the "blue wave" last night and the government shutdown

[Desk trauma]

It is still cheaper IOUs

Which doctors of course take…

 

[dogs4thewin]

Which doctors of course take…

yes so is it better to be 1k in debt or 10sk in debt.

 

[Desk trauma]

yes so is it better to be 1k in debt or 10sk in debt.

Sigh.

 

[mark46]

You really think many of us old farts are dissatisfied with medicare? Medicare is better than any employer -funded health care I ever had when I was working, and I would have been happy to have it instead.

Why?

MEDICARE is great. None but MAGA, libertarian and socialist diehards prefer a different system.

I am 100% fine with Medicare for all Americans.
==========
If there are to be insurance companies covering health care, I do believe that regulation should be at the state level so that decision-making can be more local. For example, I could see rural states having higher reimbursement rates for rural hospitals.
==========
So, for me, there are transition steps to having reasonable cost access for all Americans.
1) Romneycare/Obamacare is a first step. And, yes, subsidies are needed, as we knew from the beginning. The question is what percentage and how the subsidies are shared between the feds and the state governments.
2) When this system is more stable, we should move to reduce the level of employer involvement in health insurance. This is primarily a tax issue, starting with reducing the deductions for high-cost insurance options, and eventually not covering employer contributions.
3) The phase-in of Medicare for all is likely to be a slow process. Obviously, Medicare contribution rates would increase for those coming into the system (or those below a certain age) while the age for getting benefits would decease year by year.
4) But let's be clear, taxes need to rise a bit. Consider how well the country did in the 60's and 90's with much higher marginal tax rates. This CANNOT happen politically without a serious reduction in federal government spending though revenue sharing of voluntary social welfare costs and a thorough efficiency improvement in military and federal security processes and spending.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

True, but their average wages will increase as well. Alternatively, part of all of that 'average' $21,000 employers are paying now could go directly into the health care fund.

You're assuming that employers will increase salaries if they don't have to pay employees' insurance premiums.

Some companies may consider this option, but there is no guarantee it will occur, as employers are not obligated to do so. It is possible that certain non-profit organizations would implement such measures if they are not expanding their operations with the savings; however, there is no assurance that for-profit organizations would take similar actions.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

that is why I mentioned the fact that certain conditions CAN develop quickly and thus early treatment is not an option. Then again in cases where it is life or death at a given time you will get treatment enough to get you stable.

Here are the facts in today’s political environment.

Some Democrats support universal healthcare, but often do not mention that it would require all Americans to pay additional taxes. They frequently reference European models without noting that the average European pays over 35% in taxes.

On the other hand, the Republican party has not put forward a specific health care policy. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, Republicans have attempted to repeal it 42 times without providing an alternative solution.

Today, many conservatives assert that there is no issue with healthcare costs, suggesting that individuals who experience sudden health problems and cannot afford care are responsible for not seeking medical attention promptly. In other words, some conservatives deny that healthcare affordability is a concern in America.

Democrats may not have the best solution for universal healthcare, but they acknowledge there's a problem to address. Some conservatives, however, remain so opposed that they won't even recognize America's healthcare affordability issue.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

You're assuming that employers will increase salaries if they don't have to pay employees' insurance premiums.

True - which is why the alternative proposal of diverting that money as a tax was put forward.

Ultimately though, I think most companies would try to keep their employees at a similar net income. Because if they don't, they're going to lose those employees who can't or won't take a pay cut.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

How does that compare to the US, if we count the average that a citizen there also pays for healthcare and other things provided by the tax funds for Europe? Also, the figure seems high. IIRC, only 6 countries in Europe on average fall into that category.

My wife is from Europe, and whenever I speak with my in-laws there, they express satisfaction with higher taxes because they receive government-funded healthcare, education, childcare, and even free public transportation in some cities.

Democratic politicians who support universal health care often do not fully inform the public about the associated costs of providing free health care, education, or child care. This may be because most Americans, regardless of political affiliation, are unwilling to accept higher taxes.

