START A RANT
SIGN UP / SIGN IN
GET PAID TO POST
FOLLOW ON TWITTER
START A RAVE
MY PROFILE
CONTACT US
ABOUT US
News & Politics

Rant

Health Care Cost Options?

Posted 34 months ago|17 comments|365 views
Written by
Jabberwocky
Hollywood, FL
I have been following the news relating to the proposed overhaul of the Health Care System and frankly am amazed that there is so much fuss being created over it.

Public health care has been a standard for most European countries for decades, even in the Caribbean, public health care is free at most basic care clinics. Child inoculation, general check ups etc, are all free of cost.

The main concern seems to be about COST of the health care reform. Democrats want to tax RICH people, Republicans want to maintain the status quo and have begun the scare tactics.

The answer to costing is very simple - and ensures that EVERYONE gets to pay for Health Care- tax the items that MOST contribute to an unhealthy lifestyle - the list can begin with a few and expand as the bill gets refined. Some suggestions:

Sugar and all items made with a preponderance of sugar - cakes pies, pastries - just a very small % less than 1%. Sugar is dangerous to health

Alcohol- poor liver health and costly car accidents
Cigarettes- lung cancer
White flour - diabetes and obesity
White rice - diabetes and obesity
Remote controls - obesity
Cars - major contributor to poor health

Just a very small percentage of a percent tax on these items would ensure that there will be more than enough money to pay for health care...







EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
34 months ago: Yep, lets add a tax for any sex other than monogamous sex, very unhealthy.

Computers and internet, same as the remote control.

Coffee, Eggs, Butter, various health problems

Working too hard to cover all your taxes, stress related illnesses.





Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
34 months ago: Doesn't it seem a bit odd that the purpose of cigarette taxes are , at the same time, to encourage people to quit AND to pay for health care?

What happens to health care if all the smokers quit? If you say that isn't going to happen, then isn't the tax just another way to get an isolated group to pay for your health care?

At least here in Ms. they are honest about it. They say raise the tax on cigarettes so car tags won't go up. So all my fellow Mississippians can thank a smoker for their lower priced car tags.

Isn't socialism grand?

Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
34 months ago: I understand full well. That is exactly what I was saying. You have no problem pretending it's for the smokers own good to tax the daylights out HIS vice, when in reality you know the revenue is going to prevent a tax increase for you any other areas of the tax load.

Sex, other than monogamous sex can lead to STD's, unwanted pregnancy, and a burden on the taxpayer that isn't getting any sex. TAX 'EM! Use the money to build a road.

Computers and internet contribute to a sedentary lifestyle, leading to obesity and other health problems, also a burden on the system. TAX 'EM!!! Pay for the Fourth of July fireworks display!!!

Coffee, Eggs, Butter : TAX 'EM!!! Build a new convention center!!

Working too hard so you can afford YOUR VICES, so that someone else can rest easier, well, doesn't really make sense, now does it?

What are you going to do when government sponsored behavior modification starts to affect you?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
34 months ago: I take it you are a Democrat.
34 months ago: This is a touchy subject, and I find myself not entirely in agreement with the opening post. Cigarette taxes I can see -- cigarettes are *never* helpful, almost always cause expensive health problems, and affect the non-smokers around them in singularly unpleasant ways -- but the other suggested taxes are on things that are far less cut-and-dry. A sin tax on alcohol, for instance, ignores the fact that a little bit of alcohol consumption is actually quite good for you.

But my biggest problem with these taxes is that they're regressive; they most adversely affect those who can least afford to pay them, the working poor.

There is a simple solution, although saying it out loud has become bizarrely taboo: TAX THE RICH. Increase their income taxes and their capital gains tax. They have gained the most from society, they owe the most to society. It wouldn't have to be much; heck, just roll back all the Bush tax cuts, and you're well on your way, anyway.

When someone argues that this will be a disincentive to getting rich, ignore 'em. If the rich are forced to pay a fairer share of the tax burden, it won't result in a bunch of multimillionaires suddenly giving up on their pursuit of wealth.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
34 months ago: Ok, so explain to me how the rich owe the most to society, when they worked a lot harder than average society to get what they wanted, already provide the lion's share of revenue collected by the government, (top 10 percent pay 71 percent of income tax collected, bottom 50 percent of earners pay less than three percent of income tax collected).

