• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The price tag on universal health care is in, it’s bigger than California’s budget

Re: The price tag on universal health care is in, it’s bigger than California’s budge

Here is an example of not "right leaning sources" doing calculations on Medicaid spending:


Total spending for mandatory federal low-income programs outside health care is only modestly above its average over the past 40 years, measured as a share of gross domestic product (GDP). And it’s projected to fall as a share of GDP in the future (see graph). Programs that aren’t growing faster than the economy aren’t fueling our long-term fiscal problem.
5-22-17bud.png


The Myth of the Exploding Safety Net | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
 
Re: The price tag on universal health care is in, it’s bigger than California’s budge

ludin said:
I just ran the numbers it is outrageous the cost. also it doesn't cover medicine, eye, dental, long term care or home care.
you need additional insurance. which drives the cost up even more.
Click to expand...

These are covered in most people's work benefit plans. The elderly and the poor have access to coverage for these things through the government. Not sure how you're running the numbers, but it's a lot cheaper than the OP's proposed California numbers, which makes me call the whole thing into question... You guys should have a LOT better buying power than we have up here...
 
Re: The price tag on universal health care is in, it’s bigger than California’s budge

OlNate said:
Hey, that's cool, we all pick our poison, just as long as we all remember that the leaning we subscribe to will come with it's own bias and agenda, and the right has always been tough on universal health care, so it's not surprising that their analysis of the data would lead them to the conclusions they lead to. Same would be able to be said about a left leaning think tank. From my experience, the reality almost always lies in the middle somewhere.

All I can tell you is that I've never met anyone pissed off about our healthcare system - aspects, sure, wait times are not always exaggerated, and some newer treatments take a while to get approved. But generally speaking, no one wishes we didn't have a single payer healthcare system. And we still have money to do a lot more in the areas you are talking about. Yes, we pay higher taxes. But we get a lot more for them.

Now we don't have a giant military...that's true... Personally I'd rather not have to sell my home due to some unexpected health issue. But then again, we haven't pissed off as many people as you guys have, so I get why a military is important...hehe :)
Click to expand...
Thank you for this. The Canadian system gets maligned from the American right. The bottom line is that "Canadians pay much less per capita on health care than do Americans, while ranking higher among the most common measures of human health." Isn't that what matters?
 
Re: The price tag on universal health care is in, it’s bigger than California’s budge

Nickyjo said:
Sorry, I was not trying to address your points, which appear appropriately cautionary, just trying to make the larger point that other developed countries have figured out how to do things to the general satisfaction of their citizens, much as the US has with Medicare, to my satisfaction and that of many other seniors. No doubt we and the Europeans may have to change or modify our various schemes for health care as time passes, but the worldwide trend in this area seemed to me to be away from the current or at least the pre-ACA system. California's health care idea may be as impractical as the bullet train may seem to be now (getting us out of cars might as hard as getting Europeans not to smoke) but presumably easier to modify as necessary -- tho I am cautious about the ability to change any government benefit.

I take comfort in how well Social Security and Medicare have worked for decades, despite apocalyptic predictions about the former in the 30s and Reagan's ridiculous rant about Medicare in the 60s.
Click to expand...

which is a typical liberal post. never address what someone says so that is strike 1.
your larger point is irrelevant to what I said. there is a cost associated to it. it is not free someone has to pay it.

I ran the numbers. the taxes are outrageous. middle income families wouldn't be able to support themselves.
half of their income would to go the government in taxes.

in france their taxes are even worse and their healthcare system is going broke.

medicare is handled by private insurance and finding doctors is becoming harder and harder.
more doctors are dropping out of medicare due to pay scales and the fact they can't get their money in a timely manner.

Medicaid is worse.

sorry I put more value on my healthcare.
 
Re: The price tag on universal health care is in, it’s bigger than California’s budge

Tanngrisnir said:
No. That is not socialist. Please try again.
Click to expand...

Its a fundamental principle of Socialism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Re: The price tag on universal health care is in, it’s bigger than California’s budge

Aberration said:
Its a fundamental principle of Socialism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

And it's irrelevant to what CA has proposed.

Please try again.
 
Re: The price tag on universal health care is in, it’s bigger than California’s budge

MTAtech said:
I'm thinking Medicare for all. The government pays my doctor's bill.
Click to expand...

Medicare for all is a great dream but it is not realistic. Medicare covers an indivdual after age 65 or being permanently disabled, has a monthly premium and covers only some costs (e.g. it does not cover nursing home "custodial" care) after an annual deductible is met.

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/01/15/heres-what-medicare-part-b-costs-and-covers-in-201.aspx
 
Last edited:
Re: The price tag on universal health care is in, it’s bigger than California’s budge

Tanngrisnir said:
And it's irrelevant to what CA has proposed.

Please try again.
Click to expand...

