3% extra tax for health insurance

[Skull Pilot]

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?

Why should i pay more for my health insurance than someone else?

Here's the deal I have no kids and my wife and I make just under 300K .

We would pay 9000 a year under your plan.

Now someone with 5 kids making 50K a year would only pay 1500 a year even though he would obviously have higher medical bills than I.

Sorry but I'll pass.

Well, the entire premise is absurd to begin with. 3% of wages is not going to cover our healthcare costs. We are already paying that 3% for Medicare. The combined employer/employee rate is 2.9% on all earned income. You should know that Skull.

Actually medicare taxes are only placed on earned income and are currently at 1.45%
Your employer pays the additional 1.45%. You cannot assume that the employer would pay you the additional if the medicare tax was not law.

And don't assume I agree with the medicare tax. I don't. It and Social security should be ended.

Now if we move away from the ridiculous figure of 3% and discuss a one-payer system where most of the administrative costs are removed, and then try to determine how we would pay for that, things change. You say you don't want to pay for everyone else's insurance, but I think you already do. I can't remember, but I believe you are a business owner with employees, and if you are, you most likely pay a good portion of their healthcare costs. Even if you don't, most employers do and that cost is passed on to all of us. You are just paying for it through different avenues. So realizing this, the question then becomes how to find the best way to reduce costs without giving up quality.

And just who decides what company should be the only health insurance company allowed to do business?

The government? We all know how well that works.

And the best way to reduce costs while increasing quality is to have medical service providers actually compete in the market.

Let people take responsibility for billing their insurance companies. For example If I could call 5 or 6 Doctors in town and ask them what an office visit costs and what it includes, what a physical and blood work and x rays etc cost I could then choose a doctor that would provide the services I need at the best price.

After my visit I would take the bill provided me by the Doctor and send it and my deductible to the insurance company. The insurance company could then send payment to the doctor or reimburse me if I paid out of pocket.

This simple system solves many problems. For one the cost of running a doctor's office would drop because there would be no need for people to be hired solely for billing insurance companies and market forces would put pressure on different medical service providers which would also tend to drive down costs and increase quality.

 

[Pho_King]

You provided no study.

So let's try again, OK.

You don't get to rebuttal until you build an affirmative case. Get to work.

Actually, shit-for-brains, I did, about 25 posts ago. You appear to be the rare sort whose mouth opens so fucking wide it impairs your vision. Since you are too lazy to read my posts, or do your own research, here it is:

Elsevier

It is the exact study that the articles you have read that support your boneheaded contention have relied on. I go to the source, you go to the editorial. Fuck off.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You provided no study.

So let's try again, OK.

You don't get to rebuttal until you build an affirmative case. Get to work.

Actually, shit-for-brains, I did, about 25 posts ago. You appear to be the rare sort whose mouth opens so fucking wide it impairs your vision. Since you are too lazy to read my posts, or do your own research, here it is:

Elsevier

It is the exact study that the articles you have read that support your boneheaded contention have relied on. I go to the source, you go to the editorial. Fuck off.

Posting sites is such little boy stuff. Build the case, make the points, align the sites as documentation for the points, then make the significance of the Conclusion.,

I am not going to do your work for you, and you fail until you can make a sensible post, son.

 

[Vidi]

Why should i pay more for my health insurance than someone else?

Here's the deal I have no kids and my wife and I make just under 300K .

We would pay 9000 a year under your plan.

Now someone with 5 kids making 50K a year would only pay 1500 a year even though he would obviously have higher medical bills than I.

Sorry but I'll pass.

Well, the entire premise is absurd to begin with. 3% of wages is not going to cover our healthcare costs. We are already paying that 3% for Medicare. The combined employer/employee rate is 2.9% on all earned income. You should know that Skull.

Actually medicare taxes are only placed on earned income and are currently at 1.45%
Your employer pays the additional 1.45%. You cannot assume that the employer would pay you the additional if the medicare tax was not law.

And don't assume I agree with the medicare tax. I don't. It and Social security should be ended.

Now if we move away from the ridiculous figure of 3% and discuss a one-payer system where most of the administrative costs are removed, and then try to determine how we would pay for that, things change. You say you don't want to pay for everyone else's insurance, but I think you already do. I can't remember, but I believe you are a business owner with employees, and if you are, you most likely pay a good portion of their healthcare costs. Even if you don't, most employers do and that cost is passed on to all of us. You are just paying for it through different avenues. So realizing this, the question then becomes how to find the best way to reduce costs without giving up quality.

And just who decides what company should be the only health insurance company allowed to do business?

The government? We all know how well that works.

And the best way to reduce costs while increasing quality is to have medical service providers actually compete in the market.

Let people take responsibility for billing their insurance companies. For example If I could call 5 or 6 Doctors in town and ask them what an office visit costs and what it includes, what a physical and blood work and x rays etc cost I could then choose a doctor that would provide the services I need at the best price.

After my visit I would take the bill provided me by the Doctor and send it and my deductible to the insurance company. The insurance company could then send payment to the doctor or reimburse me if I paid out of pocket.

This simple system solves many problems. For one the cost of running a doctor's office would drop because there would be no need for people to be hired solely for billing insurance companies and market forces would put pressure on different medical service providers which would also tend to drive down costs and increase quality.

Competition doesnt exist. Its a joke.

Look at gas prices. If the Station raises it gas prices by 3 cents, then the BP station across the street raises their prices to match. Then they call that "competitive"

Its a joke.

 

[eflatminor]

Competition doesnt exist.

That is not the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Damn close though.

 

[Pho_King]

Since neither reading nor comprehension are your strong suits, let me pull a few things out of the study for you, young'un:

Illness or medical bills contributed to 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007

Debtor said medical bills were reason for bankruptcy 29.0%

For 92% of the medically bankrupt, high medical bills directly contributed to their bankruptcy
Out-of-pocket medical costs averaged $17,943 for all medically bankrupt families: $26,971 for uninsured patients, $17,749 for those with private insurance at the outset, $14,633 for those with Medicaid, $12,021 for those with Medicare, and $6545 for those with Veterans Affairs/military coverage. For patients who initially had private coverage but lost it, the family's out-of-pocket expenses averaged $22,568.

The average credit card debt for individuals in bk is over 25k, according to the 2007 Consumer Bankruptcy project. WHich, incidentally, included the same Elizabeth Warren that assisted with study I presented from the AJM, the one you so refuse to acknowledge that you are reduced to lying like a petulant child was never provided you.

now, lets use 26k as the highest average of medical debt involved- which is grossly inflated. How can that be the cause of bk, when the average credit card debt for bk filers is over 25k? Do you just discount that? or student loan debt? or a mortgage that is not affordable? or out of control entertainment expenses? or child support payments? or any of the other debts and bills that put so much strain on individuals that they cannot pay all of their bills?
it would seem as though, unless a debtor had no other significant debt, or really any type of finanical responsibility, that there are many, many other factors.
you see, l'il boy. You have been so dense that you have required a rather involved post discounting your theory that medical debt CAUSES bankruptcy. No links really were required. Not much but common sense was needed. In order for your retarded belief to have any merit, no other aspects of the debtor's financial life can have an impact on the need to file. The older and wiser among us, those that have incurred bills (like your parents), worked our way forward, and developed even a scant amount of wisdom recognize that your simplistic understanding of consumer finances is just that.

 

[Pho_King]

oh yeah. And if you click on the little linky I provided, you will be taken straight to the study.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pho_King finally posted something. And, as he pointed out, many, many factors contributed, among them were exorbitant medical expenses, to bankruptcy. What he has NOT DONE is demonstrated that financial mismanagement of the bankruptee's situation was the cause of the problem.

The cause was exorbitant debt caused by excess medical expenses. He cannot account for that.

That is the good thing about making an ass clown like Pho_King post an argument based on the rules so that when he can't make the Significance of his Conclusion, it becomes quite obvious the ass wipe is victimizing the victim.

Gotcha,

 

[Pho_King]

Pho_King finally posted something. And, as he pointed out, many, many factors contributed, among them were exorbitant medical expenses, to bankruptcy. What he has NOT DONE is demonstrated that financial mismanagement of the bankruptee's situation was the cause of the problem.

The cause was exorbitant debt caused by excess medical expenses. He cannot account for that.

That is the good thing about making an ass clown like Pho_King post an argument based on the rules so that when he can't make the Significance of his Conclusion, it becomes quite obvious the ass wipe is victimizing the victim.

Gotcha,

what the fuck are you babbling about? BK is the embodiment of financial mismanagement. Owing more than you can pay. The simplest form of financial mismanagement.

