• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can we pay for healthcare and SS with sales tax?

jonny5 said:
Its paid for now by cashing in t-bills which the Treasury cant pay for either. But yes, the future is what matters.
Click to expand...

That's only because Congress has stolen the money that was in the SS account.
 
No tax can fix health care.

The only way to make health care affordable is to get back to it being paid for by those receiving care or insurance coverage. Insurance and health care expense should be fully tax deductible to the individual not to the employer. Caregivers and insurance companies should be competing in the consumer market.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
jonny5 said:
No, the rich dont need medicare. They have money. That they take advantage of every dollar they are owed is a different idea.
Click to expand...

Yes.. the rich need medicare. They have money... so what? Sorry.. but I am rich and I don't want to have to rip 350,000 out of my investments or business to pay for a sudden surgery.

And I am not going to leave 350,000 in a checking account.. earning nothing. yes..we need health insurance when we are older..and the only way to get it is through medicare.
 
jonny5 said:
Sales taxes are flat. Everyone pays the same rate on the same purchase. A progressive tax would increase the rate as the value increased, such as the income tax. A regressive tax would decrease the rate as the value increased.

And SS is not a social safety net. See above about why.
Click to expand...

If the net result of a tax is that a poorer family pays a higher percentage of their overall income in taxes than a wealthier family pays in taxes, then its regressive. Why on earth would you prefer a sales tax to an income tax anyway? With a progressive income tax, your taxes are low when you start out working and you are not making much money. They increase with your income, but then when you are raising kids, they get lower again. Once your kids are out of the house they go up proportional with your income, then when you retire, and your income is limited, they get very low. I mean if I were going to design a tax system that is pretty damn optimal.

In contrast, property, sales, and personal property taxes work nothing like that. Property and sales taxes have a higher burden on you when are raising kids (and thus buying more and needing a larger home) and in retirement than they do at any other point in your life.

Personally, I would rather the government tax my income sufficiently to pay for government services, schools, infrastructure and so on, and just leave me alone after that. If it was up to me, income taxes would be the only kind of tax we would have.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yes.. the rich need medicare. They have money... so what? Sorry.. but I am rich and I don't want to have to rip 350,000 out of my investments or business to pay for a sudden surgery.

And I am not going to leave 350,000 in a checking account.. earning nothing. yes..we need health insurance when we are older..and the only way to get it is through medicare.
Click to expand...

A lot of ideologues are under the ludicrous impression that if we just got ride of Medicare, insurers like Humana would be lined up to sell a 75 year old with a history of heart disease affordable health coverage.
 
Put a one tenth of one cent tax on every share of stock bought or sold. One tenth of one cent. Who would that hurt while raising a ton of money?
 
Eriech said:
No tax can fix health care.

The only way to make health care affordable is to get back to it being paid for by those receiving care or insurance coverage.
Click to expand...

That is exactly how it works now. Do you honestly think your healthcare would get cheaper if we did away with Medicare and Medicaid? What do you think your healthcare premiums would look like if we had to throw in 75 year olds with a history of heart diseases into your health insurance pools?

Say you are on an HSA compatible plan and you are paying for your routine primary care out of pocket, that is only 7% of healthcare spending. It's the catastrophic and chronic care that drives the majority of healthcare spending and you will never be shopping that or paying it out of pocket.
 
Jimmy Who said:
Just asking why and why not?
Click to expand...

Receipts from maximum tax burdens on every American income earner = $4 trillion/year. Minimum cost of universal healthcare = $4.5 trillion/year. Looks good for the next billion years if you are a democrat.
 
Moderate Right said:
That's only because Congress has stolen the money that was in the SS account.
Click to expand...

That is nonsense. Excess revenues from Social Security went to treasury notes / bills. What else would have had the government do with it? Would you rather them have put it into mortgage securities like some were arguing for prior to 2008? Seriously, when Social Security was bringing in more money than it was paying out, what would have had the government do with those excess revenues other than issue treasuries, the safest investment on earth, against it?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
That is nonsense. Excess revenues from Social Security went to treasury notes / bills. What else would have had the government do with it? Would you rather them have put it into mortgage securities like some were arguing for prior to 2008? Seriously, when Social Security was bringing in more money than it was paying out, what would have had the government do with those excess revenues other than issue treasuries, the safest investment on earth, against it?
Click to expand...

There is a surplus of SS funds.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yes.. the rich need medicare. They have money... so what? Sorry.. but I am rich and I don't want to have to rip 350,000 out of my investments or business to pay for a sudden surgery.

