HEALTH Not going to happen dept.; DOUBLING personal & corp income tax wouldn't fund Medicare For All

[MinnesotaSmith]

https://freebeacon.com/politics/expert-doubling-income-taxes-wont-even-cover-medicare-for-all-costs/

Expert: Doubling Income Taxes Won’t Even Cover Medicare for All Costs

BY: Cameron Cawthorne
April 30, 2019

"Charles Blahous, a senior research strategist at George Mason University's Mercatus Center, on Tuesday said, "Doubling all currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax would be insufficient to finance" Medicare for All.

Blahous spoke before the House Rules Committee about "Medicare for All," the health care plan proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) and supported by several 2020 Democratic candidates. Blahous estimated the cost is between $32.6 trillion and $38.8 trillion.

"Medicare for All would add somewhere between $32.6 trillion and $38.8 trillion in new federal budget costs over the first ten years. The $32.6 trillion estimate is a lower bound estimate. It essentially assumes every cost containment provision in the bill saves as much as possible," Blahous said. "If instead things play out more consistently with historical trends, the new federal cost would be closer to $38.8 trillion."

"Now obviously such enormous numbers are very difficult to grasp," he added. "We’re talking about 11 to 13 percent of our GDP in 2022, rising to 13 to 15 percent of GDP in 2031 being added to the federal ledger."

Blahous then went on to say the United States doesn't have "historical experience with permanent government expansions of this size."

"So, to provide a sense of the magnitudes, the study notes that doubling all currently projected federal individual and corporate income taxes would be insufficient to finance even the lower bound estimate of $32.6 trillion," he said. "Now, to be clear, these would not be the total costs of Medicare for All. These would the federal government's net new cost above and beyond currently projected federal health obligations."

"Total federal spending on Medicare for All over the first ten years would be somewhere between $54.6 trillion and $60.7 trillion," Blahous added."

 

[Richard]

18% of US GDP is used to pay for the current healthcare system via insurance. A similar amount would have to be paid into a national health system plus more to provide cover for those who do not have insurance. Also there would be enormous costs involved in setting up a Government system and migrating from the current system. I would envisage the total cost of a nationalised system to be approaching 25% of GDP. You would also have to work out how much would be paid by State Taxes and how much by Federal Tax. For some people already paying high premiums the cost of a Nationalised system would be about the same, but everyone would have to make a contribution via tax (instead of private insurance) to make it work. Of course you also have illegals who would expect "free" treatment but would contribute nothing towards it.

Any thoughts?

 

[Blastoff]

Polls have shown Medicare for All is popular as long as people think it is free; when the discussion includes the taxation required to fund it, people's opinion changes.

Also, remember, whatever they tell you Medicare for All will cost, it's wrong by many magnitudes. When Medicare was signed into law, the cost of Medicare itself was underestimated by about 10x.

 

[SSTemplar]

Health care for everyone just means you have to provide health care to those an insurance company won't touch because of preexisting conditions. Yes it is expensive and maybe there is a better way to provide health care for all. But somebody's bottom line is going to be affected. Go back to community clinics like we had in the 50 -60s and take the profit out of hospitals and reevaluate see where we stand. That would fall under the life,liberty and persuit rights. Insurance has not worked out so well for most.

 

[Melodi]

Yep the US will have to do something eventually, the current "situation" isn't sustainable and the "old" system was already falling to pieces so there is no "going back," either.

In reality, the taxpayer will pay one way or another and millions of people become disabled from treatable conditions gone serious and they fall into the ranks of the legally disabled or end up (after bankruptcy) on Medicaid or variation thereof.

Of course, having lost another friend yesterday (diabetic) because he couldn't afford care or all his medications and my sister two months ago because her family couldn't afford to treat her chronic condition either (husband working but not earning enough for either health insurance or to pay massive bills/co-pays) I'm a bit jaded on this topic at the moment.

Richard is actually right this time, if Nixon had been able to bring in Americare, people would still be complaining and arguing over costs as they do in the UK (no system is perfect)but it is unlikely that diabetics and chronic kidney patients would be dying in droves from lack of care - now really complicated conditions or very expensive rare ones might not do so well but most people would be covered for most things.

