Options for Funding Medicare for All

Where no two people are likely to agree.
User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Options for Funding Medicare for All

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:53 pm

This is from Senator Bernie Sanders official website, and it describes in detail methods for generating the revenue required to institute a Medicare for All program that will provide every man, woman, and child in the US with health care coverage. The options for revenue include considerable savings for individuals, families, employers, and the federal government when compared to our current system, as well as progressive methods for requiring wealthy people and corporations to pay their fair share (redistributing the wealth that trickle-down economics artificially handed over to the top 1%). Obviously, it eliminates the enormous profits currently enjoyed by health insurance companies, pharmaceutical corporations, et alia.
Options to Finance Medicare for All
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Options for Funding Medicare for All

Postby Gord » Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:59 pm

"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Options for Funding Medicare for All

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:47 pm

I avoid reading up on the issue as I think the field is flooded with misinformation and unstated assumptions.

But here is the nub: If, and I do believe it is true, "other countries" provide better healthcare outcomes for ALL their people at HALF the "price/cost" of the USA....... then it seems to me "mathematical" that if a single payer system was instituted in America THEN the DEMONSTRATED FACT of the matter is: costs should drop by 50% WITH 100% coverage............ unless games are played, or the long and oft stated facts of Socialized Medicine are wrong????

What I think is happening to some degree on purpose or not, EVEN WITH Bernie Sanders, is some kind of profit skimming is still allowed to some interests.......otherwise........why must money be raised when the whole point (for fiscal conservatives like me) is that it SAVES MONEY???? I can see some kind of transition period to account for transition from the "freedom based Employer based system" (sic--the new characterization just cracks me up....when tyranny is called freedom..."from the failure of Obama care"....I mean..... the shitflow from the right just never stops)...but I want INFO.... not a mystery game to figure out.

Omelettes sure are messy....................
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Options for Funding Medicare for All

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:32 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:But here is the nub: If, and I do believe it is true, "other countries" provide better healthcare outcomes for ALL their people at HALF the "price/cost" of the USA....... then it seems to me "mathematical" that if a single payer system was instituted in America THEN the DEMONSTRATED FACT of the matter is: costs should drop by 50% WITH 100% coverage............ unless games are played, or the long and oft stated facts of Socialized Medicine are wrong????
There isn't a single country in the world that is fighting to replace their socialized medicine with our private, for profit system with its high costs, unequal outcomes, and proof of its failure (like the US' infant mortality rate, which is unacceptably high for a civilized country and one that touts its health care as "the best in the world").
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Options for Funding Medicare for All

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:43 pm

Yep. I've never heard the USA describe as "the best in the world" without the additional words: "if you are rich."
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Options for Funding Medicare for All

Postby Gord » Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:53 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:But here is the nub: If, and I do believe it is true, "other countries" provide better healthcare outcomes for ALL their people at HALF the "price/cost" of the USA....... then it seems to me "mathematical" that if a single payer system was instituted in America THEN the DEMONSTRATED FACT of the matter is: costs should drop by 50% WITH 100% coverage............ unless games are played, or the long and oft stated facts of Socialized Medicine are wrong????

There isn't a single country in the world that is fighting to replace their socialized medicine with our private, for profit system with its high costs, unequal outcomes, and proof of its failure (like the US' infant mortality rate, which is unacceptably high for a civilized country and one that touts its health care as "the best in the world").

Country, no, but there are individual people. In Canada, for instance, we've got plenty of right-wingers who are adamantly opposed to our wonderful healthcare system. When they manage to elect right-wing candidates (who often claim they won't do anything to damage our healthcare system), those candidates have a tendency to do things that appear designed to damage our healthcare system. They candidates are then often replaced in the next election by centralists or left-wingers who win by promising to fix what the right-winger has broken. It's baffling.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Options for Funding Medicare for All

Postby TJrandom » Mon Sep 18, 2017 9:34 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I avoid reading up on the issue as I think the field is flooded with misinformation and unstated assumptions.

But here is the nub: If, and I do believe it is true, "other countries" provide better healthcare outcomes for ALL their people at HALF the "price/cost" of the USA....... then it seems to me "mathematical" that if a single payer system was instituted in America THEN the DEMONSTRATED FACT of the matter is: costs should drop by 50% WITH 100% coverage............ unless games are played, or the long and oft stated facts of Socialized Medicine are wrong????

What I think is happening to some degree on purpose or not, EVEN WITH Bernie Sanders, is some kind of profit skimming is still allowed to some interests.......otherwise........why must money be raised when the whole point (for fiscal conservatives like me) is that it SAVES MONEY???? I can see some kind of transition period to account for transition from the "freedom based Employer based system" (sic--the new characterization just cracks me up....when tyranny is called freedom..."from the failure of Obama care"....I mean..... the shitflow from the right just never stops)...but I want INFO.... not a mystery game to figure out.

