Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Certainly, technological progress will continue. That's not the same as saying "In 200 years health care will actually be extremely cheap and available to ALL. You significantly underestimate the greatness of the human race. And the work week will probably be no more than 15-20 hours." In 1968, Paul Ehrlich was predicting that we'd overpopulate the earth and all start dying of starvation. Now, Japan and many countries in Europe are below replacement level. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb And of course, there was Malthus before the Ehrlichs. (Paul Ehrlich's wife co-authored the book but he did not give her credit, typical "liberal" male of the 1960s.)
In the debate forum I have been saying for a long time that the population of developed countries is dwindling. Even India has reduced the fertility rate from six per couple to around three. However MOST people believe the population is going up everywhere. There is a lot of ignorance out there. I agree!!
IN any event the predictions were based on prior fertility rates. Predictions regarding medical care are not difficult. The US is the only developed country without Universal Care. I think anyone can easily predict that sometime in the future the US will join the rest of the world in this issue.
Last edited by Julian658; 02-17-2016 at 06:09 AM..
Do you think if congress went to the public in the 70's and said "we are raising your taxes substantially to give everyone a cell phone but don't worry about it because in 2015 we will be giving them away free to poor people" that it would have flown?
No it would not have flown because many cannot see forward. Most people live in the past and the present.
All in all, Sanders wants to raise taxes by a bit more than a trillion dollars per year — which may not sound like much to those who remember the Obamacare debate, but remember that the numbers that got thrown around for Obamacare were 10-year estimates. Adding inflation, Sanders will be raising taxes by close to $15 trillion when the Congressional Budget Office applies its normal scoring window.
The answer to the question of how much single payer would cost the federal government is simple: $4.1 trillion a year, or $1.4 trillion more than the federal government now spends on programs that the Sanders plan would replace. The money would come from new taxes. Half the added revenue would come from doubling the payroll tax that employers now pay for Social Security. This tax approximates what employers now collectively spend on health insurance for their employees...if they provide health insurance. But many don’t. Some employers would face large tax increases. Others would reap windfall gains.
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) released the outline of a plan to move to a single-payer health care system in the U.S. along with proposed tax increases intended to pay for the overhaul. According to the Sanders campaign, the plan would cost roughly an additional $1.4 trillion per year, or $14 trillion over ten years, and it would be financed through a combination of taxes on workers, employers, investors, estates, and high earners.
That Sen. Sanders has shown a commitment to paying for his new initiatives and has proposed specific concrete changes to do so is quite encouraging. However, by our rough estimates, his proposed offsets would cover only three-quarters of his claimed cost, leaving a $3 trillion shortfall over ten years. Even that discrepancy, though, assumes that the campaign’s estimate of the cost of their single-payer plan is correct. An alternate analysis by respected health economist Kenneth Thorpe of Emory University finds a substantially higher cost, which would leave Sanders’s plan $14 trillion short. The plan would also increase the top tax rate beyond the point where most economists believe it could continue generating more revenue and thus could result in even larger deficits as a result of slowed economic growth.
We know that single-payer mechanisms work in some countries. But those systems evolved over decades, based on gradual and incremental change from what existed before.
The ACA is the first step in a process that will lead to single-payer in the future. Maybe not in my lifetime but it WILL happen here.
Having lived for over a decade in different socialist countries in the EU, all with nationalized medicine programs, it's a clear case of getting what you pay for. In the UK, there are basically two options. First, NHS only. Lousy care, lengthy wait times, MRSA outbreaks, etc. Second, persons can purchase private insurance. Slightly better care. The thing that evades most people in support of "universal health care", is that is most certainly isn't free. Nothing in this life is free. UK citizens pay a higher percentage in income tax, and pay a Value Added Tax (VAT) of around 14% on goods and services. This is the thing that is conveniently omitted by supporters of single payer. They will admit that EU countries pay 'slightly' higher income tax, but almost always fail to discuss the VAT tax that underwrites the nationalized health care in most countries.
Having lived for over a decade in different socialist countries in the EU, all with nationalized medicine programs, it's a clear case of getting what you pay for. In the UK, there are basically two options. First, NHS only. Lousy care, lengthy wait times, MRSA outbreaks, etc. Second, persons can purchase private insurance. Slightly better care. The thing that evades most people in support of "universal health care", is that is most certainly isn't free. Nothing in this life is free. UK citizens pay a higher percentage in income tax, and pay a Value Added Tax (VAT) of around 14% on goods and services. This is the thing that is conveniently omitted by supporters of single payer. They will admit that EU countries pay 'slightly' higher income tax, but almost always fail to discuss the VAT tax that underwrites the nationalized health care in most countries.
Many here conflate single payor, Universal Healthcare, ACA, and a National Healthcare option. Not just on this forum but the 'people' advocating it in washington.
There is some good info in this thread and another called 'Medicare only insures the ....' by some insiders. A lot to scroll through however.
The ACA is the first step in a process that will lead to single-payer in the future. Maybe not in my lifetime but it WILL happen here.
Great, just be open and honest about what you really want from it so that we can all make decisions. If you want it to bankrupt the nation, let us know. If you're just looking to get on the government dole, let us know, if you enjoy long wait times and enjoy fighting the government instead of insurance companies, let us know. If you just want the rich to pay more in taxes because you think your tax burden will decrease, let us know.
We're fellow citizens and you along with your ilk have been lying about their true intentions for a very long time when it comes to a national based system or single payer or whatever.
I believe healthcare is just a tad higher on people's importance meters than cell phones.
Actually, it probably isn't! I worked in health care for 45 years. I found that people who were willing to pay for all sorts of things were sometimes unwilling to pay for health care. I've said many times that two things that people seem unwilling, or at least hesitant to pay for are health care and education. A $10 co-pay is seen as onerous, whereas a $100/mo cell phone bill is acceptable.
In the debate forum I have been saying for a long time that the population of developed countries is dwindling. Even India has reduced the fertility rate from six per couple to around three. However MOST people believe the population is going up everywhere. There is a lot of ignorance out there. I agree!!
IN any event the predictions were based on prior fertility rates. Predictions regarding medical care are not difficult. The US is the only developed country without Universal Care. I think anyone can easily predict that sometime in the future the US will join the rest of the world in this issue.
Probably so. However, it's not necessarily going to be "extremely cheap" as you have prognosticated. Unlike the price of a calculator, the price of a doctor's visit has not gone down. It's probably about the same, adjusted for inflation, as when I graduated from nursing college in 1970.
Probably so. However, it's not necessarily going to be "extremely cheap" as you have prognosticated. Unlike the price of a calculator, the price of a doctor's visit has not gone down. It's probably about the same, adjusted for inflation, as when I graduated from nursing college in 1970.
The problem is that we still live in a society where everything is ruled by currency. One day when we have everything we need and when wealth is redundant currency will be a thing of the past. As of now we are no different than the wild animals in Africa that struggle for survival. We are still in a very primitive barbaric stage. And rightfully so, we were hunter and gatherers 12,000 years ago which is a blink of an eye in terms of HUMAN history. Lets see how HUMANS progress in the next 50-100k years. Health insurance is only a bit more than a 100 years old.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
