U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[KingHorse]

Problem is our tax code as a whole isn't terribly progressive. Income tax? Sure. But the income tax doesn't really hit a lot of people who are making a ton of money.

So then jack up the capital gains tax?

[Spectral]

So then jack up the capital gains tax?

Sounds like a good enough plan to me.

[Wells]

Well with allowances for things like retirement savings. And if you want to exempt the first X amount each tax year so that the middle class isn't paying into it that's something I could probably get behind.

[KingHorse]

That being said, I wouldn't mind paying slightly higher taxes if we could get legitimately good public health care, for instance.

I would like to see a study of how much true, "free" (tax paid) universal healthcare actually benefits a government. I bet it's pretty significant. With free healthcare, you can tamp down early deaths due unaffordable preventative care, and improve quality of life for many many more whom would be leaving the workforce and relying on the government for their survival. And in an opinion almost completely devoid of humanity, live, healthy people keep working and keep paying taxes. So from a purely asshole view, the government itself benefits greatly from a good healthy workforce.

[Wells]

Yeah everyone benefits from public healthcare. Depending on its funding structure of course, but its a boon to employers at the low end because their employees are healthier and miss less work and at the top end it saves them on health care with workers who are going to expect it from the employer otherwise.

[Deleted]

Or you just have a higher rate for capital gains above $X

The best would just be to decrease income taxes and increase capital gains taxes.

[KingHorse]

Well with allowances for things like retirement savings. And if you want to exempt the first X amount each tax year so that the middle class isn't paying into it that's something I could probably get behind.

Those would be an absolute must for any change IMO.

Sounds like a good enough plan to me.

But here's where it runs into a problem: the amount of capital gains tax the government collects is a tiny portion of the money they collect overall. If you went full retard (by which I mean totally fucked the economy with a MASSIVE increase in the tax) and doubled the rate from %15 to %30, that would be the proverbial "drop in the bucket" towards filling the shithole we are currently trying to fill. I'm not opposed to increasing it by %5 or so at most, so long as we're looking for more income from elsewhere at the same time, and combining those efforts with cutting the shit out of anything that won't kill us.

*Note: the only info I can find says that the capital gains tax nets the Fed %2-3 of their anual revenue. Doubling that would mean very little from what I can see.

[Deleted]

I would like to see a study of how much true, "free" (tax paid) universal healthcare actually benefits a government. I bet it's pretty significant. With free healthcare, you can tamp down early deaths due unaffordable preventative care, and improve quality of life for many many more whom would be leaving the workforce and relying on the government for their survival. And in an opinion almost completely devoid of humanity, live, healthy people keep working and keep paying taxes. So from a purely asshole view, the government itself benefits greatly from a good healthy workforce.

There's no way you're getting as good quality healthcare as you get right now with insurance through any public healthcare system unless you significantly jack up taxes. I've often noticed that US liberals have an utopian view of what "free healthcare" is like.

Many believe in a universal healthcare system, everyone is getting treatment for every legitimate problem they have. Not the case. The system doesn't have the resources. Especially the elderly are fucked as you're not getting any expensive care to keep up quality of life (like hip surgery so that you can walk).

[Spectral]

Sure, I don't think anyone posits that a change in marginal capital gains rates are the only change needed to revenue and spending. I mean, I'm sure someone does, but that individual's too misinformed to really converse with. It's the equivalent of the guy that thinks slashing foreign aid will fix everything.

---------- Post added 2012-10-25 at 08:20 PM ----------

There's no way you're getting as good quality healthcare as you get right now with insurance through any public healthcare system unless you significantly jack up taxes. I've often noticed that US liberals have an utopian view of what "free healthcare" is like.

My current insurance has a $5,000 deductible. It's not all that stellar. Plenty of young middle class people are in the same position.

[Deleted]

My current insurance has a $5,000 deductible. It's not all that stellar. Plenty of young middle class people are in the same position.

I'm not talking about the cost, I'm talking about the actual quality of treatment. People think they'll be treated in public healthcare like they're treated now in private healthcare. The cost of US healthcare is horrendous, I don't think you can disagree with that.

[Ausr]

Probably save more money if we actually taught preventive health care instead of waiting for the dam thing to happen. Course, could also save a lot of money if we didn't pump a shit ton of chemicals into our food and making us sick that way.

Suppose that's an argument for another day.

[Dakia]

There's no way you're getting as good quality healthcare as you get right now with insurance through any public healthcare system unless you significantly jack up taxes. I've often noticed that US liberals have an utopian view of what "free healthcare" is like.

I just don't really trust the US government to operate the system intelligently.

Case in point: The FDA considering self diagnosis kiosks for prescriptions that can literally kill you if you don't properly understand drug interactions.
Or reimbursement costs being cut to the point that pharmacies are losing money on name brand scripts that they write through the government. Why no cheap generics? Because the drug companies are in bed with politicians.