Omelettes sure are messy....................


No matter that overall costs drop - you still need to find the pocket with sufficient funds to pay for it.

Here in Japan it is paid for thru direct (individual plus corporate) `contributions`, and not out of general taxation funds. Better medical outcomes at lower total costs are obtained because service payments to providers are standard across the healthcare industry, private insurance is top-up only (generally to cover the co-pay and non-covered items such as 5-star rooms), doctors do not get filthy rich, administrative overheads are removed (just one insurance billing form for providers) and new medications take a bit longer to obtain approvals.

In great measure our system works because everybody is registered to a physical abode which makes contribution collection easy. If one does not pay, the powers will find and seize your assets. If you have none, OK - your coverage is free. The few that are not covered (homeless living rough so no abode) are still treated at emergency rooms.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Options for Funding Medicare for All

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:25 pm

TJ: healthcare is for the general good of the society, I don't see why it should not be paid for from general resources. Whatever works......but........ the general tax system is already in place, why create any other system with its faults and duplications when an appropriate system is already in place to do the job?

Another issue that has arisen in the past 2-3 days, evidently the Pukes have another "final" stab at killing Obamacare and right now the hype is it has a better chance of passing than the previous plans. This could be true as McSane evidently is supporting it as his State Govenor has said he supports it. BUT WHY????????????? The previous program failed because the enough congress creeps got the word it would hurt their constituency. The only difference this new plan offers is that it is MORE ONEROUS than the previous ones. Why would the borderline and against Pukes now be "for" a program that is more onerous? Its just CRAP.... everywhere you look. The people and the general good be damned.......its the special interests (the AlreadyTooRich and Corporist Interests) that the Puke are out to serve with an "in your face" set of BS to the voters to get it done. I don't know who to blame the most, although thankfully, I can blame both.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Options for Funding Medicare for All

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:40 pm

Gord wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:But here is the nub: If, and I do believe it is true, "other countries" provide better healthcare outcomes for ALL their people at HALF the "price/cost" of the USA....... then it seems to me "mathematical" that if a single payer system was instituted in America THEN the DEMONSTRATED FACT of the matter is: costs should drop by 50% WITH 100% coverage............ unless games are played, or the long and oft stated facts of Socialized Medicine are wrong????

There isn't a single country in the world that is fighting to replace their socialized medicine with our private, for profit system with its high costs, unequal outcomes, and proof of its failure (like the US' infant mortality rate, which is unacceptably high for a civilized country and one that touts its health care as "the best in the world").

Country, no, but there are individual people. In Canada, for instance, we've got plenty of right-wingers who are adamantly opposed to our wonderful healthcare system. When they manage to elect right-wing candidates (who often claim they won't do anything to damage our healthcare system), those candidates have a tendency to do things that appear designed to damage our healthcare system. They candidates are then often replaced in the next election by centralists or left-wingers who win by promising to fix what the right-winger has broken. It's baffling.
Indeed, it is baffling. But we know all too well that many people choose their personal beliefs over the facts of an issue. Those candidates may have nothing against the health care system per se, except in that it prevents the kinds of huge profits that insurance and pharmaceutical corporations enjoy in the US. But they certainly won't win elections if their real motive is known, so they attack the existing system with out-of-context statistics and other untruths, convincing ignorant people that the system is flawed.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Options for Funding Medicare for All

Postby TJrandom » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:48 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:TJ: healthcare is for the general good of the society, I don't see why it should not be paid for from general resources. Whatever works......but........ the general tax system is already in place, why create any other system with its faults and duplications when an appropriate system is already in place to do the job?

Another issue that has arisen in the past 2-3 days, evidently the Pukes have another "final" stab at killing Obamacare and right now the hype is it has a better chance of passing than the previous plans. This could be true as McSane evidently is supporting it as his State Govenor has said he supports it. BUT WHY????????????? The previous program failed because the enough congress creeps got the word it would hurt their constituency. The only difference this new plan offers is that it is MORE ONEROUS than the previous ones. Why would the borderline and against Pukes now be "for" a program that is more onerous? Its just CRAP.... everywhere you look. The people and the general good be damned.......its the special interests (the AlreadyTooRich and Corporist Interests) that the Puke are out to serve with an "in your face" set of BS to the voters to get it done. I don't know who to blame the most, although thankfully, I can blame both.


I read your previous post as `Why tax, if savings are to be so great?`, and offered an example of a non-tax approach, even though it would not work `as is` in the US. Bernies progressive approach to paying for it thru new taxes is OK by me - I won`t be taxed, but it seems to me that Americans usually don`t like new taxes, even when they only hit others.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Options for Funding Medicare for All

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:58 pm

TJrandom wrote: I read your previous post as `Why tax, if savings are to be so great?`, and offered an example of a non-tax approach, even though it would not work `as is` in the US. Bernies progressive approach to paying for it thru new taxes is OK by me - I won`t be taxed, but it seems to me that Americans usually don`t like new taxes, even when they only hit others.

Well, thats correct TJ. But while I initially responded just thinking you were off point, now, you are simply wrong? Ha, ha. "If the tax savings are so great"....applies but in a sense but taxes are the revenue side of the equation. What makes a single payer cheaper is on the expense side. So....new taxes are not required and no new tax plan or other funding mechanism is required. Just use what is already in place but change the expense side of the equation.

The well known not even objected to reality is that some 30% of taxes for healthcare goes to pay for "Administration" of competititve health programs by the for profits. Advertising and marketing for instance. Policy writing and review, enforcement. bonus payments for those middle men who deny claims and so forth. all of that GONE with single payer. See the savings???????????? No change to the tax revenue is needed at all.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Options for Funding Medicare for All

Postby TJrandom » Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:14 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
TJrandom wrote: I read your previous post as `Why tax, if savings are to be so great?`, and offered an example of a non-tax approach, even though it would not work `as is` in the US. Bernies progressive approach to paying for it thru new taxes is OK by me - I won`t be taxed, but it seems to me that Americans usually don`t like new taxes, even when they only hit others.

Well, thats correct TJ. But while I initially responded just thinking you were off point, now, you are simply wrong? Ha, ha. "If the tax savings are so great"....applies but in a sense but taxes are the revenue side of the equation. What makes a single payer cheaper is on the expense side. So....new taxes are not required and no new tax plan or other funding mechanism is required. Just use what is already in place but change the expense side of the equation.

The well known not even objected to reality is that some 30% of taxes for healthcare goes to pay for "Administration" of competititve health programs by the for profits. Advertising and marketing for instance. Policy writing and review, enforcement. bonus payments for those middle men who deny claims and so forth. all of that GONE with single payer. See the savings???????????? No change to the tax revenue is needed at all.


Nope - all mud. There is no tax based funding for healthcare now - except for Medicare/Medicaid and a paultry kickback to the insurance companies. Instead there is private insurance funded by individuals and companies. If Medicare is to be expanded without a new tax base, those funds (replacing all of those private policies) needs to come from someplace - and savings isn`t a disbursement source. The savings of course reduces the amount of taxation that needs to occur, but taxation (or some other revenue source) is still needed.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Options for Funding Medicare for All

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:19 pm

TJ==fair point. As stated, I haven't delved into this, so my arguments are crude. I simply lumped employer and employee payments made for healthcare plans into the concept of "taxes" or the revenue side of the equation and assumed they would continue.

So rather than saying taxation....say funding? And the original question remains intact. With that said, yes...single payer allows for other modifications as deemed appropriate. If it indeed became a general taxation event, then one benefit would be American manufactured goods would become more competitive as the healthcare component of it would be greatly reduced....under most models I have seen: eg: every USA car has $2000 of healthcare cost in it not present in the competitors.....but if healthcare costs were removed, I assume it could and should be mostly replaced by a general tax....even one based on "per employee"....but whatever "works."
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Options for Funding Medicare for All

Postby TJrandom » Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:31 pm

I don`t see the manufacturing benefit - since the same can be said for other national healthcare countries, If fact, IMO - the US manufactured goods are `unfairly competitive` now, since the costs of healthcare for all haven`t been factored in. But, with the higher healthcare costs the US `wastes`, you could be right.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Options for Funding Medicare for All

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:35 pm

How can the cost of healthcare for all be factored in when there is NO health care for all? Its all accounting.... what and how you include and exclude. I've not seen one complaint to saying employer paid healthcare does not make american products more expensive.............not that that makes your opinion wrong. Just singular.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Options for Funding Medicare for All

Postby TJrandom » Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:40 pm

That was my point - the cost of healthcare for all isn`t factored into the cost of US manufactored goods - but it is factored into the costs of manufactored goods from contries with healthcare for all - hence the US has a current unfair competitive advantage. Once the US gets healthcare for all - the costs of US manufactored goods should rise, not fall (except that the savings may offset this).

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Options for Funding Medicare for All

Postby OlegTheBatty » Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:41 pm

TJrandom wrote:I don`t see the manufacturing benefit - since the same can be said for other national healthcare countries, If fact, IMO - the US manufactured goods are `unfairly competitive` now, since the costs of healthcare for all haven`t been factored in. But, with the higher healthcare costs the US `wastes`, you could be right.


Healthcare premiums paid for by employers in Canada are half or less what they are for American employers. It would be similar for other countries.

Single payer in the US would likely see a budget increase for the feds, and a saving for consumers. Also for employers who include health care as part of their benefits package. It would depend on what the guv used for revenue - general taxation, premiums, or some combination.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero


Return to “Politics and Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests