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.
Thats how taxes work. Without taxes, the old grandma on $12 000 social security would pay the same dollar amount as a billionaire heiress to drive on the roads (through private toll roads everywhere). A flat 5% tax on everyone means someone making $500 000 pays far more than someone making $50 000.
I always hear people say they don't want single-payer healthcare because their taxes would go up. Does anyone have any stats on how much they would go up?
I always try to analyze any "deal" in the context of the alternatives. Right now, most of us are paying well in excess of $10k/year for our premiums. Even those of us who get it from work, the premium is subsidized by your employer, and that is money that would be available for salary, so you have to look at contributions of the employee and employer. Some are closer to $20k in premiums for a decent plan.
Then, if someone gets sick at all, you are looking at thousands per year more in copays, deductables, and other out of pocket expenses. My GF had one trip to the Emergency Room because her doctor told her she was having Pancreitis. It turned out to be a mild ulcer, and with good insurance, it is costing her $2800 (and rising), not to include the follow-up visit to the specialist.
So, I guess my question is: How much would taxes have to increase to afford single-payer (SP)? I read one study that was very ANTI-SP, and they said California was considering doing it at the state level, and it would cause a 4% increase in taxes. They felt that was pretty awful! As I look at today's reality, 4% of my total take-home salary would be a huge savings, even if I never used it.
Also, with insurance companies being so bad about denying coverage on everything ("death-squads"), and mandating which doctor you can, or cannot see. With them being so non-transparent with billing, and with them creating a bureaucracy where you get multiple bills from one visit (GF got 4 or five so far from the above example, may not be done yet), I would have to invoke President Trump's famous question he posed to "the blacks". What have we got to loose?
I obviously have a bias to what I think is the best solution. I'm not trying to veil or hide that. I would appreciate some intelligent responses either for or against single-payer systems AND other options. It would be nice if people stuck to ideas or facts, and left the name-calling and the alarmism on the sideline.
There is probably no greater champion for Universal Healthcare than I am, on this forum.
Most countries with Universal Healthcare do not use a Single Payer model.
I am not aware that " insurance companies being so bad about denying coverage on everything" or mandating which doctors you can or cannot see.
Health insurance premiums are based in part, on the contractual healthcare networks between the insurer and providers who agree to an established reimbursement. Nothing prevents you from using the services of an out of network provider. All you have to do is pay more out of pocket.
Medicare is the closest thing the US has for Single Payer. No MD is forced to accept a Medicare reimbursement.
Congress determines Medicare's authority and basis for reimbursement. Medicare has no authority to negotiate or regulate the price of prescription meds. Medicare is required by law to reimburse hospitals at the average cost of care within each Geo Rated area. That cost includes overhead.
Medicare covers 80% of inpatient care with no cap on out of pocket. Many buy Supplimental Plans to help cover what Medicare does not. Most of those plans have annual caps.
I do not pick up on a will of the three branches of the Federal Government to embrace Universal Healthcare. How to deliver it, Single Payer or private pay seems like the cart before the horse.
No, it would have to be a 30% national sales tax. Here's why...
What would a US national sales tax have to be to cover the US's $3+ trillion per year spending on health care.
Consumer spending is $11.6 trillion/year (latest published data). That means we need to implement about a 30% VAT on everything, paid by everyone, to fund single-payer health care for all.
Implement adjustments up or down in the VAT rate, as health care spending requires.
Spending on healthcare needs to decrease. There needs to be limits on how much doctors and hospitals and pharmaceuticals can gouge out of people. The day of the $30 aspirin given to you at a hospital would be over. One hospital was even charging new fathers for the privilege of taking photos of their new born babies. The insanity needs to stop one way or the other.
Wrong, the government doesn't have to turn a profit, AND it is a larger pool, since EVERYONE would be under one banner, so much more low risk people in the pool!
I don't want to be in the same pool as an obese chain-smoker. I should not be paying for their poor life choices.
Nobody should have to pay more than another for the same exact product. I don't care about your emotional anecdotes intended to pull on heartstrings. Disabled vets have VA Care and Grandma has Medicare. Nobody is going without. Please save your tears for bleeding hearts who agree that theft is the answer to their needs.
So that means you are against flat taxes to fund roads, parks, health care, schools etc. Instead, the disabled vet and the old grandma should pay the same dollar amount as Oprah and Kim Kardashian to drive on the roads through private toll roads everywhere and private user fees on everything from parks, schools, libraries etc to fully cover the costs.
No, it would have to be a 30% national sales tax. Here's why...
What would a US national sales tax have to be to cover the US's $3+ trillion per year spending on health care.
If you remove the corporate profits etc from the equation, it would be nowhere near $3 trillion. Many countries have single payer, and none collect 30% sales tax. Besides, much of the current $3 trillion is already covered by our current taxes, so not all of it would have to be covered by new taxes.
The nice thing about VAT is that you can choose to reduce it, but not consuming taxable goods. You can buy a used car for example, and not pay tax.
Then why is tuition at state universities cheaper than private? Riddle me that Batman....
When I mention college education, I am talking about the cost of the entire "industry" - which has exploded.
Why does it cost so much - wherever you go?
The first I went to college was 1986 to a mid-level 4 year school. I lived at home - the tuition was $960 for 16 credit hours. $60 per credit hour. I graduated in 4.5 years with $5,000 in student loans.
My wife went to the same school (stayed on campus for all 4 years), graduated, and got her master's degree at a major school in the northeast. All of that ended up being $40K in student loans.
$40K will get you maybe two semesters on average right now at a decent 4 year school.
The prices in the industry of college education are high because the government has driven the costs up industry wide - public and private.
I understand that tuition is cheaper - but how much is the true cost per student? How much is the state subsidizing the school to bring the tuition costs down? At does that makes the cost (the tuition + the subsidy per student) less than the private university?
The same will continue to happen with health care.
You're deeply confused. A national sales tax of 30% on top of the 1.5 trillion we already pay in health care taxes would mean we would suddenly have more than $5 trillion of government revenue to fund health care.
If we're going to have single-payer health care for all, the tax structure changes. No one is going to pay an extra health care tax that others don't have to pay for the exact same health care benefits. My point stands. We'd need a 30% VAT to cover annual health care spending.
Well some quick math tells me that even with that, based on my annual spending and my current spend for health insurance I'm at a minimum of a 55% increase on my insurance premium in this model. I'm assuming that my quality of care, speed of delivery, and choices in the plan are going to reflect this significant increase in cost for me? Still looking for the "win win" scenario here.
How? You dont have any deductibles and co-pays now?
You do understand that you are paying for whatever the employer is paying of your premium if you have an employer based plan right? So if your health insurance costs $10 000 a year in total and you pay $2000 a year out of pocket, you are really paying $10 000 a year because the employer takes out $8000 from your paycheck. How old are you? If you are very healthy and young, you might not be very healthy and young forever. Under a tax based system, your costs do not go up as you get sicker and older.
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.
