The tax is just on those without health insurance...
From the first Google link (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57459511/health-care-ruling-what-it-means-for-you/) 2.5% of your earnings if you don't have coverage. They've also increased eligibility for medicare, raised the age at which you can stay on your parents insurance, and requiring states to set up health exchanges (cheap insurance).
"Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars" So no, I don't think he raised taxes on ALL Americans.
Christchurch, New Zealand has a bus system where 95% of the population lives within 500m of a bus stop. They have buses that go into the City Center and also around the suburbs. You can get just about anywhere in the City within 30 minutes. A day pass was a couple of dollars.
Having an efficient system does not reduce your quality of life. Sitting in your vehicle in traffic does.
This was pre-earthquake....
"When it comes to something like marriage, I don't think it should be a federal issue at all."
Immigration will always be a federal issue. How do you propose international relationships would be handled if marriage was not a federal issue?
My K-1 visa was only valid if I married within 90 days of being let into the US. My residency status was also only valid as long as we remained married for the first five years. My sister in law has been in a long term relationship with her girlfriend (an EU citizen) for many years. They live in Europe, but even if they were married in one of the US states that allow it, they still could not immigrate here because the federal government does not recognise their relationship.
It is disingenuous to suggest that the Federal system of government is failing because the US is not homogeneous. A more diverse government should produce a moderate consensus/legislation. Why doesn't it in the US? We all know the answers - the influence of money and media, and how the government is structured (the ability to filibuster etc - what the hell is the point of democracy when the other side can just block elected officials from voting?).
"An additional question: Very few cities have the public transportation infrastructure to support such a train station."
So you would do the same thing you do now if you fly. Rent a car....
Maybe the US will wake up and start investing in public transport once petrol/gas prices become more comparable with the rest of the developed world?
Gas/petrol in the US is roughly $0.80/L now. It's still cheap.
40 million people live in the NE and they account for 25% of GDP. There are 310 million people in the US. So 13% of the population is producing 25% of GPD....
You don't think having an efficient way to quickly move people and goods between major cities would increase productivity there or have any benefit to the whole country? What about the jobs created in Kansas to build and maintain tracks? What if Kansas becomes a major hub for the trains traveling across the continent?
Kansas also falls into the "red state welfare" category of receiving more Federal dollars than they pay in (At least from 1982 to 2005)..... that money is coming from somewhere.
I've lived in the US for 5 years now and I am still amazed at how prevalent the "How does this benefit my State?" attitude is.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeastern_United_States_(U.S._Census_Bureau)http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.htmlhttp://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22685.html
I actually agree with you. I don't think that buying health "insurance" is going to solve health care in the US. I was taking the piss out of the naive attitude I see from politicians and Republicans all the time about how the "free market can solve all of our problems".
I don't believe that the government can solve everything either. But I do know that I grew up in and until recently lived in a country with "free" (as in "paid for by taxes") universal health care*. The quality of care was comparable to what I've seen in the US, I was taxed at a similar rate, and I NEVER saw anyone worry about whether they could take their kids to the doctor if they lost their job.
The US spends 140% more per capita than the OECD average (http://www.oecd.org/document/36/0,2340,en_2649_201185_31938380_1_1_1_1,00.html) for health care?
Why? If you don't buy into the bullshit about having the best health care system in the world (keeping in mind that best is not whether one individual can get the absolute best care money can buy, but instead whether people have access to reasonably priced health care) then it's pretty bloody obvious that we are being ripped off.
As far as I can tell, Republican opposition is mostly based upon two things:
1. A "keep government out of health care" mentality. I could respect this more if these same people were willing to acknowledge the failings of the "free market" to adequately provide health care for everyone and come up with reasonable alternatives (while looking into the public/private solutions that other OECD countries have come up with).
2. A childish "I don't want to pay for others or pay reasonable taxes" mentality. That's a whole other issue though....
As for India come on. It’s one of the world’s most populous countries and an emerging super power. If we want to stop playing global Sherriff and squandering trillions on wars it might be in our best interests for the President to pop over and “give a speech” once in a while. Oh, and he did closed $10 Billion in trade while he was there (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131155480)...
* Full disclaimer. We also had supplemental private medical insurance (about $60/month) that covered the few non-essential medical issues not covered by the public health care system.
Exactly!
It's similar to the mentality of "If it makes my taxes go up, I don't want it.". Most of us can't live without health insurance, so health insurance IS effectively a tax. Assuming universal health care is cheaper*, your effective "tax" rate would decrease!
* The magical free market fairy so beloved by Republicans tells us that the cost of a product decreases as the consumer population/demand increases. Therefore, if all 300 million of us are buying the same product, shouldn't the cost of providing the product decrease?
