Income taxes — both individual and corporate — are the main source of government revenues.

So I will reiterate my point, which is that the top 1% are paying an enormous percentage of the cost of running our government. Many citizens pay little or nothing and I do not believe that is healthy.

I do have to add that I prefer looking at the total federal tax burden and not just personal income taxes — it gives a more accurate look at the burden of each income group.

Viewed this way, the federal tax burden of the top 1% drops to 28.3% (in table 1)

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10068/effective_tax_rates_2006.pdf

Incidentally, my primary concern is not so much the amount or the rate, but rather that so much of our tax revenues are dependent on a very small base of people. It’s unwise and bad for our system of governance in my opinion. Also, it makes tax revenues much more volatile.

So what percent of the *income* do the top 1% of earners make? That is the crucial question in this discussion, and you only address it long enough to disimiss.

If it’s also at 40%, then what’s the problem? What if it’s far below or above 40%?

The big difference is that the lack of health insurance does not mean that someone gets no healthcare. However, if your life insurance policy did not pay off, that would be it. There is no alternative to getting that check.

If the main breadwinner dies and has no life insurance, that is a huge hit for that family. If someone’s car gets wrecked and they have no insurance, then the cost is borne by that family.

Whereas, if a family does not have health insurance, they still have healthcare at the emergency room, community health clinic and so on.

So, no I do not agree with that at all.

Also, life expectancy at birth statistics are not calculated the same around the world. In the U.S. we count all births, even premature ones. Other countries do not. I know you know this, so suggesting we don’t have a good record on this is very unfair. And, our cancer survival rates are significantly higher than most other countries over many types of cancers, not to mention the fact that most health innovations and pharmaceuticals come from the U.S. Finally, if moral hazard and so on are impossible in a free market for health insurance, who don’t the same factors make life insurance, car insurance, liability insurance, homeowners insurances and so on, unfeasible?

I personally don’t think Canada’s health care system is superlative but one is always free to buy supplementary private health insurance coverage there. When one looks at other universal health care systems there is an amazing variety. The UK of course has a more or less entirely socialized system but you are always free to purchase supplementary health insurance. France has national health insurance with optional supplementary health insurance (and short wait times) and some of the health care delivery system is socialized (and cancer survival rates are among the very best). (And some of the health care delivery system is in the US is also socialized. For example the VHA is entirely socialized.) The Netherlands has the same as France but you have the option of opting out of the national health insurance system (as one third of the population does). Switzerland has a completely private health insurance system, but it is nevertheless essentially universal, and some of the health care delivery system is socialized. Cuba is of course entirely socialized (and no private health insurance or health care is permitted). (And, interestingly, Cuba has the highest age adjusted cancer survival rates in the the world, and that is a measure of quality widely advocated by Republican leaning economists like Gary Becker.) I personally have no firm conviction on which is the best model but I am absolutely convinced that, thanks to issues of moral hazard and adverse selection, laissez-faire economics will not work with the health insurance market and, furthermore, thanks to positive externalities, that universal health care is a socially and economically desirable goal. I do not, on the other hand, believe that government owned and operated health care delivery is optimal.

P.S. And, interestingly, although the US has a rather poor record on life expectancy at birth, it has one of the highest life expectancies at age 65, when our single payer Medicare system (with short wait times) kicks in. (And to be clear, single payer means socialized health insurance, but not health care delivery.)