General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy we can't just admit that universal health care should be paid by taxes????
Yes, your taxes will go up! Yes they will!
BUT>>>>>> and that is a BIG BUT!!!
BUT, you will have MORE money in your pocket overall, because you won't be paying monthly premiums, copays, and deductibles.
SO OVERALL, THE AVERAGE AMERICAN WILL PAY LESS!
I don't understand, why they can't just say it.
Say it NOW.
It's not a nuance. It's not something we should be scared to explain, thinking people are too stupid to understand and they will freak out when they hear "taxes will go up."
JUST SAY IT!
Taxes will go up. Your take home pay will go up. Overall, most people will end up with MORE MONEY in their pocket.
That is the whole point of doing it in the first place!!! To SAVE MONEY for AMERICANS.
When we take PROFIT out of the picture, and have a SINGLE PAYER, the first thing is the that the overall costs GO DOWN for health care. So we all SAVE MONEY. Do to this, we all pay together.
Why, when Dems get asked "how are you going to pay for universal health care? are taxes going to go up?" they shake in their shoes and they beat around the bush and they don't just answer the question.
YES TAXES WILL GO UP. BUT MOST AMERICANS WILL HAVE MORE MONEY IN THEIR POCKETS BECAUSE THE PROFIT WILL GO AWAY AND EVERYONE WILL BE CONTRIBUTING.
YES YOUR TAXES WILL GO UP, BUT THAT $750 PER MONTH YOU ARE PAYING FOR YOUR FAMILY JUST TO HAVE A PLAN THAT STILL MAKES YOU PAY FOR A LOT OF HEALTH CARE COSTS (COPAY, DEDUCTIBLES, PREMIUMS.....), THAT WILL GO AWAY IN EXCHANGE.
So take your pick. you can pay MORE with your premiums, deductibles, and copays, or you can pay LESS with taxes.
I think most people will take the latter.
I think the Dems, thus far, are losing this discussion and no one, including those who are putting universal health care on the front of their agenda, no one is explaining this in a simple way and admitting, YES, you will pay for health care through TAXES, but it will cost LESS than you are paying now.
Tonight in the debate I saw it again. No one will admit that taxes will go up, and simply explain that most people will end up saving money overall.
JUST SAY IT, and BEAT IT LIKE A DRUM, so that 12 months from now, when they go to the ballot box, people will have gotten it long ago.
Turin_C3PO
(13,650 posts)Im a big EW fan but her evasion of the tax questions isnt good.
garybeck
(9,932 posts)JUST SAY IT!
Response to garybeck (Reply #3)
DrToast This message was self-deleted by its author.
Duckandcover
(21 posts)Plus, Corporate profits, other than the Insurance Cos, will go up. No longer will businesses have to factor the cost of healthcare employee benefits into their products and services
garybeck
(9,932 posts)Duckandcover
(21 posts)Concise and easy for even Trump Cultists to understand
mwooldri
(10,291 posts)Yeah it's a sort of tax.... however this would be a better description. Also something people can visualize easier. You won't pay your employers or private insurance contribution, you pay a national insurance contribution instead.
Phoenix61
(16,952 posts)owners we would pass single payer. How many people have to work for a corporation because they need the medical insurance? How many people have to work for someone else because they dont have the money to self insure? The single best thing we could do to kick start entrepreneurs would be to pass single payer.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)do they want to be locked into a tax increase that MIGHT be less than they are paying now, for similar services. Or, do they prefer to see a "Medicare for All Who Want It" stacked up against some private plans, or innovative state plans, and then make the decision.
I think over a period of time the vast majority will take the Medicare hybrid. Then we can say to the remaining 15% -- tough chit it's mandatory.
But go for broke -- MFA whether you detest it or want it -- and lose the election because "you'll be better off" ain't gonna cut it for most people, and you'll be further away from significant improvement in the healthcare system.
Let CBO score Warren and Sanders' plan and provide the tax/premium for what MFA will cost a people at different levels of income. That would help.
SterlingPound
(428 posts)that there isn't 2 or 3 plans that already out there for what a "gold level" and other tier health care systems would cost
that the national parties are pushing
and should of been pushing for decades.
and why haven't we as voters been calling them on it over the decades?
