P
phil3
Guest
this is a waste of time.
Last edited:
Study: When Counting Premiums, US Workers Heavily Taxed
- Thread starter blackforest
- Start date
- Status
R
RCIAGraduate
Guest
From what I understand California’s plan failed because they weren’t allowed to use Medicare funds and Vermont’s may have overexerted themselves by supporting an overly generous plan (maybe a more modest option could have managed somehow).
Happy New Years.
Happy New Years.
S
Socrates92
Guest
That’s a pretty hefty percentage to ask the average private insuree to donate just to prop up one particular industry.
D
Dan123
Guest
We pay 2.9% now for medicare to only cover some (and that only covers some, though the most expensive to cover), if it’s 6% total , or if it was a number in-between with the difference made up in other areas (budget cuts elsewhere, raising the cap for SS contributions, increase capital gains tax, whatever) it doesn’t seem insurmountable. We just need to decide we want to do it.
P
phil3
Guest
It is 100% voluntary,
blackforest
Well-known member
Last edited:
S
Socrates92
Guest
Ah, I misunderstood.
H
Hodos
Guest
A premium is not a tax, it is the cost of a service provided by health insurance providers.
I do find that our insurance premiums are very expensive, primarily because the US Healthcare system has abandoned free market principles with regard to healthcare. Obamacare did nothing to control costs of healthcare by requiring a very high level of medical services that must be covered by all plans regardless of the health, age, etc., of the individuals consuming health insurance. This extreme inclusiveness and lack of choice increased the cost of premiums substantially and reduced choice. I personally think that we need to allow for people to make decisions as to what procedures and services should be covered under their plans, this would help to lower the costs of premiums. We also need to make the cost of services more transparent so that people can have the information available to make cost efficient healthcare choices. This will in turn force health insurance companies and health care providers to respond to market pressures of supply and demand.
D
Dan123
Guest
It’s just a way to compare like-to-like, or total cost. Some people have a habit of, I think somewhat deceptively, only considering one aspect of health spending. E.g. when you hear “Plan XYZ would increase government spending by $$$” without them mentioning how much it might decrease somewhere else e.g. premiums. Regardless of where people stand on issues we should reject manipulating the presentation of numbers to suit our needs when we notice it. If I pay $500/mo more in taxes but save $500 on premiums, I can still say I don’t like the plan but it’s dishonest to say it would increase costs to me (just an example obviously)
H
Hodos
Guest
Understood. However, I still think that it is deceptive accounting. If I pay a premium, I am paying for a service that I actually use and consume. The same cannot be said of a tax. When I pay taxes, I am paying for something that may be far and above what I actually use and consume to subsidize the consumption of that service by others who may or may not be contributing to its maintenance. This is why I took issue with trying to draw an apples to apples comparison while making a recommendation that we stop looking at health insurance as a government utility and start making the industry follow free market practices. The theory is that free market pressures (which the insurance industry is not currently subject to because of the structure of our laws) would cause health insurance companies and health care providers to compete for your business. The difference here is that health care would be subject to free market pressures, whereas tax policy is not.
Last edited:
D
Dan123
Guest
For most services I’d agree. But insurance is the same model as taxes, everyone pays but not everyone gets back what they put in, it’s just there if you need it. Everyone eventually uses healthcare.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The article is deceptive in at least one way, and it’s a very serious deception.
The article focuses on “labor tax” without acknowledging that Europeans pay other taxes we don’t pay at all, particularly “value added taxes” on everything they buy. That’s why, e.g., food prices in Europe are about double what they are here relative to income. There is another “tax” in that the government controls about 2/3 of the doctors and doesn’t pay them anywhere near as well as doctors here. One can argue about that, but it’s still another “tax”.
The article focuses on “labor tax” without acknowledging that Europeans pay other taxes we don’t pay at all, particularly “value added taxes” on everything they buy. That’s why, e.g., food prices in Europe are about double what they are here relative to income. There is another “tax” in that the government controls about 2/3 of the doctors and doesn’t pay them anywhere near as well as doctors here. One can argue about that, but it’s still another “tax”.
H
Hodos
Guest
No, it isn’t the same. If I don’t like the services I receive in exchange for my premiums, I can find a new provider, or choose no provider at all and pay out of pocket. I can’t do the same with taxes. If I decide the government is no longer my provider they can show up at my doorstep with guns, and toss me in jail until I pay my taxes.
