…my young Obama voters.
Here’s what’s coming for you.
GERMANY is proposing to levy extra taxes on the young to pay for the costs of the country’s growing numbers of old people, under government plans for a ”demographic reserve” levy.
Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats have drafted proposals that, if law, would require all those over 25 to pay a proportion of their income to cushion Germany against a looming population crisis.
The German Chancellor’s ruling party is seeking extra sources of revenue to pay for soaring pensions and bills for social care costs as Germany’s ”baby boomer” generation ages amid a decline in the birth rate.
The proposals, to be adopted by Dr Merkel’s party cabinet after the Easter break, have not yet set a figure on the age tax but officials are considering a special levy of about 1 per cent of income.
Because of a slump in Germany’s population, as more ageing Germans retire there are fewer young workers to replace them as taxpayers to fund generous welfare and pension arrangements.
Estimates from Germany’s federal employment agency predict that the workforce will be reduced by 7 million people by 2025.
”We have to consider the time after 2030 when the baby boomers of the ’50s and ’60s are retired and costing us more in health and care costs,” said Gunter Krings, who drafted the Christian Democrat position paper.
Unless that you learn that:
- Universal health care is not free, it is just universal and very expensive.
- Taxes are not “investments”. Governments do not “invest”, they spend. There is a big difference.
- Progressive tax programs are regressive to the productive segments of society.
- The greater percentage of wealthy people earned it rather than inheriting it.
- Riches are obtained by accepting financial risk. Sometimes you win, sometimes you don’t.
- Net worth is not equal to income.
- Government is an expense to the economy, not an asset. We consider an investment in the financial markets that yield less than 3% to be a bad investment yet historical rate of return for Social Security is less than that that and the program is insolvent.
It isn’t politics that will end the slow roll to socialism, it is demographics. Like in Germany, too many older folks are now expecting the promises of government to be paid. Politicians have been making promises for 60 years that you are now about to be presented the bill for.
Want more servitude for yourself – vote for Obama and the Democrats.
Welcome to your future.
26 thoughts on “Welcome to your future…”
Universal health care is not free, it is just universal and very expensive.—
— But not as expensive as medical care in the USA, where 17% of the nation’s total economy(GDP) is spent on health care, No other country spends anywhere near that much ; Switzerland spends just 11% of its GDP on health care.
And the US lags behind in many vectors; we are ranked 34th in infant mortality rates, at 7.07%. That puts us just behind Cuba,,#33, and Cuba’s total health expenditures amount to just 7.3% of GDP!
Germany now spends 10.7% of its GDP on health care, and that is with the top 10% of earners being allowed to opt out of the system and use private doctors. Adding a 1% tax only puts them in the highest percentage of GDP spent on medical care, next to the USA.
All the figures are from the World Health Organization, and a survey by the International Federation of Health Plans http://www.ifhp.com/news97.html
Maybe we, as a nation, are too corrupt, too infirm, and too dependent on palliative care than preventive care to make universal healthcare work in America, but it does work well in other countries.
Relying on numbers generated by organizations dedicated to pushing socialized medicine (that means here and abroad) is not the most sure means of arriving at the truth – especially when you realize they get those numbers by including things like combat deaths in the mortality rates. Now who is it suffering the majority of combat deaths in the Western World today?
Just saying. 🙂
My point still stands. It isn’t free.
The population of Switzerland is just over 7.8 million; Cuba is a little over 11.2 million. The population of New York City metro area alone is over 22 million.
And the big difference is that we aren’t these other countries. If the states want government health care, have at it. I believe that the 10th Amendment allows that – I do not believe that the Constitution supports Obamacare.
Cost is only one measure and comparing a country with a population less than one of our cities is also misleading. America is where the world comes when they have medical issues that other countries can’t or won’t deal with. How do you measure the cost of care that you can’t get or have to wait months to get?
Plus we have a choice in America. We don’t over here. I was assigned a practice and a GP that I had no input in choosing. There are real horror stories over here about how the NHS is operated – to the point that they are contracting with private hospitals and doctors to deliver services. The number of private doctors in the UK is actually growing.
“Universal” health care is simply forced cost shifting from the young and the healthy to the old and unhealthy and power shifting from the individual to the government. That may be your idea of fun, it isn’t mine…and in America, that means that I don’t have to do it unless I choose to.
I’m Ron Paul, and I approve this message.
It may be unconstitutional, but universal healthcare is cheaper, it takes the burden off the employer, if it is single-payer, and universality smooths out the risk. The more people paying in, the better for all.
I wonder, if the government got out of the way, why true HMO’s, ones that encourage preventive health care by keeping costs low, could not prosper on a volunteer basis, instead of a governmental mandate.
To say socialized medicine is cheaper is to argue a deliberate falsehood. If I am FORCED to pay for national medicine, then I cannot chose the “no care” option. That is hardly “cheaper” to me.
What’s more, government does NOTHING more efficiently than the market. The reason health care is so expensive in this nation is because it is pretty much already under the control of the government. The health care “insurance” industry has been perverted into something that simply cannot be called “insurance.” And by tying it to your employer and then using laws and regulations to manipulate the market does nothing but destroy the protections the FREE market would normally afford the consumer.
Then there’s the issue of tort reform…
So, YES< you are correct: if govt. got the bloody hell out of the way and "insurance" was severed from the employer and turned back into true INSURANCE, health care would get cheaper. Unfortunately, the greedy and lazy in this nation would STILL demand others pay for their keep because they have discovered they can "sell" their votes.
Let’s make it And Rand week:
I think that pretty much sums up the problem 😀
But you do agree that healthcare should be reformed?
