• 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!

Would voters be willing to fund Medicare4All with a federal sales tax?

marke said:
To try to rescue Medicare and government indebtedness due to overspending on healthcare for Americans, Democrats passed the healthcare/tax hike scheme commonly known as 'Obamacare.' We should have known how unpopular that was going to turn out to be when right out of the starting gate democrats exempted themselves and Obama from being forced into its high-priced plan.

There is no way possible lawmakers will ever be able to devise a healthcare plan which does not either overly burden taxpayers or overly burden the US economy.
Click to expand...

Marke, The Affordable Care Act, (ACA) has to some extent reduced the aggregate burden upon our nation which includes our taxpayers. More USA citizens have adequate medical insurance due to ACA.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
I'm Supposn said:
Would voters be willing to fund Medicare4All with a federal sales tax?
Republicans believe the answer's no; Bernie Sanders believes otherwise? I suspect he's right. Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

How about we put a 1/10 cent tax on every share traded on the american stock exchanges every day the markets are open? It's time for the wealthy and wall street to contribute more.
 
manofknowledge said:
They are not necessarily owned by the national government just because they are publicly owned. The Canadian government does not own hospitals as a feature of their health care system othewise there would be no privately owned hospitals.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/heal...are4all-federal-sales-tax.html#post1070317916
Click to expand...

Publicly owned doesn't mean owned by the national government, it can also means by the states or provinces, the counties, or the city. And there are some privately owned facilities but they are small and are for specialized things accounting for only 5%
 
bongsaway said:
How about we put a 1/10 cent tax on every share traded on the american stock exchanges every day the markets are open? It's time for the wealthy and wall street to contribute more.
Click to expand...

Make capital gains tax 30%
 
jdog21 said:
You do realized in Canada and the UK, hospitals are nationalized and owned by the government. While that's not the case in the US. Is that what you are advocating for?
Click to expand...

Canada does not have a nationalized system. the UK does.
 
jdog21 said:
95% of the hospitals in Canada are publicly owned.
Profit or Non-Profit: Are Hospitals Selling Out? | Canadian Women's Health Network

145 out of the 155 hospitals in the province of Ontario are publicly owned.
Questions And Answers - General Hospitals - Health Services in Your Community - MOHLTC
Click to expand...

YEah no.. you need to read your article.. from your PRofit or non profit article:

Most of Canada's approximately 850 hospitals are owned and operated by non-profit, voluntary organizations
Click to expand...

95% of them are non profit.
 
jaeger19 said:
Canada does not have a nationalized system. the UK does.
Click to expand...

What percentage of hospitals in Canada are privately owned?

I gave you evidence in post #48, where is your evidence?
 
I'm Supposn said:
Regarding a proposed federal sales tax effects upon Social Security retirees, they're shielded by Social Security benefit's annual cost of living adjustments. Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

Nope.. wrong again:

Social Security recipients are losing ground financially, despite receiving an annual cost-of-living (COLA) increase.
Social Security benefits have lost 34 percent of buying power since 2000, according to a study released earlier this year by The Senior Citizens League. And in the past year alone, Social Security recipients fell 4 percent behind the rise in their actual cost of living, according to Johnson.
“The loss occurred even though beneficiaries received a 2-percent annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for 2018,” she explained.
Click to expand...

Why Social Security’s annual increase doesn’t actually keep up with cost of living | PBS NewsHour
 
manofknowledge said:
Everyone pays FICA. That is the way Medicare is currently funded.
Click to expand...
Indeed: Everyone who works in a standard, employer-based or "covered" wage job does pay FICA. So do self-employed US Citizens and resident aliens.

Part of the rub is -- there are many people who don't: the unemployed, trust-fund beneficiaries, the investor class, children, retirees...and many who work "off-the-books." So no, not everyone pays. I was a stay-at-home parent for over a decade...and didn't pay the first cent into FICA during that time period.

The bigger, much more poignant discussion...is who should be paying. Is it truly everyone? Why should our widowed (but employed) neighbor pay the same 2.9% as I, now as our sole "wage" earner, pay the same 2.9% for our family of four?

Neither fair nor equal...and it's why we will continue to struggle with how to "pay" for M4A.
 
Last edited:
jdog21 said:
What percentage of hospitals in Canada are privately owned?

I gave you evidence in post #48, where is your evidence?
Click to expand...


You did not give me that evidence...

See post #57. You obviously did not read or understand your own citation.
 
jaeger19 said:
YEah no.. you need to read your article.. from your PRofit or non profit article:



95% of them are non profit.
Click to expand...
Under federal law, private clinics are not legally allowed to provide services covered by the Canada Health Act
 
jaeger19 said:
You did not give me that evidence...

See post #57. You obviously did not read or understand your own citation.
Click to expand...

You've given no evidence to how many hospitals are private or public in Canada.
 
jdog21 said:
You've given no evidence to how many hospitals are private or public in Canada.
Click to expand...

So? That's not the issue. The issue is whether the hospitals are owned by the government.. ie federal government or not.

the answer is that they are not owned by the federal government. Your own article stated :
Most of Canada's approximately 850 hospitals are owned and operated by non-profit, voluntary organizations
Click to expand...
Which means they are owned by community boards.. non profit volunteer organizations etc.


Just like lots of hospitals in the US. We have a community owned hospital in my home town. Its not owned by the federal government either.


Plus.. you don't realize that private CLINICS..are different from hospitals in Canada. Canadian single payer.. does not pay for lots of services outside the hospital.
 
SomeCents said:
Indeed: Everyone who works in a standard, employer-based or "covered" wage job does pay FICA. So do self-employed US Citizens and resident aliens.

Part of the rub is -- there are many people who don't: the unemployed, trust-fund beneficiaries, the investor class, children, retirees...and many who work "off-the-books." So no, not everyone pays. I was a stay-at-home parent for over a decade...and didn't pay the first cent into FICA during that time period.

The bigger, much more poignant discussion...is who should be paying. Is it truly everyone? Why should our widowed (but employed) neighbor pay the same 2.9% as I, now as our sole "wage" earner, pay the same 2.9% for our family of four?

Neither fair nor equal...and it's why we will continue to struggle with how to "pay" for M4A.
Click to expand...
Somecents, thank you for contributing to this thread.

I have my doubts if the 2.9% of payrolls are now sufficient for Medicare?
If it's sufficient, that's due to Medicare benefits not being available to most people until they reach the age of 65. People may die prior to that, but they contribute revenue during the years they were employed. This will not be the case if Medicare4All, (M4A) is enacted.
[But I suppose the two most costly per patient age segments of medical care are infants and the elderly. Medicare currently services the elderly; (refer to post #38)].

A substantial proportion of Medicare annually funded by the patients themselves. Almost all retirees have their annual fees deducted from the Social Security benefits. The poorest of elderly patients are recipients of Supplemental Security Income, (SSI) and Medicaid benefits to cover their Medicare costs. It is those poor elderly that cannot qualify for SSI and Medicare, who are in desperate financial situations.

You correctly point out that FICA, (and SECA) taxes are only paid by employees, rather than “everyone”.
The FICA taxes upon payrolls and wages fund government programs that are substantially beneficial to our nation's entire economic and social well-being. If FICA tax revenue is insufficient, our annual federal budgets will have to cover the shortfalls.

The working poor always gets a “bad rap” because they are freeloaders that do not pay income taxes. But they pay a greater share of their income for FICA taxes than do the wealthy with much greater annual incomes.
I'm Supposn said:
The huge plurality of USA's poorest income earners are wage earners.
We all pay the taxes embedded within the prices we pay, but wage earners are the only individual persons upon which the FICA tax based upon payrolls is levied. Additionally, individual's annual FICA taxes are capped; higher wage earners are taxed upon a lesser portion of their gross wages. FICA is in effect the most regressive of our federal taxes.

Respectfully, Supposn

[FICA taxes are 15.3% of payrolls, equally paid by enterprises and their employees; 12.4% of payroll is earmarked for Social Security retirement, the remainder contributes to Medicare funding].

I'm a proponent of reducing the total FICA tax to effectively 6.2% and enacting a federal general sales tax of effectively 4.55%.

Due to sales transactions being a greater than payroll tax base, this would increase tax revenues for funding Social Security retirement and Medicare funding;it will net increase the purchasing power of wages spent by employees and their dependents; a 4.55% reduction of employers payroll taxes effectively reduce corporate taxes and would enable USA's exports to be more price competitive.

Social Security and Medicare are net reducers of poverty; they're net beneficial to our economy. All individuals rather than only employees should more fully contribute to funding those programs. ...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Am I willing to pay more taxes for national medicare4all?

Hmmmm.....

I don't really know. But, it's not really a question if I am "willing." We get what they shovel on our plate.

But, how I would FEEL about it would depend on a LOT of things as to whether I would be happy about or not


If the government could provide medical services as good, or better, than the current medical industry, (including pharma and side-industries,) and the employees received a fair wage and respectable benefits, and the corporate medical industry CEO's and ridiculously paid upper-tiered medical professionals had to cut back a trip or two to Jamaica, and it would save me money, I'd be okay with it.

But, then again, when I think about the government doing anything better or cheaper than the free market, I laugh so hard I snort Mountain Dew all over my keyboard.

So.......... I guess that answers that.
 
jaeger19 said:
Originally Posted by I'm Supposn:
Regarding a proposed federal sales tax effects upon Social Security retirees, they're shielded by Social Security benefit's annual cost of living adjustments.
Nope.. wrong again:
Social Security recipients are losing ground financially, despite receiving an annual cost-of-living (COLA) increase.
Social Security benefits have lost 34 percent of buying power since 2000, according to a study released earlier this year by The Senior Citizens League. And in the past year alone, Social Security recipients fell 4 percent behind the rise in their actual cost of living, according to Johnson.
“The loss occurred even though beneficiaries received a 2-percent annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for 2018,” she explained.
Why Social Security’s annual increase doesn’t actually keep up with cost of living | PBS NewsHour

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/econom... to retain that purchasing power. ...[/QUOTE]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Captain America said:
Am I willing to pay more taxes for national medicare4all?

Hmmmm.....

I don't really know. But, it's not really a question if I am "willing." We get what they shovel on our plate.

But, how I would FEEL about it would depend on a LOT of things as to whether I would be happy about or not


If the government could provide medical services as good, or better, than the current medical industry, (including pharma and side-industries,) and the employees received a fair wage and respectable benefits, and the corporate medical industry CEO's and ridiculously paid upper-tiered medical professionals had to cut back a trip or two to Jamaica, and it would save me money, I'd be okay with it.

But, then again, when I think about the government doing anything better or cheaper than the free market, I laugh so hard I snort Mountain Dew all over my keyboard.

So.......... I guess that answers that.
Click to expand...

Well America is spending 3.6 trillion dollars.annually on health care. No estimates on medicare for all are higher than that. No matter how we collect the money looks like a wash to me.
 
I'm Supposn said:
Marke, The Affordable Care Act, (ACA) has to some extent reduced the aggregate burden upon our nation which includes our taxpayers. More USA citizens have adequate medical insurance due to ACA.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

Millions of Americans were forced off their own insurance because Obama's healthcare/tax hike plan had a mandate enforced by Obama's IRS. Many of those Americans saw their costs skyrocket and were not pleased by the higher costs and worse service, so they elected a wave of new republicans in 2012 and even more in 2016 with the mandate to do away with Obama's health/tax scheme.
 
marke said:
Millions of Americans were forced off their own insurance because Obama's healthcare/tax hike plan had a mandate enforced by Obama's IRS. Many of those Americans saw their costs skyrocket and were not pleased by the higher costs and worse service, so they elected a wave of new republicans in 2012 and even more in 2016 with the mandate to do away with Obama's health/tax scheme.
Click to expand...

Which the republicans still haven't been able to do
 
rickc said:
Which the republicans still haven't been able to do
Click to expand...

Nobody, not republicans or democrats, can invent a viable universal government healthcare insurance system which does not threaten the finances of either the government or the taxpayers.
 
marke said:
Nobody, not republicans or democrats, can invent a viable universal government healthcare insurance system which does not threaten the finances of either the government or the taxpayers.
Click to expand...

I am just curious. How do you think we are affording to pay 3.6 trillion dollars a year for health care now without threatening the finances of either the government ir taxpayer?
 
SomeCents said:
Indeed: Everyone who works in a standard, employer-based or "covered" wage job does pay FICA. So do self-employed US Citizens and resident aliens.

Part of the rub is -- there are many people who don't: the unemployed, trust-fund beneficiaries, the investor class, children, retirees...and many who work "off-the-books." So no, not everyone pays. I was a stay-at-home parent for over a decade...and didn't pay the first cent into FICA during that time period.

The bigger, much more poignant discussion...is who should be paying. Is it truly everyone? Why should our widowed (but employed) neighbor pay the same 2.9% as I, now as our sole "wage" earner, pay the same 2.9% for our family of four?

Neither fair nor equal...and it's why we will continue to struggle with how to "pay" for M4A.
Click to expand...

I'm not enough of a tax expert to know who pays SS taxes. I do support eliminating the cap on SS taxes as a first step. Why should someone get to stop contributing just because they make a lot of money.

FICA is income based. FICA covers the employed person's SS. The dependents cover themselves when they start working.
 
marke said:
Nobody, not republicans or democrats, can invent a viable universal government healthcare insurance system which does not threaten the finances of either the government or the taxpayers.
Click to expand...

That is because the US Constitution prohibits it, so any attempt by either Democrats or Republicans to implement a federal government healthcare system will ultimately be overturned as unconstitutional. Only the States have the constitutional authority to implement any kind of government healthcare system. Since the US Constitution does not specifically grant the federal government the power to implement any form of healthcare, they are prohibited from doing so by the Tenth Amendment.
 
marke said:
Millions of Americans were forced off their own insurance because Obama's healthcare/tax hike plan had a mandate enforced by Obama's IRS. Many of those Americans saw their costs skyrocket and were not pleased by the higher costs and worse service, so they elected a wave of new Republicans in 2012 and even more in 2016 with the mandate to do away with Obama's health/tax scheme.
Click to expand...
Marke, President Obama did not achieve the “government option” he advocated.
Affordable Care Act's, (ACA's) approved insurance plans do not consider applicants' previous medical conditions and their family plans make children's coverage available until the age of 26.
More USA citizens are now covered with more adequate medical insurance plans. The “Genie's out of the bottle”; voters will no longer accept less than that.

Republican Candidates ran on platforms to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act with superior national healthcare policy.
After capturing the White House and the White House and the majority of both Congressional chambers, they have not been able to repeal or improve upon President Obama's achievements.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom