I cannot afford my bills now. An extra 3% would toss me in the poor house and I would be on the street. Another bum leeching off society. Taxes should never break anyone. If they do they are counterproductive. Anything over 25% would be counterproductive. Besides if you think that money would ALL be earmarked for medical you are very shortsighted. The government always finds ways to refunnel finances into politicians pockets and the pockets of corporate bedfellows. Why do you think Social Security is in its death-throes.

It's a bit off-topic, but the main cause of the death throes was the invention of the birth control pill, and our parents, the baby-boomers, not having as many kids per woman as the previous generations.

So wait, If birth control wasn't around then through now, we would be better off by having an extra billion people in the country? That would solve the deficit in SS by havinge more poor people feeding off the system.. I see how that would be benificial..

Dy, 3% off your income would put you in the poor house cause you love upgrading, and she loves shopping!! LOL

Haha. Unfortunately I don't qualify even if I did make less money. You have to have had kids. They don't cover single 22 year olds with no offspring. I tried.

get knocked up.

im sure there are several members who would love to spawn the antichrist with you.

You can't afford your bills now. But you have health coverage.

Imagine being in that same position financially with NO health coverage.

I don't know why I waste my time trying to appeal to you people. I quit.

I'll gladly help you spawn the antichrist Wicked

Wicked do not interpret my feelings for national health care with whatever feelings I may have for your situation. Both ar eseperate issues. I can gaurantee you that national health care would not improve your situation.

I would suggest looking into generic versions of the medicine you must take. Look into jobs which give you health care options. Try also checking out insurers an dsee what options they may have open. You might be able to find one which may not cover visits but may cover prescription costs or a fair percentage of them.
You have to check all your options. There are a lot of options out there.

I gave the facts, not my opinion on it. The program assumes an ever increasing population base to fund it, that's why it's a bad program.

of course it performs better or why would you pay more for it you seem to lack for an understanding of competive markets and captilism. You imply that National Goverment healthcare is that the coverage will be terrible. This is an unkown but highly unlikly scenario. On the other hand if a private insurance company wants to compete with a national healthcare plan that you have to pay for regardless how would they do it well I would bet that they would offer superior coverage but hey maybe iam just crazy

well if everyone threatened to quit wouldnt that force employeers to meet employee demands? I always thought that was whole premisis of a union. you know the meet our demands or we all walk out strike yadda yadda But just so you know when your are offered a job you are given detailed information about your benfits package, If it incudes healthcare your are entitled to those benfits so you can go ahead and bet the farm that if we went to national healthcare everyone that has such compensation is going to ask. When that happens employeers typicaly will mmeet demands its smart buisness escpecially when your cost just went down

with a flat tax you would end up paying less, and yes the government needs some serious ethics and over sight reform

A flat tax would also tax the poor, which we need to do. Most poor people don't pay federal income tax.

Also the reason why union breaking is a standard practice.

Why don't we have a flat tax? (Honest question, I really don't know)

Class envy?

THE RICH SHOULD PAY MORE!!! I MEAN WTF THEYRE RICH!!!!!

Ok anybody with a non-sarcasm answer?

No. The tax break is allowed to people who have a more economical plan while mr. I wanna have health, dental, and optical on the same plan with a payout for yadda ya of up to one million dollars eats the extra taxes (whether the foofy plan is employer or individual). The exerpt reads kind of akward because it starts with the good news and moves to the negative. There are so many better ways to word the explanation other than the way that was used. The article should have begun with who foots the bill, followed by who gets a break. The break at which the taxes begin and end is determined on the dollar amount of benifit recieved. This will still hurt employer based coverage in the long run. Indirectly though...