So CA is not trying to democratically control a market? Instead they are letting market forces do it?

Please try harder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Re: The price tag on universal health care is in, it’s bigger than California’s budge

The government will never be as efficient spending my money as I will be. And then they add in excessive bureaucracy and overhead which just makes it worse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Re: The price tag on universal health care is in, it’s bigger than California’s budge

Aberration said:
So CA is not trying to democratically control a market? Instead they are letting market forces do it?

Please try harder.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yawn. That simply isn't socialism, no matter how much you wish it were.

Please know what you're talking about before talking.
 
Re: The price tag on universal health care is in, it’s bigger than California’s budge

OlNate said:
These are covered in most people's work benefit plans. The elderly and the poor have access to coverage for these things through the government. Not sure how you're running the numbers, but it's a lot cheaper than the OP's proposed California numbers, which makes me call the whole thing into question... You guys should have a LOT better buying power than we have up here...
Click to expand...

I just posted Canada's system not they don't. work plans would go away they are not going to pay for additional plans when they are footing hefty tax bills for employee's.
read my post I show you exactly how I ran the numbers.

there are about 35m Canadians. you said they spend about 400b dollars that is about 10k a person.
in the US that would be about 4 trillion dollars (I am counting in overhead).

the medium income in the US is about 56k dollars that is about 75k Canadian.
there are currently 126m full time workers. if they were making that 56k which they aren't
some are making more others are making less that would mean the tax rate would be about 58%
to cover that 4 trillion dollar bill.

again these are average numbers.

if you include part time people it might drop to 40-42%.
good luck selling that to working middle income people.

that is in addition to the eye, dental etc .. that you have to pay extra for.
 
Last edited:
Re: The price tag on universal health care is in, it’s bigger than California’s budge

Tanngrisnir said:
Because, as per the original contention, what CA is proposing is not socialism
Click to expand...

How very tautological. Sure it isn't, its never socialism when YOU do it. :roll:
 
Re: The price tag on universal health care is in, it’s bigger than California’s budge

Aberration said:
The government will never be as efficient spending my money as I will be. And then they add in excessive bureaucracy and overhead which just makes it worse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Well, I can't comment on how efficient your spending is but Medicare consistently is more efficient at managing costs than private insurers and Social Security runs on a 1% overhead amount.
 
Re: The price tag on universal health care is in, it’s bigger than California’s budge

Spartacus FPV said:
How very tautological. Sure it isn't, its never socialism when YOU do it. :roll:
Click to expand...

And yet neither the hit-and-run OP nor you, nor anyone else, for that matter, can demonstration that it is.

I'm always perplexed when people try and use words they don't understand. What's the point?
 
Re: The price tag on universal health care is in, it’s bigger than California’s budge

ttwtt78640 said:
Medicare for all is a great dream but it is not realistic. Medicare covers an indivdual after age 65 or being permanently disabled, has a monthly premium and covers only some costs (e.g. it does not cover nursing home "custodial" care) after an annual deductible is met.

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/01/15/heres-what-medicare-part-b-costs-and-covers-in-201.aspx
Click to expand...
Much of the developed world has a system that you just described as "a great dream." I believe in America and I believe that America can achieve what other countries have succeeded at achieving.
 
Re: The price tag on universal health care is in, it’s bigger than California’s budge

ludin said:
that doesn't change the numbers.

now that is 400b for 10k per person and Canada has about 36m people.

if you were to spend the same in the US it would be about 4 trillion dollars.

so let us look at taxes.

if you are making 75630 Canada that is about 53k American. your tax bill in Canada is 42%.
that is close the medium income in the US the median family income in the US is about 56k.
in Canada that would be about a 43% tax rate.

that is outrageous.

that won't even cover the 4 trillion dollar bill.

there are currently only 124.5m people working full time in the US.
that means each worker would have to pay 32k a year just in taxes to meet that requirement.

if all those people were making 56k a year which we know they are not it means that
their tax rate would be about 58% a year.

that is just full time people.
can add in part time and it might drop the rate a bit but it will still end up at about 40-45%.

now you sell that to a part time worker. good luck.

also then tell them that it doesn't cover.

prescription, eye, dental and they need to pay for it themselves or private insurance.
what a joke free healthcare. I don't see anything free about it.
Click to expand...

Well, that's probably because the dog's breakfast of numbers you've presented is impossible to figure out... lol... :) See above where I've addressed prescriptions, eye, dental. As for the $400 billion, that's what the OP is saying California's bill will be, not Canada's, we're not even close. The per person price I originally listed of $3.9k.

Maybe give a run through the numbers again, and maybe you can tell me why the per person is so much more expensive in California, when buying power should mean you get everything cheaper....?
 
Re: The price tag on universal health care is in, it’s bigger than California’s budge

zimmer said:
The flushing sound is coming from the wonderful State of Californizuela.

