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.
And how serious is it? According to this interview with Credit.com's Gerri Detweiler, the Federal Reserve reports that half of all collection accounts on credit reports are from medical bills.
I keep wondering that. Especially in light of statistics showing very high percentages of adults in the US who are overweight - obese - or morbidly obese.
Assuming these people are dispersed equally among the insured and uninsured (don't know if anyone has ever studied that issue) - if we guarantee coverage to everyone regardless of medical condition - I don't think it's a given that we're going to get huge numbers of young healthy people buying insurance.
Nor is it a given that if these people get health insurance - that they will lose weight and/or become healthy. The UK has the NHS - but obesity there is as big a problem as it is here:
In terms of medical expenses causing bankruptcies - well I don't know. Especially because the work of people who believe this seems to have been debunked to a greater or lesser extent:
OTOH - whatever was true in the past is likely to change in the future. Because doctors are increasingly demanding up front payment of co-pays and deductibles before seeing patients. So you need cash to see the doctor.
If people aren't required to file a return, their health plans will be free either with subsidies or through Medicare or they already get Medicaid depending on where they live....
or, for the statistically insignificant number of people that this might effect..so what.
A number of years ago a suggestion arose that the way to handle basic auto liability insurance (say 25/50/25) would be to place a tax on gasoline--and do away with that cost for required coverage. Insurance companies would bid on insuring a certain number of gas pumps in a region (making it more competitive) and the tax and losses would be divided among all the companies based on the percentage of pumps they insured.
It was a brilliant proposal. Since we currently have roughly one in seven automobiles on the road without insurance it would mean that group would no longer be able to avoid participation in insurance. Illegals operating in the U.S. would still pay for insurance every time they went to the pump. Anyone driving in America would be paying into the system, and those who felt they needed and could afford additional liability insurance could buy "excess policies", over and above the cost of basic coverage, from whatever companies operated in their state.
Who opposed it? Insurance companies---the uncertainty and difference would challenge their traditional methods of garnishing profit. What they didn't figure out, is that it would do away with a myriad of individual state forms that must be attached to any basic policy, or that ALL basic policies would be the same. A terrific savings in administration costs. In addition, it makes perfect actuarial sense from the standpoint that statistical data shows that a primary way to assess risk is via number of miles driven. Accident rates climb with number of miles driven, and people who drive more would be paying more. Large trucks which are not fuel efficient would pay more--and the accidents they are involved in generally cause more bodily injury to the occupants of other vehicles.
Now apply to health insurance. The only way to make sure everyone, legal or illegal, rich or poor, employed or unemployed, drawing a paycheck or collecting welfare, has skin in the game, is to enforce it through a value added tax on all goods and services. There would no longer be a cost for health insurance, a basic plan could be provided with whatever "essential" services were deemed best. Businesses which, for the most part, have no understanding of what coverage they are buying (it's bottom line cost that interests them), would no longer be involved in annual insurance company negotiations. And in addition, there is no need for an enforcement penalty other than to chase down the occasional business that won't pay it's sales taxes anyway. And if jail time were the penalty for not paying the health insurance VAT, you could be sure there would be darn few businesses deciding to skip payment.
Insurance companies, if someone felt those were still needed as opposed to a single organization such as BCBS, could bid on proportion of coverage in areas. I personally feel a single payer option is best because it provides powerful leverage against the rich health care provider industry, whether that is a single insurance company or the government--makes no difference it would provide cost control. And with a single payer system no one would need to think about purchasing catastrophic policies. And the savings in administrative costs--about which my personal physician complains constantly (every insurance company has different forms often requiring different data, a different phone number, a different set of criteria for "pre-authorization)--would be dramatic.
Guess who opposes such a system? The health insurance companies and their buddies in Congress.
If people aren't required to file a return, their health plans will be free either with subsidies or through Medicare or they already get Medicaid depending on where they live....
or, for the statistically insignificant number of people that this might effect..so what.
You didn't read the link:
If there's no tax refund, where else can the IRS get its $95? Typically, the IRS does have a number of steps by which to recoup unpaid taxes. It can garnish your wages, for example, or, in rare cases, seize property. But with the health mandate, the law's drafters specifically barred the agency from any of those more aggressive tactics.
A number of years ago a suggestion arose that the way to handle basic auto liability insurance (say 25/50/25) would be to place a tax on gasoline--and do away with that cost for required coverage...