AJT
(5,240 posts)A lot of people in well paying professional positions have really great health insurance and feel that their position entitles them to having that option. In Australia they have single payer and you can buy private insurance also. Everyone has to pay into the federal insurance program, but there are private options for people that can afford it.
roamer65
(36,739 posts)One where the wealthy get faster and better access, which they dont deserve.
unitedwethrive
(1,997 posts)Right now, their are still people who pay out-of-pocket (because they can), and many rich people use concierge doctors.
AJT
(5,240 posts)The access to geat care is the same. Private insurance offers private hospitals with private rooms and other amenities, not better medical care.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,154 posts)The rich will always find a way to pay to play. Whether its pressuring with donor money Conservative politicians to open the law to allowing more and more private options in the national healthcare system. Which happens in every western democracy over time. Or they can simply travel to some other country with less scruples to pay for medical help.
The idea is at least there is a basic service available to everyone. By basic I mean everything from a broken finger to brain cancer. If you want to pay for a private room in a luxury bed with a cadre of private nurses hovering over you 24/7 you will probably be able to do that too.
You don't get mad because there's a rich persons baby sitting in the bath, and proceed to throw out the baby AND the bath water meant for everyone.
roamer65
(36,739 posts)Otherwise should be illegal.
Sewa
(1,242 posts)get stuck with a majority of tax burden. The rich will find some way to weasel out of paying their fair share. Which will make it hard to get support
NCLefty
(3,678 posts)roamer65
(36,739 posts)Spread across a wider base means it would be less for all of us.
marlakay
(11,370 posts)For their employees and those employees who have good insurance for less and I am one of those will not want to pay higher taxes.
We are retired and cant afford to pay more than we do. Nobody will want to pay more so others can have it cheaper.
Elizabeth needs to be clear what will happen to the amounts paid by employers for those employees vs taxes for all to have care.
moose65
(3,164 posts)Do you still have to pay deductibles and co-payments and worry about out-of-network stuff? With single payer, ALL of that will go away.
marlakay
(11,370 posts)But co pays and deductibles only average to about $75 a month with $120 a month for insurance for both me and his medicare supplement which covers everything.
So I am sure I would pay more if taxes were involved.
Lucky Luciano
(11,242 posts)Freddie
(9,232 posts)Any savings your employer makes from a different health care system will go into their pockets, not yours.
garybeck
(9,932 posts)very few people have good insurance from their employer.
my wife is a nurse and in a union. still has to pay hundreds of dollars every month in premiums, even if she doesn't go to the doctor and the deductible goes up every year.
another friend is a teacher also in a union. same deal.
i remember in the 90s, i had an average job. I paid about $50/mo for my health insurance.
this is just one way that they have been slowly taking things away from us. just slow enough so that we don't notice.
AllyCat
(16,035 posts)Union hospital RN. Pay at least $250/month in premiums and then all the bills up to $5k for a year (next year $7k) because its a horrible high-deductible plan. Little choice for doctors and mental health providers. I would gladly pay higher taxes to lose this scam.
Xolodno
(6,330 posts)1. People hear; "massive tax hikes". But in reality, if you already have an employer sponsored health plan, you won't see much of change. You and the company were already shelling out...so, your still shelling out. Zero sum game....but its sold as "It costs more!". You're not talking to a well comprehension populace, but with a significant portion that is swayed by a catchy phrase.
2. A lot of people still work for small businesses....which often do not have a health care plan. So they see it as more of their income disappearing. And some small business owners panic and think they will go bankrupt if their small profit margin is wiped out due to raising prices and losing to the competition.....but, can't see past the end of their nose, as their competitor will also be forced to raise prices.
Sure, some small and even medium sized businesses will fold...but they were probably going to fold at the next recession anyway. But the company owner(s) and employee's will refuse to accept that....just like the coal miners who continue to think there will be some sort of resurgence in coal.
The Wizard
(12,482 posts)would pay for healthcare and free college tuition. But defense contractors having certain legislators on the payroll nullifies spending money on the people.
rickford66
(5,498 posts)So some people get theirs paid for by others, while some pay and don't have it. Sounds fair to me.
Doodley
(8,976 posts)other developed economies. UK, for example. We pay more in taxes for healthcare than the UK, in real terms and as a percentage of GDP, plus we have to buy insurance. Healthcare outcomes in UK are better, people live longer, everybody is covered. We have to wake up to the fact that the US healthcare system is a scam. We do not have to pay a cent more in taxes.
