seksi |
03-03-2016 05:28 PM |
From Bernie Sanders' website:
Quote:
Paid for by a 6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers, a 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households, progressive income tax rates, taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work, limiting tax deductions for the rich, adjusting the estate tax, and savings from health tax expenditures.
|
In most cases these premiums will be less than what private persons or their employers are paying for health insurance. Single payer reduces a lot of redundancy and obviously greedy profit-taking in the health insurance market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkTiarra
(Post 20744566)
Why doesn't any candidate ever talk about just how much of our federal budget is fluff? I bet if we stopped overpaying for basic services at every turn, we could cut the budget by billions.
|
This sentiment is at the heart of the economic argument for single payer national health insurance. Why should we compel individuals, families and employers to buy fluff & waste because of a mandate to purchase health insurance on the private market, with its waste an inefficiencies in marketing, coding, billing and legal dodges? Why don't we organize ourselves so that more healthcare dollars are spent on actual healthcare?
Medicare is pretty cheap, about $115/month. It's essentially only good for hospitalization, emergencies. It's not dental, etc. Obviously there's a market for supplemental insurance right now for Medicare recipients, and the insurance industry is not doomed if Bernie is elected and enacts Medicare for All.
People and governments will buy fluff if you market it hard enough, or lobby for it. When we bring the lobbyists under control and get big money out politics, there will be less fluff, but that's an argument for another thread.
I hope I have answered your question!
|