Suppose we had gotten single-payer. Who was going to pay for it?

[NNN0LHI]

I really have no idea myself.

[Tansy_Gold]

1. All of us.

it would work just like Medicare does. EVERYONE contributes, and so everyone benefits.

Not all that difficult. Really.


TG

[NNN0LHI]

2. What happens if some people didn't want to contribute?

Would they be forced or penalized in any way?

Don

[PVnRT]

5. They would be fined or arrested for tax evasion

[Tansy_Gold]

19. You pay Medicare right now, honey

It's in your FICA deduction, or was when you were working. Same as Social Security.


Better watch out, Don, or they'll start callin' you a teabagger! ;-)



TG

[The2ndWheel]

22. Isn't that the only way anything really gets done?

If we got to pick and choose, under no threat of penalty, what each of us wanted our tax money paying for, we would find ourselves in a vastly different reality.

[Sherman A1]

10. Precisely

[FormerDittoHead]

3. Here's the answer - it would have been CHEAPER...

on edit: I know this doesn't directly answer the question, but understand, as a nation, we already pay more than any other country. Who will pay for it is who's paying for it now, through some kind of progressive income tax. (and younger people should pay a lower percentage given their income)

The direct answer to your indirect question is that healthcare isn't "an option". If you get hit by a car you WILL get healthcare. And if you don't pay for it the rest of us do anyway.

Our current system of private insurers keep 30% for administration - that's 27% more than medicare uses for administration expenses.

So automatically, by paying the same amount that we already do, we can easily pay for those without insurance.

Then costs will automatically go down because people will be getting preventative care to help them avoid going to the ER when going to the ER is the most expensive option, and we end up paying for it indirectly in our current system.

That's more savings.

Then those sick people will be able to go back to work (if the job's there) - and they can pay INTO the system.

That will bring the pro-rata cost down.

None of the above, BTW, even starts to break the chain of fee-for-service, which is the other big cost component which the current measures do nothing to address...

[ProfessorPlum]

17. Exactly. It's the paradox that people fail to understand

Single payer is better and CHEAPER. So providing medical care for everyone isn't an expense, it is a savings, even a savings for the government.

[dwnorman]

25. On the surface it sounds good, but....

Dear FormerDittoHead,
Being a skeptic by nature, I'd like to know where you get your
data, i.e., 3O% & 27%.  Honestly, it seems to me that
government is the least efficient means of delivering services
I know of.  For example, here in Cobb County GA we do not have
government provided trash collection; we can contract with
private businesses or take our trash to the dump ourselves.  I
pay $216.00 per year to have a private co. pick up my trash
every week.  When I lived in MA my cost was 3 times that to
have the city take care of the trash pick-up.

While the single payer system may be the option of choice, I
would have to see cost reduction before I'd believe it.  If
the goal is to insure that every citizen who wants medical
insurance, but can not afford it or is turned down due to
preexisting conditions, gets a policy, then it seems to me
that the best way to handle that would be to either put them
on Medicaid or negotiate and deal with private insurers for a
policy.  The deal would include that no one could be turned
down.  Then the premium would be progressively priced to the
citizen according to his/her ability to pay.

I have a very close friend who, because of preexisting
conditions, can not buy insurance.  This plan would work for
him.  He is willing to pay for the coverage and this would
provide the avenue for him to get it.

Thanks,
Donald Norman

[Shagbark Hickory]

4. Single payer systems are mostly funed by tax dollars thus the answer is B. Government.

[Ozymanithrax]

6. Single payer is paid for from the general fund by taxes.

Don't want to pay taxes? Prisons, I hear, have government run health care for free, if you like living conditions.

This is called civic virtue or civic responsibility.

[rucky]

7. Lifting the cap on payroll tax can go a long way.

Here's a detailed plan:
http://www.pnhp.org/publications/liberal-benefits-conservative-spending

Scroll to about halfway into the report for some answers to your question.

[rurallib]

8. we would all pay for it

and the taxes would be far less than current premiums are.

