OK so I'm a little late in getting back to you on my claim that the rich don't pay taxes. They do not. The middle classes pay a vast majority of all tax revenue levied by our governments. I love the stat that shows how 5% of Americans paid 60% of Federal Personal Income Taxes. While this is likely a true statistic it is not an accurate way to compare tax burden. It's very important that we distinguish between INCOME TAX and TAX. Why? Well because they are two very different issues. While the "rich" might pay more INCOME TAX they are not burdened by taxes the way the average American is. The actual number of pages in the Federal Tax Code depends on how you define it. Depending on your definition of the Federal Tax Code it can range from about 2,000 pages to as high as 70,000 pages. Depending on what state you live in you could practically double that number. The NYS tax form is twice as long as the federal 1040. If you are like me you don't really have the time to KNOW how to pay less taxes and likely you don't have the resources to pay someone who does KNOW how to pay less taxes. For example, did you know that for every $ you make over $102k you aren't required to pay SS on it? I bet you didn't. Did you know the fact that you actually pay 15.3% of your income to SS and Medicare rather than the 7.65% shown on your pay stub? Yeah, your employer pays the same amount you pay for you. That money could've been in your paycheck instead it's off to the feds. So now lets look at what the average American pays in Federal Income Tax. It's about 25%. Add that to the 7.65% and we're talking about 32.65% of your income going to the Feds. That doesn't condsider the OTHER 7.65% you could have been paid by your employer but aren't. In effect it's a "hidden" tax on your wages. So the TOTAL paid is actaully 40.3%. That's not even beginning to calculate state income taxes. Now the "rich" income tax rate maxes out at 35%. As we mentioned earlier they stop paying SS and medicare payments on anything over $102k. So if they made $1.102 million they pay 35% on the $1.102 million and 15.3% on $102k. So while the average American is paying 40.3% on their income the weathlier American is pay 35% on a vast majority of the income. As you can see they do not have a greater burden than the average American. Now lets consider a recent HOT topic in the media....bonuses. What almost none of the media outlets mentioned in regards to the AIG bonuses was that many of the individuals that got those "bonuses" had opted to get a $1.00 yearly salary in exchange for the bonus. What!? Yep that's right. Why the heck would they do that? Well because bonuses are not taxed as "income" they are taxed under the capital gains heading. Which is 15% rather than 35%. In addition they don't pay SS and Medicare on it. So when comparing the RICH to the AVERAGE American it's truly absurd to make the claim that the Rich have a greater tax burden.
Now let's consider the impact of raising taxes on the rich. I know, I know, I've just said they don't pay hardly any taxes compared middle income Americans. However, lets look at what we can expect with raising taxes on the rich. To do this consider what happens when your purchasing power is reduced. When your cost of living goes up you look at where you can make cuts to save money. For you and I it's things like eating out less, canceling cable TV, shorter or no vacations, etc., etc. For the wealthy, it's more along the lines of investments, and business expansion. If the rich have less to spend they don't debate HBO or Cinemax with their spouse. They look at laying off employees or reducing their stock portfolio. They have their team of lawyers and accountants locate tax shelters where they can put their money to ride out the storm of the tax hike until someone cuts taxes.
So lets go after their businesses! Cap and Trade! Higher Corporate Tax Rates! Well, sure that's fine. Know this, a business NEVER pays taxes. The consumers of the products or services that business produces or provides pay the taxes. When a business does a cost analysis it must figure in the cost of the tax it will pay. It then incudes that into the price structure for it's goods and services. So, for example, placing a tax on a coal burning electric plant is essentially placing a tax on all of the consumers of that electric plant. The plant doesn't pay more tax. They pass that cost on to you. The plant doesn't pay for it greener technology. You do. If that electric plant can't compete and closes, guess what? Your rates will increase with increased demand on fewer plants and less competition. In addition, raise taxes on an electric plant only serves to make more expensive engery more competitive. It doesn't make you life less expensive.
This idea that we can make the rich pay an equal share is mythical under the current tax structure which has been created by both Democrats and Republicans. Do you truly believe that Obama will raise taxes on himself? Well lets look at that. He and Michelle reported earning $2.6 million from book sales in 2008, about $200k in income and a small amount of money from some investments. They paid $855k in taxes. Ummmm...what? Do the math. They paided less than 35% of their total income. I wonder HOW they were able to do that? Obama was able to reduce his tax profile there by reducing his tax burden and effectively NOT PAYING HIS FAIR SHARE!