And yes they would pay a tax, I gather the US Supreme Court already ruled that was constitutional if the US wants to go that route.

 

[Dobbin]

Yep the US will have to do something eventually, the current "situation" isn't sustainable and the "old" system was already falling to pieces so there is no "going back," either.

Um. The "old" system is still there. It will ALWAYS be there.

I'm not talking the "put in an insurance claim" or even any system which involves insurance.

Owner tells his story (he tells a LOT of stories) about being a 10 year old and falling in the woods and cutting his knee. A gash which took four stitches to close and having the doctor pull the stitches a week later. Total cost $60 or as Owner says it "$15 a stitch." His father had to pay 20 percent of that as the insurance was 80/20 in those days (mid 1960s)

Rather than involve his work and insurance, Owner's dad paid the whole amount. Cash on the barrel head. Deal between the healer and the patient's father.

THIS is what healthcare will be when it all falls apart.

Owner in 1979 gashed himself in the left arm with a claw hammer. Seven stitches and $360 which with running the car cost Owner puts at $60 a stitch - or four-fold increase since the 1960s. Owner paid cash and pulled the stitches himself. THIS is what healthcare will be.

Owner's heart attack in 1995 cost the insurance company $65K. Owner's wife's double mastectomy and hysterectomy in 2010 was $360K. Both of these might not get done in a reset situation.

It won't be pretty. Many will die due to delayed response, lack of ability & talent, lack of supplies, lack of interest. But much resource (think GDP) will be released for development, war, personal protection, and keeping up with those that need help to stay alive by other non-medical threat to life.

It will be different. A set-back to pre-1960. It will probably be the most logical course.

But logic doesn't always choose path of action.

Dobbin

 

[Dozdoats]

"Not going to happen" doesn't mean the libtards will not worry the tax-you-more bone to death, just like they do "gun control." It's a libtard default setting.

 

[Melodi]

Also, Dobbin is correct; if things "fall backward" then the US could become similar to modern India where the wealthy get some of the best treatments on Earth (including foreigners) while the poor (and sometimes even the Middle Class) die on the steps of the hospital from perfectly treatable conditions.

This will likely come to a head (as I've said for years) the next time a truly contagious disease gets going and people are forced to relearn that germs are no respecter of persons and that investments in public health used to be there for a reason.

For way too long in the West (especially in the US) disease has become associated with a weird form of secular Calvinism where it somehow is seen as "the wages of sin" (aka an individual's own fault for not doing or for doing X, Y or Z).

But for most of human history, the majority of people didn't live long enough to experience those sorts of diseases; people knew full well that epidemics could kill thousands nearly over-night and accidents (including war) happened to everyone including the Elites.

The idea of "going back" to just paying "the doc" works fine for simple things but that isn't likely to cover the treatment for cancer or even life-saving insulin at the current prices.

 

[MinnesotaSmith]

To a nontrivial extent, they ARE...

For way too long in the West (especially in the US) disease has become associated with a weird form of secular Calvinism where it somehow is seen as "the wages of sin" (aka an individual's own fault for not doing or for doing X, Y or Z).

Where do people go to get most lung cancer, cirrhosis, genital herpes, HIV, Type II diabetes, obesity, heart disease, skin cancer, etc., again, now? Even when it's a kid that gets something horrible, a lot of stuff (including most Downs*, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Crack babies, etc.) comes from their parents (mostly their mothers) having done something they shouldn't have.


*Yes, even Down's.

 

[Richard]

Polls have shown Medicare for All is popular as long as people think it is free; when the discussion includes the taxation required to fund it, people's opinion changes.

Also, remember, whatever they tell you Medicare for All will cost, it's wrong by many magnitudes. When Medicare was signed into law, the cost of Medicare itself was underestimated by about 10x.

In the UK the NHS is touted by Labour as being "free", rather than taxpayer funded, in reality 10% of your income goes towards the NHS, but fortunately it is only 10% not 18%.

 

[NoDandy]

Um. The "old" system is still there. It will ALWAYS be there.

I'm not talking the "put in an insurance claim" or even any system which involves insurance.

