No sale on that point.

Single payer based on some other tax.

It's a shame that the Demos in Congress don't offer an single pay alternate... But they won't because they know they can't get it paid for with a progressive income tax increase.

Do you even understand the difference? I don't believe that you do. In fact, it's pretty obvious from reading your posts in this thread that you really don't know what you're talking about.

For all your bluster about being for single payer, I knew you weren't serious. And like the loyal little Wehrmacht member you are, you dutifully line up behind the GOP and spout the party line on command.

The estimated value of Aetna's (AET) entire CEO compensation package for FY 2017 is more than $17 million, more than double the $8+ million he received last year. Cigna's (CI) CEO package tops $13 million. And the CEO of UnitedHealth (UNH) alone cleared $66 million last year in salary and other forms of compensation.

Thomas Barthold, chief of staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation, admitted today to Congressman Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) of the House Ways and Means Committee during an informational briefing of the GOP plan that a company could write off the entirely of its CEO's compensation package as a deduction, not just $1 million from his or her base salary.

Because this tax break reduces government revenue by some $72 million the first year and per Mr. Barthold, ultimately by over $400 million over the coming decade, it is effectively a cost item for which Congress must account in the federal budget, much as they would a purchase of a new fleet of vehicles for U.S. Border Patrol.

For example, that $400 million could go a long way toward the development of more federally qualified health centers to serve impoverished rural America, in particularly places where there are often few or no health care providers at all.

Even so, that particular provision comprises only a small portion of the approximately $600 billion in tax revenue that the federal government is estimated to lose, again per Thomas Barthold of the Joint Committee on Taxation, were Obamacare to be repealed and the GOP's plan put in place. That's because much of that funding is derived from ACA-related taxes which were assessed on wealthier Americans.

The number of people receiving health care coverage is directly proportional to the amount of money that is spent providing that coverage. At no time did anyone ever say or promise that this could be accomplished on the cheap. Reduce that spending, and you will eventually cause a significant reduction in the number of people covered.

So, it's really all a matter of your priorities. If you would prefer that the wealthiest 1% of Americans -- who already own 35.4% of the privately held wealth in the United States -- receive yet another tax-related windfall, then you ought to support the GOP's American Health Care Act. But if you believe that health care should be a universal right, rather than a mere privilege or a publicly traded commodity, then you should oppose the Republican plan.

Obama put an additional limit on certain health insurers, that limit is $500,000 and will come into effect in 2018.

 Trump's plan would remove Obama's additional limit on these particular health insurers, resulting in them having the same tax rules as the rest of the US corps.

subsection (m)(6) to Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code

(6)Special rule for application to certain health insurance providers

(A)In generalNo deduction shall be allowed under this chapter--

(i)in the case of applicable individual remuneration which is for any disqualified taxable year beginning after December 31, 2012, and which is attributable to services performed by an applicable individual during such taxable year, to the extent that the amount of such remuneration exceeds $500,000, or

(ii)in the case of deferred deduction remuneration for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2012, which is attributable to services performed by an applicable individual during any disqualified taxable year beginning after December 31, 2009, to the extent that the amount of such remuneration exceeds $500,000 reduced (but not below zero) by the sum of--

(I)the applicable individual remuneration for such disqualified taxable year, plus

(II)the portion of the deferred deduction remuneration for such services which was taken into account under this clause in a preceding taxable year (or which would have been taken into account under this clause in a preceding taxable year if this clause were applied by substituting "December 31, 2009" for "December 31, 2012" in the matter preceding subclause (I)).

Ideally, I would actually go one step further and adopt full-on socialized medicine a la the UK.

The goal should be to get away from those with the most money getting the best care.

McBain: "So, if someone wants to pay to have an expensive private doctor who only sees one patient or very few patients, they shouldn't be able to do it?"

... when the subject is basic health coverage?

Nobody here is advocating that a Beverly Hills or Park Ave. resident should be denied access to his or her plastic surgeon, if he or she chooses to pay for such services.

Allowing insurers to write off nearly the entirety of their compensation packages to just 57 executives is yet another example of a wholly unnecessary giveaway to those who neither need it nor deserve it.