> If the US goes "single payer" aka "paid through taxes" I'm retiring at whatever age I am when that goes into effect. I would have enough money to retire early except I can't estimate future health care expenses.

Do it! We've got more people than jobs necessary anyways, certainly once automation enters full swing.

> I tried to downshift in 2017 but ended up having a $1400/mo health ins. payment for my family and me and that was more than my mortgage, which was about $650/mo. At least with the mortgage you know your future costs.

This sounds like single payer will provide you with freedom.

> Now, the last question is: What will taxpayers bearing the cost of everyone's healthcare do to my taxes? The US is $21 Trillion in the hole and counting. I won't be paying much income tax, only taxes on capital gains and dividends.

Even a Koch funded study found that the cost of providing cover is +/- 5%-ish the amount we're spending on medical cover right now, and other studies have shown Medicare does a better job of controlling costs than private insurers. The way the system would be executed is that the amount employers are currently paying private insurers would be redirected to the public purse, either via payroll tax or via personal income tax, or both. No new money needs to suddenly appear from thin air, it's just getting re-allocated.

You won't be paying much income tax, others will. Dividends are usually treated as ordinary income, FWIW.

> I don't like private health ins--I work at a major provider and I know full well how billions get wasted. However, I think government taking it over is going to be the worst thing the US has seen since probably the Civil War. I'm certainly not paying for it all, you can go figure it out for yourselves.

And yet you were planning to go on Medicare right? People in America seem to like Medicare. Why is it socialized medicine only becomes "good" once you hit 65? It's like parents trying to explain alcohol to children: It's really really bad until you turn 21 then suddenly its really really good.

Here's the Koch study btw: https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare... and if you read anything past the first page the study is a fairly scathing indictment of the current system, indicating not only would everyone be covered but it would actually likely lead to a net decrease in spending.

Here's the study that showed Medicare and Medicaid control costs better than private insurers: https://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20190211/NEWS/19021...

You can do this today, though. Retire now and your income will drop to the level where you can qualify for the ACA.

I wouldn't exactly call the ACA reliable with the GOP in charge. Access also depends heavily on which state he is in.

Common misconception. Medicaid kicks in when you’re down on your luck but they’ll try and recover their costs by taking a lien against your house. It’s the ultimate cruelty.

Only if you are permanently institutionalized is that a concern.

A multi-hundred thousand dollar lien for someone who's already too low income to afford medical insurance? Where exactly do you think they'll get the money from?

The house equity? This is for people who are terminally ill; the costs are coming from the estate.

And if they recover? You know in every other country in the OECD if you get sick, you go to the hospital, then they cure you and you walk out. That’s it! No liens, no debt, no bankruptcy. If you give it a chance you might just like it and if not, you can always go back.

If the person returns home, they release the lien: http://www.nls.org/Disability/MedicaidMedicare/MedicaidLegal...

Do all other OECD countries cover nursing homes for free until death? That's the case when liens apply - not hospitalization.

https://www.aarp.org/health/medicare-insurance/info-1996/are...

I don't think it is entirely unreasonable that medicaid - a medical program for poor people - has the right to put a lien on someone's estate. Normally people on medicaid don't even have estates (or else they wouldn't meet the asset test), but for some reason we don't count house equity for the asset qualification criteria. Very unfair for renters - this at least somewhat equalizes things.

> Do all other OECD countries cover nursing homes for free until death? That's the case when liens apply - not hospitalization.

The NHS in the UK does, yeah [1]. In Ontario, end-of-life care is also provided and long-term care is provided for ~$1800CAD per month if you can afford it, and it may be free if not via a combination of CPP, social security and income-based subsidies. [2] In 2002, France introduced universal, income-adjusted, public long-term care coverage for adults 60 and older [3]. The Netherlands does too [4]. The rest of the OECD I'm not sure. Most developed systems do offer something.

The health system really is better pretty much everywhere else in the OECD. And remember! Every one of the systems I mentioned spends less per capita than the US. In some cases like Canada half.

> I don't think it is entirely unreasonable that medicaid - a medical program for poor people - has the right to put a lien on someone's estate. Normally people on medicaid don't even have estates (or else they wouldn't meet the asset test), but for some reason we don't count house equity for the asset qualification criteria. Very unfair for renters - this at least somewhat equalizes things.

While I don't believe in inter-generational wealth I'd argue this furthers the cycle of debt and poverty by taking an estate away from those who could most benefit - the poorest.

[1] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/end-of-life-care/hospice-care/

[2] https://www.ontario.ca/page/get-help-paying-long-term-care

[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4462881/

[4] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304653227_Long-Term...