Owner tells his story (he tells a LOT of stories) about being a 10 year old and falling in the woods and cutting his knee. A gash which took four stitches to close and having the doctor pull the stitches a week later. Total cost $60 or as Owner says it "$15 a stitch." His father had to pay 20 percent of that as the insurance was 80/20 in those days (mid 1960s)

Rather than involve his work and insurance, Owner's dad paid the whole amount. Cash on the barrel head. Deal between the healer and the patient's father.

THIS is what healthcare will be when it all falls apart.

Owner in 1979 gashed himself in the left arm with a claw hammer. Seven stitches and $360 which with running the car cost Owner puts at $60 a stitch - or four-fold increase since the 1960s. Owner paid cash and pulled the stitches himself. THIS is what healthcare will be.

Owner's heart attack in 1995 cost the insurance company $65K. Owner's wife's double mastectomy and hysterectomy in 2010 was $360K. Both of these might not get done in a reset situation.

It won't be pretty. Many will die due to delayed response, lack of ability & talent, lack of supplies, lack of interest. But much resource (think GDP) will be released for development, war, personal protection, and keeping up with those that need help to stay alive by other non-medical threat to life.

It will be different. A set-back to pre-1960. It will probably be the most logical course.

But logic doesn't always choose path of action.

Dobbin

Not a complete solution, but put a landmine on the southern border, stop the invasion of more parasites that are draining the system !!!

Also, get serious and round up all illegals in the country, and deport them !!!! That will further eliminate the drain on the system !!!

Another step, stop all govt freebies to all illegals, jail all employers of illegals, use asset forfeiture & have the govt take all their assets !!!

 

[Richard]

For way too long in the West (especially in the US) disease has become associated with a weird form of secular Calvinism where it somehow is seen as "the wages of sin" (aka an individual's own fault for not doing or for doing X, Y or Z).

There are diseases and conditions associated with lifestyle and habits which can be avoided, e.g. by not smoking or taking harmful drugs etc or having an unhealthy diet and doing no exercise etc etc. Even the NHS wants you to give up smoking and the conditions resulting from smoking and other bad habits are not treatable anyway. So the individual does have a responsibility to maintain a healthy lifestyle rather than relying on drugs etc to treat the results of their avoidable unhealthiness.
If I had not given up smoking years ago I would not be alive now*. Interestingly under the last Labour Government it was threatened that medical treatment could be withdrawn for those who did not give up smoking, it never happened but Drs were lecturing patients on giving up smoking. I told them I gave up years ago but the Dr still got annoyed when I said I've given up what more can I do. If you argue with Drs over here they do not like it.

*Hurrah I hear you all say.

Under the nationalised system it is rare that underperforming or inept Drs are actually sacked. There was a GP I visited years ago and thought this guy hasn't a clue, some years later I happened to read that he was struck off for having bogus qualifications, that would probably be one of the few reasons to sack Drs. I know of some instances where Drs have been complained about, even by staff in the hospital but they still are in practice. I think a lot of GPs are fairly inept but that doesn't usually matter as you would be sent into hospital if something serious arose.

 

[Richard]

Not a complete solution, but put a landmine on the southern border, stop the invasion of more parasites that are draining the system !!!

If you had an NHS the US would be a Mecca for even more illegal immigrants and those already here would expect treatment but would contribute nothing towards it thus pushing up costs through the roof.

 

[Dozdoats]

If you had an NHS


We do - it's called OBAMACARE.

Unfortunately most of us pay double or triple what we used to for 1/4 the care we used to get.

 

[Dr. G]

I have written in the past that no country in the world can afford to have universal health coverage and a viable military...but let's put that aside for a minute, (although I love having that discussion).

There is a law of three facts that applies to ALL healthcare:

1)Quality (of health care)

2)Affordability (of it)

3)Universality (how many are covered)

You can only have two of the three, this applies anywhere in the world, doesn't matter the type of government, (democratic/republic/communist/socialist/dictator...you get the picture), nowhere in the world can you get all three.

Let's see how this works, pick two from above...

You want quality health care and want it to be affordable...then you give up universality, (can't cover everybody).

Ok let's try universal coverage that's affordable, oops...we have to give up the quality of the health care.