Exorbitant debt caused by excess medical expenses... wow. As opposed to being caused by credit card debt. Or an unaffordable mortgage. or schools loans.

You are confusing cause with contributing factor. And as for finally presenting an argument, at least one of us has.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The excessive medical expenses, not mismanagement, were the cause of the bankruptcy.

Your own sites did not support your conclusion.

You babble about coincidence, contribution, and causation, and have no idea what you mean.

What you are doing is victimizing the victims. Ass Clown.

You make no more sense the bigrebnc's babbling in the other threads.

 

[Immanuel]

No, I would not accept that offer for a couple of reasons.

First, I don't want some idiot in Washington who is as corrupt as the day is long making my health care decisions.

Second, just like Social Security said "flat tax" would start out small as in this case, but in just a few short years, the 3% tax would begin to rise and before long Washington would be demanding 20% or more.

Immie

 

[Vidi]

No, I would not accept that offer for a couple of reasons.

First, I don't want some idiot in Washington who is as corrupt as the day is long making my health care decisions.

Second, just like Social Security said "flat tax" would start out small as in this case, but in just a few short years, the 3% tax would begin to rise and before long Washington would be demanding 20% or more.

Immie

First: Youd rather some corrupt guy you can vote out of office at your health insurance company makes the decision for you. Check

Second, cant argue there. Youre probably right on that one. Unless of course the government places price controls on health care. But we probably wouldnt be able to get that past the corporate owned congress.

 

[Immanuel]

No, I would not accept that offer for a couple of reasons.

First, I don't want some idiot in Washington who is as corrupt as the day is long making my health care decisions.

Second, just like Social Security said "flat tax" would start out small as in this case, but in just a few short years, the 3% tax would begin to rise and before long Washington would be demanding 20% or more.

Immie

First: Youd rather some corrupt guy you can vote out of office at your health insurance company makes the decision for you. Check

Second, cant argue there. Youre probably right on that one. Unless of course the government places price controls on health care. But we probably wouldnt be able to get that past the corporate owned congress.

First, yes, I would prefer some corrupt dude whose company competes fairly with other companies so that I can choose the one that offers the best services. At least the corrupt guy I prefer is in the business of health insurance as opposed to being in the business of sucking Americans dry.

Unfortunately, government regulations, in this case, interfere with competition and what we have is two to three corrupt corporations "competing" for our dollars. Sadly, the regulations as they are only make things worse and allow companies to get away with dishonest practices rather than promoting competition and better services.

That is not to say that I oppose all government regulations, but in this case, said regulations are working against the people and for the corporations. So change the regulations, but that still doesn't mean I want some idiot in Washington deciding my healthcare options.

Immie

 

[dblack]

No, I would not accept that offer for a couple of reasons.

First, I don't want some idiot in Washington who is as corrupt as the day is long making my health care decisions.

Second, just like Social Security said "flat tax" would start out small as in this case, but in just a few short years, the 3% tax would begin to rise and before long Washington would be demanding 20% or more.

Immie

Right. That's what I was getting at. If we don't get health care inflation under control, it won't matter who is paying for it - "we" won't be able to afford it.

 

[Vidi]

No, I would not accept that offer for a couple of reasons.

First, I don't want some idiot in Washington who is as corrupt as the day is long making my health care decisions.

Second, just like Social Security said "flat tax" would start out small as in this case, but in just a few short years, the 3% tax would begin to rise and before long Washington would be demanding 20% or more.

Immie

First: Youd rather some corrupt guy you can vote out of office at your health insurance company makes the decision for you. Check

Second, cant argue there. Youre probably right on that one. Unless of course the government places price controls on health care. But we probably wouldnt be able to get that past the corporate owned congress.

First, yes, I would prefer some corrupt dude whose company competes fairly with other companies so that I can choose the one that offers the best services. At least the corrupt guy I prefer is in the business of health insurance as opposed to being in the business of sucking Americans dry.

Unfortunately, government regulations, in this case, interfere with competition and what we have is two to three corrupt corporations "competing" for our dollars. Sadly, the regulations as they are only make things worse and allow companies to get away with dishonest practices rather than promoting competition and better services.

That is not to say that I oppose all government regulations, but in this case, said regulations are working against the people and for the corporations. So change the regulations, but that still doesn't mean I want some idiot in Washington deciding my healthcare options.

Immie

First, competition is a joke. There is no competition. They charge what the other guy charges. Look at your local gas stations. If the Shell station raises their prices by 3 cents the BP station across the street matches them. There is no competition.

Your choice is the idiot you can vote out or the idiot you cant. One of whom has a vested interest in seeing you live and one makes more money if you die.

 

[Immanuel]

First: Youd rather some corrupt guy you can vote out of office at your health insurance company makes the decision for you. Check

Second, cant argue there. Youre probably right on that one. Unless of course the government places price controls on health care. But we probably wouldnt be able to get that past the corporate owned congress.

First, yes, I would prefer some corrupt dude whose company competes fairly with other companies so that I can choose the one that offers the best services. At least the corrupt guy I prefer is in the business of health insurance as opposed to being in the business of sucking Americans dry.

Unfortunately, government regulations, in this case, interfere with competition and what we have is two to three corrupt corporations "competing" for our dollars. Sadly, the regulations as they are only make things worse and allow companies to get away with dishonest practices rather than promoting competition and better services.

That is not to say that I oppose all government regulations, but in this case, said regulations are working against the people and for the corporations. So change the regulations, but that still doesn't mean I want some idiot in Washington deciding my healthcare options.

Immie

First, competition is a joke. There is no competition. They charge what the other guy charges. Look at your local gas stations. If the Shell station raises their prices by 3 cents the BP station across the street matches them. There is no competition.

Your choice is the idiot you can vote out or the idiot you cant. One of whom has a vested interest in seeing you live and one makes more money if you die.

Idiot you can vote out? No such thing... once an incumbent then about the only way you can be elected out of office is to be a Republican caught in a gay sex scandal or some other ethics scandal. Other than that, you are in for as long as you care to be in.

Americans don't vote for qualified candidates. They tow the party lines. The idiots are their to stay since the parties will only offer us corruption along their lines.

As for competition, when government regulates it typically regulates away competition. Thus there is no competition in health care. As for your example of gasoline prices, there is some competition. A gas station on a corner with three other stations on the opposing corners competes with those three stations and maybe the stations down the street for a mile or so. If one raises its prices, the others are going to do the same thing, conversely when one lowers its prices the others follow. That is the heart of competition.

If I can get gas cheaper than my competition, I'm still gonna sell it for the same price or maybe a penny or two lower than the competition. I'm not gonna sell it for twenty cents cheaper just to make the same margins they do.

Immie

 

[Vidi]

First, yes, I would prefer some corrupt dude whose company competes fairly with other companies so that I can choose the one that offers the best services. At least the corrupt guy I prefer is in the business of health insurance as opposed to being in the business of sucking Americans dry.

Unfortunately, government regulations, in this case, interfere with competition and what we have is two to three corrupt corporations "competing" for our dollars. Sadly, the regulations as they are only make things worse and allow companies to get away with dishonest practices rather than promoting competition and better services.

That is not to say that I oppose all government regulations, but in this case, said regulations are working against the people and for the corporations. So change the regulations, but that still doesn't mean I want some idiot in Washington deciding my healthcare options.

Immie

First, competition is a joke. There is no competition. They charge what the other guy charges. Look at your local gas stations. If the Shell station raises their prices by 3 cents the BP station across the street matches them. There is no competition.

Your choice is the idiot you can vote out or the idiot you cant. One of whom has a vested interest in seeing you live and one makes more money if you die.

Idiot you can vote out? No such thing... once an incumbent then about the only way you can be elected out of office is to be a Republican caught in a gay sex scandal or some other ethics scandal. Other than that, you are in for as long as you care to be in.

Americans don't vote for qualified candidates. They tow the party lines. The idiots are their to stay since the parties will only offer us corruption along their lines.

As for competition, when government regulates it typically regulates away competition. Thus there is no competition in health care. As for your example of gasoline prices, there is some competition. A gas station on a corner with three other stations on the opposing corners competes with those three stations and maybe the stations down the street for a mile or so. If one raises its prices, the others are going to do the same thing, conversely when one lowers its prices the others follow. That is the heart of competition.

If I can get gas cheaper than my competition, I'm still gonna sell it for the same price or maybe a penny or two lower than the competition. I'm not gonna sell it for twenty cents cheaper just to make the same margins they do.Immie

the part of your post that i bolded proves that competition does NOT drive down prices. Therefore, more competition among health care insurance companies will not drive down prices for the very reason you highlighted.

we need another option. What is it? Goevrnment stepping in with price controls? Everyone opting out of health coverage? What?

