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.
It's actually highly relevant. And it is partly subsidized by the Fed Gov for one very important reason:
So the Fed Gov doesn't have to somehow come up with an extra $3.2 trillion/year to pay everyone's health care bills.
No its not relevant, its just a cost for employers, just like a payroll tax. And that cost is passed on to employees in the form of lower wages, which is what has been happening with skyrocketing private health insurance costs. The federal government already pays more than $1 trillion in health care costs and the total health care costs for the coming ten years is almost $50 trillion. Thats almost $5 trillion per year on average, far more than even the most extreme anti-single payer think tanks will have you believe.
Starting about two months from now, insurers and states will have more freedom to offer consumers more options. Until then, changes have been made that should help some people. Read the article in link above for details.
Americans will once again be able to buy what is known as short-term, limited-duration insurance for up to a year, assuming their state allows it. These plans are free from most Obamacare regulations, allowing them to cost between 50 and 80 percent less.
Insurers will also be able to sell renewable plans, allowing consumers to stay on their affordable coverage for up to 36 months. Consumers can also buy separate renew ability protection, which will allow them to lock in low rates in their renewable plans even if they get sick.
Up to 2 million Americans, and possibly more, are expected to enroll within the next few years. Such plans were offered for terms of up to 12 months for decades until, in an effort to push Americans into Obamacare, the previous administration restricted the plans to 90 days
Yes and no. It's a little complicated. The cost of employer-paid health insurance is a deductible business expense, so it offsets the same amount in profits that would have otherwise been taxed..
It's not that complicated. If you're incorporated as a C-corporation, all employee expenses (including health care + wages) is considered a business expense and is deducted from profits. What's left in the C-corporation is taxed at corporate rates.
So your response is nonsensical (strange, coming from a successful business owner). PCALMike's point is that your wages are essentially your income + your health care expenses (paid by your employer). You respond: "but hey it's deductible", completely ignoring that so are your wages.
I should also point out that most business owners who run C-corporations usually make it so there are no realized profits for their corporations, so the corporation does not pay any tax (except the mandatory payroll etc) by usually having the owner withdrawing the remaining realized gain as income. Therefore, each individual is taxed at their own rate.
It remains a subject of debate if the corporations no longer had to foot the bill for healthcare if that would translate to higher wages for you or higher wages for the owner(s). I suspect it would increase both, but mostly the owner's wages. The problem is when you accept lower wages, that's what you get.
Last edited by NomadicDrifter; 08-18-2018 at 12:14 PM..
The VA is socialized medicine. Its what they have in the UK, as JFK told us more than 50 years ago. Medicare is single payer. What we have now is a corrupt government subsidized corporate insurance system that leave millions without the care they deserve and need and people go bankrupt because of cancer, die because they dont have money and have to choose between food and the medicine they need. Its appalling. A cheaper, better system that covers everyone is possible, as the rest of the developed world teaches us.
I don't want single payer socialized HC. Not as a patient, nor as a doc.
I think dropping Medicare to age 50-55 would suffice in relieving much of the HC risk off of the private sector. The private sector can fare well enough on both sides with our generally healthy and younger working people and families. And that portion is huge.
We still will need Medicaid to care for the poor.
But I think eliminating the private sector from HC would be a big mistake. Bad for many patients and many docs. Both should have choices.
Obamacare works well for those that need serious care. It is just too expensive. Especially those with lower risks and HC costs. We can work on that.
Medicare is not socialized health care. Its single payer but its not like the UK and VA where the government runs it. So Medicare-for-all does not mean socialized medicine.
It's not that complicated. If you're incorporated as a C-corporation, all employee expenses (including health care + wages) is considered a business expense and is deducted from profits. What's left in the C-corporation is taxed at corporate rates.
So your response is nonsensical (strange, coming from a successful business owner).
It's not nonsensical. Tax deductions reduce the corporate tax liability. A bigger tax = a bigger tax deduction = a bigger decline in corporate income tax revenue. How is that decline in tax revenue offset? Americans already think corporations pay too little in tax.
Medicare is not socialized health care. Its single payer but its not like the UK and VA where the government runs it. So Medicare-for-all does not mean socialized medicine.
Most other developed countries control costs, in part, by having the government play a stronger role in negotiating prices for healthcare. Their healthcare systems don’t require the high administrative costs that drive up pricing in the U.S. As the global overseers of their country's systems, these governments have the ability to negotiate lower drug, medical equipment and hospital costs. They can influence the mix of treatments used and patients’ ability to go to specialists or seek more expensive treatments.
So far in the U.S., there has been a lack of political support for the government taking a larger role in controlling healthcare costs.
Quote:
This means there will be multiple payers for the services and less powerful control over negotiated pricing from providers of healthcare services.
Even as a conservative, I admit we need government to play a larger role in controlling the cost of drugs, administrative, and healthcare costs in this country. This isn't about access to healthcare (that was Obama) this is about the cost of it.
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.
