Trump’s Budget Is a Perfect Reflection of Republican Values

[Andylusion]

Walmart pays way better than many places.

And they haven't treated me badly.

Moreover, I've applied for jobs in the past two years, that don't offer insurance to anyone, because the cost now under the "Affordable" care act, is too costly. I was told by one employer straight up "Insurance is too expensive now, so we don't offer any at all".

Another example of you screwing over the working people, and claiming we should appreciate it.

Right, Andy. The cost of health insurance never went up until ACA was passed. When I used to rate group health insurance for a living, I added in an inflation factor of 26% per year during the Carter years, not because our claims costs were going up, but just because I could get away with it!

2006 premium was $67 a month.
2014 premium was $250 a month.

That is far worse than anything before.

2006 premium was $67 a month.
2014 premium was $250 a month.

While the increase is material, the fact of the matter is that if the sums you used to pay and what you pay now are either (1) your share of an employer subsidized/sponsored/provided family health insurance policy, or (2) what you must pay for an open market family health insurance policy, you were then and continue now to pay markedly less than the average for such a plan. Indeed, in 2008, such a plan, before any employer subsidy or other out of pocket cost reductions an insured party might have received, averaged ~$12K/year. For single rather than family policies, annual premiums in 2007 ranged from $1,163 for persons under age 18 up to $5,090 for persons aged 60-64.

You're paying whatever you're paying, but the fact is that then and now, you are getting a very good price on your health insurance.

Well, the bottom line is, NOW... I'm not paying it. I can't afford it, so I'm not going to. You are going to pay my bills, and it's no ones fault but your own.

If you are ok with that... ok. But don't blame me for a situation you created.

Well, the bottom line is, NOW... I'm not paying it. I can't afford it, so I'm not going to.

That, unlike the tonal theme you earlier "rocked," I can accept as accurate.

You are going to pay my bills, and it's no ones fault but your own. If you are ok with that...

If you mean that my taxes will in part subsidize you and others, well, that is what it is. As much as I won't complain on a personal level about paying less federal income tax, I think my tax dollars are better spent helping you and other of my countrymen who need the money to subsist rather than a variety of other ways in which those same tax dollars may instead be spent.

That, unlike the tonal theme you earlier "rocked," I can accept as accurate.

Not sure what you mean by that, or what comment where I said "I rocked" that you are referring to. I most certainly do not rock. I rented out the spare bedroom to a guy from Bangladesh. He's married, has a career in programming, makes $90K a year, and is saving up to buy a house with cash. He.... rocks. I'm just a low wage worker, living out my life, at a boring but steady job.

I think my tax dollars are better spent helping you and other of my countrymen who need the money to subsist rather than a variety of other ways in which those same tax dollars may instead be spent.

But just understand, I could more than easily afforded my own health insurance before it was all screwed up. You would not have needed to help me at all.

Now... you will. And by the way, all those other ways of spending tax dollars is still going to happen.... aren't they.

You know that's true. The only difference now is that you will pay MORE taxes.

The non-partisan office estimates that the program will cost the federal government $1.34 trillion over the next decade, an increase of $136 billion from the CBO's predictions in 2015. In 2016 alone, Obamacare will cost a total of $110 billion.

Here's How Many Billions Obamacare Will Cost in 2016
​

It's just going to cost MORE tax dollars, to cover people like me who were more than willing to pay our own way.
It's not tax spend on X or Y... with you saying "I'd rather cover Y"... no no..... now it's X AND Y. Tax hikes are coming, unless something is done to fix this.

And by the way, that's just at the Federal level. Your state taxes are going to go up too. Many of those Obamacare programs require the state to fund them.

Texas recently concluded that the Medicaid expansion may add more than 2 million people to the program and cost the state up to $27 billion in a single decade. The Florida Agency for Health Care Administration estimated in April that Obamacares Medicaid expansion would require an additional $5.2 billion in spending between 2013 and 2019 and more than $1 billion a year beginning in 2017. In California, the Legislative Analysts Office concluded that Obamacares Medicaid expansion will likely add annual costs to the state budget in the low billions of dollars.​

How Obamacare Burdens Already Strained State Budgets

So you are also going to pay higher state level taxes to cover all of us. Again, it's not I can fund "police A" or "policy B". No no.... You are going to fund BOTH... and you are going to pay for it with higher taxes.

Not "either or".... BOTH.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Right, Andy. The cost of health insurance never went up until ACA was passed. When I used to rate group health insurance for a living, I added in an inflation factor of 26% per year during the Carter years, not because our claims costs were going up, but just because I could get away with it!

2006 premium was $67 a month.
2014 premium was $250 a month.

That is far worse than anything before.

2006 premium was $67 a month.
2014 premium was $250 a month.

While the increase is material, the fact of the matter is that if the sums you used to pay and what you pay now are either (1) your share of an employer subsidized/sponsored/provided family health insurance policy, or (2) what you must pay for an open market family health insurance policy, you were then and continue now to pay markedly less than the average for such a plan. Indeed, in 2008, such a plan, before any employer subsidy or other out of pocket cost reductions an insured party might have received, averaged ~$12K/year. For single rather than family policies, annual premiums in 2007 ranged from $1,163 for persons under age 18 up to $5,090 for persons aged 60-64.

You're paying whatever you're paying, but the fact is that then and now, you are getting a very good price on your health insurance.

Well, the bottom line is, NOW... I'm not paying it. I can't afford it, so I'm not going to. You are going to pay my bills, and it's no ones fault but your own.

If you are ok with that... ok. But don't blame me for a situation you created.

Well, the bottom line is, NOW... I'm not paying it. I can't afford it, so I'm not going to.

That, unlike the tonal theme you earlier "rocked," I can accept as accurate.

You are going to pay my bills, and it's no ones fault but your own. If you are ok with that...

If you mean that my taxes will in part subsidize you and others, well, that is what it is. As much as I won't complain on a personal level about paying less federal income tax, I think my tax dollars are better spent helping you and other of my countrymen who need the money to subsist rather than a variety of other ways in which those same tax dollars may instead be spent.

That, unlike the tonal theme you earlier "rocked," I can accept as accurate.

Not sure what you mean by that, or what comment where I said "I rocked" that you are referring to. I most certainly do not rock. I rented out the spare bedroom to a guy from Bangladesh. He's married, has a career in programming, makes $90K a year, and is saving up to buy a house with cash. He.... rocks. I'm just a low wage worker, living out my life, at a boring but steady job.

I think my tax dollars are better spent helping you and other of my countrymen who need the money to subsist rather than a variety of other ways in which those same tax dollars may instead be spent.

But just understand, I could more than easily afforded my own health insurance before it was all screwed up. You would not have needed to help me at all.

Now... you will. And by the way, all those other ways of spending tax dollars is still going to happen.... aren't they.

You know that's true. The only difference now is that you will pay MORE taxes.

The non-partisan office estimates that the program will cost the federal government $1.34 trillion over the next decade, an increase of $136 billion from the CBO's predictions in 2015. In 2016 alone, Obamacare will cost a total of $110 billion.

Here's How Many Billions Obamacare Will Cost in 2016
​

It's just going to cost MORE tax dollars, to cover people like me who were more than willing to pay our own way.
It's not tax spend on X or Y... with you saying "I'd rather cover Y"... no no..... now it's X AND Y. Tax hikes are coming, unless something is done to fix this.

