U.S. Debt discussion

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm confused, it would cost less but in order to pay for it taxes would go up? Am I missing something?

Yes. Currently, their taxes aren't going towards their healthcare expenditure

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Yes. Currently, their taxes aren't going towards their healthcare expenditure

But they are. as much or more per capita than many countries with fully socialized healthcare.

[Street Pharmacist]

To clarify, to have universal health care, you shift the dollars spent from private, after tax income, to taxes. While I agree the overall dollars spent goes down, you are adding the lower cost to your taxes. Taxes go higher. Currently about $800B in private money (Ok a bit of public money too) is spent on healthcare. If you switch to universal, let's say it costs $400B (very, very, very low estimate). That $400B is now new government spending. Therefore taxes would have to go up

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by ernie

But they are. as much or more per capita than many countries with fully socialized healthcare.

Again, I agree. It's the smart thing to do. I'm not arguing it's not. I'm saying it's not going to happen unless a) they radically decrease military spending. I mean radically. Or b) raise taxes a lot

Either way, it costs less for the citizens. But I don't believe either of those options are palatable to the electorate

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Yes. Currently, their taxes aren't going towards their healthcare expenditure

OK I get what you're saying. Thanks for clarifying.

[Minnie]

You think US citizens aren't already paying that tax? LOL

[ernie]

The commonwealth fund in may 2012:

Spending per capita on healthcare:

US $7.960
Canada $4,363
Germany $4, 218
Sweden $3,722
UK $3,487

Public Funding Per capita among those countries:
US $3,795
Germany $3,242
Canada $3,081
Sweden $3,033
UK $2,935

call me crazy but I don't know how the US government spends $3,795 per capita on healthcare without taking it in as taxes. The populace may not know it (and believe me they don't) but it already happens and happens at a greater rate than most other countries (norway being the only country in the report I saw being higher. data is based on OECD health data 2011).

It's not a bit of public money per capita in the US is is about the same amount of private money (actually more...private is $3,189).

Given the complete incompetence at getting rid of inefficiencies the US government has, yes they would have to cut military funding but they shouldn't actually have to. And really the US spending on the military is more than every other country combined so I'm really sure they will remain the best armed forces and most advanced armed forces in the world if they had only half the funding.

Now there are other major issues in the US system making it more expensive as well. Drugs are twice as expensive as anywhere else. Physicians make about double what they do in other countries. Hospital costs are double per patient discharge. And the better outcomes in the US 'cause it's better is essentially a fallacy as outcomes are about the same (and in many cases worse) than Canada and Norway.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

To clarify, to have universal health care, you shift the dollars spent from private, after tax income, to taxes. While I agree the overall dollars spent goes down, you are adding the lower cost to your taxes. Taxes go higher. Currently about $800B in private money (Ok a bit of public money too) is spent on healthcare. If you switch to universal, let's say it costs $400B (very, very, very low estimate). That $400B is now new government spending. Therefore taxes would have to go up

I still don't think you are correct, because I think the US still spends more public money than any other nation. I don't remember where I read it, so I won't claim it to be fact though.

edit: Seems ernie beat me to it, with some numbers to back it up

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I still don't think you are correct, because I think the US still spends more public money than any other nation. I don't remember where I read it, so I won't claim it to be fact though.

I must admit I wasn't aware of the extent of public funding as was pointed out above, but that changes very little. To switch to universal health care would still cause a large tax increase.

Sure the money is saved from private medical insurance premiums, but optics are more important than reality to the electorate and increased taxes is still increased taxes.

I think some people here misunderstand my point to be I don't think it's a good idea. I do. It's just not possible with the current fiscal/political climate

[troutman]

Phil Plait


NASA is grounded.

[IntenseFan]

This will probably sound callous, but I think the shutdown may be an opportunity for the US citizenry to discover just what essential services the Federal Government does provide and what are purely wasteful.

The NASA thing made me think about it. Of the 18,000 employees, only about 500 of them are responsible for actually keeping astronauts currently in space alive and the space station functioning? Perhaps then the billions that NASA spends on its other projects run by the other 17,500 employees are a bit, shall we say, excessive for a country that spends (and therefore has to borrow) a trillion more dollars than it makes.

One wonders what other Federal Government endeavours are like this.

I don't like to see people out of work, but it is a valid question to ask whether that work should be undertaken by an insolvent government in the first place.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I must admit I wasn't aware of the extent of public funding as was pointed out above, but that changes very little. To switch to universal health care would still cause a large tax increase.

Sure the money is saved from private medical insurance premiums, but optics are more important than reality to the electorate and increased taxes is still increased taxes.

I think some people here misunderstand my point to be I don't think it's a good idea. I do. It's just not possible with the current fiscal/political climate

I do understand your point, but I think you are missing mine. I also realize this is a gross simplification.

If it costs $3500/person of public money in an average universal heathcare nation, and you implemented that same system in the US, you could reasonably expect that the cost would be somewhere in the ballpark of $3500/person. The per capita costs of the current system would have little bearing on it.

There would be the transition costs, of course, and no doubt a hit on the economy as this money isn't wasted on insurance companies, HMOs, $20 Tyelnol, etc, but I really don't think that a valid reason not to do something is the economic hit of not throwing money down the toilet.