Years? How about at least several decades ago - like in the 70's or 80's (at least that's when the proposal was floated in Florida)? IIRC - the proposal died of its own weight when someone finally did some math and figured out what it would do to the price of gas. Voting for what in effect is a big hike in gas prices is not a way for a politician to enhance his/her chances of re-election. And uninsured drivers are probably a bigger voting bloc in Florida than seniors (we've had one of the highest rates of uninsured drivers in the country as long as I've been here).
Quote:
Who opposed it? Insurance companies...
Can you find anything to back that up - in Florida? I can't find anything about the proposal on line - because it happened so long ago. And - because we're of similar ages (and have probably lost brain cells at a similar rate ) - I'm not willing to accept your recollection above mine - especially about something that happened where I live.
Quote:
Now apply to health insurance. The only way to make sure everyone, legal or illegal, rich or poor, employed or unemployed, drawing a paycheck or collecting welfare, has skin in the game, is to enforce it through a value added tax on all goods and services.
You mean services like health care (which - after all - is 15%+ of GDP) - and a VAT of say 15%-20-25%? That's a great way to get health care costs down .
I don't care about a VAT in terms of me personally (although any VAT shouldn't be on health care services - because that's just dumb IMO). But that's because I - like you - am kind of an "old fart" - and don't in general need lots of new stuff. I buy stuff like trips. And - when I travel abroad (usually once a year) - I spend lots on VATs and similar. Old farts are generally in favor of taxes that don't hurt them - and affect mostly younger people who are just starting out - or are in household formation/household maintenance years. I think we're doing a pretty good job of hollowing out what used to be the core of our country - middle age middle class people with families - without imposing a hair-brained tax like the one you suggest. Robyn
Years? How about at least several decades ago - like in the 70's or 80's (at least that's when the proposal was floated in Florida)? IIRC - the proposal died of its own weight when someone finally did some math and figured out what it would do to the price of gas. Voting for what in effect is a big hike in gas prices is not a way for a politician to enhance his/her chances of re-election. And uninsured drivers are probably a bigger voting bloc in Florida than seniors (we've had one of the highest rates of uninsured drivers in the country as long as I've been here).
Can you find anything to back that up - in Florida? I can't find anything about the proposal on line - because it happened so long ago. And - because we're of similar ages (and have probably lost brain cells at a similar rate ) - I'm not willing to accept your recollection above mine - especially about something that happened where I live.
You mean services like health care (which - after all - is 15%+ of GDP) - and a VAT of say 15%-20-25%? That's a great way to get health care costs down .
I don't care about a VAT in terms of me personally (although any VAT shouldn't be on health care services - because that's just dumb IMO). But that's because I - like you - am kind of an "old fart" - and don't in general need lots of new stuff. I buy stuff like trips. And - when I travel abroad (usually once a year) - I spend lots on VATs and similar. Old farts are generally in favor of taxes that don't hurt them - and affect mostly younger people who are just starting out - or are in household formation/household maintenance years. I think we're doing a pretty good job of hollowing out what used to be the core of our country - middle age middle class people with families - without imposing a hair-brained tax like the one you suggest. Robyn
Since 2012 GDP was 15.6 trillion dollars and health care costs were 2.7 trillion dollars, if there was NO lowering of costs then the VAT would need to be about 17%. But a single payer system would knock out a tremendous amount administrative costs--by some estimates as much as 20%, which would lower the overall health care costs to just over 2.1 trillion. I do not think that would be an immediate change, but would come about over about 2-3 years. And guess what, you aren't calculating that the costs of goods and services would be LESS if businesses no longer had to pay for employee insurance. Failure to lower the cost of their goods and services might, with the added VAT, leave them uncompetitive in the marketplace. In addition, the power to negotiate prices for pharmaceutical products and some procedures would also lower prices.
But since you SUPPORT our current health care system, I suppose that you SUPPORT the fact that Congress has legislated AGAINST Medicare negotiating prices for drugs for seniors. So pharmaceutical companies are not leveraged to price their products competitively as they are in other nations which sell the same drugs made right here from 30% to 60% lower than what the same drug is sold for here.
To me that is boneheaded, but then that's how some of us get as we age.
I totally agree with Wardendresden on this. It's staring us right in the face and the fact that we can't easily do this because POLITICS AND PROFIT really blows.
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.
Where Are All The Young Healthy People?
(we've had one of the highest rates of uninsured drivers in the country as long as I've been here).
) - I'm not willing to accept your recollection above mine - especially about something that happened where I live.
.