And by the way, that's just at the Federal level. Your state taxes are going to go up too. Many of those Obamacare programs require the state to fund them.

Texas recently concluded that the Medicaid expansion may add more than 2 million people to the program and cost the state up to $27 billion in a single decade. The Florida Agency for Health Care Administration estimated in April that Obamacares Medicaid expansion would require an additional $5.2 billion in spending between 2013 and 2019 and more than $1 billion a year beginning in 2017. In California, the Legislative Analysts Office concluded that Obamacares Medicaid expansion will likely add annual costs to the state budget in the low billions of dollars.​

How Obamacare Burdens Already Strained State Budgets

So you are also going to pay higher state level taxes to cover all of us. Again, it's not I can fund "police A" or "policy B". No no.... You are going to fund BOTH... and you are going to pay for it with higher taxes.

Not "either or".... BOTH.

Unless my effective tax rate increases dramatically, I don't care.

 

[danielpalos]

typical right wing values; socialize costs, privatize profits, and "blame the poor".

 

[Andylusion]

2006 premium was $67 a month.
2014 premium was $250 a month.

That is far worse than anything before.

2006 premium was $67 a month.
2014 premium was $250 a month.

While the increase is material, the fact of the matter is that if the sums you used to pay and what you pay now are either (1) your share of an employer subsidized/sponsored/provided family health insurance policy, or (2) what you must pay for an open market family health insurance policy, you were then and continue now to pay markedly less than the average for such a plan. Indeed, in 2008, such a plan, before any employer subsidy or other out of pocket cost reductions an insured party might have received, averaged ~$12K/year. For single rather than family policies, annual premiums in 2007 ranged from $1,163 for persons under age 18 up to $5,090 for persons aged 60-64.

You're paying whatever you're paying, but the fact is that then and now, you are getting a very good price on your health insurance.

Well, the bottom line is, NOW... I'm not paying it. I can't afford it, so I'm not going to. You are going to pay my bills, and it's no ones fault but your own.

If you are ok with that... ok. But don't blame me for a situation you created.

Well, the bottom line is, NOW... I'm not paying it. I can't afford it, so I'm not going to.

That, unlike the tonal theme you earlier "rocked," I can accept as accurate.

You are going to pay my bills, and it's no ones fault but your own. If you are ok with that...

If you mean that my taxes will in part subsidize you and others, well, that is what it is. As much as I won't complain on a personal level about paying less federal income tax, I think my tax dollars are better spent helping you and other of my countrymen who need the money to subsist rather than a variety of other ways in which those same tax dollars may instead be spent.

That, unlike the tonal theme you earlier "rocked," I can accept as accurate.

Not sure what you mean by that, or what comment where I said "I rocked" that you are referring to. I most certainly do not rock. I rented out the spare bedroom to a guy from Bangladesh. He's married, has a career in programming, makes $90K a year, and is saving up to buy a house with cash. He.... rocks. I'm just a low wage worker, living out my life, at a boring but steady job.

I think my tax dollars are better spent helping you and other of my countrymen who need the money to subsist rather than a variety of other ways in which those same tax dollars may instead be spent.

But just understand, I could more than easily afforded my own health insurance before it was all screwed up. You would not have needed to help me at all.

Now... you will. And by the way, all those other ways of spending tax dollars is still going to happen.... aren't they.

You know that's true. The only difference now is that you will pay MORE taxes.

The non-partisan office estimates that the program will cost the federal government $1.34 trillion over the next decade, an increase of $136 billion from the CBO's predictions in 2015. In 2016 alone, Obamacare will cost a total of $110 billion.

Here's How Many Billions Obamacare Will Cost in 2016
​

It's just going to cost MORE tax dollars, to cover people like me who were more than willing to pay our own way.
It's not tax spend on X or Y... with you saying "I'd rather cover Y"... no no..... now it's X AND Y. Tax hikes are coming, unless something is done to fix this.

And by the way, that's just at the Federal level. Your state taxes are going to go up too. Many of those Obamacare programs require the state to fund them.

Texas recently concluded that the Medicaid expansion may add more than 2 million people to the program and cost the state up to $27 billion in a single decade. The Florida Agency for Health Care Administration estimated in April that Obamacares Medicaid expansion would require an additional $5.2 billion in spending between 2013 and 2019 and more than $1 billion a year beginning in 2017. In California, the Legislative Analysts Office concluded that Obamacares Medicaid expansion will likely add annual costs to the state budget in the low billions of dollars.​

How Obamacare Burdens Already Strained State Budgets

So you are also going to pay higher state level taxes to cover all of us. Again, it's not I can fund "police A" or "policy B". No no.... You are going to fund BOTH... and you are going to pay for it with higher taxes.

Not "either or".... BOTH.

Unless my effective tax rate increases dramatically, I don't care.

Well when you look at Europe, the average effect tax rate is double what it is here.

So, I think one could safely say, based on the evidence, that it will.

 

[usmbguest5318]

While the increase is material, the fact of the matter is that if the sums you used to pay and what you pay now are either (1) your share of an employer subsidized/sponsored/provided family health insurance policy, or (2) what you must pay for an open market family health insurance policy, you were then and continue now to pay markedly less than the average for such a plan. Indeed, in 2008, such a plan, before any employer subsidy or other out of pocket cost reductions an insured party might have received, averaged ~$12K/year. For single rather than family policies, annual premiums in 2007 ranged from $1,163 for persons under age 18 up to $5,090 for persons aged 60-64.

You're paying whatever you're paying, but the fact is that then and now, you are getting a very good price on your health insurance.

Well, the bottom line is, NOW... I'm not paying it. I can't afford it, so I'm not going to. You are going to pay my bills, and it's no ones fault but your own.

If you are ok with that... ok. But don't blame me for a situation you created.

Well, the bottom line is, NOW... I'm not paying it. I can't afford it, so I'm not going to.

That, unlike the tonal theme you earlier "rocked," I can accept as accurate.

You are going to pay my bills, and it's no ones fault but your own. If you are ok with that...

If you mean that my taxes will in part subsidize you and others, well, that is what it is. As much as I won't complain on a personal level about paying less federal income tax, I think my tax dollars are better spent helping you and other of my countrymen who need the money to subsist rather than a variety of other ways in which those same tax dollars may instead be spent.

That, unlike the tonal theme you earlier "rocked," I can accept as accurate.

Not sure what you mean by that, or what comment where I said "I rocked" that you are referring to. I most certainly do not rock. I rented out the spare bedroom to a guy from Bangladesh. He's married, has a career in programming, makes $90K a year, and is saving up to buy a house with cash. He.... rocks. I'm just a low wage worker, living out my life, at a boring but steady job.

I think my tax dollars are better spent helping you and other of my countrymen who need the money to subsist rather than a variety of other ways in which those same tax dollars may instead be spent.

But just understand, I could more than easily afforded my own health insurance before it was all screwed up. You would not have needed to help me at all.

Now... you will. And by the way, all those other ways of spending tax dollars is still going to happen.... aren't they.

You know that's true. The only difference now is that you will pay MORE taxes.

The non-partisan office estimates that the program will cost the federal government $1.34 trillion over the next decade, an increase of $136 billion from the CBO's predictions in 2015. In 2016 alone, Obamacare will cost a total of $110 billion.

