Was just thinking that there should be doctor clubs, where a bunch of people pool their money to hire a dedicated general physician. Or to have a shared tailor, or group cafeteria, or whatever.

The ratio of people covered to specialists would probably determine whether it’s feasible. You’d want the specialist to still get paid a healthy (and guaranteed) salary and to have a more satisfying relationship with customers. And the members of the club to get better service / product than they would otherwise with middlemen taking a cut.

  • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    9 months ago

    I support single payer. Just realize your taxes will go up significantly in a single payer system. At least 20%.

    Everyone will have to pay to make it work but I hint it’s a solid investment in our country

    • smort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      But your insurance premiums will go down by more than your taxes go up, for most of us working shulbs, anyway.

      • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        No. Not even close. I pay 100 dollars a month for insurance.

        If my taxes go up by 20%, that’s more than 100 dollars a month.

        • Encode1307@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          That’s where it gets complicated. Your employer pays a lot more than $100. Your taxes would go up and your employer could be mandated to pass the healthcare savings on to you to largely offset your tax increase. The Wyden-Bennet plan predated the Affordable Care Act and would have mandated that. Obama’s healthcare people were concerned that would be very complex and would go back on his promise to allow people to keep their current doctors and insurance. So we ended up with a huge expansion in Medicaid instead (which was great but didn’t give us the systemic change we really needed).

          • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            Or the employer would have to pay more to balance the system.

            All the plans show a large tax increase which I am fine with if we keep a stable system. Doctors have to be paid, along with nurses and that isn’t cheap.

            I think employer insurance is an odd system but I get why it happened. I just think it is time for it to die.

            • Encode1307@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              9 months ago

              Yeah they were trying to keep it cost neutral. Bennett was a conservative republican.

              Employer based insurance is possibly one of the worst systems we could have come up with if we were designing it from scratch.

              • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                I think we have to accept everyone will pay more in taxes but there will be surprise bills if there is an emergency, no delayed care while you switch jobs or the plethora of stupid issues that come up when it’s tied to an employer. People need to stop thinking it will cost less. It won’t and that’s Ok.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      Taxes go up, but money paid to health insurance goes down.
      And you’re already paying most of the operating costs of universal healthcare in the form of Medicare/Medicaid administration taxes, you’re just not eligible to benefit.

      So your taxes will increase, but not as much as you expect, and your total deductions will decrease unless you opt to keep private insurance.
      Every analysis of the topic inevitably concludes that we’re currently using the most expensive method of providing healthcare.

    • burntbutterbiscuits@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      You are wrong. Costs will go down compared to health insurance costs in United States right now. Might end up taxing currently uninsured more but for most will be less and folks in poverty will gain more than they lose anyway

      • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        You have a cite that it’ll cost me less? I have never seen a study that suggest that.

        • burntbutterbiscuits@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          All of them actually. The talking point from the right (in the US) is that is will increase debt on the federal level. While this is true, they always leave out the fact that no one will be paying for regular health insurance anymore, which actually costs American tax payers more than what single payer would cost.

          It would be more difficult to find one that disagrees with what I am saying

          • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            CIte one. I pay 100 a month for my insurance. Cite me where I will pay less under a single payer system.

            Every legitimate cite I have seen says about a 20% tax increase which I am fine with.

            • burntbutterbiscuits@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              If you are arguing that we have a lot of folks living in poverty and their taxes might increase a bit I believe that is a bad faith argument.

              If you get health insurance through your employer like most Americans then the employer paid parts will also disappear… but folks are so uninformed that they can’t see it

              • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Facts are not bad faith. Pretending it will not cause taxes to increase is just silly, and why we have never been able to get it passed.

                People like the idea until they find out their taxes will go up considerably. I am fine with that but stop trying to be dishonest. The money has to come from some place to fund the system. That means taxes will increase.

                • burntbutterbiscuits@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  It’s bad faith to lie about total costs. Period. Our current system leaves tens of millions uninsured (most especially children, and many more millions underinsured.

                  United States is a third world country when it comes to health care for the poor.

                  Total cost will go down unless you pay basically nothing for health insurance.

            • burntbutterbiscuits@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              I doubt you get much of anything for 100$ a month; I have a free plan at work but my employer pays way more than 100 a month for that one… which is a high deductible plan