Unlike some of the automatons that respond in these threads, you are an actual person who thinks, feels and believes. That's pretty clear to me, if not to everyone. This statement, "...only know one solution, increase the size of the government bureaucracy." tells me quite a lot about you thiinking toward government. It's understandable, especially if you are dealing with the private, capitalist, medical bureaucracy which is as close to 100% self-captured by government regulation as I suppose it is possible to get. We are not going to agree on the solution to this problem. Think about this though. If we can accept that the medical bureaucracy that we hate is due to extreme regulatory capture by the medical sector, it become possible to recognize that by contrast what Warren and Sanders are proposing would result in less bureaucracy; not more. Most everything would be simpler with way less paper work, and fewer rules. Still bureaucratic, but much less so than present. It's an ironic conclusion, but I believe it could be demonstrated by comparison with our sister countries that all have single payer medical care. Bureaucracy, with regard to medical care, in these other countries is dramatically less apparent. Paperwork is monumentally reduced, access to medical care is less multilayered and circuitous and cost dramatically lower! What Buttigieg and Biden are proposing would result in a less dramatic, immediate break, and therefore might be a more practical in that there would be less initial disruption. There would also be a much slower reduction in bureaucracy, as the current medical "system" would be left, initially, more intact. It's assumed, and it is probably a correct assumption, that what they propose, i.e., the public option, would lead to nearly the same place ultimately as the Warren and Sanders proposal.
Here are some interesting statistics to consider. Our last balanced budget was in 2001. Since then, inflation is up 42%, federal tax collections are up 67%, and government spending is up 113%. The U.S. already pays about twice as much per capita for healthcare than most other countries that have universal healthcare. Our problems don't stem from failing to collect enough taxes. They stem from a vastly inefficient government & healthcare system. Throwing more money at these problems won't fix them. The solution is to create a more efficient government & healthcare system. That's a lot easier said than done though because there are a great deal of people that benefit from inefficiencies in these areas.
Despite the fact that the rich are notorious for how little they can get away with paying, thereby contributing to an ever expanding wealth gap? As it relates to universal health care, I imagine all the red tape associated with varying state requirements can safely be set alight. And I can only imagine the economies of scale that a reasonably structured and managed universal health care system can provide. And yet, there are rugged individualists who won't even come to the table to discuss it.
That's correct. Despite the fact that the rich are notorious for avoiding taxes, federal tax collections have outpaced inflation by 60% since 2001. The upper 20% now pay 90% of federal taxes, so our federal tax structure is more progressive than you might think. Our more regressive tax structures are at the state & local levels. What is the problem you want to solve by narrowing the wealth gap?
I’m curious to know what percentage of pre-tax income that upper 20% has in relation to the remainder of the population. For the sake of context. You’re kidding, right? Have you considered history lately? Also, a narrower wealth gap is usually what distinguishes a First World country from a Third World counterpart.
It appears that the top quintile earns approximately 50% of the country's pre-tax income. So shouldering 90% of the federal tax burden is still progressive when you look at it from this angle. The U.S. is the most powerful country in the world. It has the most overall wealth in the world. Our average household income is well within the top 1% of the world. Our impoverished are better off than many regular people throughout the world. Historically speaking, I don't know of any nations like ours that fell due to inequality. I don't see the wealth gap & income gap as a problem. I'm much more concerned about the economic health of the lower quintiles, and the erosion of fair markets & traditional capitalism. I could care less about how much money Bill Gates & Jeff Bezos have.
Yes, I’ve asked. Standard reply, lower administrative/billing/collection costs - sorry, the math doesn’t add up. You seem intelligent, why are most all medical providers barred from disclosing the negotiated billing prices of Insurance Co’s? Medical providers fought tooth and nail against having to disclose and set retail prices for procedures. Transparency in effective pricing would be a beneficial start.