The Glade 4.0

Other than the quote Vindicarre listed, I don't need any more evidence that he promised not to raise taxes.

Premiums paid into the system are taxes--

They're called payroll taxes, which incidentally violates his campaign pledge.

Payroll taxes affect all income earners, even those who have no Federal Income Tax burden. So, no, he's not sticking to that principle.

It's a government tax if I spend my money on a private insurance plan?

What I think Vindicarre is missing is the modifier of "your". Consumption taxes aren't normally considered personal taxes, which is the implication behind the modifier.

Its an example of slipperly language used by politicians. It wins him votes from people who interpret it the way Vind has during voting, and gives him an out when called on it.

But that isn't an entirely accurate way to look at it. Yes, he promised to not raise taxes on anyone making less than a certain threshold. That's different that promising to not raise *any* taxes, and I don't see any deliberate intention to mislead on that principle.

Actually, it lost votes from people like me because I knew it was a promise he wouldn't keep.

True, but the stupid outnumber the smart.

Monte -- premiums don't scale with income. Premiums represent a good/service that has a market price.

Taxes are based on dependent values -- dependent on the value of your property, your income, or the goods or services involved in a transaction.

The plans before Congress do not have premiums.

So, is it your opinion that every person that voted for the President is stupid?

That wasn't what I argued. I will thank you to not build straw men out of my argument. It's a logical fallacy.

They will have premiums, and the bills outline how those premiums are regulated.

to quote you...

Great. So, what did you mean by that statement, in the context in which it was posted?

I was just listening to a report on the Baucus plan this morning in the car. It's capped at 13% of income.

And you would certainly have that right under Obama's plan, and under the proposals before congress.

I might have the number wrong, though, and it could be split between the employee and the employer.

Here's something interesting - the cost for individuals under France's program? 7% on their income taxes, and 120 bucks a month. That's it.

That's pretty damn good for universal coverage, and to never deal with the hassle of an insurance company, billing from a hospital, denied claims, etc.

Well, at present, we don't know if there will *be* a public option. However, assuming there is one, you can still get insurance. You can go to the proposed insurance exchange, you can buy a private plan or the government plan, and those private plans will have to compete with that government plan. Their prices will be lower.

Employers will also be paying less for insurance coverage for their employees. The insurance companies will have to compete with a much cheaper public plan, so your current costs are not likely to be an accurate means of comparison.

Here's something interesting - the cost for individuals under France's program? 7% on their income taxes, and 120 bucks a month. That's it.

That's pretty damn good for universal coverage, and to never deal with the hassle of an insurance company, billing from a hospital, denied claims, etc.

Social welfare

The French Social Security system was introduced in 1945. Benefits are financed on a "pay as you go" basis.

65.5% of total social security spending (29.6% of GDP) comes from employers and employees’ contributions and 17.4% from taxes, including earmarked taxes such as the CSG (Contribution sociale généralisée - social security contribution levied on virtually all sources of income) or the CRDS (Contribution pour le remboursement de la dette sociale - contribution to the repayment of the social debt) which apply to all income other than that deriving from work. This is virtually the sole source of funding for the Social Security system. Public financing accounts for 13.5% of total resources.

Benefits break down as follows: pensions (44%), health (35.2%), family allowances (9%) and employment aid (unemployment benefit, vocational training and social integration) (7.4%).

However, the growing number of pensioners compared to the labour force, combined with medical advances and longer life expectancy, has led to a deficit in the French Social Security system and in 2003 to reform of the pension contribution system.

http://www.travail.gouv.fr

Health

Health is a major concern of the French: in 2005, they spent €190,5 billion on medical care and goods.

77.15% of this was covered by the social security system, with an increasing proportion being met by households and insurance companies. A major programme of reform was instituted in 2004 to balance the accounts of the health insurance branch of the Social Security system.

Private schools exist right alongside public schools, and are not driven out of business because of the presence of a public option for education. In fact, they thrive. I fail to see how private insurance would be put out of business by a public option for insurance.

The fact that the government has no profit motive or concern is a huge plus in my book. It means lower costs, and a more proper focus on what is important in health care.

Without a school voucher system so that more people can actually afford the option of the private schools, there is no real competition in that sector.

Public schools have a monopoly at the lowest common denominator, and because of the way in which public schools are funded, people which can't afford to double pay for school are locked into that system. There is no competition.. the two groups are almost completely stratified based upon the income of the parents and the ability to afford paying twice for a school.

As for no motive equating to lower costs... the Postal system says otherwise. Much like the schools, there is no real competition at the mandate forced stratification. Private carriers are barred by federal law from handling first class mail, so the USPS has a monopoly. Where the private companies are allowed to compete, the USPS is essentially a non-player because they can't cover the costs of their operation (lost $3 billion last year), despite not needing to make a profit. Who pays for that loss?

Of course, you statement also assumes that politicians don't play games with favors for government agencies... I mean, surely you don't think the Defense Department has reduced costs because it doesn't need to make a profit?