Healthcare, who pays?

[WishboneDawn]

I'm sorry, but the fact that you think low income people have the time and energy to add an extra 8 hours onto their workday shows you have no idea what life is like for the working poor. NONE. A huge number of people that this would apply to already work 7 days a week, often more than one job, to put food on the table and a roof over their head. You have no idea. I suppose that is a blessing.

 

I think the whole issue is a red herring anyway. Most people who don't pay taxes at any given point will or have paid taxes and are just now, at this moment, not. They've already contributed or will

[sthompson]

I find it funny that most women on this board are stay at home moms with no substantial income of their own, and we support that. Then we complain that half of all american's don't pay taxes. If you don't work because you are taking care of your kids, homeschooling, whatever, no, you won't pay taxes.

 

I question myself often about this. However there is the slight difference that my dh and I chose to make things work so that I can stay home. The people that bother me are the ones that want something for nothing and then demand more. I'm not getting something for nothing.

[WishboneDawn]

I'm sorry, but the fact that you think low income people have the time and energy to add an extra 8 hours onto their workday shows you have no idea what life is like for the working poor. NONE. A huge number of people that this would apply to already work 7 days a week, often more than one job, to put food on the table and a roof over their head. You have no idea. I suppose that is a blessing.

 

I think the whole issue is a red herring anyway. Most people who don't pay taxes at any given point will or have paid taxes and are just now, at this moment, not. They've already contributed or will contribute to the pot. To add on additional demands at a time when they are most likely stressed and putting a lot of work into finding employment is petty and punitive.

 

This discussion is like describing a horse race by holding up one photo, one snapshot of one moment in time. Someone points to a horse in the back of the pack and says, "see? He's a loser." Meanwhile the horse went on the win the race. Or maybe he lost that one. Lost several. And then came back and had a stunning career of wins because the horse happened to be a Seabiscuit or something. You can point that out but the OP will still be pointing at that one photo claiming it's the reality.

 

Life is fluid. Most people will pay taxes over their lifetime, more than enough to justify the moments in time when they need to draw from the system.

[ktgrok]

I question myself often about this. However there is the slight difference that my dh and I chose to make things work so that I can stay home. The people that bother me are the ones that want something for nothing and then demand more. I'm not getting something for nothing.

 

So you don't use public parks, the library, at no point will use or have used public education, drive on public roads, or rely on the police department to keep you safe? If you were in a dangerous situation are you going to tell the policeman no thank you, I don't want to use your services when I don't pay for them?

[rdj2027]

Not all European countries pay for coverage out of tax money. In Germany the premium is set as a percentage of wage (currently somewhere around 15.5%) and levied up to a certain amount of earned income (I think it is around 4200 Euros per month for 2012). This premium is then split roundabout 50/50 between the employer and the employee (employee pays a little more than the employer).

If you make more than that, you do not have to be insured at all or opt for private insurance. I have never known anyone who did not have health insurance. Many people chose that route until they realized that private companies can raise their rates and drop services at any time and that made the public system look pretty good.

Unemployed people have their premiums covered out of the unemployment insurance pot that every worker has to pay into so that if you lose your job, you do not lose your health insurance.

The premium is taken right out of your paycheck so not paying is not an option.

[WishboneDawn]

I question myself often about this. However there is the slight difference that my dh and I chose to make things work so that I can stay home. The people that bother me are the ones that want something for nothing and then demand more. I'm not getting something for nothing.

 

But who are these people? How many are there? What percentage of the population are they? Do you know whether there are enough to actually be worth the bother of bothering about?

 

I say that because "those people" are often brought up in discussions like this but without much support for whether they actually have much of an impact of the system or not. It generally seems to be more of a bogeyman thing, that by their very mention I should concede some point.

[mommaduck]

I'm sorry, but the fact that you think low income people have the time and energy to add an extra 8 hours onto their workday shows you have no idea what life is like for the working poor. NONE. A huge number of people that this would apply to already work 7 days a week, often more than one job, to put food on the table and a roof over their head. You have no idea. I suppose that is a blessing.

