3% extra tax for health insurance

[starcraftzzz]

Such a program would be unconstitutional.

Who knew that medicare and SS were unconstitutional
How come they’ve never been struck down in the past 60 years?

Actually, Social Security was struck down as unconstitutional.


Please cite the part of the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to nationalize the health care system.

Being struck down by right wing conspiracy theorists and retards like you isn't being struck down.
You want the part of the constitution that authorizes nationalizing health care?
Its here The general welfare clause
Furthermore the supreme court agrees with me not you
Now come back when your argument isn't "a peice of paper says we cant do it so doing it is bad"

 

[starcraftzzz]

Pass. Free markets and free people will always kick socialist ass. We gave the world moon landings, rock and roll, and the wealthiest nation the world has ever known. I have one word for you: ABBA.

Off you go...

The reason free markets are good is mostly because of competition of which the European socialized systems have more competition. Think about it in Europe you can go to any doctor you want here in America you can only go to ones that your insurance company tells you they will pay for Furthermore if competition is really so good then good thing Obamacare makes it so health care companies have to compete

That's not true about not being able to pick you own doc. Here (in America) insurance companies allow patients to visit any doctor in their network, and usally all doctors in an a market area enlist in as many networks as possible, therefore patients have the run of the doctors in their area.

If they go outside the network the insurance company only reimburses the amount normally paid for a service inside the network.

Your statement makes me think you don't actually have insurance, or maybe have been too healthy to visit a doc, if you are insured.

Are you fucking stupid? Any doctor in theire network that means they cant pick any doctor
your comment makes me know that your IQ is below 70

 

[starcraftzzz]

And those few percentage points of earnings are small compared to the waste and fraud intrinsic to our state run system called Medicare, which is operating at a huge loss. The Medicare rate applied to all income (no upper limit) is 2.8-pct which is just a little less Euro, than your proposed 3-pct.

Medicare costs 40% less then private insurance

Medicare is a welfare program, and is so loaded with mandates that it can't perform as it was originally conceived. It limits pay to doctors so much that docs are opting out. In many cities doctors refuse to take new medicare patients. We just had a family member turn 65, sign on to medicare, and find her previous doc would no longer see her as a Medicare patient. The reason for that is Medicare is paying so much less than her insurance company was willing to pay.

Actually more doctors accept medicare then they do private insurance
so come back when you get a clue

 

[American Horse]

Medicare costs 40% less then private insurance

Medicare is a welfare program, and is so loaded with mandates that it can't perform as it was originally conceived. It limits pay to doctors so much that docs are opting out. In many cities doctors refuse to take new medicare patients. We just had a family member turn 65, sign on to medicare, and find her previous doc would no longer see her as a Medicare patient. The reason for that is Medicare is paying so much less than her insurance company was willing to pay.

Actually more doctors accept medicare then they do private insurance
so come back when you get a clue

Nonsense. It's a rarity for a doctor to not accept insurance, since almost all healthcare is paid for by insurance, but docs are dropping out of Medicare, and it's accelerating. You really should do yourself a favor and do some real research.

 

[American Horse]

The reason free markets are good is mostly because of competition of which the European socialized systems have more competition. Think about it in Europe you can go to any doctor you want here in America you can only go to ones that your insurance company tells you they will pay for Furthermore if competition is really so good then good thing Obamacare makes it so health care companies have to compete

That's not true about not being able to pick you own doc. Here (in America) insurance companies allow patients to visit any doctor in their network, and usally all doctors in an a market area enlist in as many networks as possible, therefore patients have the run of the doctors in their area.

If they go outside the network the insurance company only reimburses the amount normally paid for a service inside the network.

Your statement makes me think you don't actually have insurance, or maybe have been too healthy to visit a doc, if you are insured.

Are you fucking stupid? Any doctor in theire network that means they cant pick any doctor
your comment makes me know that your IQ is below 70

The networks are huge and docs belong to several not one. I was insured in an individual plan for 35 years and never had a doctor limitation one time in all that time.
I asked you before: are you insured? (in the event you are not on Medicare).
And try not to throw out the ad hominems.
Try to have a civil discussion, if your are capable; otherwise you make me think you are not worth responding to (but maybe that's your intention)

 

[starcraftzzz]

Medicare is a welfare program, and is so loaded with mandates that it can't perform as it was originally conceived. It limits pay to doctors so much that docs are opting out. In many cities doctors refuse to take new medicare patients. We just had a family member turn 65, sign on to medicare, and find her previous doc would no longer see her as a Medicare patient. The reason for that is Medicare is paying so much less than her insurance company was willing to pay.

