Originally Posted by HarryTheSpider

I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, so this may already be covered...

I am a Brit, moved here 18 months ago. In the UK I paid tax at several rates, including a smidge at 40%. I don't have a problem with a lot of my money going to the government. I'd love to be in the position of having enough income that I fall in to the higher tax brackets...

I was asked when I got here if I liked paying less tax.

I replied that while I pay less income tax, the effective tax rate, defined by me as income less additional expenditure to have almost, but not quite, the same health cover as I had back home, amongst other things, worked out to be about the same.

For us, in our situation, comparing our 'not unusual' situation in the UK with same 'not unusual' situation in the US, it works out to be the same. It's just that here in the US we can choose - have less health care but more money in our pockets, and risk having some medical issue down the road that utterly buggers us financially, or forego some of that cash now and be 'rest assured'...

So, our choice...

My point? Don't ever presume that the 'high tax, socialist model' that is found in many places in Europe is some kind of 'loss of freedom, nightmare scenario if visited upon America' - that is simply bollox made to scare unthinking people to vote for somebody who has very much their own agenda in mind. Not everything in America, done by Americans, is the best - not by a long chalk. Neither is it all bad.

I would really like to see a genuine debate on this (not skewed by the seedy money & politics of big business and the uber rich), here in the US, and at home - we all face the same challenges - how to feed, clothe, look after, educate an ageing population while enjoying some standard of living and dignity. Frankly I think it appalling that the richest country on the planet, for the moment, has such instances of poverty and lack of health care affecting 10s of millions of its own citizens.

Not one of the GOP candidates has had anything constructive to say on health care in a very long time, if ever. Meantime they enjoy outstanding health cover, paid for by the tax payers - what utter, utter hypocritical wankers. I hope to God or whoever that the Dems don't replicate the moral vacuum displayed so far. And I'm not demanding the GOP candidates have the same view as me on this - just that they contribute meaningfully, and credibly. Debate suggests some conflict & discourse, out of which can come a common perspective and solution we can all buy in to. If I was a USC abroad I might hide in embarrassment in this respect.

Basic healthcare is a right, in my mind, and is enshrined in UN charter on human rights. Here in the US, it is a right only for those in public office, paid for by everybody out of public office, as far as I can tell.

And for those who don't believe basic healthcare is a right, would you honestly feel the same way if you couldn't afford medical care and you or a family member needed it? Really, honestly, would you? Has ANY supporter of the 'sort it out by yourself' camp rejected/refused to accept health care provided by others, employer or tax payer? I can't believe it is many...

These are complex issues, complex problems, and critical ones. Throwing mud around every 4 years, and spending more than half of any legislative period running for office, is not going to address them...

Is 'Obama care' wrong in what it is trying to achieve? I don't think so, from what little I know. Is it wrong in HOW it tries to achieve that? That is what is being debated in SCOTUS now. Whether it stands or falls in its current form is one thing. I hope that it's overarching objective doesn't. I don't hold out much hope.

Originally Posted by Lion in Winter

Well put.

Originally Posted by Lion in Winter

Your assertion that military service means you have earned health care from the taxpayer, but that those with other roles in society have not because they "do nothing", ie they "expect it for nothing", is unattractive to say the least. Consider the contributions to society of scientists and builders, engineers and teachers, those who grow and pick your food and wait on you at table in restaurants, doctors, nurses, and those who wash the floors and equipment of the hospitals. Elevating military service to a level that is higher than any other function of society is, at worst, a principal characteristic of a totalitarian state. At best, it is arrogant and inaccurate. My father, who spent six years at war, would not have been impressed.

Originally Posted by SATX John

It takes both sides to actually come to a compromise.

Originally Posted by Brit3964

There's the problem. In my view, the GOP hasn't been willing to compromise since Obama took office.

Originally Posted by Giantaxe

The only two Republican senators who negotiated in good faith on healthcare were the two from Maine. The rest... not so much.

Originally Posted by SATX John

As stated on another thread, they (DEMs) controlled the Senate and House. They chose not to include others or accept their input and the bill was forced through. All the reports MSM and partisan media from time agree on that.

Read a 2700 page bill in 4 hours and vote on it. Really.......

At least be intellectually honest about it, from both sides.

Originally Posted by SATX John

They chose not to include others or accept their input and the bill was forced through.

Originally Posted by Lion in Winter

I honestly don't care which bunch of politicians is responsible for what at this point - there are clearly some very heavily vested interests in keeping health care run as a business as opposed to a function of the state run by us, ie the taxpayer.

Surely the richest country in the world is capable joining the rest of the developed world and working out a way to provide all its people with health care?

Originally Posted by dlake02

Excellent piece on "The World" yesterday:

http://www.theworld.org/2012/03/germany-health-care/

As a European/Brit, I identified with so many of the sentiments expressed.

Personally, I find it totally distasteful that I come across many more people here that CLAIM to be "Christian" than I ever would in Europe (where most people appear to be like me, either seriously agnostic or atheist) that tell me on one hand how "Christian" they are and on the other aren't prepared to help one another in the most basic form of compassion, universal healthcare. Whilst I may not have any/much religion now, I do have a good knowledge that the basis of most Western religions is tolerance, looking after each other, compassion and shared responsibilities as a society.

That was strongly echoed in the piece on the radio yesterday.

I also find it slightly insulting when I'm told that universality of any kind is "communism" as a Texan told me last week. As a third-generation Russian of Jewish background whose grandparents were expelled by Stalin's communist totalitarian regime, I feel I may know more than someone that basks in the light of their own religious bigotry and smugness....

Frankly, I've taken to responding to people that tell me that they are religious the way that you would to anyone with a serious illness - "Oh I am sorry to hear that...."

Originally Posted by dlake02

There is a huge amount of "I'm Alright Jack" going on here.

Originally Posted by dlake02

Well, that is exactly why National Insurance in the UK was started in 1911 !

Individual health insurance was bankrupting the country. And NI was introduced by a very right-wing conservative administration....

But there is precedent in the US for this already - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The government has already stepped it to protect house loans because they threatened to bankrupt the country in the 1930s - the health crises will do the same.

As far as I can see, the only difference is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac support the middle-class (the most politically active) and it is those that already have health cover. There is a huge amount of "I'm Alright Jack" going on here.