Are you just going to tax them down to your level?
All they will do then is shelter the remainder of their money, by cutting jobs, and closing businesses

Oh wait, that's what is happening now.
34 months ago: "Ok, so explain to me how the rich owe the most to society, when they worked a lot harder than average society..."

That is the attitude that pisses me off the most. No, they did not work a lot harder. Most of them inherited a boatload of their wealth, then just invested it. If you try to tell me some schmuck born with a silver spoon in his mouth works harder than the meat-packer working 70 hours a week to make ends meet for his family, or the farmer doing back-breaking labor from sunup to sundown, I'll tell you where you can take that idea and shove it.

Yes, they do owe more to society. They get the most from it, frequently without working hard for it a day of their lives.

As for your other arguments, how does taxing someone's *personal* income result in cut jobs? You're conflating their income with business operating capital, out of which comes employee pay. That's exactly the mistake the extremely wealthy want you to make, too, because it means you'll defend their wealth for them out of fear.

Can you imagine being on the board of directors of a large company and telling them they need to cut expenses and vote you a pay raise because your taxes have gone up? Good luck with that.

Finally, stop defending tax cheats. So what if the rich will try to hide money from the IRS? You're suggesting we should just go, "Oh, well, in that case, you don't have to pay."
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
34 months ago: Hey Noni Noni,
A few references would be appreciated, stats on how many rich people in the U.S. were born wealthy compared to those who had to work for it. Otherwise it is just propagandist rhetoric.
I personally don't have the stats, except for my own experience, and I have quite a few wealthy friends and associates, and they all work harder and smarter than the great majority. I have gotten quite a few business deals from these people, because they have the money to pay me. Very rarely, (well, never) have I had a poor person offer me a job.
If as you say, they owe more to society, how much do you think is fair? 80 percent? 90? All of it, just because you are jealous they are smarter and better off than you?
You can't get it the honest way, so get your "big brother" to go take it from them?

Finally, and unless you can come up with something worthwhile, my final contribution to this thread,
Who said anything about tax cheats, except you? I pointed out that the top ten percent ALREADY pay 71 percent of the revenue collected. THE BOTTOM 50 PERCENT PAY 3 PERCENT. Sheltering your money is not tax evasion. It's good financial sense. Invest in bonds, long term savings, retirement accounts, one time gifts to spouses and children. Don't slap it out there to be taxed away. Just because you want my money and property does not mean I have to give to you. How about this: I want YOUR money, and I think you should give it to me. Just because I take your money, doesn't mean you can't go out and make some more.

Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
34 months ago: Crud, I lied, this is another contribution.
Jabberwocky, apologies for getting off the subject, should have been sugar-tax-yes, or sugar-tax-no.

HPBWT, I think you may be on to something. The lifestyle choices we make are the basis of our exorbitant health care costs.
Here are some of the proposals on the table right now:

Mandatory government supervised exercise regimens. We can all fall out at five a.m. for a rousing round of calisthenics.
Government supervised diet plans, and taxing people based on their total body fat index.
And if none of that works, and this is in the actual health care plan in Obama's office right now, Mandatory End of Life Counseling.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
34 months ago: Sorry, I get that way when told where to shove something.
The only part of the preceding post that I didn't make up is the Mandatory End of Life Counseling for the elderly and infirm. Look it up, it's in the health care package. I figure it's for the people that would be too expensive to keep alive.

The other two aren't really a stretch, are they?
34 months ago: OOTB, I apologize for the delay in this response. I've been focused on other threads and didn't see you respond here.

"A few references would be appreciated, stats on how many rich people in the U.S. were born wealthy compared to those who had to work for it. Otherwise it is just propagandist rhetoric."

That's a fair request. Depending on your metric, about half of the wealthiest people in America are the recipients of family fortunes. A quick glance at the Forbes 400 richest yields some, ahem, familiar names (Bechtel, Bass, Cargill, Cox, Kaiser, Price, Rockefeller, Rich, etc...)

"I personally don't have the stats, except for my own experience, and I have quite a few wealthy friends and associates, and they all work harder and smarter than the great majority."