Actually more doctors accept medicare then they do private insurance
so come back when you get a clue

Nonsense. It's a rarity for a doctor to not accept insurance, since almost all healthcare is paid for by insurance, but docs are dropping out of Medicare, and it's accelerating. You really should do yourself a favor and do some real research.

Nice of you to claim that reality is nonsense
UNDERNEWS: STUDY: INSURED FIND MEDICARE BETTER THAN PRIVATE PLANS
Meeting Enrollees' Needs: How Do Medicare and Employer Coverage Stack Up? - The Commonwealth Fund
Who's Afraid Of Public Insurance? - Mark Blumenthal - NationalJournal.com

but hey keep rejecting reality

 

[starcraftzzz]

That's not true about not being able to pick you own doc. Here (in America) insurance companies allow patients to visit any doctor in their network, and usally all doctors in an a market area enlist in as many networks as possible, therefore patients have the run of the doctors in their area.

If they go outside the network the insurance company only reimburses the amount normally paid for a service inside the network.

Your statement makes me think you don't actually have insurance, or maybe have been too healthy to visit a doc, if you are insured.

Are you fucking stupid? Any doctor in theire network that means they cant pick any doctor
your comment makes me know that your IQ is below 70

The networks are huge and docs belong to several not one. I was insured in an individual plan for 35 years and never had a doctor limitation one time in all that time.
I asked you before: are you insured? (in the event you are not on Medicare).
And try not to throw out the ad hominems.
Try to have a civil discussion, if your are capable; otherwise you make me think you are not worth responding to (but maybe that's your intention)

So huge that if you have OPH insurance you can only go to 5% of doctors in Arizona.
Come back when you have a clue and are not a retard.

 

[auditor0007]

A 3% flat tax is what my health insurance costs and then everyone is covered.
Would you have accepted that deal? A 3% flat tax increase on income and then you dont have to think about health insurance.

This is the deal I have through taxes: a 3% flat tax covers HC for everyone

If you earn 0 you pay 0
If you earn 10.000$ you’ve to pay 300$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 50.000$ you’ve to pay 1500$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 100.000$ you’ve to pay 3000$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 1.000.000$ you’ve to pay:30.000$ for HI pr. year
If you earn.100.000.000$ you’ve to pay:3.000.000$ for HI pr year.(3 million $ year).

Would this deal been good for you?

Okay Euro, while I would probably support a single payer system in the US, we need to do some math here. A 3% flat tax on income is not going to cover jack shit. We are currently spending around 17% of GDP on healthcare, and that number is going up. A 3% tax on income covers much less than 3% of GDP. Even if we made it a flat 3% of GDP, it gets us nowhere close to where we need to be.

Now the idea would be to reduce costs over the long haul so that total healthcare spending reduces to around 12 to 14 percent of GDP, and everyone is covered. Anyway, you need to start over.

 

[auditor0007]

It English not your first language? I don't speak Jackass so we may have a language barrier.

Find a grown up to read my post to you because population, ethnicity and land area are all "data"

Notice you fail to even post a post that contains an intelligent thought. I do not wonder why that is
The problem here is that you refuse to do comparisons because they prove you wrong. So why are you so intent on being wrong and ignorant? You need help go get it
Also come back when your argument isn’t “Europe, Canada Japan, Korea,and Australia” are all to similar so that is why we have shitty health care in America. I mean where do you get this shit logic do you evne bother thinking?

Health care in America is outstanding.

Yes it is, but the cost is ridiculous. I was talking to friends of my parents a couple of weeks ago. They are Canadians and live in Windsor, Ontario. They laugh at us when it comes to our healthcare system. They can't imagine paying what we pay. Yes, they know they pay more in taxes, but they don't have to worry about what will happen to them when they get sick. And yes, they use their healthcare system. They go to the doctor regularly. Preventative medicine is a big thing for them. As for urgent care, he had a heart attack a few years ago and received wonderful care, and he's still alive today. While he says there system is not absolutely perfect, he and his wife are happy with it. They say all the stories we hear are bullshit for the most part, about long waits, and not being able to get good care.

