So you think if you live a healthy lifestyle you’ll never cause a drain on a nations health care system?
This just in - everyone gets old. Researchers have now determined that all homo sapiens age over time and their medical needs increase before death finally ensues.
Typically, you’ll spend 10-30 years with increasing medical problems before you die. In general, if you are fat/smoke etc. it just means you’ll be taxing the system when you’re 60 instead of 90. Either way - you’ll tax the system.
It is actually those few who die suddenly in a catastrophic tragedy that are the rare exception to this.
Are you really expecting a serious financial analysis based on this gotcha OP?
Are you willing to go to Iraq and fight for our country if you support the war? Ahhhh!!! You didn’t answer!!
[QUOTE]
If you support a program that will cost additional tax dollars, why is it wrong to ask if you would be willing to give to support the program? What’s gotcha about that?
In my mind, I wasn’t thinking of people putting money into a collection hat. I was thinking more along the lines of a tax increase of some kind.
I can actually answer this. I make about what you’re asking (48K/year). I live in Oregon. My bi-weekly take home is about $1450 after mandatory deductions including taxes, personal medical plan deductions, medicare, EE Worker Benefit, etc. etc.
However - my job also pays an additional $1430/month (~700 every two weeks) for my medical insurance which covers my whole family. It is a good medical plan, but certainly no better than what I had when I lived in Canada.
What is the total shit is I have a mandatory deduction called medicare - that is I pay health care taxes to give free socialized health care to old people. OLD PEOPLE!!! Who do you mostly see when you walk into any hospital?
How hard would it be for me and my work to pocket most of that $1430/month and then just expand that medicare a little bit to cover young healthy people?
Needless to say, someday I’ll take my American wife and move back north so that I can remain sane.
And as I’ve mentioned in another thread, if everyone’s old-age ailments are covered in UHC, then by mathematical definition, the “healthy” can’t pay for the “sick” unless there’s perpetual positive population growth. Negative population trends such as Japan and Europe are not friendly to covering expensive senior citizen treatments – you either institute spending caps or carry out euthanasia.
What are the spending caps for fat smokers who don’t take care of themselves? Or do we euthanize 10% each year?
Medicare does not pay enough to keep a physician’s office open. The docs get more money from you, to offset the less money they get from Medicare patients. If we put more people on the Medicare payment schedule, more places like the Mayo Clinic will stop taking Medicare patients.
Of course, we could increase the reimbursement rate for Medicare, but then we are back to the “how much would you pay” question.
To answer the OP: I would accept an incremental flat tax of 1% on ALL income that ANYONE makes (from the lowest paid worker at McDonalds to the highest paid CEO on Wall Street). If you told me that EVERYONE was paying 1% more, regardless of income or deductions, and that with that 1% you could offer coverage to the uninsured - I would be willing to further review your proposal.
Since I’m among the great uninsured, and am currently self-paying all of my medical expenses, I’d be better off contributing part of my income to insure everyone. It can’t possibly be more than what I’m paying now.
Firstly, due to immigration the US does not have negative population growth, so I hardly see how your arguement applies.
Nonetheless, if the situation is such that for every 10 healthy working adults there are 100 old non-working people with great health needs.
In socialized health care what happens? The doctors decide who gets treated. Limited resources being what they are, the least resource taxing AND those with the best chance for extensions of life are given treatment - as based on the doctors professional opinion.
Now, in the US. What would happen? Medicare attempts to do the same thing with the same results. Old people are given free socialized health care here!!! In the meantime the 10 working adults are bent over the rail and milked by insurance companies for every dime they can get. Meanwhile the 1 guy of those 100 old people who is a rich bugger pays for his own treatment and gets the very best.
As most posts have already pointed out, the amount I currently pay for health insurance wouldn’t exist in a UHC system - it would instead be paid as tax.
This is a personal financial sacrifice that I’d be willing to incur, although some don’t think that it’s not a personal financial sacrifice unless you put greenbacks in the collection plate when its passed to you or something. Further, if we’re talking an increase of ~10% or so of the amount that I currently pay, I’d be cool with that too. I can’t imagine UHC costing any more than this. if it would cost more, then i’d pay.
As for the posters wondering about the relative tax burdens in more socialized systems than in the united states, i’ll say two things:
most of these countries have far better progressiveness in their tax structures. that is, the total tax rates that can be inflicted on people is much higher than in the US, but these are tax rates that are only charged to the super wealthy. for average joes, they are roughly comparable - it’s not like you would be able to shit on gold plated toilets if you live in the US but you’d be too broke to afford normal luxuries in Canada.
there are, in my opinion, far more hidden taxes in the United States, especially in states that purport to be low taxation. Higher property taxes, registration fees for licenses, random fees here and there, and my personal favorite the “personal property tax” (i.e. the yearly ad valorem tax on the diminishing value of your car), are all things that add up. They’re small amounts, but again, for middle income earners $100 here and there winds up equaling percentage points of your income.
i’m sure there are statistics that flesh out total tax burdens as a percentage of GDP or some crap that would substantiate the above.
