the "blue wave" last night and the government shutdown

BCP1928 · Thursday at 10:57 AM

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
In 2024, the average cost of employer-sponsored family health coverage in the United States was $25,000, with employees contributing $6,000 and employers providing $21,000. Should the U.S. adopt a universal healthcare system and discontinue employer-sponsored premiums, this financial responsibility would transfer to individuals.

Along with a $21,000 increase in average wages.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
While removing insurance companies may potentially reduce overall healthcare expenditures, each family would still be expected to contribute approximately $5,000 to $7,000 annually, likely through taxation. The feasibility of universal healthcare in the U.S. depends on Americans’ willingness—particularly those earning lower wages—to accept these taxes, as is common in many European countries. A transparent and informed public dialogue is essential, given that some political figures suggest that taxing only the top 1% would suffice to fund universal healthcare, when the fiscal realities are considerably more nuanced.

dogs4thewin · Thursday at 11:00 AM

GoldenBoy89 said:
The big wins on Tuesday were coming whether the government was shutdown or not. People’s discontent with the way the country is headed under this administration has been brewing for over 10 months from the antagonism and division coming out of the White House and a Congress unwilling to do any actual work for the people. The GOP failing to lead while being in charge of the entire federal government only added to everyone’s dissatisfaction. As someone who both voted on Tuesday and has now been directly impacted by the loss of SNAP, I hope the democrats keep up the fight. Clearly it’s the GOP that’s not connecting with the people anymore.

The republicans have REPEATEDLY voted to fund SNAP while the democrats have repeatedly voted not to so how can people say it is the republicans not funding SNAP that would only be the case if we had a 60+ majority and SNAP was still not being funded.

dogs4thewin · Thursday at 11:10 AM

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
My wife underwent gallbladder surgery and experienced complications that required an extended hospital stay. In the same year, I had rotator cuff surgery. With insurance, our out-of-pocket expenses totaled $11,000; without insurance, the cost would have been more than $40,000.

Few people can afford $40,000 for two surgeries. It's misleading to claim that anyone in America can access healthcare or that most doctors are flexible about costs.

While I do not endorse certain Democratic proposals for universal health care or single-payer systems, I am genuinely surprised when conservatives fail to acknowledge that healthcare in America is costly and many Americans struggle to afford it.

It is cheaper to address things though early. This would to me seem to mean that if people would address things early and not get to the more costly treatments they would have an easier time affording them. I do realize that things DO come up that could not have been addressed early because they "show up" basically overnight.

FAITH-IN-HIM · Thursday at 11:15 AM

Hans Blaster said:
The question is on single-payer which is the opposite of direct responsibility on individuals.

Taxation is dependent on income level and tax rates can (and for income tax, do) depend on income level.

One calculation would be to assume that it would be funded by increasing the current Medicare tax on wages up to a cap. To do so you'd need the total cost of private health insurance, subtract insurance company profits, and the current Medicare tax revenues and estimate how much it would need to increase. Alternatively, you could take that increase and apply it to personal income tax revenue and find the proportional increase in income tax required to cover the cost using the existing tax base. Or you could add corporate taxes.

There are many possibilities, but translating directly to a per capita tax burden is not good math. We don't have any per capita taxes.

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

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.

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.

FAITH-IN-HIM · Thursday at 11:16 AM

BCP1928 said:
Along with a $21,000 increase in average wages.

Where would that money come from?

dogs4thewin · Thursday at 11:23 AM

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

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.

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.

I would be willing to support programs that still had a private option.

FAITH-IN-HIM · Thursday at 11:30 AM

dogs4thewin said:
It is cheaper to address things though early. This would to me seem to mean that if people would address things early and not get to the more costly treatments they would have an easier time affording them. I do realize that things DO come up that could not have been addressed early because they "show up" basically overnight.

Another insincere comment without understanding the problem.

If you have undergone gallbladder surgery or possess relevant medical knowledge, you may be aware that such conditions can develop rapidly. It appears that you are eager to express your viewpoint; however, it is important to avoid making unfounded assumptions about others, such as suggesting they delay seeking medical attention and therefore cannot afford healthcare.

GoldenBoy89 · Thursday at 11:30 AM

dogs4thewin said:
The republicans have REPEATEDLY voted to fund SNAP while the democrats have repeatedly voted not to so how can people say it is the republicans not funding SNAP that would only be the case if we had a 60+ majority and SNAP was still t being funded.

