Also one natural disasters or health outbreak could bankrupt a plan/state like this as well. Instead of the costs being split amongst 100's of payers it all falls onto the state.
aka the rep for 39 million payers
Also one natural disasters or health outbreak could bankrupt a plan/state like this as well. Instead of the costs being split amongst 100's of payers it all falls onto the state.
1. Why should it NOT be mandatory?
2. On what basis are you saying this? Do you have any data to backup your assertion?
1. Because that's not what this country was founded on. That is what the 9th and 10th amendment are about, to give each state power to do what's best for their constituents. Plus, on a personal level, I despise almost all mandatory things.
First, the state cannot require companies to take their existing healthcare payments and give it to the state. Thats not how taxes or healthcare works. They would have to implement a new tax and hope their number crunching was right on how much things costs and how much the taxes bring in and everything lines up. It would work similar to a state unemployment or disability tax, just another line item that taxes an amount based on the employees salary. I don't know what would be going on with part time or contract workers. Its not a given that all companies would be for this, some view healthcare as a core employee retention tool (our healthcare is better than what you'll get elsewhere) plus there are issues around what happens if contract jobs don't require the tax paid, in which case every employee would suddenly get turned into a contractor.
Second, the governor has already said he is against this whole thing and plans on vetoing any plan put forward that isn't realistic in its funding.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/ess...ealthcare-gov-jerry-1490226321-htmlstory.html
Third, there is literally zero chance of Trump ever approving the transfer of medicaid allocated funds (which he wants to CUT by the way, so the numbers get even worse) into any sort of single payer system, so it would have to wait until a new President.
Fourth, it would have to be approved by voters. Colorado already rejected it, 80% AGAINST and 20% FOR, once voters found out it would be implemented via a 10% payroll tax. Healthcare lobbies spent millions with scare ads about how businesses would flee Colorado, California would face the same marketing/messaging problem.
Even Bernie Sanders home state of Vermont abandoned a single payer system in 2014 after the sponsor said the tax hikes would probably hurt the state economy.
Its a good set of baby steps for California to start this but realistically it would take 10+ years for this to move along to the point where it could be put before voters.
Welcome to living under a government and not in anarchy. Sorry, but if you are living in a country with rules, there are going to be mandatory things. And honestly, it is for the better cause a large society without rules would not work. Anarchy would work with small groups where everyone knows each other and peer pressure is enough to get people not to treat others like shit. But once you get into even city sized amount of people, being ostracized by a group that you never knew (and there will be several that you aren't part of) is not enough of a deterrent.
Take Oregon and Washington with you, we share the same values and can give you drinking water and pacific northwest things.
Would move to Frank if that happens.The three of yall should just join Canada to be frank.
Literally yes please. I already have amazing insurance from work, now it's time for every one of my brothers and sisters to get it. I'll gleefully help pick up the tab.
"i don wanna be forced into something"
*being forced into it would mean cheap healthcare, lower costs, and steady oversight on your care, leading a healthier and happier life*
"BUT FOUNDING FATHERS!"
*ignore fact the founding of the nation predates actual medicine by over a century*
First was the 1790 law, passed by that first Congress, which applied to any U.S. ship that was at least 150 tons or with a crew of at least 10. It required the master or commander to either have a supply of on-board medicines (with instructions) or provide "all such advice, medicine, or attendance of physicians, as any of the crew shall stand in need of in case of sickness" and do it "without any deduction from the wages of such sick seaman or mariner."
Sounds like mandatory health care to us.
Then, in 1792, a Congress that included 17 framers passed a law requiring nearly every "free able-bodied white male citizen" age 18 to 44, within six months, "provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges," along with balls and gunpowder. A rifle could be substituted. The purpose was to establish a uniform militia.
Again, that sounds like a mandated purchase to us.
Finally, in 1798, a Congress that included five framers expanded the health coverage mandate, requiring every ship owner or master coming into a port to pay 20 cents per seaman for every month each worker had been employed.
