• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

What's the point of socialized medicine if has to make taxes more regressive?

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
I don't get what the point of it is if most people pay for it.

Deductions would have to be taken away, and there would either have to be a VAT or payroll tax increases or both. The only way to "soak the rich" further is to legislate a property tax with large exemption.

Taxes need to be lower, not higher.

Socialized medicine wouldn't work here because this country is too ethnically heterogeneous.
 

Meghan54

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2009
9,475
2,282
136
I don't get what the point of it is if most people pay for it.

Deductions would have to be taken away, and there would either have to be a VAT or payroll tax increases or both. The only way to "soak the rich" further is to legislate a property tax with large exemption.

Taxes need to be lower, not higher.

Socialized medicine wouldn't work here because this country is too ethnically heterogeneous.

About the bolded part......what the fuck does that mean? I know you don't mean that if our country was all white or black or hispanic that "socialized" medicine would work, did you? Because that's exactly what you said, and if you meant that, you are certainly clueless and/or very racist.


About the first part.....there are a whole host of reasons why it probably would be a good idea to get working, not the least of which preventing people/families going into bankruptcy from a devastating illness/injury even while having health insurance.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,203
126
About the bolded part......what the fuck does that mean? I know you don't mean that if our country was all white or black or hispanic that "socialized" medicine would work, did you? Because that's exactly what you said, and if you meant that, you are certainly clueless and/or very racist.
Guessing what something means is always dangerous, but if the intent is that the costs of healthcare are in part dependent on demographics then it's correct. Homogeneous populations are cheaper.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
60,190
12,693
136
I don't get what the point of it is if most people pay for it.

Deductions would have to be taken away, and there would either have to be a VAT or payroll tax increases or both. The only way to "soak the rich" further is to legislate a property tax with large exemption.

Taxes need to be lower, not higher.

Socialized medicine wouldn't work here because this country is too ethnically heterogeneous.
On your first point:
Single payer system:

1) Premiums to private insurers go away. Between myself and my employer the premiums are more than my federal and state income taxes combined.

2) Taxes would have to go up to cover a single payer system. Which taxes to raise is wide open. We could raise marginal income tax rates. We could raise capital gains tax rates. We could raise payroll taxes. We could raise the inheritance tax. We could raise vice taxes. We could impose import duties. Lots of ways to pay for the system. It only has to be regressive if you want it to be.

On your second point: No, taxes need to be higher, not lower. We need to pay for the crap we want instead of deficit spending.

On your third point: explain please.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
1) Premiums to private insurers go away. Between myself and my employer the premiums are more than my federal and state income taxes combined.
That's because insurance is required to cover everything. In a world without taxes and without regulations, IP, whatnot, medical care would be much cheaper and insurance probably wouldn't even exist. Not even Insurance covering only catastrophic events would be necessary because health savings accounts wouldn't be eaten away and paying cash is cheaper than paying insurance because of all the processing, collection, and coding medical practices and hospitals have to do.

It's a total myth that people with chronic medical issues need single payer or Obamacare. Some say I have chronic medical issues but I don't even want the medical care. I only have medical care because I'm forced to take it. In a free society I'd be able to have a physician give me injections that would quickly kill me, that's what I want, and that's what I'd do. I wish society would encourage my death rather than telling me to "seek professional help"... I find the latter much more offensive.

Also, your federal taxes would probably triple, maybe even quadruple, under a single payer system. Imagine a 20% tax on most goods you purchased and then half or more of your deductions taken away plus a higher bottom marginal rate. Then if that wasn't enough to pay for it, imagine your payroll taxes going up.

We could raise marginal income tax rates. We could raise capital gains tax rates. We could raise payroll taxes. We could raise the inheritance tax. We could raise vice taxes. We could impose import duties. Lots of ways to pay for the system. It only has to be regressive if you want it to be.
Capital gains rate increases won't increase revenue and neither will increasing the top marginal rate. Income tax revenue is always within a certain range of GDP as Walter E Williams PhD pointed out. Estate taxes can be evaded and those who legislate them will surely make sure that they don't pay. The tariffs could be raised, definitely, but then the poor won't be able to enjoy all the luxuries of life when U.S. manufacturing gets sloppy or too pricey. The payroll tax rate could be raised, but then that would fall disproportionately on the poor.

I don't see how taxes wouldn't be made more regressive to pay for it considering that every single payer system has the poor paying more.
On your third point: explain please.
Well, if everyone is of the same ethnicity, then they'll contribute closer to equally and take equally.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,449
20
81
I don't get what the point of it is if most people pay for it.
Increased efficiency and the overall cost-per-unit-of-health-care would decrease.

For example, all of the nations that have socialized medicine are spending much less both in terms of percentage of GDP and in terms of dollar per capita while often having the same amount or more MRIs and doctors per capita. They also have 100% coverage, zero medical bankruptcies, a more contented populace (that isn't completely terrified of job-and-benefit loss), and businesses that aren't burdened by health insurance concerns.

