Asking what single payer will cost is the wrong question.

[Stinky The Clown]

The right question is what it will cost each of us, net.

Single payer will be paid for through taxes. With single payer, part of those taxes will be offset by savings on the private insurance we've had to buy. I suspect for many people, the net, all in, will be a savings.

It really doesn't matter what it costs the government if we the people are paying for it. It could be framed as a single giant insurance policy that has 230 million subscribers. We all pay our fair share according to our means.

Why is this so hard to understand?

[PSPS]

1. The right question: How much will single payer save?

The net increase in income taxes (not payroll taxes as someone else here erroneously said) would be less than private insurance premiums are today for the vast majority of people.

Fun fact: The constitution we imposed on Iraq provides for universal single-payer health care, just like every other country in the industrial world has.

[vlyons]

2. The most important point to get over

is that we won't be buying health insurance from for-profit insurance companies, who right now skim off some of our premiums for "administrative costs" and profits that pay executive bonuses and stock holder payments. Insurance companies will not run healthcare in this country. Once Joe Voter understands that insurance companies are out of the picture, we can begin to show him what he will pay in taxes for comprehensive healthcare him him and everyone in his family from cradle to nursing home for his entire life. There will be no co-pays and no supplemental hospitalization to buy. Plus Uncle Sam will negotiate with Big Pharma for lower med prices.

[Phoenix61]

3. Why would single payer have to be payed through taxes?

It could be set up just like any other insurance and premiums could be based on a sliding scale. I think that would be easier for people to understand. When you say tax, people tend to get nervous. Tax money has a habit of going off in other directions. Look what they have done with SS money.

[DefenseLawyer]

6. The only thing that is done with SS money is that it is invested in treasury securities

The Social Security trust funds are invested entirely in U.S. Treasury securities. Like the Treasury bills, notes, and bonds purchased by private investors around the world, the Treasury securities that the trust funds hold are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. Don't believe right wing nonsense about Social Security.

[MichMan]

4. Why did Vermont calculate it would double the state budget?

For decades, liberal activists yearned for a European-style, single-payer health system that they argued would lead to more affordable, efficient, and comprehensive medical coverage for all citizens. When Vermont four years ago enacted a landmark bill to establish the nation’s first single-payer health care system, they saw their long-sought dream about to be fulfilled.
But reality hit last month. Governor Peter Shumlin released a financial report that showed the cost of the program would nearly double the size of the state’s budget in the first year alone and require large tax increases for residents and businesses. Shumlin, a Democrat and long-time single-payer advocate, said he would not seek funding for the law, effectively tabling the program called Green Mountain Care.

“In my judgment, now is not the time to ask our Legislature to take the step of passing a financing plan for Green Mountain Care,’’ Shumlin said.
The decision not only stunned and angered supporters in Vermont, but also signaled that the dream of universal, government-funded health care in the United States may be near its end. Vermont’s experience, analysts said, shows how difficult — and costly — it can be to shift from a system long-dominated by private health insurance, and that the future of universal health care lies within the private market.

“The idea of single-payer, or a Medicare-for-all type program, has always been a cherished dream for many in the Democratic Party,” said Henry J. Aaron, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a liberal-leaning Washington think tank. “In truth, there had never been a hard, developed plan to implement such a dream. In Vermont, they finally developed a plan, and look what happened.”
A single-payer system has been the Holy Grail for progressives since the end of World War II, when President Harry Truman unsuccessfully pushed for a government-run National Health Insurance Plan to provide medical coverage for all Americans. In the 1970s, the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts vainly battled for a variation of Truman’s national insurance plan.

In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton turned to the private market to provide universal care, requiring that employers furnish health insurance for their workers. But that plan was rejected, too. Finally, in 2010, after a momentous congressional battle, President Obama signed into law the Affordable Care Act, achieving universal coverage by expanding Medicaid, the government health care program for the poor, and mandating private insurance for others.

Vermont took Obamacare a step further. In 2011, Shumlin proudly signed a bill to establish a publicly financed, single-payer system. The law required Shumlin to submit a detailed financial plan by 2013. Shumlin missed the deadline, raising fears among supporters and critics alike that single-payer health care would cost much more than anticipated. Those fears were realized on Dec. 17, when Shumlin, two years late and just a month from narrowly winning reelection, released the financial analysis.

The numbers were stunning. To implement single-payer, the analysis showed, it would cost $4.3 billion in 2017, with Vermont taxpayers picking up $2.6 billion and the federal government covering the rest. To put the figures into perspective, Vermont’s entire fiscal 2015 budget, including both state and federal funds, is about $4.9 billion.

Shumlin’s office estimated the state would need to impose new personal income taxes of up to 9.5 percent, on top of current rates that range from 3.55 to 8.95 percent. Businesses would be hit with an 11.5 percent payroll tax, on top of 7.65 percent payroll taxes employer pay for Social Security and Medicare. And even those tax increases might not have been enough. The governor’s office estimated the Green Mountain Care program would run deficits of $82 million by 2020 and $146 million in 2021. Shumlin said he feared the tax increases would harm businesses and the economy.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/01/25/costs-derail-vermont-single-payer-health-plan/VTAEZFGpWvTen0QFahW0pO/story.html

[McCamy Taylor]

5. It's the right question. Single payer costs Canada, UK about half per person what US spends

and they get better outcomes. That is because single payer invests in wellness and disease prevention. The U.S. throws a lot of money at the end of life for heroic--and sometimes futile care.

Our current messed up system is going to bankrupt us. Too many workers will become sick and disabled and a dwindling workforce will then be forced to provide for their expensive health care.

If we invested in prevention up front the way they do in Western European countries, within a few decades our per person spending would go down and our productivity would go up.

We should not be talking about artificial knees for everyone. We should be talking about preventing the heath conditions that lead to the need for artificial knees.

[area51]

7. This link

may help (PNHP).

[canetoad]

8. Our system isn't perfect (Australia)

But it covers everyone who cannot afford private health care. Below is how we pay for it:

https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-levy/
Medicare levy

Medicare gives Australian residents access to health care. It is partly funded by taxpayers who pay a Medicare levy of 2% of their taxable income.

Your Medicare levy is reduced if your taxable income is below a certain threshold. In some cases you may not have to pay the levy at all.

If you don’t have private hospital health insurance, you may have to pay the Medicare levy surcharge (MLS) in addition to the Medicare levy. This depends on your income for MLS purposes.

If you do have an appropriate level of private hospital health insurance, you won't have to pay the MLS, and depending on your income you may be eligible for the private health insurance rebate. This rebate is an amount the government contributes towards the cost of your private hospital health insurance premiums.

The Medicare levy and MLS and any reductions are calculated from information provided in your tax return.

[Volaris]

9. Because that's too fucking complicated for the worthless mouthbreathers who vote for the GOP.

It doesn't MATTER to them who pays for it OR how. These troglodytes want the arms of the federal government broken so they can go back to executing hate crimes with complete impunity. The rich don't mind one little bit, because they don't NEED federal protection to start with and besides, if the white trash gets to put the minority populations back in their 'rightful social place' then it won't matter how little they work for hourly, because they'll still be better off than 'those people'. As long as the Company Store stocks bibles and guns, everything will be as it should in their minds. These people think liberty means freedom from government, not freedom to CONTROL government.

I suspect the change happened when they DIDNT get to have the government they wanted because they kept getting outvoted, so they just decided anarchy would be more to their liking.