Do you support universal health care? Why or why not?

[Cæli]

How much did Trump make fundraising? It seems like those people can be convinced exactly of what you are suggesting, as long as the argument was similar to Trump’s. What did Trump tap into, to make people willingly give a billionaire money? Let’s use that to get healthcare instead...

I'm afraid the issue is that the wealthy people that receive money from the other taxpayers are complete strangers to them, while trump was the opposite of that
maybe if you can select who gets your money the taxpayer would be more content, I dunno, just thinking about things randomly
the easier answer just feels that there's no need to take some money to the taxpayers to give to wealthy people for healthcare

[Felya]

fact is they will benefit a lot less then everyone else but they will benefit.

Technically, if the rich pay enough taxes, they won’t be benefiting at all... they would be losing... since their proportion of taxes should represent the proportion of wealth to everyone else.

[Cæli]

well shit then why do the rich get to use our highways for free!!! make them pay each time they use them!!!!
Why tax people in order to give them highways to use that they could easily afford to pay for themselves!!!


fact is they will benefit a lot less then everyone else but they will benefit.

same things apply for highways, why taxing more, when you can tax less and let people who can afford stuff, directly pay for the stuff they decide to use

[Felya]

I'm afraid the issue is that the wealthy people that receive money from the other taxpayers are complete strangers to them, while trump was the opposite of that

Yeah, we know he is a NYC oligarch billionaire that spent his entire career ripping off the tax payer... the fact that they knew Trump, doesn’t help your point.

maybe if you can select who gets your money the taxpayer would be more content, I dunno, just thinking about things randomly
the easier answer just feels that there's no need to take some money to the taxpayers to give to wealthy people for healthcare

Yeah, if these people could donate, they donate to a billionaire. How do we use the same rationale, for healthcare to everyone else?

[Zan15]

Technically, if the rich pay enough taxes, they won’t be benefiting at all... they would be losing... since their proportion of taxes should represent the proportion of wealth to everyone else.

But if they own a company that is giving 10,000 people health insurance that company will pay taxes to a universal system but in the end it will most likely be a savings to the company and to the 'rich' who own the majority of the company

Most plans i have seen that have gone through the financial analysis by different groups have them not "losing" much at all at then end of the day. Personally they might end up paying more taxes but they will make a lot of that back on the backend. Unless of course they own an insurance company :P

[Felya]

same things apply for highways, why taxing more, when you can tax less and let people who can afford stuff, directly pay for the stuff they decide to use

Because a truck hauling shit to wallmart is doing far more damage to said roads, than your Taurus...

[Zan15]

same things apply for highways, why taxing more, when you can tax less and let people who can afford stuff, directly pay for the stuff they decide to use

Wait so what happens with the 40 million people who can't get to work because they can't afford to use a highway?

No one said they shouldn't proportionality pay more taxes and under most universal plans they will pay more in taxes, but they will also benefit from the plans as well. You can't avoid this unless you plan on making it illegal for them to own businesses and stocks.

[Felya]

But if they own a company that is giving 10,000 people health insurance that company will pay taxes to a universal system but in the end it will most likely be a savings to the company and to the 'rich' who own the majority of the company

Most plans i have seen that have gone through the financial analysis by different groups have them not "losing" much at all at then end of the day. Personally they might end up paying more taxes but they will make a lot of that back on the backend. Unless of course they own an insurance company :P

I am going by individual tax contributions and their personal medical care. With employers it’s tricky, because of their subsidies... our subsidies... insurance subsidies... It’s too complicated, so I’ll take your word for it.

[Cæli]

Wait so what happens with the 40 million people who can't get to work because they can't afford to use a highway?

