The only problem with Canada's health care system is that since 1993 it's not been properly funded. When Paul Martin started slashing programs to balance the budget a trend began to under-fund the health care system, and this trend continues to this day.

Canada's current Prime Minister Stephen Harper is the former head of the right-wing lobby group The National Citizen's Coalition -- a powerful lobby that was founded in concert with giant US HMOs, with the covert mandate to destroy Canada's universal health care system. While the system continues to be starved of funds we see growing waiting lists, and yet we hear it said all the time in the media that the solution isn't to "throw money at the problem", which I find strange and rather disingenuous.

Interesting. In just round numbers, how much money do you think is "enough"? You are going to have a hard, hard sell convincing me that balancing the budget is a bad idea by the way. I'm just curious to see what you think is a proper funding level for Canada since it has roughly 1/10th the population of the US.

But in any case, your explanation of "Not enough money" doesn't address the core issue in my mind. Why is private health care illegal? I absolutely do not understand the principle behind denying people private health care. Is it just attempt to make all pigs equal? Or is there some other justification?

Canadians are not prohibited from seeking and paying for for-profit health care in other countries where ever it is offered. Except in a very few rare insances Canada does not fund for-profit healthcare with public money.

Here is some information on the Canada Health Act: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/medi-assur/overview-apercu/index_e.html

The Romanow Report: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/care/romanow/hcc0086.html

As to your question re a funding adequacy-level, I'm not an analyst but it's reasonable to assume that the funds which were removed need to be replaced, funding levels need to be returned to pre-1993 levels, adjusted for inflation, and additional funds may be required to ameliorate damages to the delivery system and infrastructure due to the past fifteen years which saw insufficient funding for health care.

Regarding budgets, debt and deficits I recommend going to your public library and checking out Linda McQuaig's "Shooting the Hippo".

review: http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/96-1/issue4/hippo.html

Re: Private health insurance. I've found a number of references claiming that some provinces do not allow private insurance at all, but none are what I would call extremely credible so I will take your word at face value on that one. Thanks for the link to the text of the Health Act, but I'm not interested in Canadian health care enough to go through that much lawyer-ese.

Re: The Romanow Report. It's somewhat dated, but interesting. The summary page is interesting in itself and suggests that funding be increased by $6.5 billion. Looking at Canadian-healthcare.org, I see that funding (according to that site) is currently at over $35 billion annually. So, taking those two numbers together and multiplying by 10 to get to the US population we get something on the order of $410 billion US for coverage equivalent to "fully funded" Canadian health care. Ouch. That's a pile of cash. And that's assuming Canadian health care prices, not US prices.

Re: Shooting the Hippo. Hmmm... Just glanced at a couple of reviews and the Wiki for Linda McQuaig, so it's not as if I read the book. But just from what I get from the reviews, I don't see how it applies to a balanced budget. A balanced budget, as far as I understand the term, is one in which out-go is limited to equal that of in-come. Raising the rates on bonds has absolutely no connection as far as I can see (although I'm sure clever politicians might see some advantage in it) to the balancing of the budget. As of right now, the US is something on the order of $9 TRILLION in debt. Looking at recent T-bill rates, they hover around 3.6%. That means that the US is currently paying something on the order of $350 billion a year in interest alone. Raising the rate even just 1% would make that problem worse (call it $400 billion), not better. That seems to have absolutely nothing to do with arguing a balanced budget. In the end, it works out to something like this: If the US was not a debtor nation, it would have about $350 billion more to spend on other things than servicing debt. Seems pretty straight-forward to me.

The Romanow Report is the final result of a long and fully comprehensive survey of Canada's healthcare system. It is not "dated", it's still wholly relevant. Its recommendations were ignored.

Re "Shooting the Hippo". You're not going to get much from reading a bunch of reviews online. That's why I suggested you read the book.

I'd quess that by closing several dodgy tax loopholes and beginning to tax billionaires fairly the United States could probably raise more than half the revenue required for universal health care.

I'd say your guess is founded on propaganda and misinformation.

That's a rather strange thing to say. I've not seen any data or 'misinformation' about any of this. Your country isn't that big a concern to me. My impression is only founded on what to me seems reasonable.

Are you trying to say that if the very top fraction of the top decile were taxed at an equivalent rate as average middle-class USians that this would NOT raise significant tax revenue, and that there do NOT exist many dubious loopholes for wealthy individuals to avoid being taxed at rates paid by those who cannot afford tax lawyers, etc?

