Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How to pay for Universal Health Care

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 01:43 PM
Original message
How to pay for Universal Health Care
Edited on Fri Aug-07-09 01:55 PM by Matariki
This seems so obvious that I'm always perplexed it's not the obvious answer proposed to that question.

People are already paying hundreds of dollars a month (or more) for insurance, or their employer is paying that much. Surely if that money were diverted into taxes for a single payer health care program, well - problem solved. In fact the taxes would probably be much less than what people are paying now for insurance. Everyone would have access to health care no matter what their employment status was and the only people who would lose in that situation would be the insurance companies.

Am I missing something? It seems like a no-brainer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Rambis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. Cut 5% off defence (nm)
x
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Sure. But what I'm saying is that the money is ALREADY there
The argument of 'how are we going to pay for it' is a false one. We're ALREADY paying for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arbusto_baboso Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. But, but, but.... then you eliminate the middle man's ability to make obscene profits!
Why do you hate America? :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
3. TMTR in the 70-90% range.
Problem solved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. I'm ignorant of that acronym
could you elucidate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SleeplessInAlabama Donating Member (341 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Top Marginal Tax Rate n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Ah. But again, my point is that the money is already there
that no one has to have more out of their pockets, just divert what is already being paid into a universal system.

That bypasses arguments about raising taxes for any one particular group or taking money from other programs. I'm not arguing against those things in and of themselves, just that they divert from the health care argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. The money has already been diverted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. I don't disagree with you. I think it should be treated as a separate issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. I understand that your point is that the money is already being spent.
At 2x the cost.

The tmtr will still have to be raised. We still have 30 years of debts to pay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. I absolutely agree with you. Just don't want to ague those points in the same sentence.
The anti health care dupes have enough nonsense in their arsenals already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Fair enough.
Understood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Top Marginal Tax Rate.
The progressive tax system under which we live.

Currently at 35%. Less than half of 50 years ago. The progressive, as opposed to regressive, rate at which we tax citizens.




http://taxes.about.com/od/2009taxes/qt/2009_tax_rates.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ejpoeta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
5. see, here is why it is unacceptable....
"... the only people who would lose in that situation would be the insurance companies." this is why we are seeing the big fight. it's not hard to scare people into believing all the bs that is being spouted all over rush limbaugh, faux news etc... even the MSM... because the insurance companies have a golden goose going on, and the only thing they want to change is that we are mandated to participate in the system AS IT IS... no changes. then they can charge whatever they want and pay all those CEO salaries and the politicians will get their campaign money and the only ones that lose are the american people...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Yep - that much is obvious.
what I don't understand is why I never hear anyone point out that the money is already there to pay for it. That we've already been paying though the nose for health care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ejpoeta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #8
17. it surprises me to. the MSM certainly could put that out there. we pay for it
multiple times... First we pay our premiums.... then we pay out of our payroll for medicare... and our taxes we pay for medicaid... then we pay again in the inflated costs of actually going to the doctor or hospital because when the uninsured come in and are unable to pay that gets added to our bills. So we are paying multiple times already... Imagine if we only had to pay once, and everyone was covered to boot!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
11. Plus we are already paying for the government run programs, either
through taxes or the premium on Medicare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shagbark Hickory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
12. It is a no-brainer: End the war, tax cuts for richfux and create a 2% nat'l sales tax. Prob solvedNT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. National sales tax is regressive and penalizes the poor and working class.
Go after the rich corporations for a percentage of their gross revenue. Sure it will be passed on in prices but it will be more equitable because there are a lot of services and products that the poor don't buy like stocks and bonds, lawyers and financial managers that haven't been taxed and should be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shagbark Hickory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #14
24. I don't quite agree about that. The more you spend, they more you pay. Fair & square. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Not 'fair and square' really.
a person with low income will spend A LARGER PERCENTAGE of their income on taxable goods than a person with high income. A person with high income can buy a lot of stuff with a much smaller percentage of their income and save or invest the rest. Therefore a person with lower income pays a higher percentage of their income in sales tax.

That's why it's considered regressive - it puts a greater tax burden on the poor. Make sense?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shagbark Hickory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. Ok that makes sense then there needs to be a minimum salary & salary cap in addition to the sals tax
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #24
30. Rich people can only spend so much money even on luxuries.
If a rich guy buys five cars, he can do it. But if every working class guy on a block buys a car, that could be fifteen cars so the rich guy is paying less in sales tax than those fifteen working class guys who could probably use the money for gas. The rich guy has money for gas even after paying taxes. He doesn't feel the pinch the working class guy does. So instead of putting the burden of a system on the working class, make tax laws that target the rich, who really aren't going to miss the money any way. They will complain about it, but it won't lower their standard of living one bit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kalyke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #12
27. No sales tax.
Edited on Fri Aug-07-09 02:41 PM by Kalyke
States without income taxes (such as my own) already have HUGE sales tax rates. It would be regressive to us.

We also have sales tax on food, fwiw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
13. This is what has been proposed.
However, to cover everyone, it needs to come out of some kind of payroll tax and corporate tax. FICA would cover the payroll tax. They may have to add some percents to it more than we are paying now but it probably will still be cheaper than what people are paying today unless they make millions every month. Since the corporations will be benefitting the most from this since they employ the most people, they should pay accordingly, maybe a percentage on their gross revenue. Of course it's too simple. This whole health care issue has a simple and comprehensive solution that will take care of everyone, patients, doctors and hospitals. However, there is no place for the parasitic, for profit health care industry and yet they've been given first seating the table. It blows my mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Yes exactly.
It would benefit American corporations a great deal - they spend huge amounts on health benefits that overseas competitors don't have to pay.

Perhaps I'm not paying attention but what baffles me is that I don't hear anyone (in the media) making this explanation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
20. "Most firms pay no income taxes..." (looks like there is money to be had).
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/12/news/economy/corporate_taxes/

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Nearly two-thirds of U.S. companies and 68% of foreign corporations do not pay federal income taxes, according to a congressional report released Tuesday.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined samples of corporate tax returns filed between 1998 and 2005. In that time period, an annual average of 1.3 million U.S. companies and 39,000 foreign companies doing business in the United States paid no income taxes - despite having a combined $2.5 trillion in revenue.

The study showed that 28% of foreign companies and 25% of U.S. corporations with more than $250 million in assets or $50 million in sales paid no federal income taxes in 2005. Those companies totaled a combined $372 billion in sales for the largest foreign companies and $1.1 trillion in revenue for the biggest U.S. companies.

The GAO report, which did not name any specific companies, said that some corporations reported zero income before deducting expenses while others said they had zero net income after deducting expenses. Either way, those companies reported no tax liability, the GAO said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
23. Single payer pays insurance companies to manage...
care, so the savings wouldn't be so great.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abumbyanyothername Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
25. There are currently around 40-80 million
uninsured and underinsured.

Even the savings occasioned by cutting out the for profit insurer's profits wouldn't cover all those people.

Also, diverting premiums to a Medicare for all plan, could be characterized as a tax. Obama promised no tax increase on people making less than $250K/year and he is going to stick with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. Surely the insurance companies are collecting FAR MORE than the cost of health care.
Most people pay way, way more for insurance than they ever use. That's how insurance works. Betting against getting sick.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abumbyanyothername Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. The insurance company payouts
are in the range of 75% to 85% of premiums collected. Medicare is around 95%.

The difference is only enough to cover about half of the uninsured through a straight premium transfer program.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. Well I suppose that the thing I'm 'missing'
where is your info from? I'd like to read up on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abumbyanyothername Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Start here.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/transcript2.html

Democracy for America has good info also.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 03:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC