-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Single payer... some solution
- Thread starter dogtowner
- Start date
Werbung:
Astronomical compared to the amount paid for private insurance, paid by government, paid out of pocket by patients, and paid by employers to cover employees? Add all that together, and you might see that a Medicare sort of program would be cheaper in the long run.
To be eligible for Medicare, you have to be 65 or older. It's not means tested, only age tested. Medicare is not free, but it is highly subsidized and so a lot cheaper than private insurance. It is paid for by a payroll tax that is supposed to only be used for that purpose, but, like most taxes, goes into the general fund.
IMO, the insurance lobby allows the government to continue Medicare as the industry doesn't want to insure seniors anyway. They would fight tooth and nail... no, make that they do fight tooth and nail against any sort of Medicare for all idea. That's the real reason we haven't joined the rest of the civilized world with a universal health care system.
In the way you believe you do, no, probably not. I can't ignore facts as you do.
Openmind
Well-Known Member
That's the problem. You do ignore fact. . .and logic, and reason!
Go play with your Trumpsters in lala land!
Old_Trapper70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,383
No Dog, even when I showed how your "interpretation" of the "facts" in the article you posted was flawed you just go along with your alternate reality. It really must have been quite soothing to your ego when Trump introduced such a place for your mind to go.
No, not really.
Factor in costs not incurred such as premium collection (IRS), prosecution (DOJ) and lack of competition in contracting with providers and private concerns outperform handily. They have to as they don't have the taxpayers to bail them out. We'll not until obamacare.
Let's see... the average cost of health care in the USA is around nine grand per person per year. There's no reason to think Cali is significantly different from that, so it follows that the 39 million residents there are currently paying out about $351,000,000,000.
So, how much is a UHC plan projected to cost again?
Old_Trapper70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,383
I know you meant to say until Bush
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/14/AR2009051403866.html?hpid=topnews
Double the entire state budget. Your assumptions are not in line.
I made no assumptions, just did the math. So, how much in dollars?
9k a head is an assumption.
State says 124,018 in millions.
You're right. Actually, it was more of an estimate. It seems the estimate is a bit low. The actual cost in 2015 was 9451. No doubt it's at least that much now. So, multiply that by 39 million, and we get $369,959,000,000.
So, that $124 billion figure looks even better. I wonder what it's based on?
Last edited:
First it's 124b x 2 and no idea.
What would be the reaction if you tell people their taxes would double or triple so they could have single payer? Well maybe 2 or 3x is low, not every californian pays taxes.
And that doesn't count medicare or medicaid since the feds control that.
Werbung:
If people were spending 124 billion in taxes in addition to the 124 billion they're paying now, they'd scream bloody murder.
If they could spend 124 or even 248 billion instead of the current $370 billion, they'd be happier.
They'd still listen to people telling them how terrible their taxes are and leaving out the fact that they're paying less.
Now, is that double the state budget mean that the cost would be the current state budget x 2 just for health care, in addition to the current budget, or does it mean that expenses would double?
Even if it's the first, the cost is still a reduction of 1/3. Not too shabby.
If it's the second, it's a reduction of 2/3. That would put expenses for health care in the range that the French pay for their #1 rated system.
Similar threads