There would be ONLY 1 method to make all pay their fair share. That would be a national sales tax on EVERYTHING. Nothing would be exempt. No need for thousands of pages of tax code. You can't hide your money from it because to live in the USA means your spending money in the USA. The more money you make the money money you'll probably spend therefore the more money you'd pay into the tax coffers. You could dramatically reduce the size of the IRS. No one would need to fear April 15th. No more dreaded knock on the door by the IRS wanting to see your records from 10 years ago. It's the purest way to fund the federal government without burdening some while others aviod it. Now I am not saying I'm in favor of taxes nor the federal government having such a large budget nor some of the programs that are being funded. HOWEVER, in 2009 it's estimated that the federal government spent about $3 trillion with a budget deficiet of about 400 $billion. The GDP of 2008 was about $14.3 trillion. With a national sales tax of about 25% would've covered the 2009 budget, the deficiet and still had some jingle in the governments pocket to begin to pay down the National Debt and make up for the SS and Medicare projected short falls. When you consider that the average American is already paying about 40% of their income to the Fed just counting Income Tax and FICA you can see how much more money the middle class would have. Now think about all the other taxes you pay to the Feds that wouldn't exsist with a national sales tax. Gas would cost less for example. I would ONLY suggest a nation sales tax if all other federal taxes were scrapped. Just think about it.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
Saint O's healing touch....I CAST THE OUT DEVIL! BE HEALED! HALLELUJAH!
Who knew O was such a reverent pastor of the people!?
I've been gathering up information so I could present this argument correctly. I think it's important to get on the point and not deviate with this particular discussion. I hold veterans, in general, in the highest regard. I do not wish that to be misunderstood. This discussion is less about the vets than socialized/nationalized health care. So while I may bring up our wounded vets in this discuss it is to make a point about socialized/nationalized health care and not to critique the VA nor what our vets deserve. I don't think we could ever fully repay their service.
That said, I would like to turn your attention to something the Obama administration considered doing before hitting a brick wall and backing away from. Last month the Obama administration purposed a plan that would have required private insurance companies to provide coverage to our soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines for injuries sustained on the battle field. This is a fact (google it if you don't like my link). Obama claims this would save the federal government about $540 million per year. We will come back to that number but first consider what it would do to premiums for health care coverage by the private insurance companies if they were obliged to provide health care for those people the government sends to war. It would send them through the roof. It would likely bankrupt the private insurance companies which would provide ample excuse for the government to step in and nationalize health care in the exact manner that they've done with our banks. The premium would be to high forcing many people to drop their coverage giving the insurance company less money to pay for the injuries it was legally obligate to pay for. Eventually, the private health care providers would begin failing and the more expensive it became to pay for health care the louder the cry would get for nationalized health care. Some of the larger insurance companies would get bailed out. These would be partially or wholly owned by the US government similar to the situation AIG finds itself in. This would be a quiet way for the US government to nationalize health care and no one would mind. Why? Well because by this point a majority of the nation would be without health care coverage.
The second point I would like to make brings us back to that number I mentioned earlier. $540 million. Let's do a little math shall we? First though lets get some more information. How many vets are are enrolled in the VA Health Care System? There are 7.8 million vets enrolled in the VA Health Care System. Now remember, the proposal by the Obama admin only discusses forcing private insurance companies to cover injured vets not ALL vets. So now how many vets receive VA Disability Compensation? That number is 2.95 million. Now this number is a little misleading. Do all 2.95 million need constant medical care? Not likely. This number includes people who are not necessarily injured on the battle field. It could be their job gave them a bad back. But we can't distinguish between those shot in war and those that drop a heavy box on their big toe. All of these 2.95 million people will at one time or another seek medical assistance from the VA if their injury disables them. So now to the math. Lets divide $540 million by 2.95 million vets. That works out to be about $183.05 per vet. Which is really not a lot. I assume that the big toe injury doesn't require as much medical attention as a bullet wound. However, we need to look at averages. So on average the VA spends $183.05 per vet per year for medical attention. Now where am I going with all this? Well, lets consider Obama's first budget. In it he purposes creating a $630 billion "reserve fund" for changes to our health care system. The total costs are not known which Obama fully admits to. If you review his budget plan and read the last paragraph on page 67 you'll note that the plan specifically calls this $630 billion a down payment and it goes on further to state:
The term down payment and the fact that the "Budge call's for an effort beyond this down payment" tells me that this $630 billion is just a small piece of the total cost "to put the Nation on a path to health insurance coverage for all Americans." Now if we just consider the down payment $630 billion and we divide that by 10 years (that's the number of years the $630 billion will be spread out over) we get $63 billion. Now take 63 billion and divide it by 300 million Americans we get $210.00 per American per year.
