Social Security/Medicare for All

[Salvador]

Expanding Medicare Part A and Part B health insurance coverage from 40 million American senior citizens to every legal American citizen would presently cost around $1.18 trillion annually. ( ca. $1.8 trillion for universal Medicare coverage - ca. $0.612 trillion for senior citizen Medicare coverage = ca. $1.18 trillion )

Senior citizens accounted for 34 percent of healthcare-related spending in 2010, a report from the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services shows. Medical spending among the U.S. elderly - Journalist's Resource

Medicare Part A and Part B spending was $612 billion in 2017.
The Facts on Medicare Spending and Financing

The current annual cost of Medicare Part A/Part B) health insurance coverage for everybody would be approximately $1.8 trillion ( $ 612 billion / 0.34 )

A 10 percent Value added tax system like that implemented in Australia would generate tax revenue in the U.S. equal to ca. 4.8 percent of GDP.
5506.0 - Taxation Revenue, Australia, 2016-17

This would be ca. $960 billion annually of current value U.S. Dollars if this system of taxation were implemented in the U.S. ( ca. $20 trillion annual GDP * .048 = $960 billion )

Medicare for all would eliminate the need for federal Medicaid spending, which amounted to ca. $378 billion in 2017.

FY 2018 Budget in Brief - CMS - Medicaid

The ca. $1.18 trillion cost of expanding Medicare for all would be partly offset by the ca. $378 billion of cost savings with the elimination of federal Medicaid spending, the net cost then of expanding Medicare for all then would be ca. $802 billion annually in current dollars. A 10 percent V.A.T. tax system generating $960 billion in current U.S. dollars would more than cover the $802 billion annual cost of Medicare for all expansion by ca. $158 billion current U,S, dollars annually.

Medicare A and B currently is now partly funded by ca. $100 billion annually in premiums, the loss of this funding by making Medicare A and B available without any of its recipients having to pay any premiums could be offset by doubling the Part A annual insured deductible ( ca. 35 million yearly hospital patients * $1,364 annual deductible increase = ca. 47.74 billion/yr. in current value dollars ) Fast Facts on U.S. Hospitals, 2019 | AHA , and increasing the Part B annual deductible from $185 to $620, ( ca. 150 million chronically ill Americans * ( $620 - $185 ) * ( 1.0 --0.2 Medicare B Coinsurance ) = ca. 52.2 billion/yr in current value dollars)

Shifting health care insurance spending costs from employers to single payer universal health care would result currently in the elimination of ca. $842 billion/year of tax deductible business expenses ( 160 million employees * $4,953 annual health insurance premiums/employee. = $842 billion/yr ), which when taxed at the current corporate tax rate of 21 percent, would result in ca. $177 billion/yr. of additional federal corporate income tax revenue.
Average Annual Single Premium per Enrolled Employee For Employer-Based Health Insurance

Shifting the cost of ca. $226 billion of tax deductible health insurance premium contributions from employees to single payer health care, which when taxed at the average marginal personal tax rate of 22 percent would currently result in ca. $50 billion of federal personal income tax revenue.

Average Annual Single Premium per Enrolled Employee For Employer-Based Health Insurance

Poverty could be significantly reduced by way of a guaranteed $600 per month social security income or Universal Basic Income benefit provided to all American citizens over the age of 18. Those who qualify for social security income would receive the greater amount of either their designated social security benefits or the $600 monthly Universal Basic Income benefit.

There are ca. 182 million American citizens between ages 18 thru 64 who don't receive any social security benefits. Demography of the United States - Wikipedia
Monthly Statistical Snapshot, March 2019

So then the present annual cost of a Universal Basic Income benefit providing its ca. 182 million recipients a $600 monthly benefit would be ca. $1.420 trillion. ( 182 million recipients * $600/month * 12 monthly payments = $1.310 trillion ) If this Universal Basic Income Benefit were non-tax-exempt from federal income taxes, this would currently generate ca. $288 billion/yr. of income tax revenue, based on the average annual U.S. income of $50,000 being taxed at a marginal tax rate of 22 percent. So then, the after tax cost of the $1.31 trillion Universal Basic Income Benefit/Social Security for everybody would be reduced to a net cost of ca. $1.022 trillion in current U.S. dollars.

This Universal Basic Income Benefit could replace ca. $300 billion annually of federal welfare spending presently on food stamps, housing, education,, unemployment compensation subsidized crop insurance, and the jobs corp program.

This ca. $722 billion/yr. remainder cost of the Universal Basic Income benefit/Social Security-for-all could also be funded in part with the ca. $158 billion annual surplus from the value added tax system that'd exceed the net cost of expanding Medicare health insurance coverage to everybody, and the additional ca. $227 billion that'd currently be generated from the elimination of tax deductible health insurance premium payment expenses.

