Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Do you think obese/overweight people should pay more for health insurance?
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »animatorswearbras wrote: »Now a question for you, how much does your insurance cost, and do you have a deductible or any out of pocket expenses if we're to compare and contrast.
As I have stated, my insurance costs me less than 1% of my salary.
Does this include everything your employer pays too (if you get insurance through your employer)? If not, it's not comparing like to like.
I have cost information for my employer's share of health insurance (from a couple of years ago for these figures) and it was around $7000 for a single employer, more for married. We consider that part of salary, but most employees do not (and do not have to pay taxes on it). This is before whatever they pay out of pocket.
$7000 is far more than 1% of most people's salaries, obviously.
Costs differ employer to employer, of course.
Since my employer does not give me the financial difference if I decline to take their health insurance option, I do not consider it "part of my salary".
Fair enough, but your employer considers it part of your salary, and the gov't does, and it gets included in health care costs, which is what is being compared when we compare with other countries.
If health care costs for employers were lower, salaries would be higher, at least for many people. As it is, many people take health care benefits into account when looking at compensation.
And don't forget, if employer paid healthcare would "go away" with a single payer plan and salaries go up, the additional salaries would be taxed as ordinary income at the marginal tax rate. If this would happen, I believe I have read this would be the largest tax increase in US history.
I would expect so, if you mean some kind of Medicare for all (which I'd favor, although it is not the only change I'd favor).
There are multiple ways to decouple employment and health care, not all of which assume gov't paid health care.It's really a political mess in the US. The traditional Democratic base government workers, unions, etc have employer health care as a current benefit and most likely will tell their representatives they don't want to lose it. The Republicans at present don't seem to have much appetite for single payer.
It's partly a mess because people who benefit from the current system are scared of being worse off, costs are high and increasing, and people who benefit under the current system are often in denial about the fact they benefit and think of it as just the free market. Add to that that insurance policies are confusing, and that people often have no idea what the overall costs are, because they don't see them.
I would say that since every intervention the government has made into health care has actually made things worse for me, my fears are pretty well founded at this point. The second the government touches it, I pay more and get less out of it. Every single time. What on earth is supposed to make me thing single payer would be any different?
If you have employer-paid and don't think your salary would increase without it and pay less than 1%, then you are a perfect example of someone who would pay MORE in a true free market situation with employment and insurance uncoupled. (Or policies that would lead to that, for example, if they just treated it like other salary and taxed it.)
So am I, so that's not something I'm condemning.
Seeing trends, I think it's hard to assume that your insurance would not be "worse" now than it was a few years ago absent gov't involvement. But people like me (and you, probably) would be worse off with a different system, because we benefit from the current system, whether we notice it or not.
Something has to be done to constrain costs, IMO, and in other countries with different versions of more gov't based health care, overall costs are lower. It's also not that reasonable to link employment and health care, why should employers have to be in the health care business.
You're not really selling me on changing to a system that is guaranteed to not have any increased benefit to me.2 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »animatorswearbras wrote: »Now a question for you, how much does your insurance cost, and do you have a deductible or any out of pocket expenses if we're to compare and contrast.
As I have stated, my insurance costs me less than 1% of my salary.
Does this include everything your employer pays too (if you get insurance through your employer)? If not, it's not comparing like to like.
I have cost information for my employer's share of health insurance (from a couple of years ago for these figures) and it was around $7000 for a single employer, more for married. We consider that part of salary, but most employees do not (and do not have to pay taxes on it). This is before whatever they pay out of pocket.
$7000 is far more than 1% of most people's salaries, obviously.
Costs differ employer to employer, of course.
Since my employer does not give me the financial difference if I decline to take their health insurance option, I do not consider it "part of my salary".
Fair enough, but your employer considers it part of your salary, and the gov't does, and it gets included in health care costs, which is what is being compared when we compare with other countries.
If health care costs for employers were lower, salaries would be higher, at least for many people. As it is, many people take health care benefits into account when looking at compensation.
And don't forget, if employer paid healthcare would "go away" with a single payer plan and salaries go up, the additional salaries would be taxed as ordinary income at the marginal tax rate. If this would happen, I believe I have read this would be the largest tax increase in US history.
I would expect so, if you mean some kind of Medicare for all (which I'd favor, although it is not the only change I'd favor).
There are multiple ways to decouple employment and health care, not all of which assume gov't paid health care.It's really a political mess in the US. The traditional Democratic base government workers, unions, etc have employer health care as a current benefit and most likely will tell their representatives they don't want to lose it. The Republicans at present don't seem to have much appetite for single payer.
It's partly a mess because people who benefit from the current system are scared of being worse off, costs are high and increasing, and people who benefit under the current system are often in denial about the fact they benefit and think of it as just the free market. Add to that that insurance policies are confusing, and that people often have no idea what the overall costs are, because they don't see them.
I would say that since every intervention the government has made into health care has actually made things worse for me, my fears are pretty well founded at this point. The second the government touches it, I pay more and get less out of it. Every single time. What on earth is supposed to make me thing single payer would be any different?
If you have employer-paid and don't think your salary would increase without it and pay less than 1%, then you are a perfect example of someone who would pay MORE in a true free market situation with employment and insurance uncoupled. (Or policies that would lead to that, for example, if they just treated it like other salary and taxed it.)
So am I, so that's not something I'm condemning.
Seeing trends, I think it's hard to assume that your insurance would not be "worse" now than it was a few years ago absent gov't involvement. But people like me (and you, probably) would be worse off with a different system, because we benefit from the current system, whether we notice it or not.
Something has to be done to constrain costs, IMO, and in other countries with different versions of more gov't based health care, overall costs are lower. It's also not that reasonable to link employment and health care, why should employers have to be in the health care business.
You're not really selling me on changing to a system that is guaranteed to not have any increased benefit to me.
I'm not interested in do so or doing anything other than discussing the issues and doing so with a correct understanding of the facts. I of course have opinions about health care, but don't argue politics on MFP.
If one cares about free market pressures on health care providers, employer-based insurance is not a good model. Whether one cares about that is a different issue. (I don't think most people care a bit.)3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »animatorswearbras wrote: »Now a question for you, how much does your insurance cost, and do you have a deductible or any out of pocket expenses if we're to compare and contrast.
As I have stated, my insurance costs me less than 1% of my salary.
Does this include everything your employer pays too (if you get insurance through your employer)? If not, it's not comparing like to like.
I have cost information for my employer's share of health insurance (from a couple of years ago for these figures) and it was around $7000 for a single employer, more for married. We consider that part of salary, but most employees do not (and do not have to pay taxes on it). This is before whatever they pay out of pocket.
$7000 is far more than 1% of most people's salaries, obviously.
Costs differ employer to employer, of course.
Since my employer does not give me the financial difference if I decline to take their health insurance option, I do not consider it "part of my salary".
Fair enough, but your employer considers it part of your salary, and the gov't does, and it gets included in health care costs, which is what is being compared when we compare with other countries.
If health care costs for employers were lower, salaries would be higher, at least for many people. As it is, many people take health care benefits into account when looking at compensation.
And don't forget, if employer paid healthcare would "go away" with a single payer plan and salaries go up, the additional salaries would be taxed as ordinary income at the marginal tax rate. If this would happen, I believe I have read this would be the largest tax increase in US history.
It's really a political mess in the US. The traditional Democratic base government workers, unions, etc have employer health care as a current benefit and most likely will tell their representatives they don't want to lose it. The Republicans at present don't seem to have much appetite for single payer.
How many employers are actually going to just start paying everyone more in absolute dollars if they can dump the expense of paying for group health insurance and therefore increase their shareholders profits?
We would pay people more in salary they get (vs. salary they get as health care benefits) for sure if the burden of health care went away. We would not pay them more equally. Some would get a lot more, and some would end up with more in take home, but less overall, since one thing about health care is that it's a fixed cost that limits what is available for raises and bonuses. (I know this since I am a partner in a smaller business and sit through interminable discussions of salary/bonus at the end of every year. We know people don't consider health care to be part of their salary, but we do, and often discuss how to get them to see that (like when we had a freeze on most raises in 2009/10 but health care costs were continuing to increase so salaries were too in reality).