So now that the math is done lets draw your own conclusions. I personally see a great deal of hypocrisy when Team O can claim it will save $540 million per year by forcing private insurance company's to foot the bill for battle wounds and then also purpose to spend even more money per private citizen. Remember the math....$210.00 per year on a private citizen and $183.05 per year on a vet.
Now lets not forget that the Obama plan has no real way of funding this $630 billion. The budget states:
Now lets consider recent history of other federally funded social programs that have worked sooooooo well. According to Richard W. Fisher, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, in a speech before The Commonwealth Club of California on May 28, 2008 in San Francisco:
While we are moving towards nationalize health care the countries the started the craze are leaving it. European countries are bankrupt and quietly cutting critical health care to it's citizens. A friend of mine is dying of a brain tumor. About 6 years ago he was diagnosed with it. The Italian health system said basically he should go home, put his things in order and die. Instead he, and I think most would, decided he'd try and fight to live. He and his wife have spent a lot of their own money on private health care to try and extend his life. A man, that was given 6 months, and told to go home to die is still alive 6 years later because of private health care he has spent his own money on ALL THE WHILE BEING TAXED FOR NATIONAL HEALTH CARE! I know lots of people who have chronic disease like thyroid disease that are told by the nation health care system here in Italy that their treatment is not covered by the national coverage. Once the thyroid is dead....we'll remove it and you'll get meds to supplement the missing hormones. This they will pay for. That said....until that happens....all the blood work, the medication, the treatments to improve life.....well that's on the patient to pay for out of their own pocket. Nationalized health care in Europe does not practice preventive medicine. It engages in treatment after the fact. They don't keep records to track you health through your life. So a new development isn't caught and treated before it becomes life threatening. This is what you pay for with your taxes. Nationalized health care does not want you to live long. Why? Well, preventive medice extends your life expectancy therefore the costs to the government go up as you live longer and are not contributing to taxes as you're a pentioner and not part of the work force. Idealy, under nationalized health care it's citizens will die off before they get to the pention age. One way to assure that is to not practice preventive medicine.
So what does all this cost you ask? A lot! I know of an individual that takes home 60,000 Euro's a year. Well, he does before taxes. What he actually takes home is about 30,000 Euro's a year. That's a tax rate of 50% on someone making about (depending on the exchange rate) 75 to 80 thousand US$. In addition, out of the 30,000 Euro's he then pays a 20% sales tax on EVERYTHING he buys. So if he spend lets say 25,000 Euro's a year on life's expenses he's paid an additional 5,000 Euro's in taxes. This is all before we consider that taxes on his gasoline (over half the cost of the 1.22 Euro's per liter is tax it's actually closer to two thirds), his car, the yearly tax he pays to own a TV (not kidding), the house, etc., etc., etc. This is how Europe pays for it's social programs. They tax the hell out of the middle class. Do you really think we in America are going to some how be different when we have a nationalized health care system? After all that is said and done on top of paying the equivalent of 75-80% of his income to the government the government continues to reduce it's social programs because it can't afford them. Is this the road you want America to go down? To take on another large social commitment it won't pay for just like Social Security isn't paid for? It's a bold face lie that O makes when he says he can expand coverage and reduce cost. Large bureaucracies are not know to be efficient users of cash.
The first and easiest way to reduce cost in a socialize health care system is to reduce the quality of the facilities provided. If you visit a hospital in a country with socialized health care you'd be shocked at the conditions. It's not a critique of the employee's it's a critique of the governments commitment to providing national health care. The local hospital here CRAWLS with mosquitoes throughout the warmer months. Imagine not being able to slap at mosquitoes as they suck you dry because you're physically unable to while you lie in your hospital bed. In addition, the typical ward is 3 to 4 beds per room. Further, there are plenty of cases where there aren't enough beds and so patients sleep on stretchers in the hallways. If you'd like examples I can link some but they'd be in Italian. How about the hospital that was amputating healthy limbs and conducting unnecessary surgeries just to get a bigger budget the next year? Then there is the girl that died during a common surgery on the operating table because the government never supplied backup generators to the hospital so when the power went out the equipment and lights stopped working. This is what you want?
