Would you be willing to pay substantially higher federal income taxes in return for universal healthcare?

I see a lot of dialog in this forum about how great the Canadian health care program is. I have two Canadian friends who migrated to the US because they paid the equivalent of a 60% income tax rate in Canada, and, in their opinion had better choices for health care and better return on their health care dollars in the US than they did in Canada.

One was a doctor and the other was a surgical nurse. They earn more per year than many Americans, and that may have been a factor. I don't know if the same tax ratio would be applied to a lower income individual.

I am curious as to how many of you would be willing to pay much higher taxes at that rate to have guaranteed health care. It isn't free (as is often implied in this forum) because the tax payer subsidizes it. However, everyone is entitled to good medical care in Canada. The US subsidizes medical care for only the poorest people.

We have a lot to fix with our health care system, but free care for everyone on the government's dime is not the way to go.
We hardly have capitalist free-market health care either, which is part of the problem.

We need an insurance system that works--there are too many people who have insurance who still can't afford needed medical care, which means the insurance companies are ripping us off. There should also be a way to make people who don't have insurance pay for the services they get to the best of their ability, and limit the services available to people without it. (You shouldn't be able to get antibiotics for your ear infection at the ER, you should be forced to get an appointment with a real doctor and figure out how to pay him later). Maybe if it worked something like it does with lawyers--part of being a doctor is doing a certain amount of work for free, but other than that bit of pro bono work, the rest is for profit. It isn't fair to lay that whole burden on hospitals, when private practice doctors could pitch in to help.

Its a tricky problem, and I haven't seen an answer from anyone that looked like it would fix everything. Bush has done nothing about the problem, and the Clintons tried and failed to fix things. Hopefully the powers that be will keep looking for an answer, instead of trying to make everyone think their answer is right.

No way.

Nope....I have my own health care, thank you. It is not the governments responsibility nor their competency

No. Universal healthcare, run by the Govt will only ensure that we all get mediocre healthcare.

Yep, I was talking to a canadian and was appaled at the income tax rate - I wouldnt be able to survive on my salary with that rate. Thats ridiculous and the answer is NO.


And to Jenny - Yes I have been without a health insurance plan before, then I grew up got serious, got a job and took care of it. But still when I needed to go to the doctor I found a way.

Nope.

I know that many Canadians come across the border to go to doctors and dentists in the US because the waiting lists are so long in Canada.

"Substantial"? No. A minor tax? Possibly.

National Health is a joke. The feds can barely run the VA system without major snafu's. Anyone who would want the feds to handle all health care are obviously mental impaired.

No I would not be willing to pay substantially higher income taxes for universal health care.

USA has the best health care system in the world. Have you noticed how people from all over the world come to our hospitals for treatment?

Capitalism is the best way for the American health care system to be fun. A government agency directing Health Care for 300 million Americans would be a disaster.

If you like the way your state handles the DMV and if you like the way that the federal government runs the post office then maybe you would love waiting 9 months for essential surgery.

The rest of us want everything to stay the way it is. We just have to get rid of junk lawsuits.

Remember, that half of the people who don't have health care are Illegal Aliens, so the numbers are fudged there.

Higher taxes would lead to less liberty so my answer is no!



/

Absolutely not - I have insurance, and I have worked my butt off to get to where I am at in life, and I am not going to throw my hard earned money away subsidizing an entire countries health care.

no

As long as the taxes are proportional to the tax bracket (and this means no more tax cuts for the wealthiest), then I am for universal health care funded through taxes. For me, it seems to be a better return on your investment.

All these people who have said no, I wonder if they've ever had to live without health care. I grew up on government health care and now that I'm in college, I have not the money to afford a plan, and no money for health care. This means I have to just hope that nothing bad happens to me. For individuals to have to avoid going to the doctor because they don't have the money is fairly ridiculous and I wonder how the "no" answers wish to correct this problem.

No. Not when there is no audit or accountability for the civil servants that manage and operate the programs administration. For example, the ridiculous bonuses the higher-ups at Walter Reed received that was brought out in the press last week. As for good health care in Canada, my friends that are canadian come here for medical care because they'd die waiting to see a doctor. And it is appropriate to provide Medicare/Medicaid only to those that are the poorest or can demonstrate actual need for assistance. All of the able bodied can make their contribution and not attempt to freeload.

lol...I don't pay the US government any taxes I don't owe...and that includes the Federal Income Tax. So I could care less.

And to answer your question: NO! I would never put money in the hands of government especially from my labor.

No. Everywhere it's been implemented, universal care is expensive and inefficient. You end up paying the cost and not getting the care.

I think I'd be OK with it. Especially if we started by raising taxes on the rich first. In 1979 the U.S. had 15 income tax brackets with the top bracket paying 70%. Now we have 3 brackets with the top paying 35%.

Universal access to efficient preventive-based health care should be a priority of any society. At the beginning of the 21st Century the World Health Organization ranked the systems of its 191 member countries. A key factor in the ranking was the "healthy life expectancy" of the citizens of each country. Other factors included fairness of financial contributions, "responsiveness to expectations," treating patients with dignity, giving them prompt attention and a choice of doctors. The US outspent everyone, 13.7 percent of GDP ($3,700 per year per person). This spending resulted in a 37th place finish, primarily because of the high number of uninsured in the US. While the healthy life expectancy in the US is 70, the overall performance is dragged down by the uninsured. As many as 10 percent of the US population endure such poor health that their life expectancy plunges to 50 years.

Of the 191 nations, France (74.5 years healthy life expectancy) has the best performance, followed closely by Italy, Spain, Austria and Japan. The UK finished in 18th place. For the top rating France spent 9.8 percent of GDP ($2100 per year per person). The UK only spent 5.8 percent of GDP on health care. Incidently, in North America, Canada rated as the fairest mechanism for health care financing.

While health care providers have the highest annual incomes in the US, this factor accounted for little of the increased cost. The poor cost-benefit ratio is largely caused by high administrative (private insurance companies) costs.

Under no circumstances, however, do I favor substantially higher federal income taxes on anyone. Taxes on earnings make no sense and are counterproductive. Earnings are good. Taxes on consumption are not only more sensible but also are more equitable. It is time for our government to start providing for the health and welfare of our citizens and quit redistributing the wealth and resources to the favored contributors.