Indykatie
(3,691 posts)Candidates don't help by evading questions on how coverage will be paid for and the tax implications that will exist.
Disaffected
(4,507 posts)".... people are too stupid to understand and they will freak out when they hear "taxes will go up."
Edit: should have been a response to the OP
stopbush
(24,378 posts)in addition to basic Medicare.
That $155 pays for me, ONE person.
SO, if we went to MFA, a family of FOUR could be expected to pay at least $620 PER MONTH in MFA PREMIUMS.
SO, a family MAY save $130 a month compared to the $750 a month they pay now in premiums, but they will also have all of the issues of Medicare, like the donut hole.
Bluedolphin1406
(8 posts)That sounds right in theory. This also proves what I say a lot is that many people already on Medicaide and Medicaire from earlier generations have absolutely no idea how bad it really has gotten out there in the private market.
You propose $750 + the problems/holes to deal with....
Well, I currently have employer based healthcare for me and my 3 kids (no husband so no family plan even) My month premiums between me and my employer are $1400/month with a $2000 deductible on each of our heads with a $6500 out of pocket family max. Most prescription are only partially covered and prescriptions never count towards your deductible.
Does that sound better than $750/month plus the problems/holes? What I describe is what families are dealing with. Your scenario sounds like a dream come true for most of us!
stopbush
(24,378 posts)Does that mean that the deductible for a family of 4 on MFA would be $18,000? I doubt it, but it would certainly be higher than the $6500 deductible you have now.
And lets not forget: only 19% of Americans are currently on Medicare/Medicaid. Yet it takes payroll taxes collected from 100% of working people to support health care for that 19%. So what happens if 100% of Americans go on MFA? Thats a five-fold increase in beneficiaries. What happens to payroll taxes then? Do they increase five-fold to help offset the costs of adding 80% of the population to the current program? I dont know, but whats clear is that those payroll taxes would need to increase significantly to support MFA.
Bluedolphin1406
(8 posts)... are more than your entire out of pocket costs. There is me (relatively young) with 3 young healthy children. I get to start paying my deductibles at the very top of your entire spending budget. Please do not bore me with how much worse you have it than the people who are paying for your coverage PLUS their own. As I said in another thread, people from earlier generations who are already in the system have absolutely no idea how bad it has gotten out there in the private market.
Oh yea...and once we reach our deductible, we get to start paying 10% of all procedures after that.
stopbush
(24,378 posts)for 50 years.
Let me know when you hit the 50-year mark and we can talk about who has had it worse. In the meanwhile, enjoy your relative youth. Believe me, its no picnic after you hit 50.
roody
(10,849 posts)You can read the damn bill.
tirebiter
(2,520 posts)Not giving that up voluntarily to see my taxes go up, too. Just sayin
Captain Stern
(2,196 posts)If UHC was only going to insure those of us that are insured now, it would cost us less. But, UHC is also going to insure the millions of people who don't pay for health care now.
I think that means that those of us who are paying premiums, deductibles, and co-pays now would probably end up paying a little more under UHC.
I'd argue that that isn't a bad thing. I don't mind paying more taxes, if there is value being returned.
I think it's in everyone's best interest to live in a healthy country. A country where everyone has access to health care, regardless of their current financial circumstances is a good thing, even if it costs some of us a little more.
I think we should admit that taxes will go up. We should show that some people would probably break even because their tax increase would be offset by the elimination of their current medical expenses. But we should also be honest and say that some of us will pay more, and that there will be many people who currently pay nothing, that will continue to pay nothing while receiving free health care.
Mike Nelson
(9,903 posts)... Warren is good at explaining, but didn't... my guess is that she might "move center" if she wins the primary contest. Her health care plan may be revised...
This is also true of post-high school education. It's not free, and we can afford to pay for a well-educated population.
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)vast and deep systemic problems:
- how do we cut the burden of cost and REGULATE service provided. One of the biggest cost driver are hospitals spending money in replication of services in same areas. All that does is run up cost as "simple" procedures now require CT scans, MRIs and the such because they can and need to pay for them
- how do we reduce the cost of becoming a doctor? Tremendous pressures are placed on day one of any new doctor/intern to MAKE MONEY
- how do we provide services in rural areas? What will be the process to do it< who pays for it and how do we sustain it?
Can we have universal healthcare and still have malpractice and all the lawsuits and insurance cost associated with it? That would have to revamp. How to do that?
So many more core issues.
