I mean... you do realize that Europe has more regressive taxes then the US by like... a lot right.

The Rich pay more in taxes in Europe then the US.... but everyone else pays a WHOLE lot more then the US does.

The only way to actually pay for more "soclialist" programs like universal healthcare is to tax the hell out of the poor to the point of tax regressiveness.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/19/other-countries-dont-have-a-47/

Australia is actually a pretty bad choice.  McDonalds in Australia actually are a bit of an outlier on the big mac index because the Big Mac is smaller there.  In otherwords, prices are higher then one would believe.

Additionally, the big mac index is actually at a low in most places.  Due to the Global Financial Crisis, prices in the US rose faster elsewhere because people were more likely to eat big macs here, so Mcdonalds prices have been subsidized here, vs everywhere else.  So mcdonalds prices across the board could very well go up.

Nope, there are plenty of jobs not being filled.

Anyone who is healthy and can't find a job is doing something wrong. I was recently offered three jobs because I make an effort and try to develop skils employers want.

If you're a healthy person capable of working, there is little excuse to be in poverity. Most poverty is a result of bad choices.

I'm having some major deja vu with this discussion between the two of you. I suppose this is one of the eternally debated topics.

ok sure, but then the question becomes, "why was this made in the first place",

Who can it possibly be benefitting if this is all true?

WHy would anyone propose this if everyone is a loser?

He won the popular vote in TO elections where this issue was prominent. I would say the american public stands behind this law :).

Everyone isn't a loser there are two groups of winners as far as insurees go.

Those who have had prexisting conditions who make too much money to be on medicaid.  They will be able to get healthcare without having to wait until they're poor enough for medicaid.

and those covered by the Medicaid expansion which increased what you ould make and got rid of asset and wealth testing.

I actually qualified under that.   before the law while I qualify for medicare based on what i make, i have too many assets in the form of stocks and bonds to qualify for medicare.  Granted while i was happier paying for my own medical care...

Someone 10 or 15 years older might not be able to afford it and instead burn through their saved assets before they could get medicaid.   Essetially penealizing the poor who are smart with their money.

Other big winners in Obamacae

1) The Insurance Companies.  Honestly, i quite expect they'll hit record profits off the backs of the Healthcare.gov webiste plans.  More specifically, the huge insurance companies who can set themselves up on the insurance exchanges.

Some are suggesting otherwise and plan to raise rates by huge amounts...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-25/obamacare-insurer-wellpoint-sees-double-digit-rate-rise.html

Which if that's true... I got no clue.

2)  Doctors.   They were totally against the ACA deeming it more harm then good when it came to patients health... until they were given higher medicaid payments as incentive to support the bill.

As for why you'd propose a loser of a program.  Well that's simple, once it becomes obvious Obamacare needs to be fixed... it won't be fixed by just removing it and going back to the status quo.  It's too painful to remove benefits  from people, espiecally people who were getting a raw deal, even if they were an extreme minority.

Republicans can talk about repealing Obamacare all they want, but the truth is, the only way it will get fixed now is by making it more centralized and government run, and getting rid of all the crony capitlism stuff that got it passed.  

And how do we get these magical better jobs if there's no money in the economy because wealth is being hoarded at the top?

Redistribution is needed to kickstart real consumer demand and real growth, and one of the best ways to do that in a permanent way is to hike the minimum wage. Prices may go up, but not as much to justify the minimum wage change, especially they can't go up that quickly because it doesn't change demand for their products in the short run. Hence sticky prices, as a highly reactive price change is only going to hurt your bottom line as fewer people then buy your products.

Plus it's just a social thing. All taxpayers are subsidizing these low minimum-wage earners through social services (because they're TOO POOR), so you are paying for them one way or another. Better for the economy that they earn that money themselves, spend it themselves, and better contribute to wealth movement that way (especially if it means the dimunition of corporate profits, which just get hoarded nowadays)

It's a macro game. There are about 4 million open jobs in this country right now http://www.epi.org/publication/jobs-60-percent-job-seekers/, and about 10.2 million job-seekers (and that's just *job seekers*, not those who have given up on job-seeking due to the poor economy, the ones uncounted in the unemployment rate). This means that if we eliminated things like geographical problems (many of those seekers might not live where the jobs are), there would still be about 6.2 million people who are shit out of luck because there are simply not enough jobs for everyone.

Or have you polled 10.2 million job seekers to cover your little anecdote there?

Check and mate