Here's How Many Billions Obamacare Will Cost in 2016
​

It's just going to cost MORE tax dollars, to cover people like me who were more than willing to pay our own way.
It's not tax spend on X or Y... with you saying "I'd rather cover Y"... no no..... now it's X AND Y. Tax hikes are coming, unless something is done to fix this.

And by the way, that's just at the Federal level. Your state taxes are going to go up too. Many of those Obamacare programs require the state to fund them.

Texas recently concluded that the Medicaid expansion may add more than 2 million people to the program and cost the state up to $27 billion in a single decade. The Florida Agency for Health Care Administration estimated in April that Obamacares Medicaid expansion would require an additional $5.2 billion in spending between 2013 and 2019 and more than $1 billion a year beginning in 2017. In California, the Legislative Analysts Office concluded that Obamacares Medicaid expansion will likely add annual costs to the state budget in the low billions of dollars.​

How Obamacare Burdens Already Strained State Budgets

So you are also going to pay higher state level taxes to cover all of us. Again, it's not I can fund "police A" or "policy B". No no.... You are going to fund BOTH... and you are going to pay for it with higher taxes.

Not "either or".... BOTH.

Unless my effective tax rate increases dramatically, I don't care.

Well when you look at Europe, the average effect tax rate is double what it is here.

So, I think one could safely say, based on the evidence, that it will.

Europe is not a country; thus the European average effective tax rate is of no value in determining what will come of U.S. personal income tax rates. Nobody but you uses a whole continent (unless perhaps Australia is the nation being compared and contrasted) as the basis for comparative measurement and prediction of what the U.S. Congress will or should do with the tax rate.

One will find myriad specific effective tax rates in Europe, and if Trump carries through on his tax plan/promises, my effective tax rate will probably decrease. Whatever he does with individual federal income tax rates, I'm certain he's not going to raise them so that my or anyone else's rate surpasses the current top marginal rate. As long as that assumption hold true, I'm good.


.



FWIW, I have no idea what the average federal personal income tax rate is among European nations. I'm also not going to calculate it. If you're of a mind to do so, here's the info you need: List of Countries by Personal Income Tax Rate. I believe those are marginal rates, but they may not be.

 

[danielpalos]

Why does the right wing condone an alleged, War on Drugs?

 

[Andylusion]

Well, the bottom line is, NOW... I'm not paying it. I can't afford it, so I'm not going to. You are going to pay my bills, and it's no ones fault but your own.

If you are ok with that... ok. But don't blame me for a situation you created.

Well, the bottom line is, NOW... I'm not paying it. I can't afford it, so I'm not going to.

That, unlike the tonal theme you earlier "rocked," I can accept as accurate.

You are going to pay my bills, and it's no ones fault but your own. If you are ok with that...

If you mean that my taxes will in part subsidize you and others, well, that is what it is. As much as I won't complain on a personal level about paying less federal income tax, I think my tax dollars are better spent helping you and other of my countrymen who need the money to subsist rather than a variety of other ways in which those same tax dollars may instead be spent.

That, unlike the tonal theme you earlier "rocked," I can accept as accurate.

Not sure what you mean by that, or what comment where I said "I rocked" that you are referring to. I most certainly do not rock. I rented out the spare bedroom to a guy from Bangladesh. He's married, has a career in programming, makes $90K a year, and is saving up to buy a house with cash. He.... rocks. I'm just a low wage worker, living out my life, at a boring but steady job.

I think my tax dollars are better spent helping you and other of my countrymen who need the money to subsist rather than a variety of other ways in which those same tax dollars may instead be spent.

But just understand, I could more than easily afforded my own health insurance before it was all screwed up. You would not have needed to help me at all.

Now... you will. And by the way, all those other ways of spending tax dollars is still going to happen.... aren't they.

You know that's true. The only difference now is that you will pay MORE taxes.

The non-partisan office estimates that the program will cost the federal government $1.34 trillion over the next decade, an increase of $136 billion from the CBO's predictions in 2015. In 2016 alone, Obamacare will cost a total of $110 billion.

Here's How Many Billions Obamacare Will Cost in 2016
​

It's just going to cost MORE tax dollars, to cover people like me who were more than willing to pay our own way.
It's not tax spend on X or Y... with you saying "I'd rather cover Y"... no no..... now it's X AND Y. Tax hikes are coming, unless something is done to fix this.

And by the way, that's just at the Federal level. Your state taxes are going to go up too. Many of those Obamacare programs require the state to fund them.

Texas recently concluded that the Medicaid expansion may add more than 2 million people to the program and cost the state up to $27 billion in a single decade. The Florida Agency for Health Care Administration estimated in April that Obamacares Medicaid expansion would require an additional $5.2 billion in spending between 2013 and 2019 and more than $1 billion a year beginning in 2017. In California, the Legislative Analysts Office concluded that Obamacares Medicaid expansion will likely add annual costs to the state budget in the low billions of dollars.​

How Obamacare Burdens Already Strained State Budgets

So you are also going to pay higher state level taxes to cover all of us. Again, it's not I can fund "police A" or "policy B". No no.... You are going to fund BOTH... and you are going to pay for it with higher taxes.

Not "either or".... BOTH.

Unless my effective tax rate increases dramatically, I don't care.

Well when you look at Europe, the average effect tax rate is double what it is here.

So, I think one could safely say, based on the evidence, that it will.

Europe is not a country; thus the European average effective tax rate is of no value in determining what will come of U.S. personal income tax rates. Nobody but you uses a whole continent (unless perhaps Australia is the nation being compared and contrasted) as the basis for comparative measurement and prediction of what the U.S. Congress will or should do with the tax rate.

One will find myriad specific effective tax rates in Europe, and if Trump carries through on his tax plan/promises, my effective tax rate will probably decrease. Whatever he does with individual federal income tax rates, I'm certain he's not going to raise them so that my or anyone else's rate surpasses the current top marginal rate. As long as that assumption hold true, I'm good.


.



FWIW, I have no idea what the average federal personal income tax rate is among European nations. I'm also not going to calculate it. If you're of a mind to do so, here's the info you need: List of Countries by Personal Income Tax Rate. I believe those are marginal rates, but they may not be.

Well, don't think you would need to dig into that far, to glean some obvious facts.

Name one country with a massively government funded health care system, where the taxes are the same, or lower than the US?

Of course there isn't one.

The taxes you are paying specifically for Medicare, only cover 38% of Medicare's total budget. The rest of that money comes from other taxes, state taxes, premiums, and so on.

Before Obamacare, the cost of Medicare was roughly $400 Billion. By 2024, 7 years from now, it's expected to be over $1 Trillion.

How exactly do you propose they pay for that? Well we can glean from the UK, France, and on and on, that nearly all of those places have taxes almost double what we pay here.

That would be you.... paying more. Significantly more. Even Sanders admitted it would be at least a 6% tax hike. But that was pathetically below what the "Health Care Now" group said. They claimed it would be at least a 12% tax hike.

I think both of them are crazy.

The NHS in the UK, the UKs national health care service, has an 11% tax on all wages. Yet that 11% tax, only covers about 20% of the NHS cost. The other 80% comes from general taxation. Which is why they have a minimum tax of 20%, and the high wage tax.... at just $60,000 a year, is 40%.

