No thanks…I’m content with just posting my opinions.

Yeah, who would tolerate a better system.

We are more impatient and demanding, in general.

And this should ensure adequate funding and a beter system. Unless we do it stupidly, which is possible if we’re not careful.

I think those in the top 10% of incomes (those who earn over 100K and who currently pay 68% of all taxes) would be taxed significantly more to pay for any socialist plan. Yes, it is socialism when you take money from the wealthy and redistribute it to the poor.

Fine, you like to call it socialism, but that ship has sailed. Progressive taxation is accepted, accomplished, game over.

There is no way we could cover an extra 49 million people with less total expenditures unless widespread rationing on the NHS scale were instituted.

In spite of all examples and evidence to the contrary; you can ignore the successful systems, focus on the problems with the less successful ones if you like, but none of them would trade their system for ours.

While the poor might benefit, the rich would pay not only with higher taxes but with inferior service and longer waiting times.

The poor and vast sections of the middle would abolutely, definitely benefit. The very rich will aways jump line. I’m really not worried about them.

Those paying the bills won’t accept paying more for less.

They won’t. They will pay less for more. Do some research beyond ths silly pissing match with anecdotes. If you want to do an anecdote contest, we generally lose.

Cheers

I think those in the top 10% of incomes (those who earn over 100K and who currently pay 68% of all taxes) would be taxed significantly more to pay for any socialist plan. Yes, it is socialism when you take money from the wealthy and redistribute it to the poor.

There is no way we could cover an extra 49 million people with less total expenditures unless widespread rationing on the NHS scale were instituted. While the poor might benefit, the rich would pay not only with higher taxes but with inferior service and longer waiting times.

Those paying the bills won’t accept paying more for less.

But these are trade-offs a society makes. If you saw Sicko, the French have decided their tax rates are not sufficiently oppressive in view of the vast benefits they get. That is a societal, political decision.

Have you seen how Europeans live, by the way? You may not like it, but they sure seem to have nicer life styles than most of us. They don’t have as much “stuff”, but they do OK.

But I digress, don’t you think that the end result of a single payer system will be less total expenditures by America for healthcare even while we cover everyone?

I do have a compromise: we could separate out the portion of our taxes alloted to healthcare separated out so we can see exactly what they are. If you want, we could call them “Single Payer Premiums” or something. Then we can argue more accurately about what we should or should not spend/cover and how much it is actually costing us.

Chris

Well, since the portion of their GDP and their expenditure per capita is significantly lower than ours, that should mean, unless I have a faulty circuit, that the portion of their oppressively high taxes that goes to health care would be less per capita and per total GDP expenditure than our current payments/expenditures.

The rest of their taxing and spending policy is immaterial to our discussion.

Cheers,

They also have healthier and happier people with much less crime and inequality.

Cheers

Voters won’t stand for not paying health insurance premiums or won’t want their healthcare benefits dollars converted to higher salaries and out-of-pocket expenses go down? silly me. You think many people would lose in this exchange?

I agree this will result in a two tiered system, but not in the way you think. I’m guessing one percent of the population opts to pay for their own healthcare or insurance out of pocket, everyone else going for the tax funded system. The private tier (3 million people)will get concierge type service, but the bulk of doctors and the ones you want, the academic and high performing ones, will largely be in the single payer system. So the private tier, i imagine, will be able to pay to go to the best hospitals, but won’t be getting anything the rest of us can get. There will be places, I’m sure, that will cater with private hospitals as in London. I’m OK with that.

And, BTW, as you would expect, I favor more equitable financing for public schools, too!

cheers,