Reformed? Not sure I’d put it that way. it should be TOTALLY removed from federal jurisdiction as there is NO constitutional authority for federal involvement. After that, it should be up to the States and the market to do whatever their citizens want according to market dictates. To do anything less is to perpetuate these same problems (see Mass and Romneycare).
Take it however you will, but that is my position.
Utah, you can’t dismiss the argument because some countries are tiny. It’s called per capita. Horror stories abound in this country as well. If Germany’s population makes my assessment somehow invalid, why doesn’t the size matter in your line of reasoning?
Black, you are saying that our combat deaths skew the averages. Let’s pretend that ALL combat deaths we have suffered since the Idiot-in -chief went into Iraq ( 4486) occurred in 2008, the last year I could find records for. In 2008, 2,473,000 people died. Rounding up the combat deaths to 5000, we get a percentage of .202% of deaths attributed to combat. That is hardly even noticeable in the figures, spread out the deaths as they were incurred, and you have a rounding error.
And if you can find better figures, guys, let’s see them. Facts is facts, no matter who utters them.
B, I agree with you, that what we have has been perverted by the healthcare-government complex, It would be an interesting experiment, allowing true competition to take place. I may have told you how I bargained down a medical bill from $16k to a one-time payment of $6000. And I feel, because it was accepted so readily, that the profit was still substantial. This was done when I received the bill, by the way, not a negotiation over a bill in arrears.
Utah, I agree with you insofar as the states have the right, and that the feds don’t. But nowhere does the constitution forbid several states to work together in order to bargain down prices and spread the risk. Actually, I will let B determine whether that last statement is true.
However we do it, something akin to universal insurance is the best way out of our current situation.
Thanks for the input, this is a good discussion.
Combat deaths are only ONE of the factors counted that artificially skew the numbers. They also include deaths from vehicle accidents. Since the average, PER CAPITA, rate in the U.S. is FAR higher than in Europe (because we are wealthy enough that most Americans drive), that adds an additional 35 – 50,000 deaths per year to those combat figures. Add up all these sort of “padded” statistics and the actual deaths from things that REALLY relate to health care drop and the numbers no longer make the U.S. look so bad.
I studied how to play with these numbers in college and I’ve read the formulas for how they arrive at the numbers they use now. I make NO claim to be an “expert” on this subject, but I think I know enough to understand the formulas have been designed to yield the politically desired result. 🙂
Actually, I didn’t dismiss them. I said what I did because you can’t extrapolate how a system works in a country with 2.5% of the population of ours, a country who has a population that is almost monolithic in culture and DNA like Switzerland.
What works on a small scale does not always work on a larger scale.
He’s correct on this one, G.
He may well be, but there is still that lack of numbers, for which I would be raked over the coals for by the two of you.
It’s not just numbers. Utah is correct: the size of a population as well as geographical location, diet, genetic and racial background and even life styles come in to play here. What If I compare my home to the nation on health care expenses. Is THAT a valid comparison on health care matters? Because, if it is NOT, then your objection goes away – based on numbers 😉
Aint logic a biotch? 😉
B., the cat’s been let out of the bag, so at this point I would, in fact, use the term “reform”. I would also refer to several other programs as needing “reforming” because of govt. involvement in them.
B, combat deaths don’t happen in Hyundais or Tercels, I fail to understand your reasoning here.
Besides which, combat deaths are a red herring, as total deaths in a country aren’t what this is about. Give me something I can bite, B.
I did, but I may not have made it clear enough. The formula they use in most of these studies counts combat deaths, deaths from violent crimes (drugs, gangs, etc) and deaths from car accidents in with the total mortality figures, then uses that to suggest Americans die earlier because of some supposed flaw in our health care. It’s an apples to oranges that is prejudiced against our society and which they intentionally hide so you won’t realize it is – essentially – a lie.
What if I’m perfectly happy with my health care? I can afford it, I have planned for it and I have access to whatever I need.
Just like the “progressive” income tax system where 47% don’t pay, why am I going to have to toss what I have accept something that I don’t want and in turn fund the health care of others?
Doesn’t the fact that I am being forced to pay for something that I didn’t choose reduce my liberty? This is just a sympathetic version of the same communist crap peddled by the Occupy Wall Street bunch. Nothing else.
Yes, it does reduce your liberty to be forced to pay for something, no matter whether it is good for you or not. that is why I am looking for better ways to reduce costs and cover more people, without the compulsory factor.
I see a problem, and I am looking for solutions. We are doing it together.
One solution: tell those who have a cell phone AND cable TV that – until they get rid of both and use that money to pay for a BC/BS plan similar to the one our son has (and he has pre-existings), then they have ZERO grounds to “demand” we pay for something they CAN afford – but just don’t want to pay for.
Uh, that’s being a little general, doncha think?
Nope, that is a good majority of people claiming they can’t afford health care insurance. It’s all about taking responsibility for you, then making choices as to what YOU want and don’t want and then LIVING WITH THE CONSEQUENCES!
What I pay for a cell phone, cable, and internet wouldn’t cover my health insurance premium, let alone my wife’s, and that is with a $1000 deductible.
Not for YOU, and not for the plan you “want.” But many younger and healthier people COULD buy a decent INSURANCE plan for what they spend on cable and their phones.
What it comes down to is this:
Make insurance INSURANCE again and make health insurance work like life insurance.
Start paying for “maintenance” and small stuff yourself.
Fix the tort laws.
Watch the problem get fixed.
In other words, reform healthcare. You’ve made my point, silly boy.