I would gladly pay another $500/year in taxes

[dhpgetsit]

If it meant that I had access to medical care and my employer could afford to pay me an extra $1000/year.

[Loge23]

1. Me too

I just got notice that my $4,500 a year "coverage" is going up another $240.
If the threats from the insurance cartel materialize, we will effectively have no coverage.

[timeforpeace]

35. OK, medical care, check. Extra pay, check. Anything else? Still got some ponies left.

[MindPilot]

2. Or hire just one more person

If every employer could afford to hire just one more person...

[Statistical]

3. You think universal healthcare could be paid for with only $500 per person?

Most people would be happy to pay $500 to get $5000 in benefits in return.

I will be realistic.... I would be happy to pay another $5,000 in taxes for universal healthcare.

[sui generis]

5. Yes, actually.

That's depending on whether you're making 20K or 200K per year of course. People who make more pay more up to a point.

Not everybody paying in uses it. Universal Healthcare is always projected in worst case numbers over a ten year period - but it just ain't. they LIE!!!!1!!!

Seriously, taxes are the way to go. Paying insurance companies to continue the rape and pillage is so . . . republican. Have we lost our damn minds?

[Statistical]

11. My point is that you aren't even in the right ballpark.

Of course everyone's wage is different so lets look at "on average". Median income household income in United States is $50K. Universal health care would cost something on the ballpark of 10%-12% of GDP. Now that is a deal because currently we pay a LOT more than that with less benefit and only cover 70% of the people.

Something along the lines of $5,000 per household (on average) would be more realistic. To pay for meaningful comprehensive universal health care would like more like 10% of wages. Initially it likely would cost more (up front costs, "fixing" poor health from decades of no care) so maybe 15% of gross wages would be realistic.


Now I am not saying 10% is accurate maybe it is 9.27%, maybe it is 13.2% but $500 is not even in the ballpark. The economist and accountants can crunch the numbers. $500 for UC is like saying I would buy a private jet for $1000, I would buy a new car for $100 or I would go on a cruise for $1.25.

[JuniperLea]

19. I have a problem with using these statistics...

I personally make more than the median household income, and I can't afford much of anything more than the roof over my head, the food I eat, the clothes on my back and the gas in my car. You see, I live in Los Angeles. There is nothing average or median here that you would let your grandmother touch.

[Statistical]

23. Agreed however you likely already spend more than 10% of your income on health insurance.

Either directly (or indirectly via your employer).

[JuniperLea]

28. I do... and I would gladly pay ANOTHER $500 a year...

As noted in the OP... ANOTHER $500, not just $500, but another, in order to have health benefits for all.

[JuniperLea]

20. I'm pretty sure "another $500" means, "another $500"...

On top of what is already being spent. For me, it would be the $300 a month I already spend, plus...

[sui generis]

29. Dear statistical

Define "universal" in terms of first year utilization please, provided everyone who is currently NOT insured and working pays and some people use it. Does everyone use 5,000 dollars worth of healthcare per year? Does everyone use even $500 dollars per year?

I do the stats too sir.

[Statistical]

32. No need.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems

We have a pretty good model.

Canada in 2006 spent about $3678 per capita on universal healthcare.

My guestimate is at least initially this would be higher in the US for a couple reasons:
a) infrastructure build. enrolling, processing, and creating network for oversight and management will be "front loaded"
b) chronic condition of health in US. People who lack basic care tend to avoid getting care. So a problem that was solved 10 years ago in by a Canadian has developed into a more expensive $5000? $50,000?, $500,000? chronic condition in US
c) overall health. Americans smoke more, have worse diet, less exercise, higher rates of obesity, higher cholestoral, more cases of diabetes.

All this combined likely will put it in the BALLPARK of $5000. Maybe it is $4200. Maybe it is $5700? I don't claim to be an expert but I do know that given two approximate costs

$500 per Capita (+/- 20%)
$5000 per Capita (+/- 20%)

The $5K number is more realistic. I do think with innovation, preventive care and education we can bring that number down over time.
I also think any system should be progressive with those above median pay more and those below paying less. This can be accomplished via the current income tax system.

All that being said a good starting point is estimating UC at about 10% of gross wages. I would gladly pay it tomorrow. It also likely would be the biggest boom to the US economy in last 30 years (as small businesses are able to compete and innovate without burden of HC costs).

[sui generis]

37. I'm looking at those cumulative rates in the per 100K capita, not per cap

Not trying to be optimistic or pessimistic, but there are some realities here:

1. Not everybody uses their risk group premium and that premium has sunk profit margins in it all through each service type - so there is slack in the current cost estimates

2. The government has hamstrung itself in at the collective bargaining table (more opportunity)

3. The distribution of cost does have to account for mortality, but with use of the system mortality goes down and so does the cost of acute and chronic treatment regimens. We're using present value to calculate future cost with nothing to modify what those factors are - it's not that simple.

I do agree on the progressive side, but as a TAX if you already pay for insurance then you should be able to offset your use of the program as the amount you've contributed to you current private premiums.

I do want the current form of health insurance industry to go away and become elective health (cosmetic, supplementary and other elective procedures) - but there is a pretty thick line between proposal and user acceptance.

[hfojvt]

6. I guess I would too, so +1 for realism

but I am only gonna pay $5,000 more in taxes because between I and my employer, I am paying more than $5,000 for health insurance now for one person. So I'd be willing to pay $2,500 more in taxes if my employer kicks in the same $2,500+ they are paying for my health insurance right now.

Health insurance for $500 a year :rofl: even the Japanese pay about six times that amount per person for health care.

[vadawg]

7. i guess no matter what some people will end up paying more

will be interesting to see if anyone under $250,000 will pay more in taxes....

[dhpgetsit]

12. True. $500/month is more realistic.

But whatever the price is for public health care turns out to be, it has to be less than supporting the shit we have now.

[Statistical]

13. Then that I agree with....

maybe more "universal" expression would be:

"I would be willing to pay 10% of my income in taxes (assuming everyone does with no caps or exclusions) to have universal health care."

[sui generis]

31. No. You have not made a numerical case for a flat 10%

by any means.

Seriously, the point is

1. some people have insurance today
2. the insurance industry isn't going away
3. if the people who don't have coverage or elect a public option do so, they do it via W4 election
4. if you have insurance and you don't want the w4 election, choose an exemption.

It's not "universal healthcare" for everyone immediately. It's public option primary healthcare for people who don't have insurance.

You develop universal healthcare based on real costs and forecasting roll rates, not risk groups. It really is that easy.

Also, a dependent factor in that forecast is your ability to negotiate formulary and service costs as a collective bargaining entity.

[Statistical]

34. I don't consider that to be unversal coverage.

It is complex, leads to split risk pools, and isn't equitable for lower income.

single payer cost Canada about 10% of GDP (5% less than our system).

An AVERAGE of 10% income tax would pay for universal single payer.

[sui generis]

39. aaah. it's not "instant-on" with universal healthcare

That's one issue, also you can't extrapolate GDP ratios to individual income. You know that!

[Statistical]

40. You can extrapolate the per capita cost from 5 different countries...

none of which are in the $500/year range. All are $3000 - $5000 per capita.

Given the US will have startup costs & is less healthy it isn't out of the real of possibility for putting the BALLPARK price at around $5000 per capita.

[sui generis]

43. splain me this lucy

300 million people have 5,000 dollars worth of WHAT done to them each year?

I get where you're going but there are big gaps in the road. OF the 30 million uninsured today, some already pay cash for healthcare, and even if everyone in that 30 million group started kicking in premiums, MOST of the people in that particular tier of health needs are fresh out of college or young adult not in IN NEED of $5000 worth of health care.

You do have to split the hair when making realistic estimates of money in versus money out.

[Statistical]

44. Ok last time before I give up.

SINGLE PAYER
SINGLE PAYER
SINGLE PAYER

$5K per capita would replace 100% of all current for profit health care system.

We ALREADY HAVE REALISTIC ESTIMATE FOR UNIVERSAL COVERAGE. We only need to look at other countries that have it and what THEY CURRENT PAY EVERY SINGLE YEAR for health care.

I don't give a flying crap if you believe it or not, or can wrap your head around the figure but currently AROUND THE WORLD countries with universal coverage pay about $3K - $6K per household. The US likely would be on the high end of that scale due to the fact that we have poor health and large number of people with untreated conditions.

To achieve 100% coverage, HEALTH CARE AS A RIGHT would be somewhere around 10% taxes on income on AVERAGE. That currently is less that we pay to poorly cover 70% of people. The tax would be best adjusted progressively by modifying existing tax brackets (increase lowest bracket +1%, next bracket +4%, next bracket +8%, etc).

If you can't get that then there is no point in continuing.

I consider trying to achieve so called universal coverage on top of an existing broken for profit, grossly inefficient system a recipe for failure. Likely in 30-40 years American will reach that conclusion too.

[sui generis]

45. I get what you're saying as the end state

but you are completely as lost as you think I am about how we get there. And, I disagree on the numbers.

Sorry for frustrating you - but glad to have you on our side.

[Statistical]

46. I think Canada is a model for how to get there.

The problem is there isn't the will for it yet in US.

Dozens of other countries got there and it isn't that hard. We just lack the will. I think Obama best reforms will be minimal. It might insure more people, and it might keep costs down some but our % of GDP spent on healthcare will continue to grow while rest of the world spends 10%-12% on universal single payer.

Maybe in 20-30 more years we will look around the world and see everyone else has better healthcare and there system is easier and cheaper. Maybe then we will join the rest of the world. I honestly thought we were reaching a critical mass for support to really change Healthcare in this country not just slap a new coat of paint on it. Looks like we aren't.


Sad thing is personally it doesn't affect me. I got a good plan at work but even still it is frustrated for us to spend more than other countries with less results.

[sui generis]

4. Isn't it funny that we don't want new taxes but we want healthcare

even though "health insurance" would be by far more expensive and apply even to people not currently employed, and fine them for not paying, with the "fines" going to the insurance companies.

We are so fucking stupid. Make it a tax. Own it. Obama & Co: please grow some brains and some balls please.

If it's a tax then "premiums" and "risk groups" no longer apply - all Americans are treated equally, and taxes equally, depending on their income and the number of dependents they're claiming.

How hard is that? We're starting to sound like total tools here - worried about the republicans bitching about the CONCEPT of us adding a tax, instead of the REALITY of us being legally forced to pay insurance companies.

I've said from the beginning it should be a tax and I am not budging.

[ieoeja]

9. Who is this "we" you are talking about?

Only poll I ever saw asking if we wanted healthcare reform even if it meant raising taxes had a solid majority in favor of it.

Come to think of it, kind of odd they had a million polls about healthcare, but only one that asked if raising taxes was okay. I have to wonder if, having learned the majority are perfectly willing to pay extra taxes for healthcare, they realized that was news they did *not* want getting out.

[sui generis]

33. well clearly our beloved Obama set a strong guideline

that healthcare reform would NOT involve new taxes. And he cut his own hamstrings in the same breath.

So now we're stuck with something far more expensive than new taxes, because of a guideline he won't abandon.

It really is ridiculous that the majority of us would welcome a reasonable tax within sight of our current premiums, yet our "representatives" are representing that we really just want to give money to the insurance companies with no guaranty that we won't have premiums somewhere near the orbit of Neptune, or get fined for not paying.

Bad leadership.

[timeforpeace]

36. We know that is a lie or "nuance" as it's now called, but we don't care. Wink wink, nudge nudge.

[sui generis]

38. I could read that comment both ways

Just to reiterate - a voluntary tax is a better solution than an involuntary premium. That's what Sui Generis says, and he probably knows better than the President of the United States, regardless of who is yelling from the peanut gallery.

Nink wudge blinkity blink.:P

[taught_me_patience]

8. Pretty crazy to think that $500/yr is going to cover health insurance

Even under a universal payer system, the tax will likely have to be between 5-10%. If you make 50k/yr, that would be 2.5k-5k per year in taxes... far from $500.

[One_Life_To_Give]

17. That would still be a bargain

Since we in the US are already paying $6400 per person.

[taught_me_patience]

18. It would be a bargain

and I think it would foster much more entrepreneuerism. People won't be shackled to their health insurance any more.

[JuniperLea]

21. Why is it no one can see the word "another" in this OP?

:shrug:

[Statistical]

24. because it precedes TAXES.

as in ANOTHER $500 in what? TAXES.

Mathematically it would be: new taxes = current taxes + 500

[JuniperLea]

30. Spending $500 is spending $500...

Whether it be on killer weed, a nice hotel room, or taxes.

[Paper Roses]

10. I would gladly do the same. I would also promise to spend the

money I saved on current outrageous health insurance policy costs. That would offset the cost of health care by putting more money into the economy and helping generate more money. If all of us did the same, we could use our savings to buy things we need but are now going without, like food, clothing and other consumer goods that are necessary. This would help states generate tax money, keep people employed and and in many ways, give the government more money to spend of programs that are sorely needed.

Free choice of coverage, graduated costs based on current ability to pay.

I would only ask that my government start taxing the corporations, Wall Street, private and non-profit insurance companies and any other enterprise that reaps benefits from the sweat and tears of the American people. No-one deserves outrageous bonuses of the nature that are paid to big biz and to Wall Street at the expense of the rest of us. I am not advocating socialism, just fairness to each, and treatment of all citizens as equals.

Now that I think about it, we really don't need health insurance. If everyone had the same coverage, the need for anything more than registration would be unnecessary.

Medicare for all with no foolish expenditures such as the ridiculous and expensive drug and balance supplements.

Yea, I know but I can dream. Maybe we are at the beginning of this goal. I hope I live to see the end.

[glinda]

14. we would gladly pay $500/yr if I didn't have to pay $400/mo. for my insurance.

Shoot. We would pay $1000/yr for the two of us. That would be a bargain. Provided coverage was good.

[Oregone]

15. My single-payer premiums are more than $500 a year

More like $1200, not including tax contributions.

[MineralMan]

25. Medicare is coming for me at the end of July next year.

Woohoo! A reduction from $8400/year to about $2500/year, including Medicare and supplement premiums.

I can't pay $8400/year much longer, or I'll be bankrupt.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

16. In what universe are you getting insurance for $500/year?

Shit, I pay that for liability-only insurance on my eighteen year old car.

[JuniperLea]

22. I see you used the word "another"

Guess I'm the only one... weird, huh?

[Trillo]

26. That's in the ballpark of Taiwan's rate.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/

The UK system isn't listed on a dollar-cost basis. According to that page:

Taiwan "Average family premium: $650 per year for a family for four."

[notesdev]

27. Well howabout that

I could use free money too. Where do I get in line?

[Egalitariat]

41. How do those two things relate to each other?

[TheKentuckian]

42. If that is in addition to what you and your employer are paying now then OK

If you're talking another $500 in taxes alone then you've entered into the "Psycho Talk" area.