U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-05-2016, 01:53 AM
 
93 posts, read 53,185 times
Reputation: 92

Advertisements

"This thing sounds like a giant "Move to Colorado" ad for people with no money and no job. That should really help our economy."

Or it could boost Colorado's economy because many of these "with no money and no job" could also be bringing businesses here who are exhausted of being fleeced by private insurance companies or who could create businesses because they do not have to worry about eligible or ineligible for health insurance if they go out on their own.


"I don't know how Irene Aguilar thinks it's fair to balance this on the backs of employers, as if they have something to do with every CO resident's health care."

I did not know that it was all on the backs of CO employers. I thought that employees also shared in it as well.


"If a state (or even county) wants to do single-payer, I'm all for it, as long as they aren't sticking employers or taxpayers with the bill."

Isn't that what private insurance is doing now?

 
Old 10-05-2016, 02:12 AM
 
93 posts, read 53,185 times
Reputation: 92
This notion that we can have top notch health care at a cheap cost if only we'd let the central planners (CP) run things is just unrealistic. And let's be clear, a single payer system is a CP system. You would think with over a century of data and a hundred permutations of CP that have all failed to deliver a good standard of living to the people, that this notion of CP health care would just be dismissed outright. But no. We believe ourselves to be so intellectually superior to our predecessors that we can make it work. What arrogance."

Do you have the data of how the CP has failed? There are many so-called CP systems, for example, that are still with us including the health care systems of every other democratic nation, except us. Many of these are in nations with a better standard of living than we have per capita, such as Denmark or Finland. They are not the CP as was known in Stalin's Russia, but democratic systems that run somewhat like ColoradoCare would work. And the USA also has a CP-type system that enriches many private insurance companies, hospitals, and so on as well as being what could be the foundation upon which our health care mess rests: Medicare.

You will see, for example, in the link below that Denmark has zero uninsured while in 2012, some 17% of US residents were completely uninsured, a situation that has probably not changed despite the ACA.

United States vs. Denmark, in 17 Charts | Demos
United States vs. Denmark, in 17 Charts | Demos
 
Old 10-05-2016, 02:16 AM
 
93 posts, read 53,185 times
Reputation: 92
"not changed much" despite the ACA
 
Old 10-05-2016, 06:25 AM
 
Location: Arvada, CO
13,228 posts, read 24,324,918 times
Reputation: 12948
Quote:
Originally Posted by asusual View Post
I did not know that it was all on the backs of CO employers. I thought that employees also shared in it as well.

Isn't that what private insurance is doing now?
2/3 of it will be directly on the backs of employers.

Private insurance is still a choice, we can still go without and have Obamacare fine us. Private insurance is a complete joke with little way out, and frankly more Americans should be throwing a bigger fit about it.
__________________
Moderator for Los Angeles, The Inland Empire, and the Washington state forums.
 
Old 10-05-2016, 09:01 AM
 
Location: Denver CO
21,016 posts, read 11,633,974 times
Reputation: 31892
Quote:
Originally Posted by asusual View Post
This notion that we can have top notch health care at a cheap cost if only we'd let the central planners (CP) run things is just unrealistic. And let's be clear, a single payer system is a CP system. You would think with over a century of data and a hundred permutations of CP that have all failed to deliver a good standard of living to the people, that this notion of CP health care would just be dismissed outright. But no. We believe ourselves to be so intellectually superior to our predecessors that we can make it work. What arrogance."

Do you have the data of how the CP has failed? There are many so-called CP systems, for example, that are still with us including the health care systems of every other democratic nation, except us. Many of these are in nations with a better standard of living than we have per capita, such as Denmark or Finland. They are not the CP as was known in Stalin's Russia, but democratic systems that run somewhat like ColoradoCare would work. And the USA also has a CP-type system that enriches many private insurance companies, hospitals, and so on as well as being what could be the foundation upon which our health care mess rests: Medicare.

You will see, for example, in the link below that Denmark has zero uninsured while in 2012, some 17% of US residents were completely uninsured, a situation that has probably not changed despite the ACA.

United States vs. Denmark, in 17 Charts | Demos
United States vs. Denmark, in 17 Charts | Demos
Your own link says 10.4 percent, not 17%.

And there is plenty of documentation showing that the percentage of uninsured has gotten significantly smaller with the ACA. There is a lot more work to be done but it's a complete falsehood to say there hasn't been progress. Your credibility is non-existent if you have to lie to try to support your position.



Key Facts about the Uninsured Population | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
 
Old 10-05-2016, 11:01 AM
 
28 posts, read 31,295 times
Reputation: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by asusual View Post

Or it could boost Colorado's economy because many of these "with no money and no job" could also be bringing businesses here who are exhausted of being fleeced by private insurance companies or who could create businesses because they do not have to worry about eligible or ineligible for health insurance if they go out on their own.
Do you really believe what you are typing? Do you really believe that a business will say "hey lets move to Colorado and pay an automatic 6.67% payroll tax for all employees because we don't like being fleeced by the big bad insurance companies"?

---------

Sorry but I get tired of this misconception of insurance companies and how big and bad they are. In my professional opinion (I have been in the insurance industry for 17 years) the most inefficient body of people to ever be (government) is regulating the wrong end of the industry. The problem is is not the insurance companies. Insurance companies write a contract of adhesion and pay what the contract requires them to pay. Dont get me wrong shady stuff happens with insurance companies (not paying claims they should, etc) but by and large they pay what they are supposed to pay within the contract you sign with them.

Do you know the average minimum net profit for a for profit business should be at least 15%? Health insurance companies hover around 5%. Sure doesn't sound like fleecing to me. Now you might say but they are raking in billions. Sure this is true but look how large their customer base is. So is it fair to say because a business is successful and creating thousands if not millions of jobs that they should make less of a profit because they are a larger or more successful business? This whole mindset of lets punish (overtax) those successful people/businesses will be the downfall of our society. It stifles innovation, creativity, competition (which stimulates growth) and a willingness to succeed...

Sorry getting off point here...

Insurance companies only pay what they are required to pay. Period end of story. The real problem is a lack of competition in the market and in my opinion it starts with hospitals. When someone is sick they don't call around to different hospitals looking for the best deal (maybe some do but a majority do not). A hospital can basically charge whatever they want. I feel they same way about drug companies. I get they charge a lot due to the R&D that goes into making a drug but you want to talk about fleecing, look here and the hospitals.

---------------

Look, if our fine folks in the government were able to run their business efficiently or in the black I might be more apt to give them more power. Otherwise, I would really like to see a good sensible reason on why we should let the government run our healthcare. Sure, the intentions might be noble/good but the execution most of the time is poor at best (ACA) and the numerous holes/unknowns in 69 is proof positive of that.

Who is better at making decisions for your life? You or the government?
 
Old 10-05-2016, 12:05 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
1,421 posts, read 1,197,550 times
Reputation: 1751
I just pulled up my 2015 benefits overview at work. I made roughly $60k

Health and Welfare Your Contributions Company's Contributions
Medical / RX / Vision $1,547.78 $5,037.24
Dental $85.80 $222.30

This adds up to about $6,900/year when combining my and my company contributions. That's not including that I have a $3,000 deductible.

Right now, between the company and I, it's 11.5%. If I actually need to use my insurance and hit the deductible, it ends up being 16%.

Mind you, this is a organization with 14,000 employees. A flat 10% tax would probably benefit the employee / employer for the majority of the employees, except at the director, VP and exec levels.
 
Old 10-05-2016, 02:29 PM
 
28 posts, read 31,295 times
Reputation: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by caverunner17 View Post
I just pulled up my 2015 benefits overview at work. I made roughly $60k

Health and Welfare Your Contributions Company's Contributions
Medical / RX / Vision $1,547.78 $5,037.24
Dental $85.80 $222.30

This adds up to about $6,900/year when combining my and my company contributions. That's not including that I have a $3,000 deductible.

Right now, between the company and I, it's 11.5%. If I actually need to use my insurance and hit the deductible, it ends up being 16%.

Mind you, this is a organization with 14,000 employees. A flat 10% tax would probably benefit the employee / employer for the majority of the employees, except at the director, VP and exec levels.
Thats good for "today". What about tomorrow? Is there any provision within the law to prevent future tax increases to offset claims? What will happen if claims exceed tax income how will the bill address it? Raise taxes, operate at a loss or ration care? Sorry, not trying to pick on you caverunner, just trying to show the holes in this bill.

What about the massive amount of small business employers who cant afford to (or some chose not to) provide health insurance? They now have to pay 6.67% on top of all their payroll. I hope people realize that is essentially a tax on the employee and not the employer. Just because your employer is paying it on the front end doesn't mean its not affecting you on the back-end. Example: If you work for a small employer that doesn't provide health insurance and now they have to pay you 6.67% more, when do you think your next raise will be? Do you really think your still going to get the same size raise you would have before the 69 tax? Employers (most) are not in business to be your friend, to be philanthropists or to do good. Their sole purpose is to make money and when a tax is forced upon them that cost is pushed down to the consumer or the employee.