The GOP has been wanting to cut entitlement spending for decades now. Excuse me if I don’t buy their new found concern for the millions of people who’ve now lost a portion of their grocery budget thanks to their complete inaction in Congress.

BCP1928 · Thursday at 11:32 AM

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

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.

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,

Can you quote them?

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
and eliminating insurance companies will save money. These points are myths, not realities.

It's not a myth that eliminating insurance companies will save money.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
All Americans must pay higher taxes to fund universal health care.

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.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
Senator Sanders and supporters of universal health care do not typically acknowledge this point.

No, they just take it for granted, as does any other intelligent person.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
They often repeat the statement that the top 1% will be responsible for funding it.

And Trump said Mexico would pay for The Wall. So what?

dogs4thewin · Thursday at 11:33 AM

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
Another insincere comment without understanding the problem.

If you have undergone gallbladder surgery or possess relevant medical knowledge, you may be aware that such conditions can develop rapidly. It appears that you are eager to express your viewpoint; however, it is important to avoid making unfounded assumptions about others, such as suggesting they delay seeking medical attention and therefore cannot afford healthcare.

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.

mark46 · Thursday at 11:50 AM

BCP1928 said:
Can you quote them?

It's not a myth that eliminating insurance companies will save money.

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.

No, they just take it for granted, as does any other intelligent person.

And Trump said Mexico would pay for The Wall. So what?

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.

iluvatar5150 · Thursday at 11:54 AM

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
My current yearly insurance premium is about $6,000,

Correction: Your share of the insurance premium is about $6,000. Your employer or, if you're on an ACA plan, the government picks up the rest (likely the majority).

BCP1928 · Thursday at 11:57 AM

mark46 said:
Eliminate the insurance companies is a bumper s ticker slogan.
===========================
The Clintons tried hard to come up with a plan. Thee 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.

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.

mark46 said:
2) Insurance company rates and rules are regulated at the state level. This is good system for all but socialists and libertarians.

Why?

mark46 said:
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.

Desk trauma · Thursday at 11:58 AM

dogs4thewin said:
It is cheaper to address things though early. This would to me seem to mean that if people would address things early and not get to the more costly treatments they would have an easier time affording them. I do realize that things DO come up that could not have been addressed early because they "show up" basically overnight.

Other than prophylactic removal surgery of a healthy gallbladder, which no insurance is going to cover, how does one address gallbladder issues early?

dogs4thewin · Thursday at 12:00 PM

Desk trauma said:
Other than prophylactic removal surgery of a healthy gallbladder, which no insurance is going to cover, how does one address gallbladder issues early?

Not all things can be addressed early but things like screenings and staying generally healthy weight, diet things like that can be.

mark46 · Thursday at 12:01 PM

iluvatar5150 said:
Correction: Your share of the insurance premium is about $6,000. Your employer or, if you're on an ACA plan, the government picks up the rest (likely the majority).

You're presuming that the poster has no contributions from an employer.

However, you point is valid. Let us say that someone pays $6K a year. That may or may not be the whole cost. That seems similar to those who say that they pay $2000 in taxes when what they mean is that they owe $2000 when they file.

I could have an excellent employer plan where one of the options is zero out of pocket. That would NOT mean that the cost of my insurance was zero,

Desk trauma · Thursday at 12:02 PM

dogs4thewin said:
Not all things can be addressed early but things like screenings …

Which are of course are not cost prohibitive in this fantasy where one can get medical care with IOUs.

dogs4thewin · Thursday at 12:05 PM

Desk trauma said:
Which are of course are not cost prohibitive in this fantasy where one can get medical care with IOUs.

It is still cheaper IOUs though to address it early than if a person waits. Which is cheaper a 1,000 screening or repeated treatments of 5,000 dollars.

iluvatar5150 · Thursday at 12:06 PM

mark46 said:
You're presuming that the poster has no contributions from an employer.

You have that backwards - I presume that he does have contributions from an employer (or the gov't). For a married person paying $500/mo, that seems likely.

7thKeeper · Thursday at 12:07 PM

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
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.

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.

the "blue wave" last night and the government shutdown

Well-Known Member

dog lover

dog lover

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

dog lover

Well-Known Member

We're Still Here

Well-Known Member

dog lover

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

[redacted]

dog lover

Well-Known Member

[redacted]

dog lover

Well-Known Member

Venture life, Burn your Dread

Similar threads