This ca. $337 billion/yr. funding shortfall of the Universal-Basic-Income/Social Security-for-all program, could become mostly funded by an additional 60 cent/gallon fuel excise tax, an additional 50 cent tobacco excise tax on each pack of cigarettes, a 50 percent increase of excise taxes on adult beverage alcohol content, a doubling of federal excise taxes on air travelers and national park visitors, (These excise tax hikes would currently generate an additional ca. $155 billion/yr of tax revenue)
What are the major federal excise taxes, and how much money do they raise?

..., increasing the limit of annual income from $131k to $200k subject to social security taxes , ( this would currently generate ca. $28 billion/yr. of additional revenue), ( ca. 3.2 million persons in 98 percent income percentile * ( $69k/2 * 0.124 tax rate ) + ( ca. 1.6 million persons in 99 percent income percentile * ($69/k * 0.124 tax rate ) = ca. $28 billion. Income Percentile Calculator - Find Your Percent With WhatsMyPercent.com

..., the reduction of the exemption on the federal estate tax from $10 million to $5 million, (this would currently generate an additional ca. $5 billion/yr of tax revenue) ,
How many people pay the estate tax?

Expanding Medicare health insurance coverage for all Americans, as well as providing a Universal Basic Income of $600/month for all legal adult American citizens who are non-recipients of Social Security, can be affordably accomplished with the implementation of a Value Added Tax system like that implemented in Australia, along with the replacement of current federal government spending on social welfare programs, and funding from modest excise tax hikes or other modest tax hikes. .





.

 

[sun rise]

The question is incorrect as most people are included in Social Security. Medicare is another question.

Single payer does not automatically solve the structural problems we have today with out of control greed driving up prices and structural problems leading to much higher costs for routine tests compared to every other nation.

I favor starting with Medicare as an option for everyone, increasing competition, along with allowing negotiation for drug prices, importing drugs from Canada and bundled pricing (like we can get when our cars are repaired) for common, standardized treatments.

I would also mandate transparency in coverage determinations. With my regular Medicare, I get chapter and verse of the specific rule used to evaluate my coverage and I can challenge on that basis. Insurance companies keep that secret for typical policies. For example, it's complex but I can read this page which turned up on a search and decide if the determination is in error or not and challenge - this was from an insurance company but I could have looked further to find the government information directly: https://www.uhcprovider.com/content...guidelines/b/bone-mineral-density-studies.pdf

 

[Ellen Brown]

There must be a lot of false information circulating on the subject of Medicare. I'm in the process of evaluating if I can afford to use it at all.

 

[PureX]

Every other nation on the planet that has instituted a universal national health care program has faced the simple truth that health care is not a free market. Which means that prices have to be dictated to the providers or they will inevitably rise out of control as they have done in the U.S. By setting prices for health care products and services, the other nations of the Earth have managed to provide very good health care (far better overall than what we get here in the U.S.) and to do so for about half the cost of health care in the U.S.

The reason the insurance companies, the hospital conglomerates, and the big pharmaceutical companies spend such huge sums of money bribing our legislature to make sure we don't adopt national health care is because they know it will inevitably involve setting price caps, and that would mean their price-gouging and the massive profits they are getting from it will finally end. So whenever there is a discussion about instituting universal health care in the U.S., the first thing we hear is a lot of very loud screaming from all those who are currently benefiting from that price gouging (and the bribery that enables it) about how this will cost gazillions and mega-bazillions of dollars, because they desperately want to end the discussion before anyone notices the price-gouging and brings up the need for setting price caps. A need that is now paramount in the U.S. no matter how we choose to distribute health care, because the current cost of all that price-gouging is choking us, economically.

 

[Salvador]

The question is incorrect as most people are included in Social Security. Medicare is another question.

Single payer does not automatically solve the structural problems we have today with out of control greed driving up prices and structural problems leading to much higher costs for routine tests compared to every other nation.

I favor starting with Medicare as an option for everyone, increasing competition, along with allowing negotiation for drug prices, importing drugs from Canada and bundled pricing (like we can get when our cars are repaired) for common, standardized treatments.

I would also mandate transparency in coverage determinations. With my regular Medicare, I get chapter and verse of the specific rule used to evaluate my coverage and I can challenge on that basis. Insurance companies keep that secret for typical policies. For example, it's complex but I can read this page which turned up on a search and decide if the determination is in error or not and challenge - this was from an insurance company but I could have looked further to find the government information directly: https://www.uhcprovider.com/content...guidelines/b/bone-mineral-density-studies.pdf

The advantage of universal single payer health care insurance over a public option for health care insurance, is that the cost of a universal single payer health care insurance risk pool is reduced by healthy members; whereas, a public option risk pool will have fewer healthy members that'd drive down its cost per recipient.

