• 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?

  • Yes, it's time we got with the 21st Century and cared about all Americans

    Votes: 23 37.7%

  • No, Government is not the right avenue to resolve this.

    Votes: 38 62.3%
  • Total voters
    61
OlNate said:
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!!
Click to expand...

You can change employers.
 
Perotista said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yep, sexual reassignment surgery (and forever hormone therapy) for an 18 year old is much more important than bypass surgery or a knee replacement surgery for a senior citizen. ;)
 
Greenbeard said:
That's the least efficient way to shop for an insurance plan I've ever heard of.
Click to expand...

It's generally not practical but it is an option.

For lots of people, the type of coverage an employer offers is a major consideration in whether they'll take the job in the first place so, while it may not be a great way to shop for insurance, it is a major factor in a lot of employment decisions.
 
The American phobia of "big government" is one of the most ridiculous, and harmful, tendencies of the U.S. populace. The majority of government programmes, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, are widely popular among most Americans on both sides of the aisle (one of the few consistent promises of Donald Trump's campaign was that he won't cut any of the aforementioned three programmes, a promise which was obviously broken). Mistrust of governmental institutions and individual politicians is healthy and understandable. But the functions of government in alleviating poverty, eliminating urban squalor and managing the economy are vital, and public opinion polling reflects that.

To the issue at hand: single-payer healthcare may cost you 15% more tax (though I believe that federally-provided, as opposed to state-sponsored, health services can cost considerably less if cuts were to be made to wasteful institutions such as the U.S. military), but it would all but eliminate premiums and deductibles and streamline the cumbersome network of healthcare providers. Thus it would probably be cheaper and less bureaucratic than the current system of patient extortion and rampant racket as exercised by private insurance companies. Throughout decades of "competition", insurance quality took a massive hit and prices only continued to inflate at a ludicrous rate. American conservatives seem to believe that the free market cures all ailments; in terms of health insurance, the only one that is being successfully contained is chronic vitality. There is a reason why all major developed nations guarantee healthcare; the only reason America doesn't is insurance company lobbying and irrational contempt for public spending and taxation.
 
Lutherf said:
It's generally not practical but it is an option.
For lots of people, the type of coverage an employer offers is a major consideration in whether they'll take the job in the first place so, while it may not be a great way to shop for insurance, it is a major factor in a lot of employment decisions.
Click to expand...

I had and recommended a variety of non employer provided plans over the years. If I recall, the biggest concerns were always pre-existing, and cost. pre-existing was helped with obamacare. However I only did that because I didn't have employer insurance. I don't really get the "shopping around" for health insurance. Care, yes, insurance, no.
The issue then becomes that the employer isn't going to reimburse you their spend, if you don't want their insurance but instead want to buy it yourself. And that's way too expensive (since it's already factored into your salary/benefits package...)

So there is plenty of competition out there, it's just that we can't pay it with the current employer funding models in most cases.

From what I understand the entire employer provided benefits was developed way back when, in an effort to stave off government healthcare and unions...basically private business said it will provide for people, to cut out gov/unions from trying to squeeze in. This was back in the days when employers were committed to providing job security, benefits, and people could raise a family off their one, average salary (summarizing). Since business has moved far away from that model, and it's now "on demand employment", it's obvious we need the safety net for healthcare IMO.
 
Last edited:
Winchester said:
Realistically most people don't have access to another insurer, it's whatever insurer their employer picks period.
Click to expand...

How is that any worse than the government as "the" insurer?
 
disneydude said:
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.
Click to expand...

LOL

Naysayers....

Not to worry Disneydude, I sold my business - the new owners are moving it to Sparks, Nevada within the next 18 months. 80+ good paying jobs gone.

And I'm sure you'll be thrilled to know I'm already in the planning stages to leave this sinking ship to the fools who drilled holes in it's hull.

In the mean time, while you shut your eyes to the inevitable, they are already writing California's obituary....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2016/09/15/californias-boom-is-poised-to-go-bust-and-liberals-dream-of-scandinavia-on-the-pacific/#187a17ba5cb6

6 Key Measures of California's Fiscal Health 2017-18 | John Moorlach
 
ocean515 said:
LOL

Naysayers....

Not to worry Disneydude, I sold my business - the new owners are moving it to Sparks, Nevada within the next 18 months. 80+ good paying jobs gone.

And I'm sure you'll be thrilled to know I'm already in the planning stages to leave this sinking ship to the fools who drilled holes in it's hull.

In the mean time, while you shut your eyes to the inevitable, they are already writing California's obituary....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2016/09/15/californias-boom-is-poised-to-go-bust-and-liberals-dream-of-scandinavia-on-the-pacific/#187a17ba5cb6

6 Key Measures of California's Fiscal Health 2017-18 | John Moorlach
Click to expand...


Haters have been writing that obituary for 40 years...LOL. Enjoy Texas. I'll be enjoying life in the crown jewel of the US.
 
Mach said:
I had and recommended a variety of non employer provided plans over the years. If I recall, the biggest concerns were always pre-existing, and cost. pre-existing was helped with obamacare. However I only did that because I didn't have employer insurance. I don't really get the "shopping around" for health insurance. Care, yes, insurance, no.
The issue then becomes that the employer isn't going to reimburse you their spend, if you don't want their insurance but instead want to buy it yourself. And that's way too expensive (since it's already factored into your salary/benefits package...)

So there is plenty of competition out there, it's just that we can't pay it with the current employer funding models in most cases.

From what I understand the entire employer provided benefits was developed way back when, in an effort to stave off government healthcare and unions...basically private business said it will provide for people, to cut out gov/unions from trying to squeeze in. This was back in the days when employers were committed to providing job security, benefits, and people could raise a family off their one, average salary (summarizing). Since business has moved far away from that model, and it's now "on demand employment", it's obvious we need the safety net for healthcare IMO.
Click to expand...

Employer provided health benefits generally began during WWII. There were wage limits in effect so employers began offering health insurance as an incentive.

The most costly change to health insurance over the years is that more and more people want comprehensive policies. They want their insurance to cover office visits and all kinds of incidental stuff. All that used to be paid out of pocket and you bought insurance to cover stuff like surgeries and hospitalizations. The other thing that changed is that as more people got comprehensive coverage they started to sue doctors more often. The insurance response to that was to order additional tests for what had been standard visits. If you go in to see the doctor for sniffles now they are half likely to order MRIs, EKGs and all kinds of other stuff. The $50 office visit has turned into a $1,000 boondoggle.
 
disneydude said:
Haters have been writing that obituary for 40 years...LOL. Enjoy Texas. I'll be enjoying life in the crown jewel of the US.
Click to expand...

Texas is too hot and humid.

Haters have been destroying California for 40 years. You all have just about completed the job. Remarkable accomplishment.

Good luck paying for the train to nowhere, single payer, $100's of billions in public employee pensions, another couple $100 billion to repair the state crumbling infrastructure, and the mountain of other problems and expenses Progressives have created.
 
ocean515 said:
Texas is too hot and humid.

Haters have been destroying California for 40 years. You all have just about completed the job. Remarkable accomplishment.

Good luck paying for the train to nowhere, single payer, $100's of billions in public employee pensions, another couple $100 billion to repair the state crumbling infrastructure, and the mountain of other problems and expenses Progressives have created.
Click to expand...


California will continue to be a shining example to the rest of the nation. California has always led this country in industry, technology and enlightenment. California will still be going strong long after both you and I are gone....despite your continual attempts to write an obituary.

The reality is, California represents the American dream better than any other state. That is why over 12% of the entire US population live in California and most other envy us. Haters will be haters....nothing you can do about it. Perhaps if you had ventured out of the orange curtain every now and then, you would have a different view. I lived behind the orange curtain at one point. I understand what it can do to one's mentality.
 
disneydude said:
California will continue to be a shining example to the rest of the nation. California has always led this country in industry, technology and enlightenment. California will still be going strong long after both you and I are gone....despite your continual attempts to write an obituary.

The reality is, California represents the American dream better than any other state. That is why over 12% of the entire US population live in California and most other envy us. Haters will be haters....nothing you can do about it. Perhaps if you had ventured out of the orange curtain every now and then, you would have a different view. I lived behind the orange curtain at one point. I understand what it can do to one's mentality.
Click to expand...

LOL

Keep Imagineering Disneydude....
 
Phys251 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I love how you just skip from 48k to 480k. Also, $600 is significantly higher than what I pay a month. I would rather not pay potentially more than double what I pay now for likely worse care.
 
Masterhawk said:
So are they gonna raise income taxes for everyone or will most of it be weighted on the rich?
Click to expand...

The rich have been getting the hell out of Dodge. And we all know they sure won't tax the poor, they have a vested interest in catering to the poor who just keep voting for the left.
 
Crovax said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is 5% of your salary less than a 15% increase in income tax?
 
Depends on what a 15% increase means. If my current tax rate is 20% and it goes up to 35%, that seems like an unreasonable amount to increase for single-payer healthcare. I don't pay anywhere near that for my current plan. If my tax rate goes up to 23%, I'd definitely go for that. That's similar to what I'm currently paying for insurance.

The article is unclear on which is meant.
 
Greenbeard said:
What percent of your income is going toward premiums now (either directly paid by you or contributed by an employer)?
Click to expand...

What percent of your income did you pay in income taxes for 2016? State and Federal.
 
Masterhawk said:
So are they gonna raise income taxes for everyone or will most of it be weighted on the rich?
Click to expand...

In the social democracies like Germany it is the not quite poor that pay most of the costs. It is subtracted from wages.
 
15% more in taxes and ZERO in premiums and deductibles, but be sure to leave that part out

Anyway this question is pointless, as CA will be the first to take the plunge as usual, and the rest of the country will see how wonderfully it works and demand the same, as usual
 
Renae said:
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?
Click to expand...

Currently the pre-tax cost of premiums for my whole family, for a plan with a $9,000 family deductible, is $2,400 per month. 15% of my income taxes is less than that so, in my case, sure.
 
chromium said:
15% more in taxes and ZERO in premiums and deductibles, but be sure to leave that part out

Anyway this question is pointless, as CA will be the first to take the plunge as usual, and the rest of the country will see how wonderfully it works and demand the same, as usual
Click to expand...

Having lived most of my life in CA, perhaps you would enlighten us as to what other services were initiated by our government that "wonderfully works" and caused the other states to demand the same?

Okay, prop 13 did start a tax revolt in some other states. Aside from that?
 
Let's reason together. Do all government officials receive the very best healthcare for free or not? Do they get paid more than most individuals working in the private arena? Is this a REPUBLIC (representational) or not? And do such disparities in reality reflect an aristocratic/elitist attitude pervasive among those in public office today? I feel that once these disparities are addressed we can move towards reasonable and rational healthcare for citizens and not before. Democrats and Republicans are equally to blame and totally unwilling to face the truth.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom