If you want Single Payer, are you willing to impose a national sales tax to pay for it?

[Yavin4]

Because that's how European nations pay for their social services, through sales taxes. To get political support for this, you have to campaign for it and get a consensus of Americans to buy into the plan.

[cali]

1. 8 out of 10 democrats favor single payer.

[Yavin4]

8. Are you willing to pay a national sales tax to pay for it? n/t

[apnu]

23. I am yes.

If it means I'm not paying for insurance off my work pay. I'm totally happy to pay a national sales tax for insurance coverage.

Would it also include eye and dental?

[ViseGrip]

118. Me too!

[arcane1]

86. It beats paying insurance premiums and co-pays, doesn't it?

I say YES.

[demigoddess]

122. I say yes, too

if they keep the insurance companies out of it.

[Cal33]

135. I am, yes. But it might not even be necessary. Bernie Sanders said that the Single Payer

system would cost us less than what we are paying now. The present system is so wasteful,
it's unbelievable. Cutting out the waste alone would save us a good deal, and other measures
could be added.

(Read this link and get an education).

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/32945-calculating-the-cost-of-bernie-sanders-single-payer-health-program

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. HELL YES! It's less expensive than monthly insurance policies...that's for damn sure. n/t

[Autumn]

3. Yes. I will be happy to pay in taxes what I pay to an insurance company.

I believe I will be getting a better bargain for my money.

[7wo7rees]

20. Hell yes. We are paying $800 a month through employer.

Large deductible, prescriptions keep going up, co pays going up. . . and up. Single payer, universal health care. Take the for profit ins cos out - let them exist as they do in other countries, optional......

[firebrand80]

4. I would prefer a progressive tax nt

[Gidney N Cloyd]

5. Yep.

[whatthehey]

6. I'd prefer income taxes but sure

AFAIK Britain's NHS for one is funded from income taxes as well as minor patient fees.

[TubbersUK]

60. Yes

it is funded from general taxation/NI (98.8%) and minor fees (1.2%).

Overall cost are about 9.1 % of GDP.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS
http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/how-nhs-funded

[fleur-de-lisa]

7. Absolutely!

[Yavin4]

9. Do your fellow Americans want a national sales tax?

That's the larger question.

[fleur-de-lisa]

25. I don't know what your game is nor do I really care . . .

but you are clearly trying to stir up some shit.

But to answer your question, I believe if Americans can be made to understand that single payer will result in guaranteed coverage for all of us and lower overall costs since the greedy insurance companies will be out of the picture, then yes, I believe they will be fine with a sales tax.

[arcane1]

87. Transparent as glass: deceptive descriptions and weak-ass talking points.

I'm glad to see so few people falling for it

[merrily]

44. Yes, because they are already paying through the nose for health insurance.

[MADem]

65. When they have to pay half again for EVERYTHING, the bloom will come off that rose real quick. nt

[Fawke Em]

97. Sorry, but 2.2 percent of income in taxes is far less than half the 14.7 percent

of our income many of us currently fork over to greedy insurance companies to get mediocre access.

[tkmorris]

112. When they realize it would be less than their insurance premiums?

Yeah, pretty sure they would.

[sufrommich]

10. If the Sanders campaign thought they could win

an election promising national healthcare by raising taxes on the middle class,they'd be doing that. I suspect they know better than to publicize that.

[Armstead]

19. GOP talking point

[sufrommich]

22. Well,yes. Exactly.

[Armstead]

28. And our job is to echo that?

The only reason we don't have as better healthcare system is because the "centrist" Democrats like Clinton have refused to defend the concept, and instead echo GOP talking points.

[sufrommich]

33. You cannot win an election in the U.S. by promising to raise taxes

on the middle class. Bluster all you want,the republicans would have a field day with it,it would be a wet dream for them.

[Armstead]

38. Oh heck then. Let's just cancel the election and let the GOP do whatever they wasnt.

[merrily]

45. Americans understand they are already paying for health insurance.

Do you really think they'd prefer to pay continue paying more for health insurance than a tax would cost them?

[Mother Of Four]

153. Not just that ....

But a bronze plan is what many can afford, and ONLY afford. Which means they don't dare use it. The only thing it's really good for is catastrophic coverage. Never mind the fact that the deductible alone can still throw wrenches into the budgets of the majority of paycheck to paycheck workers and their families.

Bronze plan for a middle age woman, single, no kids - (just as a test run for plans)

Deductible
$5,200

Pretty darn sure people would rather pay a sales tax than deal with that kind of deductible.

Single payer please.

[merrily]

154. Sorry, I've been wrong to fall for the pretense that this is really about Medicare for All when

it's so obviously about Hillary.

[Mother Of Four]

155. ...

Your response confused me. I was agreeing that the majority would probably much prefer single payer? Myself included.

[merrily]

156. No, no, my response is not about you or about Medicare for All.

You and I are both for Medicare for All, I got that.

It's that I just woke up to what's really going on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1012463

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1012549

[Mother Of Four]

157. Ah gotcha ....

I understand now

[merrily]

158. Yep. Facts won't matter.

[Fawke Em]

99. You can if you tell them the amount they'd save paying taxes

verses forking over their income to greedy insurance companies.