No kidding! My husband worked seven days a week for over a year, with maybe ONE day off a month. Yes, it's legal. We received a tax return (because of kids), so people would say that we "don't pay taxes" (though we pay local taxes and sometimes state). He was working long hours, hardly any days off, and dealing with mold poisoning from the job. When would he have had time to volunteer? DH was only awake to eat and go to work. He slept the rest of the time.

[kalanamak]

It's a tradeoff because the tax revenue has to come from somewhere.

 

My state has no income tax. (The one to the south has no sales tax.) It is defeated every time it comes up because the voters believe it is just a way to pay MORE taxes, and the newspaper websites practically crash with wild rushes of "comments" after any article about it (I'm being hyperbolic).

 

I would consider our state tax regressive. Everyone pays property taxes, but the homeless, and most everyone uses gas-- and certainly buys things transported with gas, etc. When this is brought up in newspapers (print and online), I find most people who comment have no idea what regressive tax is, and any suggestion of a change to the situation is met with attack as "just another way to screw us over". I mean, real histrionics. I'm so glad I'm not a politician.

 

I was rather amused last year, in the middle of much panic about budgets, to look at a large website that had a breakdown of what the average state tax burden is. And my state, with a loud contingent of "financial conservatives" trumpeting about our wasteful government, pays 0.1% LESS per capita than Kansas, my home state, which has a quiet pride in its fiscal restraint.

[sthompson]

So you don't use public parks, the library, at no point will use or have used public education, drive on public roads, or rely on the police department to keep you safe? If you were in a dangerous situation are you going to tell the policeman no thank you, I don't want to use your services when I don't pay for them?

 

Yes I do. I have also paid into them. When I'm done being a sahm (should I be blessed to live that long) I will pay into them again (barring any unforseen reasons that I would not be able to work).

[SKL]

To respond to a couple of comments toward my earlier posts.

 

1) I should have been clear that I was talking about families, not individuals. So in the case of a two-parent non-taxpaying household, the suggested 8 hours of service could be divided among the household members. Obviously the policy could also be refined so that, e.g., single custodial parents only have half of that burden (although that sure doesn't happen on the tax return if you make a few bucks). Students could be exempted under a certain age or for a limited number of years.

 

2) It would be nice if we could look back at the fact that we have paid tax before, or forward if we think we'll have a better job someday. But nobody ever suggests that for high taxpayers. If I've already paid in multiple times as much as many people will over their entire lifetimes, do I get off the hook? No.

 

3) There is no end to rationalizations as to why low-income people can't be held accountable for anything. I've been low-income, and so have many others on this board. I have always found time to volunteer. Even when I was a full-time student with two jobs (totaling 60 hours of work), I found time to help others. When I used to average 80-hour work weeks, I also did hundreds of volunteer hours each year.

 

Now back to those who pay no taxes. We've already let them off the hook for paying cash into the pot, paying for many of their kids' basic needs (food stamps, free school meals, daycare subsidies, housing subsidies, access to low-income-only enrichment programs, medicaid, child tax credit, etc. etc. etc.). And now I hear that they can't be asked to contribute to the pot in a non-cash way, either, because ya know, working people work! Well, who the heck is doing all the volunteering out there? A lot of it is being done by working people (and a lot is done by retired people and full-time students, too). OK, but yeah, the low-income are the only people who can't possibly help out - and by the way, they need some more free benefits.

 

If we were only talking about a small population, that would be one thing, but we're talking a lot of people. People who have time to watch a lot of TV etc.

 

In some countries, every adult is required to do a significant amount of military service. Every one. I'm quite sure this is a burden on some families. But the country has decided that everyone needs to contribute. I haven't heard of anyone starving yet.

 

Oh, and the reason tax rates are low for people whose income is middle-class? Not because those families would starve. Gimme a break. It's to increase the amount of consumer spending that is done, which some people think is good for the economy. Of course that's a rant for a different day.

[kalanamak]

(barring any unforseen reasons that I would not be able to work).

 

Funny, those unforseen reasons. That is one reason I am content to "pay into" the system. Never know when I'm going to suddenly see one.

[sthompson]

But who are these people? How many are there? What percentage of the population are they? Do you know whether there are enough to actually be worth the bother of bothering about?

