Paying for health care coverage?

Let me begin by saying I haven't following the evolution of the proposed health care changes to "understand" how they will be paid for. In general, what I see proposed are a lot of "commitments" from FOR PROFIT companies not to gouge us too much (my oversimplification).

What I haven't seen, but which makes some sense to me, are proposed national taxes being included with the discussion (e.g. $1.00 a gallon on gas, or national sales tax). The other year, when gas was at or near $4.00 a gallon, folks were still filling up their cars (albeit begrudgingly). We know the response from the 'Party of NO' but would there be any support for this type funding mechanism (gas tax, national sales tax, etc.) in our own party?

Why can't a form of "national tax" be used to pay for coverage to ensure that everyone, including those in the 47 million without coverage, are in fact covered and have access to health care?

There are a lot of folks on this board who are infinitely more informed on the topic than me - I would love some other input/perspective to help this country boy in the big city understand the matter.

Washington just spends it on the Military Industrial Complex and Corporate America.

The simple fact is that our middle class is being taxed to extinction, while being gutted by Corporate America already. However, there is one class that has done very well over the last thirty years, regardless of economic conditions. The time has come to settle up for what THEY have not paid the last thirty years, while they burdened the other classes with THEIR responsibilities. They are the ones who need to buckle down and pull themselves up by the bootstraps, and accept their personal responsibilities.

about that idea.
They say that a higher percentage of income of those who earn less goes towards the tax thus it is unfair. I do actually like the concept of a national sales tax- a small one only as a last resort.
I don't like the idea of taxing gas at this time because many of us that bought gas guzzlers back when gas was $1.25 a gallon, just 6 years ago are still struggling with the unexpected sharp increases there. If a tax is to be added to fuel, it needs to be added in about 20 years so that we can make the necessary lifestyle changes to be able to afford that.

You and others bought a gas guzzler solely on the price of gas. At the same time our troops were fighting overseas to secure our foreign sources of oil and scientists were continuing to warn of global climate change. Everyone who ignored those 'community' concerns over their own narrow self-interest of cheap gas should not be allowed to derail progress by waiting another 20 years to increase the price of gas. The current price of gas is flawed--it does not factor in the cost of the wars and damage to the environment. The free market does not do a good job of pricing in those 'external factors'.

I bought a base model pickup truck in 03 before we were marched off to fight bush's never ending war. I bought it because I need a truck for my career not because gas was cheap. The truck has the smallest engine in it's class a V-6 and doesn't get much better mpg than the v8. Gas was in the low $1 range here when I bought it. I would not have bought the truck and instead rented or used a trailer with something more fuel efficient had I known what was going to happen with gas prices.

Gas tax punishes consumers because of circumstances beyond our control. We can't help that there is no adequate public transit or that there are no bike trails. That the automakers won't bring their more fuel efficient small vehicles and small engines to this country. We can't help that the European market clean diesels are not "50-state certified" so instead of getting 40 mpg in a pickup truck instead I am lucky to get half of that.

In 20 years, I'll be on board with a gas tax. By then we'll have no excuse.

Not one more cent should be taken from the working class until the tax rates on wealth are restored to the levels they were before the massive hoarding by those at the top began.

Obama originally proposed (and it is not dead) to limit the tax deductions of those in the upper income bracket.

If someone in the 35% tax bracket deducts their mortgage interest, they get a bigger percentage incentive than someone in the 28% bracket. Obama wanted to cap that and say something like all deductions are limited to 28%.

I believe the House went for a surtax on those in the 35% tax bracket.

There is talk in the Senate about taxing health plans provided by employers. To keep from pissing too many people off they are talking about limiting it to 'high end' plans (those that cost more than some magic number, say $15,000 per year).