No one wants give up their gravy train, give up their kingdoms and this is huge in American Healthcare and the problem is not about how to pay for it, but how to make it work. I have yet seen any white paper in how to have a transition be successful.
Why the idea of somehow US healthcare will be "universal" is a pipe dream at best. What it can be is a modified version of "single payer" which is NOT universal healthcare
Captain Zero
(6,714 posts)Cost differences should be negligible, I would think. Maybe even less for a system where everyone is in the risk pool.
Freethinker65
(9,932 posts)See how many sign up and give private insurance the opportunity to adapt and compete and/or come up with supplemental policies to Medicare for those that want/need/can afford them.
A buy in will allow earlier retirement for some, it will encourage others to start new businesses and/or leave jobs they hate but are employed at just for the insurance. Knowing what coverage is available and what it will cost takes makes planning much easier.
Businesses that want to can continue to offer employer subsidized insurance plans to attract and keep their workers.
BillyBobBrilliant
(805 posts)for my healthcare coverage is $535/mo. plus ~$50/mo for copays on office visits and medications (value $7000+/mo.)
I would gladly pay that much (~$7000/year) in additional taxes to have a single payer coverage for equivalent care. (I am 66, and 'benefits eligible' as I am still a full time employee, not on Medicare).
stopbush
(24,378 posts)Why not do that and make a deal with your employer to pay your Medicare premiums? Youd both save money and youd probably get better and cheaper healthcare. Are you prohibited from going on Medicare because your employer offers health insurance?
Bluedolphin1406
(8 posts)because for many costs would go up. I can think,of a few scenarios off of the top of my head.
1. People who do not have health insurance now, but make good salaries. These are the current freeloaders in the system, and their costs would go up.
2. Government employees who have a large portion of their premiums covered by the government would likely pay more.
3. A few people have private healthcare where their employer covers most of the premiums. Their costs would go up.
4. Employers who currently do not offer healthcare to their employees. Their costs would go up.
5. People who currently cheat the system ... Their costs may go up.
But currently, these people have it good. Of course you will want to retain the system if you are a beneficiary with no costs to bear. Of course they would not want change. But there are too many people out there now who are trying to play fair, do the right thing, and are simply getting drowned in out current system. We cannot keep this monster in place for the benefit of the few and the detriment of the many.
PaulRevere08
(449 posts)their employees. Removing the employer-paid insurance will even the playing field with the rest of the world. If an employer wants to offer private or supplemental insurance as a way to entice employees it will be on them. It is such a win-win-win, except for insurance companies that is.
IronLionZion
(45,258 posts)so Medicaid, S-CHIP, and other similar programs, maybe the VA and government employee programs too. A large part of our health system is already tax funded, so it would be consolidated with lower administrative costs.
Private insurance premiums would be replaced by taxes. Employers would replace their share of the premium with taxes.
And doctors offices everywhere would have fewer forms and insurance companies to work with if there is just one universal plan. That reduces costs and simplifies billing.
RT Atlanta
(2,517 posts)just like gas taxes pay for roads, etc.
Thank you @GaryBeck for the post!
Gothmog
(143,999 posts)Such a plan in theory may generate societal savings but such savings would not pay for a program. Governments can only spend tax revenues and/or borrowings. This study does not say how one would pay for such a program in the real world. I note that Prof. Krugman like the concepts of such a plan in theory but notes that taxes will have to be raised a great deal to pay for such a plan
Back in 2016, here is his position Prof. Krugman compares Sanders hoped for health care savings to the GOP tax cuts. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/weakened-at-bernies/?_r=0
To be harsh but accurate: the Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan, which relies on fantasies about huge supply-side effects to make the numbers supposedly add up. Only a little bit: after all, this is a plan seeking to provide health care, not lavish windfalls on the rich and single-payer really does save money, whereas theres no evidence that tax cuts deliver growth. Still, its not the kind of brave truth-telling the Sanders campaign pitch might have led you to expect.
Today, Prof. Krugman says that such a plan is feasible if you are willing to pay a great deal more in taxes
https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/paul-krugman-explains-why-single-payer-health-care-entirely-achievable-us-and-how
The amount of higher taxes are not quantified in this article by Krugman. To pay for any such plan will require massive tax hikes
Again sanders has utterly failed in his attempts to get Vermont to adopt his magical single payer plan because the state of Vermont cannot use hypothetical societal saving to pay for this plan. Even Krugman admits that much higher taxes are needed
liberalmike27
(2,479 posts)We will all be better off when we all have better health outcomes at a cheaper cost. It's one of society's cracks that we all fall through.
forthemiddle
(1,373 posts)Its going to be a lot more for some, and a lot less for others. The problem is to make the right demgraphic happy.
