Universal healthcare is unlikely to tip the US into bankruptcy because countries with it get a cheaper deal the the US does with its current system.

If you seriously feel sorry for Fitta who now early less than $1.5M for being punitively taxed or exploited then you have either got your priorities so inverted that your colon has teeth or you are plain thick.

The money that vaporized wasn't real, if America is bankrupt now it was then. And if the armies of ordinary people who have no jobs here or the 100 million people more worldwide that now have nothing to eat don't make you feel nauseated by a revolting creature like Fitta then there is another thing in America that is bankrupt- your morals.

And if you think an extra 1% is all people like Fitta are looking at, you are delusional. The US is in serious shit financially. It's teetering on the edge of bankruptcy even before considering expanded or universal healthcare. Expanding healthcase may push it over, unless the government significantly ramps up collections. The current surtax proposal is just the first shot across the bow. At one point marginal tax rates in the US were 90%. Is it inconceivable that we end up there again with Obama and a democratic Congress capitalizing on populist outrage?

Sorry I take that back, you are not one of us…human beings that is.

If you and your misfortune denying, crypto fascist Ayn Randians scoff at a miserable 1% to help those who do not have a choice for decent healthcare, saying they do, then there is a self correcting solution:

New York will return to the crime ridden crack pit that it used to be, and people like yourself will live in daily mortal fear of being gang raped for a Birkin by some wilding thugs with similar sheep mentality when it comes to fashion.

My point was not about affordability but about choices. In my life some people choose the health insurance, some people choose the place on FI — oddly in NY Post speak, the latter are really the "risk takers".

So don't worry, you are actually one of us.

Given that this implies that an $80K person pays twice the percentage that a $285K earner does (note the 1% for the $285K wall street guy), this is either a mistake or in fact:

A BENEFIT NOT A TAX.

i.e. There is a universal healthcare at 2.5% tax a year if you are earning, which equates to $2K for the $80K earner so much less than she would pay for healthcare now.

Am I reading this right?

More here:

http://davidgalbraith.org/america/a-bi-partisan-plea-for-healthcare-from-a-foreigner-in-america/2123/

I appreciate your suggestion that I should start a foundation. Unfortunately, I cannot afford one. Despite my apparently ginormous income (from your perspective), I am at least 1 or 2 zeros away from foundation territory. Those things cost money.

Choire, you have been on my mind since I learned that I would be buying the healthcare for you and our other "creative" friends. I thought about the creative friends (no naming names) having things like brand new furren cars and summer houses. I do not have a summer house. I do not have a car. I understand why my creative friends would rather have a summer house or a hip zip code than the healthcare. But it seems to me that if I am going to buy them the healthcare, they could lend me the summerhouse. Or at least the car.

Eight percent of 400K is 32K. So essentially, the government is telling you "Insure your workers or pay into our system."

As a country, we have a value system that doesn't really want the sick to go untended. Callous as we may come off on the Internet, we will generally take care of our sick. Most polls in the last six months have seen a turn to acceptance to an increased governmental role in making this happen.

As a small business manager, I assure you I'd rather have a healthy productive team over frail workers with high employee turnover.

I guess we all have to get gay-married or something.