Of course, we all know the response to this would be "But government is less efficient at spending our money. Imagine the bureaucracy it would create!". Which of course ignores the fact that the private sector loves to spend money on things like private jets and excessive salaries for CEO's etc, and that the current healthcare system in the US is a far larger bureaucracy that universal health care would be (One doctors visit results in multiple bills, people have to claim money back from their insurance company, health care savings accounts etc).
I just finished my first US tax return since buying a house. The biggest hassle for me was the itemized deductions. I spent far too long tracking down receipts etc so that we could claim it.
Before moving here five years ago I lived in New Zealand. The equivalent tax to Federal/State taxes is a graduated pay as you earn (PAYE) system that is simply a percentage of your income. There are a few deductions for childcare, donations etc, but as far as I know most people don't even file an IR3 (Individual tax return). The IRD (Inland Revenue Department) sends a statement once a year, if you agree you do nothing, if you want to claim deductions you add them in and send it back. I'm sure it's more complicated for the self employed and those with a lot of investment income.
The key point is that there is only a limited number of deductions and that your employer automatically reports your income (no W2's!). Items like student loan interest are automatically handled by the IRD because student loans are managed by the IRD.
Yeah, you make good points.
Personally I would prefer a free universal health care system, supplemented with private insurance, like I had in New Zealand (partly because it seems when given the opportunity here many large business operating in the free market will do everything they can to screw the consumer..... ).
You can go barefoot in Florida? Nice. I've come across many no shirt/no shoes/no service signs in the mid west...
My understanding was that unemployment compensation varies considerably from state to state and has a lifetime cap? I'm all for giving people a nudge back to work, but given the long term unemployment of the current recession, lifetime caps seem ridiculous.
As a kiwi living in the US I have to disagree. What additional freedoms do you think Americans have?
I felt more "free" when I lived in New Zealand - I wasn't tied to a job for health insurance, I wasn't drug tested when I applied for a job, I was free to walk barefoot in a shop, I didn't have to deal with the massive bureaucracy of health care and taxes here, and I knew that if I lost my job I would get a little help from society until I was back on my feet again. The RMA gave me more power if someone wanted to do something that would adversely affect my environment, and I was free to breathe in clean air/drink clean water. I was free of financial liability should an accident happen and I sure as hell didn't worry about getting screwed like I do here because I actually felt like agencies set up to protect my interests did that, rather than protect the interests of big business.
My wife teaches special education in Minnesota. She is part of the teachers union.
Her medical insurance premiums just went up 40% and are expected to increase by a similar amount next year. She makes about 45k. Decent money, but considering the 50-60 hour weeks she puts in, 35k in student loans from getting a masters to teach, the stress from running a massively understaffed room for demanding kids, and the $1,000/year for school supplies she buys because the school can't afford them, it's shit compared to other fields.
So sorry, you are wrong, teachers do not get excellent insurance for life and sure as hell don't have power/money.
The difference being, my friend, is that if the private sector continues those practices, the people responsible for the practices get let go or they go out of business, and then the only people who pay for it are the shareholders, not the tax payers. That is, unless the Federal Government bails them out so they can continue with wasteful practices.
I disagree. Waste in the private sector is just accepted as normal. That raises the price for everyone, not just shareholders, because ultimately the business passes the cost onto the consumer.
Have you ever dealt with the bureaucracy of health insurance companies? How the added paperwork from shit like health care reimbursement accounts?
Walk into a doctors office here, get a few tests, and you're likely to get three different bills in the mail. I would MUCH rather have a system where I walk in, get seen, and bugger off home never to see a bill, because I already paid for it with my taxes.
Why? Because I recognise that one day I could be the person without health insurance wondering how the hell I am going to pay for getting my kid seen.
I always laugh at the comments for articles like this.
When are people going to realise that there is just as much waste in the private sector? Corporate jets, business lunches, exorbitant salaries, etc are all just another form of waste. Not to mention the fact that plenty of business are only concerned with the short term financial gain (to please shareholders) and not the long term health of the business/product.
Haha, I share your pain. Have you ever dealt with the USCIS phone service? I've spent hours on hold there before.
USCIS/DHS took electronic fingerprints three separate times during my immigration process. $80 each time from memory. I was on a K1 (marrying a US citizen) and I think we have spent close to $1,000 USD at this point on immigration paperwork (to become a permanent resident).
I love how selective service found me within two weeks, but a work permit took 8 months.
In New Zealand my wife (girlfriend at the time) walked into immigration, and came out an hour later with a residency document and work permit for about $100 from memory.
