Projected 10-Year Impact of HR 676 -- (John Conyers' Single Payer Healthcare Bill)

Increased Tax Revenue from Progressive Taxation: $17.568 Trillion

Deficit Reduction from Tax Increase Excess $02.889 Trillion

Additional Federal health Care Spending $14.679 Trillion

Total Savings from Health Care Efficiencies $09.634 Trillion

Reduced Private Spending $19.759 Trillion

Additional Spending -- Cost of Covering Everyone, $04.553 Trillion

and eliminating all co-payments and deductibles!)

Net REDUCED National Health Care Spending $5.081 TRILLION!!!

Really liked Bruh1's comment on the increased tax costs in Gerald Friedman's chart. Although there will be increased taxes, much of that increase is simply a redirection of current corporate healthcare payments, [and employee healthcare payments]. Under the new plan corporations and individual will be taxed for healthcare, rather than paying it directly to health care insurance companies, and the government will use those dollars to fund the single payer healthcare system that effectively allows the government to offer better healthcare benefits to company employees at a lower rate:

Bruh1's Comments:

"These three are paying that money anyway. The tax is swapping one for the other. It is not on top of what they are paying. The number that's relevant from a financial stand point is what one saves. You don't buy a car by saying 'well it would cost me 10000 here, but the same car would cost me 7000 there, so the price tag on the 7000 car is too expensive.' You say 'it saves me 3000 to buy from the other guy.' It's completely irrational to ignore basic finance here. From a financial standpoint, the businesses, employees and individuals are gaining $5 trillion for savings, consumption, wages, profits and building businesses. The guy who is being paid 50,000 is now may be able to ask for a raise of 53000 because there's that extra money sitting there not going into his health insurance. The employer may not give him the full savings, but the employer now loses the argument that wages are depressed due to health care. They can now afford to give more to the employee. And, if you are afraid they won't, you place the tax burden on the employer because its still less than the employer would have paid for health insurance on the open market. That's how you talk about it to the American public. You point out what they gain from it. Not act as if they are complete idiots who can't get the idea of what a bargain is. Unlike other programs, where the cost is just a new tax, the argument here is fairly easy to make if one is not a far right wing ideologue pretending to be concerned or a partisan trying to support this or that candidate."

by bruh1 on Wed Sep 16, 2015 at 02:07:16 PM PDT

______________________

While, it's not quite that simple, another easy way way of looking at these numbers is provided by ypochris

"The only lines that are pertinent, the two lines used to come up with the figure of a $5.08 trillion savings, are

Additional Federal health Care Spending $14.679 Trillion

Reduced Private Spending $19.759 Trillion

__

Total savings $ 5.08 Trillion

by ypochris on Wed Sep 16, 2015 at 12:26:47 PM PDT