How Much Would It Cost You in Taxes If We Had Universal Healthcare in America?
Universal healthcare (UHC) guarantees every citizen of a given country access to healthcare without regard to their ability to pay. According to Visual Capitalist, 72 countries, representing 69% of the global population, use some version of this system, including Canada, Australia, Japan, Brazil, China, India and most of Western Europe.
The United States joins some of South and Central America, most of Eastern Europe and nearly all of Africa in the 31% that does not.
According to Healthcare Now, the formal movement to establish UHC began in the 1930s when healthcare was omitted from the Social Security Act. However, it has never proven politically feasible — and the potential tax implications often take center stage in the heated national debate on the subject.
Find Out:
Read Next:
The most recent legislation to implement UHC was a bill called the Medicare for All Act of 2022, introduced by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) in the 118th Congress.
If passed, the bill would require the program to:
Cover every U.S. resident.
Automatically enroll residents at birth or upon residency in the U.S.
Cover all medically necessary services and items needed for diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation. That includes prescription drugs, hospital services, substance abuse and mental health treatment, vision, dental, long-term care and reproductive and gender affirming care.
Discover More:
For decades, the UHC debate has included impassioned discussions on familiar hot-button issues like equity, access and control over personal healthcare. However, feasibility always comes down to cost — and a government-administered plan would require trillions of taxpayer dollars.
Sen. Sanders' bill contained several funding provisions that were more specific and comprehensive than many that came before, including:
Employers would pay a 7.5% income-based premium with an exemption for small businesses on the first $2 million in payroll. Sanders stated that this alone could save a family of four earning $50,000 a year more than $9,000 annually compared to employer-based insurance.
Households would pay a 4% premium based on income, which Sanders claimed would save the typical household $4,400.
The elimination of several tax exemptions that the bill would render obsolete, most notably, the exemptions for employer-paid premiums from income and payroll taxes. Sanders said this will generate $4.2 trillion in revenue over 10 years.
Sanders also suggested taxing capital gains as ordinary income, closing several loopholes that favor high earners and increasing some taxes on the wealthiest households, which he said would raise a combined $4.49 trillion in revenue over 10 years to fund the plan.
Unsurprisingly, Sanders' political opposition in the Republican Policy Committee did not agree with the liberal senator's arithmetic. It countered with a claim that UHC would increase your taxes by 20%.
With so many complexities and variables, rival politicians can and do manipulate the data to favor their position. However, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which platforms like Media Bias Fact Check and InfluenceWatch describe as genuinely nonpartisan, highly credible and factual in its analyses and reporting, identified seven ways that Congress could fund UHC if the Medicare for All bill were to become law:
25% income surtax
32% payroll tax
42% value-added tax
Doubling all current income tax rates
Mandatory $7,500 per capita public premium
Reducing non-healthcare spending by 80%
Increasing the debt to 105% of the national GDP
Note: Some of the stated figures are from when Congress and its many affiliated special interest groups were actively debating the Medicare for All proposal and generating data that supported their positions. However, all are either percentages that remain unchanged today or are part of 10-year projections that accounted for inflation and population increases.
More From GOBankingRates
Warren Buffett: 10 Things Poor People Waste Money On
This article originally appeared on GOBankingRates.com: How Much Would It Cost You in Taxes If We Had Universal Healthcare in America?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
17 hours ago
- New York Post
Nearly 20K cancer patients at NYC's Memorial Sloan Kettering at risk of losing critical care over insurance spat
Nearly 20,000 patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering could lose access to critical care because of a contract battle between the renowned cancer hospital and health insurance behemoth UnitedHealthcare. The two sides have until the end of June to hash out a new deal over reimbursement rates — but are trading blame while patients, many in need of lifesaving care, anxiously wait to see if they will keep in-network treatment. Patient Lee Kassler, of Plainview, Long Island, said he was in 'disbelief' and 'shocked' when he found out that he could lose care on July 1 if the Manhattan hospital and health insurance company don't reach an agreement by June 30. 'Full of anxiety, full of stress, saddened, angry, worried, just a whole host of emotions that I was faced with when I was diagnosed with cancer,' Kassler, who has had a rare, incurable gastric cancer since 2022, told The Post Friday. The new grandfather, 61, said he goes to MSK with '110 percent' confidence, and couldn't imagine using another medical center for his 'life and death situation.' MSK officials have been pushing for a higher reimbursement rate for services, claiming the current yearly increase of 1.6% over the last five years isn't on par with rising costs the hospital is facing. 'MSK has worked hard to reach a long-term agreement with UHC — one that reflects the real cost and value of our specialized cancer care,' the hospital said in a statement. 'UHC refused to agree to that.' But UHC argued that the top-rated cancer treatment center is pushing a 35% spike in reimbursement rates over the next three years — which could cost the health insurance provider nearly $470 million. Memorial Sloan Kettering says UnitedHealthcare needs to increase the reimbursement. Christopher Sadowski 'Our top priority is to reach an agreement with MSK that is affordable for consumers and employers,' the company, which also covers Oxford plans, said in a statement to The Post. 'We have proposed meaningful rate increases that would continue to reimburse MSK at levels significantly higher than other National Cancer Institute-designated health systems in the New York City metro area.' The company, whose CEO Brian Thompson was fatally shot by alleged gunman Luigi Mangione last year, has also publicly worked to make its case to consumers. MSK chief medical officer Cardinale Smith, meanwhile, argued in an interview the proposal from the health insurer is not financially sustainable. UnitedHealthcare claims MSK's demands are too high. Getty Images 'Bottom line is that there are thousands of patients who need our care and UHC is just not putting them first,' Smith said. About 19,225 patients, including Kassler, could have treatment disrupted, hospital reps said. Sloan Kettering has gotten into past contract fights with Anthem and Cigna before deals were reached. Even if a new agreement with UHC isn't inked by June 30, a New York state law requires a cooling-off period in which at least some patients will get in-network care at the hospital through the end of August. The grace period applies to patients with fully insured UnitedHealthcare or Oxford plans for hospital care, both MSK and the health insurer said. Patients can also apply for continuity of care that would possibly give them a temporary extension of in-network treatment. With his birthday coming up in a few days, Kassler said all he wants is to receive news of a deal. 'The best birthday present was my grandson but the second best would be let's put this behind us,' Kassler said. 'Let me just be under the treatment of Sloan for a long time.'