Smarter? Maybe. But harder? Again, I challenge you to find one rich person who works harder than a single mom trying to raise kids on subsistence wages. And did your friends start out with any inherited capital?

"If as you say, they owe more to society, how much do you think is fair? 80 percent? 90? All of it, just because you are jealous they are smarter and better off than you?"

What I think is fair is a graduated income tax system that doesn't top out at 35%. Right now, if you make $360,000, you pay 35% tax on your earnings from $357,701 to $360,000. So out of $2,300 dollars, you're paying $805. If you make more, you still only pay 35% on everything from $357,701 to, say, $360,000,000. Believe it or not, we used to have marginal tax brackets much higher than 35%. And yet somehow, people still found the desire to make more money.

"Who said anything about tax cheats, except you?"

Sorry, when I read "haven" in regards to taxes, it brought to mind offshore accounts, dummy corporations, and other shenanigans meant to disguise earnings. I'd like to see some of the havens you're referring to taxed somewhat higher, too, but you're right that they're not being tax cheats by using them.
34 months ago: HHN I would like to mention something in regards to your comment about how many people are born into fortunes and how many built it themselves. To look at a person who is born wealthy and say they do not deserve it whether they appear to or not is also saying to the person who did work for it and passed it down to their children that they do not deserve to do what they wish with the money they earned. Here is an example. Say I work my way through college. Then I work two jobs to get some money to invest. I risk my welfare and my families welfare investing in my business. Finally after years of work and effort I begin to reap some benefits of my hard work. By the time I am close to death I am a fairly wealthy person and I want to pass this wealth on to my children. Now say I am long dead but some of my children are living extravagantly from the hard earned money I passed on to them. So you and someone else see them and the person next to you says "that's so and so's children, they never worked a day in their life because they inherited a fortune from their father". So you say "they don't deserve that money, we should take a bunch of it from them and give it to the poor". Well whether my children "deserve" the money or not, if I worked hard for it do I not "deserve" to give it to them to enjoy if I wish to do so? There for I say by using the idea of taking money from persons who inherited money because they don't deserve it we are in fact robbing the ancestor who did labor for it their right to do with it as they wish. Now if you pass your house on to your children and the government comes along and sells it from under them and places them in a two room apartment because they did not work for that house and there for they do not deserve it would this be justifiable?
34 months ago: Jakarta, I have nothing against wealth, inherited or earned. I want for people who have gained the most in our society to give the most back -- including myself; I'm not poor -- but I have no desire to tell anyone they don't deserve earned or inherited wealth, assuming it wasn't gained through malfeasance.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
34 months ago: What is that they get more of from society?
Are they not already paying society for the extra's they can afford?
Jabberwocky
Jabberwocky
Hollywood, FL
34 months ago: Thanks for the comments but...Just a reminder that not only FAT people are unhealthy. As I am fond of saying "I never saw a fat corpse in a coffin yet" so my personal belief is that obesity is largely overrated as a health problem - unless of course YOU ARE REALLY FAT and obviously so. But someone who weighs a few pounds over the "insurance tables" is certainly not a RISK. But, that is for another post...we don't need to be beating up on fat people as if just by being fat they are unhealthy - let's see - why would someone be THIN?
-anorexia
-stress
-diarrhea
-worms
-overwork
-starvation

get the picture?

So by all means suggest other non-healthy taxable items, but lay off the fatties, ok? Not all fat people are jolly and the comments are not helping. Especially when your thin neighbor falls down dead from a heart attack ( how DID that Happen)?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
34 months ago: My suggestion is lay off the taxes. We are taxed enough already, and the taxes they do take never seem to make it where they were intended to go.

I wasn't targeting any particular group, I tried to spread the fun around to promiscuous people, internet junkies, and people who work too much.

I thought by you saying saying sugar was unhealthy, you meant it led to obesity. Perhaps you could tell us about its other dangers? I'm interested.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.
All Categories | Arts & Entertainment  |  Culture & Lifestyle  |  Economy  |  Food  |  Health  |  News & Politics  |  Offbeat  |  People  |  Products  |  Science & Technology  |  Sports  |  Travel

Frequently Asked Questions  |  Community Guidelines  |  Editorial Reviews  |  Get Paid to Post  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Contact Us  |  Sitemap  |  Report Spam/Abuse

©2012 RantRave