US v European Healthcare

[lsbskins1]

Woh where are you coming from? I said there are reasonable taxes and that those include the military, limited government administrations for public health and safety, roads and schools. I do not approve of most other use of taxes because they are not justified by the constitution. even with that the amount we pay is not just for those simple necessary services these taxes are excessive usery taxes, designed to fund unwaranted projects and government institutions with no merit. I might actually cut some checks to some other worth while programs if I though they were worth it, if the majority of my pay wasn't taxation for programs that have no real use except to waste our money. By the way we pay for our garbage, water, sewer, utilities (gas and electric), out of pocket here not through taxes, although we are additionaly taxed on top of our bills. Here's your real problem the THE GOVERNEMT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED NOR DESIGNED TO SUPPLY THOUSANDS OF SERVICES. The government was designed to secure our borders, elect officials to make important decisions and to uphold freedom . The government has violated it' scope of authority, to provide thousands of services which actually rarely if ever do much but set the people back, instead of help them. I wouldn't need the police if I didn't have to fight for my right to use a firearm to protect my property. In what way does tax money stop a neighbor from piling garbage on their lawn?

City ordinances with enforcement responsibility at the local level. Don't complain about your FULL (ie, state federal and local tax load - the 60%) if you aren't talking about the services provided by your full tax load. You don't get to complain about 60% (not that I agree with that number) and then pretend what part of that 60% pays for is not part of the discussion.

Oh, and I am sure most of your fellow citizens do not share your utopian view of vigilante justice. I, for one, prefer than anyone about to shoot me not be passionately and personally involved as the victim of a crime. There are crimes committed, you know, where the victim does not witness the actual crime and crimes that do not lend themselves to being halted by the possession of a personal firearm. But that is WAAAAAAAY off topic and if you wish to discuss these things, we should go to another, relevant post.

[Cruella]

So the sixty percent is a completely made up and arbitary figure used solely for refuting a debate point incorrectly? Shame on you Ironeagle, shame.

I asked for sources and proofs originally by the way, not your justifications for picking the figure out of the air. I can't compare European and US tax burdens if you're making up figures, and making assumptions. I'm an accountant, and it would be interesting to have proper data to work with. Please give me a link as I've asked for several times, thank you.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Next stop twilight zone.

I think the US is actually subsidizing Canadian, and European drug costs because we pay the full price, and you negotiate "lower" prices that we are paying for. If the US goes Universal you'll see a lot of drugs disappear because nobody will want to pay for them any longer.

[Cruella]

I think the US is actually subsidizing Canadian, and European drug costs

In the UK, the NHS pays the full cost of all drugs used to the drug companies. It's incorrect to assert that, because the end user isn't paying, the drug companies are subsidising UHC for costs of drugs. Incidentally, it would also be incorrect to assert - as you seem to be - that all drugs used around the world are invented, patented, and distributed only by US companies.

If you were talking about Africa, and other third world countries, then you might have the beginnings of a very good - albeit not relevant to the OP - point.

[Marilyn Monroe]

I think the US is actually subsidizing Canadian, and European drug costs

In the UK, the NHS pays the full cost of all drugs used to the drug companies. It's incorrect to assert that, because the end user isn't paying, the drug companies are subsidising UHC for costs of drugs. Incidentally, it would also be incorrect to assert - as you seem to be - that all drugs used around the world are invented, patented, and distributed only by US companies.

If you were talking about Africa, and other third world countries, then you might have the beginnings of a very good - albeit not relevant to the OP - point.

Is the UK paying the full negotiated price, or the same price the US would pay? Surely you know we don't all pay the same prices.

I know that drugs are made all over, but what the countries pay for the drugs is negotiated. We aren't all paying the same price. I'd have to think the US pays much more than other countries who negotiate, but we probably do have some drugs that other countries can't afford. I know a friend needed a certain pill that was like $100 in Poland and she had to get it through her daughter who lived in the states. They didn't have the pill in Poland.