It's funny how we think we are always right just because we are different. We are so stubborn about making positive changes, because we can't ever imagine something different from somewhere other than the good ole US of A might actually work better than something we have. One day we'll wake up though. As costs continue to soar and eventually healthcare takes up 1/3 of our GDP, we'll finally get it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What exactly are you asking for? A copy of our premiums? I cant really give you "unbiased data" on a point (that government run healthcare will increase the cost to me and decrease the quality) when such data does not exist for the simple reason that insurance is has for quite some time been a private affair.

Give some comparisons of cost, access, quality with France, Spain, Taiwan, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, Japan, and so forth. Go ahead, please.

Why? Am I going to be visiting France, Spain, Taiwan, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, or Japan for my care?

And what exactly does that have to do with the quality of care I am currently receiving under my plan, for the price I pay? ARe you saying that, for me specifically, I will be better off under the sort of plan proposed in the OP? Cause if so, I must ask where you developed such mystical powers?

In other words, than you have no idea at all about the costs, quality, and affordability of nationalized health care and what we have here? You are really saying that? Then you say the USA is better? Really?

 

[Euro]

A 3% flat tax is what my health insurance costs and then everyone is covered.
Would you have accepted that deal? A 3% flat tax increase on income and then you dont have to think about health insurance.

This is the deal I have through taxes: a 3% flat tax covers HC for everyone

If you earn 0 you pay 0
If you earn 10.000$ you’ve to pay 300$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 50.000$ you’ve to pay 1500$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 100.000$ you’ve to pay 3000$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 1.000.000$ you’ve to pay:30.000$ for HI pr. year
If you earn.100.000.000$ you’ve to pay:3.000.000$ for HI pr year.(3 million $ year).

Would this deal been good for you?

Okay Euro, while I would probably support a single payer system in the US, we need to do some math here. A 3% flat tax on income is not going to cover jack shit. We are currently spending around 17% of GDP on healthcare, and that number is going up. A 3% tax on income covers much less than 3% of GDP. Even if we made it a flat 3% of GDP, it gets us nowhere close to where we need to be.

Now the idea would be to reduce costs over the long haul so that total healthcare spending reduces to around 12 to 14 percent of GDP, and everyone is covered. Anyway, you need to start over.

If you addeed a 3% flat tax to guys like Donald Trump, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates it would mean a lot.
It is a lot of people that dont contribute to the GDP at all and dont pay taxes. The rich in USA has most of the money, so a flat tax will make them contribute with most dollars.
Taxing Bill Gates or Donald Trump 3% extra could cover a lot of people.

But the US healthcare system is very bureaucratic, first you have all the private sector bureaucracy. The paper work for the insurance companies and individual programs. Lots of private sector bureaucracy.
On top of that you have government bureaucracy that controls and monitors prices etc, + medicare and medicaid.

The system must be streamlined and the goal should be to get rid of all the bureaucracy, the bureaucracy and paperwork is what makes it so expensive. When you pay for healtcare most of your dollars goes to bureaucracy not treatment. The US healtcare system is the most bureaucratic in the world, with both privat sector and government bureaucracy.+ Profitt to insurance companies.

 

[American Horse]

Actually more doctors accept medicare then they do private insurance
so come back when you get a clue

Nonsense. It's a rarity for a doctor to not accept insurance, since almost all healthcare is paid for by insurance, but docs are dropping out of Medicare, and it's accelerating. You really should do yourself a favor and do some real research.

Nice of you to claim that reality is nonsense
UNDERNEWS: STUDY: INSURED FIND MEDICARE BETTER THAN PRIVATE PLANS
Meeting Enrollees' Needs: How Do Medicare and Employer Coverage Stack Up? - The Commonwealth Fund
Who's Afraid Of Public Insurance? - Mark Blumenthal - NationalJournal.com

but hey keep rejecting reality

Yeah of course they (the INSURED being people over 65) find medicare better; the cost is @ $100 per month for Part B which gets them 100% of hospitalization and up to 80% of their med costs, and don't forget, then they still have to buy a supplement to cover ordinary Doctor visits, which are not covered by Medicare at all: but of course you knew that. Oh, and Part D for drugs; another $600/year is payed. (are you aware of any of that?)

So of course people over 65 like Medicare better than their previous private plan, and it (Part A Medicare) is something they've been paying for IN ADVANCE all their working lives for. That's why they like it so well; it's an entitlement.

But a lot of people on Medicare, once enrolled, believe that it covers everything, but it's only for hospital costs. They still have to get Part B, then the Supplemental, and finally Part D.

