Current Events > Wouldn't it be cheaper to pay higher taxes for universal healthcare in America?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Than to pay the extortionate bills when you do get sick?

---

No. It'd be cheaper if the healthcare markets actually got reformed. Price transparency is a great first step.

---

by definition, it would be cheaper for some and more expensive for others.

when it comes to UHC in america you have 3 problems to solve

1.) How to stop the symbiotic relationship between Big Pharma, Insurance, and Hospitals

2.) How to pay for it

3.) How to prevent a drop in medical R&D by limiting the profits Big Pharama can earn by solving #1

if you don't solve #1, #2 doesn't matter. And #3 is something you need to be aware of with your solution to #1.

For example, it's illegal for Hospitals to charge a different price for insured patients and uninsured patients. However, insurance negotiates a "true" rate with the hospitals so they never actually pay the "list" price. This is the advertised as a "benefit" of insurance companies.

---

But you see then rich people wouldnt be able to get rich as quickly

---

The point of the healthcare system in America is to make money, any quality care they provide is incidental.

---

Yes, the U.S. pays the most for worse healthcare than most developed countries.

You see this would be beneficial to poor people which is something the US can't do.

---

SevenTenths posted...

by definition, it would be cheaper for some and more expensive for others.

yep, and unfortunately the overall largest 'leeching' social class is probably the upper middle class, not the very rich--they are the ones who tend to have the 'over-coverage' medical plans that cost a ton in premiums and likely are not saving the policyholder much money vs a leaner plan, but are paid for by their employers since it's tax deductible (making nearly half the cost federally subsidized)

they are also the people most likely to say that healthcare in america is fine right now, because it is fine for them

the rich are much more likely to be paying the full cost of their own plans as business owners, which while still federally subsidized, means they're incentivized to seek the most efficient overall plan and not just take the golden toilet plan they're provided and not think about it

---

Something something something "Canada is socialist and we actually hate our healthcare"

---

Sackgurl posted...

yep, and unfortunately the overall largest 'leeching' social class is probably the upper middle class, not the very rich--they are the ones who tend to have the 'over-coverage' medical plans that cost a ton in premiums and likely are not saving the policyholder much money vs a leaner plan, but are paid for by their employers since it's tax deductible (making nearly half the cost federally subsidized)

they are also the people most likely to say that healthcare in america is fine right now, because it is fine for them

the rich are much more likely to be paying the full cost of their own plans as business owners, which while still federally subsidized, means they're incentivized to seek the most efficient overall plan and not just take the golden toilet plan they're provided and not think about it

I think you are underestimating how much employers will try to skimp on health plans

That said, under Bernies proposal, my household would have been paying several hundred more in taxes than we currently have taken out of our paychecks for health insurance

It is something id be okay with if it meant health care for everyone, but it definitely wasnt only the super rich who would be paying more

---

g980 posted...

I think you are underestimating how much employers will try to skimp on health plans

don't confuse mcdonalds with [insert law firm, tech company, or defense contractor here]

yes, mcd et al are looking for the cheapest possible plan that suits the federal requirement that they provide one. because they are not providing the plan as an incentive to workers but to check a box for the government. because the salary is well below the threshold for basic needs, if the company needed to raise some compensation form to draw in more/better workers, it'd be pay not benefits.

for white collar jobs, employers go in the opposite direction and lavish on health plans, specifically because they are getting tax-subsidized for doing it but also because the workers respond to that incentive at a level comparable to salary increases, since the salary is already far above the threshold to meet basic needs. the nature of our insurance system means they're either buying that insurance through their employer or much more inefficiently on the open market, so a good policy is desirable.

white collar workers don't have a good sense of what kind of health plan would be efficient for them, but they DO have a good sense for what kind of health plan is woefully insufficient.

and because buying multiple group plans is inefficient for the employer, they tend to buy the most lavish plan.

---

Ideally, yes
In practice, maybe

---

SevenTenths posted...

by definition, it would be cheaper for some and more expensive for others.

when it comes to UHC in america you have 3 problems to solve

1.) How to stop the symbiotic relationship between Big Pharma, Insurance, and Hospitals

2.) How to pay for it

3.) How to prevent a drop in medical R&D by limiting the profits Big Pharama can earn by solving #1

if you don't solve #1, #2 doesn't matter. And #3 is something you need to be aware of with your solution to #1.