In the documentary "Sick Around the World" a British doctor describes the hospital's medical billing department--one drawer in a single desk.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

In contrast, contemplate how many people make their living from the health care sector without providing any actual health care or without doing work that is actually necessary for the provision of health care. We have highly-paid insurance company and hospital executives, insurance brokers and consultants, businesses' medical plan administrators, medical billing specialists, medical collections, the hospital and insurance advertising industry, etc. A large percentage of people who receive money from the health care industry have nothing to do with actually providing health care, constituting mass inefficiency.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,203
126
Increased efficiency and the overall cost-per-unit-of-health-care would decrease.

For example, all of the nations that have socialized medicine are spending much less both in terms of percentage of GDP and in terms of dollar per capita while often having the same amount or more MRIs and doctors per capita. They also have 100% coverage, zero medical bankruptcies, a more contented populace (that isn't completely terrified of job-and-benefit loss), and businesses that aren't burdened by health insurance concerns.

In the documentary "Sick Around the World" a British doctor describes the hospital's medical billing department--one drawer in a single desk.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

In contrast, contemplate how many people make their living from the health care sector without providing any actual health care or without doing work that is actually necessary for the provision of health care. We have highly-paid insurance company and hospital executives, insurance brokers and consultants, businesses' medical plan administrators, medical billing specialists, medical collections, the hospital and insurance advertising industry, etc. A large percentage of people who receive money from the health care industry have nothing to do with actually providing health care, constituting mass inefficiency.
You might want to Google on British health care scandals for how that's working. As far as comparing Europe and the US? It's hardly comparable with demographics alone. Hell, so far our politicians don't seem to know or want to know about health care or what it needs but they are good at making a political whipping boy out of it. No wonder why many young practitioners are bailing. FYI no one here has one drawer for billing and the greatest hardship is created by the government.
 
Last edited:

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
Increased efficiency and the overall cost-per-unit-of-health-care would decrease. For example, all of the nations that have socialized medicine are spending much less both in terms of percentage of GDP and in terms of dollar per capita while often having the same amount or more MRIs and doctors per capita. They also have 100% coverage, zero medical bankruptcies, a more contented populace (that isn't completely terrified of job-and-benefit loss), and businesses that aren't burdened by health insurance concerns. In the documentary "Sick Around the World" a British doctor describes the hospital's medical billing department--one drawer in a single desk. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...roundtheworld/ In contrast, contemplate how many people make their living from the health care sector without providing any actual health care or without doing work that is actually necessary for the provision of health care. We have highly-paid insurance company and hospital executives, insurance brokers and consultants, businesses' medical plan administrators, medical billing specialists, medical collections, the hospital and insurance advertising industry, etc. A large percentage of people who receive money from the health care industry have nothing to do with actually providing health care, constituting mass inefficiency.
Prices here are high because of regulations from the corporatism... we have a private enterprise health care system rather than a free enterprise system.

Keep in mind that employers get deductions for providing health insurance, non-self employed individuals get very few deductions for their health care expenses.

I acknowledge that individuals are inefficient,having to have a prescription for every bruise, etc. However, a socialized medical system exacerbates that problem because eventually the govt would run out of money. Most people making the equivalent of $70k or more in the U.K don't use the public system meaning that the public system isn't worthit considering how much they're taxed.

The system we have now is awful, but going to single payer is not going to fix it. For example, medicare only nearly doubled the number of seniors who could get medical care and that was after the income tax and the Fed.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,897
638
126
Increased efficiency and the overall cost-per-unit-of-health-care would decrease.

For example, all of the nations that have socialized medicine are spending much less both in terms of percentage of GDP and in terms of dollar per capita while often having the same amount or more MRIs and doctors per capita. They also have 100% coverage, zero medical bankruptcies, a more contented populace (that isn't completely terrified of job-and-benefit loss), and businesses that aren't burdened by health insurance concerns.

In the documentary "Sick Around the World" a British doctor describes the hospital's medical billing department--one drawer in a single desk.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

In contrast, contemplate how many people make their living from the health care sector without providing any actual health care or without doing work that is actually necessary for the provision of health care. We have highly-paid insurance company and hospital executives, insurance brokers and consultants, businesses' medical plan administrators, medical billing specialists, medical collections, the hospital and insurance advertising industry, etc. A large percentage of people who receive money from the health care industry have nothing to do with actually providing health care, constituting mass inefficiency.
What are your thoughts on providing work for all those that will be displaced under this socialized healthcare you're so enamored of?
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,449
20
81
What are your thoughts on providing work for all those that will be displaced under this socialized healthcare you're so enamored of?
They would end up working in more productive jobs. There's two ways to look at it. (1.) We end up spending the same amount of money as we are now but get much more health care--more jobs in the health care field (for doctors, nurses, medical techs, hospital construction workers, etc.). (2.) We end up spending less money--more jobs in other fields since the money that would be saved on health care would be spent on other goods/services.