The point for me is that I shouldn’t have to pay more taxes. Most of us already pay into a health insurance account of some sort, so why not just redirect that money into the government and call it a “tax”? Just don’t increase it.
I have $6,800 + my premiums, put it into the ‘collective hat’, with everyone’s else’s deductable and premiums; average it out and buy everyone insurance with it, not create a new tax.
There should be enough money to do that, if we all combine our resources. In fact, there should be money left over, because i don’t use $6,800 worth of medical services every year, so that money could be available for someone else and when my turn comes, there should be money for me.
Instead of going into pool of our co-workers, it goes into the pool of all Americans. Wouldn’t that huge pool, reduce the cost of our Universal insurance “tax”, the same way having a bigger pool reduces the insurance costs of a company?
I would think so. Essentially, you are “self insuring” the country, instead of insuring through a multitude of private companies. The entire country, by acting as it’s own insurance company, can save money through efficiencies, economies of scale, and preventative medicine.
At least as much as my employer is currently paying for my health care.
In other words, based on the figures I’ve seen floating around, I expect it to be about a wash. Still, I would be willing to pay more than that for UHC. Same way I’m willing to pay for education.
If our country actually took care of its people (in other word, if we collectively cared for one another instead of letting other citizens just rot away), I’d be willing to pay a lot more in taxes. I pay a lot already, but it all seems to be funneled to those who really don’t need it…
So what you’re saying is that your employer pays $1430 more than what you make to cover health care for you? Seems kind of high, but then I don’t know what equivalent payroll taxes are for someone making the same salary here. I can’t imagine it’s that high just for the health care costs. Truth be told, in Canada we apparently pay about half of what you pay in the US for health care as taxes. I’ve never really understood why that argument isn’t used more often by politicians supporting UHC in the US, but then I gave up paying attention a while ago.
YES. That is exactly what I am saying. My employer pays $1430/month as a benefit to me for health insurance for my family. I personally did not go to the doctor once last year.
The reason you can’t imagine it being that high for health care costs is because the system is utter madness. When I grew up in Canada, my family doctor had a staff of 1 part time person. That person made bookings and did the billing to the government. The doctor knew the govt. would reimburse him - just fill out a form and done.
Here, you walk into a clinic and there are like 10 staff for every doctor. I had a girlfriend here once who worked at a clinic. Her job - all day long she called insurance companies and harassed them to pay the doctors money owed. She was one of 3 people doing this - for a clinic with 2 doctors.
The reason health care costs and my insurance premiums are so high is because of all the middle men. The insurance companies themselves and all that they employ are just a waste of resources. And the resources individuals, doctors and hospitals have to put into dealing with them is a waste of resources. It all serves to drive the prices up high which is why the costs are so much higher here than any other country.
The premise underlying the OP’s question is flawed.
A non-negotiable condition for me (and pretty much everyone else in my society) to recognise property rights is a society which recognises mutual support in extremis - no one starves to death, freezes to death or dies of easily treatable illnesses. You don’t support our right to life, we won’t recognise your property.
So, unless there is a minimal welfare state then you don’t have the means or a mechanism to pay for anything. You literally have no money.
Actually, the real answer is that I already pay a lot less in tax to support the NHS than you do to support your ‘private’ health system.*
Sandwich
I read this somewhere on the internet so it must be true.
If I may be so bold as to rephrase the OPs question to get where they’re driving to.
Beyond what you pay RIGHT NOW on healthcare (insurance, meds, copays, walkers, etc.), How much are you willing to pay extra to ensure UHC?
Myself? Nothing! I spent a ton of $ for a college education to get a job with benefits like a decent pension and health insurance so I an indirect way I guess I’m paying for my health care via student loans. I also pay for my son’s insurance out of pocket because to insure him on my policy is $450/mo whareas through BCBS it is about $50.
Since anyone in this country can get basic health care for free (go into any large cities emergency room for proof), I consider being able to afford better health care something that’s earned. If someone can get a beater car that gets them around town, I shouldn’t have to pay for a better car FOR THEM simply because I worked hard AND MADE A LOT OF SACRIFICES to afford a nicer sedan than them.
And yes, I am an ass about it and I admit that . . . but no more than the asses who want UHC but expect others to pay for it.
It’s a totally disingenuous question. Would you ask Canadians “How much would you be willing to pay to have the freedom to lose your health insurance? Would you pay double what you’re paying now, and have two years lopped off your life expectancy?”