One more, how about quality care that universally available...got to give up on that being affordable.

You can keep playing this game...pick two and lose one.

No one can escape these facts

These people know this, they know there is no way that all three can be achieved, yet they promise that this time we can break the universal law of the three when it comes to health care.

 

[Richard]

Another interesting observation about the NHS, a few years ago I regularly took an elderly relative for eye treatments at Redhill Hospital Surrey UK. One week they had a notice on the bulletin board to the effect that there were 750,000 iatrogenic cases where the NHS has caused harm to patients by maltreatment etc. The next time I visited the notice had been taken down and I've never seen it again.
I have complained about my treatment on occasion but the Drs argue against you or simply ignore you, e.g. some of my meds have had bad side effects. I assume this issue is never raised to the attention of the public and you'd never see a documentary about it. All you get in the media is how marvellous the NHS is and how we have to worship the staff who do a fantastic job etc etc and by inference how marvellous the Labour Party is for introducing the system.

There is another common problem with the NHS, lack of co-ordination between hospitals and GPs, this is probably because of a costly failed attempt to rewrite the medical healthcare computer system. My local MP, now retired, put a stop to a multi-billion failed NHS IT system some years back, as far as I'm concerned that was probably due to the public sector mentality and management, I know of several similar IT projects in the public sector that have also failed abysmally. The records at Redhill were manual old files, I had to carry about 10 folders of medical records from one department to another much to the glee of the NHS administrator. I know of someone who was eventually diagnosed with fibroids but it took several botched examination attempts by the GP and hospital before she got a proper scan. The Oxford Cancer clinic phoned up as the case was transferred from Berkshire to Oxfordshire, but The Royal Berks had no knowledge of this and continued to send letters for appointments etc. The operation at one of the teaching hospitals in Oxford was however swiftly arranged and carried out. The teaching hospitals in Oxford are streets better than other hospitals in the UK, I suspect they are showcases for the NHS and have the best Drs and facilities etc for teaching students at Oxford University.

The hospitals in Northern Sussex are abysmal, the one in Horsham is no better than it was 50 years ago and Crawley hospital is a joke. There are fortunately better hospitals at Redhill and Worthing.

I know of several people who have suffered badly because of being prescribed Statins by the NHS, one of them died because of it, another suffered a stroke but got over it at the time.

I once admitted myself to A&E because I had a swollen foot which looked very much like a bad sprain, I occasionally suffer from gout but that is usually manifested by small red swellings. I told them on admission it is either a sprain or possibly gout, that I wanted an examination if necessary to check for a sprain. 7 hours later after all the other patients admitted that day had been treated and had gone home they got hold of a Dr, he said why are you here, I said I told you this about 7 hours ago that I either had gout or a sprain, he said you have gout.

I think we have so much propaganda about how good the NHS is, that it makes patients and staff complacent about the standard of treatment and administration which could be improved in many minor and major ways by adjustments to procedures and administration probably at little or no cost. I can think of quite a few just with the limited experience I've had of the NHS, if I worked there I'd probably know why it is a can of worms.

When I was taking the relative in for treatment along with about 20 others each time, one of the the Drs didn't turn up so we were all sent home. There was one nurse there each time who did nothing at all as far as I could see but had this Florence Nightingale look as if she were some kind of caring miracle worker.

 

[Melodi]

There is no perfect system, but I just saw one report on the huge numbers of diabetic amputations that result from people not being able to afford basic care, medications and doctors visits - but Medicare and other US government programs will happily pay for amputations but not preventative care!

One thing I noticed was that nearly every person followed in the report had been employed in a low-level job before their amputation and were totally dependent on the tax-payer afterward.

In Ireland, which has a kind of wonky but actual public health system, this problem has been noticed and it was decided it made ECONOMIC sense to use tax-payer funds to cover basic care and medications for ALL diabetics and a number of other manageable conditions to prevent or at least delay these sorts of costly complications.

And yes, lifestyle diseases exist and I am not saying they do not or that they are not a problem; I am saying that because they now the most common types of disease, people have forgotten that illness is no respecter of person and there is a tendency to feel like "it is your own fault, go off and die if you can't afford treatment or you've already declared bankruptcy."

