• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

The California Senate Just Passed Single-Payer Health Care

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
May 30, 2004
28,386
69,117
2,450
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
 
Sep 19, 2015
2,991
665
520
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.

2. The basis is coloradocare, the comprehensive study multiple people did on Bernie Sanders' plan, and even the other analysis. The Amherst analyst analysis seems to be the outlier. That said, I did say "I think" which is just a guess on my part as well.
 

pinsomniac

Member
Oct 15, 2007
466
0
0
Where are people getting the impression this will require a ballot vote?

My understanding: Senate passed the bill, now in Assembly. Likely have to amend with a funding plan that includes taxes, so have to pass with 2/3 vote then send back to Senate for a final 2/3 vote (due to tax inclusions) before landing on Brown's desk.
 

Tigress

Member
Dec 2, 2013
7,184
0
390
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.

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. These large groups also band together to provide each other wtih stuff to make their lives better. Like roads, fire departments, a police department to keep the peace and for countries (and states) that have universal healthcare, an assurance that you can at least get healthcare if you need it and you don't have to choose between it and going bankrupt. Yeah that means they mandate you pay your share, but it's a fair trade off in my opinion (I'd much rather have the assurance of healthcare and also a fire department that will come put out my fire or my neighbor's fire since fires can spread. With private fire departments if you neighbord didn't pay, they'd only come to watch the house burn down and stop it from getting yours but that is not as good prevenative as the putting out the neighbor's fire before it spread to other houses).

I personally would take that over the fear of any health issue when you are uninsured. I lived uninsured for years, highly overrated. But I work retail with no benefits and it was hard to pay it. And yes, I was more terrified of the bills than the disease if I got sick/something happened. I was convinced to get it when I rode a motorcycle and I would eat into what savings I had to pay for it. And I did get in an accident and if the hospital I went to wasn't so charitable even with insurance that motorcycle accident would have bankrupted me and I would probably have had to get my foot amputated cause it would be all that I could afford. And I wouldn't be able to even afford the foot replacement at that point nor the health insurance monthly bills which means then I'd only be able to get what the hospital would give me in a it's life or death at this point situation.

I'm lucky now that I'm married to a person who gets health benefits for him and his spouse (good ones too) through his job. But I know several of my co workers who aren't that lucky.
 
Sep 19, 2015
2,991
665
520
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.

Great post. Just to add, in CO the average person would see only a 3.33% increase in their payroll (6.67% employer) and 10% on all other income. And they were vehemently against it.

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.

I never said I was an anarchist. Read my post again. With some exceptions, if the majority of people in that state don't want a thing, it shouldn't be forced on them IMO. Read up on the 9th and 10th amendment because that's the basis of what I'm talking about and you seem to be unfamiliar with the US constitution.
 
D

Deleted member 284

Unconfirmed Member
Take Oregon and Washington with you, we share the same values and can give you drinking water and pacific northwest things.

The three of yall should just join Canada to be frank.
 

xnipx

Member
Oct 20, 2004
1,921
0
0
Why do people hate taxes yet somehow gladly pay 3-500 per month for a shitty HSA plan with a $2,000 deductible.
 

UnObtainium17

Member
Jan 4, 2012
4,900
1
495
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.

But bootstraps..

Those lazy people are spending my money, y'all!

Happy for cali. I truly believe it's going to work.
Sucks for me. I live in a blue as fuck county (Harris) in a red as fuck state (Texas).
 

FyreWulff

Member
Jan 21, 2010
39,735
1
0
The Internet
fyrewulff.com
"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*
 

JP_

Banned
Nov 7, 2015
3,062
0
0
armsoftelos.com
"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*

Founding fathers just so happened to create a mandatory health insurance system for seaman: http://www.politifact.com/rhode-isl...d-law-professor-says-early-congress-mandated/

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.
 

linkboy

Member
Dec 24, 2005
12,135
0
1,240
Really looking forward to hearing my dad bitch about this, even though he's a retired correctional officer and gets part of his health care paid for by the state.

I really hope California pulls this off.
 

Hydrus

Member
Jun 24, 2014
3,586
1
0
"Fuck you, got mine"

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".
 
Sep 19, 2015
2,991
665
520
"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*

Then start in CA as a good guinea pig. If it works, then spread it around other states until it gets to the federal level. Sounds kinda like what happened to gay marriage and is happening to weed. If others are still not comfortable and reject it, then it stays local like prostitution in some Nevada counties. Sounds good to me. FF were right yet again.
 

JP_

Banned
Nov 7, 2015
3,062
0
0
armsoftelos.com
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".

If your company didn't give you a raise, other companies would use their savings to head hunt you.
 
Dec 24, 2010
3,350
0
770
31
Mount Pleasant, MI.
twitter.com
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.
 

GoldenEye 007

Member
Jul 28, 2006
23,805
0
0
The Big D
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.

There is precedent in employers being able to opt out of paying into Social Security. And in turn, that money goes into even a larger retirement matching. For instance, I pay 10% a paycheck into retirement and they match 13%.

So why not try it for healthcare premiums where generally 20%-30% of a salary package is going towards premiums currently already?
 

