Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8857 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2018 10:47 AM
200 online now:
GDR, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 197 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 837,111 Year: 11,934/29,783 Month: 956/1,642 Week: 64/306 Day: 19/45 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   California will rock (economically speaking) with single payer. Gavin Newsom in 2018!
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1852
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009


Message 16 of 29 (822560)
10-27-2017 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by ringo
10-27-2017 11:36 AM


Re: Show Me The Money
Ringo writes

I pay nothing.

But isn't there something included the taxes?


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ringo, posted 10-27-2017 11:36 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by ringo, posted 10-27-2017 1:06 PM xongsmith has acknowledged this reply

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 14920
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 17 of 29 (822561)
10-27-2017 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by xongsmith
10-27-2017 12:59 PM


Re: Show Me The Money
xongsmith writes:

But isn't there something included the taxes?


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by xongsmith, posted 10-27-2017 12:59 PM xongsmith has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.5


(6)
Message 18 of 29 (822568)
10-27-2017 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by RAZD
10-26-2017 4:26 PM


Re: Show Me The Money -- the return on investment
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2017 4:26 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2017 7:49 AM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 20 by jar, posted 10-28-2017 8:18 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19544
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 19 of 29 (822570)
10-28-2017 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Taq
10-27-2017 5:13 PM


Re: Show Me The Money -- the return on investment
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 ...

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Taq, posted 10-27-2017 5:13 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30718
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 20 of 29 (822573)
10-28-2017 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Taq
10-27-2017 5:13 PM


Re: Show Me The Money -- the return on investment
Not a new problem but the cure is to add Connecticut Yankee to the required reading list for the fifth or sixth grade.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Taq, posted 10-27-2017 5:13 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Phat, posted 10-28-2017 11:24 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10982
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 21 of 29 (822579)
10-28-2017 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by jar
10-28-2017 8:18 AM


Re: Show Me The Money -- the return on investment
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 :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 10-28-2017 8:18 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1196
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 22 of 29 (822819)
11-01-2017 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Phat
10-26-2017 5:35 PM


Re: Show Me The Money
quote:

Well right now I have a $500.00 yearly deductable and pay $20.00 a month. If they mess with it, I will likely spend more money.

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)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Phat, posted 10-26-2017 5:35 PM Phat has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1196
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 23 of 29 (837852)
08-10-2018 12:44 AM


Americans make over $50,000 more per year than they spend on healthcare - record gap
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 United States spent $3.2 trillion on health care in 2015, up 5.8% from the year before, according to new data from the Centers on Medicare and Medicaid Services.

That's faster than in 2014, when overall health spending rose 5.3%. And it's the fastest growth rate since 2007.

That $3.2 trillion represents the combined amount spent on health care by all players, including the federal government, individuals, businesses, and state and local governments.

Total U.S. health spending reached nearly $10,000 per person last year, up 5% from the prior year. And as a share of the economy, it rose to 17.8% of GDP, up from 17.4% in 2014.

https://money.cnn.com/...omy/health-care-spending/index.html


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.

http://statisticstimes.com/...es-by-projected-gdp-capita.php

$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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 08-13-2018 2:29 AM LamarkNewAge has responded
 Message 25 by Taq, posted 08-13-2018 4:19 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10870
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 24 of 29 (838048)
08-13-2018 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by LamarkNewAge
08-10-2018 12:44 AM


Re: Americans make over $50,000 more per year than they spend on healthcare - record gap
$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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-10-2018 12:44 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-16-2018 12:57 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.5


(3)
Message 25 of 29 (838071)
08-13-2018 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by LamarkNewAge
08-10-2018 12:44 AM


Re: Americans make over $50,000 more per year than they spend on healthcare - record gap
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.

http://statisticstimes.com/...es-by-projected-gdp-capita.php
$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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-10-2018 12:44 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1196
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 26 of 29 (838207)
08-15-2018 11:57 PM


Higher GDP per person reflects wealth of a nation. It is helpful as a starting point.
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:

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.


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: 1196
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 27 of 29 (838208)
08-16-2018 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by NoNukes
08-13-2018 2:29 AM


NoNukes: "That number ($62,152) is the per capita division of GDP"
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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_GDP_of_China

http://statisticstimes.com/...es-by-projected-gdp-capita.php

https://www.newsghana.com.gh/...lds-economic-growth-official

There is a wealth requirement before we can even look at reforms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 08-13-2018 2:29 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by xongsmith, posted 08-16-2018 2:12 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1852
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009


Message 28 of 29 (838234)
08-16-2018 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by LamarkNewAge
08-16-2018 12:57 AM


Re: NoNukes: "That number ($62,152) is the per capita division of GDP"
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 = 104.5
however the median is only 5.5.


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-16-2018 12:57 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-16-2018 8:16 PM xongsmith has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1196
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 29 of 29 (838244)
08-16-2018 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by xongsmith
08-16-2018 2:12 PM


I think the numbers saying "2023" on the site should be 2022.
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)

http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=page&t=19496&mlist...

It isn't quite that bad in India (anyway).

quote:

Tetlow of the Financial Times described inequality as the "defining characteristic of the age" as The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.[14] The India Times article drew attention to the way in which "[d]eregulation and opening-up reforms in India since 1980s have led to substantial increase in inequality so much that top 0.1% of earners has continued to capture more growth than all those in the bottom 50% combined."[15] The WIR reported that, "Income inequality in India has reached historically high levels. In 2014, the share of national income accruing to India's top 1% of earners was 22%, while the share of the top 10% was around 56%."[11]:123

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Inequality_Report


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by xongsmith, posted 08-16-2018 2:12 PM xongsmith has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018