I'd also guess that returning corporate tax rates to a past level would go a long way to funding not only the remaining shortfall vis a vis universal health care, but would also provide additional revenue for other necessary social spending.

I'll accept that the US isn't a big concern to you and I'll try to adjust my comments accordingly. The current US tax code is extremely broken, but it does tax income in a "progressive" (I hate that word, it implies something it isn't but it is the correct term) manner whereby the income of the higher tax brackets is taxed at a greater percentage than the income of the lower brackets. Therefore, those in the highest bracket end up paying proportionately more than do those in the lower brackets. According to the Tax Foundation, in 2005 the top 1% of income earners in the US paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes on an adjusted gross income of 21.2%. If there is anyone reading who didn't understand that, the top 1% of households earned 21.2% of the income in the US and paid 39.4% of the income taxes. The "rich" are already paying more than their "fair share" in the US.

Where the system is broken is that we are attempting to use the tax code in order to push social engineering changes on the nation. Sure, it sounds great, and we can all agree with some things (like tax credits for hybrid and alternative energy vehicles) but the problem is that as administrations come and go they all try social engineering towards different ends. What you end up with is a mess of rediculous, outdated programs that no one wants to cut and anger a part of the electorate. I assume by the tone of your posts that you are against the concept of a lower tax rate on capital gains because it "favors" the wealthy. I ask that you understand the social engineering that was originally behind the concept. Lower capital gains taxes encourage investment in the markets. This in turn spurs the economy. Does it favor the rich? Hard to say. Certainly people with disposable income to invest get the direct benefit, but how about the people who have their pension plans invested in the stock market? A strong stock market, driven by a steady influx of capital from "the rich" directly improves the lives of those totally dependant upon their pensions. Is that good? Or bad?

In the end, I believe that the US government should not be using an income tax to try to control the behavior of its citizens anyway. Personally, I believe in a consumer tax system that completely abolishes the income tax and replaces it with a sales tax. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with health care and this video, so I'll leave it for another time.

What you call social engineering, when viewed from the other side of the wealth-equation, many would call social justice.

Here's an interesting read from Forbes on the subject of taxation which presents a picture quite different from that which you've offered.

http://www.forbes.com/ceonetwork/2004/02/12/0212chat_transcript.html

CEO Network Chat
Q&A: David Cay Johnston
02.12.04, 4:11 PM ET

"What follows is the transcript of a Feb. 11 online chat on the Forbes.com CEO Network with New York Times reporter David Cay Johnston, author of Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich--and Cheat Everybody Else (Portfolio, $25.95). The chat was moderated by Mark Lewis of Forbes.com.

Mark Lewis: Welcome, everyone. Let's get started. David, you begin your book with the statement, "I believe that taxes are at the core of our democracy." What do you mean?

David Cay Johnston: All governments have taxes. And governments that lose their tax systems cease to exist. Taxes are the means by which we decide how we're going to finance maintaining our democracy--who pays how much, how the burdens are distributed.

What's wrong with our current tax system?

Most Americans believe what turns out to be a myth--that we heavily tax the highest-income Americans to subsidize the poor. What the government's data show is that the middle class and upper middle class--people making $30,000 to $500,000 per year--are subsidizing the highest-income taxpayers. Tax rates on the middle and upper middle classes are rising, the government's data show, but for the people who make millions per year, effective tax rates are falling dramatically.

Secondly, law enforcement has collapsed. I name two billionaires who've testified under oath that for 30 years they never filed a tax return while running a business in New York. Nothing has happened to them, or to most of the many other people I name in my book who admit or even brag about not paying taxes.

How did things get this way?

Most Americans, if they ever meet a senator or congressman, shake their hand in the mall at election time. Important donors, about one in 850 Americans, get to sit down with their congressman and explain in detail their grievances. Every politician will tell you, you cannot buy their vote. All you can buy is access. Well, access has bought the attention of Congress, so that members are focused on the needs and welfare of their donors, not their typical constituents.

Proof? Two days after 9/11, the first tax bill introduced in Congress was estate tax relief for the victims, which did absolutely nothing for the firefighters, police officers, secretaries and volunteers who died. It wasn't a guaranteed college education for the orphans of 9/11. It was tax relief for the very narrow group, probably less than 2% of those who died, who would owe estate taxes.

How would you change the tax system?

