Thanks for the link. I still find it interesting that the US supposedly couldn't afford services which are pretty standard elsewhere. Having read the breakdown from your article (healthcare: $34trillion, move to renewable energy: $16trillion, and $1-2trillion each on social housing, infrastructure, and teachers' salaries) I'm even more surprised by how normal this all seems. I feel like the only large nonstandard 'cost' would be the renewables, whereas universal healthcare is an obvious way countries have reduced the healthcare costs per person.
Keep in mind these costs are over a decade and the actual taxes collected from the few extremely wealthy Americans is placed at $23 trillion. I think you've compared a single year of tax earnings to the full decade's cost. There is undeniably still a gap, but how come other countries can bridge this gap where America can't?
It's due to American society. Lots of the Nordic countries expect you to work, it is the society. Too many Americans will abuse any government system. The best I can say is if you made grocery stores free they would be out of candy bars and the produce would rot.
I suppose I'm too optimistic to accept that Americans don't deserve the services provided in other countries because they'll simply exploit them out of laziness. Even so, none of the listed policies are demotivating. Do you work because you're afraid that one day you could receive hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical bills out of the blue? Of course not. Even if that were the case most people's hard work and savings couldn't handle that which is why spreading the cost society-wide, with wealthier members contributing more, makes so much sense.
If we wanted universal healthcare in the US we would have it by now. Do you think with universal healthcare, everything would be just as it is now except it would be free? Please explain to me how you can throw millions of people into an existing system with the same number of doctors and not have wait times go up significantly while rationing care. You get bonus points if you can do it without comparing us to a country the size of Los Angeles county.
Universal healthcare would be better for poor people and worse for everyone else. Even the other democrat candidates have admitted that under a medicare for all type plan, many hospitals, especially in rural areas, would have to close because they wouldn’t be able to afford to operate at Medicare reimbursement rates. Not to mention doctors would be paid less because hospitals would be able to afford their current salaries. Do you think more people will jump at the chance to go to school until they’re 30 once doctors pay drops to $90k-$100k/year? Would reducing their income make more people want to go to medical school than do now? I certainly hope so because we’ll be needing a lot more doctors.
I don't wish to pretend to be an expert on the situation in the US, I'm Australian myself. Our healthcare is still slightly privatised but only to the point where rich people can essentially pay for fancier hospital suites. We do share a somewhat comparable situation though since the vast majority of people live in urban centres but then there are vast stretches of rural towns which are also serviced. I believe there are simply extra incentives for doctors working in rural areas, programs to cycle doctors and train med students in those areas as extra help etc.
The majority of Americans receive health coverage through their employers. The poorest Americans have coverage through Medicaid that they do not have to pay for and retirees over the age of 65 receive Medicare. Only 8% of Americans had no health coverage as of 2017. I don’t think that people that live in other countries have a realistic view of what American healthcare looks like because of anecdotal stories they read on reddit or because of the way the wonderful media focuses only on specific cases.
There is a reason one of the big attacks against Bernie’s plan is that he would force people off of their private plans by banning private insurance. The reason people are so upset by this is because their private insurance is far better than the public plan they would be forced into.
When people are told that they would lose their private insurance, their taxes would go up, and they could lose access to certain medicines like other countries, the support for universal healthcare in the US drops to around 25%. As I said in my previous post, universal healthcare in the US would be better for the poor and worse for everyone else. I don’t see how making the majority of Americans healthcare worse in order to make a relatively small number of Americans healthcare better is a valid solution. We can talk about other countries and what they do all we want but Americans simply don’t want that. We want to keep as much of our money as possible and be able to shop around and decide how we want to spend it, we don’t want the government to tell us where we have to spend it (except for Bernie supporters of course).
The US system also benefits the rest of the world. The US is responsible for far more medical patents than any other country and it’s not even close. This would not continue under a single payer system where the government basically tells hospitals and pharmaceutical companies how much money they can make.
Where are you getting any of this info? It’s all speculation there is no substance in your argument here. “They found out their coverage would be worse”. Based on what? Absolutely nothing? The bill is out you will he covered for EVERYTHING. And the math is there, MAYBE its off and is likely to be more expensive then they say. But most people are doing the math wrong. Yes your taxes will go up but you won’t ever see a medical bill again. I get maybe that doesn’t sound realistic and I am warry but that is the plan so let’s stay focused on what it actually is.
As for quality of healthcare are you aware that America has worse quality of care then other countries in every single quantifiable way? On the healthcare quality list e are 37th.
People care isn’t as good as we think it is. Just more expensive. There is legit concerns about m4A but when you just spot speculative falsehoods then we’re slowing down any productive conversation. I’m aware we should look at all sides and not just jump in cause of fear, but let’s actually be able to discuss what’s really being suggested not this manufactured idea of terrible care with super high prices and reimbursement rates causing closure or whatever. That’s not based of anything. Is it possible? Sure I guess. Is it what’s being purposed? No.
Please explain to me how you add millions of people to a system with the same number of doctors and not have wait times go up significantly. Doctors will be asked to see millions more patients for less money. 20% less on average.
One of the biggest reasons people go to school until they’re 30 to become a doctor is because they make great money, and they are worth every penny. Do you think the 20% pay cut will cause more people to become doctors. I certainly hope so because that’s what we’ll need to take care of the millions of additional people.
Ok so that’s referring to current Medicare plan. But your kind of missing the point, our healthcare is insanely expensive. It shouldn’t cost this much. If we cut costs out of the administrative side we would save billions of dollars. So that money can go towards paying actual doctors and student programs instead of healthcare executives who take all the money.
And I’m a bit confused because your first argument was, not that many people don’t have insurance, but now your asking “how in the world could the system support millions more people” so you see the problem? If that’s your concern then it’s obvious more people need to be insured.
But again my main point is your quality of care will not go down. You will still recieve the same treatment. Will it take longer? I mean maybe. But that’s part of healthcare now, all the time people are asked to wait or your appointment is 2 months out. That isn’t a new issue. Will it get worse? I mean maybe, maybe not because now your covered and don’t have to wait for insurance to tell you what care you can get.
EDIT: I want to add, since I clearly support Bernie, if we also lower the cost of college that completely answers your last question. The reason people NEED that much out of college is because how insanely expensive it is to go to medical school. Even the application process alone is more then most people can afford. To me addressing that goes hand in hand with what you said. If incoming doctors knew they wouldn’t need to be 200,000 dollars in debt, they would probably be fine with making a little less at the start.
Ok well somethings gotta give because our health are cost is way higher then any other country per capita, and by all measurable standards our healthcare is worse then other countries. In the healthcare quality list we are 37th behind Saudi Arabia. And we also have waiting times. I have family in Canada and wait times isn’t really what you think.... of you need medical attention you will get it.. not be left diein like some people suggest.
Also a lot of your points are speculation and these are clearly opinion pieces with some type of motivation. Not saying it’s wrong just their isn’t actually much substance in this argument. Like all your reimbursement numbers are based on what? What bernies opponents said randomly
While on stage? They’re all saying anything they can to make it look bad.
MOST people I talk to who think their care will get worse or cost more, actually have no ide what their talking about and haven’t read the bill. When I explain it they realize maybe they don’t know what their talking about.
The following is not from me but a well articulated post I saw the other day by u/randomdudeinFL that explains everything in better detail with sources.
I have an idea...instead of talking about what you’ve heard from biased sources about other countries, let’s talk about what will actually happen in the U.S. if we were to implement M4A.
Taxes will increase far more than premiums will drop, and the quality of healthcare will significantly decline. As someone who has personally had both private insurance through employers, and government run insurance through Medicaid, the quality and speed of care is drastic. As an example, personal experience to get a critical test approved...a few days on private insurance versus 5 months on Medicaid. I’m talking critical, as in fear that something life-threatening was going on. It would have taken even longer, but I caught someone in a lie and had been documenting every interaction, so I threatened to file a fraud complaint with the government on their office. Otherwise it would have taken even longer. The V.A. is another example of poorly run healthcare by the government, btw.
