Analysis of America's ability to pay for "Euro-style" health care isn't proof we can't have it! The various analyses, often done by lobbyists for doctors, hospitals, and Big Pharma, do not say it is beyond our means, the analyses say health care for all is expensive.
Health care for all has to be aggressive, effectively, and efficiently managed. These are obvious facts. Let the top 1-10% rich people buy whatever more they want, spend their money any way they want, but the other 90-99% of us need health care for all.
I have said Americans will pay about the same for health care if it goes to taxes as they pay now to doctors, hospitals, Big Pharm, and emergency rooms. The switch over from current practices for health care via Medicare and Medicaid in states requires controls over all the players, but ultimately the net increase to the cost to individuals, in my opinion, is not as big as some analysist opposing health care for all want us to believe.
"Americans already pay a ‘gigantic’ hidden health-care tax, economists say"
The question of who will foot the bill for Medicare-for-all is almost beside the point, according to the authors of ‘The Triumph of Injustice’
By Christopher Ingraham Reporter covering all things data October 16, 2019
"The topic of Medicare-for-all was front and center — again — during Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate. Moderators were particularly interested in how its supporters, like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), would pay for it. Specifically, would it require raising taxes on the middle class?
To some economists, the question is moot: Americans already pay a massive “tax” to fund health care, they say. It just happens to go to private insurance companies, rather than the federal government.
That’s the argument put forth in Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman’s new book, “The Triumph of Injustice.” The economists at the University of California at Berkeley, who have advised Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on the creation of a wealth tax, call private health insurance costs “taxes in everything but name.” They are automatically deducted from workers’ paychecks. And they are essentially mandatory for families who don’t want to be crippled by long-term health-care costs or unexpected illnesses."
“Whether insurance premiums are paid to a public monopoly (the government) or to a private monopoly (the notoriously uncompetitive US private health insurance system) makes little difference,” the economists write. “Both payments reduce the take-home pay of workers; and although it’s always possible to evade taxes or to refuse to pay one thin dime to insurance companies, in practice almost everyone abides.”"
It is disingenuous to analyze health care, then point out the big taxes in German, UK, and Sweden as a reason we should shudder at what the Democrats are promising. Every politician promises the sun, the mon. and the stars. Then when elected they get practical as to what we can afford and when we can get what they promised. Just look at Trump's Wall for example. It is not even funded; just about 3 miles built. So much for the Wall.
Ha! I laugh when analysts report health care is expensive, and then conclude we don't want to pay for it via a pubic option. The logic is silly. But the psychology is not surprising. People are afraid to lose everything if they try to get a little more.
"The Public Option Is Politically Superior to Medicare for All — But Only As a Sound Bite"
By Eric Levitz 28 Dec 2019
"
The vast majority of Americans believe that every U.S. citizen has a right to quality, affordable health care, and that it is the federal government’s job to uphold that right.
But roughly 70 percent of Americans also believe that their own health-care coverage is either “good” or “excellent” (despite the fact that virtually all of us are getting ripped off). This perennial poll result reflects the fact that voters often evince status-quo bias and loss aversion, which is to say, they tend to fear losing what they have more than they long for something better. In the U.S., this tendency is likely exacerbated by the public’s (understandable) distrust in their governing institutions."
Americans have an internal conflict as they seek health care insurance they KNOW they need, but they / we / I fear change.
"For these reasons, Democratic operatives argue that Medicare for All Who Want It is a safer campaign pitch than Medicare for All."
This makes sense! Why don't all Dems jump on this?
Note some of those costs are due to inability of our markets to create a stable competition between sources for the health care we need. A lot of costs are due to lobbyists control of politicians.
The various analyses must be viewed as telling us we, regular people, not rich people, must choose, health care or not. If you think you will never have a serious illness, you are wrong, I guarantee it. How did your parents, grandma, grandpa, brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles die, nieces and nephews?
Everyone gets seriously sick one day or another, sooner or later. BTW, even ~$1M is savings can be eaten up by health care in a cery few years. MOST Americans never save ~$1M. Some studies have reported Americans do not even save ~$400.
You get what you pay for. Pay me now, or later. We CAN pay for it; Taxes are SMART BURDEN, not waste
Words to consider, repeated words consider twice! ; < )
pay me now or pay me later, bankruptcy, cost, expensive, smart, smart choice, taxes, adapt, burden, accept, affordable care, control lobbyists, control prices, forced savings, health, right to health, sustainable, long term, bankruptcy, pharmacy prices, hospital prices, emergency room care, lobbyists, politics, welfare, socialism, socialist, entitlement
