Germany's rich ask to be taxed more

[Denny Crane]

So, you are pining for the good old days of 1900?

barfo

Progress since then, looks to me.

How many more people do you expect to not have to work?

Back in 1900, families had 10 kids just to work the land. Lots of people grew up to pay SS to start off that ponzi scheme.

 

[Denny Crane]

I wonder what happens when you tax the rich more?

No I don't really.

http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/local/tax_refugees_staging_escape_from_qb4pItQ71UXIc0i6cd3UpK

Tax refugees staging escape from New York
By ANDY SOLTIS
Last Updated: 6:08 AM, October 27, 2009
Posted: 2:53 AM, October 27, 2009
New Yorkers are fleeing the state and city in alarming numbers -- and costing a fortune in lost tax dollars, a new study shows.

More than 1.5 million state residents left for other parts of the United States from 2000 to 2008, according to the report from the Empire Center for New York State Policy. It was the biggest out-of-state migration in the country.

The vast majority of the migrants, 1.1 million, were former residents of New York City -- meaning one out of seven city taxpayers moved out.

"The Empire State is being drained of an invaluable resource -- people," the report said.

What's worse is that the families fleeing New York are being replaced by lower-income newcomers, who consequently pay less in taxes.

Overall, the ex-New Yorkers earn about 13 percent more than those who moved into the state, the study found.

And it should be no surprise that the city -- and Manhattan in particular -- suffered the biggest loss in terms of taxable income.

The average Manhattan taxpayer who left the state earned $93,264 a year. The average newcomer to Manhattan earned only $72,726.

That's a difference of $20,538, the highest for any county in the state. Staten Island was second, with a $20,066 difference.

It all adds up to staggering loss in taxable income. During 2006-2007, the "migration flow" out of New York to other states amounted to a loss of $4.3 billion.

The study used annual US Census reports, which showed which states had increased population, combined with Internal Revenue Service data, which show which states, cities and counties had lost people.

While New York City and the state were the losers, the Sunshine and Garden States were winners. more than 250,000 New Yorkers who lived in and around the city fled to Florida. Another 172,000 city taxpayers ended up in New Jersey.

Why all the moving vans?

The center, part of the conservative Manhattan Institute, blames the state's high cost of living and high taxes.

The study also revealed surprising details about how city residents moved from borough to borough.

Manhattan lost 64,480 taxpayers, and more than half -- 34,383 -- went to The Bronx.

Brooklyn lost 68,951 taxpayers -- including 43,688 who went to Staten Island.

The study also had some good news. The peak loss of New Yorkers was in 2005, when nearly 250,000 residents left the state. But last year, only 126,000 left, the lowest figure over the eight-year period.

andy.soltis@nypost.com

 

[barfo]

Sounds like bullshit to me. People move to Manhattan to make their fortune. When they get it, or when they've had enough trying, they leave. It's no shock that the incoming salaries are less than the outgoing salaries. Show us the relative ages of those coming and going, perhaps? Blaming migration to/from Manhattan on taxes is pretty much blatant dishonesty.

barfo

I wonder what happens when you tax the rich more?

No I don't really.

http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/local/tax_refugees_staging_escape_from_qb4pItQ71UXIc0i6cd3UpK

Tax refugees staging escape from New York
By ANDY SOLTIS
Last Updated: 6:08 AM, October 27, 2009
Posted: 2:53 AM, October 27, 2009
New Yorkers are fleeing the state and city in alarming numbers -- and costing a fortune in lost tax dollars, a new study shows.

More than 1.5 million state residents left for other parts of the United States from 2000 to 2008, according to the report from the Empire Center for New York State Policy. It was the biggest out-of-state migration in the country.

The vast majority of the migrants, 1.1 million, were former residents of New York City -- meaning one out of seven city taxpayers moved out.

"The Empire State is being drained of an invaluable resource -- people," the report said.

What's worse is that the families fleeing New York are being replaced by lower-income newcomers, who consequently pay less in taxes.

Overall, the ex-New Yorkers earn about 13 percent more than those who moved into the state, the study found.

