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.
Under Bernie's plan, a family making a combined income of 100k a year would pay about $8400.00 in yearly premiums using the 2.2% personal tax and 6.2% payroll tax rolled into their compensation. That's $8400.00 for a plan that they choose zero components of.
A couple making 200k would pay a staggering $16,800.00 per year.
How much is that family paying for health care coverage right now?
Are they paying privately (if so the 8.4k or 16.8k will be offset by that amount) or is it employer based (if so, it will be offset by the decrease in taxes they're paying on that amount)? Under Sanders' plan, that 8.4k or 16.8k will NOT be taxable income.
The 37% tax rate ONLY applies to the layer of income over $250,000, but less than $500,000. That's not so bad. Currently, the rates are 33% and 35% within that range. So it's not that much more.
You are in denial. Insurance companies whether auto, health, life, etc all, provide a pool, so costs can be shared among the subscribers.
It's a simple concept that's worked for generations, and would think even you could understand.
What people like you want is for someone else to pay your bills. How is that logical?
???? Why is it logical to support a private company creating a pool and oppose the government creating a pool? Everyone knows - or ought to know - that the larger the pool, the lower the premiums.
You don't understand insurance at all if you seriously think you only pay for your very own costs and that your premiums don't go toward paying others whose costs are greater than yours.
I'm fairly thrifty with my words and it took me very few posts bank-and-forth with you in another thread to realize what a waste of time replying to you is. Your responses are juvenile and lack thought and logic. They're just defensive retorts to ideas and opinions you don't like, repeated over and over again.
They are repeated over and over because they are never addressed just like we see here. We are not going to simply allow people without insurance to die. You refuse to face reality and then try and make it about me.
Seeing a doctor now and then is far cheaper than waiting until things have progressed. Now if you want to address this great. If you prefer, go ahead and make it about me. It doesn't change the facts.
How much is that family paying for health care coverage right now?
Are they paying privately (if so the 8.4k or 16.8k will be offset by that amount) or is it employer based (if so, it will be offset by the decrease in taxes they're paying on that amount)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nep321
The 37% tax rate ONLY applies to the layer of income over $250,000, but less than $500,000. That's not so bad. Currently, the rates are 33% and 35% within that range. So it's not that much more.
Both of these scenarios will cost taxpayers in this bracket more money every year. When will it be enough? The middle class has been taxed to death already, and are sick and tired of opening their purse strings for "just a little bit more" all the time. Any scenario that calls for more handouts will be a vote against a candidate for many middle class Americans this election. I'm one of them. YMMV.
I'm saying that if Medicare becomes a single-payer system, it won't be the same Medicare we have now. It will eventually have to start deciding which services will be paid for and which ones won't be paid for. At what point will the people decide that someone in their late 60s will be too old to receive quality cancer treatment?
You think private insurance companies don't do that??????
OMG! Give it a rest. One has nothing to do with the other. Health care is not a right.
War is? One does have something to do with the other. I find it so strange that those wondering how we will pay for this never ask how we are going to pay for the wars. Where were the complaints when Bush went into Iraq and said he wasn't going to pay for any of it.
Quote:
Just because you have found some fellow travelers that will chant your silly slogans doesn't make it true.
We're out here and we don't like your motives. Hope this helps.
Would you be willing to adopt a national healthcare plan in which doctors won't even give people an appointment unless they pay an expensive annual out-of-pocket (not reimbursed) access fee?
In Canada it's illegal for them to accept cash payments. If they want to go there.........
How so? Medicare recipients paid decades of Medicare tax into the system before they even accessed any benefits. Workers are still paying into Medicare, but how does letting them access benefits sooner solidify its solvency? It's actually just more drain on Medicare's assets.
And after we access benefits, we pay medicare premiums. We don't stop paying into the system. Anymore than we stopped paying private insurance premiums when we got sick.
You think the medicare system doesn't employ actuaries? Exactly the same questions arise when an insurance company forecasts the likely claims it will have to pay out and reviews its rate structure for the next year. It's actuaries who keep things on track.
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.
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.