The funds, which could be withheld from the seamen, were used "to provide for the temporary relief and maintenance of sick or disabled seamen, in the hospitals or other proper institutions now established" in the port. Leftover funds were used to create hospitals for those mariners.
"Fuck you, got mine"
"i don wanna be forced into something"
*being forced into it would mean cheap healthcare, lower costs, and steady oversight on your care, leading a healthier and happier life*
"BUT FOUNDING FATHERS!"
*ignore fact the founding of the nation predates actual medicine by over a century*
Nice drive by shit post. My monthly premium that's paid fully by my employer, is about 10% of my gross salary . If the state started charging 15 - 20% more taxes on me and I don't get a raise to cover some of that tax increase, I would be fucked and so would many more. This isn't tens of dollars, but hundreds. More like " Stop fucking me".
Not... really? Unless you're going to advocate for trickle down economics, 'cause that's the exact same logic. If employers don't pass on tax breaks to their employees or use that for headhunting, why would this be any different? That's what I don't get. Is trickle down bad or isn't it? Just seems VERY optimistic, and the use of the word "savings" in particular bothers me since that's the same exact buzzword conservatives use to justify tax breaks for the wealthy/mega-corporations.If your company didn't give you a raise, other companies would use their savings to head hunt you.
Not... really? Unless you're going to advocate for trickle down economics, 'cause that's the exact same logic. If employers don't pass on tax breaks to their employees or use that for headhunting, why would this be any different? That's what I don't get. Is trickle down bad or isn't it? Just seems VERY optimistic, and the use of the word "savings" in particular bothers me since that's the same exact buzzword conservatives use to justify tax breaks for the wealthy/mega-corporations.
PLEASE PLEASE WORK.
This could be fucking huge if they can pull it off.
Why do people hate taxes yet somehow gladly pay 3-500 per month for a shitty HSA plan with a $2,000 deductible.
Nice drive by shit post. My monthly premium that's paid fully by my employer, is about 10% of my gross salary . If the state started charging 15 - 20% more taxes on me and I don't get a raise to cover some of that tax increase, I would be fucked and so would many more. This isn't tens of dollars, but hundreds. More like " Stop fucking me".
Nice drive by shit post. My monthly premium that's paid fully by my employer, is about 10% of my gross salary . If the state started charging 15 - 20% more taxes on me and I don't get a raise to cover some of that tax increase, I would be fucked and so would many more. This isn't tens of dollars, but hundreds. More like " Stop fucking me".
This is literally fuck you got mine.
"My taxes possibly raising is a much graver problem than solving the issue of Americans dying due to lack of healthcare".
And companies don't pay salaries and benefits out of the goodness of their hearts. Any company that cut net salaries because their insurance check has become a payroll tax would pay the price in retaining talent.
Seems Washington's incompetence is going to force Blue States to further differentiate.
Also expect them to complain that it isn't fair and demand it somehow be dismantled, because it isn't right wing if it isn't full of hipocracyDon't worry, even in 100 years of this works out, you'll have conservatives going "one of these days it's going to fail, that's why my southern red state will never go that way"
This is literally fuck you got mine.
"My taxes possibly raising is a much graver problem than solving the issue of Americans dying due to lack of healthcare".
And companies don't pay salaries and benefits out of the goodness of their hearts. Any company that cut net salaries because their insurance check has become a payroll tax would pay the price in retaining talent.
And companies don't pay salaries and benefits out of the goodness of their hearts. Any company that cut net salaries because their insurance check has become a payroll tax would pay the price in retaining talent
It would be more like 5-10%, if that. Since the existing 10% wouldn't be going to a private insurer anymore. You're also discounting the entire workforce being on one plan - instead of scattered across likely hundreds of different pools as it is now. So I wouldn't be shocked if the per capita cost is actually reduced since there would be tens of millions of people on one simple plan.
I wonder why it would need a tax increase? Forgive my economic literacy. But if the US government currently spends twice as much of its GDP on healthcare than singlepayer/universal healthcare nations. Then wouldn't this be actually saving the US money?
