re: How much would single payer cost?

quote:

---

Of an independent survey, sure.

---

I suppose you think that "independent" survey would have found its way on the site if it were less than favorable.

quote:

---

used that advice

---

That didn't happen. Your advice was mostly useless. Thanks for trying though.

My advice was exactly in line with what you'd already been told. Pretty odd coincidence, since I know nothing about the VA.

quote:

---

Publish that number openly. Let the people decide if they want to foot that bill so you can have your feelings elevated. Be honest for once. Don't lie about it saving money or the doctors and plans will be the same. Try honesty. Just once.

---

The reality is no one can actually answer the question with any level of precision and certainty because there are too many variables. A couple of hyperbolic examples would be a severe pandemic occurs and drives costs through the roof, on the other hand someone one could develop a drug that cures cancer and "gift it" to the world significantly reducing costs. Ripple effects in the economy are hard to pin down, lower insurance profits, lower drug profits etc. These are things that take think tanks months and years to come up with a number and they are almost always off by an amount most consider significant.


My admittedly simplistic view:

With military 39-45% of Americans are on some sort of single payer/ single provider system now.

The un/underinsured often wait until a problem is severe before seeking treatment. They often find care at EDs which is massively expensive. So this group today costs much more than it should to "cover". We "all" cover these write off costs directly or indirectly.

Almost al my experience with Medicare has been positive. I am actually sitting right now waiting for my g-mother to get out of surgery as a result of a bone tumor from breast cancer that has caused bone met. It was diagnosed last Thursday, was in to see the new specialist on Friday and one week later is having her surgery. Anecdotal but it follows my experience.

I am 49 and either myself or my parents have paid premiums for the entire 49 years. I have been very lucky to have had only 1 ED visit (for food poisoning) my entire life. My total payout from health insurance those 49 years is well under 10k and have not been to the Dr for anything but a routine checkup for my entire adult life. This means I have significantly subsidized many people over that time. While part of me thinks it is unfair I also know I could develop massive health problems tomorrow so I am good with it.

I do understand single payer would be difficult and messy to implement not in small part to the fact it is highly politicized. I do however feel that implemented correctly it would be a net positive for the country without requiring some huge distribution of wealth.

I also understand not everyone will agree and likely nobody will change their minds, certainly not based on anything I say. Like everything else the reality is few people actually think this through with an open mind, the majority of people simply tow the line for their "team".

quote:

---

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 .

---

The problem with that scenario is if it fails in a state it MAY not prove the potential failure of a national system.

The problem is the free movement between states. Unless (say NY) prevents only coverage for residents at the time of the law being enacted you would likely end up with a skewed pool. If NJ didn't have a prex provision, for example, you would possibly see many people move across the line into NY, so it could fail due to this sort of movement.

I think this is why Kennedy is against the ability for states to do single payer with their block grants. He is savvy enough to know if it works then the nation WILL move to single-payer. If it doesn't there are still many potential legitimate arguments that a state failure may not be indicative of a national failure.

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).

quote:

---

Cost is the secret.
Profit.

---

you think the same government that “negotiates” the F-35 will be lower cost of procurement for Healthcare?

You can’t be serious.

CelticProg also appears to think that the new version of whatever socialist medicine they come up with won't have to be "profitable". No investments will ever have to be made in the system at all in the future apparently. That's good to know I guess.

quote:

---

How can you determine it as a wash

---

He can't.
He can claim it would be a wash, because he has no problem lying about it.

Again, it's $2+trillion vs $1.6T in individual IT revenue. It's a spending program larger than the entirety of current federal income tax revenue.

So when you say "an extra 6% in taxes would be a MUCH higher rate," the real number is more likely an extra 106%. i.e., more than double your current payment.

quote:

---

Instead of 4 or 5 administrative bureaucracies federally, you have just one. Instead of 50 state administrations, you just have one home base.

---

You don't understand how bureaucracies work do you? You think those 4 or five existing ones would go away?

They'd expand in size and scope to "support" the gigantic new "FedGovHealth" bureaucracy that would then in turn expand in scope and size.