Let's also not forget that this won't "end" private health care. In every country where you find national health care you also find private health care. So in the end the middle class is taxed to pay for the nationalized health care and the rich or those that can afford it get private health care. Why? Well because typically the national health care system is over loaded. So if you need a surgery you might have to wait for months to get it. This includes simple testing like blood work or a breast exam. If you miss your appointment you may not be able to reschedule it for months or a year. Meanwhile, the rich and those that can afford it go to the front of the line. What? That's right because while the doctors work for the state and draw a salary from the state they also work on their own as private health care providers. So half their time is to the public health care system and the other half is to private health care. This is true also of many hospitals that receive public funding and also are used by private health care. So the MIR you have wait months to get, the rich guy can get done in a week. Do we really want a two class health care system in America? Currently, apart from the myths, lies, and occasional occurrence no one in America goes without health care except by choice.
My last point to make, regarding nationalized health care is how much is spent in the countries where is already exists. The UK expects to have a NHS budget of 110 billion pounds for the 2010-2011 fiscal year. Depending on the exchange rate you use that's about $162 billion. That's nearly three times the annual budget down payment that O has purposed. Oh but wait a minute, the UK doesn't have as many people as the US does. OK, time for some more math. The UK has about 60 million people or about 1/5 the population of the USA which is 300 million. So I guess we would need to multiply that $162 billion by 5 to get the estimated cost for nationalized health care. That would be $810 billion a year for nationalized health care in the USA. That's about 13.5 times the size of the down payment in O's budget. Typically, when I think of a down payment I think of a number around 10%. That's about right for the down payment of 63 billion a year. Do we as a nation REALLY want to spend 800 billion a year via the US Treasury on health care? Think about who's pocket that will come from.
Next week I promise to explain why I say the rich don't pay the majority of the taxes.
I've been gathering up information so I could present this argument correctly. I think it's important to get on the point and not deviate with this particular discussion. I hold veterans, in general, in the highest regard. I do not wish that to be misunderstood. This discussion is less about the vets than socialized/nationalized health care. So while I may bring up our wounded vets in this discuss it is to make a point about socialized/nationalized health care and not to critique the VA nor what our vets deserve. I don't think we could ever fully repay their service.
That said, I would like to turn your attention to something the Obama administration considered doing before hitting a brick wall and backing away from. Last month the Obama administration purposed a plan that would have required private insurance companies to provide coverage to our soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines for injuries sustained on the battle field. This is a fact (google it if you don't like my link). Obama claims this would save the federal government about $540 million per year. We will come back to that number but first consider what it would do to premiums for health care coverage by the private insurance companies if they were obliged to provide health care for those people the government sends to war. It would send them through the roof. It would likely bankrupt the private insurance companies which would provide ample excuse for the government to step in and nationalize health care in the exact manner that they've done with our banks. The premium would be to high forcing many people to drop their coverage giving the insurance company less money to pay for the injuries it was legally obligate to pay for. Eventually, the private health care providers would begin failing and the more expensive it became to pay for health care the louder the cry would get for nationalized health care. Some of the larger insurance companies would get bailed out. These would be partially or wholly owned by the US government similar to the situation AIG finds itself in. This would be a quiet way for the US government to nationalize health care and no one would mind. Why? Well because by this point a majority of the nation would be without health care coverage.
The second point I would like to make brings us back to that number I mentioned earlier. $540 million. Let's do a little math shall we? First though lets get some more information. How many vets are are enrolled in the VA Health Care System? There are 7.8 million vets enrolled in the VA Health Care System. Now remember, the proposal by the Obama admin only discusses forcing private insurance companies to cover injured vets not ALL vets. So now how many vets receive VA Disability Compensation? That number is 2.95 million. Now this number is a little misleading. Do all 2.95 million need constant medical care? Not likely. This number includes people who are not necessarily injured on the battle field. It could be their job gave them a bad back. But we can't distinguish between those shot in war and those that drop a heavy box on their big toe. All of these 2.95 million people will at one time or another seek medical assistance from the VA if their injury disables them. So now to the math. Lets divide $540 million by 2.95 million vets. That works out to be about $183.05 per vet. Which is really not a lot. I assume that the big toe injury doesn't require as much medical attention as a bullet wound. However, we need to look at averages. So on average the VA spends $183.05 per vet per year for medical attention. Now where am I going with all this? Well, lets consider Obama's first budget. In it he purposes creating a $630 billion "reserve fund" for changes to our health care system. The total costs are not known which Obama fully admits to. If you review his budget plan and read the last paragraph on page 67 you'll note that the plan specifically calls this $630 billion a down payment and it goes on further to state:
"In addition, the Budget calls for an effort beyond this down payment, to put the Nation on a path to health insurance coverage for all Americans."