In my case, I am in the paying a lot more category. Right now I pay nothing out of my paycheck. I am part of my husbands plan, yet my employer doesnt give me any extra compensation for not taking the benefit. So the increase in my taxes will be huge. My husbands company offers excellent coverage, at very little premium (less than $150.00 a month) for full coverage, including vision and dental.
Our insurance does have a deductible, but they also give us a HEalth Care Savings Account, in which they also contribute. Since we are pretty healthy, we have only reached our deductible once in 20 years.
I realize we are lucky, but I also know of many, many people in our situation, and the extra taxes certainly wont let us come out ahead. When the middle class, and upper middle class lose a huge benefit, I dont think they will be happy.
I, along with the majority of people in my circumstance truly want everyone to have what we have, but they also dont want to lose what they have either. And paying more for what they get (and worked for) now will seem like a loss to them.
If you really think major employers will compensate the employees for not needing health insurance anymore, you got another thing coming. After all most dont pay the ones not taking it now (like me) any more.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,154 posts)Other countries around the world recognized the cost savings + the universal coverage + less paperwork/middle men etc decades and decades ago. It appeals to not only more progressive, egalitarian minded people, but true fiscal conservatives as well.
Its a shame that it was not a part of the New Deal. Now, private insurers have built up massive monopolies and work forces and established "working relationships" with high powered politicians in both parties. Some doctors and hospitals have also benifeted greatly, especially those catering to the well off. This lobby group will fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo. Along with insurance and drug companies. These types of adversaries to universal healthcare just did not exist, or were not a big factor, back in the mid 20th century.
But yes, why not lay it all out like that. Furthermore, why not start to defend the idea of taxation? That it pays for roads and schools and SS and medicare. That it pays for the armed forces, police, fire departments. Republicans have demonized the word "tax" as they have "liberal". I think if you actually explained it, maybe introduced a law that will break down their taxes in a more transparent way for them, most would understand that.
moose65
(3,164 posts)We are so far behind the rest of the world, and our health/insurance system has its tentacles everywhere. It may take decades to untangle it all. Personally I have no problem with an incremental approach to get us to single payer. As someone else on this thread has already pointed out, a very large part of healthcare expenses is already paid for by the government. If all of those systems were consolidated, wouldnt that save even more money? Medicare, Medicaid, military/veteran care, SCHIP, et cetera. Also, shouldnt we at least make sure that all children are covered from birth till 18? Couple that with a Medicare buy in and we might be on our way.
MasonDreams
(756 posts)Eliminate them first.
Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)to a whip advertising person and create the message. of course that won't happen.
qazplm135
(7,447 posts)it's not that hard of a sell. Fear of the tax word is driving this IMO. Bernie isn't afraid to say it but then again I think he has no illusions he's actually going to win either.
MasonDreams
(756 posts)Nobody mentioned who is and isn't accepting donations from the "industrial complex".
kwolf68
(7,365 posts)When the presumed Dem leader in the campaign (not my choice by any stretch) Biden basically is using right wing talking points against universal health coverage you know where the bread is being buttered.
doc03
(35,148 posts)for everyone a lot of people are happy with what they have.
brooklynite
(93,853 posts)President Mondale.
The Wizard
(12,482 posts)and taxes don't have to be raised. But that won't happen because defense contractors funnel money to certain off shore money laundries. Cut military waste and free college tuition for qualified students becomes a reality. It's the bribery and graft that we can't afford.
Tarc
(10,472 posts)Warren was right to ignore it.
sarchasm
(1,009 posts)... E plurubus unum anyone?
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)on the Exchange. And as more and more people, and/or their employers, decide to make the switch, then private insurance will die a natural death.
What's wrong with a step by step approach, like we had with Medicare in the first place? Do we think Medicare sprang up fully formed, the way it is now? No, it didn't. Neither did Medicaid.
AllyCat
(16,035 posts)$800/month and the price has been going up every year I have worked for the company. The employees pay the difference, typically. What a boon to the economy if no group of employees and employers was paying the brunt of those fees.