Tired of ads on this site? | Male Multiple Orgasm Discover your full Abilities! | Want a bigger penis? Enlarge it At Home Using Just Your Hands! | Laughably Small Penis? Enlarge it At Home Using Just Your Hands! |
Started by #601496 [Ignore] 07,Jan,20 17:42
New Comment Rating: 0 Similar topics: 1.Anthropological study 2.TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME 3.No Collusion. 4.Rain stops Trump 5.TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME analysis. Comments: |
I GLADLY pay more taxes for Medicare. A friend of mine just passed from breast cancer and she had the best possible care and paid nothing out of pocket for it.
I can go to any hospital and see any doctor in my home province of Alberta for any legitimate procedure and never pay out of pocket. If I'm elsewhere in Canada there's more paperwork but Alberta Health Care will pay.
I have never filled out any paperwork for payment purposes.
Here is some simple math say national heath care is 4 trillion a year, from what I could find their are 155 million working people in the USA.
That's $25,806 per year in new taxes. Who has that kind of money. If anyone has different number let's hear them
It is estimated that the province of Alberta spent $5,100 per Albertan on health care in 2018.
only registered users can see external links
No hospitals in Canada are designed to make a profit as apposed to American hospitals.
One reason we can't do so easy vs other countries we spend our money on other thing. The biggest would be our military. If USA want to keep be the super power of the world it cost money. Trump just said we sent 2 trillion more on the military. Their is part of our national health care money.
Doctors in the USA have to make a profit to pay for the medical school and the hospitals have to make a profit and the insurance companies have to make a profit. We have a lot of illegal citizens in the USA. If they go to hospital, we have to pay for them if they don't have health insurance.
Who is "they" that said it would cost $34-52T?
There are many examples in the Western World of how to pay for universal healthcare. It can be done.
I doubt that your number is correct.
added after 54 minutes...…….
If the US population of 372M had healthcare for the same price as Alberta's per capita of $5,100 per year it would cost about $1.9T. Even if you double that it would still be less than $4T, nowhere near the $34-52T that "they" say.
only registered users can see external links
A tax cut of $1.5 trillion plus the crumbs for the average taxpayer. Simple math, friend.
BTW, Medicare is paid by the following
Medicare is financed by two trust funds: the Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund and the Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) trust fund. The HI trust fund finances Medicare Part A and collects its income primarily through a payroll tax on U.S. workers and employers. The SMI trust fund, which supports both Part B and Part D, receives most of its income from the federal government’s general fund because premiums only cover about one-quarter of this fund’s costs. Part C, on the other hand, is paid for through both the HI and SMI trust funds and collects its income from a combination of the general fund, payroll taxes, premiums paid by beneficiaries, and out-of-pocket charges.
These trust funds were specifically established to pay for Medicare. Medicare for all would include the rest of the population. I would gladly vote to cut our military spending to help out. Your Trumpo ran on promises to get us out of these forever wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are still waiting. In the meantime he cuts corporate taxes. Smart.
--------------------------------------- added after 3 minutes
I THOUGHT I WOULD POST THIS SEPARATE AS IT"S IMPORTANT.
The U.S. government's public debt is now more than $22 trillion — the highest it has ever been. The Treasury Department data comes as tax revenue has fallen and federal spending continues to rise. The new debt level reflects {{{{{{{a rise of more than $2 trillion from the day President Trump took office in 2017.Feb 13, 2019}}}}}}
--------------------------------------- added after 12 minutes
And last but not least. This country is rich with wealth. We are a country of the people, by the people and for the people. Yet, many of it's citizens are willing to have our population suffer hunger and pestilence in the name of the almighty dollar. I say, "Quit bitching about our social programs like Medicare, Social Security, Food Stamps, Unemployment Insurance and Socialized Medicine. Find a way to pay for it instead of being SO NEGATIVE."
Just asking for actuall ideas here.Politicians pushing for this cradle to grave can't explain how to pay for it,and I can understand why,they are dumbass puppets of the Soros and liberal wealthy people that hide their money in foriegn lands.
TRUMP’S TAX CUTS: THE RICH GET RICHER
Published — April 11, 2019
YOU PAID TAXES. THESE CORPORATIONS DIDN’T.
Amazon.com Inc.’s U.S. profits before taxes were $10.8 billion in 2018, made by shipping everything from women’s cocktail dresses to toilet paper. But unlike its millions of customers, the company paid no taxes in the United States last year and said it was owed $129 million. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski)
About twice as many of the largest U.S. companies reported they didn’t owe taxes in 2018 compared with previous years, a partial result of the 2017 Trump tax law, according to a report.
You paid taxes. These corporations didn’t.
