Indeed. But you are confusing "advances in medical science" with "advances in health care".
:doh This is like saying that because only one person out of a group of ten eats right, exercises, and is thus not obese, that eating right and exercising would not get the other nine in better shape. The programs are indeed limited to companies and states. Which means that right now, in the US, they have a better and more proven track record than single-payer, which no state has implemented.
Many are. But not our poor - they have Medicaid. Furthermore, the policy proposal that you are refusing to address solves that by issuing them a health insurance plan at public expense.
and in your model they would pay quite a bit for UHC and the effect would be the same, except that whereas before health insurance specifics were at least somewhat responsive to the consumers, now it is unresponsive entirely. Oh, and that you would also wreck a large portion of our economy by turning it into a state enterprise.
1. That is incorrect. We pay more than the rest of the industrialized world and we get more than the rest of the industrialized world.
2. The reforms I mention would indeed put downward pressure on prices, as that is what they do when they are enacted as demonstrated.
Oh, we'll all work together, remove obstruction, don't know until we try, pass the bill so we can find out what's in it, eh? :roll: Yeah. that works great. OR we can try to actually improve our healthcare system rather than simply turning over the rationing function to unelected bureaucrats while crashing the federal budget. You'll forgive me if I have a hard time looking at the ruins of socialism (and state control of the means of production of health care goods and services is absolutely that so don't start with the "oh no this is something totally different because socialism has no definition nor has anyone ever really tried it" crap) and saying "aha! here is progress!"
If you could show me where it was possible to collect that revenue you would have done so. However, even when top marginal tax rates were in the 90s, we didn't get anywhere close to the amount of money you are blithely insisting that we could bring in if we "all work together to a better plan" :roll:
But hey, I remain open to actual argument. Please demonstrate to me where any combination of rates (and we had some whoppers, back around the mid-20th-century) have ever produced the kind of additional tax revenue that you are suggesting we can pull in.
