Last year on that chart is 2007. (SOI doc)

They claim the total collected is $1,115,601,803 in thousands of dollars. So add 3 zeros.

1,115,601,803,000. That's 1.1 TRILLION in taxes.

If that is true, that's the bulk of all income taxes collected. Seems odd, I assumed it would be high, but not that high a % of all taxes.

Source: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010...h-care-system/

"In 2008, U.S. health care spending was about $7,681 per resident and accounted for 16.2% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP); this is among the highest of all industrialized countries."
Source:http://www.kaiseredu.org/Issue-Modul...und-Brief.aspx

So Gimpy, 1.1 Trillion in income in 2007 - lets say it jumped to 1.3 Trillion in 2008 (though that would be a huge exaggeration), but the total cost is 2.34 Trillion - are you saying that the difference is going to be made up by the payment of insurance premiums to the government? Take 2008 - $7,681 dollars PER RESIDENT was spent. Yet there is no way that insurance premiums are going to cost that much per person - so where does the rest of the money come from???? This is why it won't work - it simply cannot be paid for!

Heck man, simple math - even if you took EVERY dime paid in taxes, cutting EVERY program - from defense to social security to welfare, defunding the government entirely - meaning no federal justice system, no federal prisons, no military, no NOTHING - and added it to whatever was collected on insurance premiums using this "government health care" - you STILL would have a shortfall!!!!!

This is why single payer doesn't work. You want affordable health care - get the AMA to stop limiting the number of doctors that are graduated every year at 100,000. Stop the insanity of defensive medicine. End the stupidity modern medicine is forced to deal with, from extreme costs on malpractice insurance, to the idiocy of paperwork they must do to get paid.

The AMA has exactly zero control of the number of docs graduated. It doesn't even include all docs, it's mostly primary care, and mostly lefty primary care docs into the bargain (AMA is very political).

As it is, with the current number of docs minted, some are great, most are pretty good, and some suck. Lowering standards will result in more in the latter pile.

Also, just as a reality check, upping the number of med school grads starting next year means the first new docs you will see will be the least trained types in 7 years from that start date (4 years med school, a short, 3 year residency). Surgeons... wait 2 more years, min, for fellowships and some residencies add 2 more.

Oh I agree they have no CONTROL - but as one of the largest lobbying groups in Washington (3rd largest in 2002) - they have lobbied to limit the number of doctors being graduated. The argument that more graduates equates to more crappy doctors - I would disagree. How many excellent doctors, scientists, etc are not able to go to school for financial reasons? The cost is prohibitive, and MANY students with the grades and the desire cannot afford to go, because of the cost.

However, this has nothing to do with the question being raised.... and that is how will something be paid for when the cost exceeds the income from premiums AND every dime that the government collects in taxes....

It can't be paid for.... thus it is doomed to fail.

Never met any who decided not to go for cost reasons. They all have loads of loans, instead. AMA lobbying doesn't alter med school admissions, they are not set by congress. It's a decision made by the med schools.

There is another problem. Overall, we need more docs. But we don't need more in, say NYC, or in nice CT suburbs. So med schools start admitting more people. Great. Now what? This isn't the CCCP, they get to CHOOSE what specialty they want to do. What if the most popular specialties are not what is needed most? Guess you just admit more til you get the minimum of the ones you want, and have a glut of others?

OK, now one way or another we have XX% more docs in the pipeline.

They are needed in the middle of nowhere, not in places where most people want to live. How do you force people to move to, I dunno, the middle of Iowa, or godawful SE New Mexico (everyone would be happy to live in Santa Fe, but who wants Roswell or Clovis?).

That's the problem. It;s a free country, and the docs are needed where docs don't want to live. As a result, docs get headhunter mail begging them to practice in some crap town, frequently for a lot of money. Only money can attract people. They likely end up with a guy out of residency who comes and gets the huge salary for a few years, then punches out and moves someplace else.

There are scholarships here in NM that already trade med school for a few years in the sticks. Most would rather shell out a hundred grand for tuition and not have to live in Roswell, though.

This is part of the reason difference professional societies set different limits on how many residents they train. Say they need 20% more overall, and train 20% more. Instead of moving to the sticks, the new 20% move where they like. Now, places that are already well served have a glut, and each sees a decrease in business. there is a window for the ideal number of docs so that they all work full time, and make a decent living. Too many, and they have a smaller share of limited patients. Meanwhile, away from popular areas, people have NO docs in a specialty and are under served. It's not simple.