Because that's the way TAXES WORK. They take a percentage. The more there is to take from, the more is taken. Why them? Because THEY HAVE THE MONEY. So instead of continually cutting their tax rate - which they can already well afford - they are getting a tax that will benefit many, at little personal cost to them.
Except that's not the way our taxes work. The bottom 50% don't even pay income tax at all. Our taxes are "progressive," in that it's not the same percentage applied to all people, it's the more you make, the higher percentage you have to pay. And one of the reasons businesses have been extremely slow on hiring for the last year (and will continue to do so in the future) is because they're scared of the extra expenses from this "health care" bill's passage, including monumental tax increases.
So your mentality is just a \\\"pile it on\\\" one then?
And just to be clear: I don't really care what reason people have for wanting to put it on the wealthy, I'm just wondering what the reasoning is behind it.
Well, considering you're asking CDS, an avowed, dyed-in-the-wool hypersocialist, sticking it to all the evil people with 6 digit incomes is a worthy outcome unto itself..
Well, right now if, with my health, I tried to get health insurance, it would cost 2/3 of what I make. That's assuming I don't get denied for pre-existing conditions. So reforming that would be a welcome change. Essentially, for me, it's a choice of seeing the doctor or paying my bills.
There are certainly things that can be improved in our system, but unfortunately democrats were not willing to entertain any notions that didn't involve government power grabs. In fact, they plugged their ears and shouted "WELL IF THIS IS SO BAD WHY DON'T I HEAR YOU OFFERING ALTERNATIVES? HUH? CAN'T HEAR YOU OFFERING ALTERNATIVES!" while alternative ideas were offered. The problem is the high cost of health care, and the bill that has passed will only exacerbate that problem.
As is brought up every single time the WHO's lists are shown (though usually with regards to infant mortality rates,) different nations have different definitions that they use for their reporting. Additionally, that chart doesn't show any details about things like common cancers. Whereas, the studies referenced in the link I posted show specific data about them: That the mortality rate from breast cancer is 88% higher in Britain, and the prostate cancer mortality rate is 604% higher. Canada's rates look better by comparison, as their mortality rates are only 9% and 184% higher than the US, respectively, but you know that's because so many of their patients cross to the US to get treatment.
Just because people can't be bothered to read, I guess, I'll repost the 10 things here:
1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.
2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.
3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.
4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.
5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians.
6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K.
7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. (More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding.")
8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians.
9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K.
10: The American health care system is responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.
For details, see
here.
This is not to say our system cannot be improved, or doesn't have problems. Costs are high. They could be lower. We had a whole thread about this. But what was in the bill that was just passed does not address the underlying problems - it only tries to crowbar in more people to the same broken system.[/QUOTE]
All of those cancer stats you posted have nothing to do with healthcare as a whole and everything to do with academic based medical research. Guess what pays that? NIH funding by tax payers and Wallstreet stocks.
unless more Tort reform and overall bureaucracy change in the whole insurance system and actual regulation (I do like Chaz presentation on Doctor's requirement and checks and balance instead of just "graduating" them cause it was hard to get in but hard to be thrown out.
but the bulk of the original business of USPS was mail. I hardly send out ANY letters. The last letter I sent was Christmas cards to my friends. I use email for everything else and correspond via facebook, online chat, and such. It is much faster than a letter. Heck, it has been over 10 years since I actually wrote a letter that is not to my wife.