 

I say that because "those people" are often brought up in discussions like this but without much support for whether they actually have much of an impact of the system or not. It generally seems to be more of a bogeyman thing, that by their very mention I should concede some point.

 

Friends, neighbors, family members. Are there enough to make it worth worrying? If we continue to show people that they can be carried through life, the number of people abusing can and probably will go up.

[Embassy]

I used to be all for the "progressive" tax system, but ultimately it isn't fair to make some people hand over the majority of their week to the government when others aren't contributing half a day. And it isn't fair to allow the majority, who pay little to nothing, to vote to increase taxes only on "those others" who already pay the most by far. A tax increase should hit everyone, just as a tax decrease should benefit everyone.

 

This idea confounds me. It makes no sense. Life is not so cut and dry between those who contribute towards the government welfare and those who do not.

 

The majority who vote for an increase of taxes do end up paying those taxes. Do you think the wealthy are digging out of their own pocket all the time or are they passing on the taxes in the form of no wage increases, higher prices, healthcare cut-backs, and job layoffs? When the wealthy pay more - everyone contributes. When everyone pays the same the poor get hit on both ends. People who rent also pay property taxes because the cost is built into their monthly rent.

 

Now, I don't pay any US income taxes. I am exempt because my income is not very high and I pay taxes to another country. I also don't utilize any of the government services by living in another country.

 

I was talking with my husband last night about the different attitudes between government assistance here in Canada and the USA. In the USA you have ideas expressed that the poor need to do more and that it is shameful to get things like WIC, food stamps, or Medicaid. The poor are often portrayed as people who just aren't working hard enough and that if they only applied themselves they would have no need of such things. It is not like that here at all. There are tons of government programs and ways to assist people. It is not shameful in the slightest. If you qualify for a program, you should use it because that is what it is there for. It is more like one society focuses on promoting the individual good and the other takes care of the overall good while still enjoying the individual good.

[ktgrok]

Yes I do. I have also paid into them. When I'm done being a sahm (should I be blessed to live that long) I will pay into them again (barring any unforseen reasons that I would not be able to work).

 

Ok..but that is what people said upthread, that people that don't make enough to pay federal income tax probably did at one point, or will again. How is that different?

[SKL]

I was talking with my husband last night about the different attitudes between government assistance here in Canada and the USA. In the USA you have ideas expressed that the poor need to do more and that it is shameful to get things like WIC, food stamps, or Medicaid. The poor are often portrayed as people who just aren't working hard enough and that if they only applied themselves they would have no need of such things. It is not like that here at all. There are tons of government programs and ways to assist people. It is not shameful in the slightest. If you qualify for a program, you should use it because that is what it is there for. It is more like one society focuses on promoting the individual good and the other takes care of the overall good while still enjoying the individual good.

 

Just out of curiosity, how do people feel toward giving charitably in Canada (generally, to your knowledge)? Because here, a high percentage of the people who pay a lot of tax also give a lot to charity, and would like to give more. We like to think that having some direct control over how our "help" money gets spent, and direct accountability to us from the spenders thereof, has a more meaningful impact on the needy than mandatorily contributing through taxes that then get spent according to some faraway person's agenda.

 

Whenever the discussion starts to be about "people in my country are more human than people in your country," it starts to be ridiculous. I'm sure there are caring people and irresponsible people on both sides of the border.

 

And, I've heard other Canadians' views about public assistance that are far less positive than yours.

[Trez]

I have heard some say that they don't know how the US would go about instituting UHC. I thought I had heard once, perhaps on CNN, that there was a state that did (at least at one time) have something like it. In fact I thought that it was Romney's state. Sorry for my ignorance on this but I was just wondering if this was correct.

[mommaduck]

I was talking with my husband last night about the different attitudes between government assistance here in Canada and the USA. In the USA you have ideas expressed that the poor need to do more and that it is shameful to get things like WIC, food stamps, or Medicaid. The poor are often portrayed as people who just aren't working hard enough and that if they only applied themselves they would have no need of such things. It is not like that here at all. There are tons of government programs and ways to assist people. It is not shameful in the slightest. If you qualify for a program, you should use it because that is what it is there for. It is more like one society focuses on promoting the individual good and the other takes care of the overall good while still enjoying the individual good.

The attitudes vary throughout the US also. In the midwest, it was considered Shameful (yes, with a capital S). In our area, there is the realisation that life sometimes hands you lemons and that the economy is a wreck...they WANT you to try to get what help you can. This area also encourages donations and volunteering by those who can. I can't, but my children can and do.

[ktgrok]

To respond to a couple of comments toward my earlier posts.

 

1) I should have been clear that I was talking about families, not individuals. So in the case of a two-parent non-taxpaying household, the suggested 8 hours of service could be divided among the household members. Obviously the policy could also be refined so that, e.g., single custodial parents only have half of that burden (although that sure doesn't happen on the tax return if you make a few bucks). Students could be exempted under a certain age or for a limited number of years.

 

 

So according to you, every stay at home mom on this forum is freeloading off of society and should be doing community service?

[WishboneDawn]

Friends, neighbors, family members. Are there enough to make it worth worrying? If we continue to show people that they can be carried through life, the number of people abusing can and probably will go up.

 

I think there's an easy way to test that.

 

Get firm numbers, not anecdotes but firm numbers, on many people are as you claim and then compare them to comparable populations in countries like Canada and the UK.

 

But it would take clear statistics.

[Embassy]

Just out of curiosity, how do people feel toward giving charitably in Canada (generally, to your knowledge)? Because here, a high percentage of the people who pay a lot of tax also give a lot to charity, and would like to give more. We like to think that having some direct control over how our "help" money gets spent, and direct accountability to us from the spenders thereof, has a more meaningful impact on the needy than mandatorily contributing through taxes that then get spent according to some faraway person's agenda.

 

Whenever the discussion starts to be about "people in my country are more human than people in your country," it starts to be ridiculous. I'm sure there are caring people and irresponsible people on both sides of the border.

 

And, I've heard other Canadians' views about public assistance that are far less positive than yours.

 

I haven't noticed any difference in attitudes toward giving money to charity between the two countries.

 

My country is the USA. I lived there most of my life and lived in 11 different states.

 

I know there are caring people on both sides of the border. I was talking about society as a whole. I see a huge difference. Sure, not everyone talks well of the poor but the overall attitude is that government programs are not shameful. It is kind of like using a public school. It is there to be used by anyone who needs it. It is not shameful to use a public school in the USA.

[QueenCat]

I have heard some say that they don't know how the US would go about instituting UHC. I thought I had heard once, perhaps on CNN, that there was a state that did (at least at one time) have something like it. In fact I thought that it was Romney's state. Sorry for my ignorance on this but I was just wondering if this was correct.

 

Romney's state, Massachusetts, has a plan similar to the Affordable Health Care Act, not UHC.

[BinahYeteirah]

We have not paid federal income tax for several years, but we pay more than 17% of our income in state and local taxes (including property taxes). We also donate 10% of our income to charity. How are we not contributing?

[HappyCrazyMama]

Friends, neighbors, family members. Are there enough to make it worth worrying? If we continue to show people that they can be carried through life, the number of people abusing can and probably will go up.

 

I would just like to point out that if you file your taxes honestly and properly and don't need to pay a dime and perhaps still get your child tax credit paid you to boot, you are not abusing the system.:glare: Also we file jointly so even though my dh earns income he doesn't pay income tax so it is not just those without a job in that 50%. Now in WA we still pay plenty of other taxes.;)

[WishboneDawn]

Just out of curiosity, how do people feel toward giving charitably in Canada (generally, to your knowledge)? Because here, a high percentage of the people who pay a lot of tax also give a lot to charity, and would like to give more. We like to think that having some direct control over how our "help" money gets spent, and direct accountability to us from the spenders thereof, has a more meaningful impact on the needy than mandatorily contributing through taxes that then get spent according to some faraway person's agenda.

 

 

Us too. That's why we have no beef with paying our taxes to our government over which we exercise control and demand accountability from.