No one said they shouldn't proportionality pay more taxes and under most universal plans they will pay more in taxes, but they will also benefit from the plans as well. You can't avoid this unless you plan on making it illegal for them to own businesses and stocks.

only give money to those who need it (health care, food, whatever), why do you want to help the wealthy? you defend both the wealthy and more taxes for everyone? I don't get it

[Felya]

only give money to those who need it (health care, food, whatever), why do you want to help the wealthy? you defend both the wealthy and more taxes for everyone? I don't get it

You think the rich would use food stamps at Chateau Marmont? You think a billionaire will only go to healthcare providers that accept Medicare? :/

[Zan15]

only give money to those who need it (health care, food, whatever), why do you want to help the wealthy? you defend both the wealthy and more taxes for everyone? I don't get it

its an offshoot of a stronger economy, stronger businesses and cheaper healthcare.

How is them paying more taxes defending them?

How do you stop a "rich" person who owns Walmart stock from making more money because they save billions on healthcare cost?

How do you stop a "rich person" who owns Walmart stock from making money on the stock because 190 million workers save thousands each on healthcare cost and turn around and spend a lot of that in walmart?

- - - Updated - - -

I am going by individual tax contributions and their personal medical care. With employers it’s tricky, because of their subsidies... our subsidies... insurance subsidies... It’s too complicated, so I’ll take your word for it.

Yah its hard to quantify in any of the plans but the fact is anything that stimulates the economy will inherently benefit the people with the most money.

[Cæli]

You think the rich would use food stamps at Chateau Marmont? You think a billionaire will only go to healthcare providers that accept Medicare? :/

I'm not american, I think I didn't get your point, billionaires would go to the best places I suppose
but the point is the tax that goes from the non wealthy to the wealthy, which makes little to no difference for the wealthy, but a difference for the non wealthy

[omeomorfismo]

only for those who cannot afford some required health services
why would wealthy people benefit from universal health care if they can afford it?
therefore I suppose that the answer is "No" I don't support it

because it save money for everyone.
bigger and single customer (the state) as way more power than single ones or smaller insurance

[Cæli]

because it save money for everyone.
bigger and single customer (the state) as way more power than single ones or smaller insurance

maybe, but that's where I don't really understand
how does taxing everyone more allows money to be saved? if you would tax people only for those who cannot easily afford it, people would pay less tax, and have therefore more money to spend on what they need or like (as opposed to spending money for strangers that don't always need that money)
do you mean the state prevents health service prices to go too high?

[omeomorfismo]

maybe, but that's where I don't really understand
how does taxing everyone more allows money to be saved? if you would tax people only for those who cannot easily afford it, people would pay less tax, and have therefore more money to spend on what they need or like (as opposed to spending money for strangers that don't always need that money)
do you mean the state prevents health service prices to go too high?

the bigger you are, more contractual power you have, its simple.
if medicine A cost X money, if you have to buy only for yourself the Pharmaceutical industry will charge any amount it want and if you cant afford it, meh, its only a costumer lost.
if the state (or single insurance) had to buy for everyone then the industry simply would lose all the market if they cant find an agreement, so it has to offer better deals, prices and treatments.

often free market optimize Supply and demand better, but considering that in this case the deman simply has infinite value (our life/health) it simply doesnt work.

thats simply for pure "game theory"

if you start to factorize other elements, like prevention, then the free market, even for a subsent of the health customers, simply its counterproductive.
thats even the reason because in most of the hospital nobody can ask for documents, because otherwise illegal immigrants (or other groups) wouldnt go to heal themself and could have worse complications (more expensive) or spread diseases....

[Zan15]

maybe, but that's where I don't really understand
how does taxing everyone more allows money to be saved? if you would tax people only for those who cannot easily afford it, people would pay less tax, and have therefore more money to spend on what they need or like (as opposed to spending money for strangers that don't always need that money)
do you mean the state prevents health service prices to go too high?

Taxing everyone does not mean taxing everyone equally.
Those who make little money in the US don't pay much in taxes and wouldn't under the universal healthcare plans.
ACA also gives subsidies to those who can't afford it so their cost can become 0.00, rich people do not qualify for them.

[Cæli]

the bigger you are, more contractual power you have, its simple.
if medicine A cost X money, if you have to buy only for yourself the Pharmaceutical industry will charge any amount it want and if you cant afford it, meh, its only a costumer lost.
if the state (or single insurance) had to buy for everyone then the industry simply would lose all the market if they cant find an agreement, so it has to offer better deals, prices and treatments.

often free market optimize Supply and demand better, but considering that in this case the deman simply has infinite value (our life/health) it simply doesnt work.

thats simply for pure "game theory"

if you start to factorize other elements, like prevention, then the free market, even for a subsent of the health customers, simply its counterproductive.
thats even the reason because in most of the hospital nobody can ask for documents, because otherwise illegal immigrants (or other groups) wouldnt go to heal themself and could have worse complications (more expensive) or spread diseases....

I'm not sure how a company would only have the state as a customer, I'm also not sure how competition would work, such companies could also get demand from other countries or sell on the internet I suppose, universal health care or not, the demand is the same to me, so prices level too logically. or maybe not. it's just much more complicated that what I thought

- - - Updated - - -

Taxing everyone does not mean taxing everyone equally.
Those who make little money in the US don't pay much in taxes and wouldn't under the universal healthcare plans.
ACA also gives subsidies to those who can't afford it so their cost can become 0.00, rich people do not qualify for them.

of course but still it's certainly possible to tax less the less wealthy in order to leave them more money, and leave the wealthy handle their health themselves since they can. but anyway, like I said it's much more complicated than what I imagined, I have no clue at this point in fact

[BeepBoo]

often free market optimize Supply and demand better, but considering that in this case the deman simply has infinite value (our life/health) it simply doesnt work.

Except it does, because people have limited resources at their disposal to trade for those goods. So, even if they personally value their lives infinitely, others do not, and they have limited resources. Even if you'd give $1,000,000 just to live one more day, if you don't actually HAVE $1,000,000, you can't do that. I think it's important to force people to reconcile with the reality that they don't have infinite value and that some people just don't care about them.

[Gestopft]

it's not about allowing the wealthy to "save" money, it's about allowing those who can't afford it to pay
workers maybe, multi millionaires, no they don't need that, there is no need to tax people in order to give some of that money to multi millionaires

1) Wealthy people will pay far more in and receive approximately the same benefit as those who can't afford. Mathematically, they wouldn't come out 'ahead' if they got healthcare too (compared to someone of more meager means).
2) If you think that healthcare should be a right, that means that said right applies to everybody
3) Universal programs are simpler and tend to enjoy broader support than means-tested programs. Wealthy people can earn Social Security and go on Medicare regardless of whether or not they need it. The point isn't and shouldn't be just "make wealthy people pay for more stuff-" it's about the social contract of what it means to be an American, creating a higher baseline for what any citizen of the world's richest country can expect to experience.

- - - Updated - - -

Except it does, because people have limited resources at their disposal to trade for those goods. So, even if they personally value their lives infinitely, others do not, and they have limited resources. Even if you'd give $1,000,000 just to live one more day, if you don't actually HAVE $1,000,000, you can't do that.

Do you somehow not understand how necessity makes it harder to bargain a price down? The actual term is called a 'captive market.' Part of what makes markets efficient is that people can make informed choices- including the choice not to participate. In healthcare, they don't have that choice. They have to participate (or die/live with a severely reduce qol), and the necessity of their participation results in a lower bargaining position and thus higher prices.

[Lynarii]

I'm not sure how a company would only have the state as a customer, I'm also not sure how competition would work, such companies could also get demand from other countries or sell on the internet I suppose, universal health care or not, the demand is the same to me, so prices level too logically. or maybe not. it's just much more complicated that what I thought

Okay, basically think of it this way. You have a medicine you want to sell in Canada, where we have a universal health care system. You have to negotiate with the government on how much they are willing to pay. If they ask you to sell at a loss, you tell them to shove off obviously. But a price where you still earn a profit, just not quite as much as you were hoping? That is still better than losing the entire market of millions of people. Keep in mind you only have a limited window to make your big money in before generics can start competing, you don't want to throw away any of that time and money if you don't have to.

And trying to illegally sell through the internet is called 'drug smuggling' and is a good way to get in a lot of trouble.