Free the US Corporations from this huge burden

[amrchaos]

I see CONZ have no viable answers to the OP.

Usual.

First, I am not a conservative.

Now the op claimed that corporations will benefit from UHC. I am assuimg this is due to the corporations not paying for it.

So tell us, who is paying for it? Healthcare just does not fall from the sky like Manna, OK


Also, let us assume it is paid by the workers. What is the difference in a worker buying insurance for him/herself versus the worker paying for UHC through their wages?

Not much if we do not consider choice of policy, support from the employer(which exist in the current system) and freedom from a second layer of bureaucracy that will come in due to the presence of the government. (The first layer was due to the private entity selling the policy. That is already a mess. Adding government bureaucrats is not an improvement.)

So even if it "helps" the American coroporation, it is not a "help" to the overall economy due to the end-consumer/worker is getting hit with an inconvience that does not make the entire economy more efficient. In fact, there is more restriction on the employee due to the reasons listed.

 

[Claudette]

This one sticks in your craw huh?


Not one of these clowns can deal with facts.

why do you people hate American corporations?

Universal health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sometimes the health funds are derived from a mixture of insurance premiums, salary related mandatory contributions by employees and/or employers to regulated sickness funds, and by government taxes. These insurance based systems tend to reimburse private or public medical providers, often at heavily regulated rates, through mutual or publicly owned medical insurers. A few countries such as the Netherlands and Switzerland operate via privately owned but heavily regulated private insurers that are not allowed to make a profit from the mandatory element of insurance but can profit by selling supplemental insurance.

Universal health care is a broad concept that has been implemented in several ways. The common denominator for all such programs is some form of government action aimed at extending access to health care as widely as possible and setting minimum standards. Most implement universal health care through legislation, regulation and taxation. Legislation and regulation direct what care must be provided, to whom, and on what basis. Usually some costs are borne by the patient at the time of consumption but the bulk of costs come from a combination of compulsory insurance and tax revenues

And BTW anybody can be a "corporation", even one person, so all "corporations" are going to be taxed in some way to pay for this. How else is the government going to get the money? Grow it on trees?

by everyone paying.

everyone needs healthcare.

everyone should pay.


That is what universal healthcare does.


why spend so many dollars making sure someone makes a profit when the system is unsustainable because of a need for profit?

And who the hell do you think will be forced to pay for the poor and downtrodden. You know the freeloaders who abound in this country??

The folks who are "so poor" that they can't pay for anything.

Why all the hardworking, taxpaying citizens. Thats who.

 

[UpAndAbout]

Universal health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sometimes the health funds are derived from a mixture of insurance premiums, salary related mandatory contributions by employees and/or employers to regulated sickness funds, and by government taxes. These insurance based systems tend to reimburse private or public medical providers, often at heavily regulated rates, through mutual or publicly owned medical insurers. A few countries such as the Netherlands and Switzerland operate via privately owned but heavily regulated private insurers that are not allowed to make a profit from the mandatory element of insurance but can profit by selling supplemental insurance.

Universal health care is a broad concept that has been implemented in several ways. The common denominator for all such programs is some form of government action aimed at extending access to health care as widely as possible and setting minimum standards. Most implement universal health care through legislation, regulation and taxation. Legislation and regulation direct what care must be provided, to whom, and on what basis. Usually some costs are borne by the patient at the time of consumption but the bulk of costs come from a combination of compulsory insurance and tax revenues

And BTW anybody can be a "corporation", even one person, so all "corporations" are going to be taxed in some way to pay for this. How else is the government going to get the money? Grow it on trees?

by everyone paying.

everyone needs healthcare.

everyone should pay.


That is what universal healthcare does.


why spend so many dollars making sure someone makes a profit when the system is unsustainable because of a need for profit?

And who the hell do you think will be forced to pay for the poor and downtrodden. You know the freeloaders who abound in this country??

The folks who are "so poor" that they can't pay for anything.

Why all the hardworking, taxpaying citizens. Thats who.

That's exactly right!

