tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post1777461338671968229..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: Cliff NotesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-18612258477470262482012-12-06T14:31:20.965-05:002012-12-06T14:31:20.965-05:00See what the projected increase in Medicaid/Medica...See what the projected increase in Medicaid/Medicare spending as % of GDP is, then apply that total as percent of payroll tax revenues to get an idea of the increase in the payroll tax rate. It would be significant -- I haven't done the math, but I'd expect 6-9 percentage points. <br /><br />I'm sympathetic to unprogressive taxes paying for social insurance, where tax and benefit are linked (but not too strictly).<br /><br />The prior question though is are we getting good value for what we pay for health care. I think not. I'd rather save money in health care and use it for something else.<br />MaxSpeakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08594964334301228571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-14232069498249001522012-12-04T23:48:07.576-05:002012-12-04T23:48:07.576-05:00Max
I do not know if the following is true. You m...Max<br /><br />I do not know if the following is true. You might.<br /><br />Assume reasonable progress in controlling costs of medical care. And that Medicare pays ALL "reasonable" medical costs after retirement.<br /><br />Then assume that Medicare is paid entirely by a dedicated, transparent, and capped tax... like Social Security. <br /><br />Assume further that the tax is "flat", like Social Security, up to the cap.<br /><br />What would the tax rate have to be?<br /><br />I see enormous advantages in paying for medical care this way... mostly that folks get to pay for their own "expected" care when they are old over a forty year or so working lifetime while they have the income, instead of having to scramble to find a way to pay for copays and supplemental insurance when our leaders "save Medicare" by making it inadequate. The "rich" would help the "poor" because the tax is "flat" where the higher taxes of the rich act as a kind of sur-insurance for them against the possibility that they might find themselves one day among those too poor to pay the full cost of the insurance for expected medical care. and finally, because it is pay as you go, it would finesse "medical inflation." each generation would pay the "higher expenses" of the presently retired out of their own "higher earnings" relative to those that the presently retired had when they were the working generation.<br /><br />As I said, I don't know if the math works out reasonably. But if it does, I would argue that paying for Medicare this way would be better than demanding "the rich" pay for it. It is really too much to expect the rich to pay for everyone's medical needs. I think "we" can afford to pay for our own. If it requires a raise in the wages to reflect medical care as part of the true cost of living, we should work on that, But I don't think we should encourage ourselves to want "welfare" as a normal part of everyone's life cycle. It makes us dangerously dependent on the whims of "the rich."coberlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15975038783813831953noreply@blogger.com