• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you pay 15% more in income taxes for Single Payer Healthcare?

Would you pay 15% more in income taxes for Single Payer Healthcare?


  • Total voters
    61
Incorrect.

They're talking about a 15% payroll tax increase. That's not the same thing as an income tax increase.

Anyway.... Given a choice between 15% payroll taxes, and having to pay insurance premiums? I'm guessing that for most people, the tax will wind up as a better deal.

That's entirely possible. Let's run a few numbers off the top of my head. Someone who makes $48,000 would have to pay 48,000/12*0.15 = $600/month. That's well within the range of existing insurance premiums, for a system that may actually favor the patient instead of the big insurance companies. Or someone who makes ten times that much would be paying $6000/month, but anyone who feels that people who make half a million bucks a year can't pay a little extra is not going to get a listening ear from me.
 
LOL.....you naysayers have been predicting California's doom for the last 4 decades....and California continues to do just fine. Hey Ocean....no one is forcing you to stay there behind the orange curtain. You are free to go any time you would like. Texas is probably more your style.

Texas is an interesting state. Interesting in the sense that they've got a lot of industry, higher education, technology,...and poverty. LOTS of poverty.

Really, that state is a textbook example of the division between the Haves and the Have-nots.
 
LOL.....you naysayers have been predicting California's doom for the last 4 decades....and California continues to do just fine. Hey Ocean....no one is forcing you to stay there behind the orange curtain. You are free to go any time you would like. Texas is probably more your style.

I suppose "just fine" depends on how you feel about higher taxes, real estate prices that preclude home ownership for most young people, etc. Not "just fine" at all imho.

People have been leaving California at an alarming rate:

A lot of people are moving out of California because they can't afford to live there anymore.
 
I've not seen the details in California regarding whether healthcare providers could continue to see private patients or whether they must participate with the government program. Also, is there a mandate that no healthcare providers can leave the state to practice medicine which is a risk that the people providing the care voting with their feet.
 
Single-payer healthcare plan advances in California Senate ?*without a way to pay its $400-billion tab - LA Times

Cali si making some legislative noise to do this, projected tax increases are 15%.
Would you accept paying 15% more in taxes for Government directed and controlled Single Payer healthcare?

No. The government is filled with **** ups. I see no reason for me to have to be stuck with 1 option when I can be stuck with a few others. I have a better chance of negotiating if I have options to leave my crappy health insurance company.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
No. The government is filled with **** ups. I see no reason for me to have to be stuck with 1 option when I can be stuck with a few others. I have a better chance of negotiating if I have options to leave my crappy health insurance company.

Negotiating what?
 
Negotiating what?

A claim. Prices. Whatever. I work in insurance industry for property damage. EVERYTHING is negotiable with these corrupt soulless bastards. And it has nothing to do with what is right. It is all about some poorly paid employee trying to make a number so that he doesn't get fired...so he will short change here and there (so you have to pay) and then drop your ass and coverage for a minor detail. And his boss will cover him too...unless it is really bad then might CYA a little.

Insurance sucks man. Just keep this in mind:

They do not make money by paying for your healthcare costs. Same with your car or your home. Any time they right you a check...they lose money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
No. The concept of pricing any "private" good/service at a fixed percentage of one's income is a bad idea. Worse still is the concept of letting the government decide what that "private" good/service which you must buy is. Single payer means a single decider of what is being paid for.

It also means that a single decider gets to decide what you get for what you pay.
 
I suppose "just fine" depends on how you feel about higher taxes, real estate prices that preclude home ownership for most young people, etc. Not "just fine" at all imho.

People have been leaving California at an alarming rate:

A lot of people are moving out of California because they can't afford to live there anymore.


LOL....the "people leaving California" at an alarming rate mantra has been disproven time and again. California remains one of the most rapidly growing states in the country. Is it expensive? Absolutely. Its basic supply and demand. When you have a lot of people wanting to live somewhere as opposed to having to live....prices are going to be higher. That's why it costs more to live in California than it does North Dakota. Its also why it costs more to live in Los Angeles than it does in Bakersfield.
 
Single-payer healthcare plan advances in California Senate ?*without a way to pay its $400-billion tab - LA Times

Cali si making some legislative noise to do this, projected tax increases are 15%.
Would you accept paying 15% more in taxes for Government directed and controlled Single Payer healthcare?
I presume that me and my spouse would then have zero deducted from our paychecks for premiums, and my employer would have to pay zero for premiums, which would offset at least some of that tax increase, so... maybe.
 
Single-payer healthcare plan advances in California Senate ?*without a way to pay its $400-billion tab - LA Times

Cali si making some legislative noise to do this, projected tax increases are 15%.
Would you accept paying 15% more in taxes for Government directed and controlled Single Payer healthcare?

I have no problem paying. I have very big problem paying other peoples share.

Will I still have to pay the government workers share.
Will I still have to pay the 3rd generation welfare recipients share.
Will I have to pay illegal aliens share who work for cash at slave wages and do not pay their share of taxes.
Will everyone be on it from the president on down to the illegal alien. No class system everyone treated equally.

The problem is will the 15% be based on a 40 hour work week or will people who work overtime or 2 jobs be penalized like they are with income tax.
Will there be a cap so the rich are not paying millions of dollars for insurance while the dead beats pay nothing.
I say either everyone pays in the same amount or it is not fair. Period.
This is the problem with the left. They always want to punish the hard working and give to the lazy.
 
It also probably means the government would be deciding if one should get a certain procedure or not. Basically, if one lives or dies. All decided by the government. By some unelected bureaucrat, civil servant.
...as opposed to some faceless insurance company doctor/shill who does the same exact thing based on his employer's profit matgin. Sorry, I'm not seeing a difference.
 
Renae,

Why did you post the poll as 15% in income tax?

I see no mention of that in the article, or in a quick google search. If that's wrong, I think you should correct it.

There is a picture in the article that shows a few potential ways to fund it, and one is a 15% PAYROLL tax. That's employers.
Also note that two things would occur:
1. business already pays x% for insurance, it would stop paying that, and would be part of this 15%.
2. individuals would stop paying their portion, and it could in some way be factored back into what the employer pays, offsetting the 15% yet again.

They have no clue what they actual numbers are, because it's not settled yet. They are trying to pass the plan, and figure out funding later (again!).
But it's not likely to be terrible, maybe 8% net increase on payroll? I forget.

CAs plan I thought was too costly;
1. They wanted platinum level insurance for everyone, I think it should be sliver/gold, with the option for individuals to raise it higher with income...compromise and choice + safety net
2. they wanted all illegals to be covered - I think they should pass that separate for pete's sake!
3. Being at the state level, it would be much more costly than at the federal level, due to reimbursements as well as scale and competition issues
4. Done at the state level, it appears its going to fall on all business. Federally I would prefer it to fall in part on employer, and in part on the ultra-wealthy. Much more tolerable and less impactful to business.
 
Single-payer healthcare plan advances in California Senate ?*without a way to pay its $400-billion tab - LA Times

Cali si making some legislative noise to do this, projected tax increases are 15%.
Would you accept paying 15% more in taxes for Government directed and controlled Single Payer healthcare?

California is lying to you.

The high speed Bullet Train was supposed to be 33 billion. It is now expected to go well over $80 billion. Same with health care. It the unions pushing it and the DNC who runs the state wants that river of campaign money to push throug the program nationally.

Like High Speed Rail, the Delta Drains, and socialized medicine, it's all about unions and using political clout to wring more money out of the vanishing tax base.

Socialized medicine will attract more freeloaders to the state, and since it includes illegal aliens, there is obviously no residency requirement. It's a debacle for middle class taxpayers.
 
Renae,

Why did you post the poll as 15% in income tax?

I see no mention of that in the article, or in a quick google search. If that's wrong, I think you should correct it.

There is a picture in the article that shows a few potential ways to fund it, and one is a 15% PAYROLL tax. That's employers.
Also note that two things would occur:
1. business already pays x% for insurance, it would stop paying that, and would be part of this 15%.
2. individuals would stop paying their portion, and it could in some way be factored back into what the employer pays, offsetting the 15% yet again.

They have no clue what they actual numbers are, because it's not settled yet. They are trying to pass the plan, and figure out funding later (again!).
But it's not likely to be terrible, maybe 8% net increase on payroll? I forget.

CAs plan I thought was too costly;
1. They wanted platinum level insurance for everyone, I think it should be sliver/gold, with the option for individuals to raise it higher with income...compromise and choice + safety net
2. they wanted all illegals to be covered - I think they should pass that separate for pete's sake!
3. Being at the state level, it would be much more costly than at the federal level, due to reimbursements as well as scale and competition issues
4. Done at the state level, it appears its going to fall on all business. Federally I would prefer it to fall in part on employer, and in part on the ultra-wealthy. Much more tolerable and less impactful to business.

My apologies for mislabeling.
 
Texas is an interesting state. Interesting in the sense that they've got a lot of industry, higher education, technology,...and poverty. LOTS of poverty.

Really, that state is a textbook example of the division between the Haves and the Have-nots.

Texas was number 38 among the states for the household poverty rate. California was 35 and the District of Columbia number 41.

Nor is Texas very remarkable on the Gini coefficient, an index of income inequality. At 0.469 Texas beats NY, CT, DC CA, and MA. 0.469 is the same Gini coefficient as the US as a whole.

So saying that Texas is a "textbook example" of the division between the haves and have nots is an outright falsehood.

It's all in Wikipedia.org.
 
Texas was number 38 among the states for the household poverty rate. California was 35 and the District of Columbia number 41.

Nor is Texas very remarkable on the Gini coefficient, an index of income inequality. At 0.469 Texas beats NY, CT, DC CA, and MA. 0.469 is the same Gini coefficient as the US as a whole.

So saying that Texas is a "textbook example" of the division between the haves and have nots is an outright falsehood.

It's all in Wikipedia.org.

Good points. However, the definition of poverty is badly out of date. Also there's also the issue of how easy it is to escape poverty:

map_prob_p1_k5.png


(Source)

Still, that chart suggests that the biggest traps to escaping poverty lie in the Southeast and the Upper Midwest, not Texas. So, well-played. The next question becomes why some states--and certain parts of states in particular--are so much more difficult to escape poverty than others.
 
The second they pass that is the second I sell my house and move out of this liberal piece of s*** state.
 
That **** is already decided by the insurance companies.

That's true, but in a market situation the consumer can always choose another insurer. That will no longer be an option if it goes single payer. We saw kind of the same thing here in AZ where those not covered by an employer's plan have a grand total of one option for an insurance carrier.
 
That's true, but in a market situation the consumer can always choose another insurer. That will no longer be an option if it goes single payer. We saw kind of the same thing here in AZ where those not covered by an employer's plan have a grand total of one option for an insurance carrier.

Hey, that's cool - so, if you work for a company, you can choose which insurer and coverage they give you? I didn't know that...nice!!
 
That's true, but in a market situation the consumer can always choose another insurer. That will no longer be an option if it goes single payer. We saw kind of the same thing here in AZ where those not covered by an employer's plan have a grand total of one option for an insurance carrier.

Realistically most people don't have access to another insurer, it's whatever insurer their employer picks period.
 
Good points. However, the definition of poverty is badly out of date. Also there's also the issue of how easy it is to escape poverty:

map_prob_p1_k5.png


(Source)

Still, that chart suggests that the biggest traps to escaping poverty lie in the Southeast and the Upper Midwest, not Texas. So, well-played. The next question becomes why some states--and certain parts of states in particular--are so much more difficult to escape poverty than others.

What are they defining as poor? If it's just income level, that's the most asinine map ever made.

For example, here in San Antonio, you can buy a 1 acre plot of land and put a 4 bed 3 bath house on it in the SA City Limits for less than 250k.
Try that in LA or SF.

If you were to look at just the incomes needed to support that COL, SF or LA would seem "wealthier" but in reality you're paying **** tons more.
 
Excuse my French but **** no. My employer pays about 5% of my salary for my health insurance take that and make single payer fine by me but no to anything else.

Yep. Most people get their insurance through their employers so I suspect that a huge majority of them would agree with what you posted.
 
What are they defining as poor? If it's just income level, that's the most asinine map ever made.

For example, here in San Antonio, you can buy a 1 acre plot of land and put a 4 bed 3 bath house on it in the SA City Limits for less than 250k.
Try that in LA or SF.

If you were to look at just the incomes needed to support that COL, SF or LA would seem "wealthier" but in reality you're paying **** tons more.

The source is linked just below the chart. Methodologies are explained there.
 
Back
Top Bottom