The European model may be seen as effective by some, but many Americans prefer not to pay higher taxes. Unless the majority of Americans change their perspective, universal healthcare policies are unlikely to move beyond theoretical discussions. A viable solution would need to gain support from both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. Otherwise, the topic of universal healthcare may remain a subject of debate for decades without significant progress.

There is a reason why the Obama administration, when introducing the ACA, did not pursue universal health care or a single-payer system as many liberals advocated. The administration recognized that there was insufficient political support for universal healthcare, so it adopted a model based on more conservative ideas from figures such as Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Even with this approach, the legislation did not receive any votes from conservative lawmakers.

A prevailing challenge in contemporary American politics is the reluctance of both sides to compromise and the tendency to impose their agendas on one another. While approximately 40% of Americans may support universal healthcare, an equal proportion opposes it; neither group is likely to relent in their convictions. It is essential that we find ways to coexist and develop solutions that garner broad consensus. The answer may not be universal healthcare , nor can we simply maintain the status quo. Persistently advocating for only one perspective is unlikely to yield meaningful progress. Instead, seeking common ground to achieve legislation acceptable to all Americans offers a more constructive path forward.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Sponsored by Copium.

 

[camille70]

Eliminate the insurance companies is a bumper sticker slogan.
===========================
The Clintons tried hard to come up with a plan. They failed. Obama didn't try very hard.

SOME THOUGHTS
1) We in the US do NOT want the federal government managing the nitty gritty of health care.
2) Insurance company rates and rules are regulated at the state level. This is good system for all but socialists and libertarians.
3) Romneycare/Obamacare is a reasonable part of a system. As is the case with auto insurance, everyone should be forced to pay into the system. If this system were better supported, perhaps more companies could stop including health insurance in their compensation packages and simply give the money to employees to purchase health care on their own or through a group that the employee chooses.
4) One issue is indeed the role of company contributions. Should the choice of health care be decided by our employers? That is truly a strange idea.
5) Medicare does need improvements, but it does work very reasonably well for seniors. And yes, I am an old man who has used the system and live in a community where 10's of thousands use the system. I do applaud Trump's twisting the arm of drug producers to lower costs and move production to the US.
6) Medicare for all is a reasonable goal. This is much, much better than trying to create new systems. It could be phased in, perhaps first to 60 year olds. But understand that the conversion cost is very high. A phase in would take decades.
7) We should face the fact that there are better ways to lower insurance costs than having every employer in America negotiating with the insurance companies.

If senator Kennedy hadn't passed the ACA probably would have looked much different.

 

[mark46]

You're assuming that employers will increase salaries if they don't have to pay employees' insurance premiums.

My assumption is that you don't believe in the free market for labor.

Let us say that two companies are competing for new employees. Currently they all pay $80K salary plus $20K health care premiums for the same jobs, approximately equal to the other dozen companies in the market for these employees.

Now one company decides to reduce its compensation by not paying for healthcare and instead giving employees say $15K of extra pay. What do you think happens? Employees would choose between a salary plus health of $95K and the $100K that others are offering.
=========
Of course, it really a bit better for the employerthan this, He will be able to save admin costs (perhaps $2K). If the company also passes this on to employees, the employees would get $2000 MORE compared to when the company stops choosing which coverages the employees have. And finally, perhaps the choice of more than the 2-4 choices the companies offer, the employee might find a comparable coverage for his family for $1000 less than what the company pays.

 

[Fantine]

Here are the facts that most Democrats and Senator Sanders, who support universal healthcare, rarely share.

1. In 2024, a 21% corporate tax rate is generated $490 billion; raising it to 60% could yield $1.4 trillion.
2. In 2022, the top 5% of earners paid $1.4 trillion at a 37% rate; increasing the rate to 70% could generate nearly $2.9 trillion annually.
3. Medicare and Medicaid cost $1.7 trillion, while switching to universal healthcare could cost $3.7–$4.1 trillion.

Even if corporate tax rates were raised from 21% to 60% or the top 5% individual income tax bracket increased from 37% to 70%, these measures would not be sufficient to fully fund universal health care annually.


Implementing universal health care in the United States would likely require increasing taxes on a broader segment of the population. No Democrat would admit this. They will use term like “hedonism and Pleasure” and the “hedonistic” like you have.

Currently, the average American pays approximately 14.5% in taxes, whereas Europeans typically pay between 35% -40%. To adopt a health care system similar to those in Europe, an increase in taxes for most Americans would probably be necessary.

Unless all Americans are willing to pay an average tax rate of 35% - 40%, as is common in many European countries, universal healthcare remains largely a theoretical policy.

Canada pays half as much to cover everyone.
The figures you quote don't consider losing the 20% insurance companies charge to administer healthcare, for example.

 

[jacorian]

You can take all your millionaires & their assets & it would equal the budget for 1 year-6 trillion dollars. The money would be exhausted in no time by the people with their hand in the cookie jar-Congress-you know the people that get to insider trade. I frankly view taxes as evil but am willing to say some is necessary. But the fact is our govt has outcompeted us for the available monies in society. We prop it up & it rarely reaches us & it never cures anything. So frankly I would not give Congress more license to spend. Very recently the tax code has had some reform but it still has a long way to go. I think our reps are totally oblivious to how the tax rates & the brackets are set up. The code is too complex. Frankly it's the middle class that is deteriorating because of the big bills that now burden us. You cannot have a healthy society if you think govt should control our lives as if govt is God & looking out for us. No human being is that good so don't canonize these people. We do need structural changes--in spending, in the Pentagon, the tax code, etc. The last 3 decades I have observed that a single party has been trying to train with good success our population to be lazy & not develop a work ethic. This arises from people who are generally insecure & they want to do something miraculous & cure all the world's ills. They want to be liked so they seek to take from Peter to pay Paul. This has left us with only 50% of the population working & carrying the tax load. How fair is that? Not very. It dehumanizes individuals to allow such a society to develop just because a bunch of people want to be viewed as benevolent. They are anything but. Arguably there is waste & govt & no accountability for the dollars. We are a bottomless pit. There still can be some tweaks on the tax code. But to give approval for a govt to take away all a person's assets I find quite alarming & immoral. Where in the Bible does it justify that theft. We would hope that successful people can contribute more voluntarily & I am sure some do. But perhaps greed still remains one of those deadly sins. Relative to the problem of healthcare & I have administered the medicaid program which is our socialized version for poor people. We do need reform on all levels. Each party is too extreme. Problem with medicaid is it confines you to permanent poverty in order to stay qualified (means tested). It does not offer the best care because the reimbursement rate is poor. Private insurance is better but also costly. Here the other party thinks insurance should only be for catastrophic stuff. So if you suspect you have a stress fracture in the foot, that does not warrant any radiography. The bill is on you. As you can see neither party lives in the real world. Remember there is more than healthcare in the federal budget so you will never raise enough money to pay for everyone's whim. We are far too large & far too unhealthy a country to cover every expense. Maybe some people think doctors should work for $30k a year so I guess that puts nurses at $20k. Does not anyone know what Petscans & MRIs cost, dialysis, stem cell infusions, chemotherapy, brain surgery, ALS, cystic fibrosis. This is a lot of ailments & a lot of money. We do need to be more proactive in preventative behavior. Lifelong fitness skills, mental health, shutting the border once & for all against fentanyl, stemming alcoholism, better workplace conditions, crime reduction, canning junk food, & banning smoking products.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I used per capita math to simplify a complex issue, but I agree it doesn't capture the complexity of universal health care.

Since the cost (tax increase) would not be distributed evenly, per capita is not a good choice.

Americans would pay more taxes to fund healthcare under either a progressive or flat system. My current yearly insurance premium is about $6,000, but with universal healthcare, my taxes would likely increase, while families earning $28,000 may pay less due to lower tax brackets. I am willing to pay higher taxes to support lower-income families, though everyone would still contribute through taxation. Ultimately, taxes would rise for all income levels.

