Thursday February 16, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

House Democrats eye surcharge on wealthy for health care bill

World Jul. 09, 2009 - 11:38AM JST ( 10 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

10 Comments

0

cow76Jul. 09, 2009 - 03:18PM JST

If you're going to tax anyone, let it be the rich. But I think everyone is going to be richer once the cost of health care spending (currently 16% of GDP in US compared to 8% in Japan) falls. Less private spending on personal insurance, company profits will be up as they won't have to pay employees' insurance as a benefit. The government will also have more money as it gets a percentage of these incomes and profits. It's a win/win situation.
0

smithinjapanJul. 09, 2009 - 03:40PM JST

Vast improvements on the current (lack of) health care system are needed in the US, and this is not a bad way to do it. It does seem a tad unfair to the rich, of course, but you've got to start somewhere.

"A few lawmakers are still seeking a tax on soft drinks in the private discussions, and there has been discussion of removing the current tax break that drug companies receive for advertising."

Why not do this AS WELL? The latter especially should be implemented (ie. tax break removed for drug companies).
0

skipthesongJul. 09, 2009 - 04:49PM JST

I would like to see politicians health care plans pulled back a bit to reflect regular Americans, I'd like for them to not be allowed to have tax breaks, regardless of how much charity to put into.
0

skipthesongJul. 09, 2009 - 05:03PM JST

On NPR, I heard a POD cast while working to work this morning. Of the 48Million people considered un-insured, I found that many of them are like me, people who can afford a health care plan but just don't bother getting one as well as in the number are people who simply haven't renewed their insurance for various reason like just haven't gotten around to doing it. A big number are those who don't make enough money and have given up on getting medicaid because of the hassle.

And just who are this politicians think they are classifying who is wealthy and who is not? If you live in any of the five big cities in the US, with a wife and two kids and make 250k, you are not wealthy, especially if you have kids going to private school and are saving up for college.
0

stirfryJul. 09, 2009 - 05:09PM JST

most if not all congressmen make $200k ...are we sure they're gonna pay up ? i have my doubts
0

skipthesongJul. 09, 2009 - 05:26PM JST

stirfy: don't forget, they get to run their businesses, their family members get all the benefits, its really disgusting when politians come out say we need to pay more.
0

usaexpatJul. 09, 2009 - 11:32PM JST

Just wait when those guys really do the math and figure out what this scheme will cost wealthy will suddenly be $40,000 a year. The middle class will end up getting soaked more than the rich, it's the American way.
0

zurcroniumJul. 09, 2009 - 11:45PM JST

The top 1% of US earners got 80% of the bush tax reductions. That old trickle down theory that now that the US is in a depression has been proven, once again, to be a naked money grab by the rich and nothing more.

So if the rich pay for insuring those less well off or those that have no insurance at all so be it. Its time to level the tax burden so that the middle and lower classes who earnings are shrinking every year do not get screwed again.

I hope that insurance becomes mandatory for all. The free riders who go to the emergency rooms when they are sick drive up the costs of health care for everyone. They are in essence petty criminals themselves, if they can afford it insurance that is. Many of them get sick and then end up bankrupt without insurance to protect them from the huge hospital fees.
0

TheQuestionJul. 10, 2009 - 12:21AM JST

If you must tax than tax equally. There's no sense in taxing the people who aren't getting the benefit more than the people that supposedly are.

And just who are this politicians think they are classifying who is wealthy and who is not? If you live in any of the five big cities in the US, with a wife and two kids and make 250k, you are not wealthy, especially if you have kids going to private school and are saving up for college.

Another good point. The same can be true for the inverse. I myself don't make a whole lot compared to the rest of the country but I live out in the boonies so I can sock away nearly half of my earnings while making all my payments. At the same time my brother makes twice as much as I do but has to keep taking out loans because he has 4 kid's in catholic school. (Although admittedly the alternative is Detroit public schools...)
0

amerijapJul. 10, 2009 - 06:28AM JST

Perhaps, it might be a better idea for the government to surcharge taxes on those investors and stock holders who are raking in the million of dollars by investing in mutual funds or stocks for the private health-care industries and insurance companies. Or selling some of the governments' national/foreign assets, if they are willing to do so.