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.
Thanks. I have a friend who hit the insurance cap and got such a bill. He got some huge gut problem. His wife took a year to die after a stroke. He was ruined.
The incredibly lucky ending of this story is he truly on accident met a female version of himself and they get along very well. They are living in sin on the Jersey Shore retired now in her house. SHE has major bucks. He is still broke but appears extremely happy.
Liberals live in a unsustainable pseudo version of reality. All of their economic models have failed to be fiscally sound in the U.S.
The U.S. is the U.S. It is a Constitutional Republic based on the precept of liberty and state rights, not a National nanny state. It is not Sweden, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Brazil or England.
Talk is cheap and easy for them because that is what they prefer. Just like it is easy for them to click the yes vote without giving an answer as to how it would work.
Last edited by Objective Detective; 05-05-2017 at 08:01 AM..
'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.
By implementing a 25% national VAT tax like many European/Scandinavian countries have.
The Urban Institute, a liberal think tank, analyzed the cost of single payer health care for all. It would cost the Fed Gov an additional $3.2 trillion per year:
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."
At the current annual US consumer spending level of $11.7 trillion, a 25% national VAT tax will raise $2.93 trillion in tax revenue. Almost enough, currently, to pay for single payer national health care for all. Adjust the VAT tax rate up or down as needed according to actual health care costs.
'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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Maybe you should explain why it would not be, when it is in many other countries.
Someone needs to do the math. How much would it cost? How much are we spending already from tax money (a lot), and how much more would have to be collected in new taxes (income, or VAT). Would people end up paying more in new taxes than they pay now in premiums and deductibles? This has been discussed here many times before, and it always comes down to how much new taxes would have to be collected and in what form. Some say VAT, some say income taxes, and some say a combination of both. I think combination of both would do it, and I believe we would end up paying less than what we pay now, and employers would not be burdened with that expense, which is the conservative argument for single payer.
Medicare is on a national level and it seems to have scaled well. OK, I know the greedy 1 percent will claim that Medicare (as well as Social Security) will be bankrupt. Just remember, the greedy 1 percent are all about privatizing profits and socializing losses.
Liberals live in a unsustainable pseudo version of reality.
Of course they do, and this conversation is a broken record. It's just that silly liberal math. Any middle class family living in a high cost of living area, would end up paying anywhere from $8k to $10k a year more for health care thanks to the income taxes in those larger countries like the UK, Germany, and France.. And I'm guessing they're not going to go for that. Most people just get into cherry picking when it comes to this conversation. It's not even worth an argument. But now that you brought it up, your thread will end up being about 20 pages long or more. And it all will be nothing but gibberish. The only people that would benefit from single payer are the 10% in this country that are not covered by either a government plan or their employers plan.
Liberals live in a unsustainable pseudo version of reality. All of their economic models have failed to be fiscally sound in the U.S.
The U.S. is the U.S. It is a Constitutional Republic based on the precept of liberty and state rights, not a National nanny state. It is not Sweden, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Brazil or England.
Talk is cheap and easy for them because that is what they prefer. Just like it is easy for them to click the yes vote without giving an answer as to how it would work.
You criticize other people for going off topic and then post this.
All we can do is look at other countries to see what works. You appear to believe that our uniqueness prevents us from being able to do this.
Although it's true we have a large population, and therefore higher costs, we have a larger tax base and risk pool.
Why do you claim it wont work when every single developed country makes it work, for half the cost of our current system?
The US population's relatively poor health factors into it, as do onerous US regulations on the health care industry. The result: US costs will be higher than those of other countries.
Of course they do, and this conversation is a broken record. It's just that silly liberal math. Any middle class family living in a high cost of living area, would end up paying anywhere from $8k to $10k a year more for health care thanks to the income taxes in those larger countries like the UK, Germany, and France.. And I'm guessing they're not going to go for that. Most people just get into cherry picking when it comes to this conversation. It's not even worth an argument. But now that you brought it up, your thread will end up being about 20 pages long or more. And it all will be nothing but gibberish.
Nonsense. Americans already pay more in taxes for health care than the UK and Australia. In other words, we pay for universal health care already but dont get it. Germans, British pay about $3200-$4500 a year in health care taxes that pay for their single payer systems. Americans pay roughly $5000 in health care taxes now. A large part of that is to prop up the privatized sector with public funds.
Its completely illogical that a middle class family would pay more for health care in a Medicare-for-all system than the current extremely inefficient health care system. Just like in any publicly funded system, the very well off pay more into the system than the middle class. The middle class will never have to worry about going bankrupt because of cancer or losing their job when sick and losing coverage when they need it.
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.
