Market Conditions: Chicago Sales up 6.7% in February 2024 as Inventory Falls Again
The February data is out from the Illinois Association of Realtors. Spring buying season appeared to start early this year due to the mild winter weather.
Sales were up from last year, even with mortgage rates over 6%, as median price was at a 27-year high.
From the Illinois Association of Realtors:
The city of Chicago saw a 6.7 percent year-over-year home sales increase in February 2024 with 1,321 sales, up from 1,238 in February 2023. The median price of a home in the city of Chicago in February 2024 was $330,000, up 6.5 percent in February 2023 when it was $310,000.
Here is the sales data for February going back to 1997 (courtesy of G):
- 1997: 881 sales
- 1998: 991
- 2000: 1383
- 2001: 1151
- 2002: 1677
- 2003: 1566
- 2004: 1814
- 2005: 2228
- 2006: 1855
- 2007: 1703
- 2008: 1454
- 2009: 870
- 2010: 1257
- 2011: 1092
- 2012: 1250
- 2013: 1411
- 2014: 1361
- 2015: 1497
- 2016: 1567
- 2017: 1529
- 2018: 1535
- 2019: 1449
- 2020: 1496
- 2021: 1658
- 2022: 1924
- 2023: 1238
- 2024: 1321
Here is the Median Price Data also going back to 1997 (thanks G!):
- 1997: $117,000
- 1998: $132,000
- 1999: $143,750
- 2000: $161,500
- 2001: $180,200
- 2002: $212,000
- 2003: $215,000
- 2004: $229,900
- 2005: $268,900
- 2006: $267,500
- 2007: $270,000
- 2008: $290,000
- 2009: $218,125 (with 31% being REO/Short Sales)
- 2010: $176,000 (with 46% being REO/Short Sales)
- 2011: $150,250 (with 50% being REO/Short Sales)
- 2012: $140,300 (with 52% being REO/Short Sales)
- 2013: $158,000
- 2014 $175,000
- 2015: $212,000
- 2016: $236,000
- 2017: $246,000
- 2018: $272,000
- 2019: $272,500
- 2020: $290,000
- 2021: $320,000
- 2022: $320,000
- 2023: $310,000
- 2024: $330,000
Just a reminder that 2022 was the highest February for sales in 17 years in Chicago. The Federal Reserve started its rate increases in March 2022 so February was the last hurrah at the lower rates.
“Sellers drove the market in February, as seen in the increase in both closed sales and median sales price,” said Drussy Hernandez, president of the Chicago Association of REALTORS® and vice president of brokerage services for Coldwell Banker Realty in Chicago. “Competitively priced homes are moving quickly, and multiple offer scenarios are commonplace due to strained inventory and buyer demand.”
Single family home sales jumped year-over-year, rising 17% to 524. Condo sales were also up 0.9% to 797.
Inventory continued to slide.
Statewide, inventory fell 14.4% to 15,502 homes from 18,107 in 2023. That’s the lowest number of homes on the market since the IAR began tracking it in 2008.
In Chicago, inventory fell 20.3% to 4,111 homes from 5,155 last year.
Days on the market in Chicago was down a day, to 46 days from 47 days last year.
The 30-year average fixed rate mortgage was 6.78% in February, up from 6.64% in January and also higher than February of last year, when it was 6.26%.
“Even though February home sales were down slightly, I feel confident a growing number of consumers are feeling better about the economy and are anticipating more positive news on reduced interest rates,” says Matt Silver, Illinois REALTORS® 2024 President and partner and senior broker for Corcoran Urban Real Estate in Chicago. “And to improve our woeful housing shortage, we’re working diligently with state lawmakers on several legislative measures that will create housing that is more affordable around the state.”
There appears to be a lot more buyers than properties which is leading to multiple bid scenarios.
Is inventory bottoming out this spring or will it fall even further?
With housing inventory reaching lowest mark since 2008, Illinois’ February home sales dip [Illinois Association of Realtors Press Release, by Bill Kozar, March 21, 2024]
“There appears to be a lot more buyers than properties which is leading to multiple bid scenarios.”
Yet DoM is essentially flat
Market is getting more and more bifurcated
“Yet DoM is essentially flat”
Many new properties sell within the first 2 weeks. There are stragglers, for a variety of reasons, that sit much longer. Also, certain price points are selling faster than others. More bidding wars at the more affordable price points because there are simply more buyers in that group than the 1%.
180 homes listed in Lakeview right now. It has not gone over 200 since the spring buying season began. Same in Lincoln Park. 178 listed right now.
In Bucktown, just 39 homes. Ukrainian Village just 17 homes. West Loop 158.
River North is at 356 homes.
Realtors are selling the whole “don’t worry, just refi in a year, rate cuts are coming” thing. It’s working. Can’t blame people for not wanting to throw away money renting but I think the average person lacks the ability (or care) to really comb over the rent vs buy inputs and outputs. If you can find something nice under median, maybe it could work out.
“Many new properties sell within the first 2 weeks. There are stragglers, for a variety of reasons, that sit much longer. Also, certain price points are selling faster than others. More bidding wars at the more affordable price points because there are simply more buyers in that group than the 1%.”
This is a soup sandwich of word
“Realtors are selling the whole “don’t worry, just refi in a year, rate cuts are coming” thing. It’s working. Can’t blame people for not wanting to throw away money renting but I think the average person lacks the ability (or care) to really comb over the rent vs buy inputs and outputs. If you can find something nice under median, maybe it could work out.”
Yeah the date the rate crowd isnt operating in any sort of reality.
I think buyers can do OK if they dont have to have poorly done “New” Sweat equity is sorely underestimated
I know you’ve discussed it a lot but I’ll just reiterate the sad paucity of available nice condos/co-ops in lakefront buildings at this juncture. I’m glad we’re not looking now, because pickings are so slim. And when one does come up, it seems to always be on a low floor looking into another building.
Then there are a few absolute beauties available, like one on the market at 1540 N LSD. Priced at a reasonable $495,000, as long as you can pay the $7,000/month HOA. And how many people could?
I have a bad feeling it will take a serious recession to get rates down. The economy is simply galloping. We’ll be lucky to get even one rate cut this year. People hoping to buy now and refinance may have to wait longer than they expect.
Vote red
“I know you’ve discussed it a lot but I’ll just reiterate the sad paucity of available nice condos/co-ops in lakefront buildings at this juncture.”
This is what buyers have had to endure in coastal California for the last 20 years, right? Even after the housing bust, there was still not much inventory out there. It means you buy whatever you can get and you’re going to have to settle.
“Yeah the date the rate crowd isnt operating in any sort of reality.”
Date the rate was literally two years ago. Haven’t even seen that mentioned in a year. I don’t think many of the buyers in 2024 are thinking rates are going to come plunging down anymore.
But people are working and the economy is solid. When there are those conditions, people still feel comfortable buying.
“I have a bad feeling it will take a serious recession to get rates down.”
Or the bull market in bonds has ended and we’re in a bear market which means higher rates for years to come, recession or not.
“Vote red”
For what? It was Trump who put Powell into the Fed.
Florida has red government. I don’t see them doing anything to prevent insurance costs from doubling and they certainly can’t do anything about housing costs. Florida is seeing rising inventory again, which is healthy. Prices are falling but they should after going up 50% in 4 years. Lol.
I was going to feature this 1-bedroom vintage unit in East Lakeview. On the market less than a week but has now gone contingent. I wonder how many offers it got?
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/2912-N-Pine-Grove-Ave-60657/unit-2/home/13371463
“Date the rate was literally two years ago. Haven’t even seen that mentioned in a year. I don’t think many of the buyers in 2024 are thinking rates are going to come plunging down anymore.”
You really are a moron, you literally cut and pasted this:
I feel confident a growing number of consumers are feeling better about the economy and are anticipating more positive news on reduced interest rates,” says Matt Silver, Illinois REALTORS® 2024 President and partner and senior broker for Corcoran Urban Real Estate in Chicago
Is it a pavlovian response with you to just disagree with everything I post or is it something deeper?
“But people are working and the economy is solid. When there are those conditions, people still feel comfortable buying.”
A (shrinking) portion of the market feels comfortable buying
Dan’s co-op unit:
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1540-N-Lake-Shore-Dr-60610/unit-11S/home/177289308
Project unit.
Also available with a 40+ year newer kitchen:
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1540-N-Lake-Shore-Dr-60610/unit-13S/home/180522879
“This is what buyers have had to endure in coastal California for the last 20 years, right?”
Yes, along with high taxes, bad traffic, public school challenges, and the fact that one day it could all end in a mud slide/fire storm/earthquake event. But it’s still coastal California, which pretty much rules.
Somehow a bigger unit has meaningfully lower co-op share?
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1540-N-Lake-Shore-Dr-60610/unit-8N/home/177219542
Does that imply that the prior 2 owe the corp money??
Most recent comp to 8N’s ask is 14-15N (so, ~2x the space), which sold in Jul-23 for $3.35m.
Unless there is $2m in cash in the cabinets, have a hard time believing that 8N gets over $2m.
Dan’s co-op unit:
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1540-N-Lake-Shore-Dr-60610/unit-11S/home/177289308
= = =
I am not one to advocate violence but some sort of public flogging of a realtor in this case is justified for this listing
maybe parading and chanting shame shame for the use of all caps
“Somehow a bigger unit has meaningfully lower co-op share?”
Most cooperatives increase the shares (and assessments) as you go up in the building – but not always the number of votes for board – it was done to sell the less valuable units lower down and it’s logic was that you used less elevator time (which is a huge cost in smaller buildings). If they owed money that would have to be paid by the seller before they would transfer shares. There **could** be some weird assessment deal that they paid off a special with increased assessment – as a loan- or the seller with lower assessment paid a special as a one off payment, but normally that would revert to the regular level with a sale. I know people who took on a minor ongoing special rather than paid having it paid off to lower the sale price in a co-op – it was drastically cheaper for them to buy to do it that way. It looks like all the units roughly the same size (yeah, it might be that some lower units are slightly bigger but not here – there are a couple gold coast buildings where the lower floors are like four feet bigger at the rear) and it’s realtor fudging.
“Is it a pavlovian response with you to just disagree with everything I post or is it something deeper?”
Again, I haven’t heard anyone say “date the rate” in at least a year. Have you JohnnyU?
The quote from the IAR press release says that consumers are “anticipating more positive news on reduced interest rates.” That’s NOT “date the rate.” Date the rate, in case you don’t understand what it means, means you are buying with a higher rate because you can then re-fi at a later date when rates fall.
That consumers are looking for reduced rates indicates they are, actually, NOT dating the rate and are anticipating lower rates which will boost home sales further.
Instead, buyers may get higher rates later this summer. Could be why we’re seeing so many buyers right now. They were getting rates in the 6s but rates now back above 7. We know from the last 2 years that if rates go above 7.5%, and certainly above 8%, that sales will really slow.
However, inventory remains near record lows. No one is moving with mortgage rates at 8% unless they have to.
Interesting info about co-ops thanks. Didn’t realize about lower vs. higher floors having different shares.
Flog the realtor for all caps and for the apostrophe “its” when no apostrophe is needed. She or he would lose the job just for that if I were the seller.
” it’s realtor fudging.”
I was going to say “almost $2k/mo less for a bigger unit is a helluva fudge”, but then saw what’s what when I went to check the exact numbers:
8N listing carves the taxes out of the co-op fee. So it is actually $8,380/month.
Still ain’t seeing even $2.5m for that unit, much less the $3.8m ask.
“The quote from the IAR press release says that consumers are “anticipating more positive news on reduced interest rates.” That’s NOT “date the rate.” Date the rate, in case you don’t understand what it means, means you are buying with a higher rate because you can then re-fi at a later date when rates fall.”
Were you shithoused when you typed that? Otherwise you are functionally retarded as that is the textbook definition of date the rate
God I feel sorry for anyone that is forced to deal with you
“Otherwise you are functionally retarded as that is the textbook definition of date the rate”
As I thought, you don’t know what “date the rate” is even referring to.
Date the rate means you are buying the price of the house, not buying based on the rate, because you believe it’s going to go lower later and you can refi and your payment will be lower. But the price of the house is what you will have forever.
In 2024, people are NOT dating the rate. They are literally waiting for the rate to actually DROP (opposite of dating the rate) to buy when the rate is more attractive. And they are getting into bidding wars, in some cases, on the price of the house. They are NOT rushing in to buy with the rate above 7% with the INTENT of refinancing later. They are not saying, “gosh, the price of this house is right but my monthly payment isn’t.”
That was in 2022. That isn’t happening in 2024.
Date the Rate is over and has been for a year or more. It’s over because the rates HAVEN’T come down so no one believes they’re going to magically refi into a 4% or 5% rate anymore.
Buyers have gotten “used” to these rates over 6%.
