A majority of Americans would tolerate higher taxes to help pay for universal health

From The American Prospect:

France
The government provides basic insurance for all citizens, albeit with relatively robust co-pays, and then encourages the population to also purchase supplementary insurance -- which 86 percent do, most of them through employers, with the poor being subsidized by the state.
...
France's system is further prized for its high level of choice and responsiveness -- attributes that led the World Health Organization to rank it the finest in the world (America's system came in at No. 37, between Costa Rica and Slovenia). The French can see any doctor or specialist they want, at any time they want, as many times as they want, no referrals or permissions needed.

...

In order to prevent cost sharing from penalizing people with serious medical problems -- the way Health Savings Accounts threaten to do -- the [French] government limits every individual's out-of-pocket expenses. In addition, the government has identified thirty chronic conditions, such as diabetes and hypertension, for which there is usually no cost sharing, in order to make sure people don't skimp on preventive care that might head off future complications.

The French do the same for pharmaceuticals, which are grouped into one of three classes and reimbursed at 35 percent, 65 percent, or 100 percent of cost, depending on whether data show their use to be cost effective. It's a wise straddle of a tricky problem, and one that other nations would do well to emulate.
Source: http://prospect.org/cs/articles?arti...lth_of_nations .

A health care system that ranks first in the world at half the cost. This system could work here essentially "off the shelf." What is especially useful about this system is the emphasis on prevention of complications from chronic illness as well as the emphasis on pharmaceutical reimbursement based on research driven efficacy measures.

Can you provide an Evidence Based and literature driven/sourced argument to support this assertion?

The literature and links that I have posted over time in other threads say otherwise.

Inaccurate statement

See:

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.
....
Employers who currently offer no health insurance would pay more, but they would receive health insurance for the same low rate as larger firms. Many small employers have to pay 25% or more of payroll now for health insurance – so they end up not having insurance at all. For large employers, a payroll tax in the 7% range would mean they would pay less than they currently do (about 8.5%). No employer, moreover, would hold a competitive advantage over another because his cost of business did not include health care. And health insurance would disappear from the bargaining table between employers and employees.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepaye...hp#raise_taxes

Do you see how single payer actually works to bring about real economic competition?

Please see Ezra Klein at:


By now, you folks well know my obsession with pointing out that Medicare's costs will blow up not because of demographics, but because of the same cost growth afflicting the private sector Here, however, is a nice, colorful chart making the point:

As you can see, demographics make a rather small portion of the whole. If you want to save the budget, you have to get the system's spending under control. There's no other way.

Source: http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/charts/index.html

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/en...0growth-tm.jpg


The point of the previous 3 graphs is that exploding medical costs from the allegedly more efficient private health insurance plans are driving the system over a cliff.

Please see:

Social Security is healthy and successful. There is no crisis. The president and the Republicans in Congress are trying to scare the American people in order to destroy the most successful program in American history -- a program that presidents from Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Harry Truman to Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton have been committed to preserving.




http://yglesias.typepad.com/.shared/...onothing_1.jpg
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=8976


Funny he should ask. The Political Animal graphics team had a similar thought last night, but I foolishly ignored them. So Silent E, this chart's for you: a year-by-year rundown of how much time is left until the Social Security trustees predict Social Security doom. Remarkably, no matter how much time goes by, we never seem to actually get any closer.
There's a very serious point to be made here. Projections of Social Security solvency are based on projections of future economic growth, and the Social Security trustees have been systematically too pessimistic about the economy for the past decade. What's more, there are good reasons to think that they're probably still being overly pessimistic.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._12/005316.php

The fear mongering about SS and Medicare are not supported by the data.

The thing to really think about is that if we achieve an administrative cost ratio of 5% for all medical expenses (which is what medicare operates under) that each of these graphs for medical care costs would be reduced by 25%. (30% administrative costs-25% administrative cost reduction yields 5%) This would do wonders to bring solvency into the federal and state budget pictures. It would also allow GM to go back into the car business instead of the health insurance business.

Alois,
Your point about economic wealth concentration and income disparity is supported by the following:

Who's We, Kemosabe?

This isn't the most shocking data in the world, but in this period of stock market hysteria, it's worth remembering that the majority of the country doesn't own any stock. Indeed, the bottom 90 percent of us only own 20 percent of the market. The top 10 percent, by contrast, control 80 percent, with the top one percent of Americans controlling an astounding 36.9%. What's that you say? You want to see this represented graphically?


See those tiny slivers of checkered pink, blue, grey, and red? That's where most of the country is.
Source: http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/charts/index.html accessed today.