Likely taxes would rise for most people, but most of them are also paying private insurance premiums out of the paychecks and employers cost of employment (at the same gross wage) would go down. This would leave for increased taxes of both employees and employers with out changing cost of employment or take-home pay. (None would be perfectly balanced, but we are not talking about jumping everyone's costs by thousands of dollars.)

I'm not opposed to it. If all Americans agree to higher taxes, it's feasible. However, universal healthcare supporters often claim that only the top 1% or high earners will pay more, and eliminating insurance companies will save money. These points are myths, not realities.

All Americans must pay higher taxes to fund universal health care. Senator Sanders and supporters of universal health care do not typically acknowledge this point. They often repeat the statement that the top 1% will be responsible for funding it.

Even if it were entirely funded by personal income taxes, we don't know where the "net gain/loss" inflection point would be

 

[Hans Blaster]

You can take all your millionaires & their assets & it would equal the budget for 1 year-6 trillion dollars. The money would be exhausted in no time by the people with their hand in the cookie jar-Congress-you know the people that get to insider trade. I frankly view taxes as evil but am willing to say some is necessary. But the fact is our govt has outcompeted us for the available monies in society. We prop it up & it rarely reaches us & it never cures anything. So frankly I would not give Congress more license to spend. Very recently the tax code has had some reform but it still has a long way to go. I think our reps are totally oblivious to how the tax rates & the brackets are set up. The code is too complex. Frankly it's the middle class that is deteriorating because of the big bills that now burden us. You cannot have a healthy society if you think govt should control our lives as if govt is God & looking out for us. No human being is that good so don't canonize these people. We do need structural changes--in spending, in the Pentagon, the tax code, etc. The last 3 decades I have observed that a single party has been trying to train with good success our population to be lazy & not develop a work ethic. This arises from people who are generally insecure & they want to do something miraculous & cure all the world's ills. They want to be liked so they seek to take from Peter to pay Paul. This has left us with only 50% of the population working & carrying the tax load. How fair is that? Not very. It dehumanizes individuals to allow such a society to develop just because a bunch of people want to be viewed as benevolent. They are anything but. Arguably there is waste & govt & no accountability for the dollars. We are a bottomless pit. There still can be some tweaks on the tax code. But to give approval for a govt to take away all a person's assets I find quite alarming & immoral. Where in the Bible does it justify that theft. We would hope that successful people can contribute more voluntarily & I am sure some do. But perhaps greed still remains one of those deadly sins. Relative to the problem of healthcare & I have administered the medicaid program which is our socialized version for poor people. We do need reform on all levels. Each party is too extreme. Problem with medicaid is it confines you to permanent poverty in order to stay qualified (means tested). It does not offer the best care because the reimbursement rate is poor. Private insurance is better but also costly. Here the other party thinks insurance should only be for catastrophic stuff. So if you suspect you have a stress fracture in the foot, that does not warrant any radiography. The bill is on you. As you can see neither party lives in the real world. Remember there is more than healthcare in the federal budget so you will never raise enough money to pay for everyone's whim. We are far too large & far too unhealthy a country to cover every expense. Maybe some people think doctors should work for $30k a year so I guess that puts nurses at $20k. Does not anyone know what Petscans & MRIs cost, dialysis, stem cell infusions, chemotherapy, brain surgery, ALS, cystic fibrosis. This is a lot of ailments & a lot of money. We do need to be more proactive in preventative behavior. Lifelong fitness skills, mental health, shutting the border once & for all against fentanyl, stemming alcoholism, better workplace conditions, crime reduction, canning junk food, & banning smoking products.

Friendly advice: If a paragraph fills my entire screen it is too long to read. Break your thoughts with a few blank lines. Cheers.

 

[Fantine]

Years ago--$2000 of every new American made Chevy was union medical insurance.
The cars they made across the river in Lincoln Ontario cost them $2000 less to make. Think about that next time you buy a new car.
What employers pay for insurance increases the prices of
everything you buy.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Canada pays half as much to cover everyone.
The figures you quote don't consider losing the 20% insurance companies charge to administer healthcare, for example.