Introduction
‘I don’t see that being fair’
We pay all required taxes
Profits: Half a billion. Refund: $342M
Kathryn Kranhold
Kathryn Kranhold
Contributing Reporter
This story was published in partnership with NBC News.
INTRODUCTION
The Center for Public Integrity is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates betrayals of public trust. Sign up to receive our stories.
Taxpayers are scrambling to make last-minute payments due to the Internal Revenue Service in just four days, but many of the country’s largest publicly-held corporations are doing better: They’ve reported they owe absolutely nothing on the billions of dollars in profits they earned last year.
At least 60 companies reported that their 2018 federal tax rates amounted to effectively zero, or even less than zero, on income earned on U.S. operations, according to an analysis released today by the Washington, D.C.-based think tank, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. The number is more than twice as many as ITEP found roughly, per year, on average in an earlier, multi-year analysis before the new tax law went into effect.
Among them are household names like technology giant Amazon.com Inc. and entertainment streaming service Netflix Inc., in addition to global oil giant Chevron Corp., pharmaceutical manufacturer Eli Lilly & Co., and farming and commercial equipment manufacturer Deere & Co.
The identified companies were “able to zero out their federal income taxes on $79 billion in U.S. pretax income,” according to the ITEP report, which was released today. “Instead of paying $16.4 billion in taxes, as the new 21 percent corporate tax rate requires, these companies enjoyed a net corporate tax rebate of $4.3 billion, blowing a $20.7 billion hole in the federal budget last year.” To compile the list, ITEP analyzed the 2018 financial filings of the country’s largest 560 publicly-held companies.
The following is a list of the country’s largest publicly-held profitable corporations that paid no federal income taxes in 2018 on billions in U.S. income, according to ITEP analysis of 560 companies. ITEP reports U.S. income before federal taxes, and takes into consideration paid state and local taxes, which could reduce or increase U.S. income. The report does not look at total tax provision, a number that could include foreign taxes and deferred taxes. All figures, except for tax rate, are in millions.
The identified companies were “able to zero out their federal income taxes on $79 billion in U.S. pretax income,” according to the ITEP report, which was released today. “Instead of paying $16.4 billion in taxes, as the new 21 percent corporate tax rate requires, these companies enjoyed a net corporate tax rebate of $4.3 billion, blowing a $20.7 billion hole in the federal budget last year.” To compile the list, ITEP analyzed the 2018 financial filings of the country’s largest 560 publicly-held companies.
I say, "Remove all loopholes from corporate income taxes. Bring the rate back to 35%. Have all recipients of Medicare for All pay a modest monthly amount except for hardship situations. Regulate medical procedures (price equality) and open medication to generics and out of country meds and regulate costs of development and profit.
Not saying I don't agree at all with what you are saying.
As far as mdicine,if there is a way to make sure it is quality and we would be getting what we are paying for,I am all for getting it from the cheapest source.It would reduce cost alot because it would prompt competition.
It is also my understanding that insurance is territorial. I would say fix that to open up competition as well.THere are ways to reduce cost,but gouging our industry and investors and high end tax payers can backfire.
--------------------------------------- added after 12 minutes
One more thing. Charlie takes Eliquist because he has atrial fibrillation. Without insurace he would have to pay $480 for a month's supply (60). With insurance it's $ 43. Charlie has family in Argentina. The same medication costs about $6. We are getting ripped off.
Another thing corporation can move. If the tax is to hight they can just move to another country and now you don't get any taxes. You can't force people to do something just because YOU want something for free. You can go and help but food for anyone you think needs help. You can give your money to anyone that needs help. You can do lots of things to help people yourself. If you can figure out how to pay for national heath care and it's reasonable he might go with your idea.
--------------------------------------- added after 4 minutes
And your argument is flawed. After all, aren't we, now, paying for the taxes a corporation pays today? A few hundred thousand dollars more divided by a million customers is less than a buck.
only registered users can see external links
We can't even pay the 21 trillion national debt currently. How are we going to pay for an extra 20 trillion for national heath care ? If we could or would pay down the current national debt I would say it's possible. We as Americans don't want to even balance the budget yet.
Beginning with the 1998 budget year, during his second term, the federal government ran a yearly budget surplus through FY 2001. During the Clinton administration, there was an official surplus of $419 billion during fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.
Also, National Health Care does not have to be voted on. Congress can pass one or more bills to create it. The voters did not vote for Social Security, Medicare, or Obama Care.
It can be done. There'll have to be some adjustments. The insurance companies will have to be included as they are the most knowledgeable. Assurances will have to be made to healthcare providers that they wouldn't be financially hurt. But, when everything is said and done, can anyone really be against warrantied affordable health care for all?
