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.
Those lower wages will not go up if government steps in and takes the burden away from corporations. Single payer means I and tens of millions of Americans lose. It means foreigners and stockholders win. The employer tax does not entirely replace employer based premiums.
Sorry, bud, we heard the promises about Obamacare. Most of us were not fooled the first time we sure as heck won't believe the middle class will not suffer again for the benefit of the slothful poor and the idle rich.
Government takes the burden away from corporations? Corporations dont pay for your health care. You pay for it. The employer tax is not only meant to cover employer premiums. You have no co-pays, no deductibles, no nothing now? You lose your job because you get cancer and your former employer will still pay 75% of your premium for as long as you want them to? It doesnt work that way. But a Medicare-for-all work that way, it is pure peace of mind. When you lose your job because of cancer, you dont pay Medicare-for-all payroll taxes but get great treatment and can focus on your recovery and not worrying about when to declare bankruptcy.
Of course the middle class benefits, thats why every single developed country has a single payer system that covers everyone and America has a system geared for the donor class.
Current unfunded liabilities of SS and Medicare combined are 49 trillion dollars. About 2.5 times are national debt.
The debt and unfunded liabilities combined is 68 trillion dollars. We cannot afford Medicare for all.
We can if we implement a 25% VAT, as many European and Scandinavian countries have, and use that revenue to fund exclusively Medicare for All.
At the current annual US consumer spending level of $11.7 trillion, that will raise $2.93 trillion in tax revenue. Enough, currently, to pay for 'Medicare for All.' Adjust the VAT rate up or down as needed according to health care costs.
We can if we implement a 25% VAT, as many European and Scandinavian countries have, and use that revenue to fund exclusively Medicare for All.
At the current annual US consumer spending level of $11.7 trillion, that will raise $2.93 trillion in tax revenue. Enough, currently, to pay for 'Medicare for All.' Adjust the VAT rate up or down as needed according to health care costs.
No country is exclusively funding health care through a VAT and no country fund 100% of all health care costs including big pharma marketing, cosmetic surgery and everything else through taxes. This is just inane nonsense.
No country is exclusively funding health care through a VAT and no country fund 100% of all health care costs including big pharma marketing, cosmetic surgery and everything else through taxes. This is just inane nonsense.
If people in other countries can pay a 25% VAT, so can we. And in return, we get Medicare for All single-payer health care. Everyone insured. The peace of mind you want.
Again, lefty think tank Urban Institute says the cost for Medicare for All is $3.2 trillion/year. A 25% VAT would fund almost all of that.
If people in other countries can pay a 25% VAT, so can we. And in return, we get Medicare for All single-payer health care. Everyone insured. The peace of mind you want.
Again, lefty think tank Urban Institute says the cost for Medicare for All is $3.2 trillion/year. A 25% VAT would fund almost all of that.
No country fund 100% of their entire health care costs through a VAT system. You are just making stuff up. No lefty think tank I've ever seen has claimed that Medicare-for-all will be at least as expensive as the current system of $3.2 trillion with 0% savings. So you are probably making stuff up again. Are you using 10 year projections without factoring in nominal GDP growth again? $3.2 trillion ten years from now is very, very different than $3.2 trillion today.
No country is exclusively funding health care through a VAT and no country fund 100% of all health care costs including big pharma marketing, cosmetic surgery and everything else through taxes. This is just inane nonsense.
The NHS existed long before VAT was ever thought of. The VAT rate here in England is 20%. Various things are excluded from this tax like food for instance. We have always had taxes, just by other names. I remember 'Purchase Tax' was a name given before VAT came in back in the 70s.
It's swings and roundabouts tax wise. We all pay tax whether there is universal health care or not. We have high taxes on gas, but that has always been the case. You can pay for health care through taxes, or you can pay for insurance, as is the case in America. Call it what you want, it's still money coming from you one way or the other.
I think the problem in America, is that a large slice of the money spent on healthcare by citizens and government, doesn't go into healthcare, but into the pockets of various parties. The money spent on the NHS goes into healthcare, and not outside interests. That seems the right way to me, but I'm not an American.
The NHS existed long before VAT was ever thought of. The VAT rate here in England is 20%. Various things are excluded from this tax like food for instance. We have always had taxes, just by other names. I remember 'Purchase Tax' was a name given before VAT came in back in the 70s.
It's swings and roundabouts tax wise. We all pay tax whether there is universal health care or not. We have high taxes on gas, but that has always been the case. You can pay for health care through taxes, or you can pay for insurance, as is the case in America. Call it what you want, it's still money coming from you one way or the other.
I think the problem in America, is that a large slice of the money spent on healthcare by citizens and government, doesn't go into healthcare, but into the pockets of various parties. The money spent on the NHS goes into healthcare, and not outside interests. That seems the right way to me, but I'm not an American.
Yes, some countries have had their single payer system for more than 100 years. And yet we are told we cant afford it but no question asked when it comes to Wall Street bailouts, wars, donor class tax cuts etc. Another huge issue is that funding health care through premiums and not taxes causes the average Joe to lose out. Taxes take into account ability to pay. Its based on income or consumption. Private premiums, out of pocket expenses for cancer treatments or whatnot does not take into account ability to pay at all. Its just madness IMO.
No country fund 100% of their entire health care costs through a VAT system. You are just making stuff up.
I didn't say they did. I proposed a way Medicare for All could be adequately funded. And it is indeed true that if people in other countries can pay a 25% VAT, so can we, and for the very noble cause of Medicare-quality single payer health care for all.
Quote:
No lefty think tank I've ever seen has claimed that Medicare-for-all will be at least as expensive as the current system of $3.2 trillion with 0% savings. So you are probably making stuff up again. Are you using 10 year projections without factoring in nominal GDP growth again? $3.2 trillion ten years from now is very, very different than $3.2 trillion today.
Read it for yourself:
Quote:
The increase in federal expenditures would be considerably larger than the increase in national health expenditures because substantial spending borne by states, employers, and households under current law would shift to the federal government under the Sanders plan. Federal expenditures in 2017 would increase by $1.9 trillion for acute care for the nonelderly, by $465.9 billion for those otherwise enrolled in Medicare, and by $212.1 billion for long-term services and supports.
In total, federal spending would increase by about $2.5 trillion (257.6 percent) in 2017. Federal expenditures would increase by about $32.0 trillion (232.7 percent) between 2017 and 2026. The increase in federal spending is so large because the federal government would absorb a substantial amount of current spending by state and local governments, employers, and households.
And if health care costs decrease, we can reduce the VAT rate accordingly.
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.