That’s why when you, and anon(tfo) bring up how much the monthly nut is now compared to the prior buyer’s, or when rates were at 3%, it’s irrelevant. The buyers are basing their decision, and their budget, on what the rates are now with no belief that they are going to magically plunge any time soon.
If they go under 6% again, we will see higher demand. If they go above 7.5% or, certainly, 8%, sales will slow again. That’s what the IAR guy meant in his comment. When rates come down, buyer demand rises. He’s not talking about refis.
“how much the monthly nut is now compared to the prior buyer’s, or when rates were at 3%, it’s irrelevant”
Irrelevant to what?
Do you know why I’m bringing it up?
This you:
“enough buyers who can afford to buy even at the absurd higher prices.”
Are the prices “absurd” or nah?
“Date the rate means you are buying the price of the house, not buying based on the rate, because you believe it’s going to go lower later and you can refi and your payment will be lower. But the price of the house is what you will have forever.”
Ok Functionally retarded it is
“Are the prices “absurd” or nah?”
Absurd in California? Hell yes. For 20 years. Still hard to believe there are that many people who can afford a $2 million+ house in San Diego but apparently there are.
Chicago prices not “absurd” as we didn’t have a bubble here in the last decade.
Tasty tasty golapost moving.
Chicago prices aren’t absurd but I often wonder who can afford places with a $3,000 a month HOA topped by parking and taxes above and beyond the mortgage payment.
Someone here said “Vote red,” I suppose in response to current high rates.
It actually makes sense when you think about it. Each of the last three GOP presidents had a deep recession occur on their watch, resulting in a steep drop in rates. I get it – that must be the plan!
“Chicago prices aren’t absurd but I often wonder who can afford places with a $3,000 a month HOA topped by parking and taxes above and beyond the mortgage payment.”
The Millions and millions of tech workers job shopping and doubling their salaries every 6 months
“Chicago prices aren’t absurd but I often wonder who can afford places with a $3,000 a month HOA topped by parking and taxes above and beyond the mortgage payment.”
“The Millions and millions of tech workers job shopping and doubling their salaries every 6 months”
Salaries have gone up in the last 4 years. It’s pretty common for $70k to $80k starting salaries. Over $100k at most big companies after a few years there. Pretty easy to afford $3,000 a month.
And if they’re in a two salary couple, even easier.
There’s the Pavlovian response
You don’t even bother to read anymore
Do Better,
” Over $100k at most big companies after a few years there. Pretty easy to afford $3,000 a month.”
“affordable” is defined as uunder 30% of gross income.
And it includes utilities like gas, electricity, water, and internet, so that’s another $100+/month.
$3100*12/.3 = $124k.
So, sure “afforable” for a couple, but not for a single person.
And that’s assuming no, or low, student loans.
““affordable” is defined as uunder 30% of gross income.
And it includes utilities like gas, electricity, water, and internet, so that’s another $100+/month.
$3100*12/.3 = $124k.”
Yep. That’s why they’re making $150k to $175k in their early 30s at the financial firms, big tech, fortune 500 companies etc.
Are you all working? Salaries have gone up dramatically the last 4 years due to the tight labor market and also simply inflation. If you’re making $125k and you get a 4% pay raise it adds up quickly. But you have inflation on the other end so it’s all a wash, isn’t it?
I also thought Dan was asking who can afford $3000 a month in a condo. Utilities etc would be in the HOA.
Would you stop lying or sober up before drunk posting
“I also thought Dan was asking who can afford $3000 a month in a condo. Utilities etc would be in the HOA.”
Vs
Dan: I often wonder who can afford places with a $3,000 a month HOA topped by parking and taxes above and beyond the mortgage payment.
“I also thought Dan was asking who can afford $3000 a month in a condo. Utilities etc would be in the HOA.”
Vs
“Dan: I often wonder who can afford places with a $3,000 a month HOA topped by parking and taxes above and beyond the mortgage payment.”
Oh, he’s talking about a $3,000 a month HOA (not even just the mortgage.) I wasn’t paying attention and neither was anon(tfo). Everyone getting that wrong.
You can afford the $3,000 HOA if you are in the upper bracket. It’s really not that hard for rich people. You make $1 million a year as a doctor or lawyer and $3,000 a month is nothing.
Oh, he’s talking about a $3,000 a month HOA (not even just the mortgage.) I wasn’t paying attention and neither was anon(tfo). Everyone getting that wrong.
Well not everyone
Not speaking for TFO, but he was responding to your claim
This would suggest that people are not dating the rate: https://themortgagepoint.com/2024/04/05/borrowers-paying-discount-points-in-effort-to-snag-lower-mortgage-rates/
I love data.
Gary, the article is a little light on specifics. Most buyers are not choosing to paying discount points unless they have either bruised credit or they are buying from a tract home developer which is subsidizing the points.
I recently closed a cash out refinance and the borrower had to pay 2 discount points because the agency adjustments required it. I couldn’t give him a higher rate with no points because it didn’t exist.
With home purchases, the large tract home developers often subsidize discount points now so that their affiliated lender can offer below market rates as an inducement to buy. So if you buy a home at some suburban McMansion tract home new development, the developer will often give you say $20,000 that is then used to pay discount points as long as you use their affiliated mortgage company.
Typical home buyer buying a home in Chicago or an existing home isn’t likely to be paying discount points.
Unless there is an unexpected life event, why would anyone do a cash out refinance, especially with points?
Stop buying more house than you need, let alone can COMFORTABLY afford. I’m no fan of Trump, but his cap on taxes and interest deduction was spot on.
“Typical home buyer buying a home in Chicago or an existing home isn’t likely to be paying discount points.”
What’s the payback period? Like 4 years? So, if you think rates are not going to go down and you are going to stay in your home another 4+ years then you might do it – if you have the cash.
It’s not at all certain that rates will come down with the incredible federal debt accumulating. If you are pretty certain that rates will come down then it’s a good time to buy bonds.
@John, people do cashout refinances for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes it is the cheapest option if you need a significant amount of cash. Divorce buyouts. The cashouts I see typically see now are for home renovation projects. It is a lot cheaper than doing a HELOC. Some do debt consolidation to payoff high interest credit cards and student loans. It just depends, but it isn’t always a result of financial mismanagement (although we do see that as well).
Discounts points are like putting a prepayment penalty on the mortgage. Typical payback is usually 4 or 5 years. So you probably need to keep the mortgage at least a year or two longer to make it even worth it imho. If you think rates are going to fall, then points don’t make sense. If you think they will stay same or go up, then points may make sense. Every situation is different.
Debt for renovation only makes sense if you’re going to sell shortly. Otherwise just live with it and save your pennies to pay for it without interest.
Divorce is a life event. Student loans, too, if one has student debt after GI Bill benefits are used.
Credit card debt, unless tied to medical expenses (we need single payer), is just financial mismanagement.
I still can’t see paying points to refinance.
“we need single payer”
So you’re think one insurance company – e.g. United Healthcare? Or is that code for government healthcare?
Medicare only kinda works. They pay nickels on the dollar with private insurance subsidizing the system’s Medicare losses. And Medicare costs my mother-in-law like $900/ month without prescription coverage. I’m all in favor of every single US citizen contributing $900/ month towards the cost of keeping them alive but that won’t happen, will it?
Meanwhile, I keep collecting anecdotes about all the people in Canada and the UK suffering the failures of universal healthcare.
And don’t forget to dig 3 layers deep into your tax return to find out how much net investment tax you are already paying to fund the ACA. You could look forward to more of the same.
Still more efficient than the system we have now Gary, particularly when we account for the fact that the uninsured wait until a crisis and wind up in the emergency room.
While you’re regaling yourself with tales of Canadians and British caught up in their system failures, find out how many of them would get rid of their national health systems and switch to America’s. Your silence will be deafening.
I certainly wouldn’t want their healthcare systems based on what I’ve heard. What is interesting is that I haven’t met many people here who advocate for government healthcare that are willing to pay for it. They all want someone else to pay for it.
We could certainly improve the system here if everyone was required to have health insurance with stiff penalties for not having it. Everyone I’ve ever known who didn’t have health insurance could afford it but chose to gamble instead. Between Medicare, Medicaid. employer insurance and the ACA I don’t understand why so many people are uninsured.
“We could certainly improve the system here if everyone was required to have health insurance with stiff penalties for not having it.”
We had this. It was called Obamacare. The courts threw out the part that mandated insurance. And now the Republicans are, yet again, trying to get the rest of it thrown out as well.
In the years that we had mandated insurance, did it “improve the system”? Perhaps we didn’t have the mandates in place for long enough. But it didn’t bring down the price as much as everyone thought it would.
“And Medicare costs my mother-in-law like $900/ month without prescription coverage.”
She either 1) makes a lot of money so she pays the Medicare penalties or 2) has one of the Cadillac Medicare advantage plans which mostly all have prescription coverage. I know someone what pays about $1000 a month but they have the top tier plan that covers EVERYTHING, including the most expensive prescription drug and dental plans.
With the average SS check around $1700 a month, it’s not possible that most people are paying $900 just for Medicare insurance.
What IS the ACA? Maybe people need a refresher.
1. Thanks to the ACA the insurance company has to cover you even if you have pre-existing conditions, with no waiting period.
2. Maximums for total coverage expenses were eliminated (no longer just $1 million or $3 million in total coverage paid for)
3. It pays for a routine annual visit and some routine annual tests like a mammogram
4. Your kids can stay on it until age 26
I’m sure there are some other provisions I have forgotten. We’ve gotten so used to the ACA in the last 16 years that many people don’t remember what it used to be like.
“She either 1) makes a lot of money so she pays the Medicare penalties”
They think she makes a lot of money. She’s 92 so her supplemental rate is higher and she has to take out big chunks of her IRA. The point is that medicare is not free. Plenty of people spend a lot of money for it. And social security is not the only source of funds for most people so I wouldn’t use that to “prove” that Medicare is low cost.
“The courts threw out the part that mandated insurance.”
Yes, that was unfortunate. But it was hardly mandated to begin with. The penalties were pretty weak.
“But it didn’t bring down the price as much as everyone thought it would.”
This was the biggest scam of the ACA – Obama claiming he would lower healthcare costs. I knew from the beginning this was a dumb claim. It’s a shell game. Changing who pays for healthcare can’t possibly lower costs. However, I liked the parts where they made health insurance available for many more people and people could get subsidies to help them afford it. Unfortunately, they decided only evil ‘rich” people would pay for the ACA – the net investment tax.
Personally, I’d set up single-payer financed entirely out of general tax revenues. Medicare’s administrative costs are 2%. Private health insurance is 18% admin costs.
Good article in yesterday’s (4/7) New York Times about health insurers scamming policy holders on benefits by using a sham company to determine payments to out-of-network doctors. That crap doesn’t happen under single payer.
“That crap doesn’t happen under single payer.”
So if United Healthcare was granted a monopoly that wouldn’t happen? Why do proponents of this always speak in code? Call it what it is: Government healthcare.
And what you’re saying is that government healthcare would give us a 16% cost reduction. We’d still have the highest healthcare costs in the developed world.
“Private health insurance is 18% admin costs.”
I wonder who drives those costs? (And yes, UH, HUM, et al are all happy about it)
“That’s why they’re making $150k to $175k in their early 30s”
Huh?
This you:
“Salaries have gone up in the last 4 years. It’s pretty common for $70k to $80k starting salaries. Over $100k at most big companies after a few years there. Pretty easy to afford $3,000 a month.”
WTF did $150-$175 come from?
You asserted that $3k/month is “easy to afford”, using examples of $75-80k.
And 30% isn’t “easy to afford” it’s the cusp of “affordable”–edge case is certianly not “easy”.
“what you’re saying is that government healthcare would give us a 16% cost reduction”
Obama’s Death Panels would get us another 16%, easy.
“You asserted that $3k/month is “easy to afford”, using examples of $75-80k.”
Yes. A couple can easily afford this. They are each making $80k a year. This is who is renting the expensive apartments. It’s roommates and couples.
“Call it what it is: Government healthcare.”
We have this Gary. Are you not on Medicare? As of 2022, 18.7% of Americans were on Medicare.
“They think she makes a lot of money. She’s 92 so her supplemental rate is higher and she has to take out big chunks of her IRA. The point is that medicare is not free.”
So you are admitting that she is extremely well off for a retiree and that’s why her Medicare costs are so high. Your MIL is in the upper middle class/upper bracket. She is not a regular middle class person that has $50k in income in retirement (including SS and an RMD.)
Are you complaining that she has big RMDs in her 90s? Sounds like it. Everyone should be so lucky.
No, Medicare is not “free.” But it is a heck of a lot more affordable for a middle class retiree than private ever could be. Basic buy in this year is $174 a month. Then there are more fees depending on what other benefits you end up buying. If you are spending $900 a month you have a cadillac plan and/or you also are in the higher tax bracket so they charge you more.