In this case, they'd save about 12.5 percent of their income.

[Doctor_J]

101. It's the job of the Clintonites to echo GOP talking points, yes.

That much is clear.

[Armstead]

105. Except when it's expedient to parrot a liberal line

[Broward]

29. The average family will save money.

If only all of the candidates and the media would publicize that.

[sufrommich]

43. Some would save money,others wouldn't. Union members

who pay way less than non union members would lose money. It doesn't really matter though,national healthcare will come in small increments in this country and most likely will start with voluntary buy ins. Sanders can try to sell it if he chooses,it's hard not to notice that he's being very cautious about selling it though and I think that's intentional.

[Samantha]

169. I don't believe that is true because he will be taxing the middle class a modest amount

to pay for the maternity leave for women having a child. I think the period of the leave would be two months, and the method for paying for it would in fact be income taxes which would average something like $1.42 per week to cover it.

I am struggling right now, and will not be having any more children, but I would happily agree to that amount for that reason, and I believe many people would be comfortable with that.

Sam

[Robbins]

11. Paying national sales tax will be cheaper than health care now

people get into financial trouble now due to health care or don't have enough to pay for health care.

[evlbstrd]

12. It doesn't require a sales tax.

Double my Medicare tax and I still pay less than insurance premiums, copays, etc.

[Hoyt]

26. Don't disagree with single payer, but doubling our Medicare tax won't be enough.

It would take more than that, but of course we wouldn't be paying premiums. I'm betting we'll need at least a boost of 8 percentage points in taxes to pay for it. I'm fine with a tax replacing premiums, but all most folks will hear is 8+% tax hike.

[exboyfil]

57. I don't even know if we can reach the German efficiency level

but if we did, it would be 15% of income (split between employer/employee). Medicare is 2.9% of income so we are talking about a five fold increase in that withholding tax.

[Hoyt]

70. It would definitely be a lot, as Vermont found out when they ended their bold experiment to enact

single payer for the state. Folks keep saying it didn't work because the state's population is too small to spread the risk. I think they are wrong about that, but that's their rationale.

I want single payer of something close, but folks who think we will get it anytime soon are dreaming, especially if they think we will get single payer with no or low deductibles and coinsurance, dental, hearing aids, decent nursing home care for life, etc. I want all of that for everyone, but I just don't see it happening here anytime soon.

[RichVRichV]

104. That's looking only at payroll income.

Hit capital gains the same as payroll and it changes the whole conversation. That's what Colorado is looking at doing.

Besides I already pay 8% of my check into insurance plus Medicare. Even 15% wouldn't be that big a change for me.

[Human101948]

31. Yes! Health care costs are half in other developed countries and outcomes are better!

This entire argument about paying for healtcare is based on the idea that U.S. costs are necessarily sky high to provide good care. They are not!

The United States health care system is the most expensive in the world, but this report and prior editions consistently show the U.S. underperforms relative to other countries on most dimensions of performance. Among the 11 nations studied in this report—Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in the 2010, 2007, 2006, and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last or near last on dimensions of access, efficiency, and equity.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror

Even Cuba with a very, very poorly funded system does better!

Figures from the World Health Organization clearly show that The United States lags behind 36 other countries in overall health system performance ranging from infant mortality, to adult mortality, to life expectancy.

20 countries in Europe and four countries in Asia have a better life expectancy than the U.S. If you are a male between the ages of 15 and 59, your chances of dying are higher in the U.S. (140 per thousand) than in Canada, 95, Costa Rica 127, Chile 134, and Cuba, 138.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-fleetwood/cuba-has-better-medical-c_b_19664.html

It is not about money, it's about capitalists sucking the blood out of the populace like the slimey leeches they are.

[ReasonableToo]

62. ^^^this^^^ and, if necessary, supplement with sales tax on CERTAIN items

extra tax on certain things such as
-driving/speeding tickets/other moving violations (wouldn't be a hit on people that either can't afford to drive or choose not to)
-sugary foods
-cigarettes/cigars

have extra premiums come from folks that are responsible for maintaining accident-free zones such as businesses with on-site employees and walk-in customers and incentives to reduce payments for accident-free time periods and health & safety programs.

NO extra tax on fresh produce and non-GMO/organic foods, health clubs etc

bottom line: I'd go along with what respected, objective, lobby-free consultants/professionals/economists recommend. If it includes some form of sales tax then, yes, I'm for it.

[PyaarRevolution]

109. Wait, wait...

NO extra tax?! There should be NO sales tax on those foods you mention. You and I both know that is a regressive tax, punishing poor people, getting them to pay a rich persons share of the taxes.

[ReasonableToo]

127. "Those foods" = "sugary foods"

I stand by support for a Health care supplemental tax on sugary foods (that's the only food I specified for taxing) that offer little if any nutrients for the sugar content. I don't care how much you make. If you are buying soda, candy etc, you can kick in for the care required to treat diabetes and other health problems.

Likewise, if food contains more than 33% fat or is high in sodium, I don't mind a supplemental tax on that too.