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
How Much Would It Cost You in Taxes If We Had Universal Healthcare in America?
Universal healthcare (UHC) guarantees every citizen of a given country access to healthcare without regard to their ability to pay. According to Visual Capitalist, 72 countries, representing 69% of the global population, use some version of this system, including Canada, Australia, Japan, Brazil, China, India and most of Western Europe. The United States joins some of South and Central America, most of Eastern Europe and nearly all of Africa in the 31% that does not. According to Healthcare Now, the formal movement to establish UHC began in the 1930s when healthcare was omitted from the Social Security Act. However, it has never proven politically feasible — and the potential tax implications often take center stage in the heated national debate on the subject. Find Out: Read Next: The most recent legislation to implement UHC was a bill called the Medicare for All Act of 2022, introduced by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) in the 118th Congress. If passed, the bill would require the program to: Cover every U.S. resident. Automatically enroll residents at birth or upon residency in the U.S. Cover all medically necessary services and items needed for diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation. That includes prescription drugs, hospital services, substance abuse and mental health treatment, vision, dental, long-term care and reproductive and gender affirming care. Discover More: For decades, the UHC debate has included impassioned discussions on familiar hot-button issues like equity, access and control over personal healthcare. However, feasibility always comes down to cost — and a government-administered plan would require trillions of taxpayer dollars. Sen. Sanders' bill contained several funding provisions that were more specific and comprehensive than many that came before, including: Employers would pay a 7.5% income-based premium with an exemption for small businesses on the first $2 million in payroll. Sanders stated that this alone could save a family of four earning $50,000 a year more than $9,000 annually compared to employer-based insurance. Households would pay a 4% premium based on income, which Sanders claimed would save the typical household $4,400. The elimination of several tax exemptions that the bill would render obsolete, most notably, the exemptions for employer-paid premiums from income and payroll taxes. Sanders said this will generate $4.2 trillion in revenue over 10 years. Sanders also suggested taxing capital gains as ordinary income, closing several loopholes that favor high earners and increasing some taxes on the wealthiest households, which he said would raise a combined $4.49 trillion in revenue over 10 years to fund the plan. Unsurprisingly, Sanders' political opposition in the Republican Policy Committee did not agree with the liberal senator's arithmetic. It countered with a claim that UHC would increase your taxes by 20%. With so many complexities and variables, rival politicians can and do manipulate the data to favor their position. However, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which platforms like Media Bias Fact Check and InfluenceWatch describe as genuinely nonpartisan, highly credible and factual in its analyses and reporting, identified seven ways that Congress could fund UHC if the Medicare for All bill were to become law: 25% income surtax 32% payroll tax 42% value-added tax Doubling all current income tax rates Mandatory $7,500 per capita public premium Reducing non-healthcare spending by 80% Increasing the debt to 105% of the national GDP Note: Some of the stated figures are from when Congress and its many affiliated special interest groups were actively debating the Medicare for All proposal and generating data that supported their positions. However, all are either percentages that remain unchanged today or are part of 10-year projections that accounted for inflation and population increases. More From GOBankingRates Warren Buffett: 10 Things Poor People Waste Money On This article originally appeared on How Much Would It Cost You in Taxes If We Had Universal Healthcare in America?
The Hill
4 days ago
- The Hill
Sanders asks Cassidy to launch investigation into RFK Jr.'s purge of vaccine panel
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is calling for the Senate Health Committee to launch a bipartisan investigation into Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr's recent firing of every member of a key vaccine advisory committee. In a letter sent to committee chairman Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Sanders said purging members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization practices (ACIP) was 'a dangerous and unprecedented decision that will have a profoundly negative impact on the lives of the American people.' 'I am requesting that we immediately initiate a bi-partisan investigation into these firings and conduct serious oversight into the actions Secretary Kennedy has taken to mislead the American people about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and erode public health,' Sanders said in the letter. A spokesperson for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter. Kennedy, who has a long history as an anti-vaccine activist, fired the entire 17-member panel last week, arguing a 'clean sweep' was needed to purge conflicts of interest and help restore trust in vaccinations and public health. He replaced them with eight of his own handpicked members, including several vocal vaccine critics. The move was an unprecedented escalation in Kennedy's quest to reshape the nation's vaccine policy. Sanders noted it 'directly contradicts' one of the key promises Cassidy said he extracted from the HHS chief to secure his confirmation vote. Before being elected to Congress, Cassidy was a physician who gained prominence by vaccinating low-income children. He publicly wavered over Kennedy's confirmation, sharply criticizing his views on vaccines before eventually voting for him. Following the ACIP firings, the Louisiana Republican wouldn't say if HHS violated their agreement and instead pointed to a social media post. 'Now the fear is that the ACIP will be filled up with people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion,' the senator wrote. In his letter, Sanders said Cassidy's 'fear was wellfounded.'