Slashdot Mirror
The tax is just on those without health insurance... From the first Google link (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57459511/health-care-ruling-what-it-means-for-you/) 2.5% of your earnings if you don't have coverage. They've also increased eligibility for medicare, raised the age at which you can stay on your parents insurance, and requiring states to set up health exchanges (cheap insurance). "Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars" So no, I don't think he raised taxes on ALL Americans.
Christchurch, New Zealand has a bus system where 95% of the population lives within 500m of a bus stop. They have buses that go into the City Center and also around the suburbs. You can get just about anywhere in the City within 30 minutes. A day pass was a couple of dollars. Having an efficient system does not reduce your quality of life. Sitting in your vehicle in traffic does. This was pre-earthquake....
"When it comes to something like marriage, I don't think it should be a federal issue at all." Immigration will always be a federal issue. How do you propose international relationships would be handled if marriage was not a federal issue? My K-1 visa was only valid if I married within 90 days of being let into the US. My residency status was also only valid as long as we remained married for the first five years. My sister in law has been in a long term relationship with her girlfriend (an EU citizen) for many years. They live in Europe, but even if they were married in one of the US states that allow it, they still could not immigrate here because the federal government does not recognise their relationship. It is disingenuous to suggest that the Federal system of government is failing because the US is not homogeneous. A more diverse government should produce a moderate consensus/legislation. Why doesn't it in the US? We all know the answers - the influence of money and media, and how the government is structured (the ability to filibuster etc - what the hell is the point of democracy when the other side can just block elected officials from voting?).
"An additional question: Very few cities have the public transportation infrastructure to support such a train station." So you would do the same thing you do now if you fly. Rent a car.... Maybe the US will wake up and start investing in public transport once petrol/gas prices become more comparable with the rest of the developed world? Gas/petrol in the US is roughly $0.80/L now. It's still cheap.
40 million people live in the NE and they account for 25% of GDP. There are 310 million people in the US. So 13% of the population is producing 25% of GPD.... You don't think having an efficient way to quickly move people and goods between major cities would increase productivity there or have any benefit to the whole country? What about the jobs created in Kansas to build and maintain tracks? What if Kansas becomes a major hub for the trains traveling across the continent? Kansas also falls into the "red state welfare" category of receiving more Federal dollars than they pay in (At least from 1982 to 2005)..... that money is coming from somewhere. I've lived in the US for 5 years now and I am still amazed at how prevalent the "How does this benefit my State?" attitude is. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeastern_United_States_(U.S._Census_Bureau) http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22685.html
I actually agree with you. I don't think that buying health "insurance" is going to solve health care in the US. I was taking the piss out of the naive attitude I see from politicians and Republicans all the time about how the "free market can solve all of our problems".
I don't believe that the government can solve everything either. But I do know that I grew up in and until recently lived in a country with "free" (as in "paid for by taxes") universal health care*. The quality of care was comparable to what I've seen in the US, I was taxed at a similar rate, and I NEVER saw anyone worry about whether they could take their kids to the doctor if they lost their job.
The US spends 140% more per capita than the OECD average (http://www.oecd.org/document/36/0,2340,en_2649_201185_31938380_1_1_1_1,00.html) for health care?
Why? If you don't buy into the bullshit about having the best health care system in the world (keeping in mind that best is not whether one individual can get the absolute best care money can buy, but instead whether people have access to reasonably priced health care) then it's pretty bloody obvious that we are being ripped off.
As far as I can tell, Republican opposition is mostly based upon two things:
1. A "keep government out of health care" mentality. I could respect this more if these same people were willing to acknowledge the failings of the "free market" to adequately provide health care for everyone and come up with reasonable alternatives (while looking into the public/private solutions that other OECD countries have come up with).
2. A childish "I don't want to pay for others or pay reasonable taxes" mentality. That's a whole other issue though....
As for India come on. It’s one of the world’s most populous countries and an emerging super power. If we want to stop playing global Sherriff and squandering trillions on wars it might be in our best interests for the President to pop over and “give a speech” once in a while. Oh, and he did closed $10 Billion in trade while he was there (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131155480)...
* Full disclaimer. We also had supplemental private medical insurance (about $60/month) that covered the few non-essential medical issues not covered by the public health care system.
Exactly! It's similar to the mentality of "If it makes my taxes go up, I don't want it.". Most of us can't live without health insurance, so health insurance IS effectively a tax. Assuming universal health care is cheaper*, your effective "tax" rate would decrease! * The magical free market fairy so beloved by Republicans tells us that the cost of a product decreases as the consumer population/demand increases. Therefore, if all 300 million of us are buying the same product, shouldn't the cost of providing the product decrease? Of course, we all know the response to this would be "But government is less efficient at spending our money. Imagine the bureaucracy it would create!". Which of course ignores the fact that the private sector loves to spend money on things like private jets and excessive salaries for CEO's etc, and that the current healthcare system in the US is a far larger bureaucracy that universal health care would be (One doctors visit results in multiple bills, people have to claim money back from their insurance company, health care savings accounts etc).
As a kiwi living in the US I would happily work 12 hour shifts in the middle of Antarctica if it meant getting a few DBs once in a while!
I just finished my first US tax return since buying a house. The biggest hassle for me was the itemized deductions. I spent far too long tracking down receipts etc so that we could claim it. Before moving here five years ago I lived in New Zealand. The equivalent tax to Federal/State taxes is a graduated pay as you earn (PAYE) system that is simply a percentage of your income. There are a few deductions for childcare, donations etc, but as far as I know most people don't even file an IR3 (Individual tax return). The IRD (Inland Revenue Department) sends a statement once a year, if you agree you do nothing, if you want to claim deductions you add them in and send it back. I'm sure it's more complicated for the self employed and those with a lot of investment income. The key point is that there is only a limited number of deductions and that your employer automatically reports your income (no W2's!). Items like student loan interest are automatically handled by the IRD because student loans are managed by the IRD.
Yeah, you make good points. Personally I would prefer a free universal health care system, supplemented with private insurance, like I had in New Zealand (partly because it seems when given the opportunity here many large business operating in the free market will do everything they can to screw the consumer..... ). You can go barefoot in Florida? Nice. I've come across many no shirt/no shoes/no service signs in the mid west... My understanding was that unemployment compensation varies considerably from state to state and has a lifetime cap? I'm all for giving people a nudge back to work, but given the long term unemployment of the current recession, lifetime caps seem ridiculous.
As a kiwi living in the US I have to disagree. What additional freedoms do you think Americans have? I felt more "free" when I lived in New Zealand - I wasn't tied to a job for health insurance, I wasn't drug tested when I applied for a job, I was free to walk barefoot in a shop, I didn't have to deal with the massive bureaucracy of health care and taxes here, and I knew that if I lost my job I would get a little help from society until I was back on my feet again. The RMA gave me more power if someone wanted to do something that would adversely affect my environment, and I was free to breathe in clean air/drink clean water. I was free of financial liability should an accident happen and I sure as hell didn't worry about getting screwed like I do here because I actually felt like agencies set up to protect my interests did that, rather than protect the interests of big business.
My wife teaches special education in Minnesota. She is part of the teachers union. Her medical insurance premiums just went up 40% and are expected to increase by a similar amount next year. She makes about 45k. Decent money, but considering the 50-60 hour weeks she puts in, 35k in student loans from getting a masters to teach, the stress from running a massively understaffed room for demanding kids, and the $1,000/year for school supplies she buys because the school can't afford them, it's shit compared to other fields. So sorry, you are wrong, teachers do not get excellent insurance for life and sure as hell don't have power/money.
The difference being, my friend, is that if the private sector continues those practices, the people responsible for the practices get let go or they go out of business, and then the only people who pay for it are the shareholders, not the tax payers. That is, unless the Federal Government bails them out so they can continue with wasteful practices.
I disagree. Waste in the private sector is just accepted as normal. That raises the price for everyone, not just shareholders, because ultimately the business passes the cost onto the consumer.
Have you ever dealt with the bureaucracy of health insurance companies? How the added paperwork from shit like health care reimbursement accounts? Walk into a doctors office here, get a few tests, and you're likely to get three different bills in the mail. I would MUCH rather have a system where I walk in, get seen, and bugger off home never to see a bill, because I already paid for it with my taxes. Why? Because I recognise that one day I could be the person without health insurance wondering how the hell I am going to pay for getting my kid seen.
I always laugh at the comments for articles like this. When are people going to realise that there is just as much waste in the private sector? Corporate jets, business lunches, exorbitant salaries, etc are all just another form of waste. Not to mention the fact that plenty of business are only concerned with the short term financial gain (to please shareholders) and not the long term health of the business/product.
Haha, I share your pain. Have you ever dealt with the USCIS phone service? I've spent hours on hold there before. USCIS/DHS took electronic fingerprints three separate times during my immigration process. $80 each time from memory. I was on a K1 (marrying a US citizen) and I think we have spent close to $1,000 USD at this point on immigration paperwork (to become a permanent resident). I love how selective service found me within two weeks, but a work permit took 8 months. In New Zealand my wife (girlfriend at the time) walked into immigration, and came out an hour later with a residency document and work permit for about $100 from memory.