And I am not going to leave 350,000 in a checking account.. earning nothing. yes..we need health insurance when we are older..and the only way to get it is through medicare.
Click to expand...

No the rich dont need medicare. They could afford better care.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
That is exactly how it works now. Do you honestly think your healthcare would get cheaper if we did away with Medicare and Medicaid? What do you think your healthcare premiums would look like if we had to throw in 75 year olds with a history of heart diseases into your health insurance pools?

Say you are on an HSA compatible plan and you are paying for your routine primary care out of pocket, that is only 7% of healthcare spending. It's the catastrophic and chronic care that drives the majority of healthcare spending and you will never be shopping that or paying it out of pocket.
Click to expand...

I think it doesnt matter. Its not the federal govts job to supply healthcare.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
If the net result of a tax is that a poorer family pays a higher percentage of their overall income in taxes than a wealthier family pays in taxes, then its regressive. Why on earth would you prefer a sales tax to an income tax anyway? With a progressive income tax, your taxes are low when you start out working and you are not making much money. They increase with your income, but then when you are raising kids, they get lower again. Once your kids are out of the house they go up proportional with your income, then when you retire, and your income is limited, they get very low. I mean if I were going to design a tax system that is pretty damn optimal.

In contrast, property, sales, and personal property taxes work nothing like that. Property and sales taxes have a higher burden on you when are raising kids (and thus buying more and needing a larger home) and in retirement than they do at any other point in your life.

Personally, I would rather the government tax my income sufficiently to pay for government services, schools, infrastructure and so on, and just leave me alone after that. If it was up to me, income taxes would be the only kind of tax we would have.
Click to expand...

Its not regressive. The tax rate is the same for each person on each sale. Thats what flat means. Personally I would rather the govt tax you too for the services you want, and leave me out of it.
 
Well said from a man that can afford Healthcare no matter what the Insurance, Hospitals and Drug companies want to charge. Healthcare is not like buying a donut because it taste good. Most people need Healthcare to live. Although some may feel that way about a donut it's not the same.

Most people are not born with a platinum spoon in there mouth. Yes the spoon has went to platinum. They (none platinum spoon people) struggle everyday just to eat, nevermind paying these gouging companies.
So we should have Government Healthcare and Retirement. Well maybe not you and It should be better and more cost effective.
 
Jimmy Who said:
Well said from a man that can afford Healthcare no matter what the Insurance, Hospitals and Drug companies want to charge. Healthcare is not like buying a donut because it taste good. Most people need Healthcare to live. Although some may feel that way about a donut it's not the same.

Most people are not born with a platinum spoon in there mouth. Yes the spoon has went to platinum. They (none platinum spoon people) struggle everyday just to eat, nevermind paying these gouging companies.
So we should have Government Healthcare and Retirement. Well maybe not you and It should be better and more cost effective.
Click to expand...

Healthcare is a product like anything else. If you want it, pay for it. If you want me to pay for it, get my consent.
 
Jimmy Who said:
Just asking why and why not?
Click to expand...

Sales Taxes are universally bad ideas in my opinion. The only benefit is that a local economy might get tourist tax dollars from it. But ultimately sales are what drive all business. If you artificially drive up the cost of a sale it's going generally have the impact of reducing those sales.

There are some cities that have 7-10% sales taxes at restaurants and bars. Just think about how much more often you might go out to eat if your tab was 10% less each time you did it.

Income taxes are a much better way of collecting taxes because everyone needs an income. It doesn't really matter if you're losing 20% of your income to an income tax you still need that other 80% to live off of. Nobody is really going to make the choice to flat out not go to work because of an income tax because they need some form of income. Maybe if the income tax was astronomical some wealthy people might choose to retire, but that's actually a good thing because it opens up a high paying job for someone else.

Think about it like a Buffet Restaurant vs a normal Restaurant. With the buffet you pay a one time fee up front, but then get to eat as much as you want with no additional cost. With the normal restaurant you have to pay for each item. Where do you generally eat the most food? At the buffet. Same with an income tax vs a sales tax. With the income tax you lose a chunk of your wages up front, but then everything you buy is cheaper after that. With Sales tax you keep more of your money up front, but then you're paying the price with each thing that you buy which makes you want to spend less. If we want to increase sales to benefit the economy the income tax is much better.

Furthermore, Rich Republicans love the income tax because you can't really make it progressive in anyway. You can tax higher salaries at a higher rate, but when someone goes to McDonald's they don't know weather you're rich or poor. The result is that the poor end up paying a much higher proportion of the taxes and the wealthy get off easy.
 
jonny5 said:
Healthcare is a product like anything else. If you want it, pay for it. If you want me to pay for it, get my consent.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. If you don't get health care you die. Nobody is going to let themselves die in order to honor your stupid property rights. That's like putting a no trespassing sign in your hard and then bitching when someone dives into your hard to avoid getting hit by a bus.