If you have different numbers put them on here. Can you afford to pay your share of the 20 trillion, $12,900 that's what it will cost this year in more taxes.
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
only registered users can see external links
How Much Will Medicare for All Cost?
FEB 27, 2019 | HEALTH CARE
Senator Sanders's 2017 legislation would cost the federal government $27.7 trillion through 2028 assuming steep provider cuts and $32.1 trillion assuming no provider cuts (these estimates, like most others, assume immediate implementation).Importantly, these totals represent the increased cost to the federal government, not the change of total national health expenditures. National health expenditures would likely change by no more than a few trillion dollars over the decade. The direction of that change is unclear and would depending on the whether the increased cost of expanding coverage (by making health insurance more generous and offering it to more people) is larger or smaller than the amount saved from lower provider payments, drug payments, and administrative spending.
The totals also do not represent debt impact, which would depend not only on the cost to the federal government but also on any funds the government might choose to raise through premiums, taxes, or both. For example, Senator Sanders's campaign plan included roughly $11 trillion of tax increases, which could fund more than one-third of Medicare for All.
IN PARTICULAR I WANT YOU TO NOTE THIS SENTENCE:
"expenditures would likely change by no more than a few trillion dollars over the decade"
I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU GOT YOUR NUMBERS BUT I SUSPECT YOU GOT THE HEADLINE ONLY AND YOU MADE YOUR ASSUMPTIONS WITHOUT MAKING AN IN DEPTH RESEARCH.
Did you see were it says the number would be an INCREASE COST to federal government
Importantly, these totals represent the increased cost to the federal government, not the change of total national health expenditures. National health expenditures would likely change by no more than a few trillion dollars over the decade. The direction of that change is unclear and would depending on the whether the increased cost of expanding coverage (by making health insurance more generous and offering it to more people) is larger or smaller than the amount saved from lower provider payments, drug payments, and administrative spending.
While any new revenue would in part be replacing current premiums, identifying pay-fors still remains a challenge. Enacting this type of Medicare for All would mean increasing federal spending by about 60 percent (excluding interest), and financing a $30 trillion program would require the equivalent of tripling payroll taxes or more than doubling all other taxes.
Supporters of Medicare for All should work to identify new revenue, premiums, and/or spending cuts to finance new federal costs or else scale back their proposal if they are unable to identify sufficient funding.
only registered users can see external links
The politcians pay for their states piss ant testicale museums and bridges and your health care all out of the same pot of public money.So health care would run up the national debt.
IF you owe a house payment,and that bank goes tits up,they expect their money in full. So it is not impossiable for other countrys to want their money.
If the bank repos your house they have the local sheriff to throw you out of your house. How many countries you think would dare go to war with us over a monetary debt?--------------------------------------- added after 2 minutesSecond. If your Congressman votes for too much PORK, vote him out. We are, supposedly, a democracy even though Trumpo wants us to call him "EL SUPREMO"
Democratic front-runner Joe Biden on Monday unveiled a health plan that’s intended to preserve the most popular parts of Obamacare — from Medicaid expansion to protections for patients with preexisting conditions — and build on them with a new government-run public insurance option.
Biden would also empower Medicare to directly negotiate drug prices, allow the importation of prescription drugs from abroad and extend tax credits to help tens of millions of Americans buy lower-priced health insurance.
The plan — which the campaign says will cost $750 billion over a decade, to be paid for by reversing some of the Trump administration’s tax cuts — is less transformative than the “Medicare for All” proposal advanced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and supported by some other Democrats, which would effectively do away with private insurance and shift all Americans to government-run health coverage.
--------------------------------------- added after 3 minutes
I always thought that building on Obama-Care was the best way to go. Fixing the problems and expanding coverage makes sense. It's also less expensive. Let's see how the other candidates refute the numbers.
--------------------------------------- added after 27 minutes
Regardless, if you have insurance through your employer, you are part of the Obama-Care system. Almost all candidates have stated they would support the option for a person to keep their private insurance. Let me ask you, "If you get laid off or get fired or your employer closes, how would you afford to get health insurance for you and your family today? You and like minded people always think about yourself. You make it personal,but you don't take into account the less fortunate. People who are out of work or working for an employer who won't pay a portion of health insurance. You are lucky not to have to think about that so how about thinking about these fellow citizens?
BTW. It's personal for me. My youngest son works for a small(17 employees) but very successfully IT firm. He makes good money and gets good treatment but his boss, the owner, refuses to pay for insurance. My son can only afford insurance for him. My daughter-in-law and my grandkids are un-insured. So, baby, I'm not dictating to you what insurance to buy. Frankly, I couldn't care less if you were dying outside an ER and refused treatment because of insurance issues, but I like to take some responsibility for the betterment of my fellow citizens. That equates to loving my country.
