>>In 2005, Medicare provided coverage to 42.5 million people, spending $330 billion on benefits.
cms.hhs.gov
330B/42.5M = $8000/recipient/year. This asumes Medicare picks up ALL the cost of medical care, which we know not to be true. That's why Medicare supplumental insurance sells. Also, some retirees rake their medical insurance into retirement and it picks up part of the cost.
But coverage of the entire population would cost 8X as much (yeah, simplifying assumptions again; older people tend to be sicker; OTOH, a good percentage of the poulation does not reach 65 and their last year of medical expenses are likely to be high.)
So we know are looking at something like $64,000 a year im medical costs to be collected in tax (the siumplifying assumptions would make it lower, say $32,000). This is higher than US per capita`income!
en.wikipedia.org
whitehouse.gov
So ALL your money is taxed away. This does solve the problem, though. Everyone starves to death.<<
Laz -
Your assumptions and your math are both screwy. Universal Health Coverage doesn't mean that the government would pick up the insurance tab for every single person in the country. Only for those who can't afford coverage on their own.
And you might want to check your assertion that if the government spent more on something than the average per capita income, that would mean that 100% of everyone's money would be taxed away. Sounds almost logical, but there's a big flaw in the reasoning. Maybe you can find it if you give it some thought.
Here's a hint: Even if we had a flat tax system, which we don't, that would not necessarily be true.
Also, if the Medicare is spending 8,000 per year per recipient, and suddenly started covering 100% of the population, that would NOT mean that they would be spending 64,000 per year per recipient. It would mean that they would be paying 8,000 per year for almost 8 times as many people. But again, since Medicare would never cover 100% of the population, your alarmist numbers are just wrong.
And of course, since the majority of the population is under 65, their annual healthcare costs are likely to be much lower than the 8 grand number anyway. Which makes your numbers even farther off.
- Allen
PS: Isn't this a non-political thread? Perhaps we could take this discussion elsewhere. Though I, for one, am willing to just drop it. |