Massive hike in taxes compared to what we pay.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Let me begin by noting that earlier the tax context of your remarks was income taxes (presumably federal, but maybe you meant state too?) and the fact that because you can no longer afford your health insurance premium, mine are having to subsidize you, a situation of which I stated I'm okay with it. In the post to which I've responded below, you have mentioned health care/Medicare, which has a distinct tax of its own. Furthermore, you've cited a specific health care tax, the UK's. ("...the UKs national health care service, has an 11% tax on all wages")

I don't know if you are deliberately trying to confuse the discussion, expand it's scope, or what. I do know that you've conflated multiple themes and you're "going from one thing to the next" without bringing to a close the prior topic/theme of discussion. In light of that, I have to ask: are you intentionally moving away from your earlier theme? If so, what in your mind was the resolution on that earlier theme? I'm fine to discuss multiple topics, but I want to know exactly what topic I'm called to discuss.

I've written the above out of respect for you. You seem like you are somewhat more coherent than many others on this forum; thus it seems that we might be able to have a conversation that actually has points that get opened, addressed, closed and new ones come up and the cycle repeats, as need be. However it goes, it needs to be one topic -- narrow or broad in scope -- at a time. I say that because this conversation is written; it'd be different were we speaking in person.

Name one country with a massively government funded health care system, where the taxes are the same, or lower than the US? Of course there isn't one.

Actually, among OECD nations, there are several. Sort by tax rate the chart you'll find here and you'll see that. [1] Hong Kong, which has one of the world's better health systems and is not an OECD country also has lower tax rates than the U.S. and it too has a "massively government funded" [2] health care system. It has a two-tier system. and is noted, with regard to spending and observed results of that spending, as being among the most efficient health care systems in the world.

Well we can glean from the UK, France, and on and on, that nearly all of those places have taxes almost double what we pay here.

As the linked table in my remarks immediately above shows, that's not accurate. It's not even close to accurate. Perhaps it's accurate in some dimension(s), but whatever be that dimension, you've identified it.

That would be you.... paying more. Significantly more. Even Sanders admitted it would be at least a 6% tax hike. But that was pathetically below what the "Health Care Now" group said. They claimed it would be at least a 12% tax hike.

I don't know why you keep coming back to this. I've already attested to the fact that if my effective tax rate increases by a small percent/amount, I'm okay with it.

I can recall from my childhood hearing my parents gripe about their income taxes. I don't know what their effective income or total rate was in any given year from back then, but I can look up historical marginal rates and see that they were subject to tax rates vastly higher than the current top marginal income tax rate. Based on their occasional musings of "the way things used to be," I know they were subject to marginal rates above 60%. I also know from checking an inflation calculator that people having comparable incomes to those that were subject to those high rates do not now pay anything close to that in income or total taxes.

Knowing that my family "got by" just fine, even paying the considerably higher taxes of years long gone, tax increases of the sort you're describing aren't going to be "the end of" me and my own family. Yes, as I've noted before, paying less in taxes (all taxes) is always preferable to paying more. Does that mean I want to be subject to 60%+ tax rates? No. It means I have a sense of perspective about the impact taxes have on my life and the reasons I pay them.

I weigh the matter of taxation, and what I think about the taxes I pay, on a continuum that has magnanimity on one end and greed on the other. There's surely a point where my greed outweighs my magnanimity, but there's nothing likely in the near term that will push me beyond the halfway point into the range of that spectrum where greed predominates.

Hell, Trump is talking about lowering the marginal tax rate to which I'm subject to something in the 20 to 30 percent range. Well, that's nice, but unless he manages to get the marginal rate far closer to the 20% than 30%, my effective federal income tax rate won't change. He'd need to also alter one or several specific provisions in the code for my effective federal income tax rate to change.

The problem with that, however, is that I cannot rely on what Trump says because I know he didn't know what he was talking about when he said most the things he said on the campaign trail. The uncertainty associated with Trump's attestations, thus one's ability to accurately (within a reasonable realm of possibilities) to anticipate what his tax policy will be, is what concerns me. That said, I'm reasonably confident that GOP, holding the reigns of power they currently do, are not about to enact marginal rates like those my parents faced. (If they did that, yes, my effective rate would likely increase, potentially by a lot...it depends on what they'd pass.)

How exactly do you propose they pay for that?

Were it left to me, I'd advocate that the U.S. pursue one of three alternatives:

• Cut back on the nature and extent of care paid for/covered by the state managed insurance plan, or by whatever plan (or plan type) that be designated as the one everyone must have.
• Remove health insurance from the realm of things offered under monopolistic competition, and shift it to a natural monopoly model. Then regulate the profitability such that earnings in excess of the authorized profitability rate be directed to offset premiums paid by the insured. (This approach, in essence, converts health insurance companies to a model like that in which utility companies operate.)
• Eliminate the provision of health insurance as a business and deliver it instead via not-for-profit organizations that are required to use investment earnings, those exceeding those needed to maintain the organization and cover potential payouts, to reduce or keep from increasing at greater rates/sums the premiums the insured must pay. (I'm not at this point concerned about whether it be one or many not-for-profit organizations doing so.) Just looking at the profit insurance companies earn on health insurance tells one exactly how much that would reduce the cost of health care. The notion of making huge profits on what're essentially non-discretionary expenditures doesn't sit well with my ethics.

With regard to the second and third of those two options noted above, think carefully about the entirety of the implications of the change and intimations of the current model under which health insurance is offered. What do your ethics tell you about the notion of your water company charging rates comparable to those one pays to buy water at the grocery or convenience store? Health care is decidedly less discretionary than is water and slightly less discretionary than electricity.

The taxes you are paying specifically for Medicare, only cover 38% of Medicare's total budget. The rest of that money comes from other taxes, state taxes, premiums, and so on.

I'm well aware of from what sources Medicare receives the money it spends.

Note:

1. Don't get confused by terminology -- not that I think you will, but just in case as it's clear to me your knowledge of the facts of taxation in the countries to which you referred has gaps in it. "Social Security" tax in other countries is what we in the U.S. call Social Security and Medicare" tax. There are some other tables there that will provide additional explanations and delineations of the data found in the linked table. You'll want to review them too to have the full picture. The tables display marginal and statutory rates, not effective rates.
2. You haven't qualified "massively government funded," and there is no common definition for that term, so I don't know precisely what that phrase means in your mind. That makes it very hard to assess accurately just what is the nature of comparison you've made in providing your remarks; thus it's equally hard to know that I'm responding within the same context.
   
   It'd be helpful to the discussion if you'd specify the specific nature of funding you have in mind. It would because it's clear that the government doesn't fund any county's health care system, the taxpayers do; the government is often the payer to providers, but the funding that allows governments to do that comes from taxpayers. (That is part of why I put linked references in my posts. I want readers to be able to fully comprehend and have no uncertainty about what exactly I'm communicating and not communicating.)

 

[debbiedowner]

If you make $19,000 annually and your company insurance cost $3000 per year you are not entitled to be subsidized with an advanced premium tax credit. That is deemed affordable health coverage they are offering you.

Why are you making a case to not accept a promotion that could raise your income and live like you apparently want to? I wouldn't be bitching with these other guys if you could have made almost $100,000 annually vs the $19,000. Something wrong here.

 

[Andylusion]

If you make $19,000 annually and your company insurance cost $3000 per year you are not entitled to be subsidized with an advanced premium tax credit. That is deemed affordable health coverage they are offering you.

Why are you making a case to not accept a promotion that could raise your income and live like you apparently want to? I wouldn't be bitching with these other guys if you could have made almost $100,000 annually vs the $19,000. Something wrong here.

First, you are referring to different jobs, at different times in my life.

