the "blue wave" last night and the government shutdown

Job 33:6 · 2025-11-17T09:23:54-0600

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
Only 8% of Americans lack health insurance; the rest are covered by employers, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, VA, or other sources, and most are satisfied with their healthcare access.

We should focus on finding a solution that provides affordable health care access to the 8% of Americans currently without it, rather than overhauling or dismantling a system that effectively serves the remaining 92%.

While roughly 8% of Americans are uninsured, millions more are underinsured, facing high deductibles, co-pays, or surprise bills that can prevent access to care. Employer coverage isn’t guaranteed, and losing a job often means losing insurance. Universal healthcare isn’t about dismantling a working system, it’s about fixing structural inefficiencies. The U.S. spends nearly twice as much per person as universal healthcare countries like Germany or Japan, yet has worse health outcomes. Universal coverage would protect both the uninsured and the underinsured, reduce administrative waste, eliminate medical bankruptcy, and ensure affordable access for everyone.

FAITH-IN-HIM · 2025-11-17T09:46:02-0600

Job 33:6 said:
While roughly 8% of Americans are uninsured, millions more are underinsured, facing high deductibles, co-pays, or surprise bills that can prevent access to care. Employer coverage isn’t guaranteed, and losing a job often means losing insurance. Universal healthcare isn’t about dismantling a working system, it’s about fixing structural inefficiencies. The U.S. spends nearly twice as much per person as universal healthcare countries like Germany or Japan, yet has worse health outcomes. Universal coverage would protect both the uninsured and the underinsured, reduce administrative waste, eliminate medical bankruptcy, and ensure affordable access for everyone.

You make a good point—although employer-sponsored insurance has benefits, it also has drawbacks like job loss and high co-pays. That's why a single-payer system seems sensible.

However, the key question remains: how much must each individual contribute in taxation to achieve universal health care?

Job 33:6 · 2025-11-17T10:09:13-0600

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
You make a good point—although employer-sponsored insurance has benefits, it also has drawbacks like job loss and high co-pays. That's why a single-payer system seems sensible.

However, the key question remains: how much must each individual contribute in taxation to achieve universal health care?

The cost per individual in a universal healthcare system isn’t simply “a new tax bill” added on top of current spending, rather it replaces premiums, deductibles, co-pays, and employer contributions that Americans are already paying. The U.S. currently spends far more per person (over $14,000 per capita) than countries with universal healthcare, which generally spend $5,000–$8,000 per capita. In those countries, people pay a mix of taxes and small regulated premiums, but overall their total out-of-pocket burden is much lower than what Americans pay today.

So the real question isn’t “How much tax?” but “How much do Americans already pay through premiums, deductibles, employer contributions, and medical debt?” When you add all those together, most Americans would pay less overall under a universal system because the U.S. would finally regulate prices the way other countries do. Universal healthcare shifts costs, simplifies them, and reduces them, it doesn’t add new costs on top of what people already pay.

FAITH-IN-HIM · 2025-11-17T10:13:46-0600

Job 33:6 said:
The cost per individual in a universal healthcare system isn’t simply “a new tax bill” added on top of current spending, rather it replaces premiums, deductibles, co-pays, and employer contributions that Americans are already paying. The U.S. currently spends far more per person (over $14,000 per capita) than countries with universal healthcare, which generally spend $5,000–$8,000 per capita. In those countries, people pay a mix of taxes and small regulated premiums, but overall their total out-of-pocket burden is much lower than what Americans pay today.

So the real question isn’t “How much tax?” but “How much do Americans already pay through premiums, deductibles, employer contributions, and medical debt?” When you add all those together, most Americans would pay less overall under a universal system because the U.S. would finally regulate prices the way other countries do. Universal healthcare shifts costs, simplifies them, and reduces them, it doesn’t add new costs on top of what people already pay.

So, you don't have a number for us—just a vague promise that it'll cost less.

Job 33:6 · 2025-11-17T10:17:42-0600

And I'll just add:
I think at the end of the day, the proof is in the pudding. If you have all of these developed nations (excluding the US), with universal health Care, and they all pay less per capita, then we already have a proof of concept.

I don't even think it's debatable. It's just observation.

The real challenge seems to be, not if universal healthcare is better or not. Rather it's about, how to get there. Because we have these mega insurance companies that are deeply entrenched in America's healthcare system. And they are ultra wealthy and they have massive lobbying influence. And that is a big problem.

It doesn't matter if all these other countries are successful and have better healthcare systems. What matters is, who has the power to adapt a system that is already in the grips of healthcare insurance companies and hospitals that have no interest in potential cuts to their own profits.

Insurance agencies are making so much money, and it is absolutely not in their interest to do anything that might challenge that income.

Because if people are paying less for healthcare, sure the people benefit, but at the end of the day, one way or another that's going to hurt whoever is receiving that pay. And they are not going to like that.