 

[eflatminor]

This chart proves it.

File:Total health expenditure per capita, US Dollars PPP.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, it really doesn't. That we pay more for healthcare than the other nations listed on your chart does not prove we will pay less under the scheme you're advocating. You're going to have to do a lot more work than that to support your argument.

YES it does.

It cost alot less when you take the PROFIT SCHEME our of the equation.

THAT IS FACT!

So why doesn't it cost less in fees and taxes to ship a box via the post office vs UPS?

The problem with your "logic" is that whatever profit is realized in any market costs consumers far less than the additional taxes and fees required to support government bureaucracies that replace the profit-oriented companies. Then there's the problem of a lack of competition under government control. Competition is required to keep prices low, which doesn't happen with government monopolies.

 

[Dr.Drock]

yes so its nothing but middle school insults for this subject from the right

I haven't heard anyone use the term "Oreo" since middle school.

So not only are you a hypocrite who uses middle school insults, you're a scumbag racist to go along with it.

 

[Truthmatters]

No, it really doesn't. That we pay more for healthcare than the other nations listed on your chart does not prove we will pay less under the scheme you're advocating. You're going to have to do a lot more work than that to support your argument.

YES it does.

It cost alot less when you take the PROFIT SCHEME our of the equation.

THAT IS FACT!

So why doesn't it cost less in fees and taxes to ship a box via the post office vs UPS?

The problem with your "logic" is that whatever profit is realized in any market costs consumers far less than the additional taxes and fees required to support government bureaucracies that replace the profit-oriented companies. Then there's the problem of a lack of competition under government control. Competition is required to keep prices low, which doesn't happen with government monopolies.

prove that clap trap with some facts instead of merely right wing hackery

 

[naturegirl]

YES it does.

It cost alot less when you take the PROFIT SCHEME our of the equation.

THAT IS FACT!

So why doesn't it cost less in fees and taxes to ship a box via the post office vs UPS?

The problem with your "logic" is that whatever profit is realized in any market costs consumers far less than the additional taxes and fees required to support government bureaucracies that replace the profit-oriented companies. Then there's the problem of a lack of competition under government control. Competition is required to keep prices low, which doesn't happen with government monopolies.

prove that clap trap with some facts instead of merely right wing hackery

He doesn't have to prove anything, when was the last time you mailed a package at the USPS?? Sent one UPS?? or Sent one FedEx?

It's your stoopid topic, you need to prove your OP, which you haven't.

BTW, why is this in the Politics forum??

 

[syrenn]

YES it does.

It cost alot less when you take the PROFIT SCHEME our of the equation.

THAT IS FACT!

So why doesn't it cost less in fees and taxes to ship a box via the post office vs UPS?

The problem with your "logic" is that whatever profit is realized in any market costs consumers far less than the additional taxes and fees required to support government bureaucracies that replace the profit-oriented companies. Then there's the problem of a lack of competition under government control. Competition is required to keep prices low, which doesn't happen with government monopolies.

prove that clap trap with some facts instead of merely right wing hackery

What percentage of people do NOT pay federal taxes?


That will be the very same percentage who will not have to buy or pay for universal health care....


you lying racist hack.

 

[Truthmatters]

File:Total health expenditure per capita, US Dollars PPP.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This right here proves our FOR PROFIT system cost more

 

[Truthmatters]

So why doesn't it cost less in fees and taxes to ship a box via the post office vs UPS?

The problem with your "logic" is that whatever profit is realized in any market costs consumers far less than the additional taxes and fees required to support government bureaucracies that replace the profit-oriented companies. Then there's the problem of a lack of competition under government control. Competition is required to keep prices low, which doesn't happen with government monopolies.

prove that clap trap with some facts instead of merely right wing hackery

What percentage of people do NOT pay federal taxes?


That will be the very same percentage who will not have to buy or pay for universal health care....


you lying racist hack.

Why do you refuse the facts that other systems pay less and get better care?

