Obama Healthcare

[T.G. Oskar]

If the people that were getting it were the ones that were paying for it, I'd still say no. For one thing, it wouldn't have the funding to run. Think about it -- let's have a program to help those who supposedly can't afford to help themselves, and let's make them pay for it. How would that help?

But more importantly, it's not the government's (taxpayers') obligation to provide healthcare. If it was VOLUNTARY, and only the people receiving the benefits would pay into it, I'd support it, but like I said, it wouldn't have enough funding.

Um, I wasn't speaking anything based on the healthcare program. It's odd you attempted to mix one thing or the other. All I asked was, if there was a bill where only the part of the population under a specific amount of income and that would be classified under, say, middle class or high middle class would be the people that pay taxes, would you support it or not? The bill wouldn't be tied to anything; no healthcare program tie-in, no federal economic aid program, no nothing. Just plain and simple; only the part of the population under a certain amount of income would pay the taxes, and those over such income wouldn't. Those taxes would be used for what they are used currently. No other change, except that I mentioned. Those who don't have to pay don't have to provide anything else to the government other than what they currently offer (sans taxes). That would be the only difference.

[Sasquatch]

Um, I wasn't speaking anything based on the healthcare program. It's odd you attempted to mix one thing or the other.

Sorry, thought you were relating it to the topic. I got it now.

All I asked was, if there was a bill where only the part of the population under a specific amount of income and that would be classified under, say, middle class or high middle class would be the people that pay taxes, would you support it or not? The bill wouldn't be tied to anything; no healthcare program tie-in, no federal economic aid program, no nothing. Just plain and simple; only the part of the population under a certain amount of income would pay the taxes, and those over such income wouldn't. Those taxes would be used for what they are used currently. No other change, except that I mentioned. Those who don't have to pay don't have to provide anything else to the government other than what they currently offer (sans taxes). That would be the only difference.

To put it simply ... hell no. Of course not. Why the hell would I support that? I want everybody to pay their fair shares -- no more, no less. That means nobody gets out of it, be they rich or poor.

Change the name to Not-so-Tiny Jerome from Newark if you'd like, I don't really care. Either way, whether you're talking about 1840s England or 2000s America, it's quite silly to imply that all poor people are poor because "they [weren't] the type to rely on themselves."

When did I say that all poor people are poor because they don't do it for themselves? Many? Of course. The majority? Almost definitely. All? No way. There are some people with disabilities and such who couldn't make it. Americans are some of the most generous people on earth, there are plenty of programs to help people who honestly can't help themselves. I mean c'mon, if you can't make it in America, you're prettymuch screwed in life.

[Sarin]

I dont really like obama... people told me i dont like him cause hes black but thats not the reason i dont like him cause he lied to the country and couldnt do half of what he said he could in the first place.. but you im not going to try and push you into not liking him thats just my reason. so i probably would have something to say about his health care program but im not surprised may as well move to canada and marry a canadian and get there awesome health care. just my opinion

[RagnaToad]

I dont really like obama... people told me i dont like him cause hes black but thats not the reason i dont like him cause he lied to the country and couldnt do half of what he said he could in the first place.. but you im not going to try and push you into not liking him thats just my reason. so i probably would have something to say about his health care program but im not surprised may as well move to canada and marry a canadian and get there awesome health care. just my opinion

Hm. You managed to post something that doesn't say anything about the Obama healthcare program.

What do you mean with 'he lied'?

What do you mean with 'couldnt do half of what he said'? He's not even been in office for one year and you're talking about it as if it's all in the past.

And what the hell do you expect from him, if almost all republicans are against any change he wants to bring, together with some democrats?

And about moving to Canada. Sure. Might as well move to Belgium. Or the Netherlands. Or Denmark.

[T.G. Oskar]

To put it simply ... hell no. Of course not. Why the hell would I support that? I want everybody to pay their fair shares -- no more, no less. That means nobody gets out of it, be they rich or poor.

Good to know that. Depending on how you see it, giving tax cuts to that population may seem counter-intuitive, since if you look at it closely, it almost means they pay less in taxes than the common man.

Of course, if you look at it on the amount they have to pay, it's a pretty hefty amount (compare 7% of someone whose income is, say, $12,000 to someone who must spend 10% of $300,000 yearly income on taxes), but it looks very differently when you take it on percentage.