Yeah, I don't trust the US government to manage such a system at all.

[Wells]

I'm not talking about the cost, I'm talking about the actual quality of treatment. People think they'll be treated in public healthcare like they're treated now in private healthcare. The cost of US healthcare is horrendous, I don't think you can disagree with that.

Why? I don't see any reason to suspect there will be any serious hit in quality. Elective surgeries might get bumped back a bit but if more people are getting immediate health care needs met that's fine.

[Masark]

Especially the elderly are fucked as you're not getting any expensive care to keep up quality of life (like hip surgery so that you can walk).

I'm sure my grandmother who had a hip replacement at 82 and my 68 year old neighbor who recently had both hips replaced would be utterly fascinated by your views.

[Slammin Shaman]

I'm sure my grandmother who had a hip replacement at 82 and my 68 year old neighbor who recently had both hips replaced would be utterly fascinated by your views.

Government healthcare is going to pay for my eventual knee replacement surgeries. Guess that's what I get for running for several years

[Felya]

Why? I don't see any reason to suspect there will be any serious hit in quality. Elective surgeries might get bumped back a bit but if more people are getting immediate health care needs met that's fine.

Obamacare is actually on track, but does not do enouph, to have the best of both worlds. The cap on private insurance administrative cost and profit should be 0, instead of the 20% Obamacare includes. I think Germany has a similar system and great healthcare, at least from seeing Kobe's knees in action.

[Deleted]

I'm sure my grandmother who had a hip replacement at 82 and my 68 year old neighbor who recently had both hips replaced would be utterly fascinated by your views.

In Finland unless your life depends on it you're not going to get the surgery in any reasonable (under 1 year) time. They're also (obviously) much more reluctant to give you any service at all compared to private healthcare services here.

Why? I don't see any reason to suspect there will be any serious hit in quality. Elective surgeries might get bumped back a bit but if more people are getting immediate health care needs met that's fine.

How is it that public healthcare in Finland has much much lower quality than private healthcare here? How is it that all the experienced and good doctors work in the private sector and all the beginners and less skilled doctors work in the public sector (apart from the administration ofcourse)? How is it that there are massive queues for public care but very short ones for private? And Finnish private care isn't *that* expensive. It's cheaper than care in the US.

The fact is that public healthcare is best designed to take care of people who are too poor to afford basic healthcare themselves. Those who can afford to pay for it themselves should do so. Capitalism in the healthcare industry is absolutely vital to keep costs down, cut unnecessary overhead and to see good progress in healthcare innovation. Right now, the scewed US system produces only one of those, and that's healthcare innovation for the world. Roughly 80% of all biotech R&D spending in the world happens in the US. The rest of the world is getting a free ride on the back of the american patient's wallet.

[Spectral]

Right now, the scewed US system produces only one of those, and that's healthcare innovation for the world. Roughly 80% of all biotech R&D spending in the world happens in the US. The rest of the world is getting a free ride on the back of the american patient's wallet.

The thing is, that research is pretty profitable. The cost of drugs and equipment developed here isn't exactly low. Sure, we spend a lot on biotech in the United States, but we get a fantastic return on our money not just domestically, but internationally. This is one of the things our government is getting right in terms of spending, as it's resulted in us attracting tons of researchers and having very strong private sector research as well.

[Deleted]

The thing is, that research is pretty profitable. The cost of drugs and equipment developed here isn't exactly low. Sure, we spend a lot on biotech in the United States, but we get a fantastic return on our money not just domestically, but internationally. This is one of the things our government is getting right in terms of spending, as it's resulted in us attracting tons of researchers and having very strong private sector research as well.

My point was that US healthcare spending/costs are much higher because pharmaceuticals generate most of their profits there. They sell the drugs to Europeans and other areas at lower prices because once you develop a good drug there are almost no costs to producing more of that drug. But if they couldn't get the massive profits from Americans, there would be much less R&D.

I'm not saying the pharma industry is good or bad, I'm saying that one of the factors contributing to the huge difference in healthcare costs in Europe and US is this. We get higher quality treatment (in the form of more available drugs) because Americans pay more.

[Daelak]

My point was that US healthcare spending/costs are much higher because pharmaceuticals generate most of their profits there. They sell the drugs to Europeans and other areas at lower prices because once you develop a good drug there are almost no costs to producing more of that drug. But if they couldn't get the massive profits from Americans, there would be much less R&D.

I'm not saying the pharma industry is good or bad, I'm saying that one of the factors contributing to the huge difference in healthcare costs in Europe and US is this. We get higher quality treatment (in the form of more available drugs) because Americans pay more.

And your risk pool is divided by all your citizens.