And it should be no surprise that the city -- and Manhattan in particular -- suffered the biggest loss in terms of taxable income.

The average Manhattan taxpayer who left the state earned $93,264 a year. The average newcomer to Manhattan earned only $72,726.

That's a difference of $20,538, the highest for any county in the state. Staten Island was second, with a $20,066 difference.

It all adds up to staggering loss in taxable income. During 2006-2007, the "migration flow" out of New York to other states amounted to a loss of $4.3 billion.

The study used annual US Census reports, which showed which states had increased population, combined with Internal Revenue Service data, which show which states, cities and counties had lost people.

While New York City and the state were the losers, the Sunshine and Garden States were winners. more than 250,000 New Yorkers who lived in and around the city fled to Florida. Another 172,000 city taxpayers ended up in New Jersey.

Why all the moving vans?

The center, part of the conservative Manhattan Institute, blames the state's high cost of living and high taxes.

The study also revealed surprising details about how city residents moved from borough to borough.

Manhattan lost 64,480 taxpayers, and more than half -- 34,383 -- went to The Bronx.

Brooklyn lost 68,951 taxpayers -- including 43,688 who went to Staten Island.

The study also had some good news. The peak loss of New Yorkers was in 2005, when nearly 250,000 residents left the state. But last year, only 126,000 left, the lowest figure over the eight-year period.

andy.soltis@nypost.com

 

[maxiep]

Sounds like bullshit to me. People move to Manhattan to make their fortune. When they get it, or when they've had enough trying, they leave. It's no shock that the incoming salaries are less than the outgoing salaries. Show us the relative ages of those coming and going, perhaps? Blaming migration to/from Manhattan on taxes is pretty much blatant dishonesty.

barfo

New York City is blessed by having not only two other states within commuting distance, but at least nine counties. I can't speak to the data, but I can say from my personal experience that many people leave Manhattan due to the cost of living and taxes. Taking the PATH or the Metroliner is no big deal.

 

[barfo]

New York City is blessed by having not only two other states within commuting distance, but at least nine counties. I can't speak to the data, but I can say from my personal experience that many people leave Manhattan due to the cost of living and taxes. Taking the PATH or the Metroliner is no big deal.

And do they not continue to pay NY taxes even if they move out of the city (but continue to work in the city)? They do. So taxes aren't relevant to that decision.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

And do they not continue to pay NY taxes even if they move out of the city (but continue to work in the city)? They do. So taxes aren't relevant to that decision.

barfo

Sales tax? Property tax? You have no idea on how many levels New York County taxes you.

 

[barfo]

Sales tax? Property tax? You have no idea on how many levels New York County taxes you.

Actually I have a pretty good idea. I think it is fair to say that most people moving out of NYC don't own property. Sales tax, sure, but isn't like NJ doesn't have sales tax.


barfo

 

[maxiep]

Actually I have a pretty good idea. I think it is fair to say that most people moving out of NYC don't own property. Sales tax, sure, but isn't like NJ doesn't have sales tax.


barfo

And many do. I owned a place in Gramercy Park and the Lower East Side. Co-ops and condos are very popular among the people who are making over $500K.

 

[yakbladder]

Government handouts have destroyed your memory.

barfo

Who are you and what have you done with my sprinkles?

 

[maxiep]

barfo, exactly how long did you live in the Tri-State area? You seem to be making posts asking us to trust that you know what you're talking about on this issue. I think it's fair if you let us know whether or not you do or if you're just making stuff up.

 

[yakbladder]

I wonder what happens when you tax the rich more?

No I don't really.

http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/local/tax_refugees_staging_escape_from_qb4pItQ71UXIc0i6cd3UpK

Whew..well thank goodness the health care expense will be national.

I highly doubt any of those tax refugees will be fleeing to the lovely country South of our border or to Candidastan. I guess they could all move to Europe..oh wait....they already have health care. Or China..mm...maybe not with the pollution.

Hey, guess what, I think they'll stay!

 

[maxiep]

Whew..well thank goodness the health care expense will be national.