[PyaarRevolution]

139. I was referring...

To non-GMO/Organic foods you mentioned. You seemed to indicate that a regional sales tax is fine which I VEHEMENTLY disagree with.
Also, I think you just saying having a supplemental tax on food with more than 33% fat seems a bit too generalized to me. I don't think foods containing plant fats like Coconut Oil should have that tax. A plants saturated fats are completely different than animal saturated fat. Coconut Oil is considered good for your skin and ingesting it is fine for you too due to the MCFA's(Medium Chain Fatty Acids). If those taxes are applied haphazardly(much like the Obama Administration or physicians used BMI as an Obese indicator) then you could do some harm as well.
In terms of sugars I have an issue. If it's sugar cane, be it whole Cane sugar, like Rapunzel's sugar, date sugar or fruit syrup we should measure accordingly; however, if it's bare fructose or High Fructose Corn Syrup have at it.

[ReasonableToo]

144. not interested in hashing out finite details at this point in time.

ok with taxing unhealthy foods. not ok with taxing very healthy foods. everything in the middle is up for negotiation.

open to what experts propose. open to see what evolves.

have a nice day.

[cleanhippie]

149. I feel the same as you, but am curious to know why organic and non-gmo food would be exempt

when their non-organic/gmo counterparts would be taxed.

It seems as if you are implying that (for example) organic carrots are not the same nutritionally as regular carrots.

[ReasonableToo]

160. Me: NO extra tax on fresh produce

If the policy makers determine a general tax on all goods is the way to go, I'd advocate for exemption for healthy foods including ALL produce as well as products that are deemed to be healthy choices.

A few years ago, Food Lion grocery store hired an independent group to assess the products they sold. They gave some products stars to indicate healthy choices. For example, low-fat, low-sodium sweet potato chips might have one star while regular potato chips would have zero stars. Most (if not all) produce had the maximum of three stars.

Healthy foods like fresh produce - tax exempt to encourage good choices
Particularly unhealthy foods - extra tax to go to diabetes care and other interventions that will likely be needed when these products are routinely purchased

If the policy makers determine that there should not be a general tax on all goods then I'd still advocate for a tax on the particularly unhealthy foods.

If we can finally get to single payer, the gov will have an incentive to determine once and for all if putting pesticides and whatever the round-up ready concoction is INTO FOODS is ok or harmful. If they determine that gmo is harmful and non-gmo is not then hopefully they will end the pesticides and it won't need to be encouraged or discouraged via taxation.

[cleanhippie]

161. It seems you are open to following the science, wherever that takes us.

And I can't argue with that.

[ReasonableToo]

163. Cool. Glad we are in agreement. :-)

Now if we can just get FDA to follow the science rather than the likes of Monsanto...

[cleanhippie]

165. Well, at least they do follow science, not the psuedo-science peddled by anti-GMO groups.

So there's that.

[CTyankee]

170. I would add that we should also tax alcoholic beverages, altho we do that here in CT

at a pretty high rate (not sure about the exact percentage. I am a wine drinker but I'm ok with raising the tax on it.

[Punkingal]

13. Yes, I would rather pay a tax than an insurance premium.

[m-lekktor]

14. HELL YES! no brainer. nt

[mmonk]

15. If necessary. But we won't know the numbers

until savings are calculated. All our systems will be rolled into one. No middle man. A healthier populace than is currently under Medicare. Etc etc. Orher systems are cheaper than ours. If ours was cheaper, no one would be proposing anything different.

[EdwardBernays]

27. More expansive AND worse

Pay more get less, that's how the US system works.

[Cal33]

16. Why not try something like increasing the taxes on those making $300,000 and more/year first?

The upper 1% have been getting away with paying lower percentage taxes than the middle
classes for a long, long time. Why not make them pay back some of their ill-gotten gains?
We should try this first, and then see how it comes out.

WE DON'T OWE THEM! THEY OWE IT TO US!!!

[Hoyt]

34. Do you have any idea how much you'd have to tax them to keep from taxing lower income

people? I'm fine with taking a big chunk of the 1%, 5%, 10%ers, etc., but it won't be enough to pay for the whole system. Plus, we do have other things we need to pay for too -- education, welfare, etc. It would help to drastically cut defense. It will take a combination of all that to get us single payer or something close. But, we need to start figuring out how to do all this.

[Yavin4]

48. You need an entirely new source of revenue to replace the existing health insurance system

You cannot pay for it by raising taxes on high income earners. EVERYONE has to pay into the system through sales taxes.

[Cal33]

133. Didn't Sanders say that he was going to go for the Single Payer system with universal coverage? He

did say that the Single Payer system would cost less than what we are paying now, and everybody
would be covered.

The price for health care has gotten out of hand for a long time, and can only get worse. The
government has to step in to stop these greedy people who brought it on.

[Cal33]

75. That's why I wrote to give it a try first to see how it will come out. My question to you is, Do

you know how much taxes the Super-Rich are getting away with? Some of them, with all their
loop-holes, and some of the oil barons were even getting government subsidies -- all of which
are paid for by taxing the lower-income citizens. That's us.

