Why Do Trump Supporters Not Want Medicare For All?

Fair enough. But at some point our lawmakers must level with us before they try to enact anything.

 

I really appreciate your effort here, but it seems like it's making assumptions that I don't believe are necessarily true.

For example, I believe there will be tax changes due to this change in healthcare coverage. Today, Medicare is funded through a combination of payroll tax and income tax.

The example individual with a $500K salary would be in the top 1% income bracket even before anything beyond that $500k salary is included - such a person could easily be making significant income from other sources. And, the top income tax bracket is 37%. Then, that person will pay payroll tax through the first quarter ONLY, since payroll tax is capped. (So, in general those with incomes higher than the payroll tax cap pay a LOWER percent in payroll tax.) So, the $500K guy is an incredibly rare scenario - not the mainstream.

Another example is that corporations will get a big break by being freed of healthcare. I'm sure that will get recognized. Plus, we don't know how corporations will treat employees when they no longer provide healthcare for them. Presumably, the employee would get their individual contribution back. But, that's not necessarily the full cost of an equivalent policy.

So, there are several reasons I don't believe the math in #15 is a representation of what will actually happen in terms of how the costs are distributed.

I think we need to talk about costs in terms of dollars, not in terms of tax bill for a super highly paid employee given existing tax law.

 

It sounds to me like you're saying that the high income person would pay a lower percentage of income than the lower income person (because of the payroll tax cap).

Ya sure don't hear the politicians saying that!

All I can say is that if ever the Dems get the power to do it, it'll be interesting to watch.

 

Because I don't want government taxing and regulating my entire life from cradle to grave and telling me what I can and can not do.

Why can't you left-wingers understand?

 

But then you're given a huge bill.

 

UHC would work the same way employer-provided healthcare works, but on a larger scale. Instead of you helping pay for your fellow coworkers' coverage, Americans would pay for each others' coverage.

This isn't some radical new idea. Every other developed nation does this.

 

That kind of hyperbole challenges civil discourse.

 

Not hyperbole, but fact which you can't refute.

 

Sorry, I DO NOT help to pay for my coworkers' coverage. I pay 25% of the premium, my employer pays 75%. And based on your reply the employer will be off the hook as I suspected and I will be on the hook responsible for paying the entire 100% of the premium to the government, $20,000 - $25,000/year instead of $6,000-$7,000 it costs me now.

But thanks for answering.

 

You're a confused anarchist, I think.

 

You do know that universal healthcare works successfully in other countries, right?

 

You're confused.

I'm a conservative/libertarian.

 

I was making a joke. Nevermind.

 

Because I should be allowed to choose to not be insured if I don't want to pay for it. I would be fine with medicare for all as long as I could opt out of it and be exempted and be refused medical service if I don't pay.

I do support healthcare for all under 18. I would consent to be taxed to pay for minors. I wont wont be forced to pay for other adults.

 

Well, most Americans want it, so tough cookies. At least you'll have more money in the long run.

 

yes, and the dems' proposals to literally quadruple my premium payments and make me pay $25,000 to the government instead of $7,000 I currently pay to my private insurer has nothing in common with the way healthcare works in those other countries where it is successfully implemented.

 

We are the Borg. Taxation is innevitable. Your financial distinctivenes will be added to our own. Your labor will serve us. Resistance is futile.

 

Actually, it is kind of racist, the fear that your money might go to the health care for "them".

I thought ya all were the ones who understood math? If all the money that people pay for health insurance were to be put into a single fund, far more money would be available for everyone's healthcare. Isn't that what everyone wants, to cut out the middleman.

 

I've spent a career in high tech. Never made $500,000 in a year. But I always had Cadillac insurance. Never had to pay for it. Typically paid $50 a month to add my children.

I'd be fine with a single payer system. Usually they give us a choice of insurance plans, and if given the choice, I would pick a public option and avoid the insurance companies.

 

The only way healthcare for all gets 'cheaper' is by making people who don't go to the doctor help pay for those who do. Which only makes it cheaper for people with health problems, but more expensive for healthy people.

Its basically a tax on the young, wealth redistribution to the elderly.

 

Prove it! And no, don't show me more of those ridiculous prices that others pay, but prove it by going to your state government and living your dream!

and I know you won't, which is an answer to the OP's question. You boyahs don't really believe that nonsense. You just want me to pay for your healthcare.

 

I was just going to ask this because I help my parents out with their eobs and there's definitely not 100% coverage. + they each have a supplemental plan.

re: op, no I dont want it, i think I'm more efficient under the current system. I think I get screwed pretty bad with m4a.

 

Everyone should go to a doctor on a regular basis whether they're sick or not. That would help lower the cost of healthcare.

You're correct though about healthcare for all being cheaper by making healthy people pay for the sick. That's the way insurance works whether it's public or private. I pay for the people who have cancer, diabetes, ruptured appendixes, etc. If I never get sick then I end up "losing" because I pay in more than I take out. If the worst happens and I fall ill though then everyone else pays for me. It's the same with car insurance. I pay for the repairs of people who get into accidents. It's the same with homeowners insurance. I pay to rebuild for people whose homes have burned down. It works the same whether it's public or private.

Sure, a public option "forces" everyone to have insurance, but conceptually I think that it may save a fair amount of money in the long run. Sure, if I'm uninsured and I fall gravely ill then an emergency room will probably take care of me, but that doesn't mean that the bills don't get paid. If the uninsured can't pay then the hospital is going to raise the costs for everyone else to pay for it. Wouldn't it be cheaper to treat the uninsured diabetic on a public option than to pay for their amputation and hospital stay through increased costs?

 

That's the problem. You might think it will save a fair amount of money, but you've got to prove it to those of us who think it will cost far more.

Just... do it in your own state? I've heard the excuses of people leaving a state for that reason, but you'll just have to do it anyway or nobody is going to believe you.

I've been hearing this medical care stuff since Hillary was the first lady. Every bloody four years, it's the same old song and dance about another tired attempt at convincing people that it will work.

For at least that many years, no state has actually managed to prove your math correct. Still "think" it might save a fair amount of money? If so, then all I can say is "you go girl!", but you're really going to have to count the rest of us out.

 

But there will still be a middleman. Just a different one. But you are right about the middleman raising costs.