I highly doubt any of those tax refugees will be fleeing to the lovely country South of our border or to Candidastan. I guess they could all move to Europe..oh wait....they already have health care. Or China..mm...maybe not with the pollution.

Hey, guess what, I think they'll stay!

The wealthy will stay, they'll just stop producing and investing, because at some point it's a waste of time. I can remember when I and my two partners wanted to give ourselves a measely $25K raise each in Sweden. Do you know how much we would have netted from that $75K? Roughly $1,600. What was the point? Incentives matter.

Again, I wonder why you think it's okay to take money from people who earned it simply to pay for things you'd like? I call that robbery.

 

[maxiep]

Whew..well thank goodness the health care expense will be national.

I highly doubt any of those tax refugees will be fleeing to the lovely country South of our border or to Candidastan. I guess they could all move to Europe..oh wait....they already have health care. Or China..mm...maybe not with the pollution.

Hey, guess what, I think they'll stay!

See, there are plenty of places for you to move where things are as you would like them. America is/was special and different. It's why we became the wealthiest country in the world. Now, we're following the path of the Soviet Union. That's a sweet historical precedent.

 

[barfo]

barfo, exactly how long did you live in the Tri-State area? You seem to be making posts asking us to trust that you know what you're talking about on this issue. I think it's fair if you let us know whether or not you do or if you're just making stuff up.

If you think my facts are wrong you should provide evidence to the contrary.

I agree with you (on a prior post) that a big difference between you and I is that I don't back up my opinions with my credentials, whereas you do. I respect your credentials, but I don't feel that I need to provide mine - either my opinions are right or they are wrong, and what life experiences I've had doesn't really change that. The truth is the truth.

If I'd been one of the astronauts to land on the moon, that might convince people to take my opinions on moon rocks more seriously - but it wouldn't actually make my opinions any more correct.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

If you think my facts are wrong you should provide evidence to the contrary.

I agree with you (on a prior post) that a big difference between you and I is that I don't back up my opinions with my credentials, whereas you do. I respect your credentials, but I don't feel that I need to provide mine - either my opinions are right or they are wrong, and what life experiences I've had doesn't really change that. The truth is the truth.

If I'd been one of the astronauts to land on the moon, that might convince people to take my opinions on moon rocks more seriously - but it wouldn't actually make my opinions any more correct.

barfo

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123940286075109617.html

My bolding for emphasis

In New York, Assembly Speaker (and de facto Governor) Sheldon Silver and other Democrats will impose a two percentage point "millionaire tax" on New Yorkers who earn more than $200,000 a year ($300,000 for couples). This will lift the top state tax rate to 8.97% and the New York City rate to 12.62%. Since capital gains and dividends are taxed as ordinary income, New York will impose the nation's highest taxes on investment income -- at a time when Wall Street is in jeopardy of losing its status as the world's financial capital.

But who and where are all these millionaires to pluck? More than any other state, New York has been hurt by the financial meltdown, and its $132 billion budget is now $17.7 billion in deficit. The days of high-roller Wall Street bonuses that finance 20% of the New York budget are long gone. The richest 1% of New Yorkers already pay almost 40% of the income tax, and the top 0.5% pay 30%.

and

According to Census Bureau data, over the past decade 1.97 million New Yorkers left the state for greener pastures -- the biggest exodus of any state. New York City has lost more than 75,000 jobs since last August, and many industrial areas upstate are as rundown as Detroit. The American Legislative Exchange Council recently said New York had the worst economic outlook of all 50 states, including Michigan. And that analysis was done before these $4 billion in new taxes. How does Mr. Silver define "catastrophe"?

Oh, and it isn't just high earners who get smacked. The new budget raises another $2 billion or so on top of the $4 billion in income taxes with some 100 new taxes, fees, fines, surcharges and penalties to be paid by all New York residents. There are new charges for cell phone usage, fishing permits, health insurance (the "sick tax"), electric bills, and on bottled water, cigars, beer and wine. A New York Post analysis found that a typical family of four with an income below $100,000 would pay more than $800 a year in higher taxes and fees.

 

[Denny Crane]

Whew..well thank goodness the health care expense will be national.

I highly doubt any of those tax refugees will be fleeing to the lovely country South of our border or to Candidastan. I guess they could all move to Europe..oh wait....they already have health care. Or China..mm...maybe not with the pollution.

Hey, guess what, I think they'll stay!

Cayman Islands. Bahamas.

 

[yakbladder]

Cayman Islands. Bahamas.

Yes, because I'm sure all of the millions of America will flood both of those islands and pay cost-of-living through the nose that would far surpass anything health care would add.

 

[maxiep]

Yes, because I'm sure all of the millions of America will flood both of those islands and pay cost-of-living through the nose that would far surpass anything health care would add.

You seem to be under the impression this issue is about cost only. I couldn't disagree more strongly. I'll be perfectly honest, financially I don't really care. I sold my soul when I was young and now live a pretty comfortable life. I can buy any kind of health care I want and pay out of pocket. I'm not saying that to brag, I'm saying it to demonstrate that cost isn't the issue.

The issue to me is the role of the government in our lives. This isn't health insurance, this is some detached body of unelected officials having control over your life or death. Barney Frank has admitted that this is the first step to single-payer. Jacob Hacker--the inventor of the "public option"--has said the public option wasn't a Trojan Horse to a single-payer system but was "right there" for all to see.

The script is laid out. Create a public option that can lose money. It will push out private insurance. Tell doctors how much they can make. If they try to opt out by not taking these fees, you force doctors to participate to be licensed. Voila, welcome to the US version of National Health. Rationed care. Crappy facilities. Fewer docs of poorer quality. The best and the brightest enter other fields. R&D down the toilet. And the government, rather than the individual, deciding what kind of care you receive.

My personal philosophy err on the side of liberty over equality. In other words, while I strongly believe in equal opportunity, I don't believe in equal outcomes. Right now, everyone has equal access to the best health care in the world. Whether they choose to pay for it or not is their choice. What the government wants is that we all receive the same health care. The problem is that it will be equally shitty.

This fight isn't about health insurance, it's about my own right to determine my own life.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes, because I'm sure all of the millions of America will flood both of those islands and pay cost-of-living through the nose that would far surpass anything health care would add.

You seem to think it's about money when I see that it's about Liberty.

Slavery is the taking of someone's labor. Taxes are a form of taking someone's labor. If you take 100% of someone's labor, he is 100% a slave. When you take 50%, he's half slave.

 

[yakbladder]

You seem to be under the impression this issue is about cost only.

Because that seems to be a big argument in this forum. That the government will take MY money or spend MY money inefficiently.

The issue to me is the role of the government in our lives. This isn't health insurance, this is some detached body of unelected officials having control over your life or death. Barney Frank has admitted that this is the first step to single-payer. Jacob Hacker--the inventor of the "public option"--has said the public option wasn't a Trojan Horse to a single-payer system but was "right there" for all to see.

If I were to take a quasi-Libertarian point of view (not true Libertarian), I'd believe the government is responsible for the basic necessities and nothing more. And one of those necessities I'd argue is health care. I'm not asking you to go out and pay money to allow Aunt Loretta to get liposuction so she looks pretty. I'm asking you to help pay so when Loretta needs heart surgery at age 19 actually gets the surgery and doesn't end up paying for it the rest of her life.

The script is laid out. Create a public option that can lose money. It will push out private insurance. Tell doctors how much they can make. If they try to opt out by not taking these fees, you force doctors to participate to be licensed. Voila, welcome to the US version of National Health. Rationed care. Crappy facilities. Fewer docs of poorer quality. The best and the brightest enter other fields. R&D down the toilet. And the government, rather than the individual, deciding what kind of care you receive.

Except that the quality of care in other countries with socialized medicine is consistently rated to be better. And how do you know, since the final bill isn't there, that the system won't be more like the Swiss and less like National Health? (Which by the way, I hope you noticed that almost all of the British, right or left, got pissed off when we insinuated their health care was sub-standard).