We could begin by eliminating Welfare for the Rich first, then, if necessary, increase the taxes
on those making #300,000 and over. And, if that still should be not enough, then increase the
taxes on everyone. This increase for everyone should be far less, when Corporate Welfare has
been removed first.

Of the links below, start reading the lowest one first. It's the most shocking! I think there is
a misprint of the figure 5.3 trillion in the first link.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/06/09/report-shows-oil-industry-benefits-5-3-trillion-subsidies-annually.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2014/03/14/where-is-the-outrage-over-corporate-welfare/#2715e4857a0b2f1c3bac6881

http://usuncut.com/class-war/10-corporate-welfare-programs-that-will-make-your-blood-boil/

[Hoyt]

93. Even the legitimate stuff in that list doesn't approach the $3 trillion we spend on health annually.

I don't disagree with condemning things on the list, but the figures are a bit loose.

Theoretically, if we eliminated things like 30+ billion to oil companies, a big portion would come back as increased prices. Drugs are still a relatively small part of health care expenditures, and they do eliminate other costs. The $80k Hep C drug eliminates a lot of hospitalizations, etc., and it's not that much cheaper in Canada and England.

But, every savings helps and paying taxes is better than premiums. People just don't get it.

[Cal33]

130. Here's a link stating that Corporate Welfare costs the average American family $6,000 per year. Do

you mean that we should simply allow this highway robbery to continue, just because fighting them
would be extremely difficult? Talk about enabling, aiding and abetting the criminals, who should
actually be in jail !!

A Republican president would very likely continue to encourage this sort of thing, but Bernie Sanders
and Elizabeth Warren will most definitely do their best to fight against this like any decent
government official should. It's their job!



http://www.commondreams.org/views/2013/09/23/add-it-average-american-family-pays-6000-year-subsidies-big-business

[Hoyt]

132. No. Are you being purposely obtuse. I mean, Sanders isn't going to change that.

Therefore, we won't have a chance to try it out. Hell, his own state -- Vermont -- gave up on single payer because the governor knew people were too stupid to understand a 12% increase in taxes would be better than paying premiums.

Sanders might as tell us he's going to conquer cancer. It's a laudable goal that I support. He can throw all the money in the world at it -- tax everyone 100% -- but at the end of 8 years, people are still going to be dying of cancer. We might be closer to a cure and develop new treatments that extend life a few weeks or months, but the cancer will still be there.

At least Clinton understands the political realities and I firmly believe will move us further down that road than Sanders shooting for Pluto.

[Cal33]

134. There is no point in discussing this further. You think your way, and I'll think mine.

[Hoyt]

136. I used to think like you right up until George McGovern lost in a landslide.

Nothing wrong with being optimistic and shooting for the moon. But in politics, reality is also important.

[Cal33]

137. Just read my msg. 135, which is near the top of the page. And read the link.

[exboyfil]

76. We also need to figure out where to get $150B/yr. for 20 years

to cover the loans our Treasury took out from the Social Security Trust Fund.

The rapid increase in costs for Long Term Care, Acute Care, and direct payment through Medicaid which will be $300B/yr. in 2024 than it is today.

LTC alone will be $60B more a year by then.

[Cal33]

88. I think hospitals, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and doctors over-charge.

I've lived several years in Europe. They charge much less and people get better service.

As president, could Bernie make a ceiling for what doctors and the above-mentioned
institutions charge? I believe so. Medicare already pays only a fraction of what doctors
charge. The same can be demanded of hospitals as well as pharmaceutical and insurance
companies.

The American people have been cheated and robbed long enough. Elizabeth Warren's
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rules should be strictly enforced from now on.

[Orangepeel]

148. Like with an executive order? No, he could not

The president could not impose a ceiling on what companies and doctors charge.

[Cal33]

162. Medicare pays only a percentage of what doctors charge. The doctors who take

Medicare patients must agree to this stipulation. So, it's already being done.

[Armstead]

17. Yep

Can't scare me with GOP talking points.

[potone]

18. European countries are not paying a fortune for defense.

The proportion of our taxes that go to the Pentagon is obscene. Any discussion of tax increases for the average American needs to start with an examination of where our taxes currently go and why.

[winter is coming]

117. ^^ This. I have difficulty believing we truly need to spend *that* much for defense.

If we do, let's figure out why, and what we're getting for our money. If we're going to spend that much money on our country, I'd rather see it go to infrastructure, education, and healthcare.

[EdwardBernays]

21. [cough] bullshit [cough]

It's not sales tax in the UK.

That's not how the French do it.

Maybe you can find some examples, but... it's certainly not done like that across the board in Europe. And I live in Europe.

As for HAVING to campaign to raise a tax, that's not EVER how people campaign. People campaign on the result of taxation, not taxation.

But a FAIR tax, that closed corporate loopholes, guaranteed saving on healthcare costs, guaranteed universal healthcare, made state universities free, raised taxes on the 1% AND raised my personal payroll tax by 5% or less... yeah I'd campaign on that package.

[Yavin4]

51. Value-added tax

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-added_tax


France 20%[15] 10% or 5.5% or 2.1% TVA Taxe sur la valeur ajoutée

United Kingdom 20%[32]
0% on Channel Islands and Gibraltar (not part of EU VAT area) 5% residential energy/insulation/renovations, feminine hygiene products, child safety seats and mobility aids and 0% for life necessities – basic food, water, prescription medications, medical equipment and medical supply, public transport, children's clothing, books and periodicals. Also 0% for new building construction (but standard rate for building demolition, modifications, renovation etc.) VAT Value Added Tax

[EdwardBernays]

58. National Insurance contribution

National insurance contribution

The Welfare state in the United Kingdom was built on the principle of National insurance contributions. In order to qualify for certain benefits the claimant, or in some cases their partner, must meet contribution conditions.

The contributions component of the system, "National Insurance Contributions" (NICs), paid by employees and employers on earnings, and by employers on certain benefits-in-kind provided to employees. The self-employed contribute partly by a fixed weekly or monthly payment, and partly on a percentage of net profits above a certain threshold. Individuals may also make voluntary contributions, in order to fill a gap in their contributions record and thus protect their entitlement to benefits. Contributions are collected by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) through the PAYE system, along with Income Tax and repayments of Student Loans.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_insurance_contribution

So yes, you don't know what you're talking about.

[enlightenment]

64. VAT is not the primary funding mechanism for

single payer systems in any of the 140+ countries that impose it, and your snip from Wikipedia doesn't show that, either. All it is saying is that there is no VAT charged for things related to medical care.

VAT is used across the board in most countries, as a general revenue stream. In the UK - since that's the snip you used - a portion of taxpayers income goes to pay into the system that funds the NHS.

Some portion of VAT may (or may not) go to health services, but it is not the primary method.

[EdwardBernays]

79. Exactly right

And one has to assume the OP was just a Chelsea.

[TubbersUK]

145. Correct

The NHS is funded out of general taxation/National Insurance (98.8%) and minor charges (1.2%)

There is no direct linkage between VAT and NHS funding.

VAT constitutes around 13% of government revenue.

ETA: The NHS pre-dates VAT by several decades.

[marlakay]

24. If it is the same as my friend in Australia

Then yes, hell yes. She got hurt in a bad accident, she was driving a cart and horses when something spooked horses and they each went a different way causing cart to flip over, she tried to jump off but it still caught her leg. Numerous surgeries, doctor appts, medicine, physical therapy, weekly massages, etc and her final bill for all was $200. Oh and that includes the medical helicoptor that flew her to Sydney few hours away too!

Reason I know all that was it happened during the big healthcare fight 5 years ago so we talked about it.

Even with medical insurance I find myself not wanting to go to doctor to do tests or check on things because I always end up owing hundreds of dollars for my part, and thats with Blue Cross covering 80% and $20 for office visits.

[Yavin4]

32. Great story. Here's how they pay for those services

The goods and services tax[1] (GST) in Australia is a value added tax of 10% on most goods and services sales. GST is levied on most transactions in the production process, but is refunded to all parties in the chain of production other than the final consumer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods_and_services_tax_(Australia)

So, there you go. Everyone pays 10% more for their goods and services.

[enlightenment]

69. No.

That isn't how they pay for services.

Take a look at this accounting from 2011 and find where GST is counted as a revenue stream for Australian Health and Welfare. Check the appendices, too - you wouldn't want to miss a detail somewhere.

http://www.aihw.gov.au/aihw-annual-report-2011/app9/


Let us know when you find it, okay?

[noiretextatique]

111. Sales tax is 9% where I live

What is your point? The point is to get some benefit from the taxes, which has not been happening here.

[TubbersUK]

147. No

Last edited Fri Jan 15, 2016, 11:51 AM - Edit history (2)

As per the UK, it's funded from general taxation/revenue.

In neither country is VAT hypothecated for healthcare.

ETA: And I see that the French fund their healthcare via national insurance levied on income - again, not via ring-fenced VAT.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/grants-and-fellowships/fellowships/australian-american-health-policy-fellowship/health-care-system-and-health-policy-in-australia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Australia

[Myrina]

30. Yes, except we don't need to. Cut military spending by a couple percent.

The defense industry wouldn't even notice the cut. The leftover money could fund Single Payer and then some.

[Yavin4]

35. Not enough money. Not nearly enough.

It's a fantasy to believe that you can cut defense spending and pay for a Single payer healthcare program which replaces private health insurance entirely.

In addition, you would also have to implement major cost controls as well.

[Myrina]

37. So cut it by 50%. We have the biggest military budget in the history of everyone forever anywhere.

What is your agenda?

[Yavin4]

53. My agenda is truth.

The truth is that if you want an array of social services comparable to Europe, then you have to pay for them with new taxes. This is comparable to when Republicans campaign on cutting taxes without listing the programs that they would cut to pay for those taxes.

Promising something to the public without detailing the costs (either higher taxes or lost services) is pandering.

