Originally Posted by Jolie
That's interesting. According to figures HM2Viking posted in another thread promoting Universal Healthcare, families would likely pay more than 10% of their income in premiums and other out of pocket costs for a nationalized plan. This puts things in better perspective.
Absolutely inaccurate attribution to me.
I have cited this (Which is considerably less than 10%):
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.
Source:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepaye...hp#raise_taxes accessed today.
We can and must do better with our health care dollars from both a quality and equity of access perspective.
See also:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/char...ttrib_id=14465 accesed 12/7/07.
As usual the evidence is better care at lower cost.
The following member says Thank You:
Would you like to comment?