And I remind you, we were not talking about whether people would prefer to have their medical bills underwritten by a social program; of course they do. The question is whether doctors are staying in or getting out because its pay is insufficient compared to regular insurance; that's the gist of my comment.

 

[American Horse]

Are you fucking stupid? Any doctor in theire network that means they cant pick any doctor
your comment makes me know that your IQ is below 70

The networks are huge and docs belong to several not one. I was insured in an individual plan for 35 years and never had a doctor limitation one time in all that time.
I asked you before: are you insured? (in the event you are not on Medicare).
And try not to throw out the ad hominems.
Try to have a civil discussion, if your are capable; otherwise you make me think you are not worth responding to (but maybe that's your intention)

So huge that if you have OPH insurance you can only go to 5% of doctors in Arizona.
Come back when you have a clue and are not a retard.

I don't know if OPH is a company name in Arizona or OPHthamology insurance, but if the latter that would explain it. If it's the name of a company, then when shopping insurance one should ask for the network catalog, as well as a copy of the policy. It's just a matter of smart shopping to do those things. The network participation may be the overriding criterium. On the other hand, if a person's favorite doctor is on a smaller network, and rates are lower compared to others, then that could be a smart buyer's choice.

I don't know about Arizona, but Maine, which is the most regulatory of health/medical insurance in the country has the fewest insurance companies doing business there, and therefore competition is nil. Indiana, the least regulatory of the states probably has the most companies doing business in it, and competition is hottest for all customer options.

 

[Old Rocks]

A 3% flat tax is what my health insurance costs and then everyone is covered.
Would you have accepted that deal? A 3% flat tax increase on income and then you dont have to think about health insurance.

This is the deal I have through taxes: a 3% flat tax covers HC for everyone

If you earn 0 you pay 0
If you earn 10.000$ you’ve to pay 300$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 50.000$ you’ve to pay 1500$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 100.000$ you’ve to pay 3000$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 1.000.000$ you’ve to pay:30.000$ for HI pr. year
If you earn.100.000.000$ you’ve to pay:3.000.000$ for HI pr year.(3 million $ year).

Would this deal been good for you?

Absolutely!!! Far less than my company pays at present.

 

[kiwiman127]

Here go with the same old tired accuses to keep the status quo.
Let me ask you folks this. All the wealthy industrial nations (except the US), negotiates their countries costs with healthcare providers and the net result is the cost per capita is much, much lower than the US's. Would anyone here go for that approach to make heathcare more affordable for individuals and businesses?

So it is your premise that a US healthcare provider like United Healthcare, who “contracts directly with more than 650,000 physicians and care professionals and 5,000 hospitals nationwide..…[and] serves more than 38 million people” (uhc.com) has less negotiating power than, say, Scandinavia (“The total population of the Nordic countries currently is approximately 25,251,000.” About.com). I don’t think so. Those countries benefit from the profit already earned by medical providers and drug companies in the US and keep costs low by rationing service, nothing more.

So, you want to keep on paying the highest price in the world by a long shot for healthcare than the other wealthy industrial nations? Thata boy.

Please consider this:
Skyrocketing Health Care Costs Hamper U.S. Competitiveness
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/03/18/skyrocketing-health-care-costs-hamper-u-s-competitiveness/


And this:
Why US Healthcare Costs So Much More – it’s the Monopoly Factor
http://healthworkscollective.com/di...hcare-costs-so-much-more-it-s-monopoly-factor

So, we have people on this boards that are very pro-business, yet one of the main things that hurt US businesses competitiveness is the high cost of healthcare in the US and they balk at a solution that would help US businesses be completive. Now that makes a lot of sense?

 

[Political Junky]

A 3% flat tax is what my health insurance costs and then everyone is covered.
Would you have accepted that deal? A 3% flat tax increase on income and then you dont have to think about health insurance.

This is the deal I have through taxes: a 3% flat tax covers HC for everyone

If you earn 0 you pay 0
If you earn 10.000$ you’ve to pay 300$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 50.000$ you’ve to pay 1500$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 100.000$ you’ve to pay 3000$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 1.000.000$ you’ve to pay:30.000$ for HI pr. year
If you earn.100.000.000$ you’ve to pay:3.000.000$ for HI pr year.(3 million $ year).

Would this deal been good for you?

How could anyone say no to those figures, while being guaranteed coverage. No more fear of bankruptcy because you got sick.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Nonsense. It's a rarity for a doctor to not accept insurance, since almost all healthcare is paid for by insurance, but docs are dropping out of Medicare, and it's accelerating. You really should do yourself a favor and do some real research.

