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.
Oh, scary big number. We're paying $3.5 trillion right now for our health care expenses and the Urban Institute with its corporate donors hate single payer so will naturally exaggerate the price tag of it.
12% of GDP is a reasonable assumption of what single payer would cost. Every single developed country has 9% to 12% of GDP in health care costs. We're paying 18% of GDP now and tens of millions are not covered and many more are underinsured.
Good luck with that. Other countries don't have US's FDA, DEA, etc. regulations/restrictions. That's why I can order my astigmatism contact lenses from the UK for half the price I'd pay from a US source. Get the Fed Gov OUT of our health care, and that will make a big difference.
Quote:
Look at the people in here. They are objecting to paying less, getting more and have every American covered.
Laughing that you think they'd be paying less. A family of 4 would be paying about $40,000/year for health care. How many families of 4 do you know that can afford that?
Good luck with that. Other countries don't have US's FDA, DEA, etc. regulations/restrictions. That's why I can order my astigmatism contact lenses from the UK for half the price I'd pay from a US source. Get the Fed Gov OUT of our health care, and that will make a big difference.
Laughing that you think they'd be paying less. A family of 4 would be paying about $40,000/year for health care. How many families of 4 do you know that can afford that?
Getting the federal government out of health care is something no developed country has done, because they dont want to end up like the Congo. The puppets that you vote for want to ensure that the stuff you buy is expensive. They benefit from it. Stop voting for corruption is a good start.
What's laughable is to believe that America cant do what every single developed country has done and provide health care for its people for a reasonable price. But there is always an endless amount of money for wars and bombs and gifts to Wall Street and big pharma. "A family of 4"...We're paying $3.5 trillion right now, increasing more than 5% a year. That's more than $40 000 for a family of four...
The American people are getting ripped off and only the most delusional or the corrupt fail to see it.
Do you think Americans would agree to being taxed regressively (heaviest tax burden on lower income earners) if it meant they'd get National Health Care?
Do you think Americans would agree to being taxed regressively (heaviest tax burden on lower income earners) if it meant they'd get National Health Care?
The healthcare system is funded by payroll taxes though, not through sales tax. Just like Medicare and Social Security is in America. Employers in America also pay an insurance premium which works like a payroll tax on employers. Insurance through work is not a gift from the employer. If the employer pays $10 000 a year in insurance premiums I doubt many would object to the employer instead paying $7000 a year in a Medicare-for-all payroll tax.
Regarding sales taxes, a rich person might spend $500 000 a year and pay $50 000 a year in "regressive taxation". A poor person might spend $12000 a year and pay $1200 a year in "regressive taxation". So the rich person pays $50 000 into the system and the poor person pays $1200 into the system. Thats the wonders of taxation, ability to pay is taken into account. Even under a "regressive taxation system". Thats not the case with a for-profit health care system. You cant pay the $3000 a month cancer bills? You have to die. Whats so great about that?
You know what would happen to that $500 insulin if the government (tax payers) started picking up everyone's tab? It would become $2,000 insulin. They'll keep bumping that price as long as the government keeps sending those checks.
But you don't really care if the price goes up, just as long as you're not the one paying the bill.
And the median annual single income would put most people around $15/hr. So your $500 insulin will end up costing someone over 30 hours of their time, working to pay for it. That's over 30 hours stolen from someone else life.
If one were to replace "government" with "privatized healthcare in America" in your post, you'd end up with the summation of our current healthcare situation, to a T.
It's almost as if evidence exists that private healthcare leads to artificially inflated prices in the United States, especially when compared to every other country on the planet, the vast amount of which have public healthcare:
Quote:
The U.S. spent $8,233 on health per person in 2010. Norway, the Netherlands and Switzerland are the next highest spenders, but in the same year, they all spent at least $3,000 less per person. The average spending on health care among the other 33 developed OECD countries was $3,268 per person.
...
The U.S. is a very rich country, but even so, it devotes far more of its economy — 17.6 percent of GDP in 2010 — to health than any other country. The Netherlands is the next highest, at 12 percent of GDP, and the average among OECD countries was almost half that of the U.S., at 9.5 percent of GDP.