Sure this tax could be good at first for those corporations already providing insurance, more than likely a break even. Problem is the tax will inevitably go up and there will be no competition in a free market for employers to find a better/less expensive plan.
 
Old 10-05-2016, 03:54 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
1,421 posts, read 1,197,550 times
Reputation: 1751
Quote:
Originally Posted by djkms View Post
Thats good for "today". What about tomorrow? Is there any provision within the law to prevent future tax increases to offset claims? What will happen if claims exceed tax income how will the bill address it? Raise taxes, operate at a loss or ration care? Sorry, not trying to pick on you caverunner, just trying to show the holes in this bill.

What about the massive amount of small business employers who cant afford to (or some chose not to) provide health insurance? They now have to pay 6.67% on top of all their payroll. I hope people realize that is essentially a tax on the employee and not the employer. Just because your employer is paying it on the front end doesn't mean its not affecting you on the back-end. Example: If you work for a small employer that doesn't provide health insurance and now they have to pay you 6.67% more, when do you think your next raise will be? Do you really think your still going to get the same size raise you would have before the 69 tax? Employers (most) are not in business to be your friend, to be philanthropists or to do good. Their sole purpose is to make money and when a tax is forced upon them that cost is pushed down to the consumer or the employee.

Sure this tax could be good at first for those corporations already providing insurance, more than likely a break even. Problem is the tax will inevitably go up and there will be no competition in a free market for employers to find a better/less expensive plan.

There's no competition right now anyways. It's not like my employer is going to give me the extra $5,000 or so it's put toward my company health insurance if I go on my own. There is zero competition out there that is going to be cheaper or better than the $130/month or so that I pay right now.

As for comment about if you're a small business and don't provide health insurance already, what will happen to employee's raises the next year? That's easy. They don't need to get a raise. What they were paying for health insurance the year before would essentially be 1/3 the cost the next year. That constitutes a 6.67% unrealized raise. Your take-home might be slightly less, but your monthly cost for health insurance would be way down

The only one being hurt is the small business itself who may have to deal with a slightly higher employee cost figure for a year or two.

For the employee, the HUGE benefit is actually using your insurance. Right now with my high deductible, I need to spend $3000 out of pocket before it even kicks in. Unless something major happens (surgery, accident, etc) I'm never going to hit that 3k deductible. And even after that deductible, it only cover's 70-80% or something. So if I rack up a $10k bill (not too hard to do if you need any type of emergency surgery), I'm on the hook for $4,500. And that's just me as a single male. If I remember right, adding a dependent basically doubled my monthly premium.

Really, the only complaints are for small businesses who don't currently offer insurance and that there *could* be future increases on the tax. And that more people will move to CO.
 
Old 10-05-2016, 04:47 PM
 
Location: Denver CO
21,016 posts, read 11,633,974 times
Reputation: 31892
Quote:
Originally Posted by caverunner17 View Post
There's no competition right now anyways. It's not like my employer is going to give me the extra $5,000 or so it's put toward my company health insurance if I go on my own. There is zero competition out there that is going to be cheaper or better than the $130/month or so that I pay right now.

As for comment about if you're a small business and don't provide health insurance already, what will happen to employee's raises the next year? That's easy. They don't need to get a raise. What they were paying for health insurance the year before would essentially be 1/3 the cost the next year. That constitutes a 6.67% unrealized raise. Your take-home might be slightly less, but your monthly cost for health insurance would be way down

The only one being hurt is the small business itself who may have to deal with a slightly higher employee cost figure for a year or two.

For the employee, the HUGE benefit is actually using your insurance. Right now with my high deductible, I need to spend $3000 out of pocket before it even kicks in. Unless something major happens (surgery, accident, etc) I'm never going to hit that 3k deductible. And even after that deductible, it only cover's 70-80% or something. So if I rack up a $10k bill (not too hard to do if you need any type of emergency surgery), I'm on the hook for $4,500. And that's just me as a single male. If I remember right, adding a dependent basically doubled my monthly premium.

Really, the only complaints are for small businesses who don't currently offer insurance and that there *could* be future increases on the tax. And that more people will move to CO.
And as of the way 69 stands now, if you happen to be out of Colorado when you need that emergency surgery, you are on the hook for the full 10K or however much it ends up being because they haven't figured out how and even if out of state care will be covered. My guess is that you will end up having to pay more than you are calculating because you'll need a private insurance policy to cover what Colorado Care doesn't cover. Not just out of state care but basically anything they decided they don't want or can't afford to pay for. So just like in many of the countries with universal care where there is still a secondary private insurance market with a premium that will be coming out of your pocket if you want or need more comprehensive coverage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:55 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top