3 ms·

Two points - one, is that odds are he's not paying $807/mo out of his taxes due to a progressive income tax. He's probably paying a good portion out of his taxe

Two points - one, is that odds are he's not paying $807/mo out of his taxes due to a progressive income tax. He's probably paying a good portion out of his taxes, but not $807/mo. Point two - and this isn't a rebuttal of any kind against your claims, just an observation - that same graph shows that Canada spends a lower portion of government revenue on health care than we do. And we don't even have universal coverage!

Vivtek 16y ago
The takeaway - you're actually paying for what should be your healthcare in your taxes as an American, but you're not actually getting the healthcare, because that would be socialism.
- Groxx 16y ago
  >that would be socialism. That is a massively incorrect statement, which pops up every time government-mandated healthcare debates appear, which I wish to squash ASAP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism Universal healthcare != socialism. Not even remotely. It's a political mud-slinging attempt to equate healthcare changes with the historical fear of the USSR that seems to have infected far more people than it should even have reached. Yes, fear the Reds, they'll lob bombs at you now that the cold war is over. They've just been waiting. At the absolute closest would be if the government were to run all the healthcare directly (it's not - there are and will be many private healthcare markets), and then it would be a socialist action, not socialism (a socialist government). To make matters worse for this use, any form of taxation can be described as a socialist action. That doesn't make any government that taxes its citizens a socialist government.
  - hoprocker 16y ago
    Oh yeah -- the fear-mongering against "Obamacare" has definitely pulled heavily from imagery surrounding breadlines and gulags. But I imagine vivtek's comment was a sarcastic jab at the acceptance of pouring money into the health care industry w/o getting a commensurate benefit out of it. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
  - joe_the_user 16y ago
    I think the parent meant "pundits would say 'that would be socialism'". I think most here know nationalize health isn't socialism.
  - Vivtek 16y ago
    You've heard of irony, I take it? Of course I don't think it's socialism - but everybody around me in Indiana damn well thinks so. Not that they know what socialism is, mind you - but they know it's really Evil, and it's something liberal people on the East Coast force down our throats in order to pay for all the welfare queens in the cities.... ah, hell, there's that pounding in my temple again.
    - Groxx 16y ago
      I catch it now. And may I say thank you? :) I've just met far too many otherwise-apparently-competent people that actually believe it. And a bajillion tea-partiers. Thanks for the catch, everyone-else, my bad!

Vivtek 16y ago

The takeaway - you're actually paying for what should be your healthcare in your taxes as an American, but you're not actually getting the healthcare, because that would be socialism.

Groxx 16y ago
>that would be socialism. That is a massively incorrect statement, which pops up every time government-mandated healthcare debates appear, which I wish to squash ASAP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism Universal healthcare != socialism. Not even remotely. It's a political mud-slinging attempt to equate healthcare changes with the historical fear of the USSR that seems to have infected far more people than it should even have reached. Yes, fear the Reds, they'll lob bombs at you now that the cold war is over. They've just been waiting. At the absolute closest would be if the government were to run all the healthcare directly (it's not - there are and will be many private healthcare markets), and then it would be a socialist action, not socialism (a socialist government). To make matters worse for this use, any form of taxation can be described as a socialist action. That doesn't make any government that taxes its citizens a socialist government.
- hoprocker 16y ago
  Oh yeah -- the fear-mongering against "Obamacare" has definitely pulled heavily from imagery surrounding breadlines and gulags. But I imagine vivtek's comment was a sarcastic jab at the acceptance of pouring money into the health care industry w/o getting a commensurate benefit out of it. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  I think the parent meant "pundits would say 'that would be socialism'". I think most here know nationalize health isn't socialism.
- Vivtek 16y ago
  You've heard of irony, I take it? Of course I don't think it's socialism - but everybody around me in Indiana damn well thinks so. Not that they know what socialism is, mind you - but they know it's really Evil, and it's something liberal people on the East Coast force down our throats in order to pay for all the welfare queens in the cities.... ah, hell, there's that pounding in my temple again.
  - Groxx 16y ago
    I catch it now. And may I say thank you? :) I've just met far too many otherwise-apparently-competent people that actually believe it. And a bajillion tea-partiers. Thanks for the catch, everyone-else, my bad!