How would we pay for Universal Health Care (open question)?

[Maxel]

I've been wondering this for a while:

For those who support Universal Health Care, I have just two questions:

1) How do you propose we pay for the cost of the health care?

2) How do you propose we pay off our national debt?

No need to get too specific- I just want to see what you guys' general ideas are. So far, the only idea I've heard of is 'tax the rich'- which I think is a horrible, horrible idea.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Maxel

[bytor2112]

1. Tax refund in the form of a voucher to pay annual premium for health insurance for all that pay taxes.

2. Across the board tax cuts (make Bush tax cuts permanent). Slash the corporate tax rate and slash government waste and spending. Repeal TARP, Stimulus and Omnibus bill. Bring to a close the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. (define and achieve the mission, obviously)

Edited November 24, 2009 by bytor2112

[FunkyTown]

The first thing that would need to be done is the scrapping of Medicare. For something that is so poor at what it does, I'm amazed that it costs as much as it does.

Record Share Of Economy Spent on Health Care - washingtonpost.com

If, as the Washington Post says, Medicare is 16% of the GDP and the UK spends only 7.6% on the GDP as per:

Health spending in UK to rise to 7.6% of GDP

We know that Medicare is one horrible, bloated albatross hanging around the neck of the US. I make an appointment, go to the Doctors and spend nothing to do so. If I have a fever, I go to the doctors. If I have a bad cold, I go to the Doctors. I get flu shots, there is little to no wait for general practitioners and I truly love the NHS. And there are more middle managers than there are Doctors and Lawyers in the NHS.

So: Assuming that all the information we're being fed by the US media is correct, and since the US GDP per capita is $11, 000/year more than the UK as per:

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We can assume that eliminating Medicare would allow a grossly large amount of funds simply by virtue of streamlining the situation.

It would require doing a few things:

1) Identifying why cost-per-visit in the US is so much higher than in the UK or other countries with national health care. If we apply the GDP costs, the UK spends $2763.21/year per citizen on health care while the US, using simply Medicaid, spends $7590.40 per person on health care. And Medicaid certainly doesn't cover everyone, which means the number is obscenely higher. Assuming we can trust the Washington Post for its numbers, it means that the US spends triple the costs per each citizen on health care compared to the UK. Considering how bloated and inefficient the NHS is, seeing these numbers makes me think a widespread investigation in to Medicaid/Medicare fraud should take place.

2) After completely eliminating Medicare/Medicaid, build a system that works. Make it simple. Eliminate the riders that suck up wealth.

Assuming that can be done and corruption mitigated, the US already spends far too much on health care. You could safely spend half that and have one of the best public health care options in the world and still afford to sock money away for when the aging populace strains the health system.

I'm frankly mystified more people haven't said, "HEY! Why is Medicaid costing us so much?"

[applepansy]

FT, Medicare and Social Security were fully funded at one time. People who now rely on these programs for their retirement paid their whole lives into the system. Our government "borrowed" the money that was just sitting there and never paid it back.....thus the trouble we're in now.

I never believe anything the US Media says unless I can confirm somewhere else.

What do you plan to do for those who paid into the federal plan their entire adults lives? It wasn't optional.

I agree with Bytor. The health care situation is not going to be solved unless our government stops spending money where is shouldn't be spent. We need less government and less governmental interference in our lives.

BTW, Medicare is Federal and Medicaid is State. They are two different programs. People are asking why Medicaid is costing too much. And we all know the answer. Government run welfare systems never work. There are always those who take advantage of free money, food, etc. Look at what killed the Roman empire. History is repeating itself in this area.

Over the decades since I was a kid, there have been Federal government people come to Utah and visit Welfare Square. They are always amazed at how well the church system works. But they don't go back to Washington and implement the simple principles. They instead want to make it even harder for people exercise their agency. Instead of choosing to be charitable we'll be forced through taxation to be charitable. I don't believe we get the blessings if we're forced to follow the commandments.

Edited November 25, 2009 by applepansy
typos

[HEthePrimate]

Yeah, you're right. Taxing the rich is a horrible, horrible idea. I propose instead that we tax the poor! After all, even though very few people are brave enough to say so, we all know that our nation's financial woes are the fault of the poor because they don't support the economy by buying enough consumer goods. And they also mooch off the system. So why not give them some incentive to change their ways by taxing them, essentially a fine for not participating better in the economy?