The job as a store manager, was from 2003. It was store manager at an Advanced Auto Parts store. What I was told by the district manager was that salary would be $60,000, plus stock options, bonus and profit sharing. Some stores were making an additional $40k, but of course that was not a guarantee.

Why did I turn it down? Because I absolutely hated the job. Hate, as in... HATE. No amount of money is worth having seething anger and misery every single day. They could have offered me $200,000 and I bet I would have turned it down, although I would have thought about it longer.

I'm living like I want to.... right now. I don't know what I said, where you gleaned that I wanted something more than what I have. In fact, I just got a pay cut. I went part-time.

If you make $19,000 annually and your company insurance cost $3000 per year you are not entitled to be subsidized with an advanced premium tax credit. That is deemed affordable health coverage they are offering you.

Well I deemed otherwise. I declined health insurance, because it cost too much. So, instead if I get sick, I'll apply for coverage then. Remember, they are now not legally allowed to deny me. So I'll just apply, when I need it. Then cancel after I'm done. That's much cheaper.

 

[frigidweirdo]

View attachment 118692 Remember him telling the black community," What do you have to lose?"

In Trump's budget, he gives the back of his hand to people in our inner cities, eliminating the community-development block grant, job training, and legal aid from his budget. Programs to help middle- and high-school students prepare for college are hammered, and so are after-school and summer-enrichment programs.

Unfortunately way too late, many people are beginning to see that they were taken advantage of by a con artist.

James Walker does exist and this picture was not photoshopped in any way.

Anyone who voted Trump and now thinks it's a big mistake is clearly an idiot. Trump is acting how he acted during the campaign trail, nothing has changed, no one knew what he'd do then, and they don't know what he'll do now.

 

[Iceweasel]

Anyone who voted Trump and now thinks it's a big mistake is clearly an idiot. Trump is acting how he acted during the campaign trail, nothing has changed, no one knew what he'd do then, and they don't know what he'll do now.

Oh contraire. It was clear early on he was making liberals foam over and see red. I voted for that reason alone. What has happened? A whole bunch more of the same. We know he doing a good job just by reading the board here and seeing the libs act up in the streets. He's done a lot of what he said he's do, trade, military, judicial appointment and now federal departments on the chopping block. You libs can lie about it but you can't change reality. For some reason libs think their repetitive lies will alter events and no amount of failure matters.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Trump Rubes you all are Simply Pathetic ...strictly "Trump U Bait"

 

[debbiedowner]

If you make $19,000 annually and your company insurance cost $3000 per year you are not entitled to be subsidized with an advanced premium tax credit. That is deemed affordable health coverage they are offering you.

Why are you making a case to not accept a promotion that could raise your income and live like you apparently want to? I wouldn't be bitching with these other guys if you could have made almost $100,000 annually vs the $19,000. Something wrong here.

First, you are referring to different jobs, at different times in my life.

The job as a store manager, was from 2003. It was store manager at an Advanced Auto Parts store. What I was told by the district manager was that salary would be $60,000, plus stock options, bonus and profit sharing. Some stores were making an additional $40k, but of course that was not a guarantee.

Why did I turn it down? Because I absolutely hated the job. Hate, as in... HATE. No amount of money is worth having seething anger and misery every single day. They could have offered me $200,000 and I bet I would have turned it down, although I would have thought about it longer.

I'm living like I want to.... right now. I don't know what I said, where you gleaned that I wanted something more than what I have. In fact, I just got a pay cut. I went part-time.

If you make $19,000 annually and your company insurance cost $3000 per year you are not entitled to be subsidized with an advanced premium tax credit. That is deemed affordable health coverage they are offering you.

Well I deemed otherwise. I declined health insurance, because it cost too much. So, instead if I get sick, I'll apply for coverage then. Remember, they are now not legally allowed to deny me. So I'll just apply, when I need it. Then cancel after I'm done. That's much cheaper.

Well I deemed otherwise. I declined health insurance, because it cost too much. So, instead if I get sick, I'll apply for coverage then. Remember, they are now not legally allowed to deny me. So I'll just apply, when I need it. Then cancel after I'm done. That's much cheaper.

Well here's the thing, if it's not open enrollment at your job you are not getting it and if it's not between Nov 1 and Dec 15th you're not getting it. So what if you're diagnosed, 6 months out from either open enrollment, with Cancer? Do you just opt to die?

Whether or not you would have been miserable with a $100,000 job it would have been a stepping stone and nice to have on your resume for future endeavors.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Andylusion]

Let me begin by noting that earlier the tax context of your remarks was income taxes (presumably federal, but maybe you meant state too?) and the fact that because you can no longer afford your health insurance premium, mine are having to subsidize you, a situation of which I stated I'm okay with it. In the post to which I've responded below, you have mentioned health care/Medicare, which has a distinct tax of its own. Furthermore, you've cited a specific health care tax, the UK's. ("...the UKs national health care service, has an 11% tax on all wages")

I don't know if you are deliberately trying to confuse the discussion, expand it's scope, or what. I do know that you've conflated multiple themes and you're "going from one thing to the next" without bringing to a close the prior topic/theme of discussion. In light of that, I have to ask: are you intentionally moving away from your earlier theme? If so, what in your mind was the resolution on that earlier theme? I'm fine to discuss multiple topics, but I want to know exactly what topic I'm called to discuss.

I've written the above out of respect for you. You seem like you are somewhat more coherent than many others on this forum; thus it seems that we might be able to have a conversation that actually has points that get opened, addressed, closed and new ones come up and the cycle repeats, as need be. However it goes, it needs to be one topic -- narrow or broad in scope -- at a time. I say that because this conversation is written; it'd be different were we speaking in person.

Name one country with a massively government funded health care system, where the taxes are the same, or lower than the US? Of course there isn't one.

Actually, among OECD nations, there are several. Sort by tax rate the chart you'll find here and you'll see that. [1] Hong Kong, which has one of the world's better health systems and is not an OECD country also has lower tax rates than the U.S. and it too has a "massively government funded" [2] health care system. It has a two-tier system. and is noted, with regard to spending and observed results of that spending, as being among the most efficient health care systems in the world.

Well we can glean from the UK, France, and on and on, that nearly all of those places have taxes almost double what we pay here.

As the linked table in my remarks immediately above shows, that's not accurate. It's not even close to accurate. Perhaps it's accurate in some dimension(s), but whatever be that dimension, you've identified it.

That would be you.... paying more. Significantly more. Even Sanders admitted it would be at least a 6% tax hike. But that was pathetically below what the "Health Care Now" group said. They claimed it would be at least a 12% tax hike.

I don't know why you keep coming back to this. I've already attested to the fact that if my effective tax rate increases by a small percent/amount, I'm okay with it.

I can recall from my childhood hearing my parents gripe about their income taxes. I don't know what their effective income or total rate was in any given year from back then, but I can look up historical marginal rates and see that they were subject to tax rates vastly higher than the current top marginal income tax rate. Based on their occasional musings of "the way things used to be," I know they were subject to marginal rates above 60%. I also know from checking an inflation calculator that people having comparable incomes to those that were subject to those high rates do not now pay anything close to that in income or total taxes.

Knowing that my family "got by" just fine, even paying the considerably higher taxes of years long gone, tax increases of the sort you're describing aren't going to be "the end of" me and my own family. Yes, as I've noted before, paying less in taxes (all taxes) is always preferable to paying more. Does that mean I want to be subject to 60%+ tax rates? No. It means I have a sense of perspective about the impact taxes have on my life and the reasons I pay them.

