How do I save money under single payer? Won't I be paying for other people's share?

[hill2016]

If so, at least tell me what the bill is going to be before the primary!!! Shouldn't I be able to make a choice based on the full facts and figures?

Why didn't Vermont want to pay for single payer? How can we convince the rest of the country to do so?

I'm very concerned about these questions

[EdwardBernays]

1. Hill2016

I'm sure you are.

Lol

[TheBlackAdder]

34. Can't she just read HILLARY CLINTON & HOWARD DEAN's own position analyses from a decade ago? nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

2. Hahahahah....I hope the thread is full of nonserious answers.

[uponit7771]

3. Expect condescension instead of a good discussion to a rational question................... too late

But you know, first they laugh then it's apparent they have no answer

[BlueCaliDem]

36. Thread winner!

[Thinkingabout]

4. For a minimun wage worker who makes $290 a week, with the 12% tax

This would equal to $1800 a year, not cheap.

[Fawke Em]

41. It's a 2.2 percent tax.

12 percent?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

48. where did you get 12% from?

[Kelvin Mace]

63. I pay around $6000 a year

So, it would be VERY cheap.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. You are probably paying other people's share for the street lights

and education and other things but at least you won't have to pay your premium to the health insurance company

[hill2016]

16. but Bernie says

I will save money. Which is it?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

45. You will save money overall yes

[Recursion]

64. Well no, not everybody will

If either your employer or the exchange pays for all or most of your insurance right now, you'll end up paying more.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. you don't have health insurance now?

I'm gonna guess you do. In which case, if you're paying into the private insurance industry, there are overheads of something like 20%.

A SPHC system would likely reduce that substantially, to something like 3%.

If you use medicare, you're ALREADY part of a single-payer system, just for older folks.

[NorthCarolina]

19. Not to mention

co-pays and deductibles as well.

[rurallib]

42. and being able to choose your own doctor, not one the insurance company picks

I was on Obamacare one year and my doctors were in a city 50 miles away.

[zazen]

6. you're already paying "other people's share" as well as profits to CEOs

[juxtaposed]

7. -

[Cassiopeia]

8. How do you think health insurance works?

You get to help pay for those with greater costs and you get the joy of paying huge executive salaries.

[awake]

9. Do you understand how Insurance works or Social Security for that mater

We pay to cover others in need so that when and if we become in need others will cover us.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Do you understand that is a right wing argument?

[litlbilly]

29. Where do you think they get their talking points from?

[ljm2002]

11. Do you have insurance now?

If so, you are already "paying for other people's share". That's, you know, how insurance works. Most of the time you don't need it, but you keep paying into the pool, so that those who do need it have it when the time comes. When your time to use it comes, well, then your share also comes out of the common pool.

[wendylaroux]

12. ha!

[Kalidurga]

13. why do you hate poor people?

[djean111]

14. "Won't I be paying for other people's share?"

Excuse me? Did you think that what you put in would be enough to cover even one operation for yourself?
This is not a savings account, this is a form of insurance. I guarantee you that if you become very ill or have an accident, other people will be paying YOUR share.

Also - are you a single issue voter? Do you think everybody else is?

[Squinch]

53. But if each person doesn't put in enough to cover even one operation, and most people

need at least a few operations over the years, how will that work? I understand that we all need to pool money to pay for everyone and I support that, but what you are saying can't be how it works.

And why would you assume the asker is a single issue voter? Asking for clarification about an issue does not mean someone is a single issue voter.

[djean111]

57. I doubt people will need any more operations with single payer than with the current

system, and there are massive profits being made.
I always had insurance and now Medicare - and have had little need for doctors and hospitals for my entire life. But I am glad to share in the cost for others.

[Squinch]

59. What we all put in will have to average out to the average per capita cost of medical care.

Though I agree that the insurance companies do not add value, they account for only a small percentage of costs, and the savings of that will not be enough to cover those currently uninsured who will become insured, and those who will use medical services who now do not because they can't afford to.

It doesn't make sense that there will be a savings under such a system. I don't mind paying more to see such a system put in place, but anyone who tells me that it will cost me less is blowing smoke up my ass.

If we are going to see savings, we will have to change how care is delivered. That is different from changing how care is paid for.

[djean111]

61. Here is a link to a good and detailed explanation - and why would anyone bother trying to blow smoke

up your ass? I do believe some smoke is being blown around, however.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/32945-calculating-the-cost-of-bernie-sanders-single-payer-health-program

So here's the bottom line - NHI would bring our entire population more protection against the costs of health care, at a lower cost than we now pay, with more efficiency and fairness, while eliminating today's narrow networks that restrict our choice of physicians, other health professionals, and hospitals. Opponents who decry its costs are distorting the issue as they try to perpetuate profit-driven markets at the expense of patients, their families, and taxpayers.

[bowens43]

15. of course concerned..ROFLMAO!! You hill supports crack me up.

listen, hillary will NEVER be president. BTW YOU are going to pay my share!!!!

[last1standing]

17. So you care nothing about healthcare for poor people, only your purse. Got it.

You got yours, right?

[cantbeserious]

18. One Presumes - That One - Is Not A Christian - Heal the Sick - Feed the Poor

eom

[Live and Learn]

20. Didn't you tell us once that your money was hidden offshore?

If so, I don't think you need to worry about it.

[hill2016]

28. it's not hidden

it's reported every year on fatca and fbar forms

[libdem4life]

43. Well then what's your problem? A few extra bucks a month shouldn't upset your

financial wagon cart. Flame Bait.

[mattvermont]

21. you are joking, right?...

oh, I see that you are serious. god help us all if you are the voice of reason in the Clinton Party.
WTF

[cali]

22. Don't fucking tell me my state didn't want single payer. We did and still do.

[NorthCarolina]

23. Let me ask you this. How much do YOU think you should pay for your healthcare?

What do you feel would be a reasonable annual expense for healthcare for YOU personally? I am curious.

[JRLeft]

24. The op sounds like Mitt Romney.

[Hiraeth]

25. Your concern is duly noted.

[Autumn]

26. You already are paying for other people share of their health insurance.

Have you been concerned about paying for other people health insurance premiums that they are purchasing from private companies and being given no choice about that? I get very concerned when I see democrats reduced to pushing right wing talking points to support their candidate in the democratic primary, that's where my concern lies. If you have to take a RW point of view to build up your candidates position that is truly frightening and we have a real problem.

[HassleCat]

27. Just look at other countries.

Some have single payer, and some have a regulated insurance industry, but so many countries pay a smaller portion of GDP for health care than we do. We do not absolutely have to implement single payer, but we cannot let the health insurance companies continue charging whatever they want.

[Recursion]

49. Providers, not insurance companies. We picked the wrong villains 5 years ago.

And it's come back to haunt us. Other countries have a wide array of financing systems, some very close to the ACA, and the most expensive ones pay a little more than half of what we do. And the difference isn't profit for evil insurance companies (that's 4% of our spending), it's that other countries have the political will to pay drug companies, hospitals, device manufacturers, and doctors much less than we do for the same thing.

[cherokeeprogressive]

30. Cool story Bruh.

[jberryhill]

31. Yeah, um, that's how insurance works

Unless people don't have insurance and show up at the hospital anyway. And, when that happens, everyone else, including you, pays for it.

[mythology]

32. The theory is that with everybody in one risk pool, you would lower the overall costs

and you'd do away with insurance companies (particularly the for-profit ones) and be better able to bargain for cost reductions from providers, practioners and drug companies.

However Sanders' plan isn't particularly well-defined as to how it differs from his previous bills, which it does in some significant fashion. He's estimate is to shave better than 40% off of the existing health care dollars which seems wildly optimistic to me.

[cheapdate]

33. You're already paying for it.

The uninsured eventually wind up either as unreimbursed hospital care, or Medicaid expense. Only, since their health condition were not treated properly, the costs wind up being far greater than they would have been otherwise. Or else an uninsured person with a long history of untreated chronic illness eventually winds up on Medicare, where his costs are, again, far greater than if his condition was treated earlier. In any case, you're already paying for it.

Insurance is a risk pool, the bigger the pool the lower the cost per person.

The economics of single payer is, I believe, unassailable. Valid objections must be based on something other than economics.

[litlbilly]

35. Kinda like, Im not paying taxes for dead beat poor kids, or, why should I help the homeless?, or,

well, I can come up with more, but don't see any need. If you cant see that hill, who it is you sound like, then I almost feel sorry for you.

[BlueCaliDem]

37. Bernie supporters aren't interested in policy except ONE: defeating Hillary Clinton.

Their ravenous dislike for the former SoS is stronger and supersedes your need for clarity and answers. But it's okay...Bernie is NOT going to be the nominee no matter how panicky and angry his supporters declare otherwise. The numbers don't favor him - and when I speak of numbers, I don't mean meaningless polls. I mean voters, and NO Democratic candidate can win the nomination without the minority vote. And minorities aren't "feeling the bern" - thank god.