For example, it's illegal for Hospitals to charge a different price for insured patients and uninsured patients. However, insurance negotiates a "true" rate with the hospitals so they never actually pay the "list" price. This is the advertised as a "benefit" of insurance companies.

...you solve that by lumping EVERYONE into the same insurance program, ie. medicare for all.

this works, because overnight medicare goes from being the biggest insurer to the only insurer. suddenly, big pharma cant play each insurance company against each other, and they're not just going to refuse to work with medicare.

---

Bass_X0 posted...

Than to pay the extortionate bills when you do get sick?

"i'm not paying YOUR bill just because YOU were careless enough to get sick!"

---

monkmith posted...

...you solve that by lumping EVERYONE into the same insurance program, ie. medicare for all.

because insurance companies don't lobby and the government is known for being so efficient? It's not like the government ever spent $37 for a single screw right?

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-07-30-vw-18804-story.html

relying on the government to just suddenly becoming competent is not a plan.

---

Depends on the individual and how the money is raised. Companies generally pay for something like eighty or ninety percent of an employee's health care plan, so if you just raised people's taxes and switched to govt coverage, all you're actually doing is causing the middle class to pay significantly more for a worse plan and giving corporations insanely large indirect tax breaks. Oh, and the buying power of anyone with employee health insurance would go way down because there's no way their salary would be increased to fully compensate for the loss in benefits, so it would be the same as a a pay cut in the range of $10,000 or more.

---

SevenTenths posted...

because insurance companies don't lobby and the government is known for being so efficient? It's not like the government ever spent $37 for a single screw right?

false equivalency: the efficiency of one program does not automatically translate to the efficiency of another

you want to make a statement about efficiency of a federally run healthcare program, make it about medicare

and do not make it about the state exchanges because those are not federal programs, they're terrible ideas that would be the first things obliterated by UHC. we only have them because dems couldn't agree on a public option.

---

It would be cheaper if the government wasn't guaranteeing to pay for it with stuff like Medicaid, Medicare, etc. Just like with colleges when the government agrees to pay for it. The place can jack the prices up.

---

Sackgurl posted...

don't confuse mcdonalds with [insert law firm, tech company, or defense contractor here]

yes, mcd et al are looking for the cheapest possible plan that suits the federal requirement that they provide one. because they are not providing the plan as an incentive to workers but to check a box for the government. because the salary is well below the threshold for basic needs, if the company needed to raise some compensation form to draw in more/better workers, it'd be pay not benefits.

for white collar jobs, employers go in the opposite direction and lavish on health plans, specifically because they are getting tax-subsidized for doing it but also because the workers respond to that incentive at a level comparable to salary increases, since the salary is already far above the threshold to meet basic needs. the nature of our insurance system means they're either buying that insurance through their employer or much more inefficiently on the open market, so a good policy is desirable.

white collar workers don't have a good sense of what kind of health plan would be efficient for them, but they DO have a good sense for what kind of health plan is woefully insufficient.

and because buying multiple group plans is inefficient for the employer, they tend to buy the most lavish plan.

I know my experience is anecdotal, but I work for the single largest manufacturing company that produces what we produce in the world. Our insurance plan is garbage. My wife works for a world class botanical institute. Her plan is also garbage. What you are saying was the case 10-15 years ago. American companies now tend to function on short term profitability as their goal instead of the long term.

---

ScazarMeltex posted...

I know my experience is anecdotal, but I work for the single largest manufacturing company that produces what we produce in the world. Our insurance plan is garbage. My wife works for a world class botanical institute. Her plan is also garbage. What you are saying was the case 10-15 years ago. American companies now tend to function on short term profitability as their goal instead of the long term.

here is statistical data that you may find more useful

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.625.3357&rep=rep1&type=pdf

tldr: changes to tax policy will drive increased benefit provision to blue collar workers, but not white collar workers, because white collar workers already demand it in-elastically

---

Sackgurl posted...

the efficiency of one program does not automatically translate to the efficiency of another

feel free to name any efficient government program.

---

Healthcare and insurance would, like pretty much everything else, be cheaper if the federal government was less involved.

---