Furthermore, if you get hit by a bus nobody is going to check your wallet to see if you have proper health insurance before calling 911. When the ambulance shows up they're not going to go through your belongings and run a credit check on you they're going to start CPR immediately and try to get to the Hospital alive. When you get to the Emergency room they aren't going to make you stop and put down a down payment before they whisk you away to surgery. There's no sign at the front desk which says don't serve jonny5 which a picture of his check that bounced. And when you're laying in intensive care nobody is unhooking your life support if your credit card is declined.

A doctor and a hospital is forced to save your life first whether you can pay them or not. As a result we as the potential patients of the world have a responsibility to INSURE that we can cover the costs doctors and hospitals will incur when and if we show up in need of their help.

Lastly, every patient that stiffs the hospital or doctor and doesn't end up paying their tab ends up forcing the hospital or doctor to make up for the money they lost somehow. And how do they do that? By charging each and every one of the patients that do pay their bills a little bit more than they really need to. That's why when you go to the emergency room your bill is astronomically high even if it's for something relatively simple. They have to overcharge you in order to make up for the losses they incurred on the last patient that ditched their tab.

So no matter what you do there is absolutely no way you can avoid helping to pay the medical bills of other people. It isn't a thing that you can escape unless you yourself are the person getting the free care yourself. You will pay for other people's care no matter what so the question is not how do we avoid paying for it the question is how do we minimize the payments. As it turn out subsidizing health insurance is a really good way of making sure potential patients contribute something towards their premiums even if they can't pay it all. That's why the ACA has actually reduced health care costs overall.
 
jonny5 said:
I think it doesnt matter. Its not the federal govts job to supply healthcare.
Click to expand...

No, it's a hospitals job to supply health care, it's the federal governments job to make sure everyone is paying the hospital. If you attempt to ditch a tab at a restaurant they will call the police and the government will arrest you. If you attempt to steal food from a grocery store they will call the police and arrest you.

The thing is that it's kind of hard to blame a poor starving person for trying to feed themselves and their family. You can't realistically prosecute something like that as a crime unless you can guarantee the person didn't need to steal that food in order to survive. The same is true of healthcare. As a result it only makes rational sense to insure that any person living in our society can acquire the basic things necessary for their survival without having to commit a crime to do it.

The threat of prison will not deter any person who is going to die if they don't get to eat or see a doctor. So all we're doing is imprisoning poor people for being poor and guess what? That costs even more money. It's way more expensive to house someone in a prison cell where you have to feed them, clothe them, provide shelter, heat, and necessary medical care all while keeping them under guard. So why not spend the small amount of money it takes to insure your population has these basic necessities and limit the number of people who end up in jail?
 
MrWonka said:
No, it isn't. If you don't get health care you die. Nobody is going to let themselves die in order to honor your stupid property rights. That's like putting a no trespassing sign in your hard and then bitching when someone dives into your hard to avoid getting hit by a bus.

Furthermore, if you get hit by a bus nobody is going to check your wallet to see if you have proper health insurance before calling 911. When the ambulance shows up they're not going to go through your belongings and run a credit check on you they're going to start CPR immediately and try to get to the Hospital alive. When you get to the Emergency room they aren't going to make you stop and put down a down payment before they whisk you away to surgery. There's no sign at the front desk which says don't serve jonny5 which a picture of his check that bounced. And when you're laying in intensive care nobody is unhooking your life support if your credit card is declined.

A doctor and a hospital is forced to save your life first whether you can pay them or not. As a result we as the potential patients of the world have a responsibility to INSURE that we can cover the costs doctors and hospitals will incur when and if we show up in need of their help.

Lastly, every patient that stiffs the hospital or doctor and doesn't end up paying their tab ends up forcing the hospital or doctor to make up for the money they lost somehow. And how do they do that? By charging each and every one of the patients that do pay their bills a little bit more than they really need to. That's why when you go to the emergency room your bill is astronomically high even if it's for something relatively simple. They have to overcharge you in order to make up for the losses they incurred on the last patient that ditched their tab.

So no matter what you do there is absolutely no way you can avoid helping to pay the medical bills of other people. It isn't a thing that you can escape unless you yourself are the person getting the free care yourself. You will pay for other people's care no matter what so the question is not how do we avoid paying for it the question is how do we minimize the payments. As it turn out subsidizing health insurance is a really good way of making sure potential patients contribute something towards their premiums even if they can't pay it all. That's why the ACA has actually reduced health care costs overall.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. I work and I pay for my healthcare. With it being an HMO, they do not care for anyone who doesnt pay. I only pay for other peoples care because you force me to. If people want to live forever they can pay me.
 
