Incisor
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2016
- Messages
- 2,453
- Reaction score
- 533
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Right.. and you don't seem to realize that he is making multiple assumptions in coming up with that cost. We don't currently have single payer.. so he has no idea what its REALLY going to cost. He just has assumptions
We do have a form a single payer with Medicare. We know how much revenue Medicare takes in, and we know how much it spends. We also know that Medicare treats primarily older and sicker people, but still manages to provide the best customer satisfaction of any "insurance" plan. So we know the tax rate for Medicare. We know how much it costs to cover the old people. So we can definitely know what the cost would be to extend Medicare to all and abolish private health insurance. That is how Sanders got to the 6.2% tax...one that not a single Conservative has been able to dispute other than doing what you do; pretending you know things when you don't, then offer nothing to support it. Right now, we lose about 17 cents of every dollar we spend in premiums to insurance companies. The average worker pays $4,500 toward their insurance a year, and the average employer pays about $13,500. In both cases, a 6.2% tax would be less than what they otherwise would pay for insurance.
Too funny. Sorry man but you are wrong. Actually countries like Korea.. have a LONGER lifespan.. and older people.. and yet have lower costs than Great Britain..
I was talking specifically about European countries. That's what my post said. You shifted the parameters again in order for you to remain in this debate.
so the same system... older people.. greater life expectancy.. and less costs than Great Britain....
But still, Great Britain spends how much as a % of GDP on health care vs. us?