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.
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.
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 :)
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)
Re: Americans make over $50,000 more per year than they spend on healthcare - record gap
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
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.
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)
Tetlow of the Financial Times described inequality as the "defining characteristic of the age" as The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. 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." 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%.":123
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.