[Cassiopeia]

60. Oh please

You think nearly half of the Dem party and a majority of independents are supporting Bernie solely because they hate Hillary?

You're delusional.

[KingCharlemagne]

38. IGNORE! - nt

[Juicy_Bellows]

39. If any of your previous posts are serious then you can afford it.

If you don't want to afford it, don't vote for Sanders.

[whatchamacallit]

40. Smells like "rational self-interest"...

[sadoldgirl]

44. You pay taxes to keep a fire department.

If a house one mile away from you catches fire, the department will
be there to stop the fire. Thus you pay for other people's protection.

Perhaps you are a libertarian, who thinks that -if you personally
are not profiting - you should not pay taxes? Go for it!

Lastly: Why allow a middle man to profit from people's
health problems, when it is totally unnecessary?

[DirtyHippyBastard]

46. This is the same argument I hear from RW nut jobs

who do not want to pay property taxes because their kids go to private school. My advice, suck it up, you will be fine.

[ejbr]

47. There are people

who will never need the Fire Department. Should they complain because they never used this service they paid into?

[Lil Missy]

50. If something serious happens to you medically, they will be paying for yours.

Sharing an unknown risk - that's what Insurance is supposed to be for.

[Warren DeMontague]

51. Yes, because that's how "insurance" works.

[orpupilofnature57]

54. Pharmaceuticals own any plausible solution and this is the ONLY candidate who will CURE them, Bernie

[brewens]

55. You're probably already paying for others health care in taxes and insurance premiums.

The choice is between a bureaucracy designed to provide health care or one designed to maximize profit. Let's cut out all the profit the middlemen are looting.

[Recursion]

56. Not everyone does. The country *probably* will as a whole, though that's way overstated here

On a personal level, it's absolutely impossible to say whether you'll save or lose money under any single payer plan. Many people's taxes will go up, most people's health care expenses will go down (there will probably be a corner case of somebody whose health care expenses will go up; even Canada pays about 15% of its healthcare out of pocket). Whether that comes out over or under for you depends on your financial and medical situations as well as the specific kinds of taxes adopted to pay for the expansion (a payroll levy vs a VAT vs a financial tax, etc.).

On a national level, there are two effects that work in opposite directions:

1. Medicare (or whatever we call it) will pay providers less (though not as much less as people here seem to think, barring a change that isn't part of our financing system), which will save money overall. If the difference we currently have is maintained, the 40% of health care that is provided by private insurance will be provided about 20% more cheaply, for an 8% reduction in costs.

2. Medicare will open care to the 30 million Americans who are uninsured and so they will probably use more health care. This is a great thing (and in fact the point), but it also has to be paid for. If the currently uninsured start using health care at the same rate as the currently insured (and this is probably optimistic) that's a 9% increase in costs. The uninsured use emergency rooms at the same rate as the insured, and it's not very high, but it's probably enough to knock that 9% down to 8%. Which means there's a pretty plausible argument that on a national level it would be a wash.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

58. That's how all insurance works except for life insurance.

Your car insurance premiums are based in part on the probability you will have an accident (driving record, etc.). Those premiums are also used to pay for other people's car accidents even if you never have one. In some 40 years of driving I've never had an accident but I hate to think how much I've paid in premiums. That money went to other people to pay for their accidents. Same for my homeowners' policy. I've never made a claim in 20 years but I've paid thousands in premiums in order to pay other people whose houses have caught on fire or whose roofs leaked or whatever.

THAT'S HOW INSURANCE WORKS. IT'S A MEANS OF SPREADING RISK. The only difference with single payer is that the government is the insurer and instead of paying premiums to a private, for-profit insurance company you pay taxes. Because the government will not use those taxes to pay millions of dollars to corporate executives, your "premiums" you pay by way of the tax system will almost certainly be less. I get Medicare now. It's a hell of a lot cheaper than the private insurance I was paying for before I became eligible.

[tazkcmo]

62. You pay for Corporate profits through tax breaks

And low minimum wages and lots other goodies such as NAFTA, TPP, GATT candidates like yours like to vote for. You sound like a Republican with your "I'll be paying for someone else!". That "someone else" is mostly children, elderly and disabled. Now I want to hear you call them free loaders.