Basically, we take the productive ability of the people who are doing health care administrative, insurance, and sales work and channel it to produce goods and services that are of real value.
 
Last edited:
Oct 30, 2004
11,449
20
81
You might want to Google on British health care scandals for how that's working. As far as comparing Europe and the US? It's hardly comparable with demographics alone. Hell, so far our politicians don't seem to know or want to know about health care or what it needs but they are good at making a political whipping boy out of it. No wonder why many young practitioners are bailing. FYI no one here has one drawer for billing and the greatest hardship is created by the government.
I'm sure that the British (and Canadian and French, etc.) system is not perfect and that there is still greed and corruption (as you have with any government or private corporation). However, I have yet to hear of the majority of Brits or even millions of Brits saying that they would prefer the American system. I suspect that the problems the British have with their system pales in comparison to the magnitude of the problems with the American system.
 
Last edited:
Oct 30, 2004
11,449
20
81
Prices here are high because of regulations from the corporatism... we have a private enterprise health care system rather than a free enterprise system.

Keep in mind that employers get deductions for providing health insurance, non-self employed individuals get very few deductions for their health care expenses.

I acknowledge that individuals are inefficient,having to have a prescription for every bruise, etc. However, a socialized medical system exacerbates that problem because eventually the govt would run out of money. Most people making the equivalent of $70k or more in the U.K don't use the public system meaning that the public system isn't worthit considering how much they're taxed.

The system we have now is awful, but going to single payer is not going to fix it. For example, medicare only nearly doubled the number of seniors who could get medical care and that was after the income tax and the Fed.
As a former advocate of laissez-faire and opponent of socialized medicine, I understand where you're coming from. However, laissez-faire would have it's own problems:

A great many people would not be covered. There would still be poor people and many treatments would still be onerously expensive.

Without regulation, quacks and fraudsters could offer medical services. Of course you're free to sue them in court, but what good does that do you after irreparable damage has been done?

You would have to hire a lawyer to read the 1000 page health insurance contract so that he doesn't miss the 8 point font text on page 728 about how the company can rescind your health insurance when you get sick. (Freedom to contract an all that.) Of course, that wording would probably be obscure and difficult to identify since it would be written by the best lawyers money could buy, so you'd probably have to go get your own expensive lawyer (you don't want a cheap one, he'll miss it) to parse over the 1000 page contract.

Perhaps the most fundamental problem is that health care is not very compatible with perfect competition. In a normal market, if you don't like a widget or can't afford it you just do without the widget or find an alternative. You can't do that with health care because the alternative is to suffer and/or die. Also, emergencies often arise and it's difficult to compare prices and shop around in an emergency.

True free market healthcare might be great for those who are rich and upper middle class (and who can afford to hire the best lawyers to read through those 1000 page contracts). Unfortunately, in reality it would prove to be a disaster for a large portion of the populace.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
A great many people would not be covered.
51% of seniors had medical care prior to medicare and that means even more had access to it before they retired.

Without regulation, quacks and fraudsters could offer medical services.
There are plenty of quacks now though. I mean, if vaccines cause autism and the vast majority of doctors have been giving the full dose then I think that there is a lot of quackery (or at least incompetence since many doctors are neglecting to check big pharma's claims) already. There is no way to know whether there would be more or if there would be less.

but what good does that do you after irreparable damage has been done?
One could get negative outcome insurance.

Socialized medicine isn't something people should be forced to pay for IMO. There are many people who don't get sick whether they're rich or poor and they shouldn't have to pay for those who would go to the doctor every time they get a sore thumb in my humble opinion.
 
Last edited:

Timorous

Senior member
Oct 27, 2008
502
446
136
I do not understand the American health care system at all. It seems totally counter intuitive to the most cost effective way to achieve good health outcomes.

You already pay taxes to cover the most expensive part of the population (the old and the poor) through medicare and medicaid. The increase required to cover the remaining population would be quite minor really. I would wager that that increase would end up costing the majority of citizens less than their current monthly insurance payments and it would also save businesses money.
 

Timorous

Senior member
Oct 27, 2008
502
446
136
There are plenty of quacks now though. I mean, if vaccines cause autism and the vast majority of doctors have been giving the full dose then I think that there is a lot of quackery (or at least incompetence since many doctors are neglecting to check big pharma's claims) already. There is no way to know whether there would be more or if there would be less.
Vaccines do not cause autism though. Even if they did (they don't but lets do a thought experiment) vaccines would still be a net benefit unless you want to go back to the days where infant mortality rates were at approx 100 deaths per 1,000 births. The current rate is approx 0.077 deaths per 1,000 births. Do you really want to increase the infant mortality rate by 1300x?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY