PROCRASTINATEING

[Max Sawicky]

>>No it wouldn't.  I noted in a previous post total
>>U.S. health care costs are over $800 billion.  If
>>you rolled in all the medicare/medicaid money, you
>>still might be short.
> . . .
>Who said a healthcare system had to be paid for like this.  I don't know
any people active in the single-payer movement who don't think the money
currently spent on premiums wouldn't be involved.  Plus, many of the 42 mil
uninsured would also be contributeing.>

Quite right, p.  But Dougie didn't
mention that.  Moreover, i'd say the
implication of your point is that we'd
need some kind of payroll or consumption
tax, which was the drift of my point.


>I don't want the rich to pay for the welfare state, just their "fair"
share.>

The more the better.  The question is
still how much.

In this vein, I'd be curious to know if
anyone is close to the brouhaha in Vermont
(one of our most liberal states, relatively
speaking).  A fairly limited change in school
finance (statewide finance of local schools,
though this is simplifying radically) has
ignited all sorts of hootin and hollerin
among people who think they are liberal.
Imagine from that standpoint the process of
some seriously redistributive, national tax
reform measure.

Cheers,

MBS