I weigh the matter of taxation, and what I think about the taxes I pay, on a continuum that has magnanimity on one end and greed on the other. There's surely a point where my greed outweighs my magnanimity, but there's nothing likely in the near term that will push me beyond the halfway point into the range of that spectrum where greed predominates.

Hell, Trump is talking about lowering the marginal tax rate to which I'm subject to something in the 20 to 30 percent range. Well, that's nice, but unless he manages to get the marginal rate far closer to the 20% than 30%, my effective federal income tax rate won't change. He'd need to also alter one or several specific provisions in the code for my effective federal income tax rate to change.

The problem with that, however, is that I cannot rely on what Trump says because I know he didn't know what he was talking about when he said most the things he said on the campaign trail. The uncertainty associated with Trump's attestations, thus one's ability to accurately (within a reasonable realm of possibilities) to anticipate what his tax policy will be, is what concerns me. That said, I'm reasonably confident that GOP, holding the reigns of power they currently do, are not about to enact marginal rates like those my parents faced. (If they did that, yes, my effective rate would likely increase, potentially by a lot...it depends on what they'd pass.)

How exactly do you propose they pay for that?

Were it left to me, I'd advocate that the U.S. pursue one of three alternatives:

• Cut back on the nature and extent of care paid for/covered by the state managed insurance plan, or by whatever plan (or plan type) that be designated as the one everyone must have.
• Remove health insurance from the realm of things offered under monopolistic competition, and shift it to a natural monopoly model. Then regulate the profitability such that earnings in excess of the authorized profitability rate be directed to offset premiums paid by the insured. (This approach, in essence, converts health insurance companies to a model like that in which utility companies operate.)
• Eliminate the provision of health insurance as a business and deliver it instead via not-for-profit organizations that are required to use investment earnings, those exceeding those needed to maintain the organization and cover potential payouts, to reduce or keep from increasing at greater rates/sums the premiums the insured must pay. (I'm not at this point concerned about whether it be one or many not-for-profit organizations doing so.) Just looking at the profit insurance companies earn on health insurance tells one exactly how much that would reduce the cost of health care. The notion of making huge profits on what're essentially non-discretionary expenditures doesn't sit well with my ethics.

With regard to the second and third of those two options noted above, think carefully about the entirety of the implications of the change and intimations of the current model under which health insurance is offered. What do your ethics tell you about the notion of your water company charging rates comparable to those one pays to buy water at the grocery or convenience store? Health care is decidedly less discretionary than is water and slightly less discretionary than electricity.

The taxes you are paying specifically for Medicare, only cover 38% of Medicare's total budget. The rest of that money comes from other taxes, state taxes, premiums, and so on.

I'm well aware of from what sources Medicare receives the money it spends.

Note:

1. Don't get confused by terminology -- not that I think you will, but just in case as it's clear to me your knowledge of the facts of taxation in the countries to which you referred has gaps in it. "Social Security" tax in other countries is what we in the U.S. call Social Security and Medicare" tax. There are some other tables there that will provide additional explanations and delineations of the data found in the linked table. You'll want to review them too to have the full picture. The tables display marginal and statutory rates, not effective rates.
2. You haven't qualified "massively government funded," and there is no common definition for that term, so I don't know precisely what that phrase means in your mind. That makes it very hard to assess accurately just what is the nature of comparison you've made in providing your remarks; thus it's equally hard to know that I'm responding within the same context.
   
   It'd be helpful to the discussion if you'd specify the specific nature of funding you have in mind. It would because it's clear that the government doesn't fund any county's health care system, the taxpayers do; the government is often the payer to providers, but the funding that allows governments to do that comes from taxpayers. (That is part of why I put linked references in my posts. I want readers to be able to fully comprehend and have no uncertainty about what exactly I'm communicating and not communicating.)

Taxes and the cost of Health Care.

When we talk about how much health care is going to cost YOU the tax payer, there is no limitation of scope. It's not that I am "deliberately trying to confuse the discussion, expand it's scope, or what"... this is simply how government works. All levels of government, are actively trying to find whatever way possible, to raise tax revenue to fund whatever programs you demand they provide.

If you want to limit it to "income tax" or limit it to "the medicare tax"... that's fine.... but that isn't how government views it, regardless of how you view it.

Government is consistently trying to find ways of getting money from you, in a method that you will object to, the least.

So when you look at any health care system in the world, it is incorrect to look at merely the stated tax to pay for such a system. Because that tax, is rarely if ever, the only source of funds for that system.

You yourself posted the exact graph I was looking at. When you demand that Medicare, Medicaid, cover more people, the source of revenue to pay for that, comes from a multitude of taxes and indirect costs.

Yes it would mean a higher Medicare payroll tax. But as the graph shows, the medicare tax only covers 37% of the cost of that program. 42% comes from general revenue, which means higher federal income tax. Even that, that only covers 79% of the program. Another amount comes from taxes on Social Security, which again the average SS check in only $1,300. Another amount comes from state transfers, and that money could come from State income taxes, or state sales taxes, and so on.

Of course these are simply the numbers that are directly related to Medicare. The Federal government often loves to mandate that states run their own programs, that are not on the Federal budget, but are nonetheless mandated by the Federal government. For example, while the subsidies for insurance on the health care market places was Federal Funded, the actual market place itself, was run by the states. Who pays for that? You do, from state and local taxes.

The Federal government also mandated an expansion of Medicaid, which is paid for largely by local taxes.

So who is paying for that? You are through state level taxes, or sales taxes, or property taxes.

And lastly, there are large indirect taxes, that you pay without realizing it.

Medicare, and Medicaid both, pay less than the cost of care. Obviously no business can stay running if they lose money on most customers. So how do they afford to treat people on Medicare and Medicaid? By charging YOU more. It's simply a tax that doesn't go through the government.

So I have no insurance. If I got to the hospital, and they discover I have cancer or something horrendous, I can sign up for Medicaid. You will pay for me through your payroll tax, your federal income tax, your state income tax, your state sales tax, and then through higher premiums because you get charged higher prices to subsidize my medicaid treatment.

In fact, I would even argue your gasoline tax. I found it interesting that after the state decided to agree to expand medicare and medicaid in Ohio, suddenly there was a budget crisis. Then almost magically they pushed through a bill to increase the fuel tax. People believe all sorts of myths about taxes like "My gas tax pays for roads!" Which is exactly what the government wants you to think. In reality those taxes go to the general revenue like all tax revenue does.

They can "say" that it goes to pay for roads, but in reality once that dollar leaves your hands, it goes where ever they want it to go. Do you think if the state budget was running a surplus that they would have raised the gas tax? No. So when 50% of the state budget is health care, and the biggest increase in budget expenses is health, when they raise the gas tax..... it's for health care.

In conclusion, when I say you are going to pay it through higher taxes, I have no idea which tax method the government will use to make you pay for it. But someone has to pay the bill. And the same is true around the world.

I remember when in the mid-2000s the UK government raised fuel taxes, and there was a mass protest by truck drivers that clogged the streets. The UK Prime minister said in public, the protesters were threatening their attempt to shore up the NHS.

Implying what? It wasn't just the NHS tax that funded the NHS, or the general revenue income, but also the fuel tax they were using to pay for health insurance. Do you happen to know what the fuel tax is in the UK? Right now the cost of a gallon of regular gas, is $5.75. Out of that, 60% or $3.45 is all tax. And he said that's to pay for health care.

