You must have missed this part in the quote.
The article is from 2006, before the big crash.
We’ll cross that bridge when we…oh, wait, you already burned it.
It’s my understanding that it’s spending from all participants. So if we went say, single payer, the costs to the government would be higher, and need to be offset by additional taxes. But the cost to the consumer would be overall less, since the taxes would generally cost less than what reasonable health insurance costs.
In the end though, the amount spent in the country would be less.
Do you mean higher in other countries? I assume that any time you raise prices there is an incentive for a black market to form. I’d further assume that is something that could be dealt with, and it hardly seems like enough of a reason to not cover millions of Americans and spend more to do it.
Ok, Canada can just build a few nukes so you can afford health care. Deal?
The bottom line is, Canada doesn’t really need defending. There’s about zero percent of an invasion.
We could just raise their rent by about ten percent.
(Though it might not be a good idea to annoy them, we will be begging for their water before long…)
Hold on. I’m sure I’m missing some blatantly obvious point, so I’m trying to pepper my responses with disclaimers… but I’m not seeing this.
The basic argument as I understand it: the US pays for defense, dollars that Generic European Country does not need to spend, leaving GEC free to spend on a UHC program.
I’m not sure I get the concept that UHC allows a higher tax rate. I’m not quite following the idea that tax rates are so flexible that payers will readily accept a high tax rate merely because of a savings in other expenditures.
In other words, if we learned that the average gasoline bill was 7% of household income (just to pick a wild number) I don’t get the sense that people would be opento a 7% tax hike in exchange for free gasoline.
Why not? Seems straight math to me. Is it because you have a bad gut reaction to “taxes” that you don’t for “expenses”?
I think the solution isn’t what you think it is. Problem- can’t have UHC and spend so much on the military. Solution- ease up on the military spending. So many planes and ships and missiles and bombs- for what? To fight who? I personally think the US military could be cut in half and still be more than adequate.
Assumes that UHC is an expensive giveaway, rather than an enhanced efficiency. Saving money on health care could provide more money for super-dooper fighter planes that don’t fly. As well as providing a more healthy pool of potential cannon-feed.
If the average is 7%, I can do things like carpool, buy a fuel efficient vehicle, or simply drive less to decrease my costs. None of those things would affect the 7% “free” gas tax though.
I think the argument is that is what other countries are doing (paying 7% in extra taxes for everyone to get gas), and we’re paying almost 15% for gas that has less octane. And 20% of the country has to pay for ambulances to get around… wait, I think this analogy is getting out of hand. 
Yes, some eco minded people might feel ripped off. Some gas guzzling people would feel like they won the lottery. Doesn’t really explain Bricker’s bafflement at the concept.
No, it’s because 88% of drivers consider themselves “above average.” (Statistic fabricated to make the point)
Every person can actually control their own expenditure, and they lose that control with the “flat gas” tax. So most people would disfavor that, even if for some the reality would be that they would save more.
Bricker: Your theory is that, as a political matter, the taxes necessary for UHC are only politically possible because GEC doesn’t have to raise taxes to pay for defense. [This is different from claims about what a country can afford, since obviously as a matter of GDP UHC is cheaper. Your claim is about political psychology, not economics, as I understand it.]
This more sophisticated version of the argument is still wrong. One reason is that it postulates that GEC voters are fundamentally like GOP voters in their hate of taxes. But we know that these countries actually tolerate quite high tax levels just fine.
But the better reason is that you’re wrong to assume that UHC states spend more at the government level than they would if they had US-style healthcare. They don’t. UHC governments spend the same or a little less on health as a share of GDP (and of course much much less from private pockets).
Fair enough. I would like a cite to support the claims that the US can’t afford UHC because of all the money being spent on defending its allies and the world against enemies, foreign and domestic.
First quote where I made that claim… I did say “dropping or reducing”, but we will stick with just dropping for right now.
As running coach’s cite shows, the trend was definitely going in the way of employers dropping coverage.
Can you show any reason that that trend would have stopped or reversed without some kind of healthcare bill?
I don’t know that I have time to track down cites from 10 year ago myself, but anecdotally (I know…) I can point out that the insurance offered in entry level jobs went from pretty nice HMO coverage with small co-pays to high deductible plans, and the amount taken out of the paycheck did not go down.
If you really don’t believe that many employers were reducing the quality of their plans offered to individuals pre-ACA, I may have time sometime to find some cites about that as well.
To actually compare that to other countries and their healthcare plans, it would be more like getting rid of that 7% gasoline bill, and replacing it with a 4% increase in taxes.
Would that make a difference in the calculous?
If not, is there a ratio that you do think that it would make a difference?
My goodness you are being simple minded. To stave off the hordes of tax protesters you could simply have a tax break for certain things like an electric car. Lucky for your argument though, everyone is super blasé about premium/gas price hikes.
Eta: didn’t mean simple minded as an insult. Merely that you clearly not putting much thought into ths.
I think so, yes, and thanks for framing it far better than I did.
OK, I’m not sure I get it even now, but I’m just flailing on this topic and so I’m going to read instead of type on this issue.
You’re right, though, that on this topic I’m not completely sure I know what I’m trying to say, so it’s coming across as hopeless as when it started the journey.
I’ll leave this here one to them that brung it.