“Yes, that was unfortunate. But it was hardly mandated to begin with. The penalties were pretty weak.”
There were a lot of people who bought insurance who otherwise would not have had it, especially young people.
If more states do Medicaid expansion, we’d have millions more covered.
“Changing who pays for healthcare can’t possibly lower costs.”
Sure it can. The insurers need more cheaper young people in the system. Mandate was supposed to get them that. But now that it’s been tossed out, the customer is aging. Always going to be more expensive for older people. And you have less people paying in. Young people were going to subsidize the old.
Also, if you have people getting preventative care, that should lower costs as well. A woman is getting a mammogram and catching the cancer at an early stage before she would have to do more expensive cancer treatments. BUT, technology also has improved. A lot more tests that cost money now too. Everyone getting colonoscopies and cologuard tests now, for instance.
“Unfortunately, they decided only evil ‘rich” people would pay for the ACA – the net investment tax.”
If you had private insurance, you weren’t “paying” for the ACA.
But there are many Americans who believe healthcare is a basic right and should be paid for by the government, just like fire departments are.
“So if United Healthcare was granted a monopoly that wouldn’t happen? Why do proponents of this always speak in code? Call it what it is: Government healthcare.”
————————————
I never said anything about giving a private company a monopoly. I said single-payer. Free Medicare. For everyone. No co-pays. No insurers cheating their insureds.
Yes, that’s government healthcare. Private providers, government payer.
Right now people wait until they have to go to the emergency room and then go bankrupt or it’s written off from the jump.
You still haven’t told us about anybody wanting to repeal national health in Canada and Britain, Gary. Sure people don’t like it, but repeal it? Never.
And I’ll take the 16% cost reduction. That’s what, $600 billion a year?
“Obama’s Death Panels would get us another 16%, easy.”
————————————–
They won’t have to. The anti-vaxxers are killing on the older Trumpys. That’s culling the herd right there.
“But there are many Americans who believe healthcare is a basic right and should be paid for by the government, just like fire departments are.”
—————————————–
People do get “free” health care. The bum on the street who collapses and gets a ride to the emergency room and a hospital stay — he doesn’t pay for that. We all do in our taxes. Since we give health care to all regardless of individual ability to pay, why not create a system that recognizes that and is funded accordingly, and gets people into preventative care accordingly?
Nobody ever said Medicare is free, Gary. But it should be funded with general taxes. The $174/month for Medicare Part B can simply go to increased taxes in a more efficient system. We reap the benefits of the efficiencies in administrative costs and increased preventative medicine.
“We all do in our taxes.”
We do? Hospital eats that cost. Many hospitals have a fund for those who are poor.
The whole point of Obamacare was to stop the ER from being used as a doctor visit. It’s not efficient and extremely expensive. It has mostly succeeded in this, at least for the states that expanded Medicaid.
“We all do in our taxes.”
We do? Hospital eats that cost. Many hospitals have a fund for those who are poor.
—————————————
Which they write off in their taxes, or get non-profit/tax free status. That means the rest of us pay more in taxes to make up for the shortfall. So, yes, we all do (pay the poor’s medical costs) in our taxes.
“The whole point of Obamacare was to stop the ER from being used as a doctor visit. It’s not efficient and extremely expensive. It has mostly succeeded in this, at least for the states that expanded Medicaid.”
Link?
“Basic buy in this year is $174 a month.”
That’s part B. Then you need supplemental and prescriptions. It adds up. And then add in all the people who pay penalties for being “rich”
“We have this [government healthcare] Gary.”
Yes, and it’s not free to the users and it gets paid for by a bit of a Ponzi scheme and private insurers who get charged more.
“Sure it can. The insurers need more cheaper young people in the system. Mandate was supposed to get them that.”
That does not lower healthcare costs. Just another shell game that changes who pays for it.
“If you had private insurance, you weren’t “paying” for the ACA.”
Wrong! Everyone who pays the net investment income tax is paying for it. It’s buried in the tax return so deep that most people don’t even realize they are paying for it.
“I never said anything about giving a private company a monopoly. I said single-payer. Free Medicare. ”
A monopoly IS a single payer system. You meant government healthcare. Stop talking in code. And Medicare is far from free so if you want it to be free there is going to be a hell of a tax increase.
“You still haven’t told us about anybody wanting to repeal national health in Canada and Britain, Gary. Sure people don’t like it, but repeal it? Never.”
I don’t know any insured people here that want to change either. Maybe the sick and uninsured would like it but I’d like to know why they are uninsured.
I know people today that work for health insurance or pursue better jobs for health insurance. My wife and I fell in that camp. I don’t want to take that incentive away from people. But if you insist on another government program don’t pay for it with income taxes. Pay for it with sales taxes like all the European nations have. That way everyone pays for it.
“Yes. A couple can easily afford this. They are each making $80k a year. This is who is renting the expensive apartments. It’s roommates and couples.”
You didn’t go back and see what you wrote. I only copied the first graph.
Here is the whole thing:
“Salaries have gone up in the last 4 years. It’s pretty common for $70k to $80k starting salaries. Over $100k at most big companies after a few years there. Pretty easy to afford $3,000 a month.
“And if they’re in a two salary couple, even easier.”
Because of that 2d graph, the first was CLEARLY referring to singles.
You were wrong. Why can’t you own it?
“Because of that 2d graph, the first was CLEARLY referring to singles.”
“You were wrong. Why can’t you own it?”
Thanks for pointing out that I was exactly right anon(tfo). And, yes, that first paragraph WAS referring to singles.
I said salaries have been going up the last 4 years. Check.
It’s common to see $70k to $80k starting salaries. Check.
People are making over $100k at most big companies after a few years there. PRETTY EASY TO AFFORD $3,000 A MONTH.
Check.
As you said anon(tfo), if you are making $124k, that would make $3,000 a month about 30% of your income (before bonus.) That’s a lot of people in Chicago who have been out in the workforce for a few years.
So, what I said was 100% correct. I think you’re reading what I wrote wrong. The $70k to $80k refers to the “new” starting salary range out of school. Then you move up pretty quick at many big companies. So it really isn’t hard for top professionals in Chicago to afford $3,000.
And even easier if in a two salary couple (as I also said.)
“I don’t know any insured people here that want to change either.”
My god. Do you know anyone who is middle class and has kids?
I can tell you 20 people off the top of my head who are DESPERATE for changes to our healthcare insurance system (still) even all these years after Obamacare.
Have you SEEN the increase in the deductible? It’s devastating for middle class families. Who can afford to hit the $5,000 level? That’s like putting in money into your IRA every year or saving for your child’s college.
What’s the point of insurance if it doesn’t cover anything until after $5,000 is hit? (or even higher levels?)
Congress really has to address this, and soon. It’s really a crisis for many families.
“That’s part B. Then you need supplemental and prescriptions. It adds up.”
Yep. My aunt is all in for around $350 a month. It’s not “free.” And she was glad they just did the big social security increases due to inflation. Lol.
Not sure why you are fear mongering Gary. It would literally be as much as your MIL, or much higher, without Medicare.
I was going to crib on this 2/1 in Lincoln Park as we’ve chattered about this building in the past.
It’s already contingent in under a week.
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/832-W-Wrightwood-Ave-60614/unit-3/home/13360891
I HAVE noticed that inventory in the Green Zone neighborhoods are trending higher in the last few weeks. But it’s still not much.
Instead of Lincoln Park having 160 properties on the market, it now has 191 on the market.
Mortgage rates have trended a bit higher again and are back over 7%. That could have something to do with the market slowing a little bit.
“Not sure why you are fear mongering Gary. It would literally be as much as your MIL, or much higher, without Medicare.”
Because there is reason to be afraid. There is no free lunch, no magic bullet. Playing a shell game with who pays doesn’t solve anything. The government screws up everything. They might have lower admin costs but they push higher admin costs on the rest of the system. And when there is no longer a private insurance industry to subsidize Medicare where is the subsidy going to come from?
I have no doubt that I get better healthcare than the people in Canada or the UK. And of course there are lots of people here who don’t but let’s dig into why. Why wasn’t Mary Lou Retton insured? Why did my father’s well paid employees pass on the group insurance and go the ER for care?
It’s clear that the people who want this have no intention of paying for it. Just tax the “rich” some more. And once the government controls the whole system they will tell doctors how to treat patients.
Read this: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/992642
I’ll let TFO decide if he wants to waste the time in refuting your bullshit
“It’s common to see $70k to $80k starting salaries. Check.”
Bullshit. I dont know why you need to lie all the time over such easily refuted trivium
https://www.bankrate.com/loans/student-loans/average-college-graduate-salary/
I cant wait for you to twist the meaning of “common” as to make in unrecognizable
“So, what I said was 100% correct. I think you’re reading what I wrote wrong. The $70k to $80k refers to the “new” starting salary range out of school. Then you move up pretty quick at many big companies. So it really isn’t hard for top professionals in Chicago to afford $3,000.”
You just cant help yourself can you?
“People are making over $100k at most big companies after a few years there. PRETTY EASY TO AFFORD $3,000 A MONTH.”
Again more buillshit.
Look at the average salaries in the link.
You are so full of shit its embarasing.
You can’t look at just half the equation, Gary. Nobody said anything about a free lunch. Yes, there would be a tax increase. The other half of the equation is that the taxes are offset by no premiums to pay ($174 X 12 for one example, just to start), and no deductibles, AND about 16% of total health care private spending efficiency.
All of that is before we get to the social benefit of better access to health care, and the benefit of moving from an intervention style care system to a prevention style care system.
So don’t talk about taxes without talking about premium savings.
Nobody’s talking in code, Gary. Government funded single payer health care. You know, the intelligently-designed system.
And where do you factor in the fact that Canada and the UK, for all their moaning, don’t want to give up their systems, Gary? What weight do you assign to that in your analysis?
“I’ll let TFO decide if he wants to waste the time in refuting your bullshit”
Nah, have to acknowledge that there is no spoon.
re: no spoon:
Check out pix 16 and 19 here:
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/333-N-Canal-St-60606/unit-2205/home/12562872
Johnc,
I don’t know that people in Canada and the UK don’t want to go to private insurance with more flexibility and shorter waits but I do know that none of my fully insured friends here want to accept government run healthcare.
How do you figure better healthcare with the government in charge? And if Medicare costs go to zero then right there that’s a hell of a tax increase. And then we have to pay for all the uninsured AND the healthcare system will have higher admin costs AND they will lose the private insurance subsidy. And will the 45% of the country that pays no income tax contribute to this grand scheme? I doubt it. Basically this will soak the “rich”.
“Unfortunately, they decided only evil ‘rich” people would pay for the ACA – the net investment tax.”
Like so many pieces of legislation it was never indexed to inflation. $200k for a single person was a lot of money back when Obamacare was put into law, just as $3k as a carryover capital loss was in the 1970’s & means testing social security taxation for between $25-34k in the early 80s. Now many years or decades later it’s laughable–a couple earning $250k/year isn’t exactly rich especially if burdened with student loans.
I’ll give Obama credit where it is due though–enacting qualified dividends made the playing field much more level than it was previously and I’ve never seen him or the Dems get credit for that in the press.
The current way to get rich if middle class and not a business owner is long-term capital gains tax rates–even with the Obamacare tax you’re looking at 18.8% rate if you can stay out of the top bracket and even then it’s only 23.8%.
Short-term tax rates mean you’re paying 50% or more than those LT rates and making Uncle Sam much more of a free rider in any market risk you’re taking. At least with IL taxes their take is the same in all scenarios so not affecting investment decisions.
“Bullshit. I dont know why you need to lie all the time over such easily refuted trivium”
Get into this century. Yes, my kids are making $70k right out of college. And more if you’re an engineer or accountant.
Do you know ANY people under the age of 30 in Chicago JohnnyU? Pay has soared the last 4 years. These are graduates from the Ivy League, the Big Ten, the Pac Ten, the best private schools in the nation. There’s a labor shortage. They had multiple job offers. (Had it he operative word. Lol.)
“Look at the average salaries in the link.”
It’s pretty clear, JohnnyU, that you haven’t lived in Chicago for 30 years because you could not compete here. Chicago is one of the biggest drivers of GDP in the nation. It’s competitive. Not as competitive as NYC, Boston and a few other coastal cities, but we still attract top talent at S&P 500 companies. With that talent comes higher salaries.
And, yes, those people can pay $3,000 a month for a 1-bedroom. The same they are doing in NYC and LA (and even more there.) These are Class A luxury apartments which are renting at new record highs in Chicago.
BUT- there are also a lot of people who cannot afford this. That is why the affordable units in the luxury buildings are renting immediately at a fraction of the price. That is healthy, and good, for Chicago. Those who are school teachers should be able to live in Fulton Market just like the person working for Alphabet. And there are plenty of other apartments that aren’t Class A.
