How to pay for socialized sys in the US?

[badasshairday]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Americans want top notch healthcare for little to no cost... unfortunately somebody has to pay. A socialized system in the US would basically be universal medicare, which we know is having budgeting problems do to balooning costs of healthcare.

I'm not writing this to discuss whether or not we should socialize our healthcare or not. I feel like it will eventually happen, but how will it be payed for?

In Europe they pay high taxes to get there socialized system. Taxes on gas are extremely high with gas costing 8-9$ a gallon and half of that going to taxes. Also they pay higher income tax and sales tax.

A common argument for those who are against a socialized system say, "Why should I pay for somebody else who takes bad lifestyle choices such as smoking and not exercising?" Our country is extremely overweight and obese, the costs to fund a socialized system would be immense.

I guess if I could have it my way, we should raise gas tax another 1$ or so, so it forces more sedentary americans out of there cars, also it helps fund healthcare. Many of those people that will have complications do to obesity will be paying more taxes for making the choice of driving everywhere rather than biking/walking.

We could also raise the sales tax on fast food from ~8% to ~18-20%, so those who choose that bad decision to eat fast food everyday which makes them fatter will essentially be paying more for our universal medicare.

What about also raising the % a person must contribute to a universal medicare system if they have a BMI over 25 (of course adjusted for athletes and elderly people). For every BMI point above 25, the individual would be required to pay an additional 1% of there salary to the universal medicare system.

Those are just ideas...

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

So why not tax all behavior that might lead to higher healthcare costs?

Smoking = HIGH TAX, those smokers will obviously cost us money with their lung cancer
Eating Fast Food = HIGH TAX, all those saturated fats will obviously lead to higher risk of heart disease
Driving = HIGH TAX, because without driving there can obviously be no car accidents. If you drive, you statistically cost more to a health insurance system

Why stop here?

Eating at Restaurants = HIGH TAX, because eating freshly prepared non-industrial grade foods is obviously healthier.
Eating Meat = HIGH TAX, because eating vegetables is obviously healthier
Eating Potatoes and Carrots = HIGH TAX, because vegetables with high amounts of carbohydrates obviously aren't as healthy as others
Living in an Urban Area = HIGH TAX, because you are obviously more likely to be involved with violence and the crappy air you breathe is less healthy than if you lived in the suburbs
Homosexual = HIGH TAX, because you are obviously at higher risk for diseases like HIV, HBV, etc

Moreover, we need to do mandatory genetic testing to ensure that individuals are not genetically predisposed for any diseases. If a genetic predisposition to cancer is discovered, that individual will cost the system a tremendous amount of money, and therefore should pay more into the system, right?

If all this is sounding good to you, I pose the question: Why not just let individuals pay for their healthcare like was done in the "old days" (look up Miami Med's many posts on the subject.)

If there is socialized medicine or Federally provided universal healthcare, it will almost certainly be paid for with higher payroll taxes (Medicare tax will go up and become a Universal Healthcare Tax or something like that.) If you tax one high-risk behavior, you must tax them all.

 

[foster033]

Americans want top notch healthcare for little to no cost... unfortunately somebody has to pay. A socialized system in the US would basically be universal medicare, which we know is having budgeting problems do to balooning costs of healthcare.

With a single payer system we would, at least in theory, reduced administration costs and profit cost which I believe are around 20% for private insurance companies and in the single digits with medicare.

In Europe they pay high taxes to get there socialized system. Taxes on gas are extremely high with gas costing 8-9$ a gallon and half of that going to taxes. Also they pay higher income tax and sales tax.

A common argument for those who are against a socialized system say, "Why should I pay for somebody else who takes bad lifestyle choices such as smoking and not exercising?" Our country is extremely overweight and obese, the costs to fund a socialized system would be immense.

I guess if I could have it my way, we should raise gas tax another 1$ or so, so it forces more sedentary americans out of there cars, also it helps fund healthcare. Many of those people that will have complications do to obesity will be paying more taxes for making the choice of driving everywhere rather than biking/walking.

While this is a great idea in theory, it's not necessarily feasible. America simply doesn't have the public transportation that Europe does. A lot of people drive not by choice but by necessity. If you want to raise gas tax I think you should use it to make more efficient public transportation instead of to fund health care which in turn would allow people to walk more places and hopefully have an effect on obesity. Allow gas tax to fund health care would be putting a band-aid on the problem instead of fixing it.

What about also raising the % a person must contribute to a universal medicare system if they have a BMI over 25 (of course adjusted for athletes and elderly people). For every BMI point above 25, the individual would be required to pay an additional 1% of there salary to the universal medicare system.

