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.
Finn, employers really *don't* pay for your insurance now. It's nothing but a money swap on paper. A company creates a budget for its employees that includes insurance costs as part of the total compensation package. If the US switched to a universal plan, the "employer portion" of the new tax is really coming from you as part of your total compensation. That's in addition to any "employee portion" you would pay. Employers are not going to suddenly roll over extra money your way as a result of universal healthcare. It's all coming out of your pocket.
When Politifact assessed Bernie Sanders' proposed plan they made the above fact very very clear. I posted the full assessment and link many pages back in this thread. Here's another link: How much would Bernie Sanders
Yep, I tried explaining that exact same thing, but FAR too many in the US are financially illiterate to understand. /SMH
I cringe every time I hear someone quote fuzzy math in defense of universal care. There is no such thing as an "employer portion" of taxes for healthcare that they are suddenly going to stop paying. The idea that companies will raise wages and that universal care will lead to wage "bargaining power" is just ludicrous.
Argue for universal care because it's your preference, but don't argue bad math in defense of it. Anyone with a knowledge of business math knows there is no financial windfall coming to US employees as a result of universal care.
We can't keep those taxes when the health care programs for which the tax is paid no longer exist. When everyone is moved to a single-payer for all system, those taxes are extinguished.
Do you EVER read anything other people post? I am tire of repeating everything to you. Read what I already posted, if you are interested in an answer.
Quote:
Wow. That falls WAY, WAY short of the funding actually needed for single-payer for all.
No, and I already showed you. Read what people write.
I appreciate your replies, and the discussions... Sincerily.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Yes, it would, but the consequence would be lower wages/hour as the cost of that health care payroll tax would be netted against employee wages.
it already is. For any larger employers, they are already paying a lot of benefits, and that is part of our "compensation package".
Quote:
I realize people would like to think so, but it just doesn't work that way in reality. I've already clearly explained why, above.
30% VAT. Taxpayers are in the driver's seat by choosing what they buy.
European and Scandinavian countries have a 20%-25% VAT, and it has worked very well.
I don't think that's the only solution. First of all, I don't think the Euro VAT that you reference above goes ONLY to healthcare. That's an assumption, but correct me if I'm wrong. I assume it goes to cover more.
As noted above, US Healthcare cost is the highest per capita in the free-world. The point of this discussion is that we are spending our dollars poorly. I get that a lot of different people have a lot of different solutions. I think the only thing most people agree on is that what we have sucks!
Take the dollars we are spending now. More dollars than any other system in the world. Apply them to UHC and follow the models of other countries, who not only spend less, but they get objectively better results.
Yes, reduce costs (no more $30 asprin and no more $800 epi-pens)
Yes, cut out the useless insurance industry
Yes, streamline billing (or eliminate it), no more 5 or 10 bills or more per hospitalization
and yes, the government will need to add people and burocracy, but it will be more than balanced by eliminating the private sector red-tape and full-on greed.
For what it's worth, I have stated, and will restate, I am in favor of small co-pays ($25?) for visits. Just SOMETHING to cut out the "I have a sniffle, I'll lay out of work and spend the day at the doctor instead" concerns. That is a valid concern, and I think this would help control it.
Finn, employers really *don't* pay for your insurance now. It's nothing but a money swap on paper. A company creates a budget for its employees that includes insurance costs as part of the total compensation package. If the US switched to a universal plan, the "employer portion" of the new tax is really coming from you as part of your total compensation. That's in addition to any "employee portion" you would pay.
That is spin of words. Yes, it is a part of the package, and instead of the money going into your pocket, it goes to the insurance company.
Quote:
Employers are not going to suddenly roll over extra money your way as a result of universal healthcare. It's all coming out of your pocket.
If the law is written in such way that part of what they paid the insurance companies is converted to HC tax, and the rest to your wages (and/or reduction to corporate spending), then you would be covered, with a nice bump in the wages. It is only a matter of hashing out the details.
Yet again, even more financial illiteracy rears its ugly head. /SMH
You can shove your childish insults up your rear until you find a way to somehow prove you are smarter than anyone else here. So far you have managed to prove only the opposite.
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.
