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.
If only it were a commodity in a free market... Like cellphones, computers, televisions, appliances, etc. where the improvements come and the prices fall. Oh the horror.
You can live without cellphones, computers, televisions, appliances, etc. You cannot live without a liver.
The most effective way to get the 300 million into the pool is a Universal Health Care System operated by the government. Just the savings created by eliminating private sector insurance company executive pay and company profits would help make the system affordable. Preventing Patent abuse and monopoly price gouging, not to mention TV advertising, by the pharmaceutical industry would save even more.
Yeah, we could all afford health care if ir were run by the same people that handle Social Security.
The Urban Institute analyzed Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All proposed single payer health care plan. The additional cost to the Federal Government would be $3.2 trillion per year. We can afford that if we implement a 25% national VAT tax like many European/Scandinavian countries have. Would you be on board with that if it meant everyone had national health care?
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 [Medicare for All] 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."
If healthcare is not a right, then payroll taxes are egregiously regressive and need to be eliminated.
Actually, they are egregiously progressive. According to the SS Administration, the only people not losing money on SS now are the low-income earners.
And since there's no cap on the Medicare tax, this is what happens....
Example: a self-employed individual (business owner, 1099 contractor, etc.) pays the full 2.9% Medicare tax, which has no cap.
Such an individual with a career average annual income of $1,000,000 (not unusual for a business owner) pays Medicare tax for 35 years.
$1,000,000 ☓ 2.9% ☓ 35 = $1,015,000
Now let's look at what a middle class employee (who pays 1.45% Medicare tax, not the full 2.9%) with a 35 year annual average income of $55,000 would have paid:
$55,000 ☓ 1.45% ☓ 35 = $27,912.50
HUGE difference in what they've paid, to receive the exact same Medicare benefits.
The Urban Institute is a liberal think tank. And the analysis has not been debunked, it's just inconveniently honest. Everything it says is true. Under single payer national health care, all the costs are indeed shifted away from employers and individuals and onto the Fed Gov. That will increase the Fed Gov's cost of providing health care by $3.2 trillion per year.
The Urban Institute is a liberal think tank. Everything it says is true.
Hilarious, you support this think tank as a social darwinian/libertarian. They supported Hillary during the primaries. Its a neoliberal ANTI-SINGLE PAYER think tank swimming in donations from insurance corporations and the health care industry. They claim an American single payer Medicare-for-all system will be FOUR TIMES as expensive as the British and Australian system and THREE TIMES as expensive as the Canadian system. Its laughable. This analysis was part of a hit piece during the primaries. Nothing more.
Hilarious, you support this think tank as a social darwinian/libertarian. They supported Hillary during the primaries.
It's a liberal think tank, exactly as I said. You just don't like the fact that they're being honest about how much shifting all the health care, insurance, etc., costs away from employers and individuals and onto the Fed Gov would actually cost.
The additional cost to the the Fed Gov to fund national single payer health care for all would be $3.2 trillion per year. It would take the implementation of a 25% national VAT tax to fund it. I don't see how that's a problem. Many European/Scandinavian countries have a 25% VAT.
Its radioactive. I'm amazed that the House shot itself in the foot like they did.
Trump is a gift that keeps on giving.
Radioactive? As in "glow in the dark" Pelosi's mantra?
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.