[Jackpine Radical]

9. The government, and we pay for the government.

We pay a graduated income tax, so the costs are distributed according to ability to pay. The economy does better all around, with many new small businesses springing up; health care costs go down because a) the government set reimbursement rates and b) insurance co. costs (profits, administrative costs, etc.) are taken out of the picture. Universal health care would bring about savings in a lot of unexpected places--e.g. by reducing criminal recidivism.

[Tailormyst]

11. We pay it in the form of payroll deductions. nt.

[FormerDittoHead]

15. Excuse me, but I prefer an INCOME tax. Plenty of rich people don't take a paycheck... n/t

Just to put a fine point on that.

[Tailormyst]

21. Okay income tax.

Either way. We pay taxes ( like a medicare or ss tax) and then the government uses that to fund healthcare. I believe that is how its done in other places.

[michreject]

16. And if you don't get a paycheck...................

Then what?

[Tailormyst]

23. I suppose you would pay it with your taxes or if you were to poor then it would be subsidized.

I'd look at Europe, Canada, etc and see what works best and develop a plan from there.

[WCGreen]

12. SIngle people so that everyone would get married and those

who were maried would think twice before heading off to Reno...

[TCJ70]

13. I answered everyone:

Based on the tax element of funding.

[Mass]

14. This was never discussed. There are several options possible.

1/ general budget.
2/ payroll taxes dedicated to this (like Social Security or Medicare)
3/ everybody pays a flat premium -- with subsidies for the lower incomes--
4/ flat premium

My bet is that it would have been the 3 rd one, but it is a mute point.

[Overseas]

18. Gee maybe the same people who pay for escalation of 8 yr old wars.

No, that would be more like England's national health system, where taxpayers who are asked to finance wars and such are also given national health security as part of being taxpayers.

The idea here was to Open Up Medicare to all who chose it as their public option.

In Canada, where they've had it for decades now, a friend older than I am pays lower premiums for her total coverage with small co-pays than I do for one of those catastrophic plans with a $5000 deductible that I may find out doesn't really cover me when I really need it due to the new "recision" (aka patient dumping) that private insurers have worked up in the USA during the last decade.

Medicare is an efficient agency that has processed billions of claims. Medical services are PRIVATELY delivered, between you and your doctors. The payments are publicly administered, accountable to us all.

Medicare has low overhead and a high patient satisfaction rate compared with private health insurance.

[dysfunctional press]

20. we already pay for it.

our per capita annual costs are higher than in countries that already have single payer.

[jcboon]

24. Who cares? It's not my job.

Good government would provide health care for its citizens and it's up to the policy wonks and the Congress to figure out how to pay for it. We elect them to work in the public interest--they're supposed to do the hard stuff. They find ways to pay for all the other crap that seems so important
It's conservative propaganda that we the citizenry have to come up with all the answers.

[endless october]

26. here's how to pay for single payer.

end all wars.

end interventionism.

end the failed drug war (or even just the war on pot) and tax at a reasonable level.

there's enough money freed up there to fund single payer and probably a national public works program to build carbon-free electrical infrastructure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs
"A 2008 study by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron has estimated that legalizing drugs would inject $76.8 billion a year into the U.S. economy — $44.1 billion from law enforcement savings, and at least $32.7 billion in tax revenue"

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20091202_Battles_looming_over_ways_to_pay_growing_war_costs.html
"Congress is just days from approving the annual Pentagon spending bill, which already includes $130 billion in annual funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

so that's 200 billion dollars per year freed up.

this link : http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6449348&mesg_id=6450355

claims we only need $160 billion to bring everyone else into medicare.

so there you go.

[FSogol]

27. How about taxing RW talking points? n/t

[Javaman]

28. fail. nt

[kctim]

29. You, every payday

just as you do with social security, the largest tax individuals pay. Currently, 1 in 6 Americans receive social security benefits of one sort or another, under single-payer, ALL 300+ million Americans would receive benefits so it is obvious that the tax to pay for single-payer would be very very much larger than the social security tax you pay now.