 

[Immanuel]

First, competition is a joke. There is no competition. They charge what the other guy charges. Look at your local gas stations. If the Shell station raises their prices by 3 cents the BP station across the street matches them. There is no competition.

Your choice is the idiot you can vote out or the idiot you cant. One of whom has a vested interest in seeing you live and one makes more money if you die.

Idiot you can vote out? No such thing... once an incumbent then about the only way you can be elected out of office is to be a Republican caught in a gay sex scandal or some other ethics scandal. Other than that, you are in for as long as you care to be in.

Americans don't vote for qualified candidates. They tow the party lines. The idiots are their to stay since the parties will only offer us corruption along their lines.

As for competition, when government regulates it typically regulates away competition. Thus there is no competition in health care. As for your example of gasoline prices, there is some competition. A gas station on a corner with three other stations on the opposing corners competes with those three stations and maybe the stations down the street for a mile or so. If one raises its prices, the others are going to do the same thing, conversely when one lowers its prices the others follow. That is the heart of competition.

If I can get gas cheaper than my competition, I'm still gonna sell it for the same price or maybe a penny or two lower than the competition. I'm not gonna sell it for twenty cents cheaper just to make the same margins they do.Immie

the part of your post that i bolded proves that competition does NOT drive down prices. Therefore, more competition among health care insurance companies will not drive down prices for the very reason you highlighted.

we need another option. What is it? Goevrnment stepping in with price controls? Everyone opting out of health coverage? What?

I'm sorry, but you are wrong in your statement about the bolded part.

If I can get my gasoline at say twenty five cents cheaper than my competition, I can charge twenty five cents less than my competition, but I have no reason to do so unless I desire to put the others out of business which I might just do. But, if I can consistently get gas cheaper than the competition, I have a choice. I can sell at their price and make a bigger profit or I can sell at a lower price... which will only drive them to lower their prices and maybe drive them out of business.

Unfortunately, that scenario is unlikely to happen, because it is not the stations that dictate the price as much as it is the suppliers. Shell, Exxon, Texaco, Citgo etc. are the ones that collude on the price and they sell it to their distribution outlets, i.e. the gas stations for generally the same prices leaving the stations with almost no room to play at the pump.

This is hearsay evidence and not meant to be presented as fact. Just a reference point I am attempting to present. I was speaking with a former boss about a friend of his who at one timed owned a gas station. He told me that the station owners generally net less than a nickel per gallon of gas and at the time I believe gas was in the $2.75/gallon range, but the nickel was standard regardless of the cost of gasoline whether is was $1.50 or $4.00. Those margins suck! But, stations have very little room to play per gallon of gas. Competiton in fact limits their margins here.

Kudos on the statement about needing another option.

I don't have the answers. I think we already have price controls so I don't think that is the answer, but I don't know what the answers are. I don't think we will come to any answers as long as both parties refuse to work with each other to solve the issue.

Immie

 

[Vidi]

Ahhh but the point is they DONT sell at a lower price. Your friend is absolutely right. Most gas stations dont make money on the gas itself. Its the in-store items where they make a profit. So the price of gas should be the draw. But its not, because they sell it at the same price as the competition just across the street.


When I was going to school I worked nights in a gas station. One night the competition all raised their prices by a dime. But we couldnt because the boss accidentally took the key home with him. because the manager lived an hour away he decided he would leave prices as they were and change them first thing in the morning.

That night I worked alone and because everyone was bringing in their cars to fill up before we raised our prices in the morning, we did three times the normal business. And not just in gas but in store sales as well. Even after seeing thamopunt of money we pulled in that night, every time our competition raised their prices, so did we, corpoarate orders.

So they LOST money in order to remain at the same price as their competition.

The same is applied to Health insurance providers. They may be able to work out a better deal with the health care industry but they charge "competitive" prices. Why? If I sell 100 widgets at 2 bucks each I make 400 bucks, but if I sell 300 widgets at 150 bucks, I make 450 bucks. I increase my market share.

lastly, I dont have the answers either. But its nice being able to argue the problem without a bunch of nonsensical insults being hurled back and forth. Kudos man.

 

[editec]

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?

That's obviously a 3% flat tax on TOP of everything else we already spend?


That solution isn't very well thought out.

Health care ALREADY sucks about 15% of the GDP out of society.

That's already too much.