• 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
What percent of your income is going toward premiums now (either directly paid by you or contributed by an employer)?
 
azgreg said:
Are you asking 15% more than I'm currently paying in taxes and premiums or just taxes?
Click to expand...

According to the article it appears to balance the Cali plan they'd raise income taxes by 15%.
 
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...
NEar that, but I have the top end healthcare offered by my company, low low deductible and a wide network. It's not just about the "cost" it's also about the return.
 
Renae said:
NEar that, but I have the top end healthcare offered by my company, low low deductible and a wide network. It's not just about the "cost" it's also about the return.
Click to expand...

No deductible and wide network is what California is looking at.
 
Greenbeard said:
No deductible and wide network is what California is looking at.
Click to expand...

Wait times, GB, wait times. Every single payer in the world has varying degrees of "are you ****ting" me long wait times.
 
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...

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.
 
Make it cheaper and easier to become a doctor...and let them practice privately easier... might reduce some quality... but will drastic reduce prices for regular care.

I was on the ACA last year and I really struggled on finding a doctor close to me that took my plan, and the doctors were much more hesitant in doing necessary testing. I also had to schedule an appointment before I could see a doctor, and my doctor was constantly full where I had to wait days... I managed to find a local retired Chinese couple who were doctors for 40+ years, and I managed to come to them for my issues and they were able to do blood tests(at the time, testing for hyperthyroidism and then another thyroid glad that I forgot the name of)... that I have no doubt at a hospital would be like 400$+ blood test... and the visit and testing was just 25$ per visit... and I think I had 3 visits...And they prescribed me medicine.

I used to have a primary source of a newpaper article... and it's lost on the web now, but...it was a doctor complaining in around the 1920s that healthcare was too cheap. That is was too easy to become a doctor and that they need to make healthcare organizations to restrict the number of doctors and increase prices. I found it fascinating. If anyone else is aware of that article I would like to find it again.
 
Renae said:
According to the article it appears to balance the Cali plan they'd raise income taxes by 15%.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Renae said:
Wait times, GB, wait times. Every single payer in the world has varying degrees of "are you ****ting" me long wait times.
Click to expand...
As does the United States.

In many ways, wait times in the US can be worse, since primary care is a major bottleneck in many areas.

Plus, given a choice between waiting for a non-emergency procedure, and not being able to afford it at all? The latter is not preferable.
 
antiquity said:
Another way for California to drive more businesses and people out of the state...I am sure Illegals and those who live off the government don't have to worry.
Click to expand...

Eventually, those you identified will be the majority of people living in the state. Pretty difficult to collect 15% more in taxes that is already a state with the highest taxes and fees in the Nation.

What Progressives have done in California is astonishing, but not surprising.

The big question will be what will taxpayers in other states do when California comes knocking to bail it out?

My hope is that they will tell California to pound sand.
 
celticwar17 said:
Make it cheaper and easier to become a doctor...and let them practice privately easier... might reduce some quality... but will drastic reduce prices for regular care.
Click to expand...

tumblr_mrt27eKguw1qz8ca1o1_1280.png
 
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...

I wouldn't mind it considering I'm currently paying around 15% of my salary towards Health care anyway. I still don't chose my insurance. My Boss chooses it for me.
 
Renae said:
NEar that, but I have the top end healthcare offered by my company, low low deductible and a wide network. It's not just about the "cost" it's also about the return.
Click to expand...

There are ways to do single payer that more or less match that return. No deductible or copay, choice of doctors, an no worries about whether you're ever "out of network" since there is no network.

Of course, there are ways to do single payer that don't give you that--I think we should obviously do single payer in such a way as to have that kind of service.

