The Current Advantage of Socialized Health Care

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

Originally Posted by someperson View Post
Tax credits are not tax rebates. A tax credit only permits an individual who "owes" taxes to keep more of their own money. In other words, if a tax credit is for $3000, and you "owe" $10000, you only have to send in $7000 of your money to the state. If you "owe" $1000, you would send nothing. On ther other hand, with a tax rebate of $3000, if you "owed" $0, you would get a refund of $3000 taken from other individuals. A tax credit, unlike a tax rebate, does not redistribute free money.

I always understood tax credits to allow for a negative tax burden. Thanks for clearing that up.

Not just owes, but paid. If you had witholding throughout the year of 9,000 and owed $1,000, you should still get a tax credit of $3,000 and a check back for $2,000.

 

[TastyWheat]

Not just owes, but paid. If you had witholding throughout the year of 9,000 and owed $1,000, you should still get a tax credit of $3,000 and a check back for $2,000.

Sure, but you don't get back any more than you paid.

On second thought though, a health care tax credit for x amount of money isn't exactly fair. The average person may spend less than x dollars a year on health care, but that doesn't mean people with chronic diseases or people who want to pay for premium care should be penalized. So I think it would be better for HSAs to be available for everyone, not just those with a HDHP, and any money put into an HSA should be tax deductible (i.e. your gross income is subtracted by the amount put into your HSA). If you take money out of your HSA for non-medical purposes it should be added to your gross income on your next tax return. I suppose it would be best for the depositor, not the account holder, to get the tax deduction too.

Ideally though, our income nor our savings would be taxed so no need to point that out.

 

[RonPaulalways]

RonPaulalways, I forgot to add. In free healthcare, the government denies you treatment if it's not cost-effective. For example, your cancer meds are too expensive, too bad for you. Buy them out of pocket, but don't forget to pay taxes for the free healthcare when you're feeling good. This besides the fact that the standard of care is lower. Enjoy the queue lines for tests and so on. And don't forget to go to a private center to get tests if you want better ones, where yes, you will pay straight up.

There's no doubt that government run health care is deficient in many ways. It will ration service as its budget is limited and the demand is unlimited. The only advantage it has from an individuals' point of view is that they will have the same level of service from the government regardless of their income, so that would give them some peace of mind. Mind you, this advantage is not worth all the drawbacks associated with it, but I still acknowledge this advantage, and have tried to find a way where private insurance could provide a comparable service.

 

[TGGRV]

When the HPV vaccination programme begins in 2008, women over the age of 18 will not be vaccinated as it would not be cost effective in preventing cervical cancer. This is because as soon as a woman becomes sexually active, she is at risk of infection with the virus.

The same mentality is related to lots of things. Cancer treatment isn't cost effective. Soon smokers won't get heart surgery and obese people hip or knee replacement surgeries. And they'd pay. Socialized medicine is a load of crap.

And why the fuck would private people offer a service at a smaller price than their costs? I want a Ferrari too right now.

And free healthcare is immoral. If I am rich and pay 20-30 000$ for healthcare an year(coerced to actually) I should benefit from those 20-30k if I need it. It's that easy. Also, it's immoral to force me to pay for a service I don't want.