- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
How much would single payer cost?
Posted on 9/22/17 at 6:40 am
Posted on 9/22/17 at 6:40 am
How much extra would we have to pay in taxes for government run health insurance? I've seen anywhere from 6-10% extra for high income earners. Right now I pay ~$400 per month through my employer for a family plan. If you have a household income of $250k that means you would be paying ~$15k-$25k a year for awful service provided by the federal government. It's hard to believe that they would propose this but the money has to come from somewhere and it can only be from those that earn more. Why should this be supported?
Posted on 9/22/17 at 6:42 am to TitleistProV1X
Without strict boarders and reduced immigration, it would cost "too much" in year one and even more every year moving forward
Posted on 9/22/17 at 6:43 am to TitleistProV1X
They are crazy...every other country's service sucks
Posted on 9/22/17 at 6:43 am to TitleistProV1X
Profit is the key element.
Usa md makes twice what the euro md makes.
Usa md makes twice what the euro md makes.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 6:46 am to TitleistProV1X
Negotiate bulk purchase of meds for medicaid.
My eye drops $475 for a 6 week supply in usa public.
I pay
$80 for 3 months supply.
My eye drops $475 for a 6 week supply in usa public.
I pay
$80 for 3 months supply.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 6:48 am to TitleistProV1X
I'm more concerned about the poor care provided in a single payer system. I lived in the U.K. for 3yrs under their single payer system. The care and treatment a available is of a lower standard than what we find in the US. You also had to wait weeks or months or basic services.
I'm willing to pay more for the quality of care and medical advancements we receive in the US.
I'm willing to pay more for the quality of care and medical advancements we receive in the US.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 6:54 am to TitleistProV1X
quote:Cost would run north of $2 trillion/year.
I've seen anywhere from 6-10% extra for high income earners.
Current individual income tax revenue is $1.65 trillion.
So income tax revenue overall would need to increase >200%, perhaps as much as 250%. Insofar as "high income earners" share of that, you do the math.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 6:56 am to TitleistProV1X
I'd like to do a comparison. What's the cost of the proposed plan?
Posted on 9/22/17 at 7:09 am to TitleistProV1X
All single payer will do is elevate 20% of the US population up and bring down the other 80%.
Then you will see a surge of private care facilities where those that can afford to pay their taxes and pay for better access/care (similar to the private school system)
Right now the us pay about 17-20% ( 20% GDP by 2025of our GDP on health care.
Right now we pay as a country 26% of our GDP in taxes. so if this is proportional, then you will pay another 75-80% more in taxes to fund single payer if current costs = single payer costs. But with "Free" access to health care you either see more straining the system, or the system slows down and has delays....unless you spend even more for personnel and facilities.
Not to mention, the sheer inefficiency/corruption losses trying to run a government program on this scale. 1/5 (and growing) of GDP now run 100% by one source....
Then you will see a surge of private care facilities where those that can afford to pay their taxes and pay for better access/care (similar to the private school system)
Right now the us pay about 17-20% ( 20% GDP by 2025of our GDP on health care.
Right now we pay as a country 26% of our GDP in taxes. so if this is proportional, then you will pay another 75-80% more in taxes to fund single payer if current costs = single payer costs. But with "Free" access to health care you either see more straining the system, or the system slows down and has delays....unless you spend even more for personnel and facilities.
Not to mention, the sheer inefficiency/corruption losses trying to run a government program on this scale. 1/5 (and growing) of GDP now run 100% by one source....
Posted on 9/22/17 at 7:35 am to TitleistProV1X
In sum, it would be about a wash.
Shifting the money from premiums to taxes makes the taxes look big and scary, but you guys always forget to mention that you'd no longer be paying premiums.
Shifting the money from premiums to taxes makes the taxes look big and scary, but you guys always forget to mention that you'd no longer be paying premiums.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 7:35 am to TitleistProV1X
quote:
How much extra would we have to pay in taxes for government run health insurance? I've seen anywhere from 6-10% extra for high income earners. Right now I pay ~$400 per month through my employer for a family plan. If you have a household income of $250k that means you would be paying ~$15k-$25k a year for awful service provided by the federal government. It's hard to believe that they would propose this but the money has to come from somewhere and it can only be from those that earn more. Why should this be supported?
First roughly 40% of Americans are covered under a single payer plan currently either by Medicare or Medicaid. I am sure I know people on Medicaid I don't know who they are nor have I talked to them about it. As for Medicare I have dealt with it with my grandparents as well as discussed it with a few other seniors and they all seem to be happy with the coverage. I will say there was less red tape dealing with Medicare for my grandparents than my experience with private insurance, so the federal government CAN run an effective system at least on the payment side.