HEP

[beefche]

HEP, I know you're being sarcastic, but I don't understand why you think slashing taxes on the rich will in essence make the poor pay taxes. They already pay taxes--sales tax, taxes on junk food, taxes on cig/liquor, taxes on gas, etc.

We all know the problem with our healthcare system--too much waste and government spending and inefficiency within the systems we currently have. The government has admitted they know that there is billions of dollars lost due to fraud within the system. Then clean it up!

[FunkyTown]

Heya, Pansalotti!

If you're asking what we plan to do for those who paid in to the federal plan their whole lives? We would give them free health care!

Seriously. If you paid in for health care and you get health care, what difference does it make what it's called? You're getting exactly what you paid for.

Social security is a whole new bag of worms we're not talking about.

FT, Medicare and Social Security were fully funded at one time. People who now rely on these programs for their retirement paid their whole lives into the system. Our government "borrowed" the money that was just sitting there and never paid it back.....thus the trouble we're in now.

I never believe anything the US Media says unless I can confirm somewhere else.

What do you plan to do for those who paid into the federal plan their entire adults lives? It wasn't optional.

I agree with Bytor. The health care situation is not going to be solved unless our government stops spending money where is shouldn't be spent. We need less government and less governmental interference in our lives.

BTW, Medicare is Federal and Medicaid is State. They are two different programs. People are asking why Medicaid is costing too much. And we all know the answer. Government run welfare systems never work. There are always those who take advantage of free money, food, etc. Look at what killed the Roman empire. History is repeating itself in this area.

Over the decades since I was a kid, there have been Federal government people come to Utah and visit Welfare Square. They are always amazed at how well the church system works. But they don't go back to Washington and implement the simple principles. They instead want to make it even harder for people exercise their agency. Instead of choosing to be charitable we'll be forced through taxation to be charitable. I don't believe we get the blessings if we're forced to follow the commandments.

[talisyn]

How to pay for universal health care? That's easy, taxes lol. Yes I said it, there would be taxes like what Canada has already. I like the idea of eliminating Medicare (and caid for that matter), you would simply make those funds part of the program. The gov't has shown it can create a great health care system with the military, and yes our military people totally deserve that. But why can't they use the same program for others as well?

Applepansy, I bet you remember the 'locked box' mantra of a few elections ago too

Sorry Maxel, I'm not seeing the clear connection between the national debt and health care. You could also ask how we can fund the national parks program and pay off the debt. Or how we can fund the highway system and the debt. Or better yet, how we can pay for congresspeoples health insurance and pensions and the national debt.

BTW, I like this discussion

[beefche]

Sorry Maxel, I'm not seeing the clear connection between the national debt and health care. You could also ask how we can fund the national parks program and pay off the debt. Or how we can fund the highway system and the debt. Or better yet, how we can pay for congresspeoples health insurance and pensions and the national debt.

BTW, I like this discussion

You can't? I find that surprising, actually. Our national debt is at an all time high with no foreseeable way to pay it off. Anything of this nature (health care, overall of the SS or Medicare program, etc) will simply bankrupt our country. Unless they can come up with a way to pay it off with money we have (which we don't have any). As any financial expert would say, in order to spend more money, you either have to earn more money or cut spending somewhere or both.

Goverment earns money through taxation. You keep taxing the people and reducing their take home pay or taxing the air that one breathes, then you are flirting with revolution.

[NeuroTypical]

Yeah, you're right. Taxing the rich is a horrible, horrible idea. I propose instead that we tax the poor!

I'm a big fan of sarcasm, but when it's wrapped around a false dichotomy, it sort of loses it's zingy punch.

The basic idea is that the govt will have more money if they tax everyone less. I know it sounds counterintuitive. But it warrants further thought on your part. Trust me.

It's the foundational element of conservative thoughts on tax policy, and until liberal folks at least try to grasp why we believe it, they're doomed to interacting with strawmen like HEtP does above.

LM

[FunkyTown]

I'm a big fan of sarcasm, but when it's wrapped around a false dichotomy, it sort of loses it's zingy punch.

The basic idea is that the govt will have more money if they tax everyone less. I know it sounds counterintuitive. But it warrants further thought on your part. Trust me.

It's the foundational element of conservative thoughts on tax policy, and until liberal folks at least try to grasp why we believe it, they're doomed to interacting with strawmen like HEtP does above.

LM

I will explain what LM means: He means that, according to economic thinking on the right, lower taxes means more money to spend. More money to spend means more items being purchased. More items being purchased means more jobs. More jobs means more choice for what job to take. More choice for what job to take forces companies to offer more to their employees to keep them. Higher wages means more purchases.

And more purchases leads to more taxes for the government. It operates on a bell curve, however, and requires careful forethought. Nobody has yet demonstrated the 'sweet spot' for taxation, but this is the basic idea.

So, in a nutshell: Fix the economy and taxation works itself out. Raise taxes and people are forced to spend less.

[prisonchaplain]

I've been wondering this for a while:

For those who support Universal Health Care, I have just two questions:

1) How do you propose we pay for the cost of the health care?

2) How do you propose we pay off our national debt?

No need to get too specific- I just want to see what you guys' general ideas are. So far, the only idea I've heard of is 'tax the rich'- which I think is a horrible, horrible idea.

This is no big deal. Bytor should pay for it.

[bytor2112]

Why do some seem to think the government needs more of our money? Don't you think they have enough already? Don't you think they waste enough already?

If what everyone wants is a cadillac health insurance plan with all the trimmings, WHY not refund taxes to each individual/family in the amount necessary to purchase the plan of your choice? Why should they get decide anything? Why not?

The only solution those on the left can relate to is government run and paid for on the backs of the "wealthy". Why in the world can't everyone pay there own way through a targeted tax cut designated and mandated for the purchase of health insurance? Those that don't pay taxes can get health insurance through a government voucher.

Edited November 26, 2009 by bytor2112

[bytor2112]

Yeah, you're right. Taxing the rich is a horrible, horrible idea. I propose instead that we tax the poor! After all, even though very few people are brave enough to say so, we all know that our nation's financial woes are the fault of the poor because they don't support the economy by buying enough consumer goods. And they also mooch off the system. So why not give them some incentive to change their ways by taxing them, essentially a fine for not participating better in the economy?

HEP

Who said anything about taxing the poor? Your post is non sense and doesn't present a solution. :coocoo:

[bytebear]

Unfortunately, when you tax the rich, you are in fact taxing the poor or at least the middle class. When you tax a big corporation, what do they do? They raise the cost of their products. And so in a sense the consumer is the one paying the taxes. And here in California, they don't even bother to tax the rich. They just raise taxes on anything they can, and the poor are usually the ones who are screwed the most.

[AnthonyB]

Here's some ideas...

1) GP's instead of specialists for the vast majority of consultations, specialists only on referal.

2) A PBS (Pharmeutical benefit scheme) with a unified being system to drive down drug costs.

3) Limit the ability to sue and replace it with a government run insurance scheme.

The US, a nation that spends more on health and gets less from it then almost anywhere else.

Australia may a socialist country then the US but I'll take our health system over the US oen anyday.

[Moksha]

1) How do you propose we pay for the cost of the health care?

What seems best to me would be a health care system based on the Japanese model that would control all costs by controlling all aspects of care. Like the Japanese, we could have good care when we need it for less cost than we spend currently.

2) How do you propose we pay off our national debt?

Good luck with that.

No more wars, higher taxes and wage/price freezes may help, but it will never end unless under a doomsday scenario of the world economy totally collapsing and the eventual syndicates that follow inevitable anarchy decide to let it the debt go. Quick, fetch me my tin foil!

:)

[talisyn]

You can't? I find that surprising, actually. Our national debt is at an all time high with no foreseeable way to pay it off. Anything of this nature (health care, overall of the SS or Medicare program, etc) will simply bankrupt our country. Unless they can come up with a way to pay it off with money we have (which we don't have any). As any financial expert would say, in order to spend more money, you either have to earn more money or cut spending somewhere or both.

Goverment earns money through taxation. You keep taxing the people and reducing their take home pay or taxing the air that one breathes, then you are flirting with revolution.

I guess what I was getting at is our national debt is already out of control with what is being spent even before the 2 stimulus bills. I fail to see how creating a universal health care plan using funds already in place (medicare and medicaid) plus new tax revenue from those who choose to opt into the coverage will increase it more than it already is.

