I agree, but I think there is too much at stake for too many high net-worth individuals and corporations for the US to make a change to the single-payer system.
A 10% rise in taxes? That's a heck of a lot of money. The majority of the rich won't buy into it, they'll fight it tooth and nail.
In my opinion, I think it depends on how well appeals for/against a single-payer system resonate with the middle class. Do they generally feel that they will be subsidized, or be subsidizing?
Heck, even some poor people (who would be net winners) won't even support it on principle.
Right now, if high net worth individuals pay insurance at all (it's usually an employer provided benefit), it's pre-tax and even the best cadillac plans for the entire family are ~2k/mo. A 10 percent increase in income tax would rankle anybody making over ~150k/yr, and that's assuming the best whole family plans. Someone like myself who pays under 400/mo for really good insurance would get dinged on a 10 percent tax increase at only $50k/yr.
Single payer would have to come in at about a 5-7 percent tax increase for it to be even remotely palatable to me, and that's as someone who's all for it and think it's morally bankrupt that we don't have it.
The average person in the US is already paying ~200% as much as a citizen of your typical single-payer country for coverage. Not only are we paying twice as much for coverage, we don't even have universal coverage after paying twice as much.
The health care tax could be regressive, say 5-10% of your income below first $100-150k, and then 0% of the remainder. This way, even the richest would not be affected that much by that additional tax.
Actually, even without additional tax, if US government dropped Medicare, Medicaid and other state sponsored insurance systems in favor of universal coverage, it would have enough money to have world-class healthcare system without any additional taxes -- the US government _already_ spends as much on health care per capita as Germany, or France, and 30% more than UK.
The US government already pays more per capita for health care than Canada, despite not covering anywhere close to everybody. If one could wave a magic wand and transmute the US to the Canadian system, US government health care expenditures would actually fall, and taxed could be lowered.
I don't disagree with that either, I'm just pointing out that universal coverage, done well and efficiently (a massive qualifier, I know) wouldn't require any tax increases at all.
By definition there are that many rich people. If poor people were willing to pay 10% in taxes they would get back far, far more than they put in. But they aren't so they won't.
A 10% rise in taxes? That's a heck of a lot of money. The majority of the rich won't buy into it, they'll fight it tooth and nail.
In my opinion, I think it depends on how well appeals for/against a single-payer system resonate with the middle class. Do they generally feel that they will be subsidized, or be subsidizing?
Heck, even some poor people (who would be net winners) won't even support it on principle.