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

CRNA2007 · Oct 31, 2007

those six in ten probably don'tpay any taxes. Ask them this question "will you write out a $500 check each month to pay for your neighbors health care" Then let me know what the results of that poll are.

From Bloomberg:
Universal Health Care
Six in 10 people surveyed say they would be willing to repeal tax cuts to help pay for a health-care program that insures all Americans.
...
Most of the highest income group polled, those in households earning more than $100,000, support it. While more than eight in 10 Democrats say they like the plan, most Republicans oppose it.
Most of the highest income group polled, those in households earning more than $100,000, support it. While more than eight in 10 Democrats say they like the plan, most Republicans oppose it.
...
An agenda focused on health care and education spending would be better for the economy than returning money to taxpayers through tax cuts, she said: ``In the end it would cut costs.''
By 52 percent to 36 percent, Americans favored health and education spending as a better economic stimulus than tax cuts
Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601170&refer=home&sid=a2TWmuh3vHHI accessed today.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Oct 31, 2007

From the news note:

Most of the highest income group polled, those in households earning more than $100,000, support it.

pickledpepperRN · Oct 31, 2007

I pay more than $1,000.00 a month in federal income tax. Much of this pays for things that are immoral to me.

I think most taxpayers would support a tax increase that is equal to or less than their insurance premium if they were guaranteed health insurance.

Employers would benefit. Some may bring their jobs back to the United States.

heartrn35 · Oct 31, 2007

Do you really think that a Gov't run health care system is a good idea. We are talking about the same people who can't ever balance a budget. These people think that balancing the budget is done by raising taxes. And you want them in charge of our healthcare system? I DON"T THINK SO.

pickledpepperRN · Oct 31, 2007

My husbands medicare provides great service. he can choose his doctor. They pay in a timely manner.

They only pay 80% so he has a supplemental policy for the 20% Medicare doesn't pay.

So I think we could insure younger people who are not permanently disabled at less average cost than those currently covered by Medicare. And pay 100%.

I'm sure it wouldn't be perfect but it also wouldn't be for profit. No advertising and lobbying budget.

CRNA2007 · Oct 31, 2007

equal to or less than their insurance premium of course. I can guarantee people who make 100,000 or more a year are going to be paying more than their insurance premiums. Would you pay another 300/month on top of the $1000 you already pay for health insurance plus your current premium? This idea that government run health care is going to be some great win win idea is totally bogus. They already have a great Ponzi scheme going in social insecurity.

I pay more than $1,000.00 a month in federal income tax. Much of this pays for things that are immoral to me.
I think most taxpayers would support a tax increase that is equal to or less than their insurance premium if they were guaranteed health insurance.
Employers would benefit. Some may bring their jobs back to the United States.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Oct 31, 2007

in essence there would be no net increase in costs. we are already paying for single payer and not getting it.

i am rather tired of the go to guns attitude of your posts. the vitriol does nothing to advance the discussion.

please see:

pnhp co-founders drs. steffie woolhandler and david himmelstein published this definitive study of the administrative costs of the u.s. health system in the august 21, 2003 edition of the new england journal of medicine. after analyzing the costs of insurers, employers, doctors, hospitals, nursing homes and home-care agencies in both the u.s. and canada, they found that administration consumes 31.0 percent of u.s. health spending, double the proportion of canada (16.7 percent). average overhead among private u.s. insurers was 11.7 percent, compared with 1.3 percent for canada's single-payer system and 3.6 percent for medicare. streamlined to canadian levels, enough administrative waste could be saved to provide compressive health insurance to all americans.

read "costs of health administration in the u.s. and canada" (pdf)

at: http://www.pnhp.org/publications/nejmadmin.pdf for a full discussion of the impact on administrative waste on health care finance.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Oct 31, 2007

Do you really think that a Gov't run health care system is a good idea. We are talking about the same people who can't ever balance a budget. These people think that balancing the budget is done by raising taxes. And you want them in charge of our healthcare system? I DON"T THINK SO.

See:

Is national health insurance "socialized medicine"?

No. Socialized medicine is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for the government and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way. Examples also exist in Great Britain and Spain. But in most European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan they have socialized financing, or socialized health insurance, not socialized medicine. The government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector. This is similar to how Medicare works in this country. Doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis from government funds. The government does not own or manage their medical practices or hospitals.

The term socialized medicine is often used to conjure images of government bureaucratic interference in medical care. That does not describe what happens in countries with national health insurance. It does describe the interference by insurance company bureaucrats in our health system.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#socialized

Jolie, BSN · Nov 1, 2007

i am rather tired of the go to guns attitude of your posts.
why? do you find it difficult to frame a persuasive response to crna2007's clear, concise and intellectually honest posts?
the vitriol does nothing to advance the discussion.

i guess vitriol is in the eye of the beholder. i find crna's posts refreshingly honest.

EmmaG, RN · Nov 1, 2007

Single payer is not socialized medicine. Read up on the site linked above.

hope3456, ASN, RN · Nov 1, 2007

Okay - so we would pay higher taxes if we had a 'single payor' system - but then would we not have none (or lesser) insurance premiums? It seems to me the costs would balance themselves out.

The problem I have with the current system is that is it is just not fair in many different aspects. For example, people who are self employed or employed by a small business have to pay higher rates for less coverage than employees of large corporations b/c the 'big guys' have more negotiating power and negotiate better rates with the insurance companies.

with a national system, everyone would have to contribute, which is only fair b/c no one wants to be turned away (and not many are) for needed health care for lack of ability to pay.