BMI is not the end all be all of health...there would just be too many exceptions for this to work: pregnant women, women who have recently had babies, people who are overweight because of medical treatment(steriods), etc.
Not to mention this might promote people to go about losing weight in unhealthy ways, especially those that are very close to the cutoff.

 

[AwesomO]

So why not tax all behavior that might lead to higher healthcare costs?

Smoking = HIGH TAX, those smokers will obviously cost us money with their lung cancer
Eating Fast Food = HIGH TAX, all those saturated fats will obviously lead to higher risk of heart disease
Driving = HIGH TAX, because without driving there can obviously be no car accidents. If you drive, you statistically cost more to a health insurance system

Why stop here?

Eating at Restaurants = HIGH TAX, because eating freshly prepared non-industrial grade foods is obviously healthier.
Eating Meat = HIGH TAX, because eating vegetables is obviously healthier
Eating Potatoes and Carrots = HIGH TAX, because vegetables with high amounts of carbohydrates obviously aren't as healthy as others
Living in an Urban Area = HIGH TAX, because you are obviously more likely to be involved with violence and the crappy air you breathe is less healthy than if you lived in the suburbs
Homosexual = HIGH TAX, because you are obviously at higher risk for diseases like HIV, HBV, etc

Moreover, we need to do mandatory genetic testing to ensure that individuals are not genetically predisposed for any diseases. If a genetic predisposition to cancer is discovered, that individual will cost the system a tremendous amount of money, and therefore should pay more into the system, right?

If all this is sounding good to you, I pose the question: Why not just let individuals pay for their healthcare like was done in the "old days" (look up Miami Med's many posts on the subject.)

Don't forget being female, being a minority at high risk for a certain disease, etc. We need to tax them as well. The lets tax bad behaviors only sounds good to people when it's PC stuff like Gas and the obese. If you apply it across the board they start singing a different tune.

Really though if they want to tax you on any set criteria that is fine. As long as you can opt out of their plan and not have to pay the taxes.

 

[Dr.Millisevert]

Don't forget being female, being a minority at high risk for a certain disease, etc. We need to tax them as well. The lets tax bad behaviors only sounds good to people when it's PC stuff like Gas and the obese. If you apply it across the board they start singing a different tune.

Really though if they want to tax you on any set criteria that is fine. As long as you can opt out of their plan and not have to pay the taxes.

What about men who have high risk behavior and refuse to visit a Family doctor (GP) for checkups. Tax them too.

I think you're going a bit over the top here. Of course I suppose that was your point.

 

[badasshairday]

Don't forget being female, being a minority at high risk for a certain disease, etc. We need to tax them as well. The lets tax bad behaviors only sounds good to people when it's PC stuff like Gas and the obese. If you apply it across the board they start singing a different tune.

Really though if they want to tax you on any set criteria that is fine. As long as you can opt out of their plan and not have to pay the taxes.

Well come on, there are certain behaviors that put you at a greater risk of having disease, and these life style choices should be taxed. However, saying that a minority or woman should be taxed simply because they are a minority or a woman shouldn't be done due to the simply fact that they cannot choose to not be a minority or woman.

Smoking is a lifestyle choice, you don't have to be a smoker. Being a woman, is not a lifestyle choice, you are what you are.

 

[kami333]

Well come on, there are certain behaviors that put you at a greater risk of having disease, and these life style choices should be taxed. However, saying that a minority or woman should be taxed simply because they are a minority or a woman shouldn't be done due to the simply fact that they cannot choose to not be a minority or woman.

Smoking is a lifestyle choice, you don't have to be a smoker. Being a woman, is not a lifestyle choice, you are what you are.

What about people who go skiing, boating, or even cycling, (not to mention the people I know who go backcountry skiing, rock climbing, or ice climbing)? These activities will put you at a much higher risk of injury than someone who is eats healthy, goes to an indoor gym and does low impact workouts, and spends time on SDN instead.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Well come on, there are certain behaviors that put you at a greater risk of having disease, and these life style choices should be taxed. However, saying that a minority or woman should be taxed simply because they are a minority or a woman shouldn't be done due to the simply fact that they cannot choose to not be a minority or woman.

Smoking is a lifestyle choice, you don't have to be a smoker. Being a woman, is not a lifestyle choice, you are what you are.

Actually, I realized that after I posted my example with homosexuals. It is illegal to discriminate based upon sex. I am not sure if homosexuals are yet a protected class, but I believe they will be soon, if not already.

Whatever, this whole idea of lifestyle taxes is stupid anyway. We don't need the government telling us what we can and cannot do in our own homes.

 

[badasshairday]

Eh, whatever. I hope we don't socialize and medicare collapses so everyone will be pissed off and we will get real change.

 

[Dirt]

Eh, whatever. I hope we don't socialize and medicare collapses so everyone will be pissed off and we will get real change.

