Healthcare Reform - Wealthy & Rich Must Pay Fair Share
For Healthcare reform to be of any value
- Every legal American citizen and resident must be covered.
- Everyone capable of paying premiums must do so. Those legitimately unable to pay should be subsidized.
- Preferably a non-profit government run insurance should pay for healthcare but at minimum a robust public insurance option must be included that channel all healthcare dollars to healthcare.
The aforementioned requirements are simple but extremely difficult to implement for one specific reason; many large corporations make exorbitant profits from the current inefficiency of our system and have thus far successfully lobbied Congress to write Healthcare Reform to insure their exorbitant profits remain. The reality is the only way to reduce our healthcare cost is to remove profits from areas where no real innovation is required, specifically private insurance companies that take 30% of your premiums simply to pay your bill.
Let's be clear. If healthcare reform does not occur now, it will likely not occur for some time and will be more costly to solve going forward. If healthcare reform does not occur now, many employers will drop health insurance, all premiums will be increased immediately, those with pre-existing conditions will likely remain uninsurable, and private insurance companies will continue to rescind policies, select procedures you may have, select medicines your doctor may prescribe, select the hospital you are able to get care from, and select your doctor in order to maximize their profits.
Those concerned that illegal aliens may get medical care should insist that the healthcare reform ensure ones nationality for care except for communicable diseases which could affect us all irrespective of nationality.
Healthcare reform should be paid for by everyone based on one's ability to pay. While it is true that this will puts a heavier burden on the wealthy, said burden is justified given the nature of wealth in this country being unevenly distributed to the top 5% and 1%, not because they are more productive or produce anything of lasting value to society, but because of the structural design of our capitalist society rewarding capital manipulation more so than producing goods and services of societal value. With 1% of the population owning 34% of the wealth of our nation, 5% owning 58.9%, 10% owning 71%, 20% owning 85%, and the lower 40% owning less than 1% of the wealth, as well as income similarly distributed, the societal gain from marginally taxing those of us who benefited from a country rewarding the skills that allowed us to flourish, should be seen as a responsibility to maintain a viable society.
One should note that most working people pay taxes on most of their income while the very rich whose monies are tied to stocks and investments will generally pay a maximum indexed tax to 28%. One should also note that most working people pay social security taxes on all their income while the more well off stop paying social security taxes on income over $106,000.
The argument then that asking the rich to pay a bit more in taxes for healthcare reform is unfair or would affect the economy is at best a scare tactic or at worst selfish and evil. If one stands by facts and understand income and wealth distribution in the country and the real reasons for such inequity, the population at large will be able to force politicians to pass healthcare reform specifically and better laws that inhibits the unsustainable transfer of wealth our current healthcare system and financial structures continue to allow.
.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.JPG)
Until we get honest with wealth distribution in this country we will continue to have not only healthcare problems but many others to come.
July 19, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes! And until we have a political party that is fighting for wealth resdistribution we have but one real party - the Bipartisan GOP - the Gang of Oligarchs and Plutocrats.
There's plenty of naive political stuff from even the mostly highly educated policy wonks but the politics is always about dividing up the pie. If we aren't trying to get our share you can bet the other guy is going to steal our share from us.
Economists can work on growing the economy. Politics is about dividing up the results.
July 19, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everybody must....?
Where has Congress been given the authority to demand that ...
•Every legal American citizen and resident must be covered.
•Everyone capable of paying premiums must do so. Those legitimately unable to pay should be subsidized.
•Preferably a non-profit government run insurance should pay for healthcare but at minimum a robust public insurance option must be included that channel all healthcare dollars to healthcare.
ex animo
davidfarrar
July 19, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
TIMES THEY ARE A CHANGIN', GET YOUR WALLET OUT WE'RE COMING FOR YOUR MONEY!
July 20, 2009 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot guns. We're also coming for their guns.
July 20, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you please go back to writing blogs about birth certificates and selective service registrations? Those are at least good for a chuckle.
And BTW, as anyone who's seen "Barnyard" your avatar fits you perfectly.
July 20, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm. I read someplace the Founding Fathers wanted to "promote the general welfare". I believe it came after something about, "We the people", blah, blah, blah. I'm no scholar, but I'm pretty sure it said that somehwere. I'm also pretty sire that if we all contributed to the singular goal of healthcare for all, we could consider that the "general welfare".
If some of us contributed to an organization that extracted monies from those that might be attributed to healthcare to enhance the wealth of a few shareholder, that it was somehow less then supportive to the "general welfare". So I want to know where those investors got the authority to prevent "we the people" from doing that, and whether they are using that assumed authority to demand Congress comply with their desires to prevent "we the people" from obtaining a reform that would benefit the "general welfare".
I don't know, I'm just asking questions. But I'm pretty sure I read tha tbit about the "general welfare" somewhere and it was pretty early in the establishment of this nation.
