Would you pay 15% more in income taxes for Single Payer Healthcare?

[<alt>doxygen]

You need an "Other" choice.

HC in the USA is a patchwork of parasites with access to great, very expensive equipment and great talent. Sadly the parasites will continue to enjoy the feast. Blessed are the "stakeholders", for they own congress and via the media, can easily manipulate public perception.

Maybe the best way to fix this is shock therapy. Remove the employer HC tax deduction. Make everyone pay buy what they want on the "free market" and see how long that lasts.:roll:

 

[Grand Mal]

Currently the pre-tax cost of premiums for my whole family, for a plan with a $9,000 family deductible, is $2,400 per month. 15% of my income taxes is less than that so, in my case, sure.

Is that a better deal than before ACA?

 

[Yes_Minister]

But here is the thing, the US spends more of its GDP on health care then other Western nations:

https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...ions-spend-so-much-less-on-healthcare/374576/

So its not like the US system in its current form is more cost effective then other systems.

I listened to a Dan Carlin podcast recently, where he broke down the numbers and really the US spends more and gets less results for a wide variety of people, compared to other Western systems:

Home – Common Sense

Its podcast number 314.

 

[reinoe]

15% more in taxes and ZERO in premiums and deductibles, but be sure to leave that part out

Anyway this question is pointless, as CA will be the first to take the plunge as usual, and the rest of the country will see how wonderfully it works and demand the same, as usual

VT and CO are ahead of California and they decided to take a pass. California never saw a bloated spending project they didn't like so of course they're going to go all in on the spending. It's their choice as long as they don't get a bailout or excessive federal funds.

 

[DA60]

It is dead wrong to have the government as the only source for healthcare. ALL government agencies - ALL OF THEM - are corrupt, wasteful and inefficient (to varying extents).

I strongly think government healthcare should be available to all who NEED it (emphasize need...not just want). ANd - as I have said - there should be full, government healthcare available for ALL children, disabled and veterans.

But beyond that, the government should keep it's grubby and corrupt/inefficient hands off of private healthcare and let insurance companies offer any kind of policies they want - to whomever they wish.

There should always be a private alternative to almost everything the government offers...free from all but the most basic regulation.

 

[upsideguy]

It is dead wrong to have the government as the only source for healthcare. ALL government agencies - ALL OF THEM - are corrupt, wasteful and inefficient (to varying extents).

I strongly think government healthcare should be available to all who NEED it (emphasize need...not just want). ANd - as I have said - there should be full, government healthcare available for ALL children, disabled and veterans.

But beyond that, the government should keep it's grubby and corrupt/inefficient hands off of private healthcare and let insurance companies offer any kind of policies they want - to whomever they wish.

There should always be a private alternative to almost everything the government offers...free from all but the most basic regulation.

It also probably means the government would be deciding if one should get a certain procedure or not. Basically, if one lives or dies. All decided by the government. By some unelected bureaucrat, civil servant.

...as opposed to a bureaucrat working for a for-profit entity? I'd take my chances with the government bureaucrat.

BTW. We have that with Medicare, which works quite well. 85% of medicare participants are very satisified with Medicare

High satisfaction with Medicare | BenefitsPRO

...while only 67% of Americans are satisfied with their healthcare. It suggests the government is doing a better job than the private sector.

Americans' Satisfaction With Health Coverage Slips Slightly | Gallup

 

[Neomalthusian]

Is that a better deal than before ACA?

No. Although premiums had doubled in the 10 years leading up to ACA, so I can't say what they'd be had there been no ACA.

 

[radcen]

It is dead wrong to have the government as the only source for healthcare. ALL government agencies - ALL OF THEM - are corrupt, wasteful and inefficient (to varying extents).

I strongly think government healthcare should be available to all who NEED it (emphasize need...not just want). ANd - as I have said - there should be full, government healthcare available for ALL children, disabled and veterans.

But beyond that, the government should keep it's grubby and corrupt/inefficient hands off of private healthcare and let insurance companies offer any kind of policies they want - to whomever they wish.

There should always be a private alternative to almost everything the government offers...free from all but the most basic regulation.

How would you define "need"? And why are children and veterans so special?

 

[DA60]

...as opposed to a bureaucrat working for a for-profit entity? I'd take my chances with the government bureaucrat.

BTW. We have that with Medicare, which works quite well. 85% of medicare participants are very satisified with Medicare

High satisfaction with Medicare | BenefitsPRO

...while only 67% of Americans are satisfied with their healthcare. It suggests the government is doing a better job than the private sector.

Americans' Satisfaction With Health Coverage Slips Slightly | Gallup

By definition, a 'bureaucrat' only works for the government. You cannot have one working for a for-profit entity.

If you have ever been to a DMV...than you know the attitude of government bureaucrats. They are backed by powerful unions, they have little prospect for career advance (except to another tedious job) and they show it.

Have you ever been to a Canadian hospital?

Assuming you have not...I will tell you about one I know of. It was the largest one in that province.

I had a friend who was awaiting a triple bypass operation. As were two of the others in his room. He had been waiting over a month (the others about 10 days and just over two weeks) by the time he got his operation.
He was not allowed to leave the floor - ever. Not 'they could not leave the hospital (which was huge)'...no, they could not even leave their floor. None of them were. If they did - they were told that they would be placed down to the bottom of the waiting list for their operation. And being they had no other alternative, they were trapped. Day after day - week after week. They could not leave the floor because then if they collapsed, they might die - and the doctors did not want that responsibility.
And since the hospital is not for-profit...what do the doctors care? As long as they follow the rules and break no laws...they were fine.
And NONE of these three guys were on any kind of life support. They all felt relatively fine. All the hospital did was take their witals three times a day, feed them and give them their pills. ALL of which, they could have easliy done at home. But they were not allowed to go home...even though my friend was absolutely miserable.
And he did not know when his operation would be...the nurses said that they did not know when...'hopefully next week'. This went on for week after week after week.
It was horrible.
ANd what happened when they finally operated on him? Something went wrong and they had to go back in. Then something went wrong again, and they had to amputate his leg. Then, while recovering, something else went wrong and they had to operate YET AGAIN. He then died on the operating table. After being forced to stay in the hospital for over a month...absolutely miserable.

And btw, the nurses were a mixed bag. The younger ones were nice. But the older ones were like most bureaucrats you find at the DMV...they could not care less. They did their jobs, looked bored stiff while they did it and that was that.
And the doctors? When my friend wanted to ask a doctor a question....he had to wait about 24-48 hours to just talk to a doctor (in a hospital?!?)...they were that busy/overworked.

All of the above is true and not exaggerated in the slightest.

THAT is what a government run hospital can legally do in Canada.

And if you think it only happens at that hospital...guess again.

Before you start preaching about how wonderful government run hospitals are...go and visit someone who is actually in them first.

Some are okay. And some have nightmare stories like my poor, dead friend.

 

[Yes_Minister]

By definition, a 'bureaucrat' only works for the government. You cannot have one working for a for-profit entity.

If you have ever been to a DMV...than you know the attitude of government bureaucrats. They are backed by powerful unions, they have little prospect for career advance (except to another tedious job) and they show it.

Have you ever been to a Canadian hospital?

Assuming you have not...I will tell you about one I know of. It was the largest one in that province.