Edited November 26, 2009 by talisyn

[prisonchaplain]

I guess what I was getting at is our national debt is already out of control with what is being spent even before the 2 stimulus bills.

Wait...we're already hopelessly in debt, so what's another $2 trillion? Is that really the question?

I fail to see how creating a universal health care plan using funds already in place (medicare and medicaid) plus new tax revenue from those who choose to opt into the coverage will increase it more than it already is.

The math doesn't add up. The "40 million"--or whatever the real number is--who don't have medicaid/care because they are not poor enough, but who do not gave health insurance, cannot afford it. Decent health insurance costs more than $10K a year for a family. So, who's going to make up the difference? The rich? You might get a pittance. Their tax lawyers and CPAs are pretty crafty. No, the lion's share will come from the middle and upper middle classes.

We're told our own insurance will not change. But it has to. Either benefits will shrink, co-pays and premiums will rise, or both. Other taxes will also be needed. The middle class is the cash cow of government. Make no mistake, universal healthcare pits the lower-middle class against the middle-middle and upper middle classes. This is class warfare. And, quite frankly, such an environment is always created to bolster one particular party's constinuencies.

[talisyn]

Taxing the poor actually would work, using the Wal-Mart Plan to Take Over the World. What the Evil Empire does is buy a whole bunch of stuff for low wholesale prices, and marks them up for resale about..umm..let's say 3% for a jug of Tide. That make it about $0.22 profit per container. But, and this is where they kill, they sell thousands of the suckers every week. They do this with almost everything. When I worked there I hardly ever saw an over 10% markup over cost, keeping everything low priced so that even their workers could afford Tide

Take this into the real world. I'm using a simplistic population of 2/3 poorer (under $100,000/year income) to 1/3 wealthier (+$100,000/year income). You have a universal 'flat tax' of 15% on goods and services. You have millions of poor people paying say an extra $1,500 in taxes per year. Multiply $1,500 by a few million, versus an extra $2,500 the wealthier taxpayers would pay (make that an extra million people) with the understanding that people at lower income levels spend more of their take home income on groceries/gas/etc and people at higher income levels put more money into IRAs, savings, 401k programs, etc that would not be taxable under this program. That comes out to $3,000,000,000 in taxes from lower income people vs. $2,500,000,000. Taxing less wealthy people would generate $500,000,000 more income than taxing the wealthy.

Is it ethical to tax in this manner? That is open to great rousing debate. But I will go on record as saying i would have no problem personally as long as I get good health care and better after-school programs in the bargain.

[Maxel]

Yeah, you're right. Taxing the rich is a horrible, horrible idea. I propose instead that we tax the poor! After all, even though very few people are brave enough to say so, we all know that our nation's financial woes are the fault of the poor because they don't support the economy by buying enough consumer goods. And they also mooch off the system. So why not give them some incentive to change their ways by taxing them, essentially a fine for not participating better in the economy?

Would you be okay if we raise taxes for the rich and poor equally? Maybe increase the income tax by 15% all around?

Sorry Maxel, I'm not seeing the clear connection between the national debt and health care. You could also ask how we can fund the national parks program and pay off the debt. Or how we can fund the highway system and the debt. Or better yet, how we can pay for congresspeoples health insurance and pensions and the national debt.

The intent was just to talk about solutions to the money problems facing our country. I'm already familiar with the conservative idea- cut spending and cut taxes- but I'm trying to get a greater feel for the more liberal approach (beyond the 'raise taxes' portion). I also tried to approach it in a manner where solutions are presented first and debated second, instead of the ideology being imediately combatted.

In that regard, I'm enjoying this thread- particularly FunkyTown's analysis of the situation and prisonchaplain's suggestion that bytor pay it all. An idea I happen to support. Where's my check, bytor?

Edited November 27, 2009 by Maxel

[Moksha]

No more wars, higher taxes and wage/price freezes may help, but it will never end unless under a doomsday scenario of the world economy totally collapsing ...

:)

Pessimist! Like Annie said, "...tomorrow's just a day away", so you better remember that and concentrate on things that can be changed for the better.

[boyando]

The answer is simple. Unicorns!

[Just_A_Guy]

Not sure where else to put this, but . . .

Apparently the conference between the House and Senate health care bills has been delayed until February. Right-slanted story here.

[prisonchaplain]

I thought Palerider was footing the bill?