 

[Valjean]

I wouldn't insist on a cut-and-paste universal Medicare system to be imposed unchanged. I think it could be improved and tailored to cover the whole population. I'd also be pleased if one of the systems used by the dozens of other countries with universal coverage were adopted. We need not re-invent the wheel. Our parochial approach to issues is dysfunctional.

 

[Ellen Brown]

I feel that there could perhaps be some thought given to the idea that those who are self destructive are counselled to be less so, or they pay more. I understand that trying to address this could easily get to be draconian and will readily admit that I have no expertise in that area at all.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There must be a lot of false information circulating on the subject of Medicare. I'm in the process of evaluating if I can afford to use it at all.

Yeah. Medicare isn't that great, and if my clients had that and something else the something else was always their primary. Medicaid, on the other hand, tends to be some pretty good insurance.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I feel that there could perhaps be some thought given to the idea that those who are self destructive are counselled to be less so, or they pay more. I understand that trying to address this could easily get to be draconian and will readily admit that I have no expertise in that area at all.

Some plans already have such things, such as offering reduced rates to non-smokers and those of a healthy weight (which is bs how they do as it's strictly by BMI, which is bs to begin with, but that's another discussion).

 

[Woberts]

I'll say no, but only because medicare is garbage. I'm very much in favor of healthcare for all, but not in the American fashion.

 

[sun rise]

The advantage of universal single payer health care insurance over a public option for health care insurance, is that the cost of a universal single payer health care insurance risk pool is reduced by healthy members; whereas, a public option risk pool will have fewer healthy members that'd drive down its cost per recipient.

True. But I think other factors that keep prices high overwhelm this effect.

 

[sun rise]

Yeah. Medicare isn't that great, and if my clients had that and something else the something else was always their primary. Medicaid, on the other hand, tends to be some pretty good insurance.

Not me and many of my friends. Some are on traditional Medicare, such as me, and some on Medicare Advantage programs. None of my friends would voluntarily use Medicade.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not me and many of my friends. Some are on traditional Medicare, such as me, and some on Medicare Advantage programs. None of my friends would voluntarily use Medicade.

Turns out I got them backwards/mixed up. Again.

 

[Estro Felino]

The Italian state paid for all my surgeries. Including vaginoplasty.
We are a civil country because health care is a PUBLIC MATTER

 

[Shaul]

The Italian state paid for all my surgeries. Including vaginoplasty.
We are a civil country because health care is a PUBLIC MATTER

Italy:
Income tax up to 43%.
VAT 22% standard.
Social security 9% directly and employer charged another 34%.
Corporate taxes up to 50%.

Also if you are a “high earner”, at just $60,000 per year, you are charged a lot more for health costs.

Not such a great system for most people.

 

[Estro Felino]

Italy:
Income tax up to 43%.
VAT 22% standard.
Social security 9% directly and employer charged another 34%.
Corporate taxes up to 50%.

Also if you are a “high earner”, at just $60,000 per year, you are charged a lot more for health costs.

Not such a great system for most people.

Right. We don't let the poor without insurance die of cancer, though

And with all due respect, if America doesn't nationalize its banking system and healthcare, the relations with us will start to be in jeopardy.

 

[Shaul]

Right. We don't let the poor without insurance die of cancer, though

And with all due respect, if America doesn't nationalize its banking system and healthcare, the relations with us will start to be in jeopardy.

In America the destitute already receive emergency medical care for free.

With all due respect, I don’t think the richest, most powerful country in the world needs advice from the likes of Italy.

 

[Estro Felino]

With all due respect, I don’t think the richest, most powerful country in the world needs advice from the likes of Italy.

Indeed. Italy can quit the NATO at once and become a Russian stronghold.
We're very tempted.

 

[Valjean]

Not me and many of my friends. Some are on traditional Medicare, such as me, and some on Medicare Advantage programs. None of my friends would voluntarily use Medicade.

So what do your friends think of Medicare or Medicare advantage? How would they improve them?

 

[Valjean]

Italy:
Income tax up to 43%.
VAT 22% standard.
Social security 9% directly and employer charged another 34%.
Corporate taxes up to 50%.

Also if you are a “high earner”, at just $60,000 per year, you are charged a lot more for health costs.

Not such a great system for most people.

"Up to?"
How much of your income is consumed by healthcare costs, child care, education, fire, police, military, roads and other social programs? Would 43% cover it?
How much paid vacation do you enjoy?

Yes, taxes are high in "socialist" countries, but that's because the state can obtain services used universally at much lower cost than individuals could. You come out ahead on the deal.