Another way to fund Single Payer or Public Option - US Healthcare Bonds. Would you buy one?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

Re single payer and public plan - the major question on the table appears to be -how to fund a REAL single payer or public option? So far most discussions seem to focus on some kind of tax adjustment - raising caps, taxing existing benefits, etc. which may indeed become necessary. I have heard many people say they would not mind an increase in taxes if in return they received secure, affordable healthcare. One option that I never hear discussed is a way to let taxpayers voluntarily help shoulder the expense with US Savings Bonds that are specifically designed to help fund and underwrite a national healthcare plan.

Would you buy a US Healthcare Bond? I would. Lots of people are looking for safe harbors for their money nowadays. Specific purpose bonds are a well-known funding device. The US sold War Bonds during the first and Second World Wars. People saw purchasing them as a form of patriotism. Municipal bonds are commonplace. Why NOT US Healthcare bonds? If offered, it would be interesting to see how many would buy. It would be an opportunity for single payer and public fund advocates, and anyone else, to direct some money towards a cause they believe in for the benefit of all Americans.

I never hear of a suggestion like this, and I wonder why not.

[quantass]

1. I would

I think it is an interesting proposal and personally think this silly game of all Americans not being covered needs to end already so the US can catch up with the rest of the world

[drm604]

2. I'm certainly not an expert on bonds

but isn't this just pushing the problem off till later, when they would have to be paid off with interest?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

3. I believe our entire government runs on taxes and bonds

I'm no expert either, but I think that's just the way it's done.

[drm604]

7. Yes, it does,

but that doesn't mean that it's a good way to do things. Healthcare should, if at all possible, be funded directly and completely by appropriate progressive taxes. If you constantly fund it through debt then it will be constantly underfunded and there will be constant calls for cost cutting and rationing.

Bonds may make sense for building medical infrastructure - new hospitals, computer networks, etc., because those are investments in the future which presumably would end up saving more than the cost of the debt, but in my opinion using bonds on an ongoing basis to fund daily operations is a bad idea.

But I think what it really comes down to is that you'll get very few politicians, of either party, who would vote for doing things this way.

[mdmc]

4. this is a solution worthy of exploration

If enough people invested in US Healthcare Bonds, we could try a single payer test run.

[Somawas]

5. I would not.

Where is the revenue stream that gives any security to my principal or to the payment of any interest I'm promised?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

6. The full faith and security of the US Government isn't good enough for you?

That's what secures all goverment bonds.

[Somawas]

12. That is what secures general obligation bonds.

In which case, why call them "healthcare bonds"? They are just another T-Bill. And, you're quite right that T-bills are secured by the full faith and credit of the US. Which is as good or bad as the market perceives it to be.

But the question was whether I'd buy a healthcare bond. I would not. I'd buy a Tbill, though.

Usually I buy revenue bonds, not general obligation bonds. Revenue bonds have a specific revenue stream that acts as security for them. Thus my question.

[Davis_X_Machina]

8. Nice idea, but would generat way too small a dollar volume...

...to pay, or even begin to pay, for single payer.

All savings bond purchases, EE and HH and I, in a good year don't break $12 billion. Maybe you could wring a comparable amount of purchases out of the marketplace by some combination of marketing and other actions, but it's still a drop in the bucket.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

9. I did say "help shoulder the expense"

I don't have illusion that it would fund it entirely. I don't know how much was raised by War Bonds, which is a single purpose bond program that might be a better comparison than just savings bonds. And the answer would have to be adjusted for inflation in current dollars.

[Davis_X_Machina]

13. It'd be a marketing effort first and foremost...

...for the program itself, not so much as funding stream for the program.

WWII war bonds raised ~$450 billion dollars/year (in constant 2007 dollars) for about four years. So the total raised then was comparable to what you'd need to fund a national health care plan, but the circumstances that raised such sums were unique. Part of the success of war bonds was due to their being war bonds. Wars end -- health care will need a revenue stream in perpetuum. Add the fact that there wasn't much else to buy because of rationing. And there was a big drive to have the bonds purchased through payroll deduction -- payroll withholding was used first for bond sales, and only later for income tax liability.

You're still going to need a very healthy slice of general federal revenues. How that's done is going to be crucial to the success of such a program.

So it's worth doing the bonds, but not counting on them for much.

I am a proponent of HR 676, Medicare for All, btw.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

15. Thanks for the info.

I would like HR 676 to pass as well.

[BzaDem]

10. This doesn't solve any problem -- taxes will need to be raised to pay off the bonds.

It just delays the problem and makes it more expensive (with interest). It is the same thing as increasing the national debt.

[stray cat]

11. No - I've already lost half my 401K and the US is way into deficit spending with no end in sight

[ecstatic]

14. I wouldn't pay money into single payer unless smoking was banned

drinking severely limited, exercise required. Americans and healthy don't exactly go hand in hand.