There's a lot in that post that deals in averages and general info. The 'median' income is only $61,000 because the top of the food chain is in the tens of millions. I've seen you correctly make that point in other discussions here.
Right, so in M4A with its 4% tax on income, almost all workers would end up paying less in taxes than they do in premiums, deductibles, copays, coinsurance, and drug costs.
The difference between Aetna and the Public Option is that people PAY IN to the P.O, thus helping the program that will be funding it whether it's Medicare or Medicaid.
But I'm talking about the actual, physical function of what the PO does vs. what Aetna does. Not about how it's funded, what it actually does when it comes to health care.
This is the part of the debate most Democrats don't want to have because they would have to admit that the role an insurance company plays in health care is not germane to your health care.
All an insurance company does is administer payment to your doctor after they treat you. So it's a part of the process of which you aren't involved at all, and has no consequence to the health care you've already received.
That's my point.
The cost to obtain coverage will drop, especially because you alter the risk demographic when healthy people like myself barely use the coverage. It might lead to 'free' healthcare in the future, but it doesn't shock the system overnight.
So wait...so you actually do see that single payer health care is the obvious way to go, but you don't want the change to happen overnight, preferring instead to let insurance companies continue to rob everyone as we soft-pedal the transition? Why? Who fucking gives a shit? Are we not capable as a country to shift who pays for our health care after we get it? Why must we keep insurance companies around when ntheir function is one Medicare already does at a fraction of the cost?