Nice of you to claim that reality is nonsense
UNDERNEWS: STUDY: INSURED FIND MEDICARE BETTER THAN PRIVATE PLANS
Meeting Enrollees' Needs: How Do Medicare and Employer Coverage Stack Up? - The Commonwealth Fund
Who's Afraid Of Public Insurance? - Mark Blumenthal - NationalJournal.com

but hey keep rejecting reality

Yeah of course they (the INSURED being people over 65) find medicare better; the cost is @ $100 per month for Part B which gets them 100% of hospitalization and up to 80% of their med costs, and don't forget, then they still have to buy a supplement to cover ordinary Doctor visits, which are not covered by Medicare at all: but of course you knew that. Oh, and Part D for drugs; another $600/year is payed. (are you aware of any of that?)

Yes but the thing is is that you are cherry picking try looking at all the data oh wait then you'd be a liberal.

So of course people over 65 like Medicare better than their previous private plan, and it (Part A Medicare) is something they've been paying for IN ADVANCE all their working lives for. That's why they like it so well; it's an entitlement.

Its not just that they like it better its that they have better health outcomes. Medicare is better unless you're a right wing goon who ignore reality.

And I remind you, we were not talking about whether people would prefer to have their medical bills underwritten by a social program; of course they do. The question is whether doctors are staying in or getting out because its pay is insufficient compared to regular insurance; that's the gist of my comment.

Yes and I answered that question. More doctors accept medicare then private insurance

 

[starcraftzzz]

The networks are huge and docs belong to several not one. I was insured in an individual plan for 35 years and never had a doctor limitation one time in all that time.
I asked you before: are you insured? (in the event you are not on Medicare).
And try not to throw out the ad hominems.
Try to have a civil discussion, if your are capable; otherwise you make me think you are not worth responding to (but maybe that's your intention)

So huge that if you have OPH insurance you can only go to 5% of doctors in Arizona.
Come back when you have a clue and are not a retard.

I don't know if OPH is a company name in Arizona or OPHthamology insurance, but if the latter that would explain it. If it's the name of a company, then when shopping insurance one should ask for the network catalog, as well as a copy of the policy. It's just a matter of smart shopping to do those things. The network participation may be the overriding criterium. On the other hand, if a person's favorite doctor is on a smaller network, and rates are lower compared to others, then that could be a smart buyer's choice.

I don't know about Arizona, but Maine, which is the most regulatory of health/medical insurance in the country has the fewest insurance companies doing business there, and therefore competition is nil. Indiana, the least regulatory of the states probably has the most companies doing business in it, and competition is hottest for all customer options.

Yes and the network catalog only contains like 5% of all doctors int he area. So plz explain how only being able to see 5% of doctors mean you can see them all

 

[Pho_King]

A 3% flat tax is what my health insurance costs and then everyone is covered.
Would you have accepted that deal? A 3% flat tax increase on income and then you dont have to think about health insurance.

This is the deal I have through taxes: a 3% flat tax covers HC for everyone

If you earn 0 you pay 0
If you earn 10.000$ you’ve to pay 300$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 50.000$ you’ve to pay 1500$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 100.000$ you’ve to pay 3000$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 1.000.000$ you’ve to pay:30.000$ for HI pr. year
If you earn.100.000.000$ you’ve to pay:3.000.000$ for HI pr year.(3 million $ year).

Would this deal been good for you?

How could anyone say no to those figures, while being guaranteed coverage. No more fear of bankruptcy because you got sick.

Now there's a load of crap. As if sickness caused bankruptcas opposed to runaway debt- anyways.

 

[Pho_King]

Give some comparisons of cost, access, quality with France, Spain, Taiwan, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, Japan, and so forth. Go ahead, please.

Why? Am I going to be visiting France, Spain, Taiwan, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, or Japan for my care?

And what exactly does that have to do with the quality of care I am currently receiving under my plan, for the price I pay? ARe you saying that, for me specifically, I will be better off under the sort of plan proposed in the OP? Cause if so, I must ask where you developed such mystical powers?

In other words, than you have no idea at all about the costs, quality, and affordability of nationalized health care and what we have here? You are really saying that? Then you say the USA is better? Really?

You are having some reading comprehension issues. I did not say that the United States was "better" (whatever that means). I have maintained that the insurance program cited in the OP would not be good for me. You have gotten off-track.