A good argument against a tax increase to cover Universal Health Care

[AlexanderProgressive]

First, Bob Somerby observes that we already spend twice as much as nations with robust universal health care systems. Then he comes up with the following analogy:

"You buy a car for $40,000. Your neighbor buys a car for half that amount—and his car is better! Someone then says your car can be almost as good as his—if you spend six thousand more. Almost anyone would see the oddness of that situation."

http://dailyhowler.com/dh061609.shtml

[Oregone]

1. Bad argument

Although they spend half as much, they spend it publicly, not privately (like the US). If you want to spend 50% publicly instead, you need that 50% more generated in taxes (and in the long run, people will have more disposable income in their pockets, because they pay half as much). Because you spend that publicly, each person saves 100% of what they would of paid privately. You are just paying to a different entity now, and you cease payment to the original one (in that example, you now save the original $40K).

Yes, you already pay a shitload of tax, but you need a big badass army. The other alternative is to cut bloated programs to pay for it. But if thats off the table, a tax increase isn't the worse that can happen.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. More appropriately, you can trade in your $40,000 car for the better

$20,000 car, but you have to change dealerships.

So you change the fucking dealership.

The 'increase in taxes' you are talking about is offset by the much greater savings in insurance premiums, deductables, co-pays, and all that comes with our 'system'.

I've got good insurance, and no dependents, so I would probably about break even, as my employer would no longer be paying my premiums and could then directly compensate ME, and that amount would turn around and go out in increased taxes.

Others I know, who have employer-based health insurance, get themselves covered, but pay an addtional @$6000/yr for dependent coverage out of pocket, plus have high deductables, and they will SAVE money with getting coverage through increased taxes.

Remember - 30% of EVERY DOLLAR paid to an insurance company in premiums goes to the insurance company, not to healthcare - that's the CEO's yacht, the accountant's retirement, the company's $10 million ad campaign.

Fuck the Lexus - gimme a VW bug that I know won't be reposessed.

ON EDIT:

According to that nonsensical column the moronic writer is conflating two different things - the higher cost with the 'improved' health care currently proposed, and universal health care. NOBODY in washington is proposing universal healthcare, in a single payer system - and THAT is the system that will save us money. Any other system, including EVERY one that is currently on the table, keeps health insurance companies in the mix, and THAT is a fucking windfall for the insurance companies.