This fight isn't about health insurance, it's about my own right to determine my own life.

And even in the most socialized countries you can still buy supplemental insurance to augment your basic insurance. The government is asking you to help provide for the common good in certain areas and then they augment those requests with monies for "other items". If you want to be pissed off because the government uses your money for public television or art or the foreign aid, fine, I can understand that. But I still believe health care is a basic option.

 

[yakbladder]

You seem to think it's about money when I see that it's about Liberty.

Slavery is the taking of someone's labor. Taxes are a form of taking someone's labor. If you take 100% of someone's labor, he is 100% a slave. When you take 50%, he's half slave.

So, in other words rather than being a 50% slave to the government, I'm a 60% slave to the insurance companies because they're going to charge more?

Health care should never be for profit when it is a necessary (non-cosmetic) treatment.

Sorry, that's just the way I feel.

If the government is so inefficient and worthless as right-wingers suggest then it should be absolutely no problem for the insurance companies to compete and win.

And unlike a lot of other countries if the majority feel the program stinks then we'll elect someone new in 3 years to eliminate it.

 

[Denny Crane]

So, in other words rather than being a 50% slave to the government, I'm a 60% slave to the insurance companies because they're going to charge more?

Health care should never be for profit when it is a necessary (non-cosmetic) treatment.

Sorry, that's just the way I feel.

If the government is so inefficient and worthless as right-wingers suggest then it should be absolutely no problem for the insurance companies to compete and win.

And unlike a lot of other countries if the majority feel the program stinks then we'll elect someone new in 3 years to eliminate it.

You're no slave to the insurance companies until govt. makes you one by fining you or throwing you in jail if you don't buy insurance.

Right now, insurance is voluntary. Even if your employer offers it, you can refuse. Liberty.

 

[maxiep]

Because that seems to be a big argument in this forum. That the government will take MY money or spend MY money inefficiently.

It's one of the big arguments. There are many.

If I were to take a quasi-Libertarian point of view (not true Libertarian), I'd believe the government is responsible for the basic necessities and nothing more. And one of those necessities I'd argue is health care. I'm not asking you to go out and pay money to allow Aunt Loretta to get liposuction so she looks pretty. I'm asking you to help pay so when Loretta needs heart surgery at age 19 actually gets the surgery and doesn't end up paying for it the rest of her life.

So the government is responsible for basic necessities? I guess all the grocery stores should be government run, because they sell food and earn profits. I guess all apparel companies should be government run, because they sell clothing and earn profits. And I guess all real estate should be government owned, because you can't have anyone earning a profit on shelter, right?

We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Too often the second one is encroached upon and we ignore "the pursuit of". Make your own way in this life. Don't expect others to do things for you.

As for health insurance, there is private health insurance Loretta can get. That system works pretty well. May she have to sacrifice something else to pay for it? Yep. Too bad. We all make choices. And if she truly can't pay for it, there are plenty of charities out there who will. She can also get a financing plan from the hospital. And in extreme cases, the government or a private entity picks up the tab. No one goes without health care in this country who needs it, which is more than I can say for those in countries with socialized health care.

Except that the quality of care in other countries with socialized medicine is consistently rated to be better. And how do you know, since the final bill isn't there, that the system won't be more like the Swiss and less like National Health? (Which by the way, I hope you noticed that almost all of the British, right or left, got pissed off when we insinuated their health care was sub-standard).

Wrong again. Take out our higher risks (traffic accidents, murders, obesity, etc.) and our life expectancy is the highest in the world. http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/09/natural-life-expectancy-in-united.html

What it means is that once you're in our health care system, you receive the very best care in the world. Our cancer survival rates are among the highest in the world. We do more transplants than anyone else. We perform joint replacements rather than confining people to wheelchairs, which is what they do in countries with socialized medicine. Want more proof? Where do the wealthiest people in the world come when they're really sick? The good ol' U.S. of A.

