patrick.net

Financing
The program would be federally financed and administered by a single public insurer at the state or regional level. Premiums, copayments, and deductibles would be eliminated. A single payer system as embodied in national legislation (H.R. 676) could be financed in several ways. One progressive option would be to fund it with a combination of existing federal and state revenues for health care, a payroll tax on employers (4-7 percent, much less that what employers pay today to provide less secure coverage), a 6 percent tax on unearned income, a 6 percent surtax on the highest 5 percent of income-earners, and a small tax on financial transactions.

I would go with the existing fed and state spending, a payroll tax of 2-3% split evenly between employer and employee, and the 6%(as high as 7.5%) tax on unearned income.

"Under this plan, 95 percent of people would pay less for health care."

The 5% though...they pull the levers.

Purely academic at this point.

Benghazicare has brought a pestilence upon the land that destroys our souls before it destroys our bodies. Smell the decay! As we lie there, internal organs hemmorhaging out all orifices, skin a reticulate mesh of oozing sores, and eyes marble black, we will know death, and then know that death will not bring relief.

For the Dark Kenyan Lord has enunciated the malign syllables of the Necronomicon from the TelePrompTer, and we shall whirl down the portal into the 9th century, to serve as slaves of ruthless warlords!

Dan8267 says

Why the hell aren't Republicans for single payer when it would eliminate the requirement that businesses, including "small" businesses, provide health insurance to their employees? Hell, that's the main thing their bitching about with the Affordable Care Act.

Ah, dan you are such a babe in the woods sometimes. Didn't you get to the paragraph that said private insurance would be eliminated? Who do you suppose is a huge contributor to both parties? That is why we have the ACA of the insurance companies, for the insurance companies, by the insurance companies. Don't believe me, check the S&P health insurance index since ACA. Amazing gains. This is also the reason there will never be single payer. If you want single payer you are going to have to suck it up and get a second citizenship.

Whut the bobster said. Corporations would lose their ability to manipulate the market and keep prices high.

All other industrialized countries have single payer system which covers EVERYBODY from cradle to grave for EVERYTHING and NOBODY goes bankrupt ! NO MORE INSURANCE COMPANIES !

Yes - but then we would be giving in to those socialist democrats. If we do that, then the terrorists win...

elliemae says

Yes - but then we would be giving in to those socialist democrats. If we do that, then the terrorists win...

Whatever bizzarro world you exist in, does it not have the democrats cramming ppaca down your throats?

The democrat party is not who you think they are. They are self serving, dishonest, fascists, who lick corporate bunghole for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and would hock this countrys soul for a quick buck.

We have what we have now, thanks to the democrats.

errc says

The democrat party is not who you think they are.

If you want the Democratic Party to end, the way to accomplish that is to end the Republican Party. The only thing holding the Democrats together is a common, batshit crazy enemy. Remove that enemy and the Democratic Party will split on many differences.

What is single-payer? A communist conspiracy!

True patriots are willing to pay more for health care to enrich the already wealthy.

$200/month for individuals and $400/month for married couples, with or without dependents is all that is required for a single payer system to work today in the U.S.
If the dumb asses in Washington offered this instead of discriminating based on income, the problem would be resolved immediately.

upisdown says

I would go with the existing fed and state spending, a payroll tax of 2-3% split evenly between employer and employee, and the 6%(as high as 7.5%) tax on unearned income.

Much of the OECD 24 provides insurance coverage for EVERYONE for less than the 2.9% of earned income collected as Medicare taxes before ACA suggesting higher taxes aren't needed.

Such punitive taxes would only be necessary to maintain or boost profits among health care companies like the PhRMA members who paid to pass both Medicare Part D and ACA.

Personally I'd get rid of ACA, offer Medicare (which exists to serve old and disabled people) to those who can't get insurance in the private market at acceptable rates due to age and/or pre-existing conditions, and allow an above-the-line deduction plus refundable payroll tax credit so people buying private insurance could do so with the same impact on take home pay as those buying employer based plans.

That'd solve the insurance problem for people who can't get insurance (as opposed to young people who were choosing luxuries like smart phones over $60-$80/month health insurance) without the out-of-control price increases that go with government getting involved in payments to the private industries paying for their elections like higher education (up 4X the rate of inflation since 1980) and housing (the bubble)

After triaging the two pressing problems I'd contain health care costs by down-sizing the military to reasonable size like 2-3X #2 thus freeing up health care capacity in the Veterans Affairs facilities, expand the VA to Veterans and Public Health Affairs with its not-for-profit hospitals open to the entire population, and grow it with the budget savings. People wanting or needing lower cost insurance and medical care could buy their insurance and health care from the VAPH, the more affluent who want concierge service could spend more of their own money at for-profit facilities, and price competition from the non-profit world would limit what private companies could get away with charging.

errc says

The democrat party is not who you think they are. They are self serving, dishonest, fascists, who lick corporate bunghole for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and would hock this countrys soul for a quick buck.

We have what we have now, thanks to the democrats.

Wow. And all this time I've been looking in the mirror, I never saw any of that. I guess you need to add "blind" to your list...

errc says

The democrat party is not who you think they are. They are self serving, dishonest, fascists, who lick corporate bunghole for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and would hock this countrys soul for a quick buck.

You have perfectly described both parties except for the republican party you need to include homophobic, racist, and hypocritical.

bob2356 says

errc says

The democrat party is not who you think they are. They are self serving, dishonest, fascists, who lick corporate bunghole for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and would hock this countrys soul for a quick buck.

You have perfectly described both parties except for the republican party you need to include homophobic, racist, and hypocritical.

To make matters worse, the two parties swapped these ideologies some time ago to keep us all confused. We are the dumb one's today by still believing there is a difference between them.

Whoops, I forgot xenophobic. How could I forget that.

Dan8267 says

What is Single Payer?

Financing

The program would be federally financed and administered by a single public insurer at the state or regional level. Premiums, copayments, and deductibles would be eliminated. A single payer system as embodied in national legislation (H.R. 676) could be financed in several ways. One progressive option would be to fund it with a combination of existing federal and state revenues for health care, a payroll tax on employers (4-7 percent, much less that what employers pay today to provide less secure coverage), a 6 percent tax on unearned income, a 6 percent surtax on the highest 5 percent of income-earners, and a small tax on financial transactions.

Under this plan, 95 percent of people would pay less for health care. (Gerald Friedman, "Medicare for All" would save billions, and could be redistributive. Dollars and Sense, March/April 2012).

The author is confusing a Federal subsidized social net with a Monopoly.

If financing isn't coming from taxes, then it's a goddamn business, that would run amok with out sourced influences, and free to raise premiums to protect profits when and where they see fit.