Another issue is employers usually pay some portion of employees premiums so the $400 you pay is unlikely to be the actual cost. The assumption is if there was a single payer then employers would provide the money saved to their employees (or continue to pay that portion as part of the single payer premium, like Medicare withholdings) so it SHOULD be a zero-sum game.
I am generally in favor of the IDEA of single payer since a healthy population has a more productive workforce as well as fewer people drowning in medical debt with the resulting bankruptcies.
I understand the idea the young healthy people don't feel the need for health insurance but they are sometimes the ones that rack up huge medical bills, default on them and we pay anyway.
I honestly think if people could get early intervention and avoid ED visits when things get bad there would be an overall savings.
In my life I have spent over $250k in various insurance premiums (not counting Medicare paid in as I have never gone through all my taxes to determine that figure) and been paid out only about $20k on my behalf. I have subsidized those sicker than me, ones that have been sued for malpractice, had houses burn down, had cars and boats stolen etc. I am not happy about it but I understand the cost of mitigating the possibility of huge losses.
One other thing to note is in most countries that have single payer there is still a private industry that provides policies to augment the single payer similar to the Medicare supplements we have here now.
In general I am for a "medicare for everyone" type plan but the transition would be painful and I understand the impact on the insurance industry (but can't quantify it). I think we would be a better more productive society with it. This position is based on the fact I think we all pay for the care anyway, just indirectly, and the way care for the uninsured is handled usually cost much more.
I do get that it is ideological and thus political and partisan but again I think it would be a net positive in the long run for our country.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 8:12 am to TitleistProV1X
NOTHING. This is why we need the government to take over everything because it's free for us. Duh.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 9:15 am to TitleistProV1X
$31 Trillion for 10 years. Mostly debt. That's the estimate. The USA can't afford it so they will have to borrow it.
This post was edited on 9/22/17 at 9:16 am
Posted on 9/22/17 at 9:24 am to TitleistProV1X
quote:
How much would single payer cost?
It's hard to monetize the loss of healthcare innovation and R&D.
Other countries like to point out their socialized healthcare vs. the US's system, but they would prefer not to discuss how the US is clearly the world's leader in health innovation.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 9:38 am to TitleistProV1X
quote:
How much would single payer cost
The soul of the nation, give or take.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 10:19 am to TitleistProV1X
Everyone knows that single payer will be bad for everyone who works. Democrats know that it's not going to be passed because they don't have enough votes now . If they really believed it would work then they would want this new health care bill by Graham/Cassidy to passed so they could have single payer in the states they run and show us how good it is .
Posted on 9/22/17 at 11:02 am to TitleistProV1X
Way too much without some serious revision to our understanding of what constitutes "healthcare."
Posted on 9/22/17 at 11:02 am to TitleistProV1X
Well, take your pick. Projections range from 1.3 trillion to 2.8 trillion a year for Sanders very vague and very broad starting legislation on single payer from last year. One that would cover everyone with no deductibles and basically encompass the entire administrative insurance process with no real attempt at cost controls.
The question of course becomes, what is the current price tag of our system? And the answer to that, at the roughly 18% of GDP, is 3.3 trillion.
Now, 64% of that 3.3 trillion is already paid for in taxes in this country. Between Medicaid, Medicare, the VA, children's health funds, and the ACA. The CBO tags this number at the federal level at 1.05 trillion dollars.
Which of course still leaves the money in taxes paid at the state level. Which amounts to 180 billion or so dollars on their end. Which brings our total up to around 1.2 trillion.
Of the 36% remaining, employer insurance takes up a big chunk. Which itself is propped up with a tax subsidy that means the government is taking in less revenue then it otherwise would by not charging employers and employees taxes on wage benefits. Economists have estimated this cost to be roughly 260 billion annually(on the low end of estimates).
The question of course becomes, what is the current price tag of our system? And the answer to that, at the roughly 18% of GDP, is 3.3 trillion.
Now, 64% of that 3.3 trillion is already paid for in taxes in this country. Between Medicaid, Medicare, the VA, children's health funds, and the ACA. The CBO tags this number at the federal level at 1.05 trillion dollars.
Which of course still leaves the money in taxes paid at the state level. Which amounts to 180 billion or so dollars on their end. Which brings our total up to around 1.2 trillion.
Of the 36% remaining, employer insurance takes up a big chunk. Which itself is propped up with a tax subsidy that means the government is taking in less revenue then it otherwise would by not charging employers and employees taxes on wage benefits. Economists have estimated this cost to be roughly 260 billion annually(on the low end of estimates).
This post was edited on 9/22/17 at 11:39 am
Posted on 9/22/17 at 11:54 am to TitleistProV1X
It would cost a lot more than just money.
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News