Explain how 'Single Payer' healthcare would be sustainable in a country as large as the U.S. (Congress, premium)
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.
'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.
It works in China. Trump, himself, in a rare moment of clarity recognized that Australia - a pretty diversified country - has a better system than we do. Countries rich and poor, developed and developing, large and small are all doing it successfully. Medicare is the best health delivery system in the US. I don't see your point.
You can almost say the Federal Employees Health Benefits are like a single payer.
There are a couple of dozen policies to choose from(some are restricted due to union membership etc--letter carriers as an example. These may also be a couple of HMO styles, not certain without going to look on OPM site.
The bulk of the policies available are national in the coverage for the same rate whether Maine-Michigan-Montana.
'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.
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.
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.
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 works in China. Trump, himself, in a rare moment of clarity recognized that Australia - a pretty diversified country - has a better system than we do. Countries rich and poor, developed and developing, large and small are all doing it successfully. Medicare is the best health delivery system in the US. I don't see your point.
Yet you failed to remotely answer the question or explain how it could possibly be sustainable.
Comparing the U.S. to Australia and China is meaningless and a waste of time.
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.