I presume you're familiar with how things work in the IRS, so I'll save the description; I might be a bit off considering how things work there and how they work here (residents of PR don't file an IRS tax return unless they have assets in the mainland; the tax return is self-managed). As usual, every single individual has to pay a specific amount of their annual income in contributions based on tables and guidelines. As usual, there are credits and exemptions that are applied to that contribution as adjustments (this includes both tax cuts for the rich, and credits and exemptions for poor people; in effect, both sides have some sort of tax cut through credits and exemptions). And as usual, these lead into a bit of a headache and either a tax refund or a tax payment.

However, the extent and weight of those credits are what make things different. Some credits are general (such as the credits for dependants, or however it is called by the IRS), and some are specific (exemptions for the possession of land, for example). Very few exemptions often apply to the people within the low-middle class, usually the dependant or single person credits, as well as any relatively minor or one-time credit present. The wealthier people, capable of doing some investment, receive a larger scale credit for that, and usually are capable of claiming other credits and exemptions that people of a lower income cannot.

So far, I've just laid down the rules of how it works, right? Perhaps yes, perhaps not.

Problem lies when the meaning over that credit gets lost, and effectively you're reducing their tax contribution for virtually nothing. This applies mostly to corporations, but the wealthy individual may find a technicism in the letter of the credit that allows them to exploit it with minimal effort. Say, as an example, that you as an individual are given a credit for a large-scale donation. It would be fair if the donation would strain your full income to the point where you simply wouldn't be capable of living (not withholding your lifestyle), or at a bare minimum if your income would take a dire hit. Now, let's say that donation is more of an investment, since by making that donation, you perhaps gain access to the Board of Directors of that company. For legal purposes, it's a "donation" but it would really become an investment, or a bought share. If the results of that investment, placed as a donation, were to generate more money than what you originally invested. The purpose of such credit would be lost in the meaning. Furthermore, the method used would not constitute fraud, although, IRL, it might probably be fraud; were it to be fraud, there's a chance that the general income of the individual may not take a serious or even considerable hit depending on the case.

Now lets say that, by consecutively applying such credits lost in meaning, the percentage of the contribution by the wealthier individual becomes lower than that of the average income individual. They contribute as usual, but the contribution of the wealthier individual is lower in percentage; the hit to their income is lesser than to the average individual. That is mostly unfair, and leading to the next point.

What would happen if, instead of giving a conditional tax cut, the tax cut was merely devoid of any meaning? No "get me more jobs and I give you a cut" or the like. That's what most of these people would be arguing; while most of the credits so far usually have a specific condition, those tax cuts weren't mentioned to have any other circumstance other than the apparent "they're rich, hence we cut their taxes". Which, I fear, is what you're mostly supporting; they make more money, so why bother asking them to pay for more? Eventually, without monitoring those tax cuts, the 5% of the population with nearly 80% of the country's income will pay 1% less than the 95% of the population with the 20% remaining income, just because they are successful and they deserve it.

How would that tie in? Well, considering that the idea of the credits and exemptions are to determine your exact contribution, I fail to see how they are giving me money from fellow taxpayers instead of returning the excess income they took with a flat percentage tax. Unless you think of it as a bank, where you pretty much get the paper notes from other people.

Reason I mention this is the inherent arrogance in the concept of "because I earn more, I should not contribute more" coupled with the concept of tax cuts without a specific meaning, existing only to "level" the contribution of the wealthier individuals without comparing the effect of existing credits that may end up setting the contribution lower than the average individual's income.

In either case, I do want to elaborate on something, which I'd expect the President to consider given circumstances (if he stays true to the word that he'll listen to any good idea). Mostly, on the concept of "gatekeeping", which is a practice I find a bit archaic and rather dangerous, since unless you can get the choice with a very good doctor you can earn your trust (such as your choice internist, family doctor or general practitioner), the concept fails horribly. This method of health care is one I don't agree much with, given that it's mostly a leap of faith, and given the usual results.

Though...that's a good question. If not Obamacare, then what? It can't be what's already in here, since getting healthcare insurance will be increasingly more difficult to reach, and medical costs will keep rising. Getting one more job and potentially placing a risk on your health for physical overexertion (or driving a wedge on a relationship) to get a decent healthcare insurance plan while paying the bills isn't my idea of "effective" healthcare. But if what's already offered sucks badly, and what's currently sucks badly, then what? I've seen a lot of criticism, yet no options (or at least not a discussion where the options would be visible enough not to be driven by the conversation), and that's mostly like doing nothing.