Apathy

Member
Nov 24, 2013
12,472
1
0
PLEASE PLEASE WORK.

This could be fucking huge if they can pull it off.

Don'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"
 

Aureon

Please do not let me serve on a jury. I am actually a crazy person.
May 27, 2013
7,810
0
0
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.
 

GoldenEye 007

Member
Jul 28, 2006
23,805
0
0
The Big D
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".

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.
 

Sylas

Member
Oct 9, 2013
2,516
0
0
NYC
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.

I can see where they're coming from because, personally, if my taxes went up by an appreciable amount I would literally wind up homeless. My paycheck barely covers monthly expenses. You can say other companies would headhunt if my current one didn't change our pay structure but that sounds like an if and not a will.

But I also know very little about how this would/will be set up so I'm not incredibly concerned as of yet.
 

VivaciousSoul

Member
Aug 7, 2009
691
1
850
DC Metro
Seems Washington's incompetence is going to force Blue States to further differentiate.

Hey hey I always hear about how Washington is doing this or Washington is doing that. We can't let Washington take America away. We'll rise above Washington! Sorry but the political power in Washington is a mirror reflection of who all the states send here. The actual people living here are as liberal or even more than virtually any other place in the US. Seriously though, I understand what you're saying but I had to get that off my chest.
 
Sep 3, 2013
2,852
0
0
Kali Kid
Don'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"
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 hipocracy
 

Hydrus

Member
Jun 24, 2014
3,586
1
0
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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.
 

matthewuk

Member
Dec 6, 2016
136
0
0
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?
 

GoldenEye 007

Member
Jul 28, 2006
23,805
0
0
The Big D
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?

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.
 

mj1108

Member
Jun 8, 2004
14,368
0
0
Why do people hate taxes yet somehow gladly pay 3-500 per month for a shitty HSA plan with a $2,000 deductible.

Because people are stupid. They hear the word "taxes" and instantly hate it.

Then proceed to bitch that their healthcare costs are too high.
 

darkhunger

Member
Dec 22, 2007
1,781
4
1,110
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.
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.
 

matthewuk

Member
Dec 6, 2016
136
0
0
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.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a guy I used to work with. I asked him what he thought of Yorkshire men. He said "aye that's easy, Yorkshiremen are Scots with all the decency taken out" it made me chuckle but I could definitely say without hesitation that republicans are conservatives striped of humanity
 

DJKhaled

Member
Jun 7, 2014
1,811
1
0
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?
 

GoldenEye 007

Member
Jul 28, 2006
23,805
0
0
The Big D
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?

In the US, the cost of an aspirin in a hospital is like $50 a pill.
 
Sep 8, 2010
18,402
0
0
Philly area
The false concept of freedom by markets and the idea of forcing anyone to do anything even remotely beneficial for an entire country being a bad thing is going to destroy this county.

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.

Uh

100s of payers (insurance companies) have less bargaining power with a divided number of subscribers than a single one that is imposing costs for 39 million people.

Economies of scale how do it work
 

broz0rs

Member
Nov 13, 2010
2,383
1
660
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.
 

Apt101

Member
May 15, 2014
11,012
4
355
The state of Virginia within the USA
I'm hoping the effects of this will entice other states to follow suit. Sadly, with so many red states already on what's basically federal welfare, few others could afford to do so. California is like one of the best countries in the world, stuck inside one of the shittiest.
 

FyreWulff

Member
Jan 21, 2010
39,735
1
0
The Internet
fyrewulff.com
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.
 

MaxDOL

Member
Apr 24, 2012
312
0
0
Bangkok
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.
 

Tigress

Member
Dec 2, 2013
7,184
0
390
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.

In a very simplified answer. Insurance won't pay enough for more expensive procedures so hospital loses money. Hospital makes it up by charging more for stuff insurance hasnt negotiated a really low price on. They also make it up on people who don't have insurance and don't have the bargaining power to bring prices down. This is how insurance makes hospital care too expensive for everyone else.
 

Loki

Count of Concision
Jun 6, 2004
7,433
443
1,635
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.
 

FyreWulff

Member
Jan 21, 2010
39,735
1
0
The Internet
fyrewulff.com
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.

yeah, all those illegal immigrants that pretty much already pay every tax minus income (and then, they can do that if they get an EIN) but can't actually use most of the services will be the dead weight in this system?

el

oh

el
 

Vice

Member
Dec 23, 2009
6,732
0
0
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.

They will be paying sales tax, many use an ein, borrowed SS#, stollen SS# or faked as well and lay taxes in that way. They are also often a migrant workforce that crosses state or country lines depending on the season.
 

Aureon

Please do not let me serve on a jury. I am actually a crazy person.
May 27, 2013
7,810
0
0
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.

Again: If companies could cut your pay by 20% right now, they would.
If they don't have to pay health insurance anymore, but instead have to pay a payroll tax, the only employees that are going to be on the hook are the ones they want to lose.

I'm sympathetic to economic stress, but that's no reason to leave people to die and perpetuate an abomination like the USA's healthcare system.