And by real change you mean massive amounts of death and illness in the old, young, and poor populations right? Because that is what would happen if medicare collapsed.

 

[badasshairday]

And by real change you mean massive amounts of death and illness in the old, young, and poor populations right? Because that is what would happen if medicare collapsed.

Let's say, on the verge of collapse instead. I mean the way it is right now is that the average Americacn could care less and really knows nothing about what is going on with the medicare system. The recent 10.6% cut that was avoided barely had any air time on the news. The most I saw was like a 10 second mention of it by a news anchor.

 

[LADoc00]

So why not tax all behavior that might lead to higher healthcare costs?


Homosexual = HIGH TAX, because you are obviously at higher risk for diseases like HIV, HBV, etc

Given the cost of combination HIV therapies and the fact there is a massive increase in recent years of unsafe sex, the gay man tax would be HUGE.

Like at least 1 grand PER insertion.

How do we collect this? Im all for it, but how do we tally up the gay acts that might occur in secret? Say in a bathroom stall.

Or just outright slap another 20% income tax on all identified gay men?

PS- you are a genius. def. onto something BIG here.

 

[AwesomO]

Well come on, there are certain behaviors that put you at a greater risk of having disease, and these life style choices should be taxed. However, saying that a minority or woman should be taxed simply because they are a minority or a woman shouldn't be done due to the simply fact that they cannot choose to not be a minority or woman.

Smoking is a lifestyle choice, you don't have to be a smoker. Being a woman, is not a lifestyle choice, you are what you are.

OK then how bout if a woman's pap comes back positive? Can we tax her at a higher rate then? What about victims of GSWs? I'm not completely opposed to a form of health care consumption tax if we eliminate the income tax for it and it is applied fairly and uniformly. What we don't need is anyone trying to dispence their own brand of morallity via laws. For insance it's all puppy dogs and sun shine as long as it fits your morals. Now lets say a staunch conservative came into the white house and said "Hey I'm gonna lay the tax hammer down on contraceptives. because sex especially premarital sex causes X amount of money a year for our health care system." Again once it isn't a "PC" tax it doesn't sound so good.

 

[cpants]

There are several problems with vice taxes like this. Firstly, they effect poor people the most. The lower your income, the more likely you are to smoke, for example. Generally you have less education and worse health behaviors if you are poor. Secondly, aside from making the vice more expensive, they do nothing to help the people. Pols act like the money will go toward the extra healthcare costs or something like that. In reality it will just go into the black hole of our federal budget. Newsflash, we have a deficit of hundreds of billions of dollars every year. A new tax does not free up money for new programs. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the government should not be telling us what to do, what to eat, and how to live.

 

[Dr.Millisevert]

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the government should not be telling us what to do, what to eat, and how to live.

No.. however, if we transition to a system where your surgery is paid for by your fellow tax paying american citizens... then if you "choose" to continue to smoke (or refuse to give up other behavior/modifiable risk factors that may be contraindicated for your condition)... then you may not still be entitled to get surgery, etc.

Basically if some jo blow was born with a congenital problem.. the public doesn't usually mind helping out. But if your fat ass won't stop eating Micky D's and smoking 3 packs a day. I'm not paying for it.

If you still want the surgery but you refuse to change your behavior/modifiable risk factor as requested... then you may still have the option to pay to have it done privately instead.

This is why most countries that have public health care systems also have private hospitals scattered around the place.

I think it is a pretty fair deal.

 

[MOHS_01]

There are several problems with vice taxes like this. Firstly, they effect poor people the most. The lower your income, the more likely you are to smoke, for example. Generally you have less education and worse health behaviors if you are poor. Secondly, aside from making the vice more expensive, they do nothing to help the people. Pols act like the money will go toward the extra healthcare costs or something like that. In reality it will just go into the black hole of our federal budget. Newsflash, we have a deficit of hundreds of billions of dollars every year. A new tax does not free up money for new programs. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the government should not be telling us what to do, what to eat, and how to live.

There is NOTHING wrong with these vice taxes -- I personally don't give two sh*** if "the poor" can afford the things which are killing them slowly (and quite costly, I might add). I am of the opinion that these things should be taxed to the point that they are considered luxury items.

I am sick and tired of spending my days away from family and friends taking care of ingrateful folks whose persistent piss poor life decisions landed them in the shape that they are in when they do not accept one modicum of self responsibility. They consume an inordinate amount of both my and my staff's time and resources, paid for by my tax dollars in large part -- and unpaid balances to boot.

The last point is the only point that we are in total agreement on -- but if we ask them to foot the bill and/or accept the risk for poor personal decisions (be it medical in nature, the current credit or mortgage crises, etc), we must accept the resultant increases in regulation (and taxes).