“Why wasn’t Mary Lou Retton insured?”
It was shocking. But did this turn out to be true? Could have gotten a plan on the government network. That’s on them. Before Obamacare, the insurers might have denied her due to a pre-existing condition. But they can’t do that anymore.
“And once the government controls the whole system they will tell doctors how to treat patients.”
This is why doctors are quitting left and right. The insurers are already telling them how to treat patients. What’s the difference between them and the government?
“re: no spoon:
Check out pix 16 and 19 here:”
Trying to bully me about 333 N Canal is par for the course.
For those not following along, this was a building a couple of years ago, where I said that the new Salesforce building would not poke out far enough to block the views down the river. I then said over a year ago that I was wrong and that it would, ultimately, block it. I couldn’t tell from the original design that it was going to push that far out past the apartment building, but it clearly has.
Salesforce building is just massive, both in height and depth. It’s the tallest office building to be built in Chicago in several decades. You can see it in the pictures that anon(tfo) linked to for this unit on the 22nd floor.
But anon(tfo) wants to be a bully and an asshole. Go for it anon(tfo). You’re the only one who has to look in the mirror.
“The insurers are already telling them how to treat patients. What’s the difference between them and the government?”
Because with private insurance you have a little bit of leverage. Employers or individuals can switch plans if the current plan sucks. And the government can go beat up insurance companies that don’t behave themselves. But the government never beats up itself.
“Get into this century. Yes, my kids are making $70k right out of college. And more if you’re an engineer or accountant.”
Sure Jan
When did Lake Michigan get renamed to Lake Woebegone?
“Do you know ANY people under the age of 30 in Chicago JohnnyU? Pay has soared the last 4 years. These are graduates from the Ivy League, the Big Ten, the Pac Ten, the best private schools in the nation. There’s a labor shortage. They had multiple job offers. (Had it he operative word. Lol.)”
Yes
30 YO is not a recent college grad
Define “Soared”?
So you’re talking about maybe the top 5% of college grads as your basis?
You are an imbecile
Im not an empathetic person, But I feel truly sorry for your “Husband” and “Children”
“Trying to bully me about 333 N Canal is par for the course.”
You call it bullying because you dont like to be called out on your complete and utter BS. You make the dumbest claims, and refuse to admit you were wrong and double down on the stupidity
Sophisticated Chips, etc, etc
Government funded, not government provided, Gary. Accepted medical practice gets covered , just like now. Private insurance won’t pay for experimental care now, so no loss.
And you ran right away from the fact that the tax increase is offset by not having to pay insurance premiums and co-pays, etc. Medicare is $2k a year taken from your social security check. So raise your taxes and drop the Medicare premium— a wash.
Then there’s the small matter that you first mentioned that you collected stories of Canadians losing out on its system, but ran away from my point that for all their horror stories, Canadian (and British) liked national health. We may pass over without comment the fact that the plural of anecdote is not “data.”
In fact, you now observe that friends “here” (US) would prefer private insurance. What does that have to do with national health in Canada or the UK?
In fact, Gary, you cannot show us ANY country with a national health system where the people want to do away with it, much less move to an American style system. But the taxes, Gary! The taxes!
I’d prefer we try some basic free market principles first.
An easy fix is to decouple insurance from the employer which is just a throw back to WWII wage controls and any tax benefit should go to the employee directly. This would make health insurance portable and allow people to shop insurers regardless of their employer. If an employer wants to subsidize as a bennie they can still do so with direct cash payment to employee.
“For those not following along…”
presented with many many independent sources for where the Salesforce Tower was going to be built, the size of it, etc, and with several other commentors saying the same thing, someone was still deriding the idea that it would block the view of the river.
No goalpost moving that time, tho.
“If an employer wants to subsidize as a bennie they can still do so with direct cash payment to employee.”
I’d change that to “payment directly to the insurer, on behalf of the EE”–why make the payment two steps?–but otherwise it’s a good idea.
COBRA gives you portable health insurance, but you still have the problem of the unemployed, businesses that don’t offer health insurance, and the administrative inefficiency of private insurance, which practices risk avoidance, not management, and a profit motive.
“presented with many many independent sources for where the Salesforce Tower was going to be built, the size of it, etc, and with several other commentors saying the same thing, someone was still deriding the idea that it would block the view of the river.”
Like I said, I didn’t think it would be that far out into the River. I didn’t realize that building was that massive.
Also, like I said, I said I was wrong.
“Sophisticated Chips, etc, etc”
Yep. Once again, JohnnyU not understanding basic technology. You are so obsessed with the new wall A/C units because you can’t seem to figure out that they are different than the old ones.
I don’t get it. Any of it.
“Get into this century. Yes, my kids are making $70k right out of college. And more if you’re an engineer or accountant.”
“Sure Jan”
You are so out of touch JohnnyU. Are you retired? That might make sense. It’s hard for the 70+ to understand about the rising salaries and that someone doesn’t make $35k out of college anymore. It’s the living in the past thing of “when I bought my house, it was only $55,000.”
Here’s a link from the University of Illinois for 2021-2022. $75,000 was the average starting salary of those with bachelors degree that year. Obviously, the engineering degrees are going to skew higher. But one of the most popular majors was Psychology and I’m not sure what jobs they’re getting with that.
https://illinisuccess.illinois.edu/themes/custom/sasubtheme/files/2021-2022_Illini%20Success_FullReport_AllCampus%20_FINAL.pdf
Johnc,
You are engaging in all sorts of magical thinking and hand waving. Without any analysis at all you are asserting, much like Obama’s groundless assertions that the ACA would lower costs, “trust me, it won’t cost you more”.
Let me run some simple math by you. Medicare payroll taxes are 2.9%, with higher rates for evil rich people. Let’s call it 3% on average. That covers 20% of US healthcare costs. So it will go to 15%. But for every dollar collected in payroll taxes there’s another $.44 collected in Medicare premiums, which you want to go to zero. So now it’s 21.6%. So, we’re not even done yet and a person with a 300K income is paying another $64.8K in taxes. I assure you that is more than what they pay today in insurance premiums.
But then you have to account for the loss of the private insurance subsidy and the fact that the “progressives” will want the tax to be progressive also and now you’re looking at an astronomical number. Sure, the 45% that pay no income tax will be better off but the rest of us are screwed. Not interested.
“Government funded, not government provided,”
Medicare does restrict care to some extent. For instance, they only pay for Dexas once every two years and none of the pricy cancer drugs are covered under part D.
“you now observe that friends “here” (US) would prefer private insurance. What does that have to do with national health in Canada or the UK?”
It’s the same as you claiming without support that the people in Canada or the UK prefer what they have to what we have. It’s just as irrelevant.
“Yep. Once again, JohnnyU not understanding basic technology. You are so obsessed with the new wall A/C units because you can’t seem to figure out that they are different than the old ones.”
No
You made some half assed claim the “tHeSe hAVe sOPhiTiCatED cHiPs” when asked what these chips do your answer was complete nonsense.
Explain to me
1) what these sophisticated chips do
2) what makes them better? There’s no VFD or Economizer so they’re not optimizing for energy consumption. They may flash a fault code but a competent tech with Fluke would be able to diagnose the problem in about the same time
Stop embarrassing yourself.
“I don’t get it. Any of it.”
Truer words were never spoken
“Here’s a link from the University of Illinois for 2021-2022. $75,000 was the average starting salary of those with bachelors degree that year. Obviously, the engineering degrees are going to skew higher. But one of the most popular majors was Psychology and I’m not sure what jobs they’re getting with that.
https://illinisuccess.illinois.edu/themes/custom/sasubtheme/files/2021-2022_Illini%20Success_FullReport_AllCampus%20_FINAL.pdf”
More lies
Wow you are really, really dumb
You obviously didnt read the fine print
8100 grads, 4756 replied, 2631 are working and 1372 SELF REPORTED salaries
Thats SELF REPORTED salary data for 17% of grads. Do you even comprehend how bad this data set is? Its so bad the HRC pollsters would call it out for being useless as teats on a boar LOL.
One simple question that even you can answer. Do you think responses to the salary survey will skew higher or lower?
You’re also cherry picking the states flagship university. For every Uof I grad, there 10 from ISU, SIU, Loyola, DePaul, etc that will drive the average down
“You are so out of touch JohnnyU. Are you retired? That might make sense. It’s hard for the 70+ to understand about the rising salaries and that someone doesn’t make $35k out of college anymore. It’s the living in the past thing of “when I bought my house, it was only $55,000.”
As a UIUC Engineering grad and someone that hires Engineers, you are talking out your ass (As usual)
You really believe that you are the smartest person in the room and feel like your idiotic opinions should be treated as gospel when you dont have a fucking clue what you’re talking about. You are a dumber and more arrogant version of Cliff Claven.
If you are 10% this bad IRL, I really feel sorry for your “Husband” and “Children” having to deal with you on a regular basis
Embarrassing and zero self reflection
“Cliff Claven.”
Oddly enough, just this week, I learned that John Ratzenberger was in Empire Strikes Back.
“Oddly enough, just this week, I learned that John Ratzenberger was in Empire Strikes Back.”
Holy shit
He looks a bit like Lt Dangle
My god JohnnyU. I give you the actual data and you go off and bully me some more. Yes, it’s not everyone reporting. Who cares? The average is $75,000 and even higher in engineering, business school and some other areas. It’s lower in education, liberal arts and some other areas, as you would expect.
Not EVERYONE is making $75,000 but if you get a professional desk job at a big Fortune 500 or 1000 company in Chicago, you are STARTING at $70k to $80k. Salaries have gone up in the past 4 years. This is data from 2021-2022, which was peak hiring from MSFT and the like (as the data shows you how many got jobs at those big tech firms.)
So to bully me for giving you the actual data about grads from the flagship U, many of which stayed in Illinois, which the data also shows, is disingenuous.
Chicago is a superstar city. It attracts talent. We have high salaries in Chicago as a result, especially in tech/engineering positions. But also in accounting, supply chain management, and finance.
I have no idea who Cliff Claven is. Have never heard that name. Someone from your 1960s youth?
Get into this century, JohnnyU. Even if you’re retired, you can still be up on current events and involved in society. Join some organizations that give you exposure to young people so you know what is going on. Be a mentor.
“Medicare payroll taxes are 2.9%, with higher rates for evil rich people”
I’ve noticed a theme on your comments Gary of a lot of bitterness for those who are really well off having to pay a bit more for their health insurance.
But maybe it really indicates that people are working longer and are now still working even after they go on Medicare so they are falling within the higher brackets. When created, the assumption was that you were retired when you were 65. Therefore, your income would drop.
But these days, with better health and people living longer, it’s no longer unusual to be working at 70 or even 75. Imagine you’re a lawyer who is making $200k a year and continues until you’re 70. But you went on Medicare at 65 (you have that option). So now you have to pay the penalty because you make too much money.
Or, there are simply some well-off Baby Boomers who have been saving into 401ks for 40 years which are now worth several million dollars. Once they have to take the RMDs (age 73 now), they will be “making” a lot of money every year which will put them into the penalty.
How would you change the program, Gary? Should those who earn a lot more in “retirement” not have to pay more?
“You’re also cherry picking the states flagship university. For every Uof I grad, there 10 from ISU, SIU, Loyola, DePaul, etc that will drive the average down”
Yep. Who do you think is working at Alphabet in Fulton Market JohnnyU? Top companies hire top talent. No one would say otherwise.
The DePaul grad may not be starting at $70k to $80k (although, you’d be surprised by what some make depending on their field.) The $3,000 apartment is Class A apartment. That is luxury. That’s the top paid professionals. Every major city has the upper tier. Chicago does too.
It’s not difficult to start at $70k to $80k. And it’s also not that hard to make over $100k after a few years.
Life is moving fast. Things have changed a lot in the last 4 years in terms of salaries, rents, home prices.
“How would you change the program, Gary? Should those who earn a lot more in “retirement” not have to pay more?”
Well, the first thing I would do is de-Ponzify both SS and Medicare. Every cohort should be funded entirely by the contributions of that cohort instead of counting on a bigger cohort coming behind them.
Second, I’d stop the false narrative that Medicare is free. It’s clearly not and therefore “Medicare for all” is not some magic bullet.
Third, I’d make sure that everyone has health insurance come hell or high water. Stiff penalties for non-compliance.
Fourth, if you need additional funds to subsidize the ACA I’d abolish the net investment income tax and replace it with a national sales tax on everything except food, education, medical expenses, and reasonable housing costs. People shouldn’t be put in the position of voting for policies that someone else pays for because it’s clear how that turns out.
“My god JohnnyU. I give you the actual data and you go off and bully me some more. Yes, it’s not everyone reporting. Who cares? The average is $75,000 and even higher in engineering, business school and some other areas. It’s lower in education, liberal arts and some other areas, as you would expect.”