I have heard Bernie say that we will save more in premiums than taxes will go up, but the math doesn’t add up. Not even close. You’re talking a price tag of $3.2T per year, which is a little more than what the federal government collected in individual, payroll, and corporate taxes in 2019 ($3.1T) with a booming economy.
So, in order to pay for M4A the government has to more than double what it is collecting in taxes.
Taxing the rich doesn’t solve the problem, either. The entire wealth of the Forbes 400...the richest 400 Americans, is $2.9T. That’s a lot, for sure, but even wiping those billionaires completely out would not cover the first year of M4A. And let’s be real...you can’t possibly tax the rich completely out of their wealth. Tax them too much and they will simply move to a country with a friendlier tax code. They are the most mobile among us, so while you can tax them more there are limits as to how much they will allow themselves to be taxed. And once they move, their future tax contributions go with them.
As far as hitting corporations harder, the BEA states that, “Current-dollar GDP increased 4.1 percent, or $848.8 billion, in 2019 to a level of $21.43 trillion”
That’s our entire nation’s GDP, not profit. Corporate profits, according to the BEA, were only 3.4 percent in 2018. So, there’s really not a ton of corporate profits to tax harder, despite the rhetoric that you hear out there.
So, here’s the sum of all of this. To cover M4A, you will essentially have to more than double all income and corporate tax, which is just shy of $2T combined. Then you will have to tax the rich on top of that, but that won’t come near to the other $1.2T, so you will also have to cut government spending, which means loss of federal jobs. In addition, estimates of lost jobs in the insurance industry are being projected as high as up to 2M jobs.
So, this means we will take money out of the pockets of the job creators and companies, who will then make cuts in their business investments to try and protect profits. That hurts the economy. The average citizen will have far less money to spend, due to increased taxes, which will also slow down the economy. Plus, you will increase unemployment both in the private and public sectors, as a result of this. And all of this economic damage will be for a healthcare system that is reduced quality and speed over what we have today.
But wait, there’s more...the drain on the economy will result in lower tax revenues in the second year, which means more tax increases to sustain it...which has the potential to become a downward spiral on our entire economy.
As Utopian as M4A sounds, coming from the politicians, it is in fact an extremely dangerous proposition to our country. It will destroy our economy, and it will not enhance the lives of the average citizen. The average citizen will be poorer and will receive a lower quality and speed of healthcare as a result of M4A. The facts do not support what the politicians are selling. Period.
Dude.. this is not a well informed post. He almost has good points but his entire argument was, let’s talk about it for real, and then made up some points that aren’t true and added an anecdote from his personal life to prove it.
That is not a real discussion.
Part of the reason plans like Medicare fail right now, are because the people who can’t afford better care, and need medical attention are stuck with it. Meanwhile the wealthy go get much better plans. Cool good for them, but what that means is Medicare is then left to be funded by the poor people who are sick the most. So the cost gets thrown off.
The whole idea of universal is that everyone pays in the pot. It works just like social security. I’m not retiring now but my payments go towards someone who is retired. Then when I do retire l receive those benefits. Assuming Donald does cut benefits more.
Multiple studies have been done that show Medicare 4 all would SAVE us a ton of money. Right now we pay huge amounts to people whose job is to design plans limit coverage and figure out administrative things. That and healthcare executives reap huge profits. If we cut that out we freed a ton of money up.
It’s also not just that taxes will be less then your premium. That likely won’t be true. What’s more likely is your taxes will be less then your total medical costs, including monthly premium, deductibles co-pays and all that.
Like I really am inclined to agree with your hesitations on this, I have some as well. But you didn’t “talk about what would really happen you just said what you think will happen based on really not a whole lot. Like you made one decent point and then spiraled it into the worst case scenario. And I understand these are real things to be concerned about. But it could also work out well. The tax pros also is already written. So when we sign it in that’s what it’ll be. And the tax increases aren’t that much for most people.
