Obamacare supporters can be happy....

[AUTaxMan]

Canada, the UK, and every other developed country that has National Healthcare disagree with you...

Yes. Their healthcare systems are all in prime fiscal condition. They also don't have the sheer number of people to support with their systems that the U.S. does.

[freethrowtommy]

Yes. Their healthcare systems are all in prime fiscal condition. They also don't have the sheer number of people to support with their systems that the U.S. does.

Most have a better fiscal situation than we do... health care or not.

[AUTaxMan]

Most have a better fiscal situation than we do... health care or not.

So we need to make it worse?

[freethrowtommy]

So we need to make it worse?

Why do we need to make it worse?

That money we are spending on wars and the military can be reused for infrastructure and health care? We spend money tearing down and building back up other countries... why can't we build up our own instead? Creates jobs at home and reinvests the money back in our economy...

I know it isn't as profitable as war to our government contractors and the people that pull the strings... but hey, wishful thinking, right?

[theonedru]

why do we need to make it worse?

That money we are spending on wars and the military can be reused for infrastructure and health care? We spend money tearing down and building back up other countries... Why can't we build up our own instead? Creates jobs at home and reinvests the money back in our economy...

I know it isn't as profitable as war to our government contractors and the people that pull the strings... But hey, wishful thinking, right?

+1

[habsheaven]

About $60 per month per family member.

My Fed taxes currently amount to around 15% of my income. A 35% increase to cover a health care program would be a heck of a lot more than my insurance premium.

Option A: "Free" health care that costs me around $45,000 a year in taxes and I still have to pay extra for supplemental insurance.

Option B: Private health care that costs me $3600 a year plus $13,500 a year in taxes.

it doesn't take a free health care brain surgeon can figure this one out. Pun intended.



The strategic value to the US is border protection. By ensuring that Canada is unaccosted we protect ourselves. The same can be said for Mexico. If you don't understand the logic then look up the Cuban Missile Crisis.

As for oil, according to this report that just came out today Canada supplies 18% of our oil. I don't consider that to be MOST of our oil.

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/...-its-oil-from/

And since you are so sure that Canada needs nobody else but Canada, read this. It would appear that you don't even supply your own country with the bulk of it's oil, just like the US. Kettle meet pot.
http://www.canadians.org/energy/issu...adian_oil.html

Here we go again.

First bold: Your numbers suggest that you have 5 people covered under your insurance. Our supplemental insurance doesn't make any consideration for number of children. It covers them all for the same cost ($65/mos for the family). You state your 15% would increase by 35%. Are you implying you would now be paying 50% ($45,000) in Fed tax. Or are you saying a 35% increase to your current 15%, which would be approx. 21%? Regardless, based on your salary or mine, and our ability to access insurance through our employers we both would be better off under the American way. The pros of our system are seen best for those not in your position or mine. The people who do not have employer sponsored insurance pay alot more than us.

Second bold: You stated Canada is safe because they have no strategic value to other countries. I was asking you what strategic value does America have that requires you to spend so much to defend yourself.

Third bold: Wrong choice of words on my part. I should have said who is your largest supplier of oil. Not most of all your oil imports.

Fourth bold: What are you talking about here? If I implied Canada doesn't need anyone else, I was talking about militarily, not oil imports. Once again, you attribute statements to me that I never made.

Edit: And for the record, the taxes I pay cover more than just health care. So once again your comparisons are skewed.

[duane1969]

Here we go again.

First bold: Your numbers suggest that you have 5 people covered under your insurance. Our supplemental insurance doesn't make any consideration for number of children. It covers them all for the same cost ($65/mos for the family). You state your 15% would increase by 35%. Are you implying you would now be paying 50% ($45,000) in Fed tax. Or are you saying a 35% increase to your current 15%, which would be approx. 21%? Regardless, based on your salary or mine, and our ability to access insurance through our employers we both would be better off under the American way. The pros of our system are seen best for those not in your position or mine. The people who do not have employer sponsored insurance pay alot more than us.

I don't understand exactly how the Canadian tax system works. I over-stated the percentage. I have been told that income tax in Canada hovers around 40%. I meant an increase of 25%, not 35%. I was typing fast because it was my quitting time.

You must also remember that along with regular Federal taxes (which 75% of funds welfare/Medicaid), we also have FICA taken out, which funds Medicare and we have Social Security tax taken out which goes into a retirement system that is being bled dry and will probably not be available for me when I retire. If I am already paying taxes and already funding a health care system for the poor and a retirement system then why am I expected to pay even more taxes to fund another health care program and how is it fair that I keep paying more and more and getting less and less for my money?

I agree it doesn't benefit the working class and that is exactly who is going to be hurt to have a nationalized health care. Any way you slice it, it isn't fair to make the "haves" suffer so that the "have-nots" can have better. My wife and kids should not have diminished health care so that someone else can have better health care and then I have to pay for it on top of it all.

