Cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/34117495
[OC]
Original still created by @gedogfx (IG). Title source: βInklβ
Edit: Iβm not on any other social media platforms, so feel free to share this elsewhere if you want
No, the sum of all premiums paid by all Americans is way more than is required. You could make it a flat tax and itβd still be cheaper.
The tax increase is more than offset by the cost of premiums.
That may be the case, but do you have any evidence or reasoning? There are a certain number of people right now who donβt have insurance or who have very bad insurance, and a universal insurance would have to have to make up whatβs missing for those people.
Thereβs a variety of ways to implement it, but the vast majority save trillions in the long run. https://www.citizen.org/news/fact-check-medicare-for-all-would-save-the-u-s-trillions-public-option-would-leave-millions-uninsured-not-garner-savings/ has a couple sources listed, even a Koch-funded institute found it would save money.
The reasoning is simple: you cut out the middlemen who demand a portion of the premiums for themselves. Those costs are instantly removed, and there isnβt really anything that starts costing more in return.
Thereβs also collective governmental bargaining on procedures and medication which lowers prices.
I understand that it saves money overall. I donβt understand how it could save money for individual high-income tax payers. At some earning level, your taxes will be raised by more than you would pay for insurance. Even under a flat tax, that has to be the case, right? You would need a regressive tax to actually make it beneficial to every single resident.
