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.
I think we can pay for a Medicare for all system with a slight rise in the taxes people put in for Medicare and to put strict protections on the Medicare fund so that Congressional members cannot raid it like a personal piggy bank.
Those with a higher income need to pay more into Medicare rather than it being a flat tax for all incomes.
Single-payer can help with the debt but the "Louisiana Purchase Senator" I am sure is not talking about that kind of system.
Of course it will add to the debt, or they have to make it up with taxes or user fees. The fact is, that the current healthcare bill (dead in the water in it's current format fortunetly) does nothing to address the rising medical costs that are the real problem.
Orwellian doublespeak at it's best, this senator has to be in another world, or have a political death wish, to say that after the MA defeat.
I think we can pay for a Medicare for all system with a slight rise in the taxes people put in for Medicare and to put strict protections on the Medicare fund so that Congressional members cannot raid it like a personal piggy bank.
Those with a higher income need to pay more into Medicare rather than it being a flat tax for all incomes.
Single-payer can help with the debt but the "Louisiana Purchase Senator" I am sure is not talking about that kind of system.
Besides your "thinking" about this issue, do you have any hard numbers to support your assumptions?
I think we can pay for a Medicare for all system with a slight rise in the taxes people put in for Medicare and to put strict protections on the Medicare fund so that Congressional members cannot raid it like a personal piggy bank.
Those with a higher income need to pay more into Medicare rather than it being a flat tax for all incomes.
Single-payer can help with the debt but the "Louisiana Purchase Senator" I am sure is not talking about that kind of system.
We can't pay for having a relatively small number of people on Medicare now even with enormous Medicare tax. it would take a confiscatory tax to pay for everyone.
Besides your "thinking" about this issue, do you have any hard numbers to support your assumptions?
Quote:
HR 676 Would Reduce Overall Healthcare Costs
Families Pay Less
A study by nationally recognized economist, Dean Baker, of the Center for Economic Research and Policy concluded that under H.R. 676, a family of three making $40,000 per year would spend approximately $1900 per year for healthcare coverage. Currently, (in 2007) the average annual premium for families covered under an employee health plan is $11,000. (National Coalition on Health Care.) Businesses Pays Less
In 2005, without reform, the average employer that offers coverage was contributing $2,600 to healthcare per employee (for much skimpier benefits), or 217.00 per month. Under HR 676, the average costs to employers for an employee making $30,000 per year will be reduced to $1,425 per year; or about $119.00 per month.
Baker’s study reported that HR 676 would reduce health spending in 2005 from $1 trillion, 918 billion dollars to 1 trillion, 861.3 billion dollars, which translates into a saving of $56 billion in overall healthcare spending while covering all of the uninsured. This is a 3% reduction in over-all healthcare spending. Proposed Funding For HR 676 Program
Maintain current federal and state funding for existing healthcare programs; employer payroll tax of 4.5%, an employee payroll tax of 3.3%, in addition to the already existing 1.45% for Medicare; establish a 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners; 10% tax on top 1% of wage earners, 1/3rd of 1% stock transaction tax, closing corporate tax loop-holes; repeal the Bush tax cut for the highest income earners.
There is no way this will not cost us money and/or result in poorer coverage for everyone. As for sticking it to those who make more money, why should that even be a concern? Since when does health insurance (which is what medicare is) cost more for those who make XXX dollars per year compared to those who make XX dollars. Again, this is a socialistic view on the issue. Last I heard we are a capitalistic country, not a socialistic country...Personally we are in an income bracket where this will not hurt us either way, but it does affect our kids and grandkids.
Nita
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.