LOL you are drunk and cant grasp why that data is not valid.
Maybe ask your husband (Hopefully sober and a > 70IQ) to help you out
“Not EVERYONE is making $75,000 but if you get a professional desk job at a big Fortune 500 or 1000 company in Chicago, you are STARTING at $70k to $80k. Salaries have gone up in the past 4 years. This is data from 2021-2022, which was peak hiring from MSFT and the like (as the data shows you how many got jobs at those big tech firms.)”
Imagination land.
Again you are so fixated on N=1 you lose track of whats going on.
“So to bully me for giving you the actual data about grads from the flagship U, many of which stayed in Illinois, which the data also shows, is disingenuous.”
If you want to pat yourself on the back for providing bullshit, be my guest. I can see why you crave validation.
“Chicago is a superstar city. It attracts talent. We have high salaries in Chicago as a result, especially in tech/engineering positions. But also in accounting, supply chain management, and finance.”
What ever gets you through the night (And a couple boxes of wine)
“Get into this century, JohnnyU. Even if you’re retired, you can still be up on current events and involved in society. Join some organizations that give you exposure to young people so you know what is going on. Be a mentor.”
So old and bitter
I wouldnt be shocked if your family went no contact
“Yep. Who do you think is working at Alphabet in Fulton Market JohnnyU? Top companies hire top talent. No one would say otherwise.
The DePaul grad may not be starting at $70k to $80k (although, you’d be surprised by what some make depending on their field.) The $3,000 apartment is Class A apartment. That is luxury. That’s the top paid professionals. Every major city has the upper tier. Chicago does too.
It’s not difficult to start at $70k to $80k. And it’s also not that hard to make over $100k after a few years.
Life is moving fast. Things have changed a lot in the last 4 years in terms of salaries, rents, home prices.”
You’re confusing the spins and DT’s with moving fast
You’re drunk and rambling at this point and are forgetting about the claims you made
Maybe sleep this one off and try again tomorrow
I have never heard of anyone saying that Medicare is free. As far as I can see, you’re raising a straw man, Gary.
What I am saying is that if you combine the insurance and Medicare premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, you have a lot of room with which to raise taxes and not have any change financially. Add in the efficiency savings, and you have a much saner system for little more, if any, extra money.
Which is particularly true given that millions more people will then have coverage, allowing the system to move its focus to prevention instead of intervention. Guess which one is cheaper?
Will some people pay more? Sure. It is like that with any social good. Your problem is that we already have medical care for everyone — as any bum who collapses in the street and is wisked to a hospital can attest. The only issue is coming up with a sane way to finance the system. That is single payer for private providers. If a private provider doesn’t want public money, then he can do what he does now: stabilize and ship.
“I have no idea who Cliff Claven is.”
Maybe ask Archibald Leach, Bernard Schwartz and Lucille LeSueur.
Johnc
“Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez proudly supports H.R.1976: Medicare for All Act of 2021, which creates a single-payer system that guarantees healthcare for all, regardless of income or employment status, while eliminating copays and premiums. ”
“Under a single-payer bill sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Medicare for All would cover essential treatment with no premiums or deductibles.”
Is it Medicare for All or is it free healthcare? Obviously they think they are one in the same. If they don’t think Medicare is free then why are they calling free government insurance Medicare for all?
“What I am saying is that if you combine the insurance and Medicare premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, you have a lot of room with which to raise taxes and not have any change financially”
For whom? In the aggregate? Sure. But what part of my $65K+ calculation didn’t you follow? The 55% that pay income taxes will be screwed. More government free shit that a lot of people don’t pay for.
And show me your analysis of how many people are not getting proper medical care because they aren’t insured, want to be insured, and don’t have affordable insurance options and how much lower their healthcare costs are going to magically become. Please be sure to account for the 88 MM on Medicaid and all the people who qualify for ACA subsidies but choose to roll the dice.
“So old and bitter”
So you ARE retired. That’s okay. There are others retired on this blog. It hopefully happens to all of us.
Doesn’t mean you can’t mentor or be involved with some young people.
“LOL you are drunk and cant grasp why that data is not valid.”
The data is the data. You just want to gaslight it.
“What ever gets you through the night (And a couple boxes of wine)”
I hope you get help for your drinking problem JohnnyU. I’ve never seen someone project so much in my life.
Gary, whether you modify Medicare (which has co-pays) to have no co-pay, or create a new system is irrelevant: The point is that the end user has no up-front cost (notice I didn’t say no costs, they will pay taxes). So we will have expanded coverage and be able to shift to a prevention system as opposed to an intervention system of health care (much cheaper).
I’m glad you admit that the money is already in the system, Gary (“In the aggregate? Sure.”), so let’s see about using the money intelligently and raising it intelligently, which we are not doing now.
Right now we raise the money through premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and taxes. People paying for Medicate part B are paying a tax. May not be an income tax, but it is a tax, so the semantic argument you have about Medicare or All or Free Healthcare goes right back at you. Call it whatever you will.
Nor will the “55%” be screwed as badly as you would have us believe, Gary. They can take their deductibles and premiums and co-pay funds and apply it to taxes. Financially it’s a wash. It won’t be “free shit” either, because it never was “free.” People on Social Security, paying for Medicare Part B, can pay that money into taxes, or Social Security can be reduced by the premium amount. People paying deductibles but not taxes can now be held to pay taxes and not deductibles. Tax rates and tables can be adjusted, Gary, you know that. Moses did not bring them down from the Mount.
You are trying to isolate, account for, and scaremonger with one label, “taxes.” You know full well that financially you cannot look at just one tranche in isolation. At least you admitted that things work out “in aggregate.” Imagine that. A social good, considered “in aggregate” with people not now paying taxes paying money into the system with modifications to the tax system or adjusted benefits. In aggregate.
As for people deferring health care due to uncovered costs, Google is your friend:
https://www DOT cbsnews.com/news/medical-care-costs-americans-skipped-gallup/
https://www DOT healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/cost-affect-access-care/
https://www DOT cnbc.com/2023/01/20/americans-put-off-health-care-because-of-cost-how-you-can-save.html
and it’s not a new phemomenon:
https://www DOT ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3018838/
“The data is the data. You just want to gaslight it.”
The first part is true, the second part is another lie
But then again you are the Kween of N=1
“So you ARE retired. That’s okay. There are others retired on this blog. It hopefully happens to all of us.”
Doesn’t mean you can’t mentor or be involved with some young people.”
I bet you thought this was very clever when you typed it out
When you wake up hungover, you’re going to have a WTF moment, lol
Sabrina, what happened to my reply post to Gary?
Gary Lucido,
So what is the answer? leave it as it is? Healthcare in this country sucks because we don’t have healthcare, we have insurance.
Something better than H.R. 1976? How do other countries do it? and why can’t we?
We should call it Universal Healthcare and yeah, it wouldn’t be free but would it cost more than what the average person pays now with insurance premiums, co-pays, and deductibles?
Icarus,
My post addressing Gary’s concerns was pulled. I don’t know why. Perhaps Sabrina can repost it (removing the website references if that was the problem).
Johnc,
Your post wasn’t pulled. The software doesn’t let you put more than one link in a post. It assumes it’s spam.
Icarus,
I’m pretty happy with my healthcare. It’s better than what I understand they have in socialized medicine countries.
Can we make it better? Sure. See my suggestions above. People come with a ton of overhead and I want to make sure that everyone is busting their ass to cover the overhead of keeping themselves alive. I don’t want them expecting someone else to cover their overhead.
Oh…and other countries have like a 23% sales tax which I enthusiastically support. Everyone has to pay for the policies they support. No free riders.
“Oh…and other countries have like a 23% sales tax which I enthusiastically support. Everyone has to pay for the policies they support. No free riders.”
—————————-
Sales taxes are regressive, which isn’t a deal killer but does give me pause. I cannot stand VAT though, since it’s built into the price and therefore isn’t as visible as a separate sales tax, which is a line item on your receipt and hard to ignore.
Don’t be too sure about your health care being better than in socialized medicine countries, Gary. Most of them have longer life expectancies than we do.
BTW Gary, you might want to consider the definitions of “free riders” and “social good.”
“Sales taxes are regressive”
Wrong. They are not regressive. They are merely not progressive.
“you might want to consider the definitions of “free riders” and “social good.”
I’ve considered the definitions and I’m happy with how I’m using the terms. And I’m so tired of paying for someone else’s social good that I no longer live in a city.
“Nor will the “55%” be screwed as badly as you would have us believe, Gary. They can take their deductibles and premiums and co-pay funds and apply it to taxes. Financially it’s a wash”
More of your handwaving and magical thinking. What $300K income person is currently paying $65K++ in premiums and deductibles? There is no free lunch. You can’t give a huge percentage of the population something for nothing without screwing the remainder of the population.
Gary, you will find that every economist considers sales taxes to be regressive. Nobody considers them to be neutral.
You will also find that the efficiency of a single payer system is greater than you think. That is why European countries pay less as a percentage of GDP than we do for health care and yet have longer life expectancies.
Compare ec dot Europa dot eu with statista dot com. . US health care is over 17 percent of GDP. Germany and France — the leading spenders for health care by GDP in Europe, are under 13 percent.
Care to free up almost 5 percent of US GDP, anyone?
Johnc,
If you exclude food, healthcare, education, and reasonable housing costs there would be nothing “regressive” about a sale tax. And those who claim it’s regressive are using income as a denominator, which in itself is a flawed concept. Why should we accept that income is the pie we should be using? Besides, I thought you think we should be more like Europe. Yeah, let’s be more like Europe. They do everything right.
All this data on how much we spend on healthcare doesn’t adjust for lifestyle choices.
Sabrina,
Speaking of government services for other people that I pay for…we’ve discussed Amtrak before. One of my daughters just took a train from DC to Raleigh. 6 hour scheduled ride which ran 1 hour 10 minutes late. Don’t use Amtrak very often but when we do it’s not a good experience.
Why wouldn’t we use income as a denominator, Gary? Prices are not income dependent. The prince and the pauper pay the same price for a can of soda, although their incomes are far different. Given that, the pauper buys a different basket of goods: stew beef, not steak, and in lesser quantities. Sales taxes are a function of prices.
As for Europe getting things right, I don’t know. The discussion is about health care. Europe got health care right. As for everything else, well, look at it this way: Trump is on record as being in favor of immigration from Europe (I believe his exact words were “places like Norway”) and not “sh*thole countries.”
So not even a good attempt at diverting, Gary. Do better.
As for trains, they’ve always been late. Even in Europe. Nothing to do with public ownership. Just ask the Brits who took Virgin Rail when the UK privatized rail services.
“Speaking of government services for other people that I pay for…we’ve discussed Amtrak before. One of my daughters just took a train from DC to Raleigh. 6 hour scheduled ride which ran 1 hour 10 minutes late. Don’t use Amtrak very often but when we do it’s not a good experience.”
Amtrak is a private corporation, however, but it has government funding.
That’s unfortunate she suffered delays. Not sure what happened there. Why are flights delayed? Why do they get cancelled and you have to fly later in the day or, heaven forbid, sometimes the next day?
Not all public transportation runs 100% smoothly. I wish it did. My Amtrak trains recently have been exactly on time. But it doesn’t always go like that. I have been lucky lately. My flights have been on time recently too. But those definitely don’t always go like that.
I think it’s fantastic that they have a DC to Raleigh route. Northeast trains are great. Perhaps there was a weather delay?
Best trains to take are the regional service, not the cross country routes, if you want to be “on time”, as there are too many things that can go wrong cross country.
“Why wouldn’t we use income as a denominator, Gary?”
Why wouldn’t we use spending as a denominator? Other people’s income has no impact on anyone. Their spending does. Spending consumes resources, expands carbon footprints, and pushes prices up. And if someone can afford a $1000 iPhone or $500 sneakers then they can pay taxes. And taxing spending taxes rich people as they spend their money, including inherited wealth.
“As for Europe getting things right, I don’t know. The discussion is about health care. Europe got health care right. As for everything else, well, look at it this way: Trump is on record as being in favor of immigration from Europe (I believe his exact words were “places like Norway”) and not “sh*thole countries.””
Talk about diverting…
Yes, Gary, so if the bulk of your spending is on food , clothing, and housing, then a sales tax is regressive, you buy a $1,000 of food several times a year. You buy a $1,000 cellphone once every several years.
So sales taxes are regressive, and euro-style healthcare systems (single payer) deliver the same or better health care at a savings of 5 percent of GDP over American healthcare systems.
Simpler, with significant cost savings.
So, yes, the Europeans are doing something right, so much so that Trump likes them.
