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.
Do people believe that companies will instantly raise your salaries commensurate to what they pay now as part of your insurance benefits the moment such a concept would ever be enacted?
Heck no.
You'll get your current wage AND still be out this cost.
That will be much harder for companies when workers no longer are chained to the employer for health care. M4A boosts workers' power. If the employer currently pays $10 000 in insurance premiums and they instead have to pay $10 000 in M4A payroll taxes, you cant argue that workers will lose $10 000. If the M4A employer payroll tax is lower, its also likely that the employee portion would be lower than what the employee pays now in premiums, co-pays and deductibles. The evidence is overwhelming that a national health care system is good for ordinary people. Thats why every developed country has it.
That will be much harder for companies when workers no longer are chained to the employer for health care. M4A boosts workers' power. If the employer currently pays $10 000 in insurance premiums and they instead have to pay $10 000 in M4A payroll taxes, you cant argue that workers will lose $10 000. If the M4A employer payroll tax is lower, its also likely that the employee portion would be lower than what the employee pays now in premiums, co-pays and deductibles. The evidence is overwhelming that a national health care system is good for ordinary people. Thats why every developed country has it.
The way the OP's link to the article describes it, the M4A would be a direct tax burden to the individual, not the corporation.
If the burden is shifted, and corporations are alleviated of paying into M4A (according to the article), then I foresee a gap between the enactment of the M4A dream and commensurate increases to worker wages.
So there will be 'hurt' put on families. I also foresee that this gap could get dragged out and may require govt intervention to equalize wages, but that could take years and years.
What happens with the elderly who "earned" their way to a $140 monthly premium (or something like that) by paying into Medicare for 40+ years? These are people who were banking on an affordable premium in their low, fixed-income years.
For example, let's say a new retiree has an income of $3,000 - $4,000 a month, before taxes. Factored into the decision to retire was the low monthly premium once he moved from Obamare ($900 a month) to Medicare ($140ish, plus a supplement of around $150). Raising the cost to $1000/month on retirees and near-retirees when they are no longer able to increase their income can spell financial disaster.
My jaw literally dropped when I saw that amount. That's almost a thousand dollars a month.
He defends it by saying a family that pays $20,000 a year for health insurance and care would be saving money.
Well I fall into the middle class and my health insurance for my spouse and myself is like $230 a month, for excellent coverage. We spend maybe $2850 a year for total everything, rxs, etc.
So under his plan I would be forced to lose that, and pay nearly quadruple for Government run crap.
How much do you pay now for health insurance, deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance, and out-of-pocket? I think the answer will surprise you!
Only the free market will ever bring down healthcare costs. Let that one sink in. Anything else that is tried may be good for redistributing money, but it won't work at controlling costs.
Use some critical thinking Beer. The healthcare industry/system has been private for decades and look at the costs!
I'm all for whatever/whomever it takes to sever the ungodly link between healthcare and employment.
For a country that loves the idea of freedom so much, tying healthcare to an employer is basically the least free approach possible and benefits no one except for employers. Employees with chronic health conditions stay at terrible jobs for the insurance and employers can remain happy that employees won't complain for fear of losing their job and, consequently, healthcare. Great system, huh?
I can't even fathom how we got to this state of things apart from some terrible corruption of the whole Protestant work ethic ethos which this country was founded upon. Those who don't work shall not get healthcare, perhaps?
Having lived in both the US and a country with UHC, I can pretty confidently say Americans are getting bamboozled. I've stopped any preventative care under my supposedly 'top tier' insurance because a routine physical (read: 10 minutes with the doctor) costs me $900 out of pocket after spending $250/paycheck on premiums with a $2k annual deductible which I never meet. If I do magically meet that they'll still only pay 80% of 'approved' expenses if they are 'in-network'. When sick I do not visit a doctor, I got to a private urgent care and pay $300-400 out of pocket to see a nurse practitioner rather than potentially thousands at the hospital or clinic. I have a HSA with several grand in it, that would get immediately wiped out with even a single hospitalization.
America's system works great if you're young, relatively healthy and employed. Everyone else is playing the lottery. Save money for years and hope that a chronic illness doesn't wipe out your savings overnight. Losing your home to pay for medical bills is a uniquely American concept, and yet we think that's normal somehow. 'Thoughts and prayers' right?
We don't have healthcare here, we have insurance and co-pays for the working folks and Go Fund Me, bankruptcy, and potential death for everyone else. For those of us 'lucky' enough to have insurance, we still have higher costs but worse outcomes, higher mortality rates and lower life expectancy than the rest of the developed world. Is this the system we still want to be defending?
Last edited by vladlensky; 08-29-2019 at 09:04 AM..
The way the OP's link to the article describes it, the M4A would be a direct tax burden to the individual, not the corporation.
Thats because Fox Business deliberately "forget" to say that the $10 000 tax figure includes both the employer and the employee part of taxes. Just like insurance premiums include both the employer and employee portion. Its deliberately deceiving to rile people up and fight for the status quo.