I don't know, but you do. By "you" I mean that all of us, if we understand the reality of how our current tax system works and the principles of taxation, can come up with a better system, one that encourages strivers and rewards those who play by the rules instead of focusing its benefits on those who are already stunningly rich.

You direct numerous barbs at the "super-rich," whom we at Forbes like to celebrate as wealth-creators. Do you think the tax system should be designed to prevent the amassing of great fortunes?

The tax system should be encouraging prosperity and wealth, and making sure those are as widespread as possible. But what the government's data show is that we are taxing away the ability of the middle class to save, and damaging their prosperity. And by radically lowering the effective tax rates of the highest-income Americans, we are concentrating wealth and income very, very, very narrowly.

In 1970, the top 1/100th of 1% of Americans had about 1% of the income. And the bottom third of Americans had more than 10% of the income. Now, they're equal. Just 27,000 people have as much income as the bottom 96 million Americans, who in real terms have less income today than in 1970. And the number of people it takes today to account for 1% of all income? In 1970 it was more than 20,000 people. Today it's less than 400.

How high would the top rate be in your tax system?

Again, I don't know. What we do know is that relatively lower marginal rates reduce tax cheating, but for them to work, we have to broaden the tax base. We only tax about half of income each year. So if we tax all income, clearly we could significantly lower rates on everyone.

What do you think Congress should do about the Alternative Minimum Tax?

The taxpayer advocate at the IRS recommends repeal. The problem is, some really good tax lawyers say that would create new loopholes. Some other ways to address this are to set a high-income threshold for the tax to apply, say $500,000 per year and up, and eliminate, in the AMT calculations, the ordinary deductions and exemptions people take for themselves, their spouses, their children, their state and local income and property taxes, and the standard deductions. Otherwise, in 2013 about 43 million households will be on the AMT.

In this morning's New York Times you write about a gentleman named Irwin Schiff, who asserts that the federal income tax is illegal and does not have to be paid. Schiff clearly is an extreme case, but how deeply do Americans in general resent the current tax system? Can that resentment be harnessed to support the reforms you advocate?

The number of people who believe that the United States government is a criminal organization that illegally extracts income taxes and imprisons those who challenge it with no legal cause is a lot bigger than I ever imagined. There are at least 7,500 business owners who don't withhold taxes and turn them over, according to the General Accounting Office--and those are just the ones the government knows about. There are people all over the country who grit their teeth and pay their taxes but subscribe to this dangerous and nutty idea that the federal government is a criminal organization. That's a sign of how oppressive the tax system has become on the bottom third of Americans whose incomes in real terms have been falling for years, while they're being squeezed by rising taxes at all levels of government.

Every thoughtful American should be concerned when a man whose own psychiatrist says he's crazy--Irwin Schiff--has among his supporters business owners and others who are not on the economic fringe.

Any final thoughts?

The promise of our Constitution is that we together can work out the solutions to our problems. But doing that requires that, one, people understand what's actually happening in our tax system rather than the blather of politicians, and two, that people participate as voters and as citizens who discuss public issues with their friends and neighbors. The reason our tax system is out of whack is that the narrow segment of very high-income people who don't want to pay taxes has been actively engaged in exercising their citizenship. And too many of the rest of us have been watching Jennifer Lopez.

That's all we have time for today. Thanks for participating."

The quotation that follows is excerpted from this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/oct/31/usnews

_________________________________________

Warren Buffett, the famous investor known as the "Sage of Omaha", has complained that he pays a lower rate of tax than any of his staff - including his receptionist. Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52bn (£25bn), said: "The taxation system has tilted towards the rich and away from the middle class in the last 10 years. It's dramatic; I don't think it's appreciated and I think it should be addressed."

During an interview with NBC television, Mr Buffett brandished an informal survey of 15 of his 18 office staff at his Berkshire Hathaway empire. The billionaire said he was paying 17.7% payroll and income tax, compared with an average in the office of 32.9%.

"There wasn't anyone in the office, from the receptionist up, who paid as low a tax rate and I have no tax planning; I don't have an accountant or use tax shelters. I just follow what the US Congress tells me to do," he said.

Mr Buffett also took a pot shot at hedge fund managers. He said: "Hedge fund operators have spent a record amount lobbying in the last few months - they give money to the political campaigns. Who represents the cleaning lady?"

