if you took out your own insurance, you would not get tax relief.

It seems that we have a completely opposite, and to my thinking, illogical approach?

:confused:

In the netherlands we have a manditory 'basic-(healthcare)-insurance'.
You can have added options..

But the basic insurance (Basis verzekering) is there for all.. And it is manditory.

Since when do poor people have insurance? I am poor. I make less than 3k a year. (The fact that I am college is the reason, but still.)

I have been poor since I was born. I have never had health insurance. The question between should there be a national health care system is between two things.

One... Do we want our taxes raised outragesously and Two... Do we really give a damn about those without money.

I honestly think that it is not worth the added tax raise to give all americans health insurance.. If my memory serves me correct. Canada's health care system is completely jacked up.

Quote:

---

Do we want our taxes raised outragesously.

---

Just take a little out of the Foreign policies (Defence my rectum) funds (7 percent of GNP in 2000, can't find more recent numbers, but I'd guess around 8 or 9 percent now) and the taxes can stay the same (or even lower)..

Or spend a little less on prohibition (War on Drugs), you'd think the US would have learned from their first attempt..

I laugh (hahaha) when I see you guy's in the States cry about the tax's..your the most undertaxed population on the planet in regards to income earned, I would love to pay your taxes even with the conversion rates..


Here go after these people and I am sure you could support Medicare:

Quote:

---

Tax fraud(sheesh, this amount is more then our whole GDP for Canada alone) is estimated at $311 billion this year, more than the entire budget for Medicare, and more than last year's revenues at Walmart or General Electric. Most cheaters go unpunished. What’s worse, the legal tax system is rigged to favor rich people and large corporations at the expense of ordinary citizens and small businesses. Even when everybody abides by the law, middle-income households pay more taxes than rich ones. And politicians keep handing out tax favors to their campaign contributors – at our expense.

---

If everybody paid their "fair share", then a lot of this would be resolved...(happens in Canada as well with the underground black market (housing industry), as long as these people flout the laws for taxes, mine and yours go up.

http://www.askquestions.org/articles/taxes/