Only 32% Would Pay Higher Taxes to Provide Health Insurance for All

[Revmitchell]

Thirty-two percent (32%) of American adults say they’d be willing to pay higher taxes so that health insurance could be provided for all Americans. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 54% say they’re not willing to pay more in taxes.

Most Democrats (54%) are willing to pay higher taxes to expand health care coverage. Most Republicans (77%) are not. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 29% are okay with the higher tax bill and 60% are not.

More Here

 

[Jon-Marc]

The rich should pay a higher percentage than the rest of us--including the over-paid politicians, they can afford it.

 

[Salty]

The rich should pay a higher percentage than the rest of us--including the over-paid politicians, they can afford it.

How much should they take from the rich? How about 95% ?

And what is rich? Somebody making $10,000 could be considered rich to a very poor person.

And while we are at it, the govt should should provide universal legal assistance, universal car insurance, universal grocery assistance.

Hmm, what have I forgotten?

Or as the Apostle Paul clearly puts it in 2 Thessalonians 3:10b, “Anyone who does not work, does not eat.”

 

[gb93433]

The rich should pay a higher percentage than the rest of us--including the over-paid politicians, they can afford it.

So it costs more to operate on the rich than the poor?

The rich and the poor in this country have better health care than the middle class. The rich can afford it and the poor get it paid for by the taxpayers.

Why should anyone who has worked hard and disciplined themselves in such a way that they sacrificed and invested their money pay a higher percentage than those who did not and were foolish. I know several people who started with very little and are rich today. Many years ago my parents borrowed some money from a man who had lived in a tent with his wife and family for 11 years before buying a home. There was a day when a small home for a family was about 10' x 14' and they progressed from there as they had more money. Compare that to the expectations of people today.

 

[StefanM]

And while we are at it, the govt should should provide universal legal assistance, universal car insurance, universal grocery assistance.

A defendant accused of a crime is afforded the opportunity to use a public defender.

Car insurance is mandated by law.

Food stamps are in place for those with low incomes.

Working toward universal coverage does not mean that every individual will be on a government healthcare plan.

Regardless, I am still paying for the uninsured through higher costs and higher premiums.

 

[Salty]

A defendant accused of a crime is afforded the 
opportunity to use a public defender

.
But often the public defenders are overworked and the accused do NOT get a fair trial

Car insurance is mandated by law.

but some can barely afford minium coverage.
Why not just the goverment pay for full coverage for eveyone

Food stamps are in place for those with low incomes.

but who determines what a low income is? Why should some be allowed to eat at fine reasturants, while others must contend with a "happy meal"

Working toward universal coverage does not mean 
that every individual will be on a government healthcare 
plan.

Why not

Regardless, I am still paying for the uninsured 
through higher costs and higher premiums

.

BINGO, Why should you be REQUIRED to?

 

[StefanM]

I would prefer to pay for the healthcare of those less fortunate. In order to eliminate completely the effects of the uninsured on the system, all treatment would have to be refused for those who could not pay...including emergency treatment. I would much rather contribute money in a way that will result in a sustainable system that will not overburden hospitals and make my insurance premiums unaffordable and my hospital access sparse.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

And what if those taxes were offset by cheaper premiums???

 

[sag38]

Yeah right!! Keep dreaming MP.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I would prefer to pay for the healthcare of those less fortunate.

Give me your address. I will send you my bill. I would prefer you to pay it since it costs me almost 35% of my monthly income just to provide basic health coverage before I ever pay a deductible or a copay. And that doesn't count my 15.3% social security, plus income taxes, sales tax, etc.

 

[gb93433]

Give me your address. I will send you my bill. I would prefer you to pay it since it costs me almost 35% of my monthly income just to provide basic health coverage before I ever pay a deductible or a copay. And that doesn't count my 15.3% social security, plus income taxes, sales tax, etc.

When I pastored my insurance was almost three times what it is now and when I was self employed. I asked about the reason for that. I was told that a lot of pastors take advantage of mental healthcare. I would also wonder about the health of many pastors today compared to the general public. A lot of pastors are older.

 

[LeBuick]

BINGO, Why should you be REQUIRED to?

To bring your unintended cost under control.

We pay more for the uninsured because they go to emergency rooms which cost us many times more than if they could go to a primary care doctor.