Health insurance.
WHy is it so exspensive?HUm,could it be that it is expected to pay for things not life saving? Like for example,a couple decides to have 3 kids and insurance has 3 more people to pay for? Something that was NOT a accident,not needed,nor anyone's elses responsiablity.1 child covered, the rest are the parents responseabilty.
And while i am at it,let the parents cover ALL education cost from preschool thru college for child 2 thru infinity.I bet parents would think twice about spitting out 6 kids if THEY had to bear the cost instead of the whole damn country.Just think,the money wasted on education, could be spent to help those with serious medical issues without being a burden to anyone.
Insurance should not be expected to cover child birth,abortion or birth control.Keep your legs shut and your zippers closed.
Insurance should not cover cost of sex changes. Be happy with your plumbing or pay to change it yourself.
Smoke,you are on your own.
Drink,you are on your own.
Do drugs,you are on your own.
Your bad habits are NOT the rest of the worlds problems,they are YOURS and YOURS alone.So pay for it.
I could go on.And I understand there has to be meeting in the middle on things.I am just giving you the extreme end of my feelings on this subject.I don't feel my ideas are any more radical than the idea of health care for all,deadbeats included.
I lost my 80-20 coverage,it is now 70-30 and my copays are double thanks that asshat Obama and his big idea. Why should I loose coverage so some dope head gets his treatment paid for ,for the 27th time? It aint working,so ditch the bastard to the curb.And yes,I do personaly know a man,would have been in my graduating class,that has been to drug rehab,at government exspense at least 27 times.prison twice and so on.
He aint your problem,nor mine,but we spend on him anyway.Anytime a fellow will put a gun to his mothers head to get her diamond ring that his dead father put on her finger just he could pawn it to get drugs,does not need nor deserave public help,he deserves a kick to the curb.Next time the bastard od's, maby it will be his last.
Phart, If you pay for medical insurance, why shouldn't you be able to claim as many births or other visits to the hospital? Why not get coverage for boob enhancements? When many countries in the world, many our enemies, pay completely for education including college, why should this country be second best? And the dopehead, let him die?
With all due respect, and believe me I'm very sorry for your situation, I believe you are so bitter you want others to suffer your suffering.
Paying for health insurance, lets se you pay 130 a month.that is,1560 a year,62,400 for 40 years coverage.
Average heart attack cost what?,lets see ,let me copy and paste this.
"Heart attack hospitalizations cost a median $53,384 and strokes cost $31,218, according to the study. ... Neither study factored in additional costs following hospitalization, such as loss of productivity from missing work or ongoing medical care and drugs, "
You know far better than I do those figures are small.But that is what was handy from google. So your roughly 64,000 dollar investment would barely cover 1 heart attack.Granted,your employer is paying some towards it as well.BUT still, unless the intrest rate is high,the insurance company is not making alot of money.
BUT the insurance company, is not just spending money to cover your work- stress related heart attack,it is also having to pay for little 12 year old Johny's hormones because he woke up last week thinking he was a girl.It is also having to pay for some idiot od'ing on drugs ruining his kidneys and liver.
Insurance companys could easly declare bank ruptcy and leave us all hanging at that rate.
I say get the medicine from where ever is cheapest.
Don't the pro abortion people say,"My body my choice" Let's borrow that missinformed idea a minute and apply it somewhere it makes sense.
Fine,your body,choose to buy medicine where you want to.
The dopehead I spoke of,,if that thievin' bastard od's,and falls over in the woods behind the shed his brother lets him sleep in,well,he created his own fate.I doubt the buzzards would eat him,he is so full of impuritys the maggots and ants would probably barricade themselves away from him.His body is probably so pickled it would lay in state to be found a 1000 years from now prompting a rewrite of history as they knew it.
Australian rescue group helps animals pushed out …: only registered users can see external links
If you can help, do so
You must be one of the "crazies" I mentioned.
Move along to another thread and enjoy life to the fullest.No need to get your drawers in a wad over 1 thread or another.
Besides,have you ever tried to discuss politics on craigslist community or whereever? Bunch of assholes that can't get along 4 minutes.
This bunch can talk it out,argue,blacklist,cuss whatever,and still get along to a point. There honestly seems to be more intelligence here than on other platforms.
The Laura Ingraham Show
The Rush Limbaugh Show
The Sean Hannity Show
The Mark Levin Show
The Savage Nation
The Lars Larson Show
The Alex Jones Show
The Ben Shapiro Show
The Buck Sexton Show
All good "liberals"
New Comment Go to top