I have provided an estimate costs associated with implementing universal health care, as well as projections for revenue generation through increased tax brackets for corporations and the top 5% of wealthy individuals. In response, you have simply stated that Canada has universal health care.

If you believe that universal health care is feasible, please provide data on its projected costs, potential revenue sources, and the expected amount an average American would pay for their health care.

 

[BCP1928]

I have provided an estimate costs associated with implementing universal health care, as well as projections for revenue generation through increased tax brackets for corporations and the top 5% of wealthy individuals. In response, you have simply stated that Canada has universal health care.

If you believe that universal health care is feasible, please provide data on its projected costs, potential revenue sources, and the expected amount an average American would pay for their health care.

People will pay the same, or less, than they are paying for it now, in the form of copays, taxes and foregone wages. Duh!

 

[essentialsaltes]

If you believe that universal health care is feasible, please provide data on its projected costs, potential revenue sources, and the expected amount an average American would pay for their health care.

'Even if corporate tax rates were raised from 21% to 60% or the top 5% individual income tax bracket increased from 37% to 70%, these measures would not be sufficient to fully fund universal health care annually.'

If we replace "or" with "and" these measures are sufficient.

 

[Desk trauma]

You can take all your millionaires & their assets & it would equal the budget for 1 year-6 trillion dollars. The money would be exhausted in no time by the people with their hand in the cookie jar-Congress-you know the people that get to insider trade. I frankly view taxes as evil but am willing to say some is necessary. But the fact is our govt has outcompeted us for the available monies in society. We prop it up & it rarely reaches us & it never cures anything. So frankly I would not give Congress more license to spend. Very recently the tax code has had some reform but it still has a long way to go. I think our reps are totally oblivious to how the tax rates & the brackets are set up. The code is too complex. Frankly it's the middle class that is deteriorating because of the big bills that now burden us. You cannot have a healthy society if you think govt should control our lives as if govt is God & looking out for us. No human being is that good so don't canonize these people. We do need structural changes--in spending, in the Pentagon, the tax code, etc. The last 3 decades I have observed that a single party has been trying to train with good success our population to be lazy & not develop a work ethic. This arises from people who are generally insecure & they want to do something miraculous & cure all the world's ills. They want to be liked so they seek to take from Peter to pay Paul. This has left us with only 50% of the population working & carrying the tax load. How fair is that? Not very. It dehumanizes individuals to allow such a society to develop just because a bunch of people want to be viewed as benevolent. They are anything but. Arguably there is waste & govt & no accountability for the dollars. We are a bottomless pit. There still can be some tweaks on the tax code. But to give approval for a govt to take away all a person's assets I find quite alarming & immoral. Where in the Bible does it justify that theft. We would hope that successful people can contribute more voluntarily & I am sure some do. But perhaps greed still remains one of those deadly sins. Relative to the problem of healthcare & I have administered the medicaid program which is our socialized version for poor people. We do need reform on all levels. Each party is too extreme. Problem with medicaid is it confines you to permanent poverty in order to stay qualified (means tested). It does not offer the best care because the reimbursement rate is poor. Private insurance is better but also costly. Here the other party thinks insurance should only be for catastrophic stuff. So if you suspect you have a stress fracture in the foot, that does not warrant any radiography. The bill is on you. As you can see neither party lives in the real world. Remember there is more than healthcare in the federal budget so you will never raise enough money to pay for everyone's whim. We are far too large & far too unhealthy a country to cover every expense. Maybe some people think doctors should work for $30k a year so I guess that puts nurses at $20k. Does not anyone know what Petscans & MRIs cost, dialysis, stem cell infusions, chemotherapy, brain surgery, ALS, cystic fibrosis. This is a lot of ailments & a lot of money. We do need to be more proactive in preventative behavior. Lifelong fitness skills, mental health, shutting the border once & for all against fentanyl, stemming alcoholism, better workplace conditions, crime reduction, canning junk food, & banning smoking products.

It’s like negative American exceptionalism.