I think you sense that the price tag in higher taxes will doom MFA so proponents hope to avoid the subject altogether.
And single people will likely see a wildly disproportionate tax hike.
Again, I am for universal health care - just not MFA.
And the amount of federal income tax paid is a non sequitur. If you have a related point just make it.
How much does the average tax payer pay for the military? Oh, wait, we don’t fund things that way, do we?
No, it is entirely relevant. Because it isn’t clear what you mean by “average worker.”
If you are going to say that $23,000 is a lot for the “average worker,” then we should compare that sum to what else that exact same fictional person pays for other things. Some have already compared it to the amount they already spend on health care, and you basically reject that comparison for… reasons.
So tell me how much your imaginary “average worker” pays in Federal income taxes, and I’ll tell you if $23,000 for MFA is the right number, a lot, or a little.
And for all you accuse others of avoiding a question, you should look at this thread and see yourself going to great lengths to avoid a very simple one.
Objection! Asserts facts not in evidence.
I think it is really funny how the OP is ignoring this post. This post may be completely wrong, but it should be trivial to point out the flaws or which assumptions are invalid. Maybe it just doesn’t fit the narrative.
I’ve posted this before, but in the UK, about 18% of Government expenditure goes on the NHS and public health. In addition to income tax, people in employment pay National Insurance contributions, as do employers. On current tax rates, it works out that for people on the average household income, those just above the threshold for the 40% higher rate of income tax, and on £100k and £150k p.a., for each of those about 4-5% of their gross income can be counted as tax paid towards healthcare. Employers pay about 2% of the gross pay.
Plus of course (18% of 20%=) 3.6% VAT and 18% of other duties, e.g., on alcohol, petrol, and so on.
If like me you’re retired you pay less. My pensions come to slightly more than average household income, and my health contribution comes to barely 3% of gross income.
But we do have cost controls of various kinds.
That post makes the ridiculous assumption that all US healthcare costs can be reduced to less than half what it is today.
Serious question: Why is that ridiculous ?
US healthcare costs are twice the average costs of the developed countries. If you instituted a system that is similar to what other nations use, you’d expect similar costs. The laws of economics do in fact work the same for all countries.
Currently US government healthcare expenditures, covering maybe a third the population, are above what most nations spend to cover their entire population. Per person. You can actually follow those costs in my post above, and how they total up to what running a UHC system costs, and how its pretty much in line with what other countries spend.
The US system is not normal, and using it for a yardstick won’t get you anywhere. You need to keep in mind that US costs are 200 % of what is normal.
It’s ridiculous because the US is not normal in healthcare systems, as you noted above. So, why should we assume that a “not normal” US can cut costs by more than half like other “normal” countries? How does that happen? Answer: It doesn’t happen and won’t happen.
Because abnormal is not magic. You are abnormal because you have a highly aberrant set of systems. Use a normal system, get normal costs. Thats how economics work.
Thats the entire setup of the OPs question : What would using a normal system cost? Answer : It would cost the normal amount. Which is pretty much the amount of tax money you are spending today, except you are spending it across a lot of different systems without covering everyone.
We’ve got facilities, hospitals, and equipment capitalized in today’s valuations along with salaried professionals (radiologists, admin, docs, nurses) in today’s pay structures. That is where the vast majority of expenditures go. The non value add of the insurers is tiny despite what MFA proponents claim.
Cutting costs in half would mean planned Draconian cost controls that would have disastrous electoral consequences for Democrats.
I don’t see how that follows. The proposal is to make everyone eligible for Medicare I believe. What “Draconian cost controls” ?
(Also, the main cost adders in your system is the extra bureaucracy associated with it, and the inefficiency I believe. Sunk costs don’t have a lot to do with it. And pay differences don’t contribute all that much.)
You asked a question, how much would MFA cost in extra tax money per person. I gave you an answer, 260 -350 per working taxpayer per year. or 20 -30 per month. Which is a bit high, because it assumes than only people who work pay taxes, whereas a lot of people pay taxes on non-working income. It’d be spread out over more people.
I then showed that thats a fairly similar amount to what economics say it should cost, what everyone else pays.
I find it interesting that you don’t seem to object to the actual calculation. You objections seem to be basically “Just because!” You seem opposed to it on emotional grounds.
This is important because it’s silly to use “average” rather than median. In 2014, the average (mean) income in the US was $72,641 per household, whereas the median was $55,613. It’s almost nonsensical to mention the average amount paid since it’s a fact that wealthier people pay a bigger slice of income and payroll taxes than poor people (since they make a disproportionate slice of the overall income in the US).
I’m pretty sure this is the point Ravenman is making when he’s asking you for the taxes paid by your “average” taxpayer.
To echo my earlier reply - THIS.
If we adopt the most simplified definition of MFA (govt pays all), employees and employers are off the hook, then everybody should get a major raise. On average employers spend $15,000 per employee so that should mean a like raise. Add in employee payments for premiums and deductible of $6,000 and you are up to $20,000. Follow that with co-pays and co-insurance and you approach the OP’s $23,000 - and employees still have the same takehome pay.
An honest answer has to include the fact that while taxes rise, pay increases and out-of-pocket costs disappear.
Again, this.
Oops, make that $21,000.
Ahahahahahaha! As if businesses are going to pass on savings to employees!
Then a large part of the increased tax revenue to fund UHC should come from increasing corporate taxation to exactly offset what companies currently pay to private insurance companies.
The U.S. has a horrible system that vastly more expensive and provides worse outcomes than every other developed country in the world. It’s just bizarre that people keep putting up manufactured roadblocks to claim that changing the U.S. system could not possibly work.
Set aside the arcane details for a moment. Here’s a blueprint for how to fix U.S. healthcare:
(1) Throw away the entire U.S. system.
(2) Pick pretty much any other country in the developed world and copy their system.
What’s stopping this happening is inertia, ignorance & the political lobby of vested interests.
Determine how much money is needed, then take that amount from the defense budget. Easy as pie.
Taiwan: ‘The Taiwanese healthcare system is characterised by good accessibility, comprehensive population coverage, short waiting times, low cost, and national data collection systems for planning and research.’
And ‘The health insurance Taiwan provides is comprehensive. Both inpatient and outpatient care are covered, as well as dental care, over-the-counter drugs and traditional Chinese medicine. It’s much more thorough than Medicare is in the United States.’
Taiwan’s an island. Same with Britain. The US is geographically one of the largest countries in the world, and urban areas sometimes exhibit totally different conditions than rural areas. There will be a premium to provide full coverage to people in more remote areas, even if it is transportation subsidies. I don’t mean to rain on the M4A parade, just want to keep it real. All European countries are more dense than the US, a factor by itself which may make replicating exactly their public health cost results impossible.
Still, you gotta look at the total cost of our system as it is vs. alternatives (including Socialism via Taxation), as others are pointing out. Also note that ‘elective health services’ are included in the total of our health care system, though taxpayers won’t be on the hook for the billions worth of breast augmentations and botox injections and so on that are performed every year. It is mostly going to be sick people receiving basic care that isn’t very complicated, because we can and it is the right thing to do.