MrWonka said:
No, it isn't. If you don't get health care you die. Nobody is going to let themselves die in order to honor your stupid property rights. That's like putting a no trespassing sign in your hard and then bitching when someone dives into your hard to avoid getting hit by a bus.

Furthermore, if you get hit by a bus nobody is going to check your wallet to see if you have proper health insurance before calling 911. When the ambulance shows up they're not going to go through your belongings and run a credit check on you they're going to start CPR immediately and try to get to the Hospital alive. When you get to the Emergency room they aren't going to make you stop and put down a down payment before they whisk you away to surgery. There's no sign at the front desk which says don't serve jonny5 which a picture of his check that bounced. And when you're laying in intensive care nobody is unhooking your life support if your credit card is declined.

A doctor and a hospital is forced to save your life first whether you can pay them or not. As a result we as the potential patients of the world have a responsibility to INSURE that we can cover the costs doctors and hospitals will incur when and if we show up in need of their help.

Lastly, every patient that stiffs the hospital or doctor and doesn't end up paying their tab ends up forcing the hospital or doctor to make up for the money they lost somehow. And how do they do that? By charging each and every one of the patients that do pay their bills a little bit more than they really need to. That's why when you go to the emergency room your bill is astronomically high even if it's for something relatively simple. They have to overcharge you in order to make up for the losses they incurred on the last patient that ditched their tab.

So no matter what you do there is absolutely no way you can avoid helping to pay the medical bills of other people. It isn't a thing that you can escape unless you yourself are the person getting the free care yourself. You will pay for other people's care no matter what so the question is not how do we avoid paying for it the question is how do we minimize the payments. As it turn out subsidizing health insurance is a really good way of making sure potential patients contribute something towards their premiums even if they can't pay it all. That's why the ACA has actually reduced health care costs overall.
Click to expand...

All you did in this comment was explain how the state forces some people to pay for the healthcare of others. BFD.

Note that there is no sound moral argument to compel some people to pay for the healthcare of others, and that's what you needed to correctly respond to violation of property rights caused by the coercion.
 
MrWonka said:
No, it's a hospitals job to supply health care, it's the federal governments job to make sure everyone is paying the hospital. If you attempt to ditch a tab at a restaurant they will call the police and the government will arrest you. If you attempt to steal food from a grocery store they will call the police and arrest you.

The thing is that it's kind of hard to blame a poor starving person for trying to feed themselves and their family. You can't realistically prosecute something like that as a crime unless you can guarantee the person didn't need to steal that food in order to survive. The same is true of healthcare. As a result it only makes rational sense to insure that any person living in our society can acquire the basic things necessary for their survival without having to commit a crime to do it.

The threat of prison will not deter any person who is going to die if they don't get to eat or see a doctor. So all we're doing is imprisoning poor people for being poor and guess what? That costs even more money. It's way more expensive to house someone in a prison cell where you have to feed them, clothe them, provide shelter, heat, and necessary medical care all while keeping them under guard. So why not spend the small amount of money it takes to insure your population has these basic necessities and limit the number of people who end up in jail?
Click to expand...

Because I dont have to. Why is their need more important than my freedom?
 
jonny5 said:
Healthcare is a product like anything else. If you want it, pay for it. If you want me to pay for it, get my consent.
Click to expand...
Always about yourself? If something is a product is and paid for with a tax should I have your consent to use it?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
A lot of ideologues are under the ludicrous impression that if we just got ride of Medicare, insurers like Humana would be lined up to sell a 75 year old with a history of heart disease affordable health coverage.
Click to expand...

I know. Its ludicrous. The reason FOR medicare was because private insurances were not insuring elderly.

Here is the real kicker. Medicare has been the single largest driver of medical technology and invention. Medicare paired demand for healthcare (elderly).. with the money to pay for it.

That led to all sorts of inventions and interventions because now there was money in that invention.
 
aociswundumho said:
All you did in this comment was explain how the state forces some people to pay for the healthcare of others. BFD.

Note that there is no sound moral argument to compel some people to pay for the healthcare of others, and that's what you needed to correctly respond to violation of property rights caused by the coercion.
Click to expand...

Really?

Please explain the moral argument for letting a 9 year old die of acute appendicitis because his parents don't have the funds to pay for healthcare to save him. Please explain how morally you want to go back to a system that lets that kid die.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom