If we could provide universal access to affordable healthcare without raising taxes, would you be for it?

Question

That means that your taxes would not go up. Would you support it? if not, why? Feel free to compare the realities of 'for profit' insurance companies to the realities of socialized healthcare in the rest of the world. No need for made up 'what if' scenarios...there is enough precedence in history to support any valid arguments

John, ending the Iraqi occupation could free up some money...didn;t seem to have a problem with the GOP spending out of control, as long as the taxes stayed low...even if it meant record deficits. Why be against the innocent babies who need medicine?

I see many of you are having a hrad time sticking to facts of precedence, rather than hysteria and canned talking points. The point of this lesson is to show that the GOP hates it because it is either a) a democratic platform or b) they hate healthy americans. if it doesn't increase taxes, and it isn't government run, why else would you be against it?

jjjjjjjjjjj, I invited everyone to use examples from history with other countries. SInce you asked me to answer my own question, let me say that the US has an infant mortality rate of a third world country. Developed countries have universal helath coverage, and their health is BETTER.

scubadog, you contradicted yourself. You siad right in your answer, that you would pay for it either way. Only know you wouldn;t ALSO be paying for the UNINSURED.

amazing, it's called 'challenging beliefs' and you didn't answer my question. Are you for or against it, and why?

Clint, that sounds like an argument for vouchers as well! I never made that connection before..thanks! Also, even without children I pay for schools...so it might be one of those 'it isn't going to be fair to everyone' arguments. Thanks! Very compelling...

Answer 1

According to an American group, Physicians for a National Health Program, it may be possible to achieve this with no increase in taxes, or a very minimal one (2%):

"A universal public system would be financed this way: The public financing already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees’ health care. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and any and all other out of pocket payments. For the vast majority of people a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and in out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly for anyone who has had a serious illness or has a family member with a serious illness. It is also a fair and sustainable contribution."

The URL for this quote is:

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#socialized

Living in Canada, as I do, I can tell you that I have complete freedom of choice in going to a physician and the right to seek a second (or third, or more) opinion. The government does not interfere with my doctor's treatment of me, as is the case for American insurance companies.

Health care in Canada is rationed, as someone pointed out, but so is it in the United States. In Canada, it's rationed on the basis of need, with medical emergencies taking priority over non-emergency medical treatment. In the United States, it's rationed partly by cost, and partly by arbitrary guidelines set up by insurance companies looking to reduce costs. In Canada, the health care system is accountable to me as a citizien; in the United States, insurance companies are accountable only to their shareholders.

Measured by World Helath Organization standards, Canada achieves better health care than America while spending less per capita and as a fraction of the Gross Domestic Product. In plain English, our government-run single-payer system is more efficient that the American system.

Wake up, Americans. Your systems stinks. It only works really well for the wealthy.

Answer 2

Of course, and I think it CAN be done without raising taxes for two important reasons:

1) The billions of dollars in profits that health care companies make would be put back into the pool in a government regulated non-profit system.

2) Everyone would have access to preventative medicine so there will be fewer costly procedures down the road (many expense draining illnesses could have been prevented or controlled if all citizens had access to regular checkups. Most nations with unviersal health care have a higher life expectancy that Americans, and that should not be.

The health care industry is one of the few where people pay for a service and it is in the companies best interest NOT to provide it. They have a responsibility to the shareholder first and the client second. In fact, if you have a serious illness, the faster you die the more money they can save.

At least the government would WANT you to get well. If people want to keep their private insurance, that's fine. But everyone should at least have basic coverage.

Answer 3

My concern is not primarily the taxes (what we put in) as much as the level of care (what we get back).

Let's run the numbers and see what we get. How much in taxes gives what level of care.

Also, I have concerns about the effect on doctors - will it create disincentives for them to stay in the industry. And would there be opportunities to go "out of plan" myself or would it be prohibited.

I am very uncomfortable with the government - a monopoly, without a need for a "business plan" - to have control over me like this. What happened to the government staying out of the examination room? Another flippant comment, maybe. But a huge concern.

Most other countries that have this end up rationing care. And as opposed to the present system, there's nowhere else to go.

I really would like to see a decent proposal to fix things. My instincts tell me there may be too much government interference already, which is part of the problem.

