The ACA calls for total healthcare cost for every individual to be less than 9.5% of income. The 15% rule for universal coverage couldn't work in the United States under our current tax system. We are not going to put a 15% tax on people that are not considered rich. We are subsidizing them under ACA if the cost is a little over 7% of their income. You'd ultimately need to tax people making about 60k individual or 120k family at a significantly higher rate to subsidize the entire country given our current political climate.
I don't mean to pry too much into what you make, but how much money is 15%? That seems pretty high especially with the employer still having to kick in additional money for coverage. Is 15% the flat tax for everyone or does it change based on income?
Yeah that wont fly here. No one's going to pay that much for full comprehensive coverage. You'll get revolts over that here. What is possible is a Medicare for all plan that provides a basic health plan that everyone has access to. And then insurance companies (or state/federal add-on plans) provide supplemental insurance options that provide additional levels of coverage.
I just looked it and it seems that the German tax for their 'sickness fund' is 8% on the employee side and 8% on the employer side. It also looks like there are over 200 different types of plans with no deductibles. It also looks like you can opt out of the public option in Germany if you make over $72k. It just looks to be cheaper and better at first glance.
Oh I'm not arguing that there system is bad. I'm just saying it wouldn't fly here. People would come up with all kinds of insane objections. Their system is totally the way to go in a perfect world but our political culture won't allow for that without whining and crying about socialism. Also on the tax front, keep in mind we currently pay FICA taxes for Medicare. In a universal health care system that medicare tax would get rolled into the new healthcare tax so the average person and their employer would be paying roughly 6.5% each. (Assuming all medicare taxes were rolled into the new tax) Granted that's all napkin math as the more expensive nature of health care delivery here would result in higher costs.
I think my company pays something like 500 bucks for my insurance. That isn't close to 15% of my salary. How about instead of this going to an insurance company we just shift it to the government. Like medicare the national insurance company would be able to use its purchasing power to negotiate down costs.
If it works, do poor, sick people flock to Vermont for coverage, ultimately overburdening the system? Conversely, do companies flock to Vermont so they can get out of the health insurance game, bringing all kinds of economic development to the state?
If I were to get the same coverage by myself it would be about about 260 per month. The company is overpaying by 200 bucks a month, but they are doing this because in essence they are subsidizing people in the company who are older and with families whose premiums would not be so low. In essence we are already doing subsidization I just don't think most people realize it. The reason why insurance works is because in general it is normally distributed and usually the more samples we have the closer it approximates it. By have having smaller pools we can end up with more skewed distribution which usually will screws up rates.
Sounds horrible. When are your death panel appointments and how many government agents were in the doctor's office giving medical exams? Just curious, I'm told that's what happens with socialized medicine.
[QUOTEIt's a much more manageable and effective method than trying to restructure 20% of the economy at once.[/QUOTE] The fact that healthcare may be twenty percent means little though youths e mentioned this before. With single payer ala medicare we are only resructuring the insurance system. The actual doctors, hospitals, medical device makers, research still goes on as before. Surely you are not claiming that healthcare insurance is twenty percent of the economy Besides since with your argument wrt to twenty percent you should be against the ACA since omg it restructures the twenty percent
Single payer, and specifically what Vermont is doing, goes far beyond changing the insurance payment system.
You are absolutely crazy if you think single payer does nothing but change the payment/insurance system. Absolutely crazy.
Viva Vermont. Texans should be enviable and hundreds of thousands will continue to suffer and die needlessly due to Perry not extending Medicaid. Sadly he is supported by ideologues with no empathy for the ill and suffering. Amazingly some these folks claim to be "Christians". I still believe your whole 20% argument is simplistic and not real meaningful,once you have decided to do a single payer, just do it. However, rolling it out one state at a time is not inherently unreasonable and is just a detail. Apparently it was not the nightmare opponents like to imagine and throw out when Medicare was rolled out nation wide and that was done with an index card system, before widespread computerization. Likewise those states that have extended Medicaid have done so without major problems. Simplicity not surprisingly makes things much easier. In the abstract from a management implemenation point of view, the ACA might have been better off having been rolled out one state at a time. The problem is that with people suffering sometimes mortally without insurance in real time, the changes need to be made urgently for them.
That is a question. Just like in Harris County where folks try to move all the time to use the Harris County Health system. Hopefully once the word gets out it will put pressure to do it nationally.
