Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

kentuck

(115,441 posts) Tue Oct 29, 2013, 08:25 PM Oct 2013

What percent of GDP is spent on healthcare? [View all]

The last figure I had seen was 17.2% of GDP.

But to put that into money terms, that would be $172.00 for every $1000.00 that you earned. That would be $6,880.00 for someone earning only $40,000 per year. That is a lot of money! That is too much to pay for average working people.

Wouldn't it be better to pay 8.5% thru your paycheck deductions to a single payer, much like one pays their FICA taxes for Social Security Insurance? It could be a sister program for Social Security. I don't think many people would complain about paying 17% of their income for Social Security and Healthcare Security? The truth of the matter is that it would be much more effective than anything that could be imagined in the marketplace. Because a profit does not have to be made. The stockholders are the American people themselves.

The ACA is a huge compromise with those that support marketplace solutions. But there is a better way.

29 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What percent of GDP is spent on healthcare? [View all] kentuck Oct 2013 OP

That would make too much sense, plus it would make our labor force competitive again Warren Stupidity Oct 2013 #1

Healthcare is mostly labor cost, so cutting half off costs would cut employment by about 8% FarCenter Oct 2013 #11

cool theory, bro Warren Stupidity Oct 2013 #14

About 8.9% of employees are directly involved in care. FarCenter Oct 2013 #15

So according to your theory 8 of that 8.9% of the workforce got fired Warren Stupidity Oct 2013 #17

The insurance, pharma, medical device, clerical and admin staff, etc. are above the 8.9% FarCenter Oct 2013 #19

The healthcare needs are still there? kentuck Oct 2013 #20

Healthcare needs are not directly related to cost FarCenter Oct 2013 #24

And what does that have to do with more people unemployed? kentuck Oct 2013 #26

It's not cutting them by half. Half would be from employee, other half from employer CreekDog Oct 2013 #27

Commie! leftstreet Oct 2013 #2

That part is not a bad idea. But, wringing the profit out of drugs, providers, device Hoyt Oct 2013 #3

Would it be different than it is today?? kentuck Oct 2013 #4

If you want to save costs, it has to be done. Sure it's no different than Hoyt Oct 2013 #5

A badass single payer with infinite leverage might just have an edge there NoOneMan Oct 2013 #6

You'd think. But Medicare has only been marginally effective in doing that. Hoyt Oct 2013 #7

Providers in America are not dealing with just a single payer NoOneMan Oct 2013 #8

Medicare is a big payer, and costs per beneficiary go up every year. Hoyt Oct 2013 #9

America pays about double what every other country pays for healthcare. kentuck Oct 2013 #10

8.5% of paychecks won't support the 50 million with no paychecks maced666 Oct 2013 #12

Simply not correct davekriss Oct 2013 #13

A good idea, but for the math. lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #16

Oddly enough the math works just fine in every other advanced industrialized democracy. Warren Stupidity Oct 2013 #18

"The math" does, but *this* math doesn't. lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #21

What difference would it make?? kentuck Oct 2013 #22

How much should Bill Gates pay toward single payer healthcare? lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #23

I think your plan is flawed. kentuck Oct 2013 #25

Healthcare currently costs 18% *of GDP*. lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #28

One thousand millions in a billion dollars. kentuck Oct 2013 #29