The way modern medicine is set up, things simply are not going back to the "Old Days" of "just pay the doc, sometimes in eggs from the chickens" because "Doc" can't solve the problem on their own - now of course if TSHF that will change but so will the death rates from previously treatable diseases.

Finally, "Obama Care" is NOT the NHS, I dealt with the one when my Mom was dying in the US and I had a number of personal experiences with the NHS and they are NOT the same thing at all.

Obama Care was written mostly by private insurance companies running scared of the moves towards some sort of public health system (maybe not universal but something) in the US and they were determined to get as much cash out of the situation as they could before that was likely to happen.

Ten thousand dollar "deductible" and thousands a year for a "Policy" is not the same as a ten percent tax on your income (for most people) that then provides "free" care (at point of access) when needed - people CAN (and do) also buy private health insurance but it is a "top up" and companies don't have to provide it if they don't want to.

Obama Care vs. the NHS (or Sweden, or Denmark where I've also experienced nationalized health care are apples and oranges; Sweden was close to being a member of Kaiser Permanente in the US, with the same positives and negatives that go with that.

No system is perfect, but while I understand the problems of military vs. health care - to not do anything and to continue to have working people (including very young people) thrown out of the workforce and onto public care (taxpayer or charity) may in itself become a national security issue - a similar situation did just that in WW1, back then it was malnutrition and rampant TB that disqualified a huge number of young men from the draft (even by the very low standards of the day).

That was partly what led to the institution of various public health programs, school lunches, well baby checks and government/tax-payer/military investment in research to prevent and treat disease.

The Great Flu Epidemic of 1918 also focused the public and national will on the topic; I hope it doesn't take something like that to refocus the US on the need to do something, but I rather fear that it will.

 

[Richard]

Oh regarding the 1918 flu epidemic, it is still around I and several people I know caught it a few years ago now called swine flu, H1N1 virus, and no we weren't allowed in any NHS hospital or Drs surgery. We got Tamiflu.

 

[Melodi]

Oh regarding the 1918 flu epidemic, it is still around I and several people I know caught it a few years ago now called swine flu, H1N1 virus, and no we weren't allowed in any NHS hospital or Drs surgery. We got Tamiflu.

It is a different strain than the one in 1918, they have DNA sequenced that one from samples taken in the US and later found in burials in Alaska.

The 1918 flu was especially deadly because it attacked in such a way that healthy young people were most likely to die because their immune systems went into over-drive; a lot of small children died of starvation in the US Midwest and in urban tennements when their young parents died and they starved to death before help arrived.

There is every possibility that another strain of flu will develop that is just as deadly and no Tamiflu won't totally sort it out - it can help and it can sometimes prevent serious side effects but it is NOT a cure all - our GP warned us about this when we were exposed to what was thought to be a deadlier flu than it was during the New Jersey Trade show a few years ago (some people did die but most didn't).

In the same way that elderberry tinctures can help control symptoms, it helps but it won't prevent an epidemic or ensure the lives of everyone who catches it either.

I sincerely doubt you know anyone who actually caught the 1918 version of the flu because as far as I know it no longer seems to be "out there" except in a lab - other, similar strains of Swine Flu are out there and occasionally one of those or the bird flu will morph and start killing people.

Most strains tend to kill the young, the immuno-comprised and the elderly; but the 1918 one killed healthy adults en mass; even today the death toll might be lower but it would still be very high.

Once the lungs were affected (sometimes in an hour or two) you might be able to keep a person alive on a heart-lung machine but there are not nearly enough of them to go around and the collapse can be so fast, many people would never even make it to the ER.

Be glad (for now) it is gone, but germs being what they are it could come back or something else take its place.

 

[Melodi]

Richard if the outbreak you were mentioning is the one I am thinking of, one of my customers (the lady who bought hand-woven trim in the SCA) died of it within a day or two of taking sick, and she was in a State of the Art Hospital in Southern California - so it was a very-very deadly strain and related if I recall to the strain in 1918 but I am not certain of that.

 

[Dennis Olson]

The reason the Brits and Euros pay $8/gallon for gas is to pay for their national healthcare. Try that here and the snowflakes would burn down the cities.