 

This underlines a difference I've noticed between many Americans and Canadians. There seems to be asense of the gov't as "other" amongst some in the US, a disconnect between people of their representatives. I find it very weird.

[WishboneDawn]

We have not paid federal income tax for several years, but we pay more than 17% of our income in state and local taxes (including property taxes). We also donate 10% of our income to charity. How are we not contributing?

 

I think it's a matter of shifting goalposts. The big claim is that you're not contributing. You point that what you did and then the claim is you're not paying income tax. Either that or you'll be excepted, ie, "Oh! Well I didn't mean people like you."

[TranquilMind]

So I suppose that you, as a responsible person, have a few hundred thousand dollars set aside for health care needs? Probably at least a quarter million is needed, if you really want to take personal responsibility for your own health. Oh, and before you have a child make sure you can afford the NICU, and really, make sure you can afford life long nursing care just in case that child is born with a medical problem.

 

I know that we must have been horribly irresponsible not to be able to afford all the bills from my ex husband's heart transplant work up, multiple hospitilizations, etc. And my friend, who has always paid every bill she has recieved, is incredibly irresponsible not to have realized ahead of time that her youngest would be diagnosed with a degenerative brain disease at 2 years old, guaranteeing she will be needing therapy and bone marrow transplants and probably hospice care before she is 5 years old.

 

Please. The idea that in this economy anyone can afford those things is crazy.

I'm sure she was simply saying IN GENERAL to be responsible for your health and spending, which many, many people are not. I didn't read her post as saying that people with rare, terrible health problems should have been more responsible.

[Jennifer3141]

Romney's state, Massachusetts, has a plan similar to the Affordable Health Care Act, not UHC.

 

 

Well if you're going to use LOGIC, I just don't know what to do with you people. :lol:

[MSNative]

I think it's a matter of shifting goalposts. The big claim is that you're not contributing. You point that what you did and then the claim is you're not paying income tax. Either that or you'll be excepted, ie, "Oh! Well I didn't mean people like you."

 

I think the concern is that people who do not pay federal income tax can vote to raise federal income tax on others. The people paying federal income tax are also paying all of the other taxes so saying that you're paying those doesn't carry that much weight in addressing that concern.

[WishboneDawn]

To respond to a couple of comments toward my earlier posts.

 

1) I should have been clear that I was talking about families, not individuals. So in the case of a two-parent non-taxpaying household, the suggested 8 hours of service could be divided among the household members. Obviously the policy could also be refined so that, e.g., single custodial parents only have half of that burden (although that sure doesn't happen on the tax return if you make a few bucks). Students could be exempted under a certain age or for a limited number of years.

 

 

You'd need more bureaucracy to set this up, run it and monitor those who are to do community service. Would it not cost the system more in the end and result in perhaps a higher tax burden for those already paying more taxes?

[ktgrok]

I'm sure she was simply saying IN GENERAL to be responsible for your health and spending, which many, many people are not. I didn't read her post as saying that people with rare, terrible health problems should have been more responsible.

 

What people don't get is that expensive health care problems are NOT rare!!!!! In my family my ex had cardiomyopathy from a virus in his twenties, and now needs a kidney transplant. My mother had cancer. My father had a heart attack. My sister and I both had unexpected c-sections and her daughter had to be rehospitilized a week later. My son swallowed a penny and because of where it lodged he needed a specialist to do the surgery in hospital,a nd had to be hospitilized for days to make sure he wasn't going to perforate from where the metal had irritated the tissues. My daughter has had a bizarrely fractured broken elbow (at 9 months old). That is JUST my small family in the past decade or so.

 

It isn't rare to need treatment that could bankrupt you. In fact, it is the most common cause of bankruptcy.

[Jennifer3141]

To respond to a couple of comments toward my earlier posts.

 

1) I should have been clear that I was talking about families, not individuals. So in the case of a two-parent non-taxpaying household, the suggested 8 hours of service could be divided among the household members. Obviously the policy could also be refined so that, e.g., single custodial parents only have half of that burden (although that sure doesn't happen on the tax return if you make a few bucks). Students could be exempted under a certain age or for a limited number of years.

 

 

 

Wait.One.Second.

