Hacker News Reader

Comment by dstroot | Hacker News Reader

I’ve retired twice so far. Each time I loved it for a while and then eventually I miss the social contacts from a work environment and the stimulation. I LOVE making things happen. So I end up going back to work for a while. Also paying for healthcare on your own is challenging. It would be ideal for older folks to gracefully exit full time work by transitioning to part time but also have a means to keep health care.

View on HN

This is one of the reasons I want universal health care in my country. I should be able to get the health care I need from my government for a reasonable cost regardless of my employment situation. I don’t want to have to sacrifice my retirement plans because of my inability to pay for health care.

Would you be willing to pay 10% more of your taxes your whole career for this? I'm sure everything wants what you want, but I think the question is at what cost.

I think the amount of tax one contributes would be dependent on how much income one makes. I might contribute 4% where another might contribute 10%.

Besides, I already pay for health insurance and deductibles. So if I don’t have to pay for those but instead have a tax, and I’m covered when I don’t have an employer? Yes, sign me up.

You also need to factor in savings. How much people would save if healthcare was free. I know for me, if healthcare was free, and my taxes went up, even 10%, over my lifetime, I would save more with free healthcare than I would lose to higher taxes - especially as my family ages.

I someone who has lived in countries with universal healthcare my whole life, paid for either through a tax or a levy: it's absolutely worth it. I live in Japan currently and the combined cost of healthcare and pension is 15% (half paid by the employer and half paid by the worker). Everything is covered, though you paid 30% of health care up to a maximum (the maximum depends on your income and is design not to make you destitute). I've had a myriad of health problems in the last 2 years or so as well as having minor surgery earlier. The cost of all services as well as drugs is set by the government. The surgery cost me $500 (including an overnight in the hospital!). Apart from that I've averaged about $30 per month in costs (which includes about 20 visits to the doctor's office/specialist per year and drugs).

But, yeah. It's definitely worth it.

Edit: clarification on the number of times I visit the doctor

I'm sure this was asked in good faith. Increasingly, it seems like this question is not, however. It feels like this dead horse has been beaten into a pulp. Looking only at the government side of the ledger, and ignoring the private-sector savings at this point in time, when there's so much talk about public healthcare, seems willfully obtuse.

The U.S. already spends more on healthcare (by pretty much every measure) than every other developed nation on the planet. Much of this goes to profits of insurance companies, the overhead of having so many parties involved, advertising budgets, etc. Raising taxes to pay for healthcare should result in a net savings for virtually everyone, as these profit-seeking activities are eliminated. The only real debate taking place among economists w/r/t cost is how much of a savings we'll get by moving to a single payer plan.

Aren't you already paying several hundred dollars every month for health insurance?

Since paying for health care is mandatory, isn't it already a de facto tax?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com