The term down payment and the fact that the "Budge call's for an effort beyond this down payment" tells me that this $630 billion is just a small piece of the total cost "to put the Nation on a path to health insurance coverage for all Americans." Now if we just consider the down payment $630 billion and we divide that by 10 years (that's the number of years the $630 billion will be spread out over) we get $63 billion. Now take 63 billion and divide it by 300 million Americans we get $210.00 per American per year.
So now that the math is done lets draw your own conclusions. I personally see a great deal of hypocrisy when Team O can claim it will save $540 million per year by forcing private insurance company's to foot the bill for battle wounds and then also purpose to spend even more money per private citizen. Remember the math....$210.00 per year on a private citizen and $183.05 per year on a vet.
Now lets not forget that the Obama plan has no real way of funding this $630 billion. The budget states:
"$630 billion over 10 years to finance fundamental reform of our health care system that will bring down costs and expand coverage."Excuse me? How does one EXPAND COVERAGE and BRING DOWN COSTS? It's simply not possible to expand the number of people covered by health care and expect that costs will come down. Costs will go UP because you're taking care of more people. It goes on further to explain:
"The reserve is funded half by new revenue"New revenue? Ohhhhh you mean increased taxes. I see. Where will he get these new taxes from? Why the rich of course, right? NO! Let's face facts here people and put to rest a HUGE myth. The rich do not pay the greatest share of the tax. WHAT!? No they do not. You can give all the facts you want but at the end of the day the rich are not this nations greatest revenue resource. It is and always will be the middle class. HOW SO?! Well, you'll just need to wait for next weeks post to find out because I want to stay focused here for now. I promise you can debate it next week. For now lets pretend we agree on this point. Predominately the governments revenue source comes from the middle class. O can threaten to raise taxes all day and night on the rich but he'll never pay for his plans that way. It will come out of the pockets of the people that are already paying for their own health care. In the beginning of O's plan he'll raise taxes on the middle class to pay for coverage of the people who do not have it yet. So at the end of the day all of you out there that are currently struggling to pay your bills will get the added advantage of paying for someones bills. Does that tie nicely back to my earlier suggestion about what O nationalizing with bailouts private insurance providers? I think it does. Because just like we are paying for the mortgages of people who took on too much risk we will eventually be paying for the health insurance of people who can't/won't pay for it.
Now lets consider recent history of other federally funded social programs that have worked sooooooo well. According to Richard W. Fisher, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, in a speech before The Commonwealth Club of California on May 28, 2008 in San Francisco:
"Add together the unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security, and it comes to $99.2 trillion over the infinite horizon."WOW! This happened because instead of using Medicare and Social Security funds the way they were suppose to be used they got quietly spent on pet projects of our federal politicians. That number is 10 times the GDP of the USA. In other words if we spent every penny made in the USA to pay our debts it would take more than 10 years to pay it off. Incredible. A nationalized health care plan will end up under funded and searching to make cuts just as Social Security and Medicare do now. A nationalized health care system is as sustainable as Social Security and Medicare.
While we are moving towards nationalize health care the countries the started the craze are leaving it. European countries are bankrupt and quietly cutting critical health care to it's citizens. A friend of mine is dying of a brain tumor. About 6 years ago he was diagnosed with it. The Italian health system said basically he should go home, put his things in order and die. Instead he, and I think most would, decided he'd try and fight to live. He and his wife have spent a lot of their own money on private health care to try and extend his life. A man, that was given 6 months, and told to go home to die is still alive 6 years later because of private health care he has spent his own money on ALL THE WHILE BEING TAXED FOR NATIONAL HEALTH CARE! I know lots of people who have chronic disease like thyroid disease that are told by the nation health care system here in Italy that their treatment is not covered by the national coverage. Once the thyroid is dead....we'll remove it and you'll get meds to supplement the missing hormones. This they will pay for. That said....until that happens....all the blood work, the medication, the treatments to improve life.....well that's on the patient to pay for out of their own pocket. Nationalized health care in Europe does not practice preventive medicine. It engages in treatment after the fact. They don't keep records to track you health through your life. So a new development isn't caught and treated before it becomes life threatening. This is what you pay for with your taxes. Nationalized health care does not want you to live long. Why? Well, preventive medice extends your life expectancy therefore the costs to the government go up as you live longer and are not contributing to taxes as you're a pentioner and not part of the work force. Idealy, under nationalized health care it's citizens will die off before they get to the pention age. One way to assure that is to not practice preventive medicine.