“Sales taxes are regressive, which isn’t a deal killer but does give me pause. I cannot stand VAT though, since it’s built into the price and therefore isn’t as visible as a separate sales tax, which is a line item on your receipt and hard to ignore.”
Not per definition they aren’t if consumption scales up linearly with income. The only true regressive taxes, per definition are benefit cliffs of government subsidy schemes like Obamacare and social security.
What we have now is a hyper-progressive income taxation scheme where with fully refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, taxes are no longer used to fund government receipts but rather now used as a wealth transfer mechanism between various groups. When one group not only isn’t paying any income taxes into the system but has also effectively voted themselves transfers of other people’s money that can’t quite be called a tax code anymore but more of a social engineering scheme.
Johnc,
I was pretty clear that I would exempt food, education, healthcare, and reasonable housing costs from a sales tax. That prevents the tax from being regressive.
I don’t like the idea of providing yet another way for higher income people to subsidize lower income people. And you keep repeating that this is going to magically lower healthcare costs but you don’t really know that.
Trump likes Europeans, not European policies but I don’t really care what Trump thinks.
Bob nailed it above about the current tax code.
“When one group not only isn’t paying any income taxes into the system but has also effectively voted themselves transfers of other people’s money that can’t quite be called a tax code anymore but more of a social engineering scheme.”
Red voters, who comprise the majority of the poor and working class in this country, tend to vote for politicians who campaign on and then legislate and govern with the goal of tax policies that favor the higher earning and investor classes. Those are the folks who’ve been social engineered and schemed.
“I’m pretty happy with my healthcare. It’s better than what I understand they have in socialized medicine countries.”
too many variables. Do you have a Platinum Plan? What is your understanding of “socialized” medicine?
your plan may be better than Universal Healthcare plans in other countries but that doesn’t mean those plans are terrible.
you are sounding an awful lot like a Boomer who got his and then pulled the ladder out so no one else can.
Gary, exempting the stuff that people spend the vast majority of their money on in order to find conspicuous consumption and announce that therefore the tax is progressive doesn’t change the essential nature of the sales tax. Sing and dance all you want, but the majority of expenditures covered by sales taxes are bought by middle and low income people.
The conspicuous consumption exception proves the rule. It doesn’t become the rule.
You can’t redefine a problem out of existence.
And I notice you are no longer defending the current system of medical financing.
Oh, and your exemption of food, etc (which isn’t what you’d previously written) — where does the revenue shortfall come from?
As for magically lowering costs, I think we do know that: Europe’s experience proves it.
I agree that the tax code is being used for social engineering purposes. That’s why mortgage interest is deductible. You made your money in part because of that social engineering.
Red voters, who comprise the majority of the poor and working class in this country, tend to vote for politicians who campaign on and then legislate and govern with the goal of tax policies that favor the higher earning and investor classes. Those are the folks who’ve been social engineered and schemed.
Dont be pulling a Sabrina
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/the-partisanship-and-ideology-of-american-voters/
LOL at either party being for the little guy…
Something has come up this week. Sorry about not posting new cribs. I’ll try and get something up tomorrow as there IS a lot going on out there and some interesting properties.
It’s time for a vacation soon though. Lol.
Rodkin’s latest feature is a hoot:
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/415-E-North-Water-St-60611/unit-3205/home/21816046
The bathtub on the upper level is something.
“you are sounding an awful lot like a Boomer who got his and then pulled the ladder out so no one else can.”
Nothing that I or any other Boomer has done in our lifetime has prevented others from “getting theirs”. It’s not a fixed pie that gets divvied up.
I’m on Medicare now. I got the best plan available but I’d hardly call it platinum. So far it’s on par with what I had with private insurance but, of course, it’s heavily subsidized by private insurance. I see what gets paid out and it’s scary (low).
My understanding of socialized medicine is long wait times. Had dinner the other night with some friends from the UK. They said getting diagnosed can be tricky but once you’re in the system with a diagnosis the care is pretty good. But the real trick with healthcare is working with the top 5% of doctors in my experience. If you have a condition that needs constant monitoring and balancing multiple factors the other 95% can kill you or put you through a lot of agony.
“but the majority of expenditures covered by sales taxes are bought by middle and low income people.”
You are just making shit up now. That is not true.
“As for magically lowering costs, I think we do know that: Europe’s experience proves it.”
Yeah, if you believe that we live in a single variable world. Do you honestly believe that our system of insurance is the only difference between Europe’s health outcomes and ours? What about medical education, population education, lifestyle choices, treatment protocols? Just to name a few.
“I agree that the tax code is being used for social engineering purposes. That’s why mortgage interest is deductible. You made your money in part because of that social engineering.”
Doesn’t change the fact that I don’t believe in using the tax code for social engineering.
Gary, our lifestyles (US and Europe) are sufficiently similar that we (US) can expect similar outcomes. No one has shown any factors differing between the US and Europe/Canada that would render their experiences invalid here.
As for finding the 5 percent of doctors, that’s the same all over, including here in the US.
As for sales taxes, no Gary, I’m not making shit up. We spend more on food and basic clothing than we do on luxe cellphones, birkin bags, and Veyrons. When you figure that more expenses of the rich are for services (not subject to sales tax) the regressive nature of the sales tax is even more apparent. We have to live in the real world Gary, which is why I said that sales taxes gave me pause, but we’re not deal killers.
By the way, Gary, your silence about what you will replace sales taxes with to make up for the revenue shortfalls with your dreamed-of exemptions for food, etc.: it’s deafening. You can’t count on the demonstrated cost savings of single-payer health care, since you reject that. So what are you going to replace the money with?
I was going to crib on this townhouse this week. But it’s under contract already.
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/2850-N-Lakewood-Ave-60657/unit-A/home/13364712
I propose calling these “3 br” places (like 2850 Lakewood) where the 3d room has no door “Junior” or “convertible” 3 bedrooms.
“our lifestyles (US and Europe) are sufficiently similar that we (US) can expect similar outcomes.”
You just keep making shit up. https://data.worldobesity.org/rankings/
“When you figure that more expenses of the rich are for services (not subject to sales tax)”
Now you’re making shit up about what I said. I never said services would be exempt. They are not exempt in NC and there have been proposals to tax them in Illinois.
“By the way, Gary, your silence about what you will replace sales taxes with to make up for the revenue shortfalls with your dreamed-of exemptions for food, etc.: it’s deafening. ”
What revenue shortfall? You set the tax rate to produce the income you want. It’s like 23% through most of Europe I believe.
Services are exempt in most states Gary, and a VAT is as regressive as a sales tax because it is a sales tax, just built into the price of materials as long the way. I don’t like VAt because it’s incorporated into the price and can’t be seen, unlike a sales tax, which is a separate line item.
As for obesity, it isn’t the driver of our health care costs, as the increasing rates of obesity in Europe will attest. Even if it were, it would make sense to use the most efficient system available to combat it, which is single payer, with its much lower administrative fees.
Unless, of course, you want to deny health care to the obese, which our society won’t do. Might as well treat them for as little money as possible.
“Services are exempt in most states”
Looks like 37 states tax *sone* services:
https://www.avalara.com/us/en/learn/whitepapers/service-taxability-by-state.html
“Services are exempt in most states”
But I never said they should be.
“VAT is as regressive as a sales tax”
I don’t care about the nuances of a VAT tax. I’m proposing a national sales tax. And you have not provided any evidence that a sales tax that includes services would be regressive.
“As for obesity, it isn’t the driver of our health care costs”
Another one of your assertions without any evidence. https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/about-obesity/why-it-matters.html
Obesity costs $173 billion in health care (your cite) and US GDP is $27 trillion. Five percent of $27 trillion is about $1.3 trillion. Five percent is the share savings of GDP that single payer countries (France, Germany, supra) have over the US.
So you’re telling us to forego saving $1.3 trillion because we’ll still have to spend $200 billion more than the Europeans.
As for making tax policy decisions based on what “should” be in the eyes of one person or another, you will find that clicking your heels three times is not a sound basis for decision making.
And Europe is getting fatter. Iris DOT who DOT in. (WHO European obesity report, 2022).
$1.3 trillion Gary. You want to toss it away. Every. Year. Or should I say $1.1 trillion, just to be fair?
Next thing we know you’ll be spouting nonsense like “Bucktown goes South of Armitage!”
Iris dot who dot int
Autocorrect strikes again
Sorry, something came up last night and I couldn’t get to a new crib. Hopefully we’ll return to a normal schedule next week.
“So you’re telling us to forego saving $1.3 trillion because we’ll still have to spend $200 billion more than the Europeans.”
No, I’m telling you that your premise that this is a single variable equation is faulty. I just showed you one of possibly a dozen alternate variables that can contribute to a difference in healthcare costs other than government funded healthcare. I never claimed that a second variable would explain 100% of the difference either. However, I previously listed several other variables that might contribute. It’s absurd to assume that the difference can be 100% attributed to who pays the bill. Yet you continue to make this assertion with absolutely no evidence.
Gary, you’re whistling past the graveyard. The efficiency of single payer systems is well known. Europe has single payer, and universally has lower costs and similar health outcomes—even exceeding the US in life expectancy.
Yet notwithstanding, you persist in saying that medical conditions account for the 5 percent of GDP difference in spending in the US. Obesity in the US costs circa $175 billion. I don’t know what it costs in Europe, but we know it’s a rising problem. That 5 percent is $1.3 trillion. So I’ll spot you $200 billion a year for obesity.
You got $1.1 trillion to go, and that’s before we start netting out Europe’s spending on those conditions, because there are fat Europeans, etc.
Sing and dance all you want: Medicare spends 2 percent on administrative costs. Private insurance is about 18 percent. That’s why Canada and Europe and Japan have national health and don’t want to change, and certainly not to our system.
So now find 1.1 trillion in medical conditions in America that Europe doesn’t have.
“The efficiency of single payer systems is well known.”
No it’s not. Only if you accept the faulty premise that the only variable determining cost is who pays the bills.
“Yet notwithstanding, you persist in saying that medical conditions account for the 5 percent of GDP difference in spending in the US.”
Where did I say that? I did not. I said it’s a multi variable problem and one of perhaps a dozen potential variables is obesity. Other medical conditions could explain the difference, lifestyle choices, education of the population, gun violence, medical education, treatment protocols, food regulations, agricultural processes, prescription drug management, and who knows what else. The bottom line is that neither you nor I know what we don’t know. Hell, it could be the drinking water for all we know.
“Medicare spends 2 percent on administrative costs.”
And imposes additional costs on the providers – so much so that many don’t want anything to do with it.
“Private insurance is about 18 percent.”
The ACA mandated that it not exceed 15%.
So government intervention lowered overhead costs ?
Americans aren’t the healthiest people in the world, Gary, but we’re not 5 percent of GDP worse. It’s the efficiency of single payer systems. Not all the variables in your calculus carry equal weight.
The experience of the rest of the world speaks for itself.
Gary Johnc
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/state-taxes-millionaire-myth/678049/
some takeaways from the article
Unlike the federal system, which is fairly progressive, state and local tax systems on average shift money from poorer households to richer ones.
and
A better compromise would be to lower the official top tax rates but close up the loopholes so that everyone is paying what they’re supposed to.
My commentary
Gary is arbitraging by moving to a lower cost / tax state which I understand his motives.
Generally those lower cost states have worse services for the overall population (fire department, schooling, medical care etc.) but that might nit matter in Gary’s individual circumstance.
Fed Gov ends up picking up part of the cost in terms of Fed Tax dollar transfers from higher Tax states to Lower Tax states – I am making this comment as it relates to the similarity between Usa and Europe where Northern France Germany as higher tax countries end up sending tax dollars to lower tax countries in the South Italy Greece etc.
I’m hesitant to extrapolate European behavior to to the US. There have been numerous articles on wealthy people moving to lower cost areas. This has some pretty good data. https://eig.org/high-earners-migration/
As for myself…I’m not actually clear on whether NC will be lower taxes for me or not. My property taxes are definitely lower but I pay much more in sales tax and once I start taking RMDs I’ll be hit pretty hard here. For me it came down to weather, congestion, crime, road conditions, cleanliness, and people. If I had moved to one of the nearby towns I’d have some of the same problems that I had in Chicago. And, for reasons that I don’t understand, local politicians feel compelled to provide services like public transportation, sports venues, and affordable housing that I don’t use but have to pay for. So I’m happy that I live in in an un-incorporated area.
Why are you hesitant to extrapolate European behavior to America, Gary? Your next sentence involved taxes, not health care
“Americans aren’t the healthiest people in the world, Gary, but we’re not 5 percent of GDP worse.”
Well, at least I’ve now gotten you to admit that there are at least two variables in the equation: government insurance and the health of the population. But go back and read my many comments on this topic. There could be a dozen or more variables. You are way too quick to assume that getting the government to pay for this is magically going to lower costs. And you still are ignoring the fact that Medicare imposes additional administrative costs on the providers.
