How much of your income are you willing to have taken for taxpayer funded healthcare.

[Always in His Presence]

What percentage of your income are you willing to give for life, so the nation can have ‘free’ healthcare?

 

[BCP1928]

What percentage of your income are you willing to give for life, so the nation can have ‘free’ healthcare?

Do we get to consider that the amount of our employer's contribution will be given to us in wages?

 

[BPPLEE]

Do we get to consider that the amount of our employer's contribution will be given to us in wages?

Don't count on it

 

[RDKirk]

The working US citizen today already pays more for healthcare than other nations with public healthcare.

We have to count what we and our employers pay for health insurance, which is often 40 to 50% of a working class income. Then add that to what is already deducted for Medicare.

 

[Paidiske]

In America, the average person pays about twice as much (measured as proportion of their income) on healthcare, as the average Australian does. Because we have public healthcare. I know which system I'd rather live under.

 

[rambot]

I remember reading on here that some people's health insurance costs were MORE than I paid in income tax in canada at 70g/yr.

To add a quick question; how much will you save from paying your insurance and potential deductibles?

 

[Pommer]

The working US citizen today already pays more for healthcare than other nations with public healthcare.

We have to count what we and our employers pay for health insurance, which is often 40 to 50% of a working class income. Then add that to what is already deducted for Medicare.

Not only that, but by funding Israel’s war, (since money is fungible), the Israelis can have government provided healthcare!
That’s because Americans are “willing” to make the sacrifice to help save Israel, for some reasons, (I'm sure).

 

[That Guy 11200]

What percentage of your income are you willing to give for life, so the nation can have ‘free’ healthcare?

In the UK, it's somewhere around 20%. That's fine, I wouldn't mind paying more if needed.

 

[NBB]

I don't know why the aversion to free healthcare, i mean the prices of treatments in usa seem too high, but if poor countries can have free healthcare sure usa can too.

 

[Bradskii]

What percentage of your income are you willing to give for life, so the nation can have ‘free’ healthcare?

Might be a good idea to see what other countries do: https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals-...rance/medicare-levy/what-is-the-medicare-levy

'The Medicare levy helps fund some of the costs of Australia's public health system known as Medicare. The Medicare levy is 2% of your taxable income..'

Plus from here: What does the Australian government spend your income tax on? - Success Tax Professionals

'In the 2021-22 financial year, around 17% of income tax revenue was spent on health.'

Bear in mind that if we say that the average tax rate is 30% then we're talking 17% of that. So that just over 5% of your tax. Plus your 2% Medicare levy and we're paying 7%.

 

[Pommer]

I don't know why the aversion to free healthcare, i mean the prices of treatments in usa seem too high, but if poor countries can have free healthcare sure usa can too.

Our military takes its 13% off the top.
Since we’re never going to be getting rid of them, and we cannot afford both a great military and government-supplied healthcare, why “change” anything now!?
Churchill was right, we always do the correct thing, after we try everything else!

 

[Richard T]

I think the USA looks at one aspect of healthcare wrongly. The supply side needs to be addressed. Every year, many qualified students get turned down to be doctors. I have said for years that the USA needs more physicians, nurses etc. We have to expand health care in our schools, instead of restricting them. Sure you can price fix many health care services, like they do in Japan. I think though the result will be that many doctors will only take private patients and a shortage of care will develop, meaning long lines etc. Some specialists now have a 6 month or more wait in an entire metro area. USA needs more supply. On the supply side open up drug imports and allow people to get healthcare from any state they want.
We need expansion too for diagnostics of all sorts. From blood work to MRI's. Most of these things now can be done outside a hospital setting. Ten percent of income to health care seems very reasonable. I think we are at 17% now.

 

[A2SG]

What percentage of your income are you willing to give for life, so the nation can have ‘free’ healthcare?

Oh, about the same as I'm currently paying for health insurance, I suppose, including copays and all that. It will probably work out to less than that, though.

-- A2SG, and I have a good health benefit package...imagine how it will work out for those who don't.....

 

[Pommer]

I think the USA looks at one aspect of healthcare wrongly. The supply side needs to be addressed. Every year, many qualified students get turned down to be doctors. I have said for years that the USA needs more physicians, nurses etc. We have to expand health care in our schools, instead of restricting them. Sure you can price fix many health care services, like they do in Japan. I think though the result will be that many doctors will only take private patients and a shortage of care will develop, meaning long lines etc. Some specialists now have a 6 month or more wait in an entire metro area. USA needs more supply. On the supply side open up drug imports and allow people to get healthcare from any state they want.
We need expansion too for diagnostics of all sorts. From blood work to MRI's. Most of these things now can be done outside a hospital setting. Ten percent of income to health care seems very reasonable. I think we are at 17% now.

The medical arts have long been a place where ordinary (albeit brilliant) working-class and middle-class folks could matriculate into the UMC and higher.

With the promise of robotics and AI (any day now), physicians will be like “plumbers” now.
Good, hardworking people, making tens of thousands a year.

Thirty years from now a physician will be seen like a blacksmith or a cooper. Necessary if only to remind us how far we’ve come!

 

[Richard T]

The medical arts have long been a place where ordinary (albeit brilliant) working-class and middle-class folks could matriculate into the UMC and higher.

With the promise of robotics and AI (any day now), physicians will be like “plumbers” now.
Good, hardworking people, making tens of thousands a year.

Thirty years from now a physician will be seen like a blacksmith or a cooper. Necessary if only to remind us how far we’ve come!

Yes, something I have not thought about. I guess that depends on how far we come to this robotic world. I am thinking a surgeon will need to be around just in case things go wrong or something shows up that is unanticipated. 30 years too is a long time, but of course the transition has already started.

 

[RDKirk]

The medical arts have long been a place where ordinary (albeit brilliant) working-class and middle-class folks could matriculate into the UMC and higher.

With the promise of robotics and AI (any day now), physicians will be like “plumbers” now.
Good, hardworking people, making tens of thousands a year.

Thirty years from now a physician will be seen like a blacksmith or a cooper. Necessary if only to remind us how far we’ve come!

The AI effect could and most likely will be negative with regard to doctors in the same way that it is in a number of other fields.

Many fields take time and experience to mature competent practitioners from "apprentice" so-to-speak to "master." AI tends to reduce the number of positions for "apprentices" and leave only positions for "masters." It's okay for the current masters if these corporations fill the apprentice slots below them with AI.

But if you don't have any apprentice positions, how do you get future masters? What we see actually beginning to happen right now: Cronyism and nepotism. We get people who don't become the new supervisors of AI by experience and maturity but by who they know.

 

[camille70]

I'm paying around 600.00 per month now. Surely if everyone were paying into the kitty it would be less than that.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I'm paying around 600.00 per month now. Surely if everyone were paying into the kitty it would be less than that.

It would also be less if we could eliminate large chunks of the bureaucracy related to for-profit health insurance and billing.

It’s amazing how the “pro-efficiency” party never seems to care about all the bloat and dysfunction in that part of the medical supply chain and, instead, just focuses on the amount potentially paid by the government.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

What percentage of your income are you willing to give for life, so the nation can have ‘free’ healthcare?

Let's say on average I make $50,000.00 a year. As a Sole- Proprietor I pay for my own private insurance. If I want average coverage that would be about $1450.00 per month. So that is $ 17,400.00. This represents almost 35% of my income. So in order to make it more affordable I would be happy to pay half of that figure. Its a win win. Everyone gets healthcare and I get a substantial saving!

Thanks for sharing !

 

[Always in His Presence]

I don't know why the aversion to free healthcare, i mean the prices of treatments in usa seem too high, but if poor countries can have free healthcare sure usa can too.

No such thing as free healthcare.