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.
Of course it will because people no longer have to pay thousands upon thousands of dollars in private costs. If the employer pays $20 000 a year in health care costs for an employee, thats $20 000 less in wages for that employee. Single payer is cheaper, better and covers everyone. Its a no brainer. Thats why every single developed country has a national health care system that covers everyone.
Please, you actually expect your employee will get a 20k raise if single payer is adopted?
In fact, we can not afford to NOT go down the single payer path for health care. Every other country pay 9-12% of GDP on health care expenses through a national health care system, we pay 18% and will reach over 20% soon. By 2027, the average family of four is looking at average health care costs of $70 000 per year, up from the current $43 000 per year. The current model is not sustainable and those who reject paying less, getting more and have everyone covered with a single payer system like the rest of the developed world just carry the water of the corrupt insurance system we have now.
A typical family of 4 will not need $43K for medical coverage. As you know roughly $10K per capita is our current HC cost. But the costs of those with serious and complex disease and the elderly skew the numbers enormously compared to typical families of 4.
A typical working Mom and Dad today could easily spend less than $10K each in a year. And the kids could be about zero. Of course if just one family member is cursed, then the numbers can accelerate upward very quickly.
That being said, in 10 and 100 years our overall HC will continue to rise significantly whether we go for more private sector/free market solutions or more centrally controlled. IMO we will continue down the more centrally controlled because of the money factor. More money will have to be created along the way to accommodate our HC needs.
Most docs, and I'm a doc, don't want single payer, since they know they will be continually squeezed. Docs want choices as should patients, and I think an American HC solution has to have choices. Private and public plans both for the patients and for the docs to participate. More universal HC, and I think we will continue incrementally towards that, does not have to be single payer.
Please, you actually expect your employee will get a 20k raise if single payer is adopted?
I never said that. I said that the employer does not pay the real cost of health care. Health care is part of the compensation package and the employee pays for the health care in the form of lower wages. The current corrupt health care system eats into the paycheck of the workers and is part of the reason why people dont see any raises. If the employer instead have to pay $8000 a year in a Medicare-for-all payroll tax, thats a win for the employer and the employee. Even though "taxes go up".
Their payroll taxes overwhelmingly fund their health care systems.
Tax revenues are fungible. The point is that they have BOTH very flat income tax brackets PLUS a national VAT tax. They want, so they pay. Some Americans want, but don't want to pay, so they don't get. Very easy to understand.
Implement a 25% national VAT tax in the US, and the additional tax revenue will be adequate to fund national health care.
Of course it will because people no longer have to pay thousands upon thousands of dollars in private costs. If the employer pays $20 000 a year in health care costs for an employee, thats $20 000 less in wages for that employee. Single payer is cheaper, better and covers everyone. Its a no brainer. Thats why every single developed country has a national health care system that covers everyone.
It won't be cheaper. Because we will have many more with HC access. That's the big one.
And even with patients with good HC coverage, much medically related stuff is left undone. So the now larger population medically served will get more done medically. The second surge.
Is it 'better' than what we have overall today. Yes in many ways. But it won't be cheaper.
A typical family of 4 will not need $43K for medical coverage.
I said the average family of four. Not the typical family. The average costs for health care in America is $10 700 per year per person. And it is increasing fast. The current system is unsustainable. Its twice the cost of other developed countries. Providers need to be part of the solution. Above 20% of GDP in health care costs is unsustainable, if the ruling health care elite is not part of the solution, their excessive greed will be their downfall.
It won't be cheaper. Because we will have many more with HC access. That's the big one.
And even with patients with good HC coverage, much medically related stuff is left undone. So the now larger population medically served will get more done medically. The second surge.
Is it 'better' than what we have overall today. Yes in many ways. But it won't be cheaper.
Every single developed country pays about 9-12% of GDP in health care costs. And covers everyone. We currently pay 18% of GDP, heading towards 20% of GDP. We have the most privatized system by far and the most expensive by a long shot. The current system is far more expensive than any national health care system.
I said the average family of four. Not the typical family. The average costs for health care in America is $10 700 per year per person. And it is increasing fast. The current system is unsustainable. Its twice the cost of other developed countries. Providers need to be part of the solution. Above 20% of GDP in health care costs is unsustainable, if the ruling health care elite is not part of the solution, their excessive greed will be their downfall.
Just as average income is skewed by a few hundred mega-billionaires, so is the average family of 4 HC cost.
I'm not saying that you are wrong.
But functionally we have relative few families of 4 with a case of seriously expensive disease. And we have huge numbers of older folks, families of 2 and then 1 with massive annual HC costs.
In 10 and 100 years barring some unforeseen medical miracles or physical national catastrophe, IMO our GDP related to HC will rise, not go down. We will elect to sustain it. Our people, especially our elderly, an enlarging demographic, will not do without their HC.
In fact, we can not afford to NOT go down the single payer path for health care.
Actually, we can. More judicious use of health care. The HUGE problem with Medicaid and CHIP is that they're completely free. No premiums, deductibles, or co-pays, so people abuse it. Obamacare severely exacerbated that problem by adding millions more to Medicaid. They think they need to see a doctor, they don't make an office appointment, they go to the ER. Easier for them, and they pay nothing. Taxpayers are stuck with a much larger bill.
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.