 

You want the "government" which "both sides" of the political spectrum think is too invasive in our lives already to MANDATE what I do with my time, not just my money?

 

So you want me to be an indentured servant of the government for 8 hours? Uh, no thank you.

[Embassy]

I think the concern is that people who do not pay federal income tax can vote to raise federal income tax on others. The people paying federal income tax are also paying all of the other taxes so saying that you're paying those doesn't carry that much weight in addressing that concern.

 

The concern should work both ways. We should be concerned at the powerful lobbyists who serve the interests of big business. The people voting for taxes should be how our system works.

[SKL]

So according to you, every stay at home mom on this forum is freeloading off of society and should be doing community service?

 

If the family is not paying taxes, someone should be contributing something to the common good. And no, sorry, taking care of your own child does not count, any more than it exempts me from paying taxes.

[SKL]

I think there's an easy way to test that.

 

Get firm numbers, not anecdotes but firm numbers, on many people are as you claim and then compare them to comparable populations in countries like Canada and the UK.

 

But it would take clear statistics.

 

Didn't I read that 25% of people in the UK were on the dole?

[Embassy]

What people don't get is that expensive health care problems are NOT rare!!!!! In my family my ex had cardiomyopathy from a virus in his twenties, and now needs a kidney transplant. My mother had cancer. My father had a heart attack. My sister and I both had unexpected c-sections and her daughter had to be rehospitilized a week later. My son swallowed a penny and because of where it lodged he needed a specialist to do the surgery in hospital,a nd had to be hospitilized for days to make sure he wasn't going to perforate from where the metal had irritated the tissues. My daughter has had a bizarrely fractured broken elbow (at 9 months old). That is JUST my small family in the past decade or so.

 

It isn't rare to need treatment that could bankrupt you. In fact, it is the most common cause of bankruptcy.

 

:iagree: One surgery can be enough to bankrupt someone.

 

My son needed two surgeries with the total bill coming in around $500K

[MSNative]

The concern should work both ways. We should be concerned at the powerful lobbyists who serve the interests of big business. The people voting for taxes should be how our system works.

:iagree: I completely agree. There should be much more transparency in gov't and way more interest on the part of the voters. I also think laws should limited to 10 pages or less. No more of these ginormous laws that no one reads.

[SKL]

I think it's a matter of shifting goalposts. The big claim is that you're not contributing. You point that what you did and then the claim is you're not paying income tax. Either that or you'll be excepted, ie, "Oh! Well I didn't mean people like you."

 

But the charitable donations I make don't exempt me from income tax, no matter how big they are.

[Embassy]

If the family is not paying taxes, someone should be contributing something to the common good. And no, sorry, taking care of your own child does not count, any more than it exempts me from paying taxes.

 

Taking care of your own child goes far towards the common good. Children need parents, not babysitters.

[BinahYeteirah]

I think the concern is that people who do not pay federal income tax can vote to raise federal income tax on others. The people paying federal income tax are also paying all of the other taxes so saying that you're paying those doesn't carry that much weight in addressing that concern.

 

I get that, but I probably pay a higher percentage of my income in these "other taxes" (state and local taxes, including property taxes and sales taxes) than many people in higher federal income tax brackets do. Just to provide a quick example, my local government has, iirc, a 2% flat tax rate on earned income. That means no local tax on investment income and some other kinds of income that are more common amongst the more wealthy members of my community. This means I pay a higher effective local tax rate than most of the more wealthy members of my local community. You can say similar things about sales tax.

[BinahYeteirah]

But the charitable donations I make don't exempt me from income tax, no matter how big they are.

 

Of course not, but more than 17% of income, even without paying federal income tax, isn't "not contributing".

[Jennifer3141]

It isn't rare to need treatment that could bankrupt you. In fact, it is the most common cause of bankruptcy.

 

 

In a 2007 study, medical expenses contributed to a little over 62% of bankruptcies. 62%

 

And a great deal of those people HAD medical insurance.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/05/1051848/-Medical-bills-cause-62-percent-of-nbsp-bankruptcies

 

That was 5 years ago. Also, bear in mind that bankruptcy laws became more stringent around this time period but that percentage STILL increased.

