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.
You obviously are unable to process what is being said. Total health care costs for a health care system means lifetime costs, not cutting off the age at 64.
Exactly, which means all the higher health care costs of the obese under age 65 would be shouldered by the federal government under your Medicare for All single payer proposal. So, let's recap:
Exactly, which means all the higher health care costs of the obese under age 65 would be shouldered by the federal government under your Medicare for All single payer proposal. So, let's recap:
As long as they die younger, its not a major driver of total health care costs for a health care system anyway, but you obviously dont seem to comprehend this.
I am not against a federal sales tax or VAT at all. Australia has a 10% sales tax. Switzerland 8%.
And on top of that, all the Swiss must buy their own health insurance plan at an expense of up to 8% of their income. No freebies. Would you be up for that in the US?
And on top of that, all the Swiss must buy their own health insurance plan at an expense of up to 8% of their income. No freebies. Would you be up for that in the US?
Yes. Totally in favor of that. If you dont have the money, you get it subsidized anyway. Everyone is covered and no one goes bankrupt because of cancer and is denied treatment and medicine.
Its not a question about what the people want though, its a question about how much bribe money the GOP and the corporate democrats get from the health care industry which you relentlessly carry the water for.
Yes. Totally in favor of that. If you dont have the money, you get it subsidized anyway.
No, everyone pays 8% of their income for health insurance, plus an 8% national VAT tax on top of that. There are no freebies, as no one has zero income.
The major savings in a single payer system id the insurance companies would not part of it. The huge costs of these private businesses would not be there. The Federal government only costs about 3% of the money in Medicare. another savings is the government as single buyer could force competitive pricing on the care and drug companies. Things like the Narcan scandal would never happen. Doctors would earn plenty, insurance company executives a lot less.
To pay for this I suggest a complete change in our tax system. Federal Income tax would be based entirely in all income from all sources (corporate retained earnings would be considered income) less a deduction set at the 90th percentile. Income over that would be progressively taxed from 10% to 90%, based on the percentile above 90%, sufficient to pay for the cost of government so Federal Debt could be eliminated.
My rational for taxing the upper crustaceans so heavily is they own the economy so they should pay for managing it. Also the economy would grow far faster if the lower 90% had more money to invest as well as spend for goods and services.
Yes. Totally in favor of that. If you dont have the money, you get it subsidized anyway. Everyone is covered and no one goes bankrupt because of cancer and is denied treatment and medicine.
Its not a question about what the people want though, its a question about how much bribe money the GOP and the corporate democrats get from the health care industry which you relentlessly carry the water for.
Try having health care without providers. Do I need to remind you that many medical practices won't take Medicare and Medicaid patients because the federal government's reimbursement rates are too low?
The major savings in a single payer system id the insurance companies would not part of it. The huge costs of these private businesses would not be there. The Federal government only costs about 3% of the money in Medicare. another savings is the government as single buyer could force competitive pricing on the care and drug companies. Things like the Narcan scandal would never happen. Doctors would earn plenty, insurance company executives a lot less.
To pay for this I suggest a complete change in our tax system. Federal Income tax would be based entirely in all income from all sources (corporate retained earnings would be considered income) less a deduction set at the 90th percentile. Income over that would be progressively taxed from 10% to 90%, based on the percentile above 90%, sufficient to pay for the cost of government so Federal Debt could be eliminated.
My rational for taxing the upper crustaceans so heavily is they own the economy so they should pay for managing it. Also the economy would grow far faster if the lower 90% had more money to invest as well as spend for goods and services.
Your rationale is based on emotion, not logic or actual economics. Try reading economists on this. It's eye-opening. More info on that in this post:
No, everyone pays 8% of their income for health insurance, plus an 8% national VAT tax on top of that. There are no freebies, as no one has zero income.
Of course some people have zero income. Everyone gets insurance no matter what in Switzerland. If you cant pay, you get it subsidized. If the premium is higher than 8% of your income, you get subsidies.
The Swiss system is paid for by the insurance premiums. Their system costs is 11.5% of GDP and the VAT is not used to fund the health care system.
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.
