After posting the piece about Nurses traveling to Germany and reading the feedback. I would like to open up a debate on this BB about "Universal Health Care" or "Single Payor Systems"
In doing this I hope to learn more about each side of the issue. I do not want to turn this into a heated horrific debate that ends in belittling one another as some other charged topics have ended, but a genuine debate about the Pros and Cons of proposed "Universal Health Care or Single Payor systems" I believe we can all agree to debate and we can all learn things we might not otherwise have the time to research.
I am going to begin by placing an article that discusses the cons of Universal Health Care with some statistics, and if anyone is willing please come in and try to debate some of the key points this brings up. With stats not hyped up words or hot air. I am truly interested in seeing the different sides of this issue. This effects us all, and in order to make an informed decision we need to see "all" sides of the issue. Thanks in advance for participating.
Michele
I am going to have to post the article in several pieces because the bulletin board only will allow 3000 characters.So see the next posts.
the economics of democracy. economist jeff madrick, writing in 2003, asked some difficult questions as part of a lengthy analysis of the us economy: "where does income and wealth inequality start to impinge on civil and political rights and on america's long commitment to equality of economic opportunity? where does it both reflect a failure of democracy and contribute to its weakening?" when the head of exxonmobil recently earned $368 million in a year--more per hour than his workers earn per year--it's not hard to see why madrick concluded, "there is a good argument to be made that we are already there." the rich have become the super-rich, and middle-class families feel as if they're running up a down escalator. even a snapshot of the data is convincing: in 1980 the wealthiest 5 percent of us households earned 16.5 percent of all income; in 1990 it was 18.5 percent; in 2000, 22.1 percent. meanwhile, real median income for men has fallen for five straight years. the number of poor has increased from 31 million to 37 million since 2000, and the number without health insurance rose from 41 million to 47 million.
not since the gilded age, when wealthy businessmen effectively appointed senators, has big business held such sway in washington. scores of laws and policies implemented by bush 43--cutting job-training programs, eroding the minimum wage, slashing taxes on the rich and social programs for the poor--have hastened the tilt from labor to capital. george bush has redistributed wealth far more than george mcgovern was ever accused of--except up, not down.
or as louis brandeis wrote: "we can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
Only if you and your family are in the upper 5% of the economy. QUOTE]
The AMT is not "Bush's sleight of hand." It was not created by Pres. Bush, and it is the responsibility of the Dem controlled Congress to change it if they don't like it...Pres. Bush can't do anything about it until someone writes some legislation, and Dem's are not known for reducing taxes for ANYONE no matter what breakable promises they present to entice voters.
The number of Americans making a million or more annually is 2/10ths of 1%. This is not a voter base, and if the AMT is such a devestating tax, then these millionaires are paying more than their fair share. Additionally, a flat tax would create a far more fair tax system and reduce gov't overhead, but few Dems seem willing to promote it; turns out that the Dems tend to be the richest politicians in Congress, and they silently approve of their capacity to avoid taxes.
The claim that the middle class is assuming more of the tax bill as a percentage of their income is unsupportable; I am middle class, and my tax bracket dropped with the first GOP tax cut.
as former federal reserve chairman alan greenspan has warned, “if you’re going to lower taxes, you shouldn’t be borrowing essentially the tax cut… [t]hat over the long run is not a stable fiscal situation.”[2] tax policy center data indicate that, even if the enacted tax cuts and their extension eventually were paid for through a balanced package of program cuts and progressive tax increases (rather than solely through benefit cuts), the bottom four fifths of households would likely lose, on average, from the combination of the tax cuts and the measures needed to finance them. that is, once the need to pay for the tax cuts is taken into account, the 2001 and 2003 “tax cuts” are best seen as net tax cuts for the top 20 percent of households, as a group, financed by net tax increases or benefit reductions for the remaining 80 percent of households, as a group.[3]
when the tax cuts are fully in effect, the cost of the tax cuts going to the very highest income households will be greater, in today’s terms, than the amounts spent on various high-priority programs.