 

[California Girl]

HM Revenue & Customs: National Insurance for employers: the basics


from your link

From my link.... what?

Employers pay NIC - National Insurance Contributions.... that's health care. Twit. They pay.... corporations.... employers.... they fucking pay, employees - they pay too.

Currently, their NHS costs around £100billion... for a country with some 60 million people. Convert that to US$, and do the fucking math. And that's not enough.... the UK's system is collapsing.

You're such a moron..... and a racist.

IT COMES OUT OF THE EMPLOEES MONEY!



why do you refuse to face facts?

It comes out of both! Employees pay. Yes. Employers pay. Yes. It is funded by both employers and employees.... you dumb fuck.

So... one has to ask... why do you refuse to face facts?

 

[eflatminor]

YES it does.

It cost alot less when you take the PROFIT SCHEME our of the equation.

THAT IS FACT!

So why doesn't it cost less in fees and taxes to ship a box via the post office vs UPS?

The problem with your "logic" is that whatever profit is realized in any market costs consumers far less than the additional taxes and fees required to support government bureaucracies that replace the profit-oriented companies. Then there's the problem of a lack of competition under government control. Competition is required to keep prices low, which doesn't happen with government monopolies.

prove that clap trap with some facts instead of merely right wing hackery

Prove what? Are you suggesting the Post Office costs less than UPS? Are you saying monopolies drive prices down? How is anything I've written here insincere? If you can't retort with specificity, don't resort to name calling and ad hominem attacks. That only makes YOU look bad.

 

[eflatminor]

Why do you refuse the facts that other systems pay less and get better care?

I lived in the UK for five years and experienced their healthcare system. I can tell you unquestionably, their system does NOT provide better care. Far worse in fact. Sure, if you've got no money and have a minor issue, you get care with no immediate out of pocket costs. But, if you have a serious medical need now, expect to wait FAR longer for care than we do in America. That is my personal experience anyway.

 

[Truthmatters]

you are one person.

these are the real facts.

 

[Truthmatters]

From my link.... what?

Employers pay NIC - National Insurance Contributions.... that's health care. Twit. They pay.... corporations.... employers.... they fucking pay, employees - they pay too.

Currently, their NHS costs around £100billion... for a country with some 60 million people. Convert that to US$, and do the fucking math. And that's not enough.... the UK's system is collapsing.

You're such a moron..... and a racist.

IT COMES OUT OF THE EMPLOEES MONEY!



why do you refuse to face facts?

It comes out of both! Employees pay. Yes. Employers pay. Yes. It is funded by both employers and employees.... you dumb fuck.

So... one has to ask... why do you refuse to face facts?

go get the numbers that show how much they pay from THEIR taxes and NOT their employees to prove your point

 

[Truthmatters]

you are one person.

these are the real facts.

File:Total health expenditure per capita, US Dollars PPP.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[naturegirl]

you are one person.

these are the real facts.

Who the h*ll are you talking to and why are you disputing personal experiences as non-fact??

 

[eflatminor]

you are one person.

these are the real facts.

File:Total health expenditure per capita, US Dollars PPP.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re-posting the same red herring of a link over and over isn't helping your case. You don't understand correlation vs causation. One last time, specifically show us how implementing universal health care will lower costs for US corporations. That was the point of your OP. Charts showing what we pay per capita is not the same thing.

 

[Truthmatters]

The National Health Service in the UK: who pays, and who is covered



Who pays for the National Health Service, and how much does it cost?


Anyone paying tax and National Insurance in the UK is contributing towards the NHS. There is no special health insurance payment or budget, instead the National Health Service is funded out of general state income.


The total NHS budget for the financial year 2007-2008 was £90 billion, approximately $135 billion (US dollars). This is about £1,500 (c. $2,200) per person in the country.The budget has risen at, on average, 3% above inflation per year since 1948.

60% of the NHS budget goes on wages and salaries.


The UK spends about 8% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on health care.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

a tax on the wealthy can pay for single payer welfare care....................lol

when medicaid and state welfare insurance plans just arent enough.........