....
When we look across a broad range of hospital services (both medical and surgical), the average price in the United States is 85 percent higher than the average in other OECD countries. To put this in perspective, a hospital stay in the United States costs over $18,000 on average. The countries that come closest to spending as much — Canada, the Netherlands, Japan — spend between $4,000 and $6,000 less per stay. Across OECD countries, the average cost of a hospital stay is about one-third that of the U.S., at $6,200.
As we have previously said, many OECD countries use strong regulation to set prices that hospitals can charge for different services, and some of them even set budgets for how much hospitals can spend. The quality of care delivered in hospitals in these countries are comparable to that in the U.S., and universities are still able to attract the best students to medicine.
If one were to replace "government" with "privatized healthcare in America" in your post, you'd end up with the summation of our current healthcare situation, to a T.
It's almost as if evidence exists that private healthcare leads to artificially inflated prices in the United States, especially when compared to every other country on the planet, the vast amount of which have public healthcare:
Its a big corrupt scam, sadly. And huge numbers of people die as a result. Its the biggest scandal of our day and should be breaking news every hour. But who owns mainstream media? Who are their advertisers? Thats right, the richest and most powerful corporations in America. So the media focuses on stuff that is of no threat to the moneyed interests of the ruling elite, like identity politics.
That sounds very kind-hearted, but how does the $3.2 trillion/year price tag for it get paid (cost source: Urban Institute)?
To answer your question first off I think that human life is invaluable...you can't put a price on what it is worth. Second of all,
In 2017 we spent more money than that on healthcare -3.4 Trillion dollars.
(I know that I spend a fortune paying for Private Insurances, Deductibles, etc. each year.)
All the other first world countries have switched over to Universal Health Care. We are the only one that hasn't and yet they pay far less for it than we do (and they have overall better health and a longer life
expectancy). https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...-similar-since
Fortune magazine
America Spends The Most On Healthcare But Isn’t the Healthiest Country
By Sandro Galea May 24, 2017
The proof is in our investment. The US spends 18% of its annual gross domestic product (GDP) on health. In 2015, this amounted to $3.2 trillion, a figure equal to the Germany’s economy. The country next in line in health spending, Sweden, invests 12% of its annual GDP — about two-thirds of what we spend. For additional comparison, most other peer countries spend about 9% of their GDP on health. Clearly, the US values well-being and is willing to pay for it.
But are Americans healthier as a result of this investment? They are not — in fact, far from it. American health is, by most metrics, worse than that of all other rich countries. US child mortality, for example, is about seven per 1,000 children. Compare this to Finland, where child mortality is two per 1,000 children. Then there is life expectancy. A Japanese child born today can expect to reach the age of 84, while an American child can expect to reach age 79. This gap exists despite the fact that the U.S. spends about 7% more on health than Japan. America still manages to beat, barely, a country like Qatar, where life expectancy is age 78. This achievement becomes less impressive, however, when we consider that the US spends about eight times more per capita on health than Qatar. It is also worth factoring in the unique health challenges the US faces, such as the obesity epidemic, which costs the nation between $147 billion and $210 billion per year and adds to the burden of chronic illnesses, such as diabetes and heart disease. Would a truly healthy nation have such morbidity in its midst?
It was not always like this. America’s current poor health is principally the result of a decline that began around 1980. While the U.S. been able to improve life expectancy and reduce mortality from a number of diseases in the last 35 years, it have done so at a far slower rate than its peer countries. This has led other countries, in some cases, to outpace the US. For example, in 1980, life expectancy in Chile was 68; by 2014, it was 81. In the US, life expectancy also rose, but far less. It was 74 in 1980; by 2014, it was behind Chile at 79.
And we do not just suffer in comparison to other high-income countries. In 1980, Cuba had a life expectancy of 74, and of 79 in 2005. By contrast, according to the most recent data from the U.S. Center for Disease Control, the US had a life expectancy of 77 in 2005. Is this decline acceptable? How would we react if we saw a similar trend in another area where the US invests heavily — defense spending? Would we spend more and more on a military that grows weaker and weaker by the year? Doubtful. We would make a change.
So to answer your question I think we could save money, save lives and have a longer life expectancy
if we went to single payer. It has worked for other Countries like Canada, the UK, Australia, Japan, Germany etc.
The healthcare system is funded by payroll taxes though, not through sales tax.
So, only workers pay for everyone's health insurance? There's already a post on how that plays out...
Quote:
Originally Posted by neko_mimi
And just to add to those figures (3.2 trillion dollars)/(131 million employed people) = an expense of about $24,400 per employed person, on average. The median single income in the US is about $32,000.
And then the OP doesn't understand why people would be opposed to that.
Like I said... Get the Fed Gov (FDA, DEA, etc.) out of US health care and I could order my astigmatism contact lenses from the US for half the price like I'm now paying when I order them from the UK.
To answer your question first off I think that human life is invaluable...you can't put a price on what it is worth. Second of all,
In 2017 we spent more money than that on healthcare -3.4 Trillion dollars.
(I know that I spend a fortune paying for Private Insurances, Deductibles, etc. each year.)
All the other first world countries have switched over to Universal Health Care. We are the only one that hasn't and yet they pay far less for it than we do (and they have overall better health and a longer life
expectancy).
America Spends The Most On Healthcare But Isn’t the Healthiest Country
By Sandro Galea May 24, 2017
The proof is in our investment. The US spends 18% of its annual gross domestic product (GDP) on health. In 2015, this amounted to $3.2 trillion, a figure equal to the Germany’s economy. The country next in line in health spending, Sweden, invests 12% of its annual GDP — about two-thirds of what we spend. For additional comparison, most other peer countries spend about 9% of their GDP on health. Clearly, the US values well-being and is willing to pay for it.
But are Americans healthier as a result of this investment? They are not — in fact, far from it. American heath is, by most metrics, worse than that of all other rich countries. US child mortality, for example, is about seven per 1,000 children. Compare this to Finland, where child mortality is two per 1,000 children. Then there is life expectancy. A Japanese child born today can expect to reach the age of 84, while an American child can expect to reach age 79. This gap exists despite the fact that the U.S. spends about 7% more on health than Japan. America still manages to beat, barely, a country like Qatar, where life expectancy is age 78. This achievement becomes less impressive, however, when we consider that the US spends about eight times more per capita on health than Qatar. It is also worth factoring in the unique health challenges the US faces, such as the obesity epidemic, which costs the nation between $147 billion and $210 billion per year and adds to the burden of chronic illnesses, such as diabetes and heart disease. Would a truly healthy nation have such morbidity in its midst?
It was not always like this. America’s current poor health is principally the result of a decline that began around 1980. While the U.S. been able to improve life expectancy and reduce mortality from a number of diseases in the last 35 years, it have done so at a far slower rate than its peer countries. This has led other countries, in some cases, to outpace the US. For example, in 1980, life expectancy in Chile was 68; by 2014, it was 81. In the US, life expectancy also rose, but far less. It was 74 in 1980; by 2014, it was behind Chile at 79.
And we do not just suffer in comparison to other high-income countries. In 1980, Cuba had a life expectancy of 74, and of 79 in 2005. By contrast, according to the most recent data from the U.S. Center for Disease Control, the US had a life expectancy of 77 in 2005. Is this decline acceptable? How would we react if we saw a similar trend in another area where the US invests heavily — defense spending? Would we spend more and more on a military that grows weaker and weaker by the year? Doubtful. We would make a change.
So to answer your question I think we could save money, save lives and have a longer life expectancy
if we went to single payer.
But, but, but...socialism, OMG!
There is something wrong with this country, and I am starting to think I can sum it up pretty easily:
We would rather put up with this mess than "give" anything to those we deem undeserving, even if it means cutting off our nose to spite our face. I was born in this country, and have lived here all my life, but I swear, I am starting to think that overall, we are a society of mean-spirited, vindictive fools.
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.