And NHS is in a funding crisis. So taxes will go up again.

Now as to Hong Kong...

My experience in looking at various governments is that smaller more regional governments are routinely more effective and less wasteful than larger ones. The government of a city is going to be far more efficient than the government of a massive country.

Hong Kong is a small city-state of limited size and population. If you could absolutely prove that having those policies here, would result in the same efficient systems, then I would be far more open to government programs on a variety of issues.

There was a video of an economist from Sweden, and they were talking to him about the programs the Swedish government has in place, and saying we should do that here. The Swedish economist looked at them like they were nuts and said "Yeah, but the Swedish government is very efficient. Your government is horribly wasteful. If you give them more money, they'll just have more money to waste."

I actually think this is why the founding fathers intended to have a limited federal government, with most of the power left to the states. And I have no problem with individual states running their own state-level universal health care. But most of those have failed (as far as I can see).

Beyond that, in looking at the survival rates in Hong Kong, the numbers seem low. Anyone can save money by letting more people die. If I opened a hospital, that only used 1990s technology, I can cut the cost of treatment by nearly 50%. The cost of an older Mammogram machine, is only $20,000, compared to a new one that's $500,000. Of course my ability to detect cancer is going to be about 10% lower. Which means survival rates will be lower.

The newest and best health care, with the best survival rates, cost premium prices.

Lastly, your chart again only looked at income tax rates. As I think I successfully showed, income tax is one of many many sources of tax revenue used to pay for health care.

 

[Andylusion]

If you make $19,000 annually and your company insurance cost $3000 per year you are not entitled to be subsidized with an advanced premium tax credit. That is deemed affordable health coverage they are offering you.

Why are you making a case to not accept a promotion that could raise your income and live like you apparently want to? I wouldn't be bitching with these other guys if you could have made almost $100,000 annually vs the $19,000. Something wrong here.

First, you are referring to different jobs, at different times in my life.

The job as a store manager, was from 2003. It was store manager at an Advanced Auto Parts store. What I was told by the district manager was that salary would be $60,000, plus stock options, bonus and profit sharing. Some stores were making an additional $40k, but of course that was not a guarantee.

Why did I turn it down? Because I absolutely hated the job. Hate, as in... HATE. No amount of money is worth having seething anger and misery every single day. They could have offered me $200,000 and I bet I would have turned it down, although I would have thought about it longer.

I'm living like I want to.... right now. I don't know what I said, where you gleaned that I wanted something more than what I have. In fact, I just got a pay cut. I went part-time.

If you make $19,000 annually and your company insurance cost $3000 per year you are not entitled to be subsidized with an advanced premium tax credit. That is deemed affordable health coverage they are offering you.

Well I deemed otherwise. I declined health insurance, because it cost too much. So, instead if I get sick, I'll apply for coverage then. Remember, they are now not legally allowed to deny me. So I'll just apply, when I need it. Then cancel after I'm done. That's much cheaper.

Well I deemed otherwise. I declined health insurance, because it cost too much. So, instead if I get sick, I'll apply for coverage then. Remember, they are now not legally allowed to deny me. So I'll just apply, when I need it. Then cancel after I'm done. That's much cheaper.

Well here's the thing, if it's not open enrollment at your job you are not getting it and if it's not between Nov 1 and Dec 15th you're not getting it. So what if you're diagnosed, 6 months out from either open enrollment, with Cancer? Do you just opt to die?

Whether or not you would have been miserable with a $100,000 job it would have been a stepping stone and nice to have on your resume for future endeavors.

No no, you don't understand.

If I am diagnosed with cancer.... I have 2 options.

1. I can just go to the ER. Hospitals are not allowed legally to deny treatment. Back in 2001, I worked at a car dealer, where the janitor got cancer. He had no money, and no health insurance. He had a gambling habit, and was broke. He went to the ER, and they started him on Chemo. I can do that. That is option one.

2. I can just sign up for insurance. I don't need to sign up with my job. There are insurance policies you can get, that do not require you to sign up during an open enrollment period. And since the government has eliminated by law, pre-existing condition clauses, if I already have cancer when I sign up, there is nothing anyone can do about it. They still must accept my application for insurance.

Either way, I'll still get treatment. So that's my plan.

Stepping stone to what? Have on my resume for what? I can't image anything that I would want to do, that would be worth working as a store manager there. Like I said, I'm happier where I am.

 

[usmbguest5318]

All levels of government, are actively trying to find whatever way possible, to raise tax revenue to fund whatever programs you demand they provide.

Well, of course. To the extent that I and enough other folks demand it, we do need to expect to pay for it. Taxes -- income, payroll and excise -- are the way we do so if the government (state, local or federal) is to administer and deliver the demanded services.

The Federal government also mandated an expansion of Medicaid

The Medicaid expansion was not mandated. Some states adopted it and others did not.

So who is paying for that? You are through state level taxes, or sales taxes, or property taxes.

Yes. I've from the start of this line of conversation agreed that is so. I've also said that I'm okay with doing so to the extent that you cannot afford to pay for your own health care/health insurance. (You recall that is precisely the attestation you made.)

FWIW, I don't get "fussed" about whether I pay the money as property, income or any other tax. My total tax burden matters to me, but as for any specific tax, well, it may irk me if I determine that it is the material cause of my experiencing a "downward" change in the lifestyle I lead. I look at all my expenses/disbursements and consider the total sum I spend in terms of two high level dimensions: discretionary spending and non-discretionary spending. Taxes fall into the non-discretionary segment, except when it's a tax on something I don't have to buy -- for the obvious reason that if the tax I must pay to buy X is so bothersome to me, I just won't buy whatever X is.

Maybe other people don't annually calculate and assess their total tax liability/spending. I don't know. Even as I know about what I pay in taxes, I look at it and form my judgment about it/them based on how it impacts my lifestyle. Truly, my lifestyle is not worse off because of the total sum of taxes I pay.

My awareness of that fact is why, each time you've posted about and shares with increasing levels of detail, I've said that I'm okay with the taxes I must pay that allow you to have health care/health insurance. Perhaps you think I don't know what I pay in taxes, but I do. It all comes down to what my total tax payments are. Thus, unless and until you can give me a credible reason to think my taxes will increase enough to deteriorate the quality of lifestyle I enjoy, my response isn't going to differ. And I write that knowing that in a few years, I'll be fully retired.

As I've intimated already, an increase of ~10% or so isn't going to upset me, particularly if I think it's going, in part, to help relatively poor people who can't afford essential services and goods. On the other hand, an increase of ~25% in my effective total tax rate is almost certain to draw my concern and dissatisfaction. Is there an increase in my total tax rate between 10% and 25% that may also irk me? Perhaps. I can't say just sitting here thinking about it.

Medicare, and Medicaid both, pay less than the cost of care. Obviously no business can stay running if they lose money on most customers. So how do they afford to treat people on Medicare and Medicaid? By charging YOU more. It's simply a tax that doesn't go through the government.

OT:
How providers make profits isn't really part of the scope of what I pay in taxes to subsidize your inability to pay for your health insurance because the fact of the matter is that they currently, as before earn handsome profits. I'm sure they, like everyone, would sooner earn ever more profit. Though Medicare and Medicaid pay less than the "list price" doctors and hospitals quote if one merely asked what be their fee for XYZ procedure, the program nonetheless pays them sum that allow profitability. Private insurance also pays than the "list price" providers would quote.

