Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dmac1" data-source="post: 4630334" data-attributes="member: 60252">I would support a tax, like was in Obamacare, to support universal health care. If the democrats had simply presented the penalty correctly, with a tax increase on everyone, and a corresponding tax cut for those who had qualifying insurance, no one could have twisted it into a requirement to buy insurance. There never was a requirement that ignorant people still try to claim, just a penalty for not having qualifying insurance. They should have packaged it openly instead of trying to be tricky. Those without insurance are &#039;takers&#039; the right likes to deride, and should pay a higher tax because they cost the rest of us.Universal coverage paid for with an income&nbsp; tax on ALL income with private insurers competing with a public medicare-like plan with a sliding scale of copays, deductibles based on income is what is needed. Employers could still pay the &#039;tax&#039; if they want to provide a benefit to their employees like they do now. The plans must cover all necessary treatments and tests, and out of pocket maximum per year should be ~10% of GROSS income, with ALL income from every source counted. An employer could pay to cover those costs. We could literally cancel all other federal health plans like CHIP, the VA, medicare, and medicaid and save tax payer money by having only one bureaucracy. It would REDUCE the size of government. There is no valid reasonable reason to have more than one agency managing healthcare.We are paying a ridiculous amount now, and reforming the system would clear up enough so that total costs would remain about the same. I am sure any employer would be glad to pay 20% less to insurers for the same or better coverage for their employees when the 20% off the top that insurers take is eliminated, or at least reduced when they need to compete.Those on the right oppose common sense because they fear &#039;socialism&#039; even though public roads, public policing, &#039;national&#039; defense, the FDA, the USDA, and on and on, including publicly funded FIRE DEPARTMENTS, are already &#039;socialist.&#039; They never have an answer for why public roads are okay, or the rest, but not publicly funded healthcare. It really comes down to one of two things- stupidity for the average middle class, or greed from the wealthy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dmac1, post: 4630334, member: 60252"] I would support a tax, like was in Obamacare, to support universal health care. If the democrats had simply presented the penalty correctly, with a tax increase on everyone, and a corresponding tax cut for those who had qualifying insurance, no one could have twisted it into a requirement to buy insurance. There never was a requirement that ignorant people still try to claim, just a penalty for not having qualifying insurance. They should have packaged it openly instead of trying to be tricky. Those without insurance are 'takers' the right likes to deride, and should pay a higher tax because they cost the rest of us. Universal coverage paid for with an income tax on ALL income with private insurers competing with a public medicare-like plan with a sliding scale of copays, deductibles based on income is what is needed. Employers could still pay the 'tax' if they want to provide a benefit to their employees like they do now. The plans must cover all necessary treatments and tests, and out of pocket maximum per year should be ~10% of GROSS income, with ALL income from every source counted. An employer could pay to cover those costs. We could literally cancel all other federal health plans like CHIP, the VA, medicare, and medicaid and save tax payer money by having only one bureaucracy. It would REDUCE the size of government. There is no valid reasonable reason to have more than one agency managing healthcare. We are paying a ridiculous amount now, and reforming the system would clear up enough so that total costs would remain about the same. I am sure any employer would be glad to pay 20% less to insurers for the same or better coverage for their employees when the 20% off the top that insurers take is eliminated, or at least reduced when they need to compete. Those on the right oppose common sense because they fear 'socialism' even though public roads, public policing, 'national' defense, the FDA, the USDA, and on and on, including publicly funded FIRE DEPARTMENTS, are already 'socialist.' They never have an answer for why public roads are okay, or the rest, but not publicly funded healthcare. It really comes down to one of two things- stupidity for the average middle class, or greed from the wealthy. [/QUOTE]

Verification