 

So in "the greatest country in the world," you could be going about your life with a mortgage and health insurance and get say... cervical cancer. You will spend any and every dime you had in savings. You may motgage your house again (unless you've already double mortgaged your house because of a job loss or whatever), you may have to take a second or third job (all while battling for your life) and in the end, you lose your home because you can't pay for treatment AND your house payment at the same time. So then you pay a lawyer $5000 or so to get your debt discharged but it will take you a minimum of seven years for your credit score to rebound and for you to start over.

 

And prior to "Obamacare," you would be uninsurable for the rest of your life so even if you win the battle against cervical cancer, you'd better never get sick again or you will have to go through it all over again.

 

I guess your solace in that instance is that at least the second time through, you probbably have less stuff to lose?

 

The only people who "win" in an average middle class person's cancer battle in the US are the bankruptcy lawyers and the insurance company executives.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Jennifer3141

[EKS]

So you don't use public parks, the library, at no point will use or have used public education, drive on public roads, or rely on the police department to keep you safe? If you were in a dangerous situation are you going to tell the policeman no thank you, I don't want to use your services when I don't pay for them?

 

This is the main thing I don't get when people are complaining about paying for UHC in the US. I mean, DUH, isn't it obvious that heath care would just be one more thing to spread the burden for?

 

And then there are the people who say they don't need health care or can pay their way if they get sick. Um, that works when all you are basically healthy. Health insurance isn't for that, it's for the big things. Try paying for a hospitalization after a major accident. Try paying for cancer treatment.

[Slartibartfast]

If the family is not paying taxes, someone should be contributing something to the common good. And no, sorry, taking care of your own child does not count, any more than it exempts me from paying taxes.

 

So now stay at home moms don't contribute to the common good?

 

This is a homeschooling forum, most of the moms here stay at home. You want to explain to them that they are not contributing anything to the common good? Since we pay taxes am I suddenly "permitted" to be at home with my kids and homeschool them?

Edited July 18, 2012 by Sis

[happypamama]

Unrelated to any specific post, just *how* easy is it for someone to sit back and do nothing, but still collect? I mean those who are not volunteering, not working, not enrolled in an educational program, not applying for jobs, not caring for young children/homeschooling older kids. In my state, that's not easy; if your kids are over the age of 5, you have to be showing that you're doing *something* (school, applying for jobs, etc.). How many people really are out there doing absolutely nothing? There are always going to be some people who take and don't ever give/intend to give, but I really have a hard time imagining that it is so widespread.

 

We also need to make it possible to give yourself a hand up if you can get one. People right on the edge get food stamps and healthcare -- but if they get even the smallest raise, they actually lose, because those benefits disappear, and the after-tax raise isn't enough to cover the loss of benefits. If you manage to save a small amount, or sell something, you can't save for a better living situation or for an emergency medical expense that isn't covered (because not all states have low-income medical care for non-pregnant, non-disabled adults) or for a vehicle repair so that you can get to your job, because they'll assume you can buy food and take away your food stamps. Where's the incentive to try harder (if that's even possible -- I believe that a lot of people right now ARE trying as hard as they can)?

[SKL]

Wait.One.Second.

 

You want the "government" which "both sides" of the political spectrum think is too invasive in our lives already to MANDATE what I do with my time, not just my money?

 

So you want me to be an indentured servant of the government for 8 hours? Uh, no thank you.

 

I knew someone was going to complain about me imposing my choices on others. Well, guess what. In a country with social services funded by the taxpayers, everyone else's choices have been imposed on the taxpayers. Choices to procreate, to be a stay-at-home parent, to smoke, to drive drunk, to take recreational drugs, to go to the doctor for every sniffle, to beat their kids, to eat poorly, to watch tv all day, etc., all get imposed on me to the extent the government pays any of the costs of these choices. If working 8 hours for the government makes you an indentured servant, what the heck do you think I feel like when I have to hand over most of my earnings to the government?