[exboyfil]

59. Exactly!!!

Unfortunately in today's political climate, you can't get to first base by pulling the white board out and working through this stuff. That should be the purpose of the debates, but it is not. Everyone thinks there is a magic rabbit that won't mean pain for them.

[whatthehey]

67. Why not the whole truth then?

You've been corrected several times on this obsession with sales taxes as opposed to income taxes for a start.

You ignore that we are already paying for medical care through insurance premiums, taxes (Medicare/aid/Federal etc). It doesn't need to be paid for twice does it? What then makes these "new taxes" additional? Does anyone sane care if they pay a tax or a premium for the same care?


There is nothing in your truth that considers the savings from negoitiating drug prices and provider fees like every other governmental health system but ours does very well, or from cutting out the profits that pay for things like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aetna#/media/File:Aetna_building_in_Hartford.gk.jpg

[exboyfil]

73. The humorous thing would be if

you got the companies that currently offer health insurance to agree to move employees to a single pay system (lets say through a payroll tax like Medicare). My employer proudly shows how much it spends for my premiums on each paystub. Lets say the change would be revenue neutral for the employers and any difference is reflected in increased or decreased pay. Suddenly we will be hearing about how the employers were not actually paying that much.

My example - Employer claims they pay $12,605/yr for a high deductible medical and dental policy (very good insurance once you pony up about $5K). I pay $3,000/yr. So I basically know I am out $8K for health costs per year (less $1,400 HSA contribution from employer).

Lets say we go to a European system. This would increase my/my employer withholdings from 2.9% (Medicare) to 15% (lets be optimistic). The 6.05% additional payroll tax should represent significant savings to my employer. That savings should show up in my paycheck.

No way do I believe that my company actually spends $12K/yr.

[underpants]

106. Agenda is truth

I'm really just marking this thread so I can come back to it. You are correct - the OP is getting corrected repeatedly. I am learning so much, like don't make a declaration of agenda is truth.

[tularetom]

36. Right now my wife and I are paying approximately $1100 per month for Medicare and a supplement

I can't imagine paying this much sales tax under any scenario, so yes, I'm willing to impose a national sales tax to cover the cost of single payer.

[Yavin4]

55. Look over your spending on goods/services on a monthly basis.

And then raise that spending by 10%. If that hike comes out less than your $1100, then you come out ahead.

[tularetom]

63. I'd have to be spending $11k a month before I'd lose money

I don't think I'm spending that much.

I'm not sure I really understand how a VAT works. If the tax is added to each stage of the process, isn't the tax really compounded by the time the product or service reaches the end user?

[ieoeja]

121. VAT is a sales tax on services rather than goods.

You pay VAT on plumbers, electricians, doctors, lawyers, car mechanics, etc. You do not pay VAT on clothes, food, cell phones, game stations, televisions, toasters, etc.

As the other poster has flipped back and forth between "sales tax" and "VAT", I don't know if s/he is saying we would have to impose both or just does not realize that VAT is only on services. If s/he really believes we could do it with a national VAT, then you would have to spend $11k a month restoring your house, repairing your car, seeing your doctor, or suing that asshole who drove your car through the wall of your house running over you while you were watching the television**.

Of course, all this ignores the fact that we could make it a tax on income. Even there Sanders' proposal only includes earned income, not investment income. Though he has previously suggested it could be paid for by a sales tax on Wall Steet activity.


[font size=1]**That would be the television upon which you paid no VAT.[/font]

[tularetom]

143. Actually, as it is imposed in Canada and Australia, it is a tax on goods AND services

In those countries, at least, it is alternatively referred to as a VAT and/or a GST (goods and services tax).

In the EU, it is a tax on goods and services, although the rate varies by country and certain products are taxed at lower rates to encourage production.

I think the term, value added tax, was something dreamed up by politicians to make the tax sound more palatable to those paying it.

[ljm2002]

39. I much prefer income taxes to pay for it...

...as income taxes are progressive while sales taxes are regressive.

The government will take its pound of flesh one way or the other, so let's distribute the burden fairly.

[marmar]

40. Yep.

[tk2kewl]

41. sales taxes are regressive. tax the rich.

[Hiraeth]

78. point taken

[jeff47]

81. Which is why the OP is claiming sales taxes are the only way to fund single payer.

The OP opposes single payer, and so is claiming a regressive tax is the only way to pay for it.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

98. Yes, and the OP has done nothing to explain how this just has to be done with sales taxes.

He starts from a vantage point of sales taxes being a given. I reject this narrow thinking.

[onecaliberal]

42. Yes, and yes... Your entire premise is false.

[Hiraeth]

46. I AM ALREADY PAYING MORE IN PREMIUMS AND DEDUCTIBLES THAN THE TAX RATE. HELL YEAH !!!

I WILL BE GLAD TO PAY LESS !!!

[kath]

74. yes! thanks for putting it in all caps for the neuronally-challenged.

My approach to that yesterday was to write it out one. Word. At. A. Time.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1003973 (post#9)

Both ways work!

[Hiraeth]

83. IT TAKES WHAT IT TAKES TO GET OUT THE VOTE. THANKS !!

[Ed Suspicious]

47. I would be willing to fund it with a sensible and progressive

mix of taxes and fees, including capital gains and inheritance taxes, to be paid out of the general fund, not tied specifically to any tax scheme.