Last edited:
D
Dan123
Guest
You see the provider as the government but they just write the check. The healthcare provider is your doctor and medical teams, and when they all take your insurance you can more easily shop around. I’d rather have my choice of doctors than accountants.
H
Hodos
Guest
I think you are missing the point. There is a vast difference between a private health care system and a public healthcare system. You are advocating for a single payer public healthcare system (whether you realize it or not). In this type of system, the government isn’t just writing the check. They are setting the prices, rationing the services, and writing the check, all subsidized from my taxes regardless of whether I use the services or not, and scaling my taxes by income rather than by use of the service. The healthcare providers are no longer private entities but are proxy government agents. If I don’t like the care provided I have no option to shop around (either for health care providers since prices are set by the government, or for insurance). If I fail to pay my FICA taxes I go to jail. In a private system, if I don’t like the prices or the services provided, I can shop around for a new provider, I can opt out from using health insurance altogether and just pay for services out of pocket, and I only pay for the services which I personally consume. Again, this isn’t an apples to apples comparison by any stretch of the imagination.
Last edited:
blackforest
Well-known member
This is misleading for two reasons. First, I pay premiums but, with only extremely high deductible plans from which to choose, I rarely get to “consume” what I’m paying for with the insurance company. Second, unless you’re Amish, you can’t tell me that under a single-payer system, you would never, ever in your life use any kind of doctor, emergency room, urgent care, or other health care service. You’d be paying for something you use. You pay for schools you don’t attend and roads you may never travel on, but health care is absolutely for everybody.
Every complaint you have with single-payer health care exists in the current status quo with unaccountable private insurers. The difference is that single-payer providers cannot turn you away, and no one goes bankrupt paying medical bills.
A more apt comparison would be the consequences that await if you refuse to pay your medical bills.
You can’t shop around based on out-of-pocket costs because doctors and hospitals don’t even know what those are.
H
Hodos
Guest
In a private system you have the freedom to select another plan. You don’t have that option with single payer. Also, the actual service is the insurance, not the care, so you are consuming that good. Under a private system you also have the option to forego coverage and pay for services out of pocket as my parents did for much of their lives, at a reduced cost because the providers hated dealing with insurance.
I know because we currently have the worst of all systems by treating private insurance as a public utility. My suggestion was to go fully privatized and increase transparency of costs, while allowing for a range of plans that offer various coverage packages.
No, only the providers go bankrupt since the govt sets the price of care, which is typically why you have rationing and supply issues in public single payer systems.
No, it’s not an apt comparison because he was comparing insurance premiums with Medicare taxes.
Last edited:
S
Socrates92
Guest
It depends. In Canada, there are countless stories of people traveling to the US to pay for surgery because the wait times that they’d face under our single-payer system would be quite frankly life-threatening. They still get to pay taxes for single-payer though.
Emergency rooms often get abused under a single-payer. It’s analogous to how car dealerships would be tied up if car insurance covered oil-changes.
J
JimG
Guest
One side effect of health insurance, whether private or public, is that it always drives up demand, and drives up prices.
I used to think that Medicare was an income transfer to older people, but it isn’t. It’s an income transfer to health care workers, and everybody wants a piece of the action.
I used to think that Medicare was an income transfer to older people, but it isn’t. It’s an income transfer to health care workers, and everybody wants a piece of the action.
R
RCIAGraduate
Guest
Sir, please answer.
How would you cover the uninsured, if we already spend more sir, why not let our uninsured get coverage including working people not covered by work? Are you hopeful that the industry will evolve to meet demand in this decade such as the scaling of Direct Primary Care or even its more expensive cousin, Concierge Care, that said that main;y covered primary care, what about the rest?
Again, how can we get everyone to a baseline of coverage?
How would you cover the uninsured, if we already spend more sir, why not let our uninsured get coverage including working people not covered by work? Are you hopeful that the industry will evolve to meet demand in this decade such as the scaling of Direct Primary Care or even its more expensive cousin, Concierge Care, that said that main;y covered primary care, what about the rest?
Again, how can we get everyone to a baseline of coverage?
Last edited:
- Status