 

Oh, and as a professional, I am mandated by the goverment to do lots of things in addition to pay money. For example, I am required to attend substance abuse classes even though I have always been a teetotaler. I'm required to do a fair amount of other education too, taking off work and paying out of my pocket to do so. Does that make me an indentured servant? Some states require lawyers to perform "pro bono" (free) work - does that make them indentured servants? (So far my state hasn't implemented this requirement "yet.") Some people can even be conscripted to serve in the armed forces. Of course it goes without saying that my employer gets to tell me where I'm going to be and what I'm going to do for a large chunk of my time.

 

I think if you want to opt out of government services and tax benefits, that's fine and dandy, but how can you say you're entitled to take and not contribute? How is contributing time qualitatively different from contributing money? Believe me, if I had a choice, I'd much rather work 8 hours per week for the government than pay the taxes I pay.

[SKL]

Of course not, but more than 17% of income, even without paying federal income tax, isn't "not contributing".

 

It's not contributing to the federal benefits. I'd be cool with only paying state and local taxes if I could get away with it. But then who would pay for the federal budget?

[SKL]

Taking care of your own child goes far towards the common good. Children need parents, not babysitters.

 

Right, so the fact that I too am a parent should exempt me from tax. Right?

[Slartibartfast]

I knew someone was going to complain about me imposing my choices on others. Well, guess what. In a country with social services funded by the taxpayers, everyone else's choices have been imposed on the taxpayers. Choices to procreate, to be a stay-at-home parent, to smoke, to drive drunk, to take recreational drugs, to go to the doctor for every sniffle, to beat their kids, to eat poorly, to watch tv all day, etc., all get imposed on me to the extent the government pays any of the costs of these choices. If working 8 hours for the government makes you an indentured servant, what the heck do you think I feel like when I have to hand over most of my earnings to the government?

 

Oh, and as a professional, I am mandated by the goverment to do lots of things in addition to pay money. For example, I am required to attend substance abuse classes even though I have always been a teetotaler. I'm required to do a fair amount of other education too, taking off work and paying out of my pocket to do so. Does that make me an indentured servant? Some states require lawyers to perform "pro bono" (free) work - does that make them indentured servants? (So far my state hasn't implemented this requirement "yet.") Some people can even be conscripted to serve in the armed forces. Of course it goes without saying that my employer gets to tell me where I'm going to be and what I'm going to do for a large chunk of my time.

 

I think if you want to opt out of government services and tax benefits, that's fine and dandy, but how can you say you're entitled to take and not contribute? How is contributing time qualitatively different from contributing money? Believe me, if I had a choice, I'd much rather work 8 hours per week for the government than pay the taxes I pay.

 

If you don't want to pay taxes or contribute to this society then feel free to move to one that wouldn't tax you in order to provide services. But good luck holding onto them in those places. It seems law is often decided by whoever has the biggest gun.

 

We all benefit from the infrastructure and services that our government provides.

[BinahYeteirah]

It's not contributing to the federal benefits. I'd be cool with only paying state and local taxes if I could get away with it. But then who would pay for the federal budget?

 

Well, if we had federal UHC, I would be more than happy to pay toward that. After all, I'm already paying hundreds per month for my private health insurance.

 

I don't know how taxes are structured in your state or local area, but in my area, I pay more, percentage wise, than my higher income neighbors. This is what often happens with a flat tax. It's supposed to be "flat", but certain types of taxes, like sales taxes, ensure than lower income people actually pay a higher tax rate.

 

Edited to add that income tax isn't the only federal tax, so we do pay federal taxes in any case.

Edited July 18, 2012 by BinahYeteirah

[wapiti]

And then there are the people who say they don't need health care or can pay their way if they get sick. Um, that works when all you are basically healthy. Health insurance isn't for that, it's for the big things. Try paying for a hospitalization after a major accident. Try paying for cancer treatment.

 

I think there is an important point here. I think there's a serious difference between catastrophic coverage and coverage for day-to-day health care expenses. Catastrophic coverage may be true insurance (insuring the risk) where as other health care expenses are not, and "coverage" for those is not really "insurance" as much as some sort of "payment mechanism." As I understand it, the two are mixed under the requirements of the ACA. I'd rather see these two functions separated into two different financial products.

 

Generally, the one-size-fits-all approach concerns me.