in 2006 terms, the cost of tax cuts for households with annual incomes above $1 million will exceed what the federal government spent last year on k-12 and vocational education. it similarly will exceed the federal resources dedicated to hospital and other medical care for veterans, as well the resources provided for medical research conducted by the national institutes of health (see figure 1).
this information is not posted as an argument to "soak the rich" it is instead posted to point out that in fact tax relief is a sham that will in the long run end up as a tax increase. the other though is that in reality we are not investing our societies resources very well or effectively when we pursue a tax policy that advances the broad interests of a very narrow segment of society at a steep cost to the rest of society. ultimately, the middle quintile is receiving a tax cut of 15 dollars a week. can you buy pizza for your family at that price? it was not that tax relief was not needed it was that tax relief should be focused towards the broad base of society to raise our living standards as a whole. 103 billion will buy one heck of a lot of health care. frankly the extremenly wealthy don't need or deserve this kind of tax relief.
income inequality is also on the rise. recently released internal revenue service data show that income disparities grew substantially from 2002 to 2003. after adjusting for inflation, the after-tax income of the one percent of tax filers with the highest incomes shot up in 2003 by an average of nearly $49,000 per household, while the after-tax incomes of the bottom 75 percent of tax filers fell on average. the irs data are especially important because they provide the first full snapshot of trends since 2002 at the very top of the income spectrum. also, less-complete data from the census bureau (as well as other information) suggest that income disparities have widened further since 2003.
income disparities were already at near-record levels before this latest increase. income inequality in 2002 was wider than in all but six years (1988 and 1997-2001) since the middle of the 1930s. this conclusion is based in part on congressional budget office data for the 1979-2002 period, which are summarized in figure 1.[6] during this period, average after-tax incomes more than doubled for the top one percent of the population, rose relatively modestly for the middle fifth of the population, and rose just 5 percent for the lowest-income fifth of the population.
"Could it be that addressing the basic human needs of the citizenry is politically acceptable again? Someone tell President Bush."
"Now everyone from the Democratic residential candidates to Arnold Schwarzenegger to SEIU president Andy Stern and Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott is talking about Universal Health Care."
Pr. George's Boy Dies After Bacteria From Tooth Spread to Brain
…By the time Deamonte's own aching tooth got any attention, the bacteria from the abscess had spread to his brain, doctors said. After two operations and more than six weeks of hospital care, the Prince George's County boy died.
Deamonte's death and the ultimate cost of his care, which could total more than $250,000, underscore an often-overlooked concern in the debate over universal health coverage: dental care….
What response would we hear from the conservative point of view? Would we hear it was his mothers fault for not being successful enough? Or would we hear that this happens so infrequently, that because its only such a low percentage of the general population that to have provided dental care would have taken away from their families, maybe they would have had to forgo a trip to Disneyland. Dont we as Americans pride ourselves on the value we place on our fellow humans? What is the excuse that keeps us from having the healthcare that less wealthy countries can provide their citizens? Its shameful to so discount the value of any segment of our society.Where have we gone wrong?
What response would we hear from the conservative point of view? Would we hear it was his mothers fault for not being successful enough? Or would we hear that this happens so infrequently, that because its only such a low percentage of the general population that to have provided dental care would have taken away from their families, maybe they would have had to forgo a trip to Disneyland. Dont we as Americans pride ourselves on the value we place on our fellow humans? What is the excuse that keeps us from having the healthcare that less wealthy countries can provide their citizens? Its shameful to so discount the value of any segment of our society.Where have we gone wrong?
Conservative point of view? Hmm.....Yeah, I guess you are right, we should raise taxes to 55% of total income across the board to pay for healthcare for all mankind, maybe we can even extend it to Africa since our taxpayers already pay for the the illegal aliens "primary care" visits to the ER.
I hear people talking about how the poor are just so neglected as far as healthcare is concerned, however in the state of New York it looks to be a completely different issue. New York State medicaid actually gives people full dental, vision and medical benefits, and the reimbursement is BETTER THAN MEDICAID. Does that make any sense? So you have a lot of hardworking people that have to pay $200 a month for their health insurance yet state medicaid in New York is in many cases superior to alot of private health insurance in New York. In other words you can be a dreg, unemployed, get NY state medicaid(funded by the taxpayer of course) and get great health insurance and meanwhile the guy with the full time job that is paying for your state medicaid either has to pay ridiculous premiums for his crappy private insurance or he doesnt get insurance at all...i am sick of hearing about how the poor just are so neglected, its a bunch of BS especially in the state of New York, its time to get real.