Second bold: You stated Canada is safe because they have no strategic value to other countries. I was asking you what strategic value does America have that requires you to spend so much to defend yourself.

I think you misunderstood me or I didn't articluate myself very well. I was saying that a large part of Canada's safety lies in their strategic value to America. What I meant by "no strategic value" was from a military perspective. Yes, Canada has a large value as far as natural resources goes, but if a country is going to risk war to invade Canada it will most likely be to gain strategic position for an assault on America, not for natural resources.

Fourth bold: What are you talking about here? If I implied Canada doesn't need anyone else, I was talking about militarily, not oil imports. Once again, you attribute statements to me that I never made.

Ignore that oil thing. Like I said, was about to leave work, rushing and didn't make my point very good. Ignore it.

I guess Canada's military support needs depend on who the invading country is. If it is Greece or Sweden you are probably safe. If it is Iran, Brazil or Pakistan you might want to give us a call.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/

Edit: And for the record, the taxes I pay cover more than just health care. So once again your comparisons are skewed.

As I am sure mine would as well. I just have issue with having my taxes being raised and being forced to join a lesser health care program than what I have now and then having to spend out-of-pocket anyway to get the quality care for my family that I want them to have, and all of that so that someone else can have free health care. I am sorry, that is not right.

[habsheaven]

I don't understand exactly how the Canadian tax system works. I over-stated the percentage. I have been told that income tax in Canada hovers around 40%. I meant an increase of 25%, not 35%. I was typing fast because it was my quitting time.

You must also remember that along with regular Federal taxes (which 75% of funds welfare/Medicaid), we also have FICA taken out, which funds Medicare and we have Social Security tax taken out which goes into a retirement system that is being bled dry and will probably not be available for me when I retire. If I am already paying taxes and already funding a health care system for the poor and a retirement system then why am I expected to pay even more taxes to fund another health care program and how is it fair that I keep paying more and more and getting less and less for my money?

I agree it doesn't benefit the working class and that is exactly who is going to be hurt to have a nationalized health care. Any way you slice it, it isn't fair to make the "haves" suffer so that the "have-nots" can have better. My wife and kids should not have diminished health care so that someone else can have better health care and then I have to pay for it on top of it all.



I think you misunderstood me or I didn't articluate myself very well. I was saying that a large part of Canada's safety lies in their strategic value to America. What I meant by "no strategic value" was from a military perspective. Yes, Canada has a large value as far as natural resources goes, but if a country is going to risk war to invade Canada it will most likely be to gain strategic position for an assault on America, not for natural resources.



Ignore that oil thing. Like I said, was about to leave work, rushing and didn't make my point very good. Ignore it.

I guess Canada's military support needs depend on who the invading country is. If it is Greece or Sweden you are probably safe. If it is Iran, Brazil or Pakistan you might want to give us a call.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/



As I am sure mine would as well. I just have issue with having my taxes being raised and being forced to join a lesser health care program than what I have now and then having to spend out-of-pocket anyway to get the quality care for my family that I want them to have, and all of that so that someone else can have free health care. I am sorry, that is not right.

First bold: That's a matter of opinion I guess. I think the most significant reason we are safe is because of our standing in the world. Although it doesn't hurt having the US as a friend.

Second bold: If we look like we are getting invaded I will give you a call. If the line is busy, I am sure I can call on Britain or France to lend a hand. Afterall, they still owe us one for WWI and II.

Third bold: Here we just have to agree to disagree. I am perfectly fine being taxed more so that my government can provide for people who can't afford/qualify for health insurance.

[duane1969]

First bold: That's a matter of opinion I guess. I think the most significant reason we are safe is because of our standing in the world. Although it doesn't hurt having the US as a friend. Agreed.

Second bold: If we look like we are getting invaded I will give you a call. If the line is busy, I am sure I can call on Britain or France to lend a hand. Afterall, they still owe us one for WWI and II.

Don't call France. Haven't you heard what their battle cry is?

Third bold: Here we just have to agree to disagree. I am perfectly fine being taxed more so that my government can provide for people who can't afford/qualify for health insurance.

Here is the kicker. I already pay for free health care for those who don't have it. That is why I have an issue with Obamacare or a national health program. 75% of every tax dollar taken in by the US government goes to welfare/free health care/etc. I had a link for this but can't find it right now.

If the welfare system is scrapped and all of that money is put into a free health care program then my taxes probably won't go up or won't go up much. I can live with that.

Additonally, our Social Security system is being bled dry by politicians who keep borrowing from it and by people who are on it but it wasn't intended for (persons on disability and children of deceased workers). Why should I trust the government to not do the same thing with money intended for a national health care system?