I had a friend who was awaiting a triple bypass operation. As were two of the others in his room. He had been waiting over a month (the others about 10 days and just over two weeks) by the time he got his operation.
He was not allowed to leave the floor - ever. Not 'they could not leave the hospital (which was huge)'...no, they could not even leave their floor. None of them were. If they did - they were told that they would be placed down to the bottom of the waiting list for their operation. And being they had no other alternative, they were trapped. Day after day - week after week. They could not leave the floor because then if they collapsed, they might die - and the doctors did not want that responsibility.
And since the hospital is not for-profit...what do the doctors care? As long as they follow the rules and break no laws...they were fine.
And NONE of these three guys were on any kind of life support. They all felt relatively fine. All the hospital did was take their witals three times a day, feed them and give them their pills. ALL of which, they could have easliy done at home. But they were not allowed to go home...even though my friend was absolutely miserable.
And he did not know when his operation would be...the nurses said that they did not know when...'hopefully next week'. This went on for week after week after week.
It was horrible.
ANd what happened when they finally operated on him? Something went wrong and they had to go back in. Then something went wrong again, and they had to amputate his leg. Then, while recovering, something else went wrong and they had to operate YET AGAIN. He then died on the operating table. After being forced to stay in the hospital for over a month...absolutely miserable.
And btw, the nurses were a mixed bag. The younger ones were nice. But the older ones were like most bureaucrats you find at the DMV...they could not care less. They did their jobs, looked bored stiff while they did it and that was that.
And the doctors? When my friend wanted to ask a doctor a question....he had to wait about 24-48 hours to just talk to a doctor (in a hospital?!?)...they were that busy/overworked.
All of the above is true and not exaggerated in the slightest.
THAT is what a government run hospital can legally do in Canada.

And if you think it only happens at that hospital...guess again.

Before you start preaching about how wonderful government run hospitals are...go and visit someone who is actually in them first.

Some are okay. And some have nightmare stories like my poor, dead friend.

I am sorry about your friend, but there is a reason why anecdotal evidence is not a good measure for determining trends to evaluating a system.

Its naive to assume there are not really bad health care stories in the US:

Health Care Horror Stories - The New York Times

Really I think most health care systems will have really bad people in them administrative positions, but to prove the system is rotten to core, you need statistics. No system is perfect, but proving a whole system to be fundamentally flawed takes more then anecdotal evidence.

I also think your friend's family would have a good case to sue the hospital, it sounds like what they did is at best civilly liable and at worst illegal.

The WHO actually ranks health care systems in terms of effectiveness:

World Health Organization?s Ranking of the World?s Health Systems | thepatientfactor.com

 

[Hawkeye10]

They need to find $200 billion a year to start, and as we all know medical cost inflation is terrible, they currently collect $77 billion a year in income taxes, so if income taxes are going to pay the freight they need to go up 160% to start, and until we fix our broken medical system it gets much worse from there.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli.../california-single-payer-health-care-estimate

https://ballotpedia.org/California_state_budget_and_finances

 

[DA60]

I am sorry about your friend, but there is a reason why anecdotal evidence is not a good measure for determining trends to evaluating a system.

Its naive to assume there are not really bad health care stories in the US:

Health Care Horror Stories - The New York Times

Really I think most health care systems will have really bad people in them administrative positions, but to prove the system is rotten to core, you need statistics. No system is perfect, but proving a whole system to be fundamentally flawed takes more then anecdotal evidence.

I also think your friend's family would have a good case to sue the hospital, it sounds like what they did is best civilly liable and at worst illegal.

The WHO actually ranks health care systems in terms of effectiveness:

World Health Organization?s Ranking of the World?s Health Systems | thepatientfactor.com

Thank you.

But I think you are missing the point.

I checked it out with doctors and others...everything the hospital did in my story is legal and within the rules of the Canada Health Act.

If you are awaiting an operation in a Canadian hospital...they can keep you there indefinitely. Sure , you can physically leave whenever you wish...but then they put you at the bottom of the list...so you stay.

And that is one of the reasons for the incredibly long wait times...government waste.

Those three men in that room could have been at home waiting for their operations. There were not enough beds in the Cardiac floor they were on, so people were waiting for days in Emergency (not pleasant - I can tell you) just for a bed in the Cardiac floor.

And since no one is in it for profit, few one cares how staggeringly inefficient the whole thing is.

My sister, who lives in Seattle, had cancer surgery (she is fine now thank goodness). And they did not have her in until the day befoe surgery because there was no need for her to be there. In Canada, there is no telling how long she might have been forced to wait at the hospital.

The Canadian system does some things very well. But it's record on wait times and the way it just shoves patients under the rug is absolutely appalling.

As I said, I am for a government healthcare system for those who need it.

But I am DEAD SET against not allowing the private sector to work alongside the government one (which is the way it is in Canada for most medical 'things' - private hospitals in Canada are flat out illegal. Certain clinics for certain minor things are allowed - like cosmetic surgery. But major ones - forget it).

 

[Yes_Minister]

Thank you.

But I think you are missing the point.

I checked it out with doctors and others...everything the hospital did in my story is legal and within the rules of the Canada Health Act.

If you are awaiting an operation in a Canadian hospital...they can keep you there indefinitely. Sure , you can physically leave whenever you wish...but then they put you at the bottom of the list...so you stay.

And that is one of the reasons for the incredibly long wait times...government waste.

Those three men in that room could have been at home waiting for their operations. There were not enough beds in the Cardiac floor they were on, so people were waiting for days in Emergency (not pleasant - I can tell you) just for a bed in the Cardiac floor.

And since no one is in it for profit, few one cares how staggeringly inefficient the whole thing is.

My sister, who lives in Seattle, had cancer surgery (she is fine now thank goodness). And they did not have her in until the day befoe surgery because there was no need for her to be there. In Canada, there is no telling how long she might have been forced to wait at the hospital.

The Canadian system does some things very well. But it's record on wait times and the way it just shoves patients under the rug is absolutely appalling.

As I said, I am for a government healthcare system for those who need it.

But I am DEAD SET against not allowing the private sector to work alongside the government one (which is the way it is in Canada for most medical 'things' - private hospitals in Canada are flat out illegal. Certain clinics for certain minor things are allowed - like cosmetic surgery. But major ones - forget it).

Except you said the doctor screwed up the operation a couple of times, I am pretty sure that would be a malpractice suit.

Also you did not comment on the New York Times article that had some US health care horor stories. The grass is always greener on the other side.

My dad went to a Canadian hospital recently and he got good care quite quickly.

Unless you have something more stats based can prove a wider trend, you just seem to proving this one hospital is bad, rather then the whole system.

 

[DA60]

Except you said the doctor screwed up the operation a couple of times, I am pretty sure that would be a malpractice suit.

Also you did not comment on the New York Times article that had some US health care horor stories. The grass is always greener on the other side.

My dad went to a Canadian hospital recently and he got good care quite quickly.

Unless you have something more stats based can prove a wider trend, you just seem to proving this one hospital is bad, rather then the whole system.

The point is that it is legal and considered ethical to force Canadians to wait for weeks - even months - for operations virtually trapped in hospitals.

This would NEVER happen at a for-profit hospital because the administrators would send my friend home to wait to save money.

In a bureaucratic-run hospital, they don't care about saving money...they just care about covering their legal backsides above all else.

Plus, it is simply common sense that doctors/nurses at for-profit hospitals will treat you better because their jobs depend on it. Obviously, bureaucrats will - on average - be less conscientious than the same person in a for-profit environment.
And when you are trapped in a hospital with limited visiting hours and all you have for company is other sick patients and medical professionals whose attitude can be downright callous...it is a big deal.

You are looking for statistics. You cannot show lack of professional compassion and being forced to wait for weeks in hospital in statistics.

If you have been to a DMV and seen the way those bureaucrats go about their jobs...that is the way they do it Caandian hospitals. Some are good, some are fair and most just don't care...it's just a job. They do exactly what they are told to do and NOTHING else. They do their jobs with blank looks on their faces.


NOTHING you can say will change my mind.

I will NEVER agree to a system that does not allow private hospitals. NEVER.

 

[LittleNipper]

The leading cause of high medical costs are lawsuits. End all medical lawsuits and you will drive down the cost for healthcare. 50 years ago one needed to demonstrate intentional harm. Today, all one has to do is look the wrong way or say the wrong thing and a lawsuit waits in the wings with a dirty lawyer hoping to hit the jackpot.

 

[earthworm]

Wait times, GB, wait times. Every single payer in the world has varying degrees of "are you ****ting" me long wait times.

IF this is true , then , of course, this must be addressed .. I do NOT think ''single payer'' causes long wait times ...
That, what we have now, and what we had 100 years ago is a MESS - particularly for the working man - much less so for the wealthy - this (wealthy) IS the crux of the problem !
Medical care for all MUST be affordable , BUT, a man must pay a reasonable amount for his care. . maybe the way in which dental care is done .. pay 100% as you go ... but, then there are transplants - extremely costly .. IF I took good care of my teeth , 50 to 75 years ago, things might be different .. In or5der for affordable COMPLETE health care to work, we MUST take care of ourselves .

