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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (4789)	2/22/2008 1:26:37 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 42652

The key to all this, however, is to be more efficient, productive, and have a healthier overall economy where we do not have to begrudge the people at the bottom of society from feeding on what is left over. Mary, we're not talking about the bottom. That's the key point you seem to be missing. We have the bottom already covered, more or less. No one is begrudging the bottom anything. Well, almost no one. We're talking about the middle. If you're already supporting the bottom and you add the middle, who is left to pay? And who is left to democratically stop your fascism. What happens to your balance?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (4789)	2/22/2008 2:01:07 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

I'm trying to find some way to communicate to you that we're talking about the middle, not the bottom. So I did some research and found that only a little more than the top ten percent of taxpayers--AGI upwards of 90K--currently pay enough in tax to cover their own health care and nothing else. That would be the situation were we to fund universal coverage from the general fund. That's all the bottom, middle, and some of the top. That would make nearly ninety percent of us free riders. How could you possibly expect democracy to stand up against that. These are my rough computations using data from: irs.gov taxprof.typepad.com