Use some critical thinking Beer. The healthcare industry/system has been private for decades and look at the costs!
actually it has not been private for decades..it has been government controlled/regulated/mandated for like 8 decades
our government is like a boss standing over you saying time is money...a micro-manager
our government (especially depts. like the FDA) is the problem
our government...will NOT have cheap health care.....NEVER..... everything our government puts its greedy hands on goes to crap
the FDA (our government) is a major part of the problem, along with AMA, AHA, VA, medicare/Medicaid(they are full of denial of service)
I was injured in Iraq..(my back)..the VA (government ) wanted FUSING, would not approve the disc replacement...yet BCBS (private ) would PAY FOR IT overseas (except for travel and lodging)it wasnt until dec 2004 that the fda approved it for single level...still the VA and tricare (government ) would not do it (said it was 'experimental'..even though it had been successful in Europe for nearly 3 decades)...FINALLY I won the battle against the government and had my back surgery in 2007
the lumbar DISC REPLACEMENT surgery was done in Europe for nearly 30 years before the FDA approved for it to be done here
and its BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT (especially the FDA)...believe me government care is not what the basic American wants
its the way the government works....and it sucks
here what I went through with the VA's at Northport, and the Bronx:
va patient needs a MRI...the government (va) NOPE use an xray...first time
2. xray doesn't show much..patient needs an MRI...the government (va) use the xray...you have DDD
3. patient doc I am in pain,,are you sure its DDD..doc the xray shows some funny spaces, could be DDD or could be something else...let's ask for a MRI..the government nope lets xray (each xray is RADIATING the person btw)...again funny spacing...must be DDD
4. same
5. same
6. same
7. same
8 same
.
.
15 same
.
.
23 same
23 times with the VA xray...its DDD(degenerative disc disease)
go to my doctor and PAY FOR THE MRI out of pocket...and we find out its... one CRUSHED disc, and 2 ruptured discs............
now the choices...the government(va) FUSION and still have pain, and limited movement(because at the time the FDA would not allow the replacement that had been being done in europe for 30 years)(the FDA finally approved single level artificial discs in 2004, (the va and tri-care refused saying it was 'experimental"))...or non-government(blue cross) which would have covered me to fly to Europe to get it (minus lodging and the airfair) .....4 years of big pain, before my battle was won against the government
and medicare……. will deny lumbar artificial disc replacement.... not allowed (guess they see no need for older people to not have back pain)…. keep in mind this operation has been done, successfully, in Europe for 35 years
the best thing I ever had was that surgery, made me feel 10 years younger..... yet our government says no....
Quote:
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has found that lumbar artificial disc replacement (LADR) with the Charite lumbar artificial disc is not reasonable and necessary for the Medicare population over sixty years of age. Therefore, we are issuing a national noncoverage determination for LADR with the Charite lumbar artificial disc for the Medicare population over sixty years of age. For Medicare beneficiaries sixty years of age and under, there is no national coverage determination, leaving such determinations to be made on a local basis. https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverag...=AAAAAAAAEAAA&
and now the FDA has said...nope americans don't need back pain relief or fixing...go with fusion.. they recently disallowed the Charite lumbar artificial disc...the very same one I have and love
.....we are behind and more costly, because of GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS
I'm all for whatever/whomever it takes to sever the ungodly link between healthcare and employment.
For a country that loves the idea of freedom so much, tying healthcare to an employer is basically the least free approach possible and benefits no one except for employers. Employees with chronic health conditions stay at terrible jobs for the insurance and employers can remain happy that employees won't complain for fear of losing their job and, consequently, healthcare. Great system, huh?
I can't even fathom how we got to this state of things apart from some terrible corruption of the whole Protestant work ethic ethos which this country was founded upon. Those who don't work shall not get healthcare, perhaps?
Having lived in both the US and a country with UHC, I can pretty confidently say Americans are getting bamboozled. I've stopped any preventative care under my supposedly 'top tier' insurance because a routine physical (read: 10 minutes with the doctor) costs me $900 out of pocket after spending $250/paycheck on premiums with a $2k annual deductible which I never meet. When sick I do not visit a doctor, I got to urgent care and pay $300-400 out of pocket rather than potentially thousands at the hospital or clinic. I have a HSA with a couple grand on it, that would get immediately wiped out with even a single hospitalization.
We don't have healthcare here, we have insurance and co-pays for the working folks and Go Fund Me, bankruptcy, and potential death for everyone else. Is this the system we still want to be defending?
it was the government that did that, with the AMA and the hospital association
costs will never go down until we sever the hospital model...most of these other countries that have national health, left the hospital model for the clinic model
Sanders: Middle class will pay 10k more in taxes for Medicare 4 All
The Topic title is misleading.
"He added that a family currently paying $20,000 for private insurance – in premiums and out-of-pocket expenses – would see that obligation eliminated. Instead, taxes would increase by $10,000.
“Is that a good deal? I think it’s a pretty good deal,” he said."
Sanders has the family paying $10K more in taxes, but also not needing to spend the $20K OOP for HC.
Isn't that a $10K gain for the family?
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.