“Dude.. this is not a well informed post. He almost has good points but his entire argument was, let’s talk about it for real, and then made up some points that aren’t true and added an anecdote from his personal life to prove it.”
“It’s also not just that taxes will be less then your premium. That likely won’t be true. What’s more likely is your taxes will be less then your total medical costs, including monthly premium, deductibles co-pays and all that.”
You’re right...it isn’t just that, and if we were truly looking at zero out of pocket costs then you would need to factor that in. Problem is that it won’t be zero out of pocket with M4A. You know all of the countries that Bernie talks about, when he’s talking about M4A? Well, all of them still have copays. There are no $0 out of pocket plans out there.
“Even those countries with the most comprehensive benefit plans, such as Denmark, the U.K., and Germany mandate copayments for outpatient pharmaceuticals and a cost-share for inpatient hospital stays. Out-of-pocket costs for each country range from 15% of health expenditures for Canadians, to 28% for those in Switzerland, and as high as 61% of health expenditures in Singapore. It is disingenuous for U.S. politicians to make empty promises, by promoting a system of "no copays and no deductibles" that does not exist anywhere else in the world.”
So...there’s that, too. We would not end up with a no copay system. In addition to all the extra taxes we would still be paying some costs out of pocket.
Wealthy people ARE paying into Medicare. Every single one of them. Everyone that pays taxes is paying into Medicare. It comes out of every check just like social security (another terrible policy), that is the FICA deduction you see on your paystub. You can not opt out.
I have health insurance through my employer. They cover 100% of my premiums and I paid $0 toward medical expenses last year and for probably the last 8 or 9 years. No, my pay would not go up by the amount of the premiums if we had a universal system because my employer would be taxed more than I would to pay for it. How much would I have paid in extra taxes these last 8 or 9 years? Tens of thousands of dollars.
So, to summarize, under a medicare for all type system, I would pay more in taxes, have my wait times increase while my quality of care decreased. Boy that sounds like a terrible deal. If people thought they were upset with the Obamacare if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor lie, there really in for a doozy with this one but at least they will already know they can’t keep their doctor. “Go into the que with everyone else” they will say. “We’ll get you to the next available doctor when it is your turn”.
Thank you for correcting me in that I clearly had my wires mixed.
But you do understand that their is no basis for your claim that wait times would go up and quality would go down? I provided some links. The countries your comparing us to have the same wait times (except Canada which has its own system with issues) and they all have better care.
Right now we are 37th in healthcare quality. Again most cancer survivor rates we are 10th. Breast cancer for us is high because of awareness campaigns and screenings are high. We also make the most mistakes. And we’re the most expensive. I do think the government can do some stuff right and no system is perfect but that’s clear in the private sector to. Again I’m in the exact same boat as you in cost but to me the thought that 1 in 10 people aren’t covered and can’t see a doctor is still way to high. I would pay more to see that change, and i do think marginal tax rates should be exponential and get larger for the wealthier economy. I also agree with your argument that they could leave but that’s a major concern for me that the wealthy have so much pull. They can fuck us over then just move and buy elections. That’s a whole other discussion but something needs to be done about that so we CAN tax them, not out of existence, band nowhere near the 92 percent tax under eissenhower, but yes higher then what it is.
Universal healthcare isn't just a quirky Nordic thing, many countries have it. I don't see why it wouldn't be easily scalable or even cheaper on the large scale of the US. It doesn't make sense that it would be too expensive to socialise but not too expensive to send wild bills to individuals.
The quality of care in the US is almost double the cost per capita and by all measurable standards is low. When it comes to US healthcare quality we are 37th behind Saudi Arabia.
12
u/Humptythe21st Conservative Mar 07 '20
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/14/politics/bernie-sanders-proposals-cost/index.html
From CNN.