You are 100% correct that it won't happen like this unless the political climate changes drastically.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

OK, thanks again for setting me straight.

It is amazing how uninterested in a discussion you are.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by IntenseFan

This will probably sound callous, but I think the shutdown may be an opportunity for the US citizenry to discover just what essential services the Federal Government does provide and what are purely wasteful.

The NASA thing made me think about it. Of the 18,000 employees, only about 500 of them are responsible for actually keeping astronauts currently in space alive and the space station functioning? Perhaps then the billions that NASA spends on its other projects run by the other 17,500 employees are a bit, shall we say, excessive for a country that spends (and therefore has to borrow) a trillion more dollars than it makes.

One wonders what other Federal Government endeavours are like this.

I don't like to see people out of work, but it is a valid question to ask whether that work should be undertaken by an insolvent government in the first place.

Thats a good post, the only thing I'd question is the accuracy of the financial reports. Its hard to believe that 97% of their staff are completely useless.

[IntenseFan]

^ Not completely useless, but working on projects (expensive ones likely) that are at best, a luxury for a government struggling to live within its means. Stuff like the advancement of human knowledge is awesome, but should the US be borrowing huge sums of money for it when they can't meet other more fundamental obligations?

I don't mean to pick unduly on NASA, but I think it is fair to say that since the shuttles are grounded, I don't think it generates a lot of net revenue for the government.

These are tight fiscal times and things that could be funded in a boom period might have to be let go for the moment.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Of course not, but if you cut absolutely every inefficiency possible, would you support universal healthcare?

In the case of the Tea Party Republicans, I think we can safely say they wouldn't, so that part of the argument really is irrelevant.

Yeah, I agree with you there.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by IntenseFan

This will probably sound callous, but I think the shutdown may be an opportunity for the US citizenry to discover just what essential services the Federal Government does provide and what are purely wasteful.

The NASA thing made me think about it. Of the 18,000 employees, only about 500 of them are responsible for actually keeping astronauts currently in space alive and the space station functioning? Perhaps then the billions that NASA spends on its other projects run by the other 17,500 employees are a bit, shall we say, excessive for a country that spends (and therefore has to borrow) a trillion more dollars than it makes.

One wonders what other Federal Government endeavours are like this.

I don't like to see people out of work, but it is a valid question to ask whether that work should be undertaken by an insolvent government in the first place.

You make a good point, but I think it is hard to value what NASA produces in simple balance sheet terms.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by DFO

Thats the kicker isn't it? This really isn't about the ACA; it's just an all out anti-Obama crusade.

I do think it's the biggest reason behind just about everything. That and being anti-Democrat. Particularly from the Tea Party types, and the other Repubs that lean a lot more right/extremist than they'd like to admit.

I vote in the US. I hold US citizenship. All of my dad's family is in the US. 99.99% of them are Republicans. When Romney became the front runner for the Repubs, it was amusing to me, to watch them. At any other time in history, they'd have been all up in his face about being Mormon, about being part of a cult, that he'd steal their babies and eat them for dinner and whatever else they could come up with. But because he was up against Obama, they were suddenly willing to essentially fellate him and take it up the back end in order to keep the Dems from the WH - that, and they wouldn't admit this publicly unless pushed to the very edge, to keep an 'uppity black man' out of the WH. Deep down, they're a bunch of xian bigots, who often border on or even dip their feet deep into the waters of racism. It had nothing to do with good policy or a great campaign foundation or anything like that. It was just so painfully obvious.

They vote Republican because it's tradition. It's the "xian" thing to do on that side of the family. It's never about being informed. Hell, when Kerry was running, one uncle and aunt said they'd never vote for Kerry because his wife wore dress pants. Good xian women don't wear pants. WTF? So they missed all those times that Laura Bush wore pants, cut her hair short, wore makeup, had pierced ears, was a Democrat? That was the whole basis of how they planned to vote. Over a freaking wardrobe.

To the best of my knowledge, out of all of us, only me and one cousin broke the mold and vote Democrat.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I do understand your point, but I think you are missing mine. I also realize this is a gross simplification.

If it costs $3500/person of public money in an average universal heathcare nation, and you implemented that same system in the US, you could reasonably expect that the cost would be somewhere in the ballpark of $3500/person. The per capita costs of the current system would have little bearing on it.

There would be the transition costs, of course, and no doubt a hit on the economy as this money isn't wasted on insurance companies, HMOs, $20 Tyelnol, etc, but I really don't think that a valid reason not to do something is the economic hit of not throwing money down the toilet.

You are 100% correct that it won't happen like this unless the political climate changes drastically.

Good points, but there's way too many inflators to keep that cost down.

1) initial operations will never see those savings. Just as likely it could start higher than even now.
2) the US has a higher burden of costly chronic disease than almost every other country
3) this is purely speculative, but I don't imagine those with great healthcare now will use the system to a lesser extent. When it's new, period may rush on.
4) they've already shown an inability to control public inefficiency. Countries that have been doing this for decades have a huge head start on this area
5) start up costs could be huge

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

It is amazing how uninterested in a discussion you are.

I'm sorry, I didn't even realize we were having a discussion, I just thought you were getting a little obsessed. Anyways, where were we...?