Conservative point of view? Hmm.....Yeah, I guess you are right, we should raise taxes to 55% of total income across the board to pay for healthcare for all mankind, maybe we can even extend it to Africa since our taxpayers already pay for the the illegal aliens "primary care" visits to the ER.
quote]
I think the point of the OP was to pose the question of "Why do we have a fragmented/expensive non-system of health care delivery?" Most of the proposals for single payer are designed to cut wasteful administrative spending and rededicate that money to providing health care for all at a more affordable price." The reality is that the private sector health insurance market does not serve the broad interests of society in the delivery of effective (ebp) affordable health care.
I think that you do have a point about tax fairness BUT if you look at the academic articles that I have posted regarding this issue it really is tax fairness for the bottom 95% of the economy. Dedicating 30+% of the tax relief to the upper 5% of the economy is both wasteful and poor public policy. Real tax fairness involves taxing capital gains and interest at the same level as income earned through wages, expanding the social security tax wage cap from 95000 to 500,000/year etc. Our tax code gives the extremely wealthy a pass from sharing in the real costs of having a civilized society. Our current system concentrates wealth at the expense of providing opportunity for the middle class and avenues for people to move into the middle class. In other words as Warren Buffet famously observed it is wrong for him as a Billionaire to pay an effective tax rate that is lower than his secretary. Your anger is better directed at the corporate thieves than it is at the poorest and most vulnerable members of society.
Conservative point of view? Hmm.....Yeah, I guess you are right, we should raise taxes to 55% of total income across the board to pay for healthcare for all mankind, maybe we can even extend it to Africa since our taxpayers already pay for the the illegal aliens "primary care" visits to the ER.
quote]
I think the point of the OP was to pose the question of "Why do we have a fragmented/expensive non-system of health care delivery?" Most of the proposals for single payer are designed to cut wasteful administrative spending and rededicate that money to providing health care for all at a more affordable price." The reality is that the private sector health insurance market does not serve the broad interests of society in the delivery of effective (ebp) affordable health care.
I think that you do have a point about tax fairness BUT if you look at the academic articles that I have posted regarding this issue it really is tax fairness for the bottom 95% of the economy. Dedicating 30+% of the tax relief to the upper 5% of the economy is both wasteful and poor public policy. Real tax fairness involves taxing capital gains and interest at the same level as income earned through wages, expanding the social security tax wage cap from 95000 to 500,000/year etc. Our tax code gives the extremely wealthy a pass from sharing in the real costs of having a civilized society. Our current system concentrates wealth at the expense of providing opportunity for the middle class and avenues for people to move into the middle class. In other words as Warren Buffet famously observed it is wrong for him as a Billionaire to pay an effective tax rate that is lower than his secretary. Your anger is better directed at the corporate thieves than it is at the poorest and most vulnerable members of society.
I think the point of the OP was to pose the question of "Why do we have a fragmented/expensive non-system of health care delivery?" Most of the proposals for single payer are designed to cut wasteful administrative spending and rededicate that money to providing health care for all at a more affordable price." The reality is that the private sector health insurance market does not serve the broad interests of society in the delivery of effective (ebp) affordable health care.
I think that you do have a point about tax fairness BUT if you look at the academic articles that I have posted regarding this issue it really is tax fairness for the bottom 95% of the economy. Dedicating 30+% of the tax relief to the upper 5% of the economy is both wasteful and poor public policy. Real tax fairness involves taxing capital gains and interest at the same level as income earned through wages, expanding the social security tax wage cap from 95000 to 500,000/year etc. Our tax code gives the extremely wealthy a pass from sharing in the real costs of having a civilized society. Our current system concentrates wealth at the expense of providing opportunity for the middle class and avenues for people to move into the middle class. In other words as Warren Buffet famously observed it is wrong for him as a Billionaire to pay an effective tax rate that is lower than his secretary. Your anger is better directed at the corporate thieves than it is at the poorest and most vulnerable members of society.
In our current system, it is a fact that the lowest 50% of income earners pay less than 5% of income taxes. The majority of the lowest 30% pay a negative income tax; they get more back then they pay in. That being the case, it's kind of difficult to argue that the tax system is unfair to the lowest half.
As far as concentrating wealth being unfair to the middle class; those concentrations of wealth CREATE the middle class. They provide both the catalysts for employment and the creation of the luxuries that define a middle class. You are in effect, arguing for the elimination of the middle class by eliminating the system that creates it.
The ultimate result is the creation of a unified lower class. That might be more intrinsically fair to equality of outcome, but the result is much less of the the very things you argue in favor of: prosperity.
At issue is a fundamental misconcept of how things work. You want to tweak the design without any concept of how it tweaks the outcome. Take, for example, minimum wage. It's a nice theory to pay people more money. The result is to redistribute the cost of items in a way that ultimately serves to create less purchasing power for those at the bottom, through both increased unemployment and higher costs of goods and services. By ignoring the EFFECT of the changes you propose, you undo the very ideas you espouse.
Or, take for example, your claim that it is fundamentally unfair for the top 5% to get 30% of a tax "cut". However, as a result, the gov't is taking in almost 200 BN MORE in receipts then it did before that tax 'cut'. The result: the rich are paying more taxes. Are they earning more as a result of the economic boom that resulted from the tax cut: yes. But, what is unfair about devising a tax system that creates MORE taxes being paid? Isn't that the goal of taxation, to maximize receipts? Is it unfair because it created economic growth that resulted in 4.6% unemployment, when 5% is considered 'full' employment because at any given time, some subset of the population is between jobs? So, because MORE taxes are being paid and MORE people are working, those cuts are unfair because the wealthiest are making MORE money as well.
Those evil rich people. Let's take that wealth away from them. It's so undeserved. But, in the process, you will create LESS tax receipts that must be made up by the middle class, because the gov't isn't going to operate in a more austere fashion. You will create LESS employment as those 'rich' people seek to consolidate their remaining wealth, instead of creating new jobs with it. Let's create less opportunity and more taxes on the middle class in order to rectify the 'unfairness' of those danged rich people.
Your ends do not justify your means. Or rather, your idea of tweaking the system will not occur in a vacuum. I'll take 'soaking the rich' for 200 BN more this year then in 2000 anyday. I don't care that it makes them more rich; I CARE that it means that I have greater opportunity of both employment and the enjoyment of the luxuries in life that are created by those evil big business types you so despise.
Compassion without consequence isn't compassion; it's autocratic and disenabling. I'm a Republican because Republican ideas are truly compassionate: they actually support the means of prosperity for the greatest number of people without insisting that true equality should mean poverty for all.
HM2VikingRN, RN
4,700 Posts
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070312/green/3
the economics of democracy. economist jeff madrick, writing in 2003, asked some difficult questions as part of a lengthy analysis of the us economy: "where does income and wealth inequality start to impinge on civil and political rights and on america's long commitment to equality of economic opportunity? where does it both reflect a failure of democracy and contribute to its weakening?" when the head of exxonmobil recently earned $368 million in a year--more per hour than his workers earn per year--it's not hard to see why madrick concluded, "there is a good argument to be made that we are already there." the rich have become the super-rich, and middle-class families feel as if they're running up a down escalator. even a snapshot of the data is convincing: in 1980 the wealthiest 5 percent of us households earned 16.5 percent of all income; in 1990 it was 18.5 percent; in 2000, 22.1 percent. meanwhile, real median income for men has fallen for five straight years. the number of poor has increased from 31 million to 37 million since 2000, and the number without health insurance rose from 41 million to 47 million.
not since the gilded age, when wealthy businessmen effectively appointed senators, has big business held such sway in washington. scores of laws and policies implemented by bush 43--cutting job-training programs, eroding the minimum wage, slashing taxes on the rich and social programs for the poor--have hastened the tilt from labor to capital. george bush has redistributed wealth far more than george mcgovern was ever accused of--except up, not down.
or as louis brandeis wrote: "we can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."