per capita income.

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Beaconator, Mar 11, 2019.

  1. Beaconator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    553
    What would be wrong with resetting the worlds per capita income to 100,000 dollars. And 100,000 to be used only for healthcare. Allowing corporations to keep their earnings and offering the poor and unfortunate a way out. I can immediately see the lottery statistics where people end up in the same boat. But healthcare would be paid so small care centers could thrive with their local operations and take the overwealming numbers off larger hospitals.

    I think its time we started talking about global economics as it is the major factor of peace.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,116
    So no one would be able to afford housing, food or transportation? Nothing but healthcare? I can see healthcare providers liking that - but no one else.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Beaconator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    553
    How would you not be able to afford things with more money. You wouldn't even have to print any of it just attach it to a bank account or social security number.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,683
    Well let see. Your income is 100,000. You have pay 100,000 for health care. That would mean you have no money left after paying for health care. Understand?
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,801
    But you are identifying the wrong culprit.

    Health Care providers are the hands on caregivers. The doctors, nurses, medical techs, etc.

    The waste goes to "administrative expenses" . If the administrative expenses are provided by for-profit corporations, the equation changes to Health Care plus Profit, and that cannot work without strict regulation.

    OTOH, if the administrative expenses are provided by not-for profit corporations, then all moneys are applied to services and purely administrative costs. A not-for-profit single payer Health Care system would save Billions of dollars!!

    p.s. often forgotten, governments are supposed to be not-for-profit public service organizations.
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,116
    All true. It does not change the math that 100,000 - 100,000 = 0.
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,801
    I agree. But take the administrative profit out of the equation and the cost becomes 100,000 - 50,000 = 50,000 for your discretionary use.

    For-profit Insurance companies are currently controlling a large portion of Health Care costs.
    Take out the profit, just pay administrative clerical salaries. Saves Billions!

    I like some of the new proposed plans.

    Every person with income pays a 2-3% of their income into a Medicare for All. This would more than fund a single payer healthcare system.

    If the objection is that very wealthy people would pay disproportionally more one could remind them that Tax cuts and COLA (cost of living adjustments) are also applied as percentage of income, to the great advantage of the wealthy.

    A 2% COLA increase gives a 2.00 raise for every 1oo earned and a 2000 raise for every 100,000 earned.
    All to adjust for say, a 500 dollar actual "cost of living" increase!

    In reality this not a "cost of living increase", it is a "cost of lifestyle increase", no?

    I believe all these problems can be presented as exponential growth functions. That way long-term growth factors can be translated into real numbers and future projections, rather than to say..."oooops, what happened?......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .... and "another trillion bites the dust".
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2019 at 3:02 PM

Share This Page