So what does all this cost you ask? A lot! I know of an individual that takes home 60,000 Euro's a year. Well, he does before taxes. What he actually takes home is about 30,000 Euro's a year. That's a tax rate of 50% on someone making about (depending on the exchange rate) 75 to 80 thousand US$. In addition, out of the 30,000 Euro's he then pays a 20% sales tax on EVERYTHING he buys. So if he spend lets say 25,000 Euro's a year on life's expenses he's paid an additional 5,000 Euro's in taxes. This is all before we consider that taxes on his gasoline (over half the cost of the 1.22 Euro's per liter is tax it's actually closer to two thirds), his car, the yearly tax he pays to own a TV (not kidding), the house, etc., etc., etc. This is how Europe pays for it's social programs. They tax the hell out of the middle class. Do you really think we in America are going to some how be different when we have a nationalized health care system? After all that is said and done on top of paying the equivalent of 75-80% of his income to the government the government continues to reduce it's social programs because it can't afford them. Is this the road you want America to go down? To take on another large social commitment it won't pay for just like Social Security isn't paid for? It's a bold face lie that O makes when he says he can expand coverage and reduce cost. Large bureaucracies are not know to be efficient users of cash.
The first and easiest way to reduce cost in a socialize health care system is to reduce the quality of the facilities provided. If you visit a hospital in a country with socialized health care you'd be shocked at the conditions. It's not a critique of the employee's it's a critique of the governments commitment to providing national health care. The local hospital here CRAWLS with mosquitoes throughout the warmer months. Imagine not being able to slap at mosquitoes as they suck you dry because you're physically unable to while you lie in your hospital bed. In addition, the typical ward is 3 to 4 beds per room. Further, there are plenty of cases where there aren't enough beds and so patients sleep on stretchers in the hallways. If you'd like examples I can link some but they'd be in Italian. How about the hospital that was amputating healthy limbs and conducting unnecessary surgeries just to get a bigger budget the next year? Then there is the girl that died during a common surgery on the operating table because the government never supplied backup generators to the hospital so when the power went out the equipment and lights stopped working. This is what you want?
Let's also not forget that this won't "end" private health care. In every country where you find national health care you also find private health care. So in the end the middle class is taxed to pay for the nationalized health care and the rich or those that can afford it get private health care. Why? Well because typically the national health care system is over loaded. So if you need a surgery you might have to wait for months to get it. This includes simple testing like blood work or a breast exam. If you miss your appointment you may not be able to reschedule it for months or a year. Meanwhile, the rich and those that can afford it go to the front of the line. What? That's right because while the doctors work for the state and draw a salary from the state they also work on their own as private health care providers. So half their time is to the public health care system and the other half is to private health care. This is true also of many hospitals that receive public funding and also are used by private health care. So the MIR you have wait months to get, the rich guy can get done in a week. Do we really want a two class health care system in America? Currently, apart from the myths, lies, and occasional occurrence no one in America goes without health care except by choice.
My last point to make, regarding nationalized health care is how much is spent in the countries where is already exists. The UK expects to have a NHS budget of 110 billion pounds for the 2010-2011 fiscal year. Depending on the exchange rate you use that's about $162 billion. That's nearly three times the annual budget down payment that O has purposed. Oh but wait a minute, the UK doesn't have as many people as the US does. OK, time for some more math. The UK has about 60 million people or about 1/5 the population of the USA which is 300 million. So I guess we would need to multiply that $162 billion by 5 to get the estimated cost for nationalized health care. That would be $810 billion a year for nationalized health care in the USA. That's about 13.5 times the size of the down payment in O's budget. Typically, when I think of a down payment I think of a number around 10%. That's about right for the down payment of 63 billion a year. Do we as a nation REALLY want to spend 800 billion a year via the US Treasury on health care? Think about who's pocket that will come from.
Next week I promise to explain why I say the rich don't pay the majority of the taxes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)