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.
The two I know who didn't sign up for Medicare have pretty decent incomes. One also pays an additional $5K/year to be included in the practice of an internal medicine physician she likes.
Some retirement packages include lifetime insurance. But in their cases, both are still consulting part-time and still receiving insurance through the plans they've been part of for years.
I just Googled it. There is no penalty if they stay on their employment-related group plan. If that situation changes, they have 8 months to sign up without a late penalty.
It could be that wealthy folks see doctors that don't accept Medicare.
Mitt Romney, for example, didn't sign up for Medicare when he turned 65.
As I've said many times, a 25.6% HI Payroll Tax would generate about $2.4 TRILLION, which is what is needed to cover current medical costs.
and this is the huge problem that should be fixed, that "single payer" alone won't solve.
i looked at the most successful country in one of the posted charts -- Chile. They have a 7% tax on wages that covers their care for 50% of total care. (i.e. a 14% wage tax would make their care 'totally free')
The fact that we need to pay about a 26% wage tax to afford ours is totally insane, and suggests that there are deeply rooted problems in our pricing. The U.S. has serious and self-inflicted problems with the cost of medicine and medical equipment that have to be dealt with somehow.
Needs copays and deductibles. They are gatekeepers. Say 30 bucks for a doc and 2000 for an operation.
Needs enforcement of monopoly rules. No more Shkreli's.
If non citizen, minimum inputs needed for coverage.
Needs to be funded as a payroll tax at an adequate level and 50/50 up to a max of ?8%? for the employER. That is the tax simply replaces current median payment by them.
Pay close attention to what that scatter plot chart tells us... Note that the highest levels of government benefits and services are provided by countries (Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Belgium) in which taxes are flat (everyone pays the same tax rate) or regressive (shown as the negative values, meaning a greater tax burden is placed on those with lower incomes). And note where the USA falls on the graph. The USA has the most progressive tax system and therefore is least able to fund progressives' societal "wants" including single payer health care because the tax base is too narrow, and therefore generates insufficient tax revenue to fund such programs.
(Scatter Plot info, for those who need more explanation of what Scatter Plots tell us: Scatter Plots - Math is Fun)
Will any of you address that discrepancy? You want the goodies other countries have, but you don't want to make the sacrifices their citizens make to have them. You're NOT willing to pay for them. You only want someone else to pay for your goodies.
" (Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Belgium) in which taxes are flat (everyone pays the same tax rate) "
This is why many of us do NOT give the Wash. post much credibility.
"The effective taxation rate in Sweden is commonly cited as among the highest in the world; see list of countries by tax rates.
And don't forget this is NOT the ONLY taxes they pay.
We do not want a VA type system. We do not want the Feds to own and control all of our HC delivery. We should want to continue to allow that to be mostly privately held and run. The Feds can pay, but shouldn't run this part of HC. IMO.
I agree but, MANY want a "single payer" which IS gov't run.
and this is the huge problem that should be fixed, that "single payer" alone won't solve.
i looked at the most successful country in one of the posted charts -- Chile. They have a 7% tax on wages that covers their care for 50% of total care. (i.e. a 14% wage tax would make their care 'totally free')
The fact that we need to pay about a 26% wage tax to afford ours is totally insane, and suggests that there are deeply rooted problems in our pricing. The U.S. has serious and self-inflicted problems with the cost of medicine and medical equipment that have to be dealt with somehow.
Total health care costs in America is $3.2 trillion. 47% is paid through taxes already. Health care costs 17.8% of GDP in America, and 10% of GDP in other developed countries with single payer. If America can manage to cut health care costs to 13% of GDP (which would still be more than any other single payer system in the world by far), it would amount to $2.4 trillion. Another $900 billion is needed to cover 100% of health care costs through taxes (the current $1.5 trillion in health care taxes plus another $0.9 trillion). No single payer country covers every single dollar of health care costs through taxes though, its roughly 80% with the rest being private expenditures, so a typical single payer health care system in America should need another $500-600 billion in taxes.
No they don't. But if you don't you get a penalty of 10% every year.
You do NOT.
I am never amazed by the claims some make WITHOUT knowledge of the subject.
If you CHOOSE to NOT take Medicare at 65 and then decide later that you want to enroll, there is a 10% "fee" for each year you were not in and continues until you die.
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.
... 