July 19, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Basically, If ruling party changes, accordingly tax system also does, especially given the condition that the middle class is undergoing severe financial hardship as a consequence of the extremely high fuel price, mortgage rate, and insurance premium, which is a beauty and virtue of democracy as we know.
In case some people have enjoyed the benefit of exemptions, that might imply others have shouldered the equivalent of their share.
Now the time has come for the middle class and middle class-oriented party to take initiative.
In general, advanced states are characterized as a broad base of middle class, the recovery of which is what the last presidential election is for, too.
Alongside a tax on the richest, alcohol tax and ending subsidies for the private insurers can be considered, I guess.
July 19, 2009 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting that you frame your argument about the "contributions" by the rich in exactly the same way as many liberals discuss taxes:
- confiscatory
- punitive
- redistributionist
It's been interesting to observe how the debate started with crocodile tears over the uninsured, then moved on to the rage at the insurance companies and is now being channeled at punishing the rich fuckers.
Perhaps we should be honest and just admit that your idea of healthcare "reform" consists in nothing more than making it an extension of the tax policy?
July 20, 2009 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
PT - I agree with Lalo above, but only to the extent that you are advocating two separate principles - healthcare reform and a less retrogressive tax structure - and they are only partially related. That said, I thoroughly agree with your position on each. For health care reform, we need to shore up the federal side of the equation with revenue to pay for the federal contribution, and a minor tax surcharge on the very wealthy is a reasonable approach. Regarding the other issues, I agree that recent decades have seen an alarming redistribution of income to the rich from everyone else, and this is seriously distorting the operation of society, whether in politics, healthcare, or any other important venue. That redistribution needs to be corrected, both as a matter of practical economics, and in the interest of living in a society with a sense of community and a willingness to share burdens.
Thanks for your excellent post.
July 20, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
NO MORE FREE RIDES:
America should rigidly adopt a "points system" on immigration reform as many industrialized countries have? Only the cream at the top of the milk, should get priority to immigrate. Simply stated people with outstanding credential, who are Ph.d in scientific research, top grade engineers and highly rated professionals, will be readily sponsored for a good paying jobs, exceptional health care, a great pension on retirement, in major industries. They are not going to become bottom feeders who take advantage of federal state and county welfare benefits. They will not be illegal pregnant Mothers who intentionally steal across the border, so the good taxpayers will support her and her instant citizenship baby. They are not the 20 plus million who are going to suck America dry, because either political party patronizes the corporate parasites that have attracted cheap labor. We can never have a balanced health care program, as long as taxpayers are forced by federal mandate to give free education, health care and a host of other benefits. The border fence must be a two layer system, that goes from Brownsville Texas, to San Diego, California--with a permanent special National Guard unit.
Uncontrollable legal and illegal immigration has torn the European Union apart. Rampant violence and crime, and millions of low income, poorly educated workers from Caribbean islands and Northern Europe are draining the benevolent English people of government benefits, causing rationing on the health care, education and growing population in the prison system. The European Parliament has allowed this cause a major impact, to indigenous quality of life, with a growing unrest in Christian, Catholic communities as the Muslim faith is demanding more rights. This is exactly the same ramifications that is taking shape here, with the illegal immigration occupation of our nation? A ultimate example of spending on illegal worker families is California--indelibly marked as a--SANCTUARY STATE--that now must order higher taxes, because the ignorant Sacramento Assembly, sold out taxpayers by pandering to the business community for their free-ride to hire millions of cheap illegal labor.
E-Verify must be in-perpetuity, not voluntary, for everybody throughout the United States. Not employees who have just been hired, but everybody who is on the payroll. There should be a large formidable force of interior ICE inspectors who make lightening strikes on large and small business. The penalty for hiring illegal aliens should be extremely severe, as they are stealing jobs from Americans and legal residents. Confiscation of assets, heavy fines and certainly prison sentences. Without these pre-requisites, E-Verify will not be efficient enough. NUMBERSUSA for more details Without any question's workers in industry should have be able to call ICE, and leave a message about their suspicions of illegal activity in their working location. Those illegal workers confronted by a upgraded application in the workplace, will soon shy away from any contact with employers who stipulate the use of E-Verification. Inferior enforcement for years of neglect and inefficiency whether intentional or not by previous administration, are to blame for the incessant illegal immigration that has clogged the American labors work environment. SAY NO TO ANOTHER AMNESTY! SAY NO TO ANY PATH TO CITIZENSHIP. RESCIND THE INSTANT BIRTHRIGHT LAW. RESCIND ANY KIND OF BENEFITS TO THOSE WHO CANNOT PROVE THEIR CITIZENSHIP! NO TO IRREVERSIBLE OVERPOPULATION! ERUPT YOUR ANGER IN THE EAR OF YOUR Senator and Congressman today at 202-224-3121---BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.
July 21, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink