Well, Australia will catch on soon.





What we have... now...




Social Security:
In 2017, 24 percent of the budget, or $945 billion, paid for Social Security, which provided monthly retirement benefits averaging $1,404 to 42 million retired workers in December 2017. Social Security also provided benefits to 3 million spouses and children of retired workers, 6 million surviving children and spouses of deceased workers, and 10.4 million disabled workers and their eligible dependents in December 2017.

Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and marketplace subsidies:
Four health insurance programs — Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace subsidies — together accounted for 26 percent of the budget in 2017, or $1 trillion. Nearly three-fifths of this amount, or $597 billion, went to Medicare, which provides health coverage to around 59 million people who are over age 65 or have disabilities. The rest of this category funds Medicaid, CHIP, and ACA subsidy and marketplace costs. In a typical month, Medicaid and CHIP provide health care or long-term care to about 69 million low-income children, parents, elderly people, and people with disabilities. (Both Medicaid and CHIP require matching payments from the states.) In 2017, 8 million of the 10 million people enrolled in health insurance through the ACA marketplace received subsidies that lower premiums and out-of-pocket costs, at an estimated cost of about $48 billion.

All of that would be rolled into one, with 5 times the purchasing power and no middleman.

I know... but ALL of that (just social security) only pays for 17% of the people in the US. And I think you would have to agree that $1404 / month is not sufficient for full medical coverage.

Yes, free medical and free education would be great. But it's not quite as simple as JUST raising taxes, or finding new things to tax.
Raising everyone's taxes to say 60-65% would do it. But that would crush the US economy, and long before it could recover, the US would be a wasteland.



/e This is an old argument bro. And we won't solve it today. And the current candidates won't either. I mean if they HAD a workable plan, I'd jump on board in a heartbeat. But theories don't feed the kids.

This post was edited by Ghot on Nov 13 2019 08:07am

"No way to do this" - only modern country that doesnt do this

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Nov 13 2019 08:07am

A 7.5% levy covered it here, seems worth it over your crippling costs.
Private health costs more than that anyway and might get declined.
How is it that the rest of the developed world worked it out?

Just for the record the us achieved its peak economy at its highest ever tax rates.
That line about killing the economy is crap, so is trickle down economics.


This post was edited by Plaguefear on Nov 13 2019 08:12am

Australia could be compared to say the states of NY and Cali... only. What if your healthcare also had to cover say 300 million more people living in the inland areas as well.
My point is, you can't really compare the two countries like that, even though, in sq. miles they are similar in size.


/e It's an entirely different logistics problem.

This post was edited by Ghot on Nov 13 2019 08:20am

No it really isn't.
One, our land mass is huge for our population, and numbers do not mean anything.
If a sandwich costs 1$ for each person who buys one you can buy 24 million sandwiches or 300 million and the price per person will not change.

... don’t read right from candidates. That number is less of a fantasy than you think.

Ny times - obv leaning left - still showing there is no solid proof that this will save money, and that all the plans to pay for it fall significantly short

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/11/09/us/politics/medicare-for-all-fact-check.amp.html

Washington post - also left leaning media, still can’t get behind the bs they’re throwing out there and does everything but call sanders and warren outright liars.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanderss-and-elizabeth-warrens-health-care-plans-sound-too-good-to-be-true-they-are/2019/11/06/0f6fba74-0016-11ea-9518-1e76abc088b6_story.html?outputType=amp

Fox news - leaning right, also says this shit is expensive and there’s no clear plan to pay for it

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-bill-estimated-to-cost-32-6t-new-study-says.amp

Npr - closer to center, sanders won’t say how he’s going to get it paid for, (because he doesn’t know come on let’s be honest here)

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/29/774397574/bernie-sanders-wont-yet-explain-how-he-would-pay-for-medicare-for-all



Anyways just saying, no this isn’t gonna be some thingn where yeah the govt spends less and we are all happy go lucky and everyone’s healthy forever and making more money. Real world countries have done this yes, and it takes real world concessions to do it, everyone needs to quit acting like this is just ezpz and nobody has to give anything up and healthcare quality will stay the same or get better. Shit will change If anything like this is enacted, I cannot say for sure whether the change is for the better or not because the full plan isn’t laid out yet. There needs to be a real plan though and its not gonna include blasting our military budget in half, if any of you think that they even think of that as an option you’re kidding yourself.

This post was edited by Drakwen on Nov 13 2019 08:32am

When you negotiate for more customers you actually tend to get better per person prices

An MRI costs $80 here, look up what it costs in your state and post it, wonder how close in price it is.