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.
Why do we keep talking about deductibles, copays, coinsurance, when the Medicare For All Act (HR 676) stipulates zero cost sharing?
Why do we keep talking about there still being private insurance, when the Medicare For All Act (HR 676) stipulates insurance for anyone becomes unlawful and medical professionals can never accept private pay if they ever accept Medicare For All?
Is there a different Bill other than HR 676 we can look at?
Yes, it is... It'll take a 25% national VAT tax to fund single payer health care for all. That's the only math that works. Everyone pays. Everyone is covered.
Round and round in a circle.
One last time and then I'll give you up as a lost cause either through misunderstanding or intentional deceit.
Assuming the 3.5 - 6.0 trillion estimate is correct, which I'm not all convinced of, how much more is that than what we're paying now?
'Single Payer' healthcare may possibly be sustainable on an individual state level and some states already have crude forms of it but on a national level it would never be sustainable.
Explain how it would be.
Any actuary could tell you that the larger the pool, the better.
Why do we keep talking about deductibles, copays, coinsurance, when the Medicare For All Act (HR 676) stipulates zero cost sharing?
Why do we keep talking about there still being private insurance, when the Medicare For All Act (HR 676) stipulates insurance for anyone becomes unlawful and medical professionals can never accept private pay if they ever accept Medicare For All?
Is there a different Bill other than HR 676 we can look at?
The bill is a negotiation starting point. The concept is Medicare-for-all and we need to bring the insurance companies and the health care sharks and lobbyists to heel so they start playing ball. All single payer systems have a roughly 80/20 public private split. There will be co-pays. Lets say maximum $350 per year for all health care costs, $10 or $15 for a doctor's appointment. And of course private clinics, private hospitals and all sorts of private care not funded by Medicare-for-all taxes. 20% co-pay on a cancer treatment is the American way. Thats not how a health care system in the 21st century should look like.
...how much more is that than what we're paying now?
I'd like to know that too. Between 1.1.10 and 12.31.16 (seven years) my total net expense for the entirety of "health" needs (premium, actual usage, medicine, visits, dentist, vision etc.) was under $4500 for all seven years combined. If I make right around $100K / year, single no kids, how much should my net marginal tax burden increase in 2017 dollars under Single Payer? I'm genuinely curious.
I'd like to know that too. Between 1.1.10 and 12.31.16 (seven years) my total net expense for the entirety of "health" needs (premium, actual usage, medicine, visits, dentist, vision etc.) was under $4500 for all seven years combined. If I make right around $100K / year, single no kids, how much should my net marginal tax burden increase in 2017 dollars under Single Payer? I'm genuinely curious.
5% federal VAT tax and 5% Medicare-for-all employer payroll tax and 1% Medicare-for-all employee payroll tax. Generates $850 billion. Target should be 15.5% of GDP in total health care costs (down from 17.8% now) with a typical 80% share being publicly funded.
The employer-employee Medicare-for-all payroll tax replaces insurance premiums.
One last time and then I'll give you up as a lost cause either through misunderstanding or intentional deceit.
Assuming the 3.5 - 6.0 trillion estimate is correct, which I'm not all convinced of, how much more is that than what we're paying now?
current medical spending is about 3.2 trillion total. That include medicaire and medicaid of course (.5 trillion and .6 trillion). If the cost is 3.5 trillion then about 300 billion. That assumes current cost-which would be much less most likely due to removing a LOT of overhead.
The cost argument is completely erroneous in my opinion. Its a way to scare people who don't comprehend the discussion well.
So you contend there would be copays even though the primary bill put forward is explicit that there would be no copays and there would be private insurance even though the primary bill put forward is explicit that there would be no private insurance or private pays? And that's the negotiating tactic? An absolutist bill that produces a scenario that's easy to pick apart that would create doomsday if enacted?
How would true Single-Payer curb the huge problem of over-consumption of medical services? I feel like it would actually exacerbate that problem.
How would true Single-Payer cause humans to eat less and move more? I feel like it would encourage more unhealthful caloric intakes and sedentary lifestyles and less individual responsibility for one's meat robot.
How would Federal Government Healthcare For All manage to be more efficient and less wasteful? A giant organization with tens or hundreds of thousands of administrative employees trying to be all things to literally all people seems hopelessly bound for waste.
How would the Federal Government (i.e. productive people) pay for a few trill a year in new and eternal obligations when we're $20T in debt and growing quickly?
How would true Single-Payer avoid the other type of cost, paying in terms of wait times and Draconian rationing?
Medicare and Medicaid seem to underpay for services, compared to when private insurance is paying. How do we ensure this doesn't happen in Medicare For All? Or, if we simply lower compensation for all medical services, how do we continue to encourage people to go into and stay in the medical industry?
Would Single-Payer / Medicare For All be extended to undocumented immigrants? I feel like it would be -- what are you a racist xenophobic bigot?
How do we ensure handing every aspect of paying for health and medicine to the Federal Government doesn't lead to a vast increase in the size and scope of the surveillance state? Will the Federal Government / your fellow taxpapers have a keen interest in what each person ingests, where they go, their activities, their lifestyles, and their health habits? How do we ensure there's not any control mechanisms or social engineering mechanisms or invasive technologies (Neuralink? Smart Dust?) in use to make people do what they want us to do? Is concentrating ALL power in the government's hands the goal? Is it advisable?
Why do we keep talking about deductibles, copays, coinsurance, when the Medicare For All Act (HR 676) stipulates zero cost sharing?
Why do we keep talking about there still being private insurance, when the Medicare For All Act (HR 676) stipulates insurance for anyone becomes unlawful and medical professionals can never accept private pay if they ever accept Medicare For All?
Is there a different Bill other than HR 676 we can look at?
Plus HB 676 makes makes medical professionals quasi-government employees and brings hospitals under quasi-government control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottomobeale
Private health insurance is not sustainable.
Single payer. 6% employee 6% employer. Covers dollars 1 to 200 and dollars 2700+. Double for families. Everyone on it, even unions and congress. It doesnt make care free but no more ruined for life million dollar bills.
Private sector can provide gap insurance if you want it.
It will take more than a 12% payroll tax. You need to generate $2.5 TRILLION annually at a minimum to cover costs, and that will require a payroll tax of 25.6%, 12.8% each for employer and employee.
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.