No, Gary, read my sources. The biggest difference in cost is not being single payer, not your alleged health differences. Any change in health outcomes is deck chairs on the titanic stuff compared to the administrative costs imposed by our system. You can’t stretch a few hundred billion in treatments into covering a 1.3 trillion difference in spending. Especially when switching would allow us to move to a preventative system as opposed to an intervention system.
Put some numbers on your medical conditions that America has that Europe doesn’t. You won’t come anywhere near 5 percent of GDP.
Single payer is more efficient. We need to switch to it.
Oh, and the additional costs that Medicare imposes; they’re exactly the same as “out of network” costs and “we don’t accept that plan” costs. If a doctor doesn’t take Medicare, he doesn’t take Medicare. That however means exactly the same as not taking any particular private insurance. Hardly a systematic flaw of single payer.
gary says
“There have been numerous articles on wealthy people moving to lower cost areas. This has some pretty good data. https://eig.org/high-earners-migration/”
Gary: thanks for the article. I did look at it. I’m not sure it’s directly applicable. Because the main thesis is people who moved during the pandemic. And it’s makes more sense that higher earners CAN move. They have the money for things like Day Care or Jobs where they CAN work remotely.
= =
Gary says: ” weather, congestion, crime, road conditions, cleanliness, and people.
For sure NC is going to be more mild in terms of seasons and less populated.
==
Unincorporated area?
Who does your Ambulance and Fire Service?
So why not an un in
“Who does your Ambulance and Fire Service?”
Ambulance, fire, sheriff, water is all county. No sewer as we have a septic system, though some nearby areas are on sewer.
I spent a few minutes trying to figure out what Chicago spends their money on. The budget is so totally opaque I have no idea other than what goes towards public safety, though I suspect a lot goes to social services. It’s as if they are trying to hide where the money goes.
“Oh, and the additional costs that Medicare imposes; they’re exactly the same as “out of network” costs and “we don’t accept that plan” costs. ”
Huh? What are you talking about? Exactly the same? What is your source for that insight?
And your math for the savings is waaaay off. Private insurance spends $1290 B on healthcare. BEST case scenario you can eliminate 13% of that with your magical administrative savings, ignoring the additional burden on the healthcare system. That comes out to $168 B savings.
And you continue to ignore all the other potential differences between Europe and the US that might affect costs – other than simply health conditions. I don’t know how many times I have to say this.
Well Gary, let’s see, what’s your source for the costs imposed by Medicare? Money is fungible. Costs imposed can be netted out. Doctors electing not to accept Medicare is different from doctors electing not to accept a private policy—how? Rate of reimbursement is rate of reimbursement, regardless of program/policy.
Cms dot gov. Private medical insurance is 30 percent of medical spending, personal funds 11 percent. Slightly larger than Medicare and Medicaid combined (41% vice 39%). The inefficiency is in private insurance. (18% (maybe 15) vice 2
Percent).
As for other reasons for why we spend more, you’re on record as saying that maybe it’s in “the water.” Be that as it may, I will give you another reason: Europe can practice preventative medicine because cost is not an obstacle. America practices intervention medicine because people avoid incurring costs until they can’t, which usually means “in a crisis.”
That’s why Europeans live longer (I’ve been to Europe many times, the water sucks). Per Ncbi dot nlm dot nih dot gov circa 2010. : “the majority of the $2 trillion that society spends annually on health care goes towards interventions of low economic value [costs more than $50k to $1 million per year of added life]”
So look at what I wrote consistently: efficiency and switching to a preventative model of health care — comes out to about 5% of GDP.
It’s not bad water, Gary, but the kool-aide you’re drinking has water in it.
“Well Gary, let’s see, what’s your source for the costs imposed by Medicare?”
Since when do we need sources for our assertions in this discussion? Actually, I linked to an article above about why some doctors refuse Medicare and admin burden was one of the reasons. It’s not quantified but the point is that there are numerous variables in the equation that we don’t know the values for. Nevertheless, you choose to assume that there is only one variable that matters – who pays the bill. Magical thinking.
“Money is fungible. Costs imposed can be netted out.”
I have no idea what that means. If Medicare has a 2% admin cost but raises the admin cost of providers by 5% then the savings are only 8%, not 13%.
“efficiency and switching to a preventative model of health care — comes out to about 5% of GDP.”
Another assertion without evidence. Keep in mind that only 8% of Americans are uninsured at this point so worst case 8% lack proper preventive care. Again, you are ignoring all the other variables that might be in play here.
Your whole position is like Obama claiming that the ACA was going to lower healthcare costs. It didn’t, despite adding maybe 20 MM people to insurance. Where were all the preventive care savings?
Actually Gary, there is evidence: the experience of Europe, Canada, and Japan, and their better health outcomes for far less money than we spend (about 5 percent of GDP for longer lives).
Then there’s the small matter that our insurance comes with deductibles running into the thousands, co-pays, and, until Obamacare, pre-existing conditions exclusions. So the preventative care switch over is muted. When our payment system changes, the delivery system and people’s cost-avoidance behavior will change.
You also have the fact that health care spending has actually slowed its increase with Obamacare taking effect (and with it and increase in Medicaid, Medicare’s red-headed brother).
Yes, overall costs didn’t go down but 20 million people were brought into the system. Think about that Gary, and use your head. People who were uninsurable due to preexisting conditions got cover. The expenses were still there, but now they weren’t ruined. People who couldn’t afford cover got cover, and with it health care.
But hey, money got spent, right, Gary?
Do two things, Gary, account for the fact that people were added to the rolls, and that the people who were added were sicker than average, and then tell us that on a per capita basis, we’re spending more and that the extra amount is not worth the social benefit.
So tell us how Europe gets better health care and still saves 5 percent of GDP, Gary, if not more, and don’t hide behind the water.
It’s like I’m arguing with a robot. No matter what I say you keep repeating the same thing without evidence. You continue to claim that the only explanation or lower healthcare costs in Europe is who pays the bills. For the umpteenth time there can be dozens of other explanatory variables.
And you keep making shit up. The ACA had NO impact on healthcare spending in the US and you have no evidence that the people who came on board were sicker than average: https://www.statista.com/statistics/184955/us-national-health-expenditures-per-capita-since-1960/
I have argued the collective experience of single payer countries vice the United States., together with a shift to preventative care vice intervention.
You have argued that it’s the water. There’s also the small matter of if Obamacare has no impact on health care spending (your comment), then how did we add 20 million people (again, your comment) to our health insurance/programs rolls? I’ve heard of helicopter money, but if it’s not Obamacare, then are you telling us that someone’s using black helicopters?
Experience counts Gary, in health care payment structures as much as it does in selecting a real estate agent.
“I have argued the collective experience of single payer countries vice the United States., together with a shift to preventative care vice intervention.”
You have argued that who pays the bill is the ONLY variable that explains differences in outcomes. This clearly has not been proven by anyone. Also, you have provided no evidence that there would be a significant improvement in preventive care while I have demonstrated that there were no cost savings under the ACA so why believe it would be any different this time.
“You have argued that it’s the water.”
Now you are lying too. That is clearly not what I said. I merely suggested that there could be a dozen or more explanations. I merely used water as an exaggerated example.
“There’s also the small matter of if Obamacare has no impact on health care spending (your comment), then how did we add 20 million people (again, your comment) to our health insurance/programs rolls?”
We added 20 MM people at the same cost per person that we already had despite the promises that Obama made. If providing preventive care for 20 MM people were going to lower costs then the cost per person should have dropped or slowed it’s growth. What don’t you understand about that?
And I don’t even understand your helicopter reference.
Nber dot org — health care spending growth slowed after Obamacare.
And Gary, your “additional factors” don’t add up. Look at the numbers for obesity you yourself cited. Net those against America’s experience. You won’t come anywhere near 5 percent of GDP.
You also ignore the fact that I cited two factors: the efficiency of single payer AND the shift to a preventative care system that single payer engenders because people no longer try to avoid the medical system due to private expense.
Capp dot org re sick people (pre-existing conditions) getting insurance and therefore better health outcomes. In short, ACA beneficiaries were sicker and poorer and avoided health care expenses. Now they are covered.
As for helicopter money, ask Ben Bernanky. Black helicopters – ask your local tin-foil-hat conservative. I lived in North Carolina, the place is lousy with ‘em.
Then tell us on what basis we ignore the collective experience of Europe, Canada, and Japan (I’m feeling generous — toss in Australia and New Zealand, too) regarding single payer systems and GDP spent on health care. All these countries have health issues but our extra spending on those same issues doesn’t account for the extra 5 percent of GDP we spend.
It’s single payer, Gary, even if Americans are sicker, it’s single payer for the cost savings. Experience tell us that. Around. The. World.
“Nber dot org — health care spending growth slowed after Obamacare.”
Did you even read the abstract? They don’t attribute it to the ACA and they are looking at healthcare as a percent of GDP. It makes more sense to look at spending per capita which I sent you. Did it look to you like it went down when the ACA was introduced?
“And Gary, your “additional factors” don’t add up. Look at the numbers for obesity you yourself cited. Net those against America’s experience. You won’t come anywhere near 5 percent of GDP.”
How can they add up when you and I don’t even know all the factors? Obesity is only one of a dozen possible factors.
“You also ignore the fact that I cited two factors: the efficiency of single payer AND the shift to a preventative care system that single payer engenders because people no longer try to avoid the medical system due to private expense.”
1) You ignore the fact that I proved that the efficiency gains would be a drop in the bucket of your assumed magical savings.
2) You also ignore the fact that I proved that a very small number of people are not covered by insurance and would benefit from better preventive care
3) You assert without evidence that insured people avoid preventive care
“Capp dot org re sick people (pre-existing conditions) getting insurance and therefore better health outcomes. In short, ACA beneficiaries were sicker and poorer and avoided health care expenses. Now they are covered.”
I can’t find that article
“Then tell us on what basis we ignore the collective experience of Europe, Canada, and Japan (I’m feeling generous — toss in Australia and New Zealand, too) regarding single payer systems and GDP spent on health care. All these countries have health issues but our extra spending on those same issues doesn’t account for the extra 5 percent of GDP we spend.
It’s single payer, Gary, even if Americans are sicker, it’s single payer for the cost savings. Experience tell us that. Around. The. World.”
You have not controlled for all the other variables that could be involved. Another way of saying it is that you have not conducted a multivariate analysis. That is stats 101.
I can do multi variable analysis Gary. I can also rely on a shortcut: that the rest of the world is not deliberately choosing and relying on an inefficient system (the US system of financing health care), and is achieving better health outcomes (longer life expectancy) for less money (lower GDP shares for medical costs). You are also positing that the health of Americans is incredibly poor compared to Europe and elsewhere: on the order of 5 percent of GDP worse.
COULD there be other factors that over-ride those facts on the ground that experience shows us? Yes. You and I could both be simultaneously killed by meteorites, too. All you’ve done is say that it could be other health factors, and linked to one stating that the US spent $173 billion on obesity, without even netting that against what Europe spends on obesity. The net figures are what count.
One doesn’t have to be a physics major to know that one’s car isn’t working well, or why. The experience of others, and the difference in how we are doing things, is actionable intel. Your smoke and mirrors can’t hide 5 percent of GDP.
“I can do multi variable analysis Gary. I can also rely on a shortcut: that the rest of the world is not deliberately choosing and relying on an inefficient system (the US system of financing health care), and is achieving better health outcomes (longer life expectancy) for less money (lower GDP shares for medical costs). You are also positing that the health of Americans is incredibly poor compared to Europe and elsewhere: on the order of 5 percent of GDP worse.”
Once again you are incorrectly assuming that all these benefits are due to a single variable despite the fact that I have PROVEN that the cost savings can’t be as big as you claim and I have PROVEN that only a very small fraction of the population MIGHT get better preventive care. I’m not sure why you keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again. You must be hoping nobody will notice.
“All you’ve done is say that it could be other health factors,”
I said way more than that. I put forth several other variables that had nothing to do with the underlying health of the population. I pointed out that there could be numerous variables we can’t imagine also.
If it’s enough to show a benefit from a large group of countries all acting the same way then we need to adopt a national sales tax because…you know…the experience of others is actionable intel.
Obviously you are the one with smoke and mirrors.
Bluster Gary. Your own British dinner companions remarked about good health care. The preventative care shift covers more than just new patients coming into coverage, and there’s the small matter of consistent outcomes across diverse populations across the planet — which encompasses any “factor” you may be trying to hang your hat on — shows a savings of 5 percent of GDP with longer lifespans (better health outcomes).
So explain the consistency in the outcomes, Gary, around the world; all kinds of populations, all kinds of health statuses. All the factors you want to hide behind here in the US of A are present in other countries, yet they manage to save GDP and add years to their lives.