[Motown_Johnny]

49. Yes. although that is regressive. I like Bernie's plan better. n/t

[Ichingcarpenter]

50. The US consumer spends $20 billion on soft drinks

tax that and at the same time lower obesity and diabetes and help fiance health care. This isn't rocket science.

[DinahMoeHum]

52. Yes.

n/t

[elleng]

54. Yes,

if it were necessary. Won't pay premiums to insurance companies for 'health care' any longer.

[bowens43]

56. Whatever it takes

[bigwillq]

61. Yes (nt)

[vkkv]

66. Yes___________________________ n/t

[Politicub]

68. I pay $350/month for my plan through the exchange

Which isn't far from my share of my old plan through an employer. The upside is I started my own business.

[Buzz cook]

71. No

A sales tax is extremely regressive with the burden falling predominately on the lower economic class.

It would be more appropriate to have a payroll tax, as we have with Medicare, but without a ceiling.

[Matariki]

72. No. Income tax. Sales taxes are regressive.

[AJH032]

167. Exactly

I wish more people would see this.

[daleanime]

77. Yes.....

but there are better ways to pay for it.

[jeff47]

80. If you oppose single payer, can you do it without lying?

VAT isn't the primary funding for single payer systems in Europe.

[redstatebluegirl]

82. Yes!

After almost being bankrupted having a chronic back issue, this is with insurance, I am more than willing to pay a little more sales tax to have single payer. Now with that said, I would also like to go back to the tax brackets pre GWB that taxed the rich at a fair rate, that would go a long way towards paying for single payer!

[AgingAmerican]

84. Or an income tax

Insurance is already deducted from my paycheck. Would just replace that and I would no longer have to pay deductibles and copays.

[WDIM]

85. Id rather pay taxes than be forced to pay for corporate greed.

Instead of paying greedy corporate health insurance companies. Take the money i already pay for health insurance and apply it to single payer. Its pretty simple.

We know from medicare the Gov is more efficient at healthcare than private insurance companies.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

89. Yes. Europe seems to be doing well despite a sales tax.

[avebury]

90. Unfortunately I would have to say no.

I live in Oklahoma which is trying very hard to become the state with the highest state sales tax rate. It is currently 8.375% and they want to vote to increase it to 9.375 this November. Out budget is in the crapper. Republicans want to give all the tax breaks to the oil industry and wealthy. Education is a sacred cow that doesn't make the best use of education dollars so they want to increase the sales tax rate for education. Of course David Boren, President of University of Oklahoma, wants a slice of that pie. This at a time when sales tax revenue in Oklahoma City is down a lot resulting in budget issues for the City of OKC. Assessing a sales tax for a single payer single health care system will negatively impact most those who can't afford it, the poor.

I grew up in Maine, a state that has a lot smaller sales tax rate then Oklahoma. A lot of people go to New Hampshire for their big ticket spending because NH does not have a sales tax.

I have already really started cutting back on my spending and will do so even more if the sales tax vote passes this fall. I am on a fixed income and cannot afford for my taxes to go up.

It is long past time that corporations that pay little to no income tax step up and stop being welfare hogs. Why should lower income level people be forced to pay more and more when there are corporations and the uber wealthy who pay little to no taxes.

[WDIM]

96. If we just paid what we are already paying to corporations

and pay that to a single payer system it would be more than enough. There is no reason people need to pay more.

Definately need to go after corporate tax dodgers and bring corporate and capital gains tax codes back to the level they were in the 90s

[avebury]

140. I am one of the lucky ones in that I don't have

to pay anything for my healthcare as we get a benefit allowance and if you are single, it is sufficient to pay your insurance costs. If I actually had to pay the full cost I would not be able to afford it.

If we went to a single payer system I would imagine that benefit allowance would go away and I for sure could not afford it.

[Mnpaul]

91. Sure why not

I already pay sales tax to pay for someone else's healthcare. It would be nice if I got something out of it.

[Skwmom]

92. You don't have to use a national sales tax. n/t

[DisgustipatedinCA]

94. I reject the central thesis--that sales taxes must be raised in order to accomplish this.

You keep saying "because Europe", but you haven't explained how this cannot be done with payroll taxes.

Still, if it came down to it, yes, I'd support the sales tax idea.

[Fawke Em]

95. The current proposals have it paid for by a slight income tax.

The tax would be far, far, far less than the premiums and co-pays we're now chained to insurance companies to pay.

[Doctor_J]

100. I am really tired of Republicans and DINOs telling me why we can't have healthcare LIKE EVERY OTHER

COUNTRY.

Posts like yours come directly from the far right playbook.

We already spend 3 times as much for healthcare, per capita, than the other countries, and our results are among the worst. So stop saying that we can't afford it. Or take it up with hate radio. They agree with you

[cantbeserious]

102. Yes

eom

[Clifton]

103. I' m American - in the UK - the NHS is great - you would love it.

I'm a US Citizen - living in England right now. I live with someone who has many health problems so I can say for a fact that the NHS here is without a doubt extremely good to their citizens. Everything needed is supplied free, treatment, in home nurse & Doctor visits, equipment, medicines, drugs. They even deliver special beds, toilets, guard rails, etc. - and they do it courteously and happily. This and other public services are paid for with a VAT. They wouldn't give it up for anything and they fight any political moves to cut the services.
Also if you visit here or another EU country and have an accident, you'll be given free emergency treatment. Outpatient care would have to be paid for but it's still cheaper than the US.
Additionally the quality of care here is for the most part better than the US.
I'm a Vet so my care is free through the VA which is also very good, I've had no complaints so far other than not being funded sufficiently by our Representatives in congress properly.
The USA needs Bernie to get everything back on track and working for all of us.
I once thought HRC would be good for America but the more I learn about her the more I dislike her, she is a corrupt establishment politician.
Cliff

[TubbersUK]

110. Yes, the NHS truly is a gift :)

and at only 9.1 % of GDP, a real bargain.

Just one tiny point, it is funded from general taxation/NI (98.8%) and minor fees (1.2%).

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS
http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/how-nhs-funded

[Mnemosyne]

166. It makes too much sense, most US politicos don't have the sense Dog gave a carrot.

Thanks for the info and welcome to DU, Clifton!

I spoke with some Canadian ladies that were at an outlet mall in Pa., a few years ago, and they are horrified by our health insurance. There were 3 or 4 women ranging in age from 40 to 75, iirc. They actually said they felt sorry for "Americans" having to deal with our "atrocious system". I was a bit taken aback at how vehement the one woman was about her opinion of US healthcare or rather the lack of such.

When I think of the propaganda the public has been fed about Canadian health care, which is actual care, it really, really ticks me off.

Pure greed drives our system. Sad state really, though better with the ACA

[PyaarRevolution]

107. As long as it's not on groceries.

But then I believe NO sales tax should be levied on uncooked food.

[Recursion]

108. Interesting: many responders read this to say we would "have to" do a VAT, which you didn't say

Your question was "would that be a trade you would accept?"

I would be fine with a VAT as a way to pay for health care, personally.

[Yavin4]

115. The responders on this thread remind me of Republicans who want tax cuts without saying what...

services they want to cut. I'm all for Single Payer, but I am also all for making EVERYONE pay into it as well like Medicare and Social Security. In other countries with Single Payer, everyone pays into it which is why it gets the political support that it gets.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

120. The anti-tax guy tells me I remind him of a Republican? I think not.

Get your own conservative problems straightened out before you start throwing stones.

[Yavin4]

124. Okay. You have a reading comprehension problem.

I am all for a Single Payer healthcare system. I am also for paying for it with new taxes. I think that a sales tax works best because it forces everyone to pay into the system which builds political support for it. You cannot have a new entitlement where only a portion of the population pays for it.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

125. No, I believe my old English major is helping me to barely get by, somehow.

And somehow, despite the reading comprehension problem, I was able to watch you move the goalposts from "regressive sales tax required" to "Yavin4 would prefer a regressive sales tax". "Works best" is a far cry from a requirement.

[ieoeja]

123. Almost every fucking responder on this thread has said, "yes, raise taxes".

So how the fuck did what you just post make even the slightest bit of sense?

[arcane1]

126. They are playing their designated role. Poorly, yes, but still playing it n/t

[valerief]

113. If it's a lot less than my $700+ a month for ACA, then shit yes! nt

[Maedhros]

114. The amount of sales tax I will pay will be far less than the premiums and deductibles

I'm paying now.

[EndElectoral]

116. I'm paying a heckuva lot more on medical premiums than I am sales tax.

So yeah, I'd pay more on sales tax if it takes this headache away.

[Orsino]

119. False framing. We can tax anything we want to pay for it.

Taxing inheritance or stock transactions are are couple of other possibilities that spring to mind.

[sonofspy777]

128. Yes especially if it includes

medications! Such a deal!

[drm604]

129. No. It should be a progressive income tax, or possibly some kind of financial transaction tax.

Sales taxes are regressive.

[Vinca]

131. That's a great idea and relatively painless.

There should be exemptions for food, prescription drugs and clothing up to $100 though.

[LittleBlue]

138. Sure. Normally I hate sales tax but

in this case, it would save everyone money. Even the middle class and poor, who are hit the hardest on sales tax, would benefit by bringing down substantially the cost of health care.

[applegrove]

141. We have that in Canada. Poor people get money back from the tax service 4 times a year. Think of all

the shopping that is excessive in our society. A tax on that and hair cuts and restaurants goes to health care. It works.

[shanti]

142. Absolutely! n/t

[seabeyond]

146. About a 28% tax. Nt.

[Blue_In_AK]

151. Sure, if we don't have to pay insurance premiums.

[darkangel218]

152. Make it a poll please.

My answer is YES.

[MariaThinks]

159. yes

[FourScore]

164. It would be a whole lot less than what I am currently paying in deductibles. n/t

[TexasBushwhacker]

168. I prefer a payroll tax with no cap n/t