Why do people hate taxes yet somehow gladly pay 3-500 per month for a shitty HSA plan with a $2,000 deductible.
A payroll tax can be imposed on either the employer or the employee. So basically impose the majority of it on the employer (to replace the premiums they are paying for you) and a smaller portion of it on the employer (to replace the smaller portion of the premiums that you currently pay) and that should take the burden off individuals without hurting companies too much.No it isnt. You have no clue what goes on in peoples lives. I basically live pay check to pay check. A LARGE tax increase like 15 to 20 percent without SOME sort of raise from my employer would make me homeless. I would have to leave the state. Do you even live in California? High housing prices, rent, utility bills, HOA's, gas prices, etc.... It's expensive as hell here. Let me guess, your a 20 something year old that works a low paying job, struggling to get thru school and lives with your parents? If you can afford to pay around 20 percent more in taxes, then good for you. I cant. I want to see everyone have healthcare, but not at the expense of making people even more poorer and have even more struggle in their lives. You may get some healthcare, but what happens when you cant afford rent or food? You cant just tax, tax, and tax people.
Lol your right, and chances are, they sure as hell aren't going to give you 15 -20 percent raise either. " Retaining talent " might apply to some jobs. Entry level jobs? Not gonna happen. If you have companies complaining about paying higher minimum wage, then they are not going to want to compensate your new tax increase if they aren't forced too. Only way that happens is if you have a union working to make that happen.
If it is something like 5 - 10% than that's a slightly different story. As I've said before, I don't mind paying a bit more in taxes for healthcare, but that 5- 10% figure would be a best case scenario.
It doesn't. But if you propose cutting the military so that the US can destroy the world 10 times over instead of 50, it means you hate America.
So this will get rid of all private health? That's dumb to shut down the industry like that, they should just heavily regulate it. In Australia where I live you have a choice. If you have the money you can pay for private health if not you can go with government health. Not much of a difference except less of a wait for elective surgeries when you're private and maybe a private hospital room. Also how in the hell will this cost 600 billion? Why didn't they just copy Australia or Canada's model?
Also one natural disasters or health outbreak could bankrupt a plan/state like this as well. Instead of the costs being split amongst 100's of payers it all falls onto the state.
In the US, the cost of an aspirin in a hospital is like $50 a pill.
Here's the thing, and I don't know if this example is valid, but let's do say an aspirin costs $50 a pill. How is that the fault of the insurers? Isn't this the fault of the hospital that's jacking up the prices to cover their costs?
I've seen several hospital invoices that are in the five figures from my side of the family and it's just ridiculous some of the costs the hospitals are demanding.
My main concern with single payer is that if the government takes over the costs of paying is that they will be much more privy to pay the hospitals with a blank check in the form of tax payer money because they aren't motivated by profit.
The hospital isn't the one jacking up the price.
This i do not understand. For profit entity such as insurance company logically would negotiate for lower drug price so they can get even more profit.
So why the hell they let these health care provider charge ridiculous fee.
Can't wait to see how long it takes Cali - a state with millions of illegal immigrants who will pay zero into this single payer system but who will avail themselves of it nonetheless - to become completely insolvent. Unless there are regulations on usage (i.e. services will be limited to citizens and legal residents), it won't last more than a year or two.
CA expanded its low-income health coverage to undocumented immigrants 18 and under last year so for a good chunk of them Californians are already fine paying for.Can't wait to see how long it takes Cali - a state with millions of illegal immigrants who will pay zero into this single payer system but who will avail themselves of it nonetheless - to become completely insolvent. Unless there are regulations on usage (i.e. services will be limited to citizens and legal residents), it won't last more than a year or two.
Lol your right, and chances are, they sure as hell aren't going to give you 15 -20 percent raise either. " Retaining talent " might apply to some jobs. Entry level jobs? Not gonna happen. If you have companies complaining about paying higher minimum wage, then they are not going to want to compensate your new tax increase if they aren't forced too. Only way that happens is if you have a union working to make that happen.