As for what the "final" bill will look like, it doesn't matter. Health care is the slipperiest of slippery slopes. Barney Frank has admitted all they want is a toe hold. So has the creator of the public option. Government programs are like ratchets--they only go one way. And in this case, they get bigger and more expensive.

As for its quality? All you need to know is Congress is exempting themselves and their families from the plan.

And even in the most socialized countries you can still buy supplemental insurance to augment your basic insurance.

A couple of things. First, that supplemental insurance is incredibly expensive, and combined with the high tax rates in countries with socialized medicine, is basically unaffordable for those people considered to be in the middle class in those countries.

Second, where does that supplemental insurance send you when you're sick? To America. Well, that ends when we socialize our medical system. You don't seem to understand the basics of supply and demand, so I'll recap it for you: When you provide more people with more care while simultaneously lowering the amount doctors get paid, you're going to lower the supply of doctors. What happens then? Rationing. You can have all the health insurance in the world, but it won't do you a damn bit of good if no one can treat you.

The government is asking you to help provide for the common good in certain areas and then they augment those requests with monies for "other items". If you want to be pissed off because the government uses your money for public television or art or the foreign aid, fine, I can understand that. But I still believe health care is a basic option.

Newsflash: The US government wasn't designed by our forefathers to be the boss of the people. It's supposed to be the other way around. I'm happy to help fund a social safety net for those who really need it. However, we've been asked more and more to subsidize the lifestyle of others. I say enough is enough. If someone can't get health insurance and have the same standard of living, well tough shit. In the words of George Michael's and Andrew Ridgley's uber gay T-shirts, "Choose Life!". I'd rather be alive than have an X-Box.

People in this country get health care, and they have access to the best in the world. If the issue is making sure the 8.5MM-17MM people who truly can't afford health insurance are covered, fine, let's pay for their policies. Sweet. That will cost at the most $6K/head. For between $52B-$102B, the problem is solved. There's no need to spend $2T and still leave 25MM uninsured.

 

[yakbladder]

So the government is responsible for basic necessities? I guess all the grocery stores should be government run, because they sell food and earn profits. I guess all apparel companies should be government run, because they sell clothing and earn profits. And I guess all real estate should be government owned, because you can't have anyone earning a profit on shelter, right?

The government already provides food stamps.

People can get clothes, food, and housing without bankrupting themselves for the rest of their lives. There is a distinct difference between these.

She can also get a financing plan from the hospital. And in extreme cases, the government or a private entity picks up the tab. No one goes without health care in this country who needs it, which is more than I can say for those in countries with socialized health care.

So she can pay for it the rest of her life for something she didn't even choose. Yes, my point again, thanks for making it.

Interesting that you think that everyone in this country gets health care who needs it when they don't. Those that can afford it or find a way to afford it can get health care. And those that can't go broke. Again proving my point, thank you.

Wrong again. Take out our higher risks (traffic accidents, murders, obesity, etc.) and our life expectancy is the highest in the world. http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/09/natural-life-expectancy-in-united.html

Wrong again, life expectancy != quality of care. I could amputate all of your limbs and keep you alive in a box until you were 105, using all sorts of medical devices. Hey, what a great life!

We perform joint replacements rather than confining people to wheelchairs, which is what they do in countries with socialized medicine. Want more proof?

How about SOME proof. Let me rant like you, will that make it true? Absolutely not.

Where do the wealthiest people in the world come when they're really sick? The good ol' U.S. of A.

Where do people in the U.S.A. go for expensive operations when they can't afford it - Asia!

As for its quality? All you need to know is Congress is exempting themselves and their families from the plan.

From what I understand Congress is exempting the vast majority of the population from the plan, so what again is your beef?

Second, where does that supplemental insurance send you when you're sick? To America.

Link? Proof? I'd like to see this information that all supplemental insurance in all socialized countries sends you to America.

Well, that ends when we socialize our medical system. You don't seem to understand the basics of supply and demand,

No, actually I understand it quite well. But you keep on being patronizing like you always are.

Newsflash: The US government wasn't designed by our forefathers to be the boss of the people. It's supposed to be the other way around.

