Peter1469
01-25-2016, 07:28 PM
Inside Sources brings an argument against Sander's single payer health care system. The Impossible (Pipe) Dream—Single-Payer Health Reform (http://www.insidesources.com/the-impossible-pipe-dream-single-payer-health-reform/)
Read the entire article for context.
Sander's plan is more expensive than let on.
In contrast, Senator Sanders’ plan, like the earlier proposal sponsored by Representative John Conyers (D-Michigan) which Sanders co-sponsored, would scrap all of those arrangements. Instead, people would simply go to the medical care provider of their choice and bills would be paid from a national trust fund. That sounds simple and attractive, but it raises vexatious questions.
How much would it cost the federal government? Where would the money to cover the costs come from?
What would happen to the $700 billion that employers now spend on health insurance?
How would the $600 billion a year reductions in total health spending that Sanders says his plan would generate come from?
What would happen to special facilities for veterans and families of members of the armed services?
Sanders has answers for some of these questions, but not for others. Both the answers and non-answers show why single payer is unlike past major social legislation.
The answer to the question of how much single payer would cost the federal government is simple: $4.1 trillion a year, or $1.4 trillion more than the federal government now spends on programs that the Sanders plan would replace. The money would come from new taxes. Half the added revenue would come from doubling the payroll tax that employers now pay for Social Security. This tax approximates what employers now collectively spend on health insurance for their employees…if they provide health insurance. But many don’t. Some employers would face large tax increases. Others would reap windfall gains.
Don't forget this part:
Let me be clear: we know that high quality health care can be delivered at much lower cost than is the U.S. norm. We know because other countries do it. In fact, some of them have plans not unlike the one Senator Sanders is proposing. We know that single-payer mechanisms work in some countries. But those systems evolved over decades, based on gradual and incremental change from what existed before. That is the way that public policy is made in democracies. Radical change may occur after a catastrophic economic collapse or a major war. But in normal times, democracies do not tolerate radical discontinuity. If you doubt me, consider the tumult precipitated by the really quite conservative Affordable Care Act.
Read the entire article for context.
Sander's plan is more expensive than let on.
In contrast, Senator Sanders’ plan, like the earlier proposal sponsored by Representative John Conyers (D-Michigan) which Sanders co-sponsored, would scrap all of those arrangements. Instead, people would simply go to the medical care provider of their choice and bills would be paid from a national trust fund. That sounds simple and attractive, but it raises vexatious questions.
How much would it cost the federal government? Where would the money to cover the costs come from?
What would happen to the $700 billion that employers now spend on health insurance?
How would the $600 billion a year reductions in total health spending that Sanders says his plan would generate come from?
What would happen to special facilities for veterans and families of members of the armed services?
Sanders has answers for some of these questions, but not for others. Both the answers and non-answers show why single payer is unlike past major social legislation.
The answer to the question of how much single payer would cost the federal government is simple: $4.1 trillion a year, or $1.4 trillion more than the federal government now spends on programs that the Sanders plan would replace. The money would come from new taxes. Half the added revenue would come from doubling the payroll tax that employers now pay for Social Security. This tax approximates what employers now collectively spend on health insurance for their employees…if they provide health insurance. But many don’t. Some employers would face large tax increases. Others would reap windfall gains.
Don't forget this part:
Let me be clear: we know that high quality health care can be delivered at much lower cost than is the U.S. norm. We know because other countries do it. In fact, some of them have plans not unlike the one Senator Sanders is proposing. We know that single-payer mechanisms work in some countries. But those systems evolved over decades, based on gradual and incremental change from what existed before. That is the way that public policy is made in democracies. Radical change may occur after a catastrophic economic collapse or a major war. But in normal times, democracies do not tolerate radical discontinuity. If you doubt me, consider the tumult precipitated by the really quite conservative Affordable Care Act.