So I don't know if "REQUIRED" is a good word, in the end you should WANT to because it will save all of us money.

 

[LeBuick]

And what if those taxes were offset by cheaper premiums???

Bingo... If everyone was mandated to have coverage the premiums would go down for all. At least since this is so high profile.

Now this didn't work for auto insurance, it is mandated that everyone has insurance but we still have to pay uninsured motorist and our premiums never really went down.

 

[LeBuick]

Give me your address. I will send you my bill. I would prefer you to pay it since it costs me almost 35% of my monthly income just to provide basic health coverage before I ever pay a deductible or a copay. And that doesn't count my 15.3% social security, plus income taxes, sales tax, etc.

No need sending us the bills, we already mailed you the check. The check my good man, is in the mail... :thumbsup:

 

[sag38]

Anytime the goverment gets its grubby fingers involved it costs us more, degrades the quaility of service, and invites corruption.

 

[Salty]

Anytime the goverment gets its grubby fingers involved it costs us more, degrades the quaility of service, and invites corruption.

But dont they then try to fix up the mess...

 

[windcatcher]

To bring your unintended cost under control.

We pay more for the uninsured because they go to emergency rooms which cost us many times more than if they could go to a primary care doctor.

So I don't know if "REQUIRED" is a good word, in the end you should WANT to because it will save all of us money.

Answer me thus:

Friday I visited a doctor.... after shopping around. I have no insurance: Doctor visit $40. EKG $30. TSH $40.
Out of pocket expenses, cash pay immediate upon checking in or prior to each ordered procedure grand totaled $110. Doctor saw EKG, diagnosed very questionable.... wanted to send me to ER for evaluation.... I signed as 'refused'. I have no insurance... can't afford the premiums..... and no current symptom occurring at present or of recent history, and have a feeling their evaluation would just result in a big expense which I cannot afford, and a referral to a cardiologist, which the GP might be able to offer if I request it.

I hear all the time about people going to the ER. Is this a 'cultural thing' which is past on? I've yet to visit the ER. I knew my thyroid medication was over due an annual check.... and I've had some past difficulties with shortness of breath and difficulty on exhertion with coughing and occassional swelling in lower legs which led me to request the EKG..... but no acute problems which I recognized as recent. As it is, it is all in God's hands.

But I post this to remind folks..... something is very wrong with a health care system where either your income or your insurance determines whether you get seen or not.... and how much you are charged! At neither the lab site nor the doctor's office was I required to disclose ability to pay. Both would accept insurance, if one has it... but fees are posted 'payable in advance of services' for the uninsured. The doctor was a GP which means no specialty diagnostic services beyond routine health, treatment, and monitoring........ but had I gone to any other doctor which I used to see under previous insurance policies.... whether paid by insurance or paid out of pocket..... their charges would likely have been 3 or more times as much! Something is wrong ....... and I have a feeling a lot has to do with all the middle men and 'red-tape' and government regulations which get involved.

Oh, out of curiosity, I asked the folks at that doctor's office whether or not they have special funding to help keep their services available, either governmental, ministry, or special grants...... and their answer was "No".

 

[gb93433]

I hear all the time about people going to the ER. Is this a 'cultural thing' which is past on?

A friend of mine was told to visit the emergency room to get some pain medication for his wife just a few days after surgery. Why did the doctor not take care of her in his office. When they went to the emergency room she was given pills for her pain.

 

[windcatcher]

A friend of mine was told to visit the emergency room to get some pain medication for his wife just a few days after surgery. Why did the doctor not take care of her in his office. When they went to the emergency room she was given pills for her pain.

I bet that was a pricecy prescription!


Your guess would be as good as mine!

They know we have to have their authority for medical conditions and treatment..... It's sometimes like they have an interest (profit or padding the business of collegues) which go beyond concern and care for their patients and stewardship of both their time and the patient.

It's like with attorneys... some seem to keep their charges mounting by playing off each other in court; first one post-pones, then another post-pones.... all the while the defendant, and often the plantiff, keeps paying the bills for their attorney's time to show in court.

 

[LeBuick]

Anytime the goverment gets its grubby fingers involved it costs us more, degrades the quaility of service, and invites corruption.

Which are all things we currently have to the extent that health care is currently not affordable for most and is consuming a very large portion of our tax dollars. The argument against government getting involved is that prices would go down to the point private insurers can't compete...