[Marilyn Monroe]

So the sixty percent is a completely made up and arbitary figure used solely for refuting a debate point incorrectly? Shame on you Ironeagle, shame.

I asked for sources and proofs originally by the way, not your justifications for picking the figure out of the air. I can't compare European and US tax burdens if you're making up figures, and making assumptions. I'm an accountant, and it would be interesting to have proper data to work with. Please give me a link as I've asked for several times, thank you.

Found this on the hidden taxes in Britain. Don't know why the costs are so high, but apparently it hasn't caught up with Canada yet. This just shows the differences in costs for eating out, gas, stuff like that.

http://www.treasuresofbritain.org/Britishtaxes.htm

[Cruella]

Quite a few of the things they point to there are dutys rather than taxes, but I'm sure no one really wants a lecture here about tax from a government accountant. Nice link, a little misleading in parts, but a good link nonetheless.

The UK is an exceptionally expensive place to live, and has been for a long time. Nonetheless, that's not what the thread is about, but if people want post comparable sites for US taxes - as has been requested several times - it'll be easier to compare apples with apples and so on instead of apples and oranges as people are attempting to do on a regular basis when it comes to taxes on here.

[ironeagle]

You know I have said several times I am not the one who first mentioned the 60% taxation amount, however in many cases it is true. Why shouldn't I complain about how much tax I have to pay when most of it is wasted on programs which are not approved by the constitution and why should I agree to delete all those programs, and then replace them with another unconstitutoional and useless program like UHC.

Again why haven't either of you debated the alternative ideas offered? The OP says what's the alternative, a;ternatives were offered so where's the debate on that? The only thing you have debated is wether UHC is warranted and wether we do or do not pay 60% taxes.

[lsbskins1]

You know I have said several times I am not the one who first mentioned the 60% taxation amount, however in many cases it is true. Why shouldn't I complain about how much tax I have to pay when most of it is wasted on programs which are not approved by the constitution and why should I agree to delete all those programs, and then replace them with another unconstitutoional and useless program like UHC.

Again why haven't either of you debated the alternative ideas offered? The OP says what's the alternative, a;ternatives were offered so where's the debate on that? The only thing you have debated is wether UHC is warranted and wether we do or do not pay 60% taxes.

That (above) is known as "retreating and retrenching". ( And "most" of your tax dollars are not spent on federal programs, that was my entire point.)

We do not debate the merits of the alternatives because we are saying and supporting the fact that UHC is a better alternative. Our debating "against" is contained in our support "for".

[Marilyn Monroe]

That (above) is known as "retreating and retrenching". ( And "most" of your tax dollars are not spent on federal programs, that was my entire point.)

We do not debate the merits of the alternatives because we are saying and supporting the fact that UHC is a better alternative. Our debating "against" is contained in our support "for".

How would our system differ from the European version?

Has anyone here had to deal with the Social Security, or IRS Admins.? I rest my case.

[Charlatan]

When it comes to providing free healthcare, simply it would be cheaper to pay for the healthcare in bulk at the beginning of the month for all the divisions, and let the hospitals worry about how they schedule it. If the bills are paid in full then the medicine can be bought in bulk and other supplies as well. Then there is the option of spending the money in ways to make money for the hospitals, as money in hand is worth more to them than having money coming in slowly.

So as in all cases, paying in bulk is worth it because it saves money in the long term. The government doesn't pay up front, but rather promises to pay in the future, and that bond can work in their favour with regaurds to credit. Then the companies can pay for it to the government rather than through their employees, and, like all 'insurances', it makes money in the fictious land of credit.

[ironeagle]

That (above) is known as "retreating and retrenching". ( And "most" of your tax dollars are not spent on federal programs, that was my entire point.)

We do not debate the merits of the alternatives because we are saying and supporting the fact that UHC is a better alternative. Our debating "against" is contained in our support "for".

Really? Well then tell me exactly how UHC is better than any or all of the alternatives I suggested and why. Since you pressume it's better I presusme it's because you pressume the other rational ideas can't or won't work, so therefore tell me why they won't work or benefit us?