_________________________________________

Well, I feel better about my long posts now anyway. It may or may not make you feel better to know that I had already read or heard about both of those. I'm not going to attempt to respond to every point in those since they are still not germane to the original topic. Let me pick out just two:

1) "...but for the people who make millions per year, effective tax rates are falling dramatically." Effective tax rates is exactly what I was talking about earlier. That's a fancy way of saying, "not just income but capital gains taxes and dividends as well". I've already stipulated that to be true in my earlier post and I have also pointed out the original social engineering behind the concept. Nothing in either of your posts has remotely touched on my point or my question to you.

2) "Secondly, law enforcement has collapsed." No one is above the law. Everyone should be prosecuted for breaking it. That so many people (not just the evil rich) get away with cheating the tax system is a sign that the system is thoroughly and completely broken. Again notice that I have previously stated that this is true.

This is not a tax or budget video and it's about to expire anyway. You want to continue to talk tax / budget, go start posting on my video about that. To conclude this particular thread, let me just point out that what you call social justice remains an attempt at social engineering. Were you in power in the US government, I believe you would attempt to manipulate the tax code in order to improve the lives of the middle class as best you saw how. Given that, it is still an attempt to control people through the tax code. I on the other hand think there is a fundamental entitlement to the fruits of ones labor. Were I in office, I would attempt to completely eliminate the income tax system and replace it with a consumer tax system. Social engineering, no matter if its intended for justice or injustice, is still social engineering.

test

"It may or may not make you feel better to know that I had already read or heard about both of those."

What do feelings have to do with anything here? You're being patronizing. That's rude. And I don't see where you've asked me a question, by the way.

"No one is above the law. Everyone should be prosecuted for breaking it. That so many people (not just the evil rich) get away with cheating the tax system is a sign that the system is thoroughly and completely broken. Again notice that I have previously stated that this is true."

First off, you're attributing words to me I haven't said or implied with your "evil rich" quip. That's not kosher. Secondly, your insinution that people of every level of wealth break tax laws and that it then follows that "the system is thoroughly and completely broken" is not supported anywhere in either article. But you imply as much, and then you go on to marshall this false premise to support your opinion. This is a form of dishonesty.

"Were you in power in the US government, I believe you would attempt to manipulate the tax code in order to improve the lives of the middle class as best you saw how."

I take that as a compliment. But I'd not limit my efforts to the middle class of course; the marginalized and disenfranchised poor are at least as deserving of fairness as are the middle-class.

"I on the other hand think there is a fundamental entitlement to the fruits of ones labor."

The word "labour" is meaningless when we are talking about the uber-rich; the only fruits in question here are derived by the labour of others--for productive property accrues value on its own while owners sit idle or lobby their friends in government to manipulate legislation in their favour ie., for more welfare-for-the-wealthy.

"You want to continue to talk tax / budget, go start posting on my video about that."

I've never been one to follow orders, bub; I'll have to decline your attempt to socially engineer me.

So what you call social engineering I call social justice and what I call social justice you call social engineering. But your position is an abstraction; it's diffuse, widespread and intangible. It derives entirely from your perverse ideology where the property rights of a few hundred multi-billionaires and the under-taxed mega-corporations take precedence over the needs of the citizenry to have access to universal health care.

And you know quite well that your consumption tax scheme is regressive and unjust; for although goods are taxed at the same rate whether rich or poor the poor pay a much greater percentage of their wealth in tax than the wealthy can ever spend. You can argue that the wealthy consume more on goods and therefore pay more tax but this merely obfuscates the point which bears repeating: With regressive consumption-based tax schemes the poor pay a much greater percentage of their wealth in tax, therefore it is punative and unjust.

"Social engineering, no matter if its intended for justice or injustice, is still social engineering."

In other words "it is so because you say it is so--for no other reason but this." Except I'm not buying any of that today.

And by the way, everything I've posted is germane to the topic. You were wondering about possibilities for funding universal health care for the United States. I've pointed out huge untapped areas of potential tax revenue that wouldn't at all strain the debt-ridden middle-class. (But you were just trolling here, right?)

Wow. Again with the long post. Because you quote me and end up calling me a troll, I’ll take the time and effort to go through each of your points. I realize that by now, no one but you and I are reading this so I’ll speak directly to you rather than attempting to make my comments applicable to others.
“What do feelings have to do with anything here? You're being patronizing. That's rude. And I don't see where you've asked me a question, by the way.”
Patronizing, maybe. I am attempting to show you that I do read and listen to the material pertinent to this discussion. I am not “speaking out of my rear” so to speak. I am informed and was letting you know that. My suggestion that it may or may not make you feel better is my attempt to signify that you may be glad to discuss this with someone who is reasonably well read or you may be upset because you were trying to teach me something by pointing out something of which I might not be aware. As to the question, glance up a ways and you will see this: “A strong stock market, driven by a steady influx of capital from "the rich" directly improves the lives of those totally dependant upon their pensions. Is that good? Or bad?” Personally, I think that this is a good thing.

