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.
This "plan" falls far short of that. I'd be curious to see what the new "affordable" rates are that will be put forth by these insurance companies.. along with 'caps' and what the means tests will be..
For one.. insurance should have been made to be mandatory for many many reasons.
Health insurance should not, and will not, be mandatory.
As for rates - TBD - legislation needs to be passed first - details of the legislation have to be worked out. Premiums cannot possibly be determined prior to that.
Health insurance should not, and will not, be mandatory.
As for rates - TBD - legislation needs to be passed first - details of the legislation have to be worked out. Premiums cannot possibly be determined prior to that.
Don't make absolute statements you don't know what the future holds..just because you WANT it NOT to be mandatory doesn't neccesarily mean that it won't be no more than me wanting it to be will mean it will be.
It wont in this legislation as you laid out.. but I hold hope for the future.
As for this legislation.. everything ALWAYS gets watered down when it gets written and then goes through the process. It needs to be strong to begin with to be weakened later. What you outlined is weak from the get go. I don't hold much hope for it to really make much of a change.
It's dissappointing at best so far.. but time will tell I suppose.
Don't make absolute statements you don't know what the future holds..just because you WANT it NOT to be mandatory doesn't neccesarily mean that it won't be no more than me wanting it to be will mean it will be.
TristansMommy, I'm still interested in your response to this from Greatday earlier:
Look, you keep up with this 20% of your income number - yet, you have no problem with taking 20% of someones paycheck to "contribute" to a national program. So, you are not making sense.
Why do you feel that someone else should be paying so you can have "affordable" medical care? Are we all entitled to affordable medical care?
It's a simple question: Do you believe people are entitled to (have a right to) affordable medical care?
TristansMommy, I'm still interested in your response to this from Greatday earlier:
Look, you keep up with this 20% of your income number - yet, you have no problem with taking 20% of someones paycheck to "contribute" to a national program. So, you are not making sense.
Why do you feel that someone else should be paying so you can have "affordable" medical care? Are we all entitled to affordable medical care?
It's a simple question: Do you believe people are entitled to (have a right to) affordable medical care?
I already responded to that post.. you should go back and look..
Yes.. I feel that everyone should have access to affordable healthcare. Why should only those with the money get healthcare.. lots of people work hard but may not make as much money as the next. Does that make them any less important? When access to healthcare means the difference between life and death..yes.. everyone should be able to access it .. not for free..that's not what Universal coverage is about at all.
I've even posted information about the Swiss system.. where insurance is mandated by law but that if the premiums reach beyond 10% of the a persons income the government subsidizes..etc. etc.
Anyway. go back and read my answer.. it's there. BTW.. i never said anything about anyone paying 20% of their income for other people's medical.. I have no idea where GD got that from.
Where did I say taking 20% of someones paycheck for the system?? I never said that.. I pointed to the British system where 11% tax is collected from paychecks to pay for the system.. GD.
If 20% were to be taken.. then we might as well KEEP this crapped up system..
So don't YOU lie.. I never said take 20% from someone else to pay for it,.
Again..you failed to address what I posted. What is YOUR definition of affordable?? Because as I said.. someone paying 20 plus percent of their income on PREMIUMS ALONE is NOT affordable!!! Not when that almost equals the cost to keep a roof over your head GD.
Again.. insurance companies will fix a price..if Joe Smith can't pay that price because it eats up too much of his income needed for food, clothing and utilities.. it's not "affordable" to him.. and this legislation means NOTHING!
Unless... by making it affordable .. they pricing on an income sliding scale if the regular premiums hit over a certain % of income. But they won't.. they don't care how affordable or non affordable they are. They have NO INTEREST in that whatsoever.. all they care about is their profit margin.. not medicine. .. Not giving that hardworking family access to affordable healthcare..
That's why it falls short..
And what is this "means test".. very vague.. how is that determined.. is it determined by % of how much of your income monthly premiums eat up?
Remember this little conversation? Looks like about 20% to me...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy The tax paid for it is 11% of your income by the individual and I believe it is 12% by employers into the health fund in UK.
Now.. consider that an average family of 4 at the average salary of $56K in the U.S.. health insurance costs for that family in premiums ALONE is 20% or more!!! That doesn't include copays, deductables and any out of pocket expenses.
PLUS UK has a far less GDP spending on healthcare than the U.S U.K is at around 8% Us is more than 15%. The second highest nation of GDP in healthcare spending is Switzerland at around the 11% mark.
Health Care Spending
Ok, what's the tax rate now? 25% for middle income? Then add your 11%. Now add the 12% you claim is employer paid but we all know companies don't pay tax and any "payroll" tax that is paid is actually coming out of YOUR salary and added to cost of goods so prices go up.
So following your figures that's a 23% add to the tax burden along with what we're already paying so how does that not equate to about 48% tax? And that's just on the middle income.
You don't see a problem with this?
Remember this little conversation? Looks like about 20% to me...
20% OVERALL NOT from one HOUSEHOLDS or ONE EMPLOYERS POCKET.. BIG difference there!! BIG!
Right now the entire pie comes from the employer at 20% with a possible 50% contribution from the employee of (taken out of paycheck) some less, some more depending on the employer. AND the health insurance is tied tothe JOB NOT the person!
If you're self employed or employer does not provide health insurance you cuold be paying 20+ % of your income for health insurance.
The Brits, for example, pay an 11% tax.. and employers pay 12% .. that's approx 50/50 split..DIFFERENCE.. health benefits NOT TIED TO EMPLOYMENT.. lose your job, you're still covered. AND EVERYONE has coverage. Money is NOT funnelled through a "middle man" .. the money paid actually goes to the medicine man.. NOT CEO salaries, not 30% administrative overhead, not advertisement, not lobbying, not to shareholders.. to the actual medicine!
So.. continue to try and twist it if you'd like.. but no where in any of my posts did I say nor imply that ONE SIDE of the equation would pay 20% of anything for somebody else... etc.
I've even posted information about the Swiss system.. where insurance is mandated by law but that if the premiums reach beyond 10% of the a persons income the government subsidizes..etc. etc.
For the sake of clarity and honesty, when you say the "government subsidizes" the difference, the TRUTH IS, the TAXPAYERS SUBSIDIZE the difference - where does the government get the money to subsidize?
And, if someone is self employed? How much do they pay?
GD.. there are self employed people in canada and in the UK and I'm sure in most European countries too since they all have the same mixed economic system that we do... and it works for them..
For the sake of clarity and honesty, when you say the "government subsidizes" the difference, the TRUTH IS, the TAXPAYERS SUBSIDIZE the difference - where does the government get the money to subsidize?
yes.. taxes subsidize.. for the poorest of the popultaion whose health insurance costs are more than 10% of their income.. meaning the lowest earners..
Working just fine for them..oh and their GDP spending is around 11%.
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.
BTW.. i never said anything about anyone paying 20% of their income for other people's medical.. I have no idea where GD got that from.
