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.
LOL..you ready to pay 20-30% FICA to pay for this ?
There's actually a fairly substantive argument that exists suggesting our taxes wouldn't need to be increased. The additional revenue would come from removing the tax advantage status of employer provided healthcare. The existence of a Medicare for all option would render worthless employer provided coverage therefore they wouldn't have the need to offer it. So, if my salary is 50k and my healthcare is 13k my effective salary is 63k. Employers would just shift the money spent on healthcare to higher wages...it doesn't make a difference to them on where the money is paid if they've already agreed on a certain dollar amount. Now my salary at 63k is taxed as regular income which increases my tax liability my 13k. Given around 80% of insured Americans get their coverage from their employer this would increase tax revenues substantially. Health economists have unanimously agreed that removing the arcane tax structure would increase salaries, which would in turn increase revenues.
See, folks, we don't have to "prove" that liberals live in a fantasy world. They do that all by themselves.
That theory is agreed upon by healthcare analysts across the political divide.
Listed below is a study by the uber libertarian Cato institute that suggests salaries would be higher in the even of the removal of tax advantage status on healthcare.
That theory is agreed upon by healthcare analysts across the political divide.
Ahh, it's agreed upon by healthcare analysts. Ok...
...You might want to talk to some employers to find out if employers would do what you expect. I understand that employers and healthcare analysts are like, practically the same thing and all, but...
Do they have any good "E" ticket rides in that land of fantasy which you occupy?
Obamacare is a train wreck and it complicates an issue that is already complicated. A universal, single-payer approach will bring the USA to the table with all other post-industrialized nations and it will do so for less per capita than we spend now.
Source: California Nurses Associations, Physicians for National Healthcare, and AMSA
1. Everybody in,nobody out. Universal means access to healthcare for everyone, period — the desire of 81% of all Californians, as reported in a January, 2007 Field Poll.
2. Portability. Even if you are unemployed, or lose or change your job, your health coverage goes with you.
3. Uniform benefits. No Cadillac plans for the wealthy and Moped plans for everyone else, with high deductibles, limited services, caps on payments for care, and no protection in the event of a catastrophe. One level of comprehensive care no matter what size your wallet.
4. Prevention. By removing financial roadblocks, a single payer system encourages preventive care that lowers an individual’s ultimate cost and pain and suffering when problems are neglected, and societal cost in the over utilization of emergency rooms or the spread of communicable diseases.
5. Choice of physician. Most private plans restrict what doctors, other caregivers, or hospital you can use. Under a single payer system, patients have a choice, and the provider is assured a fair reimbursement.
6. Ending insurance industry interference with care. Caregivers and patients regain the autonomy to make decisions on what’s best for a patient’s health, not what’s dictated by the billing department or the bean counters. No denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions or cancellation of policies for “unreported†minor health problems.
7. Reducing administrative waste. One third of every health care dollar in California goes for paperwork, such as denying care, and profits, compared to about 3% under Medicare, a single-payer, universal system.
8. Cost savings. A single payer system would produce the savings needed to cover everyone, largely by using existing resources without the waste. Taiwan, shifting from a U.S. healthcare model, adopted a single-payer system in 1995, boosting health coverage from 57% to 97% with little if any increase in overall healthcare spending.
9. Common sense budgeting. The public system sets fair reimbursements applied equally to all providers while assuring all comprehensive and appropriate health care is delivered, and uses its clout to negotiate volume discounts for prescription drugs and medical equipment.
10. Public oversight. The public sets the policies and administers the system, not high priced CEOs meeting in secret and making decisions based on what inflates their compensation packages or stock wealth or company profits.
Everyone does not deserve the same level of health care. We may have been all created equal, but that does not mean we are all equal forever.
There's actually a fairly substantive argument that exists suggesting our taxes wouldn't need to be increased. The additional revenue would come from removing the tax advantage status of employer provided healthcare. The existence of a Medicare for all option would render worthless employer provided coverage therefore they wouldn't have the need to offer it. So, if my salary is 50k and my healthcare is 13k my effective salary is 63k. Employers would just shift the money spent on healthcare to higher wages...it doesn't make a difference to them on where the money is paid if they've already agreed on a certain dollar amount. Now my salary at 63k is taxed as regular income which increases my tax liability my 13k. Given around 80% of insured Americans get their coverage from their employer this would increase tax revenues substantially. Health economists have unanimously agreed that removing the arcane tax structure would increase salaries, which would in turn increase revenues.
You really believe that line ?
Government is going to force companies to pay more ?
That will be a good one to watch go through Congress.
Obama used that one already. Did your paycheck increase 3000% because your premiums went down ?
Go see how it's done in Europe. It's via high payroll and additional consumer taxes.
And even with universal/single payer those people also have a second private insurance plan.
You cannot have a government run program while you think your paycheck is going up with the money that needs to be sent to the government.
Doesn't work that way.
a) the ACA IS mostly a Republican plan, largely copied from an idea by the Heritage foundation and Romney's Massachusetts law.
b) the GOP is currently offering no alternative, just stomping around shouting "no!" as they've done with every issue for the past five years.
Just so you'll know.
Obamacare is not a GOP plan. Only the mandate was. Romneycare was passed by a state legislature that was 85% democrat. Obamacare did not get one GOP vote. Turn off MSLSD.
and the narrow mindedness of single-payor, one size fits all plan that YOU will have to use like or not. No choices. so what if people have Cadillac health plans? If people are paying for them and not you so what? How about efficiency? Long lines? rationed care?
liberals love to talk about "choice". So where is mine under single-payor? Why should I let politicians with no medical experience play politics with my health care?
Quote:
8. Cost savings. A single payer system would produce the savings needed to cover everyone, largely by using existing resources without the waste. Taiwan, shifting from a U.S. healthcare model, adopted a single-payer system in 1995, boosting health coverage from 57% to 97% with little if any increase in overall healthcare spending.
I thought everyone was covered under single-payor? Show me the supposed savings?
Like always, single-payer only attempts to fix the symptoms and not the cause of the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZcardinal402
Obamacare is a train wreck and it complicates an issue that is already complicated. A universal, single-payer approach will bring the USA to the table with all other post-industrialized nations and it will do so for less per capita than we spend now.
Source: California Nurses Associations, Physicians for National Healthcare, and AMSA
1. Everybody in,nobody out. Universal means access to healthcare for everyone, period — the desire of 81% of all Californians, as reported in a January, 2007 Field Poll.
2. Portability. Even if you are unemployed, or lose or change your job, your health coverage goes with you.
3. Uniform benefits. No Cadillac plans for the wealthy and Moped plans for everyone else, with high deductibles, limited services, caps on payments for care, and no protection in the event of a catastrophe. One level of comprehensive care no matter what size your wallet.
4. Prevention. By removing financial roadblocks, a single payer system encourages preventive care that lowers an individual’s ultimate cost and pain and suffering when problems are neglected, and societal cost in the over utilization of emergency rooms or the spread of communicable diseases.
5. Choice of physician. Most private plans restrict what doctors, other caregivers, or hospital you can use. Under a single payer system, patients have a choice, and the provider is assured a fair reimbursement.
6. Ending insurance industry interference with care. Caregivers and patients regain the autonomy to make decisions on what’s best for a patient’s health, not what’s dictated by the billing department or the bean counters. No denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions or cancellation of policies for “unreported” minor health problems.
7. Reducing administrative waste. One third of every health care dollar in California goes for paperwork, such as denying care, and profits, compared to about 3% under Medicare, a single-payer, universal system.
8. Cost savings. A single payer system would produce the savings needed to cover everyone, largely by using existing resources without the waste. Taiwan, shifting from a U.S. healthcare model, adopted a single-payer system in 1995, boosting health coverage from 57% to 97% with little if any increase in overall healthcare spending.
9. Common sense budgeting. The public system sets fair reimbursements applied equally to all providers while assuring all comprehensive and appropriate health care is delivered, and uses its clout to negotiate volume discounts for prescription drugs and medical equipment.
10. Public oversight. The public sets the policies and administers the system, not high priced CEOs meeting in secret and making decisions based on what inflates their compensation packages or stock wealth or company profits.
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.