Newsflash: You obviously have no idea about how the forefathers thought and haven't done much research. There were multitudes of "camps" and ideas about how things should be run. Hamilton v Jefferson was a classic example. And they all believed the government was responsible for providing some services to the people.

 

[maxiep]

The government already provides food stamps.

To everyone? Do we have single-payer food stores?

People can get clothes, food, and housing without bankrupting themselves for the rest of their lives. There is a distinct difference between these.

I know people who have been bankrupted because they overpaid on a house. I know people who have been bankrupted on buying too many superfluous items, such as clothing and dinners out. People go bankrupt for all sorts of reasons. No one says "people are going bankrupt so we have to nationalize the source of the bankruptcy!", yet that's your argument for health care. Interesting. Where do we draw the line?

So she can pay for it the rest of her life for something she didn't even choose. Yes, my point again, thanks for making it.

I know you don't like the idea that bad luck can lead you bankruptcy, but the government can't protect you from everything. Come to think of it, isn't bankruptcy government protection in and of itself?

Interesting that you think that everyone in this country gets health care who needs it when they don't. Those that can afford it or find a way to afford it can get health care. And those that can't go broke. Again proving my point, thank you.

Please list the statistics that demonstrate that people die because they don't get health care in this country. My mother used to be a hospital administrator (Tuality, Meridian Park & Emanuel) and she has emphasized that NO ONE who needs health care is turned away. Is it just those two hospital systems where this is the case? Perhaps, but that's highly unlikely. In fact in her last year working, Emanuel subsidized $22MM in services they gave for free.

Wrong again, life expectancy != quality of care. I could amputate all of your limbs and keep you alive in a box until you were 105, using all sorts of medical devices. Hey, what a great life!

Yep. Let 'em die. No offense, but why is that your decision? Shouldn't a person be able to make their own decision on what kind of care they receive? The point of that study was to isolate health care from lifestyle to more accurately calculate the quality of health care. And when it did, like the Olympics, the USA is #1!!! USA! USA! USA!

How about SOME proof. Let me rant like you, will that make it true? Absolutely not.

Ah, nothing like someone who claims to be open-minded deciding they have nothing left to learn.

Where do people in the U.S.A. go for expensive operations when they can't afford it - Asia!

And that will be a growing market, but only among the wealthy. The US will be just like Europe where the wealthy are the only ones who can afford the choice. As for me, I'd rather be able to get the health care I wish here in the States rather than some cut rate Third World clinic. Rationing and government control will assure that you only receive the care the government decides you can have.

From what I understand Congress is exempting the vast majority of the population from the plan, so what again is your beef?

If you don't think single-payer is the goal, you're simply not paying attention.

Link? Proof? I'd like to see this information that all supplemental insurance in all socialized countries sends you to America.

Anecdotal from living in Spain and Scandinavia. Most, if not all of our investors had insurance that would bring them to the US when they got sick. What's your proof that folks in socialized countries can get all the care they wish in their own country by purchasing supplemental insurance?

No, actually I understand it quite well. But you keep on being patronizing like you always are.

But the problem is you actually don't. You think we can have the same level of health care with more patients and fewer doctors at a lower cost. Try paying doctors Medicare rates for all their patients and see how many physicians there are in a decade. You don't incur their level of debt and spend that long in school and residency to make $75K. And those that do could hardly be considered our best and brightest. As for me, I prefer the guy that's going to cut open my chest been part of a highly competitive process that separated the wheat from the chaff.

Newsflash: You obviously have no idea about how the forefathers thought and haven't done much research. There were multitudes of "camps" and ideas about how things should be run. Hamilton v Jefferson was a classic example. And they all believed the government was responsible for providing some services to the people.

How do I know what our forefathers thought? See, they wrote these documents and everyone signed them. Those are our guiding principles. I must have missed the point where they instituted nationalized health care. Somehow we've managed to become the wealthiest country in human history and a beacon of freedom without socialized health care. Everyone else that has instituted it has been eating our dust for decades. Coincidence? Bottom line, the freer the society, the more prosperous that society is.