PS I'm not sure what proposal you are addressing. I may have misunderstood the question. I am willing to listen. No, I don't think the GOP wants poor people to suffer, any more than I think Democrats want to kill the unborn. Maybe some of the other answers were inflammatory. I didn't read them.

PPS I realize I didn't answer your question, again! I will say YES. I will also note, rather flippantly I'm afraid, that I would also favor staying home from work twice a week instead of going to the office if I could make as much money. But I would be skeptical. Maybe I should be more flexible in my thinking.

And again, searching my feelings, I probably am not as averse to taxes in practice as I am in theory. I pay a lot as it is, and I don't really sit and think about it. I'd prefer to pay less, and I'd prefer it be better spent. I don't sweat every penny. Maybe everyone does get more argumentative on the internet.

I do have those concerns about the limits that we would live with, if any. And maybe if I were to "dig deep" philosophically there's a concern about how much government should do for us and how much we should do for ourselves. Even FDR said government programs can have "narcotic effects." I dunno.

I am doing a great deal of work changing my health profile lately - maybe one day I will post the whole story in detail. It changes my mood among other things. For better or for worse, I'm not yet sure.

Answer 4

Though I have not done much research on this topic, it is my understanding that the biggest flaw in socialized medicine is that often care is hard to get in a timely fashion.

If I am going to be ill, I desire to choose my medical provider and have control over my treatment. I am dealing now with a sister who has cancer. Her private insurance is excellent and she has opted (after being told here that there is nothing more that can be done) to go out of state for treatment. As we talked to others from around the country who are on Medicare, we found that the hospital was unable to offer some of the same treatments to those who are under a government subsidized policy.

It seems sad but true...when the government becomes involved, we loose our freedom of choice. A better solution may be, if it did not involve additional tax dollars, to provide vouchers and allow each individual to decide which insurance was best for them.

Answer 5

I am for it either way. In fact, I did some research, and after a bunch of number crunching I discovered that we could have an extra $80 billion per year if we gave up on the losing war on drugs. Add this to the money we will save after a Democrat ends another losing war, and we will not need to increase taxes for it.

Everyone must support this, because there is no better use of our money than trying to keep the gap between rich and poor from increasing.

Answer 6

We could do that. We could lower the cost of health care by eliminating the administrative costs of people who study ways to deny claims to increase insurance company profits, stock options and golden parachutes for executives, advertising drugs and HMOs. Voters in capitalist countries like Canada, Great Britain, and France overwhelmingly support national health systems which spend far less money per capita and provide better care than ours.
Bush stated that parents can just take their kids to the emergency room. Those of us that do pay premiums and out of pocket expenses end up paying for these uncovered ER visits. ER visits are way more expensive than scheduled office visits. Preventative medicine is even less expensive. Bush and, I suspect, many other Republicans are opposed to expanding Health Care on "philosophical grounds". They do not want to see a shift in coverage from the private sector to the public sector. They are not interested in saving taxpayer dollars as medicare subsidies to private insurance companies are 12% higher per capita than direct care. No it's not about saving tax dollars, it's not about better coverage, it's about protecting profits.

Answer 7

Watch for your taxes to greatly increase, and our health care go down the tubes. We have the greatest health care in the World. It is true not all can afford it. However, in making it "mandatory", this in itself will creat bad health decisions, period. There has to be a better way. I do NOT want health care like they have in Canada or other countries where you can actually DIE waiting for treatment of any kind.

Answer 8

No, it will adversely affect the treatment we get. I heard a Doctor speak a few years ago and he was talking about Canada's HCS. He pointed out some widely used piece of medical diagnostic equipment that he said Kentucky had more of than were in all of Canada.
BTW you really need to do one of two things if you don't want people to call you a liberal. Either stop acting like one or just give up and admit that you are one.

Answer 9

If you already have a negative point of view about the GOP, and used this question as a "lesson", why are you asking for answers that might not agree with the point of your "lesson"? If you really want honest answers, don't be so didactic.
So no, I don't agree, because I know that the money for universal accessible healthcare must have a source. No alternative source is mentioned in this question.

Answer 10

Why do you ask the hard questions, hm?

Yes, if health coverage for everyone were available and said coverage did not result in an increase in taxes, then I could support that.