Superior Mind wrote:
The number one problem with socialized medicine and welfare:
If we give to those who don't have much, what incentive do they have to rise above federal/state handouts?
We wouldn't switch to such a plan over night. It would have to come after a couple of decades of changing the way the nation spends and consumes.
Why not?
That's how it was introduced in the UK, overnight.
Diesel_dyk wrote:
If you take 10.6% of the budget
you can cut
* $276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
* $394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
Equals 15.3%
These programs should be redundant under a universal health care system and these alone account for 15.3% of the budget given your figures
* $72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits
* $586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
A portion of these programs that deal with healthcare costs would also become redundant, such as the costs for the VA hospitals and medical care of veterans. These expenditures should shift and be covered under a universal healthcare system.
Excellent points about the funding. Also tax increases in line with maybe 50% of what people pay already into health insurance schemes (or some such similar system) should easily cover the expense - and it wouldn't be a real tax rise, since everyone pays for their health insurance anyway.
I'm explaining this badly, but essentially I'm saying that, if the government can manage to do it cheaper than the private sector (which they probably can since the private sector have such huge profits), then everyone will be better off - barring employees of healthcare insurers.
PureFodder wrote:
But Medicare and medicaid have proven to be the least failing part of the US system. The US government has already proven itself to be superior to the private sector on this. The percentage admin costs of the private sector are 4 times larger than that of medicare.
The private medical industry is showing to be in far worse shape than social security.
This seems to suggest the the government could get it done cheaper than the private sector - pre-profit. Since the government wouldn't be making profit on the scheme, the savings SHOULD be even greater for everyone.