“Debts and deficits were of no matter, no consequence, no interest to the Republican Party until Obama was elected...I find that strange given the fact that as the recession was still growing while the nation transitioned from Bush, millions of people were flooding the unemployment, food stamps and welfare rolls...and poof! Like magic we suddenly were obsessed with the debt and deficit, wild and out of control spending and the obsessive need for cuts. Didn't have anything to do with those millions of people that suddenly needed help, did it? Equally as interesting is the Republican obsession to make those cuts, er, reforms, to the very social safety net programs those millions of people fell into...And haven't quite a few Republicans openly accused those people that fell into those nets as being deliberately lazy? Willfully jobless? At fault for losing their jobs? Labeled them takers, moochers, leaches and parasites? Is there some correlation between the outward loathing of these people, the attacks on social safety nets when they discuss cuts in spending, the recession and this incessant whining over debts and deficits?”

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq

7% tax on employers
2% add'l tax on employees' paychecks.
no deductibles
no co-pays

Full medical, hospital, dental, vision, mental health, and long term care

A universal public system would be financed in the following way: The public funds 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, which would be eliminated. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and 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 out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly if a family member has a serious illness. It is also a fair and sustainable contribution.

Currently, 47 million people have no insurance and hundreds of thousands of people with insurance are bankrupted when they have an accident or illness. Employers who currently offer no health insurance would pay more, but those who currently offer coverage would, on average, pay less. For most large employers, a payroll tax in the 7% range would mean they would pay slightly less than they currently do (about 8.5%). No employer, moreover, would gain a competitive advantage because he had scrimped on employee health benefits. And health insurance would disappear from the bargaining table between employers and employees.

Of course, the biggest change would be that everyone would have the same comprehensive health coverage, including all medical, hospital, eye care, dental care, long-term care, and mental health services. Currently, many people and businesses are paying huge premiums for insurance so full of gaps like co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services that it would be almost worthless if they were to have a serious illness.