I would definitely pay 15% of my income to see that happen, though I'm in that oft-mentioned 1%. I don't think the poor should have to pay nearly as much. Frankly, I'd pay 17-20%, and if everyone else with my income or above did the same, the poor wouldn't have to pay anything. The difference for me will be whether I retire with $10m or $8m to my name--maybe I'll have to choose between that vineyard in Arizona or the apartment in Southampton...but when compared to the choices the poor face (like whether to see a doctor about an alarming lump or pay this month's rent), that's nothing.

Renae said:
Every single payer in the world has varying degrees of "are you ****ting" me long wait times.
Click to expand...

I have friends from both England and Canada who say that that's basically false. You have long wait times to see a specialist there...but my mom recently had to wait three months to see a cardio specialist, and she's got cadilac insurance. In short, when you compare wait times there to wait times here, there's not much difference. And why would there be? There are about the same number of doctors per capita. All the actual statistics I've seen indicate wait times are comparable for most services between here and there.

Where wait times get a little sticky is with new expensive technology, and yeah, single payer can cause long wait times with that. But when you compare health outcomes, they're actually better with single payer systems. So the wait times, whatever they turn out to be, don't bring about negative consequences.
 
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...

15% is actually not terrible given the current cost of health insurance. It would relieve a huge headache for smaller employers trying to provide health insurance to employees and in a lot of cases save them money even if the employee didn't cost share the tax.
 
Visbek said:
tumblr_mrt27eKguw1qz8ca1o1_1280.png
Click to expand...

A doctor is better than no doctor... and is better than damaging our economy and making everyone poorer where costs grow exponentially.

You either ration care... or make care overly expensive...or decrease quality...or have people die... pick one of the four...
 
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...

I read the article, but I can't figure out if they mean an increase of the top marginal income tax of 15 points, from 12.5 to 27.5%, or a 15% increase of the cost, from 12.5 to 14.4%.

The latter doesn't seem so bad, but the former would be hard to get passed. It would make the total tax burden in CA well over 50% of income for citizens there.

The total state tax revenue in CA currently is about $112 billion, and they are talking about raising $200 billion in new revenues. So they probably are taking about an increase of the top rate from 12.5 to 27.5%. Incredible -- almost triple what the state gets in revenues now.
 
ocean515 said:
Eventually, those you identified will be the majority of people living in the state. Pretty difficult to collect 15% more in taxes that is already a state with the highest taxes and fees in the Nation.

What Progressives have done in California is astonishing, but not surprising.

The big question will be what will taxpayers in other states do when California comes knocking to bail it out?

My hope is that they will tell California to pound sand.
Click to expand...


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.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
celticwar17 said:
Make it cheaper and easier to become a doctor...and let them practice privately easier... might reduce some quality... but will drastic reduce prices for regular care.

I was on the ACA last year and I really struggled on finding a doctor close to me that took my plan, and the doctors were much more hesitant in doing necessary testing. I also had to schedule an appointment before I could see a doctor, and my doctor was constantly full where I had to wait days... I managed to find a local retired Chinese couple who were doctors for 40+ years, and I managed to come to them for my issues and they were able to do blood tests(at the time, testing for hyperthyroidism and then another thyroid glad that I forgot the name of)... that I have no doubt at a hospital would be like 400$+ blood test... and the visit and testing was just 25$ per visit... and I think I had 3 visits...And they prescribed me medicine.

I used to have a primary source of a newpaper article... and it's lost on the web now, but...it was a doctor complaining in around the 1920s that healthcare was too cheap. That is was too easy to become a doctor and that they need to make healthcare organizations to restrict the number of doctors and increase prices. I found it fascinating. If anyone else is aware of that article I would like to find it again.
Click to expand...

Just going to single payer would not reduce the cost of care unless less care is given.

Considering another government health care system, the VA, there are restrictions of what medications can be prescribed, on which tests and procedures are available. Their doctors are paid less -- many of them are still in training. Rationing on the basis of what the VA deems to be absolutely necessary is part of the system.

If the people are satisfied with that kind of care then it will work. I suspect they won't be, though.
 
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...

That **** is already decided by the insurance companies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom