Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (106)	9/6/2006 2:43:15 PM
From: cirrus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

I don't believe that would be the case. I now pay for my insurance AND I pay for public employees AND I pay for the uninsured. (Actually, I pay double for certain public employees because their plans cost twice as much as mine.) However, let's suppose a national sales tax is imposed to pay for a single payer health insurance system. Would that tax be higher than my current health insurance + a reduction in local taxes now going to pay for public employees health insurance? I doubt it. The burden would be shared by all to the extent that the tax allows, including the public employees. The argument that socialization would lead to higher costs is simply an argument for keeping the status quo, no matter how inefficient it has become. As for paying taxes for someone else's health care that is precisely what you would be doing (to a far greater extent) if either health care, or health insurance, was socialized.