The Ecstatic said:

Single payer costs less than our current system.

---

The Ecstatic said:

Single payer costs less than our current system.

---

qman said:

The Ecstatic said:

Single payer costs less than our current system.

---

Unfortunately, that's not saying much.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

The Ecstatic said:

Single payer costs less than our current system.

---

Bernie's proposal was to make everyone pay a flat 2% tax to cover single payer.  I think that worked out to be cheaper for 95% of the country, but more expensive for the top 5%.

---

The Ecstatic said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

The Ecstatic said:

Single payer costs less than our current system.

---

Bernie's proposal was to make everyone pay a flat 2% tax to cover single payer.  I think that worked out to be cheaper for 95% of the country, but more expensive for the top 5%.

---

Thats a win.

Anytime the ratio is 95:5 its a win. There shouldnt even be a discussion, but here we are.

---

Yes but the wealthy are special people there voice is much louder plus they work harder than everyone to!

The Ecstatic said:

qman said:

The Ecstatic said:

Single payer costs less than our current system.

---

Unfortunately, that's not saying much.

---

It says that we dont need to get everyone better jobs in order to pay for it, like you just claimed.

Plus it would free up employers from having to provide for their employees. Small business boom anyone?

---

qman said:

"It says that we don't need to get everyone better jobs in order to pay for it"

Actually it might, we currently have tens of millions of US citizens with no coverage

---

qman said:

we have tens of millions on Medicaid which is not fundable with tax revenue, and Medicare which is also not fundable with tax revenue.

---

qman said:

You do realize cities, states and the Federal governments are insolvent and one of the main reasons is health care expenses?

---

The Ecstatic said:

How do you claim to support single payer if thats the depth of your knowledge on the subject?

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

qman said:

"It says that we don't need to get everyone better jobs in order to pay for it"

Actually it might, we currently have tens of millions of US citizens with no coverage

---

And those tens of millions would each pay 2% of their income to help pay for coverage.

qman said:

we have tens of millions on Medicaid which is not fundable with tax revenue, and Medicare which is also not fundable with tax revenue.

---

Typo?  How are Midicaid/Medicare funded then??? 

qman said:

You do realize cities, states and the Federal governments are insolvent and one of the main reasons is health care expenses?

---

No, I don't realize that.  I only realize that some are running a deficit so they can give the rich a big tax break.

---

"funded then?"

Debt.

"I realize that some are running a deficit so they can give the rich a big tax break"

That might be true, that doesn't change the fact that a single payer system would need more tax revenue that is currently being collected.

keyser_soze said:

ok, so you are for single payer.

how much extra should the tax rate be per person, since you think it will work?

and none of this "tax the rich only", that is just childish.

---

qman said:

The Ecstatic said:

How do you claim to support single payer if thats the depth of your knowledge on the subject?

---

I support it on the hope that costs would be cut to afford the health care. It's un-affordable in its current form. 

I don't believe we could practice medicine in the same fashion, not even close. With that being said, that might not be a bad thing.

---

The Ecstatic said:

It depends on the bill.

---

The Ecstatic said:

qman said:

The Ecstatic said:

How do you claim to support single payer if thats the depth of your knowledge on the subject?

---

I support it on the hope that costs would be cut to afford the health care. It's un-affordable in its current form. 

I don't believe we could practice medicine in the same fashion, not even close. With that being said, that might not be a bad thing.

---

It is most certainly affordable.

First of all, its not socialized medicine, its only socialized health insurance.

But most importantly, the various instances of public debt are irrelevant. You raise taxes to pay for it, but people end up SAVING ~$5000 a year because theyre no longer paying for private insurance premiums,  copays, and deductibles.

Single payer saves money. Its more efficient. And everyone is covered. The only losers are the parasitic health insurance companies.

---

keyser_soze said:

The Ecstatic said:

It depends on the bill.

---

wait, you're saying the taxes would fluctuate based on the hospital bill?

so, they add up all your medical expenses then give you the tax rate at the end of the year?

are you really thinking like that? LOL

and what about the parasites with no jobs?

---