“First off, you're attributing words to me I haven't said or implied with your "evil rich" quip.”

Granted. I apologize for lumping you in with those people who think that people with massive amounts of wealth are evil. All I have as a defense is the tone I have derived from your posts leading back to the original quip about taxing billionaires fairly.


“Secondly, your insinution that people of every level of wealth break tax laws and that it then follows that "the system is thoroughly and completely broken" is not supported anywhere in either article. But you imply as much, and then you go on to marshall this false premise to support your opinion. This is a form of dishonesty.”

So now I am dishonest? Interesting. I don’t see anywhere that I suggested that either article discussed people of every income level breaking tax laws. What I said was “That so many people (not just the evil rich) get away with cheating the tax system is a sign that the system is thoroughly and completely broken.” Please try to take this in the way that I mean it. I realize that you are not a US citizen and in my mind your attempt to label me as dishonest means that you are not aware of some commonly known facts about taxes in the US. I will simply say that there is a vast array of methods used by everyone including the rich to avoid paying taxes on income. It may be a waiter under-reporting his tips, a construction worker paying their nanny/gardener in cash, or a small business owner hiding income within their business expenses. This is not an exhaustive list, but all of these share a common thread: they require conscious thought and are a direct attempt to cheat on taxes. This is all illegal and yet it is done every year by people from the highest to lowest income brackets. I’m a firm believer in the rule of law and even though it is a tax code I do not agree with, it is the law and everyone should be made to follow it. Not just the rich. Everyone. This doesn’t even include the people who unintentionally cheat on their taxes because the tax code is ridiculously complex and nearly impossible to understand. Here (http://media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2003/09/04/NewsInBrief/Irs-Help.Centers.Gave.Incorrect.Information-457639.shtml) is an AP story that shows that 43% of the time the actual IRS help desk gave incorrect or no answer to tax questions. The actual people paid to help you do the right thing on your tax forms told you the wrong information or gave you no help 43 freaking percent of the time. That is truly insane. That is yet another sign that the US tax system is well and truly broken. To put it into numbers, the IRS estimated in 2001 that 15% ($353 billion) of taxes went unpaid (http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2007/307/essentials/p42.htm). It’s certainly not all because of intent to defraud the government, but that represents a sizeable chunk. In summary, my premise is not false. You read it as false because you inferred that I was only discussing the material in the two articles given. I was not. Facts support my opinion in this particular point. My premise was that everyone cheats. Facts show that rich people cheat, middle class people cheat, and poor people cheat. My opinion was that everyone who cheats should be punished.


“I take that as a compliment. But I'd not limit my efforts to the middle class of course; the marginalized and disenfranchised poor are at least as deserving of fairness as are the middle-class.”

It wasn’t really meant as a complement nor was it meant as an insult. I was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt and suggesting that you would try and help the people as you thought best rather than helping yourself. I don’t know you, so I can’t judge your character. I was just listing my assumption before moving on to my next argument.



“The word "labour" is meaningless when we are talking about the uber-rich; the only fruits in question here are derived by the labour of others--for productive property accrues value on its own while owners sit idle or lobby their friends in government to manipulate legislation in their favour ie., for more welfare-for-the-wealthy.”

Here is where we dramatically different in outlook. I am not going to try and change your opinion, it would take quite a bit more than this forum to change either of our opinions I believe. But in any case, I am going to state mine more in detail and hopefully you will see some of the basis of my views. You state “uber-rich” like they appeared out of thin air as if through a miracle. I contend that this is not the case. As I see it, rich people in general (uber and non-uber alike) come from one of three places:

1) Inherited wealth. Inherited wealth exists and in some cases has been passed down for centuries. Inherited wealth did not appear from nothing however. At some point in time, someone earned that wealth and it has been passed down. That wealth is “earned” though the person holding it now is not the one who earned it. Income derived from this wealth is also earned in that the wealth itself must be risked in some fashion in order to generate income or the principal itself must be sold in order to realize a gain.