The consistency across variable conditions is the actionable intel Gary. We have a right to rely on experience: Single payer is more efficient and cheaper, leading to greater uptake and therefore healthier people. The upshot — across the board — is 5 percent GDP savings.
This is a repost because previous attempts to post this were not registering. Maybe they will show up?
Bluster John. You insist on debating straw men. I’m sure you would rather debate the points you wish I was making instead of the ones I’m really making.
“and there’s the small matter of consistent outcomes across diverse populations across the planet — which encompasses any “factor” you may be trying to hang your hat on ”
Another one of your famous assertions that you don’t prove. You cannot rule out the possibility that there is something different about the US that accounts for the difference other than who pays the bills and health conditions.
You keep claiming there will be savings but you have no clue where they will come from. “The preventative care shift covers more than just new patients coming into coverage” Again you don’t prove that and it’s a fantastical claim.
You claimed the savings would come from admin savings but I totally destroyed that argument.
Yes Gary, I keep claiming that there will be savings, and I’ve based it on literally world-wide experience.
As for ruling out the possibility that there “is something different about the US that accounts for the difference,” that’s on you Gary. I’ve shown that the world’s experience is 5 percent GDP cost savings across vastly different societies. If there is some factor unique in the world health-wise pertaining to the US, you need to point it out. You have not done so.
Actually Gary, I posited two factors for savings — admin savings and a shift from an intervention bias (people avoiding costs until they can’t) to a prevention bias (annual check up doesn’t cost anything, so go have one). You “destroyed” nothing.
So ask your Brit friends. Call the Japanese embassy. Tour Canada. Visit Italy. Find out what is preventing them from shifting to a US health care payment system.
“If there is some factor unique in the world health-wise pertaining to the US, you need to point it out. You have not done so.”
I listed several possibilities above. I will repeat them along with other possibilities:
Medical education
Medical staffing
Population education
Lifestyle choices
Treatment protocols
Regulations
Legal environment
Food supply
Water
Pharmaceutical supply
Pollution
Gun violence
Automobile use
Genetics
The list is literally endless. I can’t tell you how much any one factor contributes to outcomes or costs but it is absurdly naive to think that the only thing that matters is who pays the bill.
“I posited two factors for savings — admin savings and a shift from an intervention bias (people avoiding costs until they can’t) to a prevention bias (annual check up doesn’t cost anything, so go have one).”
I did the math that you wouldn’t do and clearly demonstrated that 1) the admin savings on the percentage of our healthcare costs that is privately insured does not get you anywhere close to 5% GDP savings 2) the percentage of people that are going to magically get better preventive care is also a small percentage.
Your numbers just don’t add up yet you continue to wave your hands and believe in the healthcare fairy.
I believe in following world-wide experience , Gary, and given America’s history of immigration from around the world, I think your listing of genetics is misplaced, to put things kindly.
Time for you to talk with your British friends, call the Japanese embassy, take those well-deserved junkets/vacations, and find out for yourself why they all won’t shift to an American payment system, and yet they still manage to get 5 percent GDP savings from their single payer, prevention based systems.
The consistency of the experience is actionable intel, Gary. Nothing limits us to having mathematical proof before acting. After all, did you have mathematical proof that your house would go up in value before you bought? Of course you didn’t. You looked at the experience of your neighbors and made your assumptions and estimates.
Five percent of GDP, Gary, every year. Longer life expectancies to boot. I bet the Japanese embassy would be baffled by why you would need to make the call.
You’re basically ignoring every point I made, including the math, and saying you believe in miracles. You believe, without any proof whatsoever, that all other factors don’t matter.
And I’m not aware of any European country that has the genetic diversity that the US does but it doesn’t matter anyway because there are countless potential variables in the equation.
Come now, Gary, you haven’t given us any net numbers for the “factors” you suggest, and you certainly haven’t given us anything regarding the savings from prevention bias as opposed to intervention.
The only magical thinking is on your part: that the CONSISTENT 5 percent of GDP savings — world wide — of a single payer system, which enables a shift to widespread prevention based health care delivery, will somehow disappear if you ignore it long enough.
Where is your proof that 100% of the difference between the US and the rest of the world is attributable to who pays the bill? Just show me the proof.
Where is the requirement that 100 percent of the difference has to come down to certain specific factors, Gary? Particularly when I have mentioned two factors, not one. What happened to the second factor, Gary? Preventative care bias?
You didn’t need mathematical “proof” that your investment in your house would be an investment winner. You went with local experience. Why can’t we go with universal experience with the same validity? Especially when that experience is literally worldwide? Consistently 5 percent or more, of GDP?
We need actionable intel, Gary, not mathematical proof. You ask about who pays the bill. You are deafening silent as to hesitance to incur personal costs.
I have shown that across the board — your insinuation of inferior genetics or not — is that single payer systems save 5 percent of GDP.!some of that is due to efficiency. Some of that is to deal with preventative care shift bias.
I defy you to show where I said that 100 percent of the difference between the US snd the rest of the world was single payer systems. I include the preventative care bias.
Your “show me the proof “ posits an individual standard Not supported by what a reasonable man would require.
Your ox is gored. The question is whether that goring offsets the gains in other areas.
And by the way, Gary, where did the 100 percent standard come from? Of ye of the multivariate?
Do I really have to explain to you what you have said already? Per one of your early assertions “Which is particularly true given that millions more people will then have coverage, allowing the system to move its focus to prevention instead of intervention.”
i.e. the shift to prevention is a secondary benefit of government paid insurance. Since the government is paying for it people will now get preventive care.
So there is basically one change you are hanging your hat on – government paid healthcare. And all benefits flow from that. And you are claiming that this ONE change will accrue a 5% of GDP cost savings. Therefore, you are claiming that 100% of these savings are coming from who pays the bills. So prove to us that nothing else matters.
The proof is in the universal experience of other countries around the world. The only constant is single payer.
You’re not following. You need to prove that “The only constant is single payer.”
But I am, Gary, I am. My proof is the sheer consistency of the results across world-wide conditions.
Your objections, that the difference “could be” water and genetics, with some gun violence thrown in, doesn’t alter the constant results across a lot wide variety of factors.
Japan’s medical costs are 11.5 percent of GDP, Gary. Germany’s is 12.something percent of GDP. The US? Over 17 percent.
Go figure.
Sing and dance all you want, but the consistent savings across the world is actionable intel. There’s your proof, and no greater standard is required. I certainly don’t have to disprove “genetics “ because you say so.
That’s the same logic the RepubliQans use in blaming Biden for inflation, the price of gasoline, the Hamas attacks, the war in Ukraine, etc… Must be Biden’s fault because that’s the one constant. Can’t be any other explanation, right?
Unfortunately the five percent GDP savings predates several administrations snd has been remarkable constant.
Then there’s the small matter of the savings being constant under administrations ranging from Tory (UK) to Socialist (Mitterand’s France).
You should also reflect on the fact that no one wants to ditch single – payer and move to a US style payment system.
Time for you to call the Japanese embassy, Gary, and ask them “why not?”
You’re totally missing the point as usual. It’s not enough to identify a single variable and assert that that must be the cause of some effect. You have failed to prove causation – only correlation. If you don’t get that you need to take a statistics course. Otherwise ice cream consumption causes murders in Chicago.
And you failed to prove that either genetics, water, or gun violence was responsible, Gary,
What you have done, however, is try to ignore the consistent 5 percent GDP savings of single payer systems. The consistency is the proof, and you have shown no reason why it should not be, particularly considering the duration of the savings and the spectrum of societies involved.
Actionable intel, Gary. Facts are hard things. Stop ignoring th we m.
I’m not ignoring anything. I’m just not willing to jump to a conclusion that one variable explains all the difference in healthcare costs. You don’t have any proof of this and just because I can’t quantify other effects doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
It doesn’t mean that they do exist, either, Gary, and you’ve run right away from the long term consist of the savings across a world-wide spectrum of people and societies.
The question you got answer is: Why SHOULD we ignore the longevity, consistency, and breadth of the results of the single payer system experience?
Just to help you out; we can ignore your proffered factor of automobile usage. Japan has a totally different culture and genetics, and Honda and Toyota haven’t made rickshaws in decades.
I know a young couple looking for a 3/2 condo in Ravenswood for around $500,000 to $550,000. They’ve been striking out big time. They’re going to buy with a mortgage but are getting outbid by cash buyers.
I think you might be right. All those countries have a single payer and they have lower costs. So if we gave UHC a monopoly our costs would go down. Brilliant!
UHC is a private, for profit, company. You’re increasing admin costs. You’re also not getting away from the risk avoidance model (claim denial).
Try again, Gary.
But you keep saying single payer and UHC is a single payer. Sounds like you just added in more variables. How do you know there aren’t other variables as well?
I also talked about admin efficiency, Gary, and because private corporations add profit to their costs, their costs are higher. You left that part out.
Try again.
Nevertheless, there is an added variable. It must be the government paying.
Now answer the question. How do you know there aren’t other variables as well?
The sheer consistency of the savings across the breadth of economies, cultures, and societies, Gary. Any other potential factors offset each other. Therefore, rely on the historical record of performance: Single-payer systems are cheaper and more efficient, on the order of 5 percent of GDP.
Now it’s up to you to explain that consistency across countries and societies globally, if not what they have in common: Single payer healthcare systems, which by their nature shift to a prevention bias for care, saving money. No profits to gum things up. No special genetics, and no water.
You have not proven that these countries are the same as the US in terms of every other variable.
I don’t need to. The breadth of diversity in their cultures and experiences and environments shows that the consistency in result is not tied to any particular variable. You assume a fact not in evidence; that mathematical certainty is required. All we need is actionable intel, which we have.
So stop running away from the consistency of the results across literally world-wide experience, Gary, and tell us why we should not expect the same result in the USA.
Yes you do. All you’ve been doing is asserting that the diversity present in your sample spans what is present in the US. You are assuming that which is not in evidence.
I am assuming one can rely on wide-ranging experience, as you would no doubt tout to a prospective r.e. client.
Given the range of variables, consistency of outcome, and the decades of experience, Gary, together with the fact that mathematical precision is not required for real life decisions, we have enough.
Bad assumption. That would only be true if the wide range of circumstances encompassed the circumstances in the US. They do not.
“I don’t need to. The breadth of diversity in their cultures and experiences and environments shows that the consistency in result is not tied to any particular variable. You assume a fact not in evidence; that mathematical certainty is required. All we need is actionable intel, which we have.”
Have the results been normalized? For example infant mortality is measured differently in the US Vs Europe (Europe still does better, tho)
Seems insane that you want to reduce costs by ceding control to the group most responsible for the costs.
Stop grabbing at straws Gary. It’s not a math problem or scientific experiment. It’s economics and social and medical. Given the literally world-wide experience, we know that we can save 5 percent of GDP.
Sing and dance all you want but history shows single payer systems save 5 percent of GDP over what the US system costs an economy. That’s why your British dinner friends won’t give up their national health system.
Once you start promising 5% of GDP savings it does become a math problem.
Sing and dance all you want to…history only shows that a group of countries that are different from the US in many ways have lower costs.
Once experience shows us consistent, world-wide savings of 5 percent of GDP the math is proved. Medical payments systems are political and social problems that have economic consequences.
The math is simple: government single payer systems cost less than 13 percent of GDP, and people live longer. We pay almost 18 percent. That’s the math, and the problem is on those who would defend America’s system for medical payments to defend it.
You have never denied the disparity, Gary, nor the scope of the experience, nor the length of time that disparity has existed. The rest is detail, or in your case, let me give you the equation: genetics + water + automobiles = smoke + mirrors.
Here’s a lemma: Brits want to keep national health care.
You keep repeating the same flawed logic over and over again. The only thing experience shows us is that a group of countries that are different from the US in many ways have lower costs.
Human bodies aren’t that different Gary, nor is human psychology and behavior (cost avoidance). I notice you’re being vague as to what those asserted “differences” are. The facts speak for themselves, and the facts state a consistent savings of 5 GDP.
That’s not water, Gary, and repeated yammering to the contrary doesn’t change that.
Just ask your British friends.
There’s also the small fact that if Americans don’t like single payer, they can always come back to our present system. So I guess that means you have to tell us why no other country has gone back to our financing system.
“Human bodies aren’t that different Gary, nor is human psychology and behavior (cost avoidance). I notice you’re being vague as to what those asserted “differences” are. The facts speak for themselves, and the facts state a consistent savings of 5 GDP.”
Yes, they are. And I’ve given you my list of possible differences between the US and other countries many times. I don’t think you’re paying attention.
“There’s also the small fact that if Americans don’t like single payer, they can always come back to our present system.”
No. This is a one way ticket. Once the insurance industry is destroyed it can’t be rebuilt. And once people are given something for free they won’t want to pay for it ever again. And once the taxes are imposed…well, those will never go away.