• Do Medicare And Medicaid Payment Rates Really Threaten Physicians with Bankruptcy?
  http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/06/how-physicians-make-money.html
• What If Doctors Got Paid Only Medicare Rates? - Doctors for America
  
• How Much Does Your Doctor Really Make?
  
• Medicare 2015: More doctors rejecting original Medicare

So I have no insurance. If I got to the hospital, and they discover I have cancer or something horrendous, I can sign up for Medicaid. You will pay for me through your payroll tax, your federal income tax, your state income tax, your state sales tax, and then through higher premiums because you get charged higher prices to subsidize my medicaid treatment.

Yes. I agree that is what happens.

People believe all sorts of myths about taxes like "My gas tax pays for roads!" Which is exactly what the government wants you to think. In reality those taxes go to the general revenue like all tax revenue does. ]They can "say" that it goes to pay for roads, but in reality once that dollar leaves your hands, it goes where ever they want it to go.

Well, just where it goes and how it's spent depends on the nature of fund into which it goes. If the money goes to the general fund, yes, it can be spent on anything. If it goes to a special fund, it can be used to pay for a limited range of things.

Do you think if the state budget was running a surplus that they would have raised the gas tax? No.

I really can't say what state legislators may or may not do. I know what makes sense and I understand the political realities connected with tax increases, but that doesn't mean they will or won't do what makes sense.

In conclusion, when I say you are going to pay it through higher taxes, I have no idea which tax method the government will use to make you pay for it. But someone has to pay the bill. And the same is true around the world.

Yes, it is.

My experience in looking at various governments is that smaller more regional governments are routinely more effective and less wasteful than larger ones. The government of a city is going to be far more efficient than the government of a massive country.

Hong Kong is an autonomous territory of China; thus it is run as a country as well as as a city.

There was a video of an economist from Sweden, and they were talking to him about the programs the Swedish government has in place, and saying we should do that here. The Swedish economist looked at them like they were nuts and said "Yeah, but the Swedish government is very efficient. Your government is horribly wasteful. If you give them more money, they'll just have more money to waste."

I actually think this is why the founding fathers intended to have a limited federal government, with most of the power left to the states.

I suppose that may be a small part of what they had in mind; however, I'm not convinced it was a key factor. After all, they started the U.S. as a confederation and very soon thereafter learned that wasn't working. Among the most important things the Founders discovered is that balance is preferable to either governance extreme. I suppose that's not shocking as the Founders were uniquely positioned, after the Confederation and having come from a monarchy, to see firsthand the strengths and weakness of a supremely powerful central government as well as those of a supremely weak one. Thus the Constitutional government they created, and the terms of the Constitution itself, came to be as a direct response to the inadequacies of the Confederation of states and to temper the excesses of monarchy.

Beyond that, in looking at the survival rates in Hong Kong, the numbers seem low. Anyone can save money by letting more people die.

Frankly, I'm not convinced that having the highest survival rates (as a nation, not as a doctor or facility) is critical or necessary.

If I opened a hospital, that only used 1990s technology, I can cut the cost of treatment by nearly 50%. The cost of an older Mammogram machine, is only $20,000, compared to a new one that's $500,000. Of course my ability to detect cancer is going to be about 10% lower. Which means survival rates will be lower.

Are you asserting that Hong Kong does not use the latest equipment available? If so, please share some credible documentation supporting the wide applicability in Hong Kong of the scenario you've depicted above. Equally important, perhaps to some more so, whether the latest equipment is used for certain procedures may not necessarily mean that the net quality of care delivered is any worse than that offered using newer, ostensibly more advanced, equipment.

For instance, I have a car from the 1980s and several from 2007 and more recent model years. My old car does not do that which I need a car to do any better or worse than do the newer ones. There are a variety of reasons for that being so; however, the same basic principle -- that at some point "fancier" doesn't, or doesn't materially, improve the outcomes -- is in play as goes the delivery of health care.

One thing I want to note is that you've introduced a discussion about the delivery of health care in Hong Kong. My point for bring up Hong Kong had to do with the system by which that care delivery is paid for and administered, not the care itself. I kept, and want to keep the two separate because one's ability to pay for treatments may well affect what treatments they receive, but it doesn't affect the quality of treatment delivered with regard to the treatments and procedures for which they do pay (or that others will pay for on their behalf).

I know that's a subtle distinction, but it's essential to make it in evaluating pretty much any aspect of a nation's health care system -- both the delivery of the care and how the delivery is compensated. I'm not saying to ignore one or the other, only that they must be compartmentalized, and then considered independently together. (Think of it as being analogous to two line items in a COGS presentation in an income statement.)

Beginning inventory $10,000

+ Purchases 25,000
- Ending inventory 8,000​

Cost of goods sold $27,000​

What about Hong Kong's survival rates dissatisfies you? What survival rate(s) in particular do you mean? Clearly you, in contravention with the analysis of health care experts, you think Hong Kong does not have among the best health care systems in the world. Hong Kong's health care model seems to be working based on the "full picture" assessments I've seen. Can one hone in one one type of care delivery in that system and take exception with it? Of course. I don't think any nation aims for absolute perfection when tailoring its approach to health care.

The newest and best health care, with the best survival rates, cost premium prices.

As noted above, I don't think that is, in most instances, necessary. I get that a provider may dispose of the old equipment upon obtaining the new. What crosses my mind is that the new equipment isn't always needed.

Take something as simple as a thermometer. The one we can buy in a drugstore measures temperature quite effectively, yet I can't tell you the last time I had a doctor take my temperature with anything other than a newfangled digital thermometer with a disposable plastic covering. Yes, a digital thermometer is a simple and relatively inexpensive piece of equipment, but its prevalence illustrates the point -- just how often is the increase in "whatever" that the new equipment provides necessary -- and that point applies at all levels of treatment delivery. I mean really. Is there anyone working in a doctor's office who can't read a thermometer? If so, those persons should not see patients. Hell, they probably shouldn't even work there if their skills are that limited.

Excess is not limited to equipment purchases/implementations. My father a few years back had to be hospitalized briefly. Instead of sending him home after the hospital was done with him, they wanted him to go to a nursing home, for physical therapy they said, and then discharged from there to his home. For what? The man walked into the hospital and walked while he was in the hospital. They wanted to send him to the nursing home so they couldn't be held accountable if he fell at home after being discharged, and the reason that concerned them is that Dad's in his 90s and walks with a cane. We had to sign a document (I think they called the document an ADA) that effectively waived our right to sue (prevail in any such suit) if he had any misfortunes after being discharged directly home from the hospital. We signed the document and brought him home. He got on just fine.

Lastly, your chart again only looked at income tax rates.

Yes. I focused on income tax, federal income tax, because that is the implied nature of the taxes under discussion -- our conversation grew out of remarks pertaining to the ACA.

As I think I successfully showed, income tax is one of many many sources of tax revenue used to pay for health care.

Yes, you have, but I knew so already and would not have differed with you about that being so. As I said, I will stick to the specific scope given by the conversation at the time I enter it. I can't say I never take it upon myself to broaden the scope of a conversation -- I let my reader(s) know I'm doing so if I do so -- but, generally, when I respond to someone, I stick to the scope implicit or explicit in their remarks and the context of the discussion.