2) Earned wealth. Earned wealth is the most common form of wealth (at least in the US, read Tom Stanley’s the Millionaire Next Door). Earned wealth comes directly from the fruit of one’s labor. It may be an assembly line worker who has earned a good wage and invested wisely, a plumber who has worked hard and grown a business, or any of the five richest men in the world who all earned the greatest portion of their money within their own lifetime.

3) Obtained wealth. Generally, thieves. I lump in everyone from Bonny and Clyde to Ferdinand Marcos in this category. These people take the wealth of others through force, intimidation, trickery, etc. I have already stated my position on the law (see above).

You appear to believe that people become obscenely wealthy (and I use that merely as an adjective, not as a statement on their character) through idleness and massaging the system in their favor. That may be the case in some instances, but for the most part wealth comes from a good business plan and hard work. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are great examples of this. Yes they both started from somewhat privileged backgrounds, but their real wealth came from their hard work. They may not have built buildings or dug holes, but both of them are known for their incredible work ethics. They earned their money fairly and no one has the right to take it away just because they are wealthy. Just because there are fewer rich people than poor people doesn’t enter into it.


“And you know quite well that your consumption tax scheme is regressive and unjust.”

You claim to know what I know do you? Interesting. Somehow I doubt it. In this case, you are quite wrong. First, I don’t claim any credit for the concept of a consumptive tax. Let me quote Alexander Hamilton. “It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue.” He concisely stated what is self evident truth, i.e. that consumptive taxes are self limiting in that too much consumption tax reduces revenue by reducing consumption itself. But that doesn’t address your point. You suggest that “my” consumptive tax scheme is unjust and go on to list why it is without any benefit being given to “me” for forethought on the topic. You make assumptions, assign them to me, and then argue against them. Just for thought, I’ll list two possible scenarios which are neither regressive nor unjust. In scenario 1, consumptive taxes are placed on all goods except utilities, food, daycare, and healthcare. Thus, if you are at or below the poverty level and spending all of your money on just getting by you pay no taxes whatsoever. The more wealth you have, the more money you spend on things other than these items and the more tax you pay thus placing a “progressive” tax burden upon the wealthy. You can argue whether housing should be included in the exemption, but that is another discussion. Scenario 2 is a plan already in place and proposed before both the US Senate and House of Representatives. It’s the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org). In essence, it is also a sales tax except instead of making exemptions for certain goods it has no exemptions at all and instead gives taxpayers a “prebate” each month that makes up for taxes which would be paid on basic services. The authors make a good case why this should be so and illustrate how it means the middle and lower tax brackets either pay the same or pay even less tax while they do now but I don’t know that I am convinced that the bureaucracy created would be able process these prebates in a timely manner. Both of these cases use a national sales tax to totally replace corporate, income, capital gains, payroll, and estate taxes. In the case of the Fair Tax, extensive research has been done already to determine the effects of this on the economy as well as on taxpayers in different income brackets. For the Fair Tax at least, studies show an across the board reduction in overall effective tax rate with the greatest reduction (1.5% effective lifetime tax rate) for those in the low-income brackets and the least reduction (20.5% effective lifetime tax rate) in the highest brackets. So, in effect, everyone pays less taxes and yet the program is revenue neutral. And because of the prebate (or in scenario 1, the exemptions), it ends up retaining the “progressive” nature of the current income tax system.


“In other words "it is so because you say it is so--for no other reason but this." Except I don't buy it.”

Whatever. Let me reword it and see if you can buy it this way. If I attempt to force you to accept my views because I think they are right, it doesn’t change the fact that I am trying to force you to accept my viewpoint.


“You're transparent and you're predictable. Please put some effort into being interesting.”

I don’t believe that you mean any of it this way, but I take this as a complement even with you sticking smilies at the end of your sentences. I aim to be transparent and I have made no attempt to disguise my true opinions. And I’m glad you think that I am predictable because it means to me that I am being consistent. I shrug off the fact that you think you can “predict” me and yet you were 180 degrees wrong about what I “know” as discussed above.


“You weren't really. You just been trolling here.”

And finally, you resort to calling me a troll. It’s funny because I have made no aspersions as to your character and have in fact accepted your statements as true previously in this exchange. Since you can “predict” me, I don’t need to explain, but just in case anyone else reads this far let me explain to them. My original motivation behind posting this video and soliciting comments was simple. I accept that because of the way the US is heading, we are likely to institute some form of universal health care in the next ten years or so. Given that is true, I was looking for comments on how to ensure that a situation like that described in the video is prevented and discussion on how the US should construct a health care system. In support of this, I stated in the summary of this video the following statement “The dialogue is heavily slanted and there is a clear agenda to the message, but the underlying points are valid and worthy of discussion. If the US is truly going to attempt universal healthcare, how can we design a system so that something like this doesn't happen in the US?” At the very heart of the matter to me is the concern that American citizens won’t have access to the best possible care here in the US. In my mind, sending our citizens to some other country for health care that they can’t get here (or at least in a timely enough fashion such that they don’t die while waiting) is not an acceptable solution. The first few exchanges between us addressed the fact that money was the issue, not some other fundamental flaw in the CHA and this was directly related to the discussion at hand. The conversation took a downward turn around the time we started discussing the “fairness” of tax law.

Uffda! That's a lot of heavy discussion there. It seems to me what we have is a polarization of reality and idealism. Ideally, communism should work out great, but in reality it's a poor substitute for a functioning democracy. Same with health care systems in my opinion. Both sides have apparent benefits but both have negatives too.

As for which system is better. Ideally it would be having a government run health care system. Here's the big downside for me. I don't like having one option. If I want to see someone who I feel is more competent then I should be able to without having to involve the government or paying for it out of my own pocket. I don't want to have doctors who get paid the same wither they help me or not. I don't want to pay thousands of dollars a year for doctors visits I won't ever use.

With privatized health care I can see whomever I want. I don't have to pay for services I don't need. I can see any doctor I want. And my taxes are lower. However it does tend to put a strain on those who are not as economically successful as most. However the U.S. Government does provide a failing Social Security and health care program for it.

Why does it fail? That can be blamed on several factors. But there is one that no one will bring up. Because individuals are irresponsible. There is no reason why anyone who has common sense when it comes to personal finances can't have a good health plan for retirement, which is when medical expenses are at their highest cost. Privatization allows for that.

There is a rule I leaned in an economics class. 'When the expenses of an individual are placed in the command of a government, the government will always use more of those expenses then the individuals can contribute.' It was meant as a joke but, as Shakespeare wrote, "behind every jest there is a truth."

Oh and BTW, resorting to personal attacks is the sign of a weak argument.

I appreciate your comments Gorgon and I think that in a lot of ways our views are similar. If we assume that within the near future there will be government run health care in the US, then we need to pay serious consideration to what systems work / don't work and the cost associated with each. Off the cuff, I would say the best system I could think of (accepting the least of all evils) would be one which set up a government run system in parallel with the private system. Sort of "health care of last resort". That would allow for me to keep my private insurance to use at doctors of my choice but would provide *some* level of coverage for even those people who do not have their own private insurance. I haven't put much thought into it so far, so that idea is subject to change.

public healthcare ftw!

we just need it to be run by people who don't make money out of privatisation or big pharma or huge overbudget computer projects.

Rugar, I can't read such large unparagraphed blocks of text without straining my eyes. I've just quickly skimmed your post.

***

"I personally think that society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I've earned."

—Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway

***


You're being silly with your insinuation that I'm potentially not aware of underground transactions because I don't live in the United States--unless you think that's the same as not living on planet earth.

You wanted to see if the money could - hypothetically - be located for the US to have universal health care. I pointed you in what I think is the right direction. You're opposed to my suggestions on ideological grounds. Are there any suggestions you'd have been willing to consider? You've given me the impression that the answer is no and that therefore you'd already arrived at your conclusion before you asked the question. This is what is meant by "trolling". I didn't call you a troll.

The argument around wealth vis a vis labour and productive property collapses into the chicken/egg paradox--except, unlike with chickens, wealth always scales back to labour. There's no getting around it; it's turtles the whole way down.

Returning to the original question; the United States could still possibly see every single citizen covered under some form of public health insurance. But to do so a great deal of money needs to be located. This money can be raised by returning corporate tax rates to prior levels and fairly taxing the very rich.

I've read your complaints about "social engineering" or coercion or whatever, but I don't think they're that significant. I suggest that your protests arise from an absolutist abstraction. As I've already stated my concern for social justice is not at all in the abstract. People die every day for lack of health care.

Ultimately society as a whole must be the final arbiter of the public good--and to that end it can always draft and pass legislation after weighing respective consequential harms and benefits.

Discarding this video. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 4 days.