In honor of tax day (or despite it), April’s reader survey asked how you wanted their tax dollars to be spent on American healthcare. The results will be published in one of my upcoming Forbes columns.
How much MORE would you be willing to pay in taxes to ensure that EVERY American has comprehensive healthcare coverage?
- 1-2% of my taxable income. (35%, 33 Votes)
- 5% or more of my taxable income. (27%, 26 Votes)
- 0%. I would not pay any more in taxes. (25%, 24 Votes)
- 3-4% of my taxable income. (13%, 12 Votes)
Total Voters: 95
Loading ...What SHOULD BE the role(s) of government relative to healthcare coverage? (Select all that apply)
- Provide Medicaid for the poor and people with disabilities. (21%, 45 Votes)
- Provide Medicare for all people ages 65+. (20%, 44 Votes)
- Provide single-payer coverage to all Americans through a federal income tax on employers and individuals. (18%, 38 Votes)
- Require all Americans to have comprehensive coverage for all services, including routine visits and preventive care (i.e., the “individual mandate”). (17%, 36 Votes)
- Offer financial assistance for those too poor to purchase coverage for themselves but don’t mandate coverage for anyone. (13%, 28 Votes)
- Require catastrophic coverage for all Americans for emergencies, but not routine care. (8%, 18 Votes)
- Other? Share your thoughts in the comments section below... (3%, 7 Votes)
Total Voters: 88
Loading ...
Before you go, check out the results from our March reader poll, which sought your thoughts on AI and the future of healthcare:
Dr. Robert Pearl is the former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group, the nation’s largest physician group. He’s the bestselling author of “Mistreated: Why We Think We’re Getting Good Health Care–And Why We’re Usually Wrong” and a Stanford University professor. Follow him on Twitter @RobertPearlMD.
Wrong questions.
Paying more in taxes without changing the reimbursement system makes ZERO sense. The costs will just continue to rise.
An ENFORCED individual mandate makes sense but the recent versions don’t as they allow too many free riders. The idea with insurance is that there are NO free riders. We’re all in this together…
It’s politically incorrect, but we should charge more money for people who make bad health care decisions. If I have 5 auto accidents in the last year, my auto insurance goes up. I expect it and it seems very fair. Why should the good driver have to pay more insurance money to subsidize someone who is careless and frequently hits other cars? Why is it different in health care? What’s wrong with charging more money for someone who smokes? I’m 67, I’ll walk 8 miles today and stay up with all of my preventative care recommendations. Why should I have to pay more for health insurance for the fat lazy smoker who eats whatever they want, drinks a sixpack every night and only goes to the doctor when they want something they can’t get on their own (Norco). What’s WRONG with charging more money for health care for people who make bad decisions? What’s WRONG with charging more money for a smoker or an obese person? It’s going to cost more money to take care of them. Why should I have to pay for their bad choices?
Health insurance should be available to all and covered by taxation as a public health need in a civilized society but there should always be competition for its delivery.
To control costs, basic and necessary medical coverage should be paid for on a capitation basis to health care providers. All other health care wants and needs should be provided separate from governmental support and cost but be subject to regulated to insure quality and safety.
Look to the Swiss for how to cover everyone via the individual mandate at a lower cost
Given current health care expenditures somewhere in the neighborhood of 18% of GDP combined with outcomes that rank relatively poorly compared to other countries, it is impossible to agree with spending more. The money isn’t the issue but rather the entire system which is severely flawed. Thanks for your continued leadership in the complicated arena!
Good points on this thread… my current thinking is that we need universal coverage (NOT single payer) for all working adults and a safety net (like Medicare and Medicaid) for the rest. Single payer still scares me due to the specter of major inefficiency; in the setting of medicine being a hard thing to do, what would happen if we remove a major incentive to provide efficient and compassionate care? I’m also not completely satisfied with the answer that Single Payer works in other places since the US is its own market culture, but it is truly horrific that we have a large portion of our population without coverage while another part – called fee for service medicine – jacks up the costs with needless care. Gotta do something!!!