Doctors making 500k and above, they might have to go down to 200k/year in salary. But good luck convincing them that this is a good thing.

Job 33:6 · 2025-11-17T10:18:13-0600

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
So, you don't have a number for us—just a vague promise that it'll cost less.

It's not a vague promise, it's proof of concept as seen in other nations.

I'm not imagining things, I'm just looking at what all these other nations are doing and they are much more successful than we are. And They all have universal healthcare.

You don't even need a big imagination for this, because it's already happening and is plainly visible in other developed nations.

Based on how other nations are doing, total costs would drop by at least 20% per capita.

It's not the math that's complicated, it's politics. People are making a lot of money in healthcare, and universal healthcare would challenge the excessively high profits of health care insurers. And they don't want that.

It's not a question of what system is more efficient, it's a question of who ultimately has more authority and influence, insurance agencies and hospitals, or everyday people?

Job 33:6 · 2025-11-17T10:26:53-0600

Many of the major players in the U.S. healthcare industry, private insurers, pharmaceutical companies, large hospital systems, and some high-earning medical specialists, tend to resist universal healthcare because it threatens their financial interests. A single-payer or heavily regulated universal system usually sets standardized prices, negotiates lower drug costs, and simplifies billing. These changes would significantly reduce the profits of insurers, drug companies, device manufacturers, and hospitals, all of which currently benefit from the U.S. being the most expensive healthcare market in the world. Specialists who earn very high salaries compared to their counterparts abroad may also worry that standardized reimbursement rates could lower their income.

In short, the groups that benefit most from the existing system are typically the ones most opposed to universal healthcare, because universal models emphasize cost control, price negotiation, and reduced administrative complexity, all of which cut into the industry’s revenue. This financial incentive is a central reason why the U.S. has more resistance to universal healthcare than other developed nations.

And this is the real reason we haven't transitioned. It's not a matter of what system is better or worse. It's a matter of who has more influence and control.

dogs4thewin · 2025-11-17T10:51:00-0600

durangodawood said:
ACA is on the verge of failing because of the costs of insurance. VA and Medicare are in a sense single-payer systems. Put that all together and the for-profit insurance model doesnt come out looking so great.

How good is the VA though I have heard some quite nasty things about it. As a disabled person I am on Medicare under my late father's record and Medicare specially for specialists is good Medicaid ( which I also have due to my personal lack of resources on the other hand put it this way Medicare is my primary and I went as far as to look up what percentage they covered to see if it would be worth letting Medicaid lapse as opposed to dealing with the pain in the rear end that is re-applying every year when my situation will clearly not change

BCP1928 · 2025-11-17T10:52:21-0600

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
You make a good point—although employer-sponsored insurance has benefits, it also has drawbacks like job loss and high co-pays. That's why a single-payer system seems sensible.

However, the key question remains: how much must each individual contribute in taxation to achieve universal health care?

A sum rather less than they are now paying in employee contributions and the foregone wages in the amount of the employer contributions. For the individual there wouldn't be much difference--just a sum of money deducted from wages going to the government rather than the employer.'s choice of an insurance company. It's not rocket science. If health insurance is being provided by the government then you pay the premium to the government in the form of taxes. If the health insurance industry is running it then you pay the premium to an insurance company.

FAITH-IN-HIM · 2025-11-17T11:38:32-0600

BCP1928 said:
A sum rather less than they are now paying in employee contributions and the foregone wages in the amount of the employer contributions. For the individual there wouldn't be much difference--just a sum of money deducted from wages going to the government rather than the employer.'s choice of an insurance company. It's not rocket science. If health insurance is being provided by the government then you pay the premium to the government in the form of taxes. If the health insurance industry is running it then you pay the premium to an insurance company.

In the United States, employers typically cover about 70% of insurance premiums, while individuals who receive insurance through their employer pay roughly 30%. If universal healthcare does not reduce overall healthcare costs in the country by 70%, individuals will end up paying more than 30% through taxes.

BCP1928 · 2025-11-17T11:46:41-0600

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
So, you don't have a number for us—just a vague promise that it'll cost less.

It's not a vague promise and the numbers backing that up are readily availble--some have been posted here, including reasonable estimates. But saving money is not the only factor. It would be a good idea even if it cost the same.

BCP1928 · 2025-11-17T11:49:21-0600

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
In the United States, employers typically cover about 70% of insurance premiums, while individuals who receive insurance through their employer pay roughly 30%. If universal healthcare does not reduce overall healthcare costs in the country by 70%, individuals will end up paying more than 30% through taxes.

You assume that the employer is still going to be collecting that 70% out of payroll.

Job 33:6 · 2025-11-17T11:51:28-0600

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
In the United States, employers typically cover about 70% of insurance premiums, while individuals who receive insurance through their employer pay roughly 30%. If universal healthcare does not reduce overall healthcare costs in the country by 70%, individuals will end up paying more than 30% through taxes.

The 70% employer / 30% employee split is misleading, employers don’t absorb that cost for free. Their health-insurance spending comes directly out of worker wages, meaning workers effectively pay close to 100% of their healthcare costs already.

Universal healthcare systems typically reduce total national healthcare spending by 30–50% through price negotiation and lower administrative costs. So even if taxes replace premiums, most people would still pay less overall than they do now once you include premiums, deductibles, co-pays, and lost wages.

And this is evidenced in employee wage decreases associated with premium increases. Employers aren't just covering costs out of their own pockets, the money still comes from the employees. It's just indirect.

Employer coverage doesn’t eliminate the cost, rather it repackages it. Employees effectively pay for it through lower wages, but they gain tax savings, lower individual premiums, and convenience. It’s a system that spreads cost and risk, but it does not reduce the underlying expense, which is why universal healthcare proponents argue that a single-payer system would be simpler, more transparent, and often cheaper overall.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2813927

Effects of Employer Health Costs on the Trend and Distribution of Social-Security-Taxable Wages | Brookings

Gary Burtless and Sveta Milusheva simulate the implications of the health reform law on the trend in employer health costs and employee wages around 2016, finding only slight effects on wagse subjected to Social Security taxes. Burtless and Milusheva speculate that the main long-term impact of...

www.brookings.edu

The Labor Market Effects of Rising Health Insurance Premiums

Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals.

www.nber.org

RocksInMyHead · 2025-11-17T12:32:32-0600

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
If universal healthcare does not reduce overall healthcare costs in the country by 70%, individuals will end up paying more than 30% through taxes.

This assumes that businesses will take the 70% that they're paying now back as pure profit. I would hope that any plan to implement a single-payer healthcare system would take such an obvious loophole into account.

comana · 2025-11-17T16:45:03-0600

dogs4thewin said:
How good is the VA though I have heard some quite nasty things about it. As a disabled person I am on Medicare under my late father's record and Medicare specially for specialists is good Medicaid ( which I also have due to my personal lack of resources on the other hand put it this way Medicare is my primary and I went as far as to look up what percentage they covered to see if it would be worth letting Medicaid lapse as opposed to dealing with the pain in the rear end that is re-applying every year when my situation will clearly not change

VA care varies regionally and depends greatly on how close facilities are and how many veterans they service. My husband has used VA exclusively for years and has excellent care. We also have multiple military bases in the state and I think that influence how much money VA facilities get when there is a lot of local influence to drive the budgets.

VA would fall under government owned and managed healthcare. Medicare is single payer coverage funded by the government and managed by regional contracted MACs that are far more efficient than for profit insurance. Medicare is very simple for both the patient and medical facility vs for profit insurance that is an expensive nightmare for everyone who has to deal with it.

BCP1928 · 2025-11-17T20:04:10-0600

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
You make a good point—although employer-sponsored insurance has benefits, it also has drawbacks like job loss and high co-pays. That's why a single-payer system seems sensible.

However, the key question remains: how much must each individual contribute in taxation to achieve universal health care?

Reasonable, data based estimates have been shown to you over and over. How can you say that question remains?

Job 33:6 · 2025-11-17T20:18:57-0600

BCP1928 said:
Reasonable, data based estimates have been shown to you over and over. How can you say that question remains?

I think, to answer that question, we would just look at whatever a person is already paying in premiums, deductibles, and co pays, and subtract 20%.

How we would get there with such an entrenched private healthcare system, I don't know. But that's what it would be.

Maybe for starters, someone would have to create a government health insurance option, that anyone could buy into. America doesn't have such a thing. We have programs like Medicaid, but they're restricted from the everyday public. We would need a government insurance option, that could compete with private insurers.

A2SG · 2025-11-17T23:02:05-0600

Job 33:6 said:
I think, to answer that question, we would just look at whatever a person is already paying in premiums, deductibles, and co pays, and subtract 20%.

How we would get there with such an entrenched private healthcare system, I don't know. But that's what it would be.

Maybe for starters, someone would have to create a government health insurance option, that anyone could buy into. America doesn't have such a thing. We have programs like Medicaid, but they're restricted from the everyday public. We would need a government insurance option, that could compete with private insurers.

When Mitt Romney established the Heritage Foundation plan that the ACA is based on here in Massachusetts, a government insurance plan was instituted for those who can't afford private insurance, called MassHealth. While not perfect (what is?) it serves those who need it better than many for-profit health insurance plans do.

Why can't we do that on the national level?

-- A2SG, just kidding, we all know the an$wer.....

the "blue wave" last night and the government shutdown

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

dog lover

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Gumby

Similar threads