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 suggest we figure out how much providing high quality health care for everyone would cost if we eliminated the private sector health insurance companies and broke the Pharmaceutical company's monopolies. Once we have a realistic cost we can figure out how to pay for it. I would start with my "all income from all sources income tax" with its 90th percentile deduction. Then I would cut government subsidies such as crop supports, nearly free irrigation in the West and the gasohol program. I would also return our Military and eliminate the cost of attempting to civilize the Middle East. Countervailing tariffs would be another revenue source. I would not cut taxes on the top 1%.
This would provide high quality health care and place the burden of paying for it on the 10% of our population that can afford it.
Yes, corporate tax revenue as a share of GDP is not high in America compared to other developed countries. Its a myth that it is so high.
Regarding taxing for health care, you claimed that we cant have single payer because our health care taxes are so low, but we already pay more in taxes for health care than other countries. If we already pay more in taxes for health care than countries with single payer systems, its clear we are doing a lot of things wrong and the main culprit is massive corruption where big pharma and big insurance get away with murder.
No, I claimed that our tax policy does not support universal healthcare. We pay more a percentage of GDP than other countries because our costs are so high thanks to the quasi-government style healthcare we have in this country which does absolutely nothing to control costs (see college tuition for a similar result).
So do the math. Medicare covers about 57 million people in this country and costs $540 billion to the gov't with $632 billion total outlay (gov't + private). That's about ~$9500 per person for the gov't portion. There are ~324 million people in this country. Extrapolate out from there. At current costs, without changing tax policy, that would be ~$3 trillion per year just for the gov't portion assuming the citizens are still responsible for the private portion. And you're claiming we are already paying this much in taxes alone? Our total federal outlays is only $3.7 trillion right now.
I think you misstated or otherwise are mistaken. I think you are conflating what we pay in taxes plus what we pay to the private sector for healthcare.
Total healthcare costs as it stands now is about $3.3 trillion in this country. About 33% of this comes from private health insurance. The cost of our current system versus extrapolating out Medicare for all is about even but our current tax policy could not support an $3 trillion outlay for healthcare as it stands right now.
There's an argument to be made for Medicare for all. I would not disagree with it but it would require a change to our tax policy to enable such a system. If we use other countries as examples for socialized medicine as suggested by many on the left, we must also look at how they pay for it. They do so via regressive tax policy. It's not an opinion, it's a fact they do so. The opinion component comes in when people claim we can do the same as these other countries without resorting to the same regressive tax policy. On this, I disagree.
I suggest we figure out how much providing high quality health care for everyone would cost if we eliminated the private sector health insurance companies and broke the Pharmaceutical company's monopolies. Once we have a realistic cost we can figure out how to pay for it. I would start with my "all income from all sources income tax" with its 90th percentile deduction. Then I would cut government subsidies such as crop supports, nearly free irrigation in the West and the gasohol program. I would also return our Military and eliminate the cost of attempting to civilize the Middle East. Countervailing tariffs would be another revenue source. I would not cut taxes on the top 1%.
This would provide high quality health care and place the burden of paying for it on the 10% of our population that can afford it.
Ah yes, because those 10% could hardly pick up and move to another country for their primary residence. Hence the regressive tax policies of other countries. Everyone pays a share. It's equitable and does not punish those who succeed. This policy you're proposing is a recipe for disaster.
OP: "I still can't help but laugh at those that claim single payer healthcare is the answer"
Single Payer has been "the answer" for millions of seniors aged 65 and over for the last 52 years. It's called Medicare and it is one of the US government's most successful programs.
No, I claimed that our tax policy does not support universal healthcare. We pay more a percentage of GDP than other countries because our costs are so high thanks to the quasi-government style healthcare we have in this country which does absolutely nothing to control costs (see college tuition for a similar result).
So do the math. Medicare covers about 57 million people in this country and costs $540 billion to the gov't with $632 billion total outlay (gov't + private). That's about ~$9500 per person for the gov't portion. There are ~324 million people in this country. Extrapolate out from there. At current costs, without changing tax policy, that would be ~$3 trillion per year just for the gov't portion assuming the citizens are still responsible for the private portion. And you're claiming we are already paying this much in taxes alone? Our total federal outlays is only $3.7 trillion right now.
