|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,418 Year: 3,675/9,624 Month: 546/974 Week: 159/276 Day: 33/23 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: California will rock (economically speaking) with single payer. Gavin Newsom in 2018! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
Ringo writes
I pay nothing. But isn't there something included the taxes?- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
xongsmith writes:
Of course healthcare is paid for by taxes. But there's no direct connection between the healthcare and the payment. You can pay taxes your whole life and never need the healthcare, or you can receive the healthcare without ever having paid taxes.
But isn't there something included the taxes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
RAZD writes: We already pay for healthcare, in a weird way -- through your employer via deductions from your paycheck (unless you are self insured). Why should your employer have a say in what kind of health insurance you get? I wonder if people would look at it differently if they viewed their employer paid healthcare not as a benefit but as a deduction from their wages. Some American's obsession with taxes has really led to some bad logic in some arenas. Let's take this scenario: Scenario A: pay 10,000 in taxes and 6,000 in health insurance.Scenario B: pay 13,000 in taxes and nothing in health insurance. Some Americans would look at those scenarios and claim that Scenario A is better because it has lower taxes. I kid you not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Scenario A: pay 10,000 in taxes and 6,000 in health insurance. Scenario B: pay 13,000 in taxes and nothing in health insurance. Some Americans would look at those scenarios and claim that Scenario A is better because it has lower taxes. ... Scenario B is socialism/communism/etc while scenario A is good ol capitalism ... which makes it better ... Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Not a new problem but the cure is to add Connecticut Yankee to the required reading list for the fifth or sixth grade.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
It will likely take more than reading mark twain to fix this generation. Text messaging and cellphone "addiction" are rampant, as is the usual suspects of infotainment, the lifestyle of the parents, as well as the emphasis on education. 5th and 6th graders do seem to have good reading lists, however....
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2322 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: Don't forget the copays. ObamaCare has a silver plan where you pay 12% of your income and get 80% of covered expenses in the coverage (minus the deductibles and assuming you go to an approved doctor in the network) with a certain amount of deductibles. The Bronze plan has a $6000 deductible and just 60% coverage after you pay the first $6000 out of pocket (plus the 6% tax or "premium"). Remember the co-pay issue. 20% (after premiums and deductibles) in the Silver plan. 40% in the Bronze plan. (only after you pay 100% of the first $6000 and EVEN IF THOSE ARE COPVERED EXPENSES)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2322 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
U.S. health care spending grew 4.3 percent in 2016, reaching $3.3 trillion or $10,348 per person.
I am assuming it will be around $10,800-$11,000 in 2017. Perhaps $11,300 to $11,600 this year. (2018) Here was the 2015 situation
quote: The healthcare numbers aren't even in for 2017 yet. The projected income per capita for the country in 2018 is still just a projection (and one from May 2018) But here are the income per person stats. Countries by Projected GDP per capita 2021 - StatisticsTimes.com $62,152 It will be around $62,000 or more it seems. Healthcare will be $12,000 per person or less. So for the first time ever, American's average income will be $50,000 above the average health care cost per person. Don't think single payer will do anything but help economic growth, and keep costs down. An example about how good federal policy can enable ALL to share in the wealth gains. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
$62,152 That number is the per capita division of GDP. There are quite a few things wrong with citing it as an income number even before we start talking about exactly what sense an average makes in the first place. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
LamarckNewAge writes: he healthcare numbers aren't even in for 2017 yet. The projected income per capita for the country in 2018 is still just a projection (and one from May 2018) But here are the income per person stats. File Not Found$62,152 It will be around $62,000 or more it seems. Healthcare will be $12,000 per person or less. So for the first time ever, American's average income will be $50,000 above the average health care cost per person. Don't think single payer will do anything but help economic growth, and keep costs down. An example about how good federal policy can enable ALL to share in the wealth gains. I am with NoNukes on this one. The average income/cost per capita are probably not the numbers to go with. You will need to find medians for household income and out of pocket costs for healthcare if it is going to be applicable to the average American. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2322 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Then we need to look at the percentage of GDP that is spent on health care (of course the quality of care is important
quote: Single Payer can lead to better overall care (though cost controls can be a double edged sword for numerous reasons), and can control health care costs as a percentage of GDP. I am not a radical on cost controls, I prefer (somewhat) higher costs over radical government suppression of prescription drug costs in addition to careful consideration of newer technologies being allowed profits. If California adopts extreme cost controls, the costs can be as low as 12-13% of the state GDP. I would prefer a federal Single Payer system that still allows health care to be (presently) 17% to 18% of GDP, THOUGH we have no idea what future costs should go up to. We just don't know what kind of advances and innovations will come about. We need to allow research and development to happen to its fullest extent. Right now, the government isn't making the necessary investments, so the private sector is vital. For NOW. Hopefully, there can be a much larger future Federal Government role in drug development (with funding being the main issue) and technological breakthroughs. (EDIT We also need spending high enough that people actually can be covered - EVEN when technological breakthroughs are expensive. Plus we need people not to loose the ability to get screenings with the best of today's AND TOMORROWS methods. This a totally separate, BUT OVERALL RELATED, issue apart from the issue of the development and discovery of blockbuster drugs and devices) The issue is economic growth, health care costs per GDP, and proper federal policy to make both things happen in a favorable way to all people. California will be taking on quite a burden to try and make it happen there and there alone. But a radical cost-control kind of plan can show us that it is possible to even have Single Payer w/ great economic growth at the state level, despite the higher taxes seemingly being an incentive for people to leave the state. (very careful tax policy combined with an extreme cost control kind of Single Payer plan is vital in a 1-State Only Single Payer scheme) Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2322 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
My thing is that GDP MATTERS.
Look at China. This nation had a GDP of about $1.2 trillion in 2000, which was about 1/8 of ours. Now, in 2018, China is at $14.1 trillion while we are at $20.4 China will be at $21.6 trillion in 2023, while we are projected to be $24.5 trillion. The world is at $87.5 trillion in 2018, with a projection of $114.3 in 2023. China has wealth to use to make things happen. It would be difficult to have a western quality Single Payer system when income was just under $1,000 per person in 2000. China will have a per capita income of $15,183 per person in 2023 (over $26,000 in PPP), though it is only $10,088 in 2018. I would say that GDP is a vitally important factor when looking at health care programs. Historical GDP of China - Wikipedia Countries by Projected GDP per capita 2021 - StatisticsTimes.com China contributes a lot to world’s economic growth: official | News Ghana There is a wealth requirement before we can even look at reforms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
per capita is bullshit. use the median, not the average.
consider these 10 incomes, in some arbitrary clams: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1000 the per capita average is 1045/10 = 104.5however the median is only 5.5. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2322 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
It looks like you are saying the top 10% make 96% of income.
See message 22 in the link below (World Inequality Report 2018 article) EvC Forum: The economy needs a 3% GDP growth to function well It isn't quite that bad in India (anyway).
quote: I need to look at the numbers closer. But there is still much higher TOTAL wealth to be taxed. Look at India in 2018 where the per capita income is $2,135 now. (ppp $7,784) India will be at $3,274 in 2022. (ppp $11,785) China has $10,088 per capita income in 2018. (ppp $18,066) China will be at $15,183 in 2022. (ppp $26,086) The World is $11,727 in 2018. (ppp $18,089) The world will be at $14,494 in 2022 (ppp $22,562) The United States is $62,152 according to the 2018 projections. Will be $71,805 in 2022. In India and China, the wealth is going up 50% for the year 2022 (in both ppp and nominal U.S. dollar incomes), and that year is starting in just a bit more than 3 years and 4 months. The world average (if one looks at PPP) per capita income will be 31.42% of the United States China having a per capita income that is going to be 36.33% (PPP) of the United States is stunning, really. Just 3 years from now! This is purchasing power (since real world purchases like haircuts, bus rides, health care are cheaper in poorer countries than the United States) mind you, but China will have some real $ to tax (if the government so chooses)for programs that benefit all. About $15,200 per capita income does mark the wealth of a society that can have near (modern) European style programs and services. China really should be considered a developed nation when we get past 2025. With per capita incomes at about $30,000 a year (albeit PPP), it looks an awful lot like Italy to me, though the development is just getting started. The wealth might be concentrated, but there is potential for newer policies everywhere.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024