Single payer national required medicare - $32+ trillion ( 10 yr cost ) - $3+ trillion per year = the entire U.S. federal budget, why does..?

...every single progressive socialist democrat who wants this in a nano second diverts to nonsense talking points instead of answering the direct question >> " How do you pay for it"? You can do what Warren and that nut job Cortez says...taxe the wealthy 70-80-90% ( which is comical ). but it still wouldn't touch barely a % of the cost.
Answers

tribeca_belle

We currently spend over $3 trillion a year on health care. The cost of premiums paid by individuals and employers would be replaced by more stable taxes. There would also be a savings in administrative costs, which are currently approximately 25%. There are various websites that examine how the costs would work. The provision of services would work similarly to the current Medicare, which covers the oldest and sickest portion of the population.

Cindy LGPB

The numbers that you are using come from a report from a conservative think tank. You fail to mention that report goes on to say that a single pay system would save two trillion dollars over that same ten year period.

Wage Slave

Yes, the federal government would spend a lot more on healthcare than they currently do - but overall, our healthcare spending would decrease. So as a nation we would spend less money overall to get more people and more services covered. I would be curious how companies would spend their windfall from such a program, no longer having to pay most of their employees' health insurance premiums.

Anonymous

medicare for all would be an immediate 30 % SAVINGS from the way we do it now . I don't care what you Russian trolls say .

Skyseeker1

Market Transaction Tax. Approx. 4 BILLION individual trades in a single 24hr trading day. "Tax the Hell Out of Wall Street and Give it to Main Street" http://blogmaverick.com/2010/05/06/tax-the-hell-out-of-wall-street/ "Taxing the Hell Out of Wall Street could actually increase the trust investors have in Wall Street. And it might just protect us when the next meltdown happens. And it will happen" The idiots will see to it."

yogicskier

<< why does... ...every single progressive socialist democrat who wants this in a nano second diverts to nonsense talking points instead of answering the direct question >> " How do you pay for it"? >> Raise taxes on the rich. If you'd been paying attention you'd know that.

Warren T

WHOEVER SAID THEY WERE PLAYING WITH A FULL DECK?

Anonymous

I had read that California uses more tax money for health care than all the other states combined. And they want more illegals to come. The problem with Liberalism is that eventually, they run out of other people's money.

Ice

You are an idiot. People pay 3 times that a year now for health care. It's not like you still have to pay for doctor's visits, or insurance etc.

MissA

It's weird how the "party of fiscal conservativism" hasn't figured out that handing out tax-cut lollipops to the wealthy while never trying to cut... really anything, particularly our insanely overbloated military, will not ultimately result in anything but deficits. Taxes would go up. They've acknowledged this. Because they're grownups.

Spock (rhp)

because "paying for it" would require telling the people that they'll have to DOUBLE all Federal income and medicare taxes. and they're rightly scared of the voter backlash from any such plan