I think you misstated or otherwise are mistaken. I think you are conflating what we pay in taxes plus what we pay to the private sector for healthcare.
Total healthcare costs as it stands now is about $3.3 trillion in this country. About 33% of this comes from private health insurance. The cost of our current system versus extrapolating out Medicare for all is about even but our current tax policy could not support an $3 trillion outlay for healthcare as it stands right now.
There's an argument to be made for Medicare for all. I would not disagree with it but it would require a change to our tax policy to enable such a system. If we use other countries as examples for socialized medicine as suggested by many on the left, we must also look at how they pay for it. They do so via regressive tax policy. It's not an opinion, it's a fact they do so. The opinion component comes in when people claim we can do the same as these other countries without resorting to the same regressive tax policy. On this, I disagree.
You are saying that extrapolating the costs of the oldest and sickest population is a fair assessment of what Medicare-for-all would cost?
We pay more than others because we have far too little government control. I know it pains a libertarian to hear it but it is the simple truth, some things are best not left to the market, and every single developed country agrees with me. Thats why there are no free market health care systems and never will be. Because it doesnt work at all.
We pay almost $5000 per year in health care taxes. Thats the result of Medicare, Medicaid, VA, health care to all public employees etc. Australians pay less than $4000 a year in health care taxes for their Medicare-for-all single payer system. Time to move towards a more Australian system and ditch the corrupt system we have in America. We are getting ripped off and some enjoy that but most dont.
No, I claimed that our tax policy does not support universal healthcare. We pay more a percentage of GDP than other countries because our costs are so high thanks to the quasi-government style healthcare we have in this country which does absolutely nothing to control costs (see college tuition for a similar result).
While I agree with where you are heading with this I most point out that those covered by Medicare have much higher average health costs than those not covered by Medicare. But, yes, regressive taxes would be required.
southbel - Of course any of the 10% could up and move to another country. If they wanted to leave their citizenship behind and pay taxes in wherever they landed or ever wanted to return to this country. I somehow doubt that would be Somalia or Chad.
We pay more than others because we have far too little government control. I know it pains a libertarian to hear it but it is the simple truth, some things are best not left to the market, and every single developed country agrees with me. Thats why there are no free market health care systems and never will be. Because it doesnt work at all.
A free market health care would work just fine. Eliminate the Kefauver Amendment to the FDA and watch drug prices decline. Eliminate licensing requirements for healthcare workers and watch prices for medical services decline.
The problem we have is no one is even fighting for free market healthcare.
You are saying that extrapolating the costs of the oldest and sickest population is a fair assessment of what Medicare-for-all would cost?
We pay more than others because we have far too little government control. I know it pains a libertarian to hear it but it is the simple truth, some things are best not left to the market, and every single developed country agrees with me. Thats why there are no free market health care systems and never will be. Because it doesnt work at all.
We pay almost $5000 per year in health care taxes. Thats the result of Medicare, Medicaid, VA, health care to all public employees etc. Australians pay less than $4000 a year in health care taxes for their Medicare-for-all single payer system. Time to move towards a more Australian system and ditch the corrupt system we have in America. We are getting ripped off and some enjoy that but most dont.
Well studies we done on Sanders plan which is a Medicare for all structure and it would cost us an additional $18 trillion in debt over ten years and would costs an additional $32 trillion over ten years over what we pay now. You don't have to believe my extrapolations then. It's been studied already and there you go.
Ah yes, because those 10% could hardly pick up and move to another country for their primary residence. Hence the regressive tax policies of other countries. Everyone pays a share. It's equitable and does not punish those who succeed. This policy you're proposing is a recipe for disaster.
The effective tax rate on someone making $300 000 in Sweden is way higher than in America. Yes, they do "punish those who succeed", as you say. You seem to conflate "regressive" with low taxes on the rich. Thats not the case at all. They have much higher tax take of GDP, that means much higher taxes on the rich, much stronger unions to ensure more equitable distribution of income and higher taxes on the middle and the poor. Because when McDonalds workers in Denmark make $17 an hour and have benefits the top 10% in America can only dream of, that McDonalds worker can afford to pay more taxes.
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.