 

[earthworm]

OK , no doubt this is most lousy ! What causes this ?
How can it be fixed ?
Does anyone care ?
Is this the truth ?
And IF 'some are OK' , why ?

 

[Yes_Minister]

The point is that it is legal and considered ethical to force Canadians to wait for weeks - even months - for operations virtually trapped in hospitals.

This would NEVER happen at a for-profit hospital because the administrators would send my friend home to wait to save money.

In a bureaucratic-run hospital, they don't care about saving money...they just care about covering their legal backsides above all else.

Plus, it is simply common sense that doctors/nurses at for-profit hospitals will treat you better because their jobs depend on it. Obviously, bureaucrats will - on average - be less conscientious than the same person in a for-profit environment.
And when you are trapped in a hospital with limited visiting hours and all you have for company is other sick patients and medical professionals whose attitude can be downright callous...it is a big deal.

You are looking for statistics. You cannot show lack of professional compassion and being forced to wait for weeks in hospital in statistics.

If you have been to a DMV and seen the way those bureaucrats go about their jobs...that is the way they do it Caandian hospitals. Some are good, some are fair and most just don't care...it's just a job. They do exactly what they are told to do and NOTHING else. They do their jobs with blank looks on their faces.


NOTHING you can say will change my mind.

I will NEVER agree to a system that does not allow private hospitals. NEVER.

But again, my dad went to the hospital and got good treatment.

Again, I am sorry about your friend, but I do believe in being somewhat logical in debates and not allowing my emotions to sway me.

Its naive to think there are not wait times in the US:

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.for...or-wait-times-soar-amid-trumpcare-debate/amp/

You have not addressed that article I posted about US health care horror stories.

Would you prefer a system similar to Australia that mixes public and private systems?

 

[Moderate Right]

But again, my dad went to the hospital and got good treatment.

Again, I am sorry about your friend, but I do believe in being somewhat logical in debates and not allowing my emotions to sway me.

Its naive to think there are not wait times in the US:

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.for...or-wait-times-soar-amid-trumpcare-debate/amp/

You have not addressed that article I posted about US health care horror stories.

Would you prefer a system similar to Australia that mixes public and private systems?

Just out of curiosity, why do you think Australia does that?

 

[Yes_Minister]

Just out of curiosity, why do you think Australia does that?

I do not much about the Australian system, so I wouldn't want to venture a major opinions on Australia. But if one prefers private/public mix, that is fine, there are different ideas on what the approach is the best, health care is complex and there is no one perfect solution for everything.

But frankly I don't think the Canadian system is perfect and I don’t think the US system is perfect, no system is perfect. In the WHO index the US is 37th, Canada is 30th and Australia is 32nd, so there is room for improvement for all those countries.

The WHO index puts France at the top, but France is a unitary government, which means you can't apply everything they do to federations like US, Canada, Australia, etc.

 

[Moderate Right]

I do not much about the Australian system, so I wouldn't want to venture a major opinions on Australia. But if one prefers private/public mix, that is fine, there are different ideas on what the approach is the best, health care is complex and there is no one perfect solution for everything.

But frankly I don't think the Canadian system is perfect and I don’t think the US system is perfect, no system is perfect. In the WHO index the US is 37th, Canada is 30th and Australia is 32nd, so there is room for improvement for all those countries.

The WHO index puts France at the top, but France is a unitary government, which means you can't apply everything they do to federations like US, Canada, Australia, etc.

Very sensible post.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Single-payer healthcare plan advances in California Senate ?*without a way to pay its $400-billion tab - LA Times

Cali si making some legislative noise to do this, projected tax increases are 15%.
Would you accept paying 15% more in taxes for Government directed and controlled Single Payer healthcare?

If they could actually pull it off with a 15% income tax and the coverage was good, it would be cheaper than any equivalent offering in the private sector.

