You need a second job to afford universal health care covered by taxes? Wow. That's news to me.

You completely misunderstood what was written, Knut. 

Because taxes would be higher, take home pay on the same income would be lower.  To be able to afford the same goods, services and level of savings you were prior to the tax increase would require in increase in income, hence, a second job.

Scott you need to get out more, there are working poor that don't have those things and there are elderly that barely get by.

Jodi, free and low cost healthcare is already availble to people in those income brackets and paid for by the government.

Scott, I'd take it one further. Kids aren't a necessity, either. If you can't afford to raise one, don't have one.

I'd agree with you there.

It's radical, but I'd go so far as to institute a government program that would pay $5,000 to any citizen who would voluntarily, with no pressure on anyone, undergo a free reversable sterilization.  It would be available to anyone who wanted it, regardless of income, as a one-time, lump sum payment.  It would have a high up front cost but pay off in the end in lower welfare costs.

Yes, I know that was a bit harsh. It just bothers me when I see people have 5+ kids then complain when they can't afford to feed them. I'm not saying to cut federal support to let children starve. It's not their fault that their parents are negligent. But I would like the mentality that everyone has a right to reproduce and then expect the government to pay for support of such to change.

Vinny  I was poking fun at Scott. I agree I wish we would have to take some kind of test before we could have children, the way things are going it reminds me of the movie "Idiocracy" ( bad movie but some parts pretty funny) The clip below is actually the best part of that movie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1sE1E3z7jU&feature=relat ed

OK did I wake up in some bizarre parallel world, Fox reporting the truth and Bruce saying Obama is 100% right on something. LOL See Bruce it wasn't that hard, the first time is always the hardest. LOL

************

Well, I don't plan on making it a habit! But seriously, he's right on this issue and I'm willing to say so.

People who talk about "unprevoked attacks on our ally, Pakistan" miss the point. These terrorists already are using Pakistan as a staging base for attacks on our troops (and British troops, Canadian troops, etc.) who are stationed in Afghanistan.

And we can debate whether or not Pakistan has made a good-faith effort to help corral these terrorists. I honestly don't know the answer to that. But I do know, from every news account I've read, that the Pakistani government has little control in this region of their country. Instead, it's pretty much run by feudal warlords who are sympathetic to the radical Islamic terrorist groups.

"Because taxes would be higher, take home pay on the same income would be lower.  To be able to afford the same goods, services and level of savings you were prior to the tax increase would require in increase in income, hence, a second job. "

No, I get what you were saying. But as I pointed out, how socialists and I imagine most Democrats at least would propose to solve that would be to shift the tax increase onto very rich people and failing that, the upper middle class.

For the lowest income families that now barely afford health insurance (or don't as the case may be), health insurance would be "cheaper" even if taking into account their share of the tax increase. I.e. their take home pay would most likely be equal to or greater than it is now.

Bill Gates would pay a lot more for that health care, but I don't think he'll need a second job to cover it. (I'm being facetious, I know that some people in the upper middle class may also get an  "increase", but not , I think, to the extent that they'll need another job.)

I don't think anyone is proposing a "flat" tax increase to cover this.

Even if we may disagree on the "fairness" of taxing the very rich proportionately more than everyone else, I think you'll agree that any (hypothetical) Democratic proposal for universal socialized healthcare in the US would propose to cover the costs by taxing the upper tax brackets more rather than spreading the added tax burden out "flat".

And as I said, personally I think that if appropriately managed, such a system could be much more cost effective overall , both in monetary and health terms.