Can't they do better, and make an even bigger mess of it, so the state commits fiscal suicide sooner?

And we know, this isn't the full cost. It's way bigger, as all socialist schemes fail to predict future costs anywhere close to reality.
Click to expand...

Let understand your Beef here....

Believing States Right superseeds Federal Law, California (with democrats in super majority) yet without shutting down Conservative and Republicans (unlike other states) have decided their own faith and without meddling of big federal government.

They have calculated that by implementing statewide health Plan and negotiating with Big pharma (after all they will have 35 million customers and huge bulk buying power) they can provide cheaper health care than you can buy on your own. Which actually does make sense and fiscally Conservative, and States Rights that is basically conservatives wet dream.

So what is your exact problem? You should be applauding California decision. State Right and capitalism at its best.

Diving Mullah
 
Re: The price tag on universal health care is in, it’s bigger than California’s budge

Gimmesometruth said:
Why? Where have "right leaning sources" been more correct on calculations for universal health care?
Click to expand...

I don't know any right wing sources that support universal healthcare. But yes, I do believe rightwing sources are far more likely to do an honest evaluation of the costs of universal healthcare than will those who want it regardless of what it costs.
 
Re: The price tag on universal health care is in, it’s bigger than California’s budge

MTAtech said:
Well, I can't comment on how efficient your spending is but Medicare consistently is more efficient at managing costs than private insurers and Social Security runs on a 1% overhead amount.
Click to expand...

it also doesn't cover a lot of things hence why people have to get medicare supplement services which run around 250-300 dollars a month.
:roll:
 
Re: The price tag on universal health care is in, it’s bigger than California’s budge

OlNate said:
Hey, that's cool, we all pick our poison, just as long as we all remember that the leaning we subscribe to will come with it's own bias and agenda, and the right has always been tough on universal health care, so it's not surprising that their analysis of the data would lead them to the conclusions they lead to. Same would be able to be said about a left leaning think tank. From my experience, the reality almost always lies in the middle somewhere.

All I can tell you is that I've never met anyone pissed off about our healthcare system - aspects, sure, wait times are not always exaggerated, and some newer treatments take a while to get approved. But generally speaking, no one wishes we didn't have a single payer healthcare system. And we still have money to do a lot more in the areas you are talking about. Yes, we pay higher taxes. But we get a lot more for them.

Now we don't have a giant military...that's true... Personally I'd rather not have to sell my home due to some unexpected health issue. But then again, we haven't pissed off as many people as you guys have, so I get why a military is important...hehe :)
Click to expand...

Well most of the people I know are pretty sensible and knowledgeable, and most, including those who are healthcare professionals, do NOT want a single payer system.
 
Re: The price tag on universal health care is in, it’s bigger than California’s budge

AlbqOwl said:
I don't know any right wing sources that support universal healthcare. But yes, I do believe rightwing sources are far more likely to do an honest evaluation of the costs of universal healthcare than will those who want it regardless of what it costs.
Click to expand...

Isn't that basically the inverse of those who want it regardless of what it costs? I mean, technically, understanding how many people go into massive debt for healthcare reasons in America, and choose death over debt in America, couldn't one say about Right leaning analysis that it is untrustworthy because they *don't* want it - at any cost?
 
Re: The price tag on universal health care is in, it’s bigger than California’s budge

Diving Mullah said:
Let understand your Beef here....

Believing States Right superseeds Federal Law, California (with democrats in super majority) yet without shutting down Conservative and Republicans (unlike other states) have decided their own faith and without meddling of big federal government.

They have calculated that by implementing statewide health Plan and negotiating with Big pharma (after all they will have 35 million customers and huge bulk buying power) they can provide cheaper health care than you can buy on your own. Which actually does make sense and fiscally Conservative, and States Rights that is basically conservatives wet dream.

So what is your exact problem? You should be applauding California decision. State Right and capitalism at its best.

Diving Mullah
Click to expand...

No beef... just pointing out the obvious.

Californizuela has an idiot scheme to pile onto their mountain of idiocies.

Socialist schemes never meet predictions... in fact they're so far off it's laughable.

Healthcare is not a right. If can never be one.

First I'd like to see free speech be a right in Kanuckistan. It ain't.
 
Re: The price tag on universal health care is in, it’s bigger than California’s budge

AlbqOwl said:
Well most of the people I know are pretty sensible and knowledgeable, and most, including those who are healthcare professionals, do NOT want a single payer system.
Click to expand...

Well, that makes sense...you probably hang around with a lot of conservative people, you being conservative yourself, and doctors don't like single payer systems because they can't charge out the wazoo for their services. It's got nothing to do with *your* health. We do lose a lot of doctors to America...that should tell you something, not about your system, but yours... This free market system is kinda ripping you off...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom