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.
Whatever. The precise numbers are not important. What is important is that a 100% solution is prohibitively expensive and would be funded by people who are already paying far more than their fair share of taxes. See another post in this thread about California. Got it?
What we have right now is the working uninsured are paying higher effective tax rates than the employer insured and the government insured. Why should the working uninsured have to pay higher effective tax rates than the insured?
If essential benefits are no longer mandated, even people with employer-provided healthcare will lose benefits. If lifetimes limits are imposed, people will lose healthcare.
You realize that group health plans and self-funded plans were already completely exempt from the essential benefits clause. That pretty much covers every employer-provided plan.
Dropping essential benefits will do nothing to those.
I lost healthcare even with employer insurance under the ACA. My deductible shot up to $5k from $500 and, as a large group health plan, my deductible applied to even basic doctor visits and blood work. At $800+ out of pocket just for my annual check-up, I had to simply stop going to the doctor altogether.
[b]Obamacare required every health plan to cover certain essential benefits -- everything from maternity and hospital care to prescription drugs and mental health.
You are footing the bill now. With a universal health system you likely would pay less. Possibly much less, looking at what other countries pay.
Other countries negotiate equipment, prescription, and private care prices in bulk as an entire country.
That is something you cannot legally do in the United States, so we might not see the same drop in costs.
(And if the US did turn around and find a way to legalize that, I suspect other countries would suddenly be in much worse shape as they would be forced to absorb the savings the US would be making.)
What we have right now is the working uninsured are paying higher effective tax rates than the employer insured and the government insured. Why should the working uninsured have to pay higher effective tax rates than the insured?
Why should anyone have to pay more for the same access to government services simply because they earn more money? "Effective Tax Rate" is an entirely meaningless obfuscation of an already unfair (percentage based) tax system. The notion that people who earn more should pay more taxes in absolute dollars is spectacularly unfair.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,619,501 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourWakeUpCall
Why should anyone have to pay more for the same access to government services simply because they earn more money? "Effective Tax Rate" is an entirely meaningless obfuscation of an already unfair (percentage based) tax system. The notion that people who earn more should pay more taxes in absolute dollars is spectacularly unfair.
Actually it isn't, because if everyone payed the same dollar amount, then about 30-40% of the population would have to pay EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR they make in income.
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.