 

[upsideguy]

By definition, a 'bureaucrat' only works for the government. You cannot have one working for a for-profit entity.

No, a bureaucrat is a mid to lower level member of a bureaucracy, be it government or other large organization...."

"....a person who is one of the people who run a government or big company and who does everything according to the rules of that government or company : a person who is part of a bureaucracy..."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bureaucrat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucrat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucracy

If you have ever been to a DMV...than you know the attitude of government bureaucrats. They are backed by powerful unions, they have little prospect for career advance (except to another tedious job) and they show it.

Have you ever been to a Canadian hospital?

Assuming you have not...I will tell you about one I know of. It was the largest one in that province.

I had a friend who was awaiting a triple bypass operation. As were two of the others in his room. He had been waiting over a month (the others about 10 days and just over two weeks) by the time he got his operation.
He was not allowed to leave the floor - ever. Not 'they could not leave the hospital (which was huge)'...no, they could not even leave their floor. None of them were. If they did - they were told that they would be placed down to the bottom of the waiting list for their operation. And being they had no other alternative, they were trapped. Day after day - week after week. They could not leave the floor because then if they collapsed, they might die - and the doctors did not want that responsibility.
And since the hospital is not for-profit...what do the doctors care? As long as they follow the rules and break no laws...they were fine.
And NONE of these three guys were on any kind of life support. They all felt relatively fine. All the hospital did was take their witals three times a day, feed them and give them their pills. ALL of which, they could have easliy done at home. But they were not allowed to go home...even though my friend was absolutely miserable.
And he did not know when his operation would be...the nurses said that they did not know when...'hopefully next week'. This went on for week after week after week.
It was horrible.....

<snipped....we get the point>


THAT is what a government run hospital can legally do in Canada.

I am sorry to hear your story. It is sad. I certain many people can offer stories of medical mal-practice in the US, but we are not going there. In fact, your entire rebuttal is but a series of anecdotes, which is not a legitimate way to argue any proposition other than "ALL" or "None". I could throw out my anecdotes that include working with lots of competent and caring government officials including people in the SEC, IRS and even the DMV (then again, the government in my state is reasonably functional). I could also recount my career which includes the acquisition of four companies in Canada, where one of the major (irrational) fears of the employees is that we would replace their Canadian healthcare with US health insurance. I have visited a Canadian doctor's office.... but, that isn't an argument either.

Sorry, but this type of argument must present opinions of experts that have actually studied healthcare systems.

Change of Subject: Never mind the anecdotes: Do Canadians like their health-care system?

I have already pointed out that there is higher satisfaction with Medicare than our healthcare system at large. This suggests our government is out-performing the private sector in customer satisfaction in the delivery of healthcare.


We know that the US healthcare system is the most costly in the world. Most people believe it delivers inferior outcomes for the money spent.

The 36 Best Healthcare Systems In The World - Business Insider

...and, there is substantial evidence that people with universal healthcare and government run healthcare are happier with their systems than we are with ours..

Healthcare System Ratings: U.S., Great Britain, Canada | Gallup
We Need French Healthcare ? The Facts
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/11/how_the_british_feel_about_the.html
http://www.alternet.org/story/14195...ams,_the_brits_love_their_health_care_system/

 

[akyron]

Already do pay that and more. If they wanted to they could pay for lots more stuff out of what they get.

Those in power for generations would rather give themselves massive cash bonuses.

I worked for a company that the board of directors did exactly that. Dumped about a hundred million of cash bonuses on themselves and the following year laid off 4k people. Truly evil and irresponsible.

 

[JANFU]

Single-payer healthcare plan advances in California Senate ?*without a way to pay its $400-billion tab - LA Times

Cali si making some legislative noise to do this, projected tax increases are 15%.
Would you accept paying 15% more in taxes for Government directed and controlled Single Payer healthcare?

What would the cost be taking the insurance companies out of the market- they reap approx 30 %
Next bulk purchasing of drugs in cooperation with other States
Changing malpractice laws?
Then add in a fee per person/family.
Set pricing for surgeries. Why can a Dr charge 80 K for back/neck surgery.