And people would pay income tax on the marginal income as well as any tax for a national healthcare scheme. The employee's total aftertax compensation would go down.0 -
FrugalMomsRock75 wrote: »Even when I was running 5 miles a day several days a week, wearing a size 2, and going to the gym and had perfect blood pressure and cholesterol, I was "overweight" by the standard chart. I weighed in at 133-136 depending on the time of day and or month I stepped on the scale. So you're saying I should have been penalized for not fitting into their "box" image of the perfect weight?
If you want to buy a product (health insurance), and somebody is willing to sell it to you, is it really being "penalized" if you don't like their asking price?2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »If health care costs for employers were lower, salaries would be higher, at least for many people. As it is, many people take health care benefits into account when looking at compensation.
And don't forget, if employer paid healthcare would "go away" with a single payer plan and salaries go up, the additional salaries would be taxed as ordinary income at the marginal tax rate. If this would happen, I believe I have read this would be the largest tax increase in US history.
I highly doubt any single payer system is going to let corporations/companies off tax free. First off.. it would be fiscally impossible to simply cut out the large amount of money invested in our healthcare system but the corporate contributions and keep the new system afloat.
The reality is going to be much closer to diverting all the monies that both corporate/business AND individuals currently pay to the existing system to the new system. A single payer system isn't going to drastically reduce the overall cost of healthcare (at least not in the near future), plus the government will be struggling to find the money to cover the cost of those currently NOT covered. It's almost laughable that ANYONE thinks that a single payer system is going to magically free up money for anyone.
1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »animatorswearbras wrote: »Now a question for you, how much does your insurance cost, and do you have a deductible or any out of pocket expenses if we're to compare and contrast.
As I have stated, my insurance costs me less than 1% of my salary.
Does this include everything your employer pays too (if you get insurance through your employer)? If not, it's not comparing like to like.
I have cost information for my employer's share of health insurance (from a couple of years ago for these figures) and it was around $7000 for a single employer, more for married. We consider that part of salary, but most employees do not (and do not have to pay taxes on it). This is before whatever they pay out of pocket.
$7000 is far more than 1% of most people's salaries, obviously.
Costs differ employer to employer, of course.
Since my employer does not give me the financial difference if I decline to take their health insurance option, I do not consider it "part of my salary".
Fair enough, but your employer considers it part of your salary, and the gov't does, and it gets included in health care costs, which is what is being compared when we compare with other countries.
If health care costs for employers were lower, salaries would be higher, at least for many people. As it is, many people take health care benefits into account when looking at compensation.
And don't forget, if employer paid healthcare would "go away" with a single payer plan and salaries go up, the additional salaries would be taxed as ordinary income at the marginal tax rate. If this would happen, I believe I have read this would be the largest tax increase in US history.
It's really a political mess in the US. The traditional Democratic base government workers, unions, etc have employer health care as a current benefit and most likely will tell their representatives they don't want to lose it. The Republicans at present don't seem to have much appetite for single payer.
How many employers are actually going to just start paying everyone more in absolute dollars if they can dump the expense of paying for group health insurance and therefore increase their shareholders profits?
We would pay people more in salary they get (vs. salary they get as health care benefits) for sure if the burden of health care went away. We would not pay them more equally. Some would get a lot more, and some would end up with more in take home, but less overall, since one thing about health care is that it's a fixed cost that limits what is available for raises and bonuses. (I know this since I am a partner in a smaller business and sit through interminable discussions of salary/bonus at the end of every year. We know people don't consider health care to be part of their salary, but we do, and often discuss how to get them to see that (like when we had a freeze on most raises in 2009/10 but health care costs were continuing to increase so salaries were too in reality).
And people would pay income tax on the marginal income as well as any tax for a national healthcare scheme. The employee's total aftertax compensation would go down.
You are conflating two separate issues:
(a) separating employment and health care (which many people who are not in favor of nationalized health care favor -- the purpose of McCain's plan when running for president (although it was not realistic) would effectuate a separation and it is a long time wonky preference on the right as well as on the left); and
(b) how health care is paid for if not by the employer (single payer being one option, not the only one).
As for our employees, whether they would get more or less after such a change depends on the tax bracket they are in, as well as the details about the plan. For others it depends on how much out of pocket they pay for health care now. No question that some who are winners under the current (non free market) system would do worse (due to higher taxes or fewer benefits) under a change (like I said, I think I would, at least in the short term, but one problem with the current system is that it is unsustainable so everyone's situation gets worse long term). The question (to me) is whether the overall system is better or worse if we have some form of gov't paid, at least for basic care. (I think if you do it correctly it lowers costs, as demonstrated by most other countries that do it vs. the US. I also think, independent of this, that tying it to employers is bad for employers and reduces the ability of people to start their own businesses or change jobs or take jobs that might be better options and therefore is generally bad economically.)4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »If health care costs for employers were lower, salaries would be higher, at least for many people. As it is, many people take health care benefits into account when looking at compensation.
And don't forget, if employer paid healthcare would "go away" with a single payer plan and salaries go up, the additional salaries would be taxed as ordinary income at the marginal tax rate. If this would happen, I believe I have read this would be the largest tax increase in US history.
I highly doubt any single payer system is going to let corporations/companies off tax free. First off.. it would be fiscally impossible to simply cut out the large amount of money invested in our healthcare system but the corporate contributions and keep the new system afloat.
The reality is going to be much closer to diverting all the monies that both corporate/business AND individuals currently pay to the existing system to the new system. A single payer system isn't going to drastically reduce the overall cost of healthcare (at least not in the near future), plus the government will be struggling to find the money to cover the cost of those currently NOT covered. It's almost laughable that ANYONE thinks that a single payer system is going to magically free up money for anyone.
No one is talking about immediate, and there are numerous possible ways to do this.3 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »animatorswearbras wrote: »Now a question for you, how much does your insurance cost, and do you have a deductible or any out of pocket expenses if we're to compare and contrast.
As I have stated, my insurance costs me less than 1% of my salary.
Does this include everything your employer pays too (if you get insurance through your employer)? If not, it's not comparing like to like.
I have cost information for my employer's share of health insurance (from a couple of years ago for these figures) and it was around $7000 for a single employer, more for married. We consider that part of salary, but most employees do not (and do not have to pay taxes on it). This is before whatever they pay out of pocket.
$7000 is far more than 1% of most people's salaries, obviously.
Costs differ employer to employer, of course.
Since my employer does not give me the financial difference if I decline to take their health insurance option, I do not consider it "part of my salary".
Fair enough, but your employer considers it part of your salary, and the gov't does, and it gets included in health care costs, which is what is being compared when we compare with other countries.
If health care costs for employers were lower, salaries would be higher, at least for many people. As it is, many people take health care benefits into account when looking at compensation.
And don't forget, if employer paid healthcare would "go away" with a single payer plan and salaries go up, the additional salaries would be taxed as ordinary income at the marginal tax rate. If this would happen, I believe I have read this would be the largest tax increase in US history.
I would expect so, if you mean some kind of Medicare for all (which I'd favor, although it is not the only change I'd favor).
There are multiple ways to decouple employment and health care, not all of which assume gov't paid health care.It's really a political mess in the US. The traditional Democratic base government workers, unions, etc have employer health care as a current benefit and most likely will tell their representatives they don't want to lose it. The Republicans at present don't seem to have much appetite for single payer.
It's partly a mess because people who benefit from the current system are scared of being worse off, costs are high and increasing, and people who benefit under the current system are often in denial about the fact they benefit and think of it as just the free market. Add to that that insurance policies are confusing, and that people often have no idea what the overall costs are, because they don't see them.
I would say that since every intervention the government has made into health care has actually made things worse for me, my fears are pretty well founded at this point. The second the government touches it, I pay more and get less out of it. Every single time. What on earth is supposed to make me thing single payer would be any different?
/agree
The passage of ACA has ensured that my business will not expand. I have also been forced to relocate my business from a tax punitive state to a more business friendly state. Even though I have several incentives at the state/local level to expand and add to the payroll, the provisions within ACA override these benefits.
What is absolutely mind boggling is the notion that deliberately inserting both the insurance industry and a government bureaucracy has the potential of lowering the cost of healthcare.5 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »animatorswearbras wrote: »Now a question for you, how much does your insurance cost, and do you have a deductible or any out of pocket expenses if we're to compare and contrast.
As I have stated, my insurance costs me less than 1% of my salary.
Does this include everything your employer pays too (if you get insurance through your employer)? If not, it's not comparing like to like.
I have cost information for my employer's share of health insurance (from a couple of years ago for these figures) and it was around $7000 for a single employer, more for married. We consider that part of salary, but most employees do not (and do not have to pay taxes on it). This is before whatever they pay out of pocket.
$7000 is far more than 1% of most people's salaries, obviously.
Costs differ employer to employer, of course.
Since my employer does not give me the financial difference if I decline to take their health insurance option, I do not consider it "part of my salary".
Fair enough, but your employer considers it part of your salary, and the gov't does, and it gets included in health care costs, which is what is being compared when we compare with other countries.
If health care costs for employers were lower, salaries would be higher, at least for many people. As it is, many people take health care benefits into account when looking at compensation.
And don't forget, if employer paid healthcare would "go away" with a single payer plan and salaries go up, the additional salaries would be taxed as ordinary income at the marginal tax rate. If this would happen, I believe I have read this would be the largest tax increase in US history.
I would expect so, if you mean some kind of Medicare for all (which I'd favor, although it is not the only change I'd favor).
There are multiple ways to decouple employment and health care, not all of which assume gov't paid health care.It's really a political mess in the US. The traditional Democratic base government workers, unions, etc have employer health care as a current benefit and most likely will tell their representatives they don't want to lose it. The Republicans at present don't seem to have much appetite for single payer.
It's partly a mess because people who benefit from the current system are scared of being worse off, costs are high and increasing, and people who benefit under the current system are often in denial about the fact they benefit and think of it as just the free market. Add to that that insurance policies are confusing, and that people often have no idea what the overall costs are, because they don't see them.
I would say that since every intervention the government has made into health care has actually made things worse for me, my fears are pretty well founded at this point. The second the government touches it, I pay more and get less out of it. Every single time. What on earth is supposed to make me thing single payer would be any different?
The same thing that allows you to believe in fairies and unicorns.
2 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »animatorswearbras wrote: »Now a question for you, how much does your insurance cost, and do you have a deductible or any out of pocket expenses if we're to compare and contrast.
As I have stated, my insurance costs me less than 1% of my salary.
Does this include everything your employer pays too (if you get insurance through your employer)? If not, it's not comparing like to like.
I have cost information for my employer's share of health insurance (from a couple of years ago for these figures) and it was around $7000 for a single employer, more for married. We consider that part of salary, but most employees do not (and do not have to pay taxes on it). This is before whatever they pay out of pocket.
$7000 is far more than 1% of most people's salaries, obviously.
Costs differ employer to employer, of course.
Since my employer does not give me the financial difference if I decline to take their health insurance option, I do not consider it "part of my salary".
Fair enough, but your employer considers it part of your salary, and the gov't does, and it gets included in health care costs, which is what is being compared when we compare with other countries.
If health care costs for employers were lower, salaries would be higher, at least for many people. As it is, many people take health care benefits into account when looking at compensation.
And don't forget, if employer paid healthcare would "go away" with a single payer plan and salaries go up, the additional salaries would be taxed as ordinary income at the marginal tax rate. If this would happen, I believe I have read this would be the largest tax increase in US history.
I would expect so, if you mean some kind of Medicare for all (which I'd favor, although it is not the only change I'd favor).
There are multiple ways to decouple employment and health care, not all of which assume gov't paid health care.It's really a political mess in the US. The traditional Democratic base government workers, unions, etc have employer health care as a current benefit and most likely will tell their representatives they don't want to lose it. The Republicans at present don't seem to have much appetite for single payer.
It's partly a mess because people who benefit from the current system are scared of being worse off, costs are high and increasing, and people who benefit under the current system are often in denial about the fact they benefit and think of it as just the free market. Add to that that insurance policies are confusing, and that people often have no idea what the overall costs are, because they don't see them.
I would say that since every intervention the government has made into health care has actually made things worse for me, my fears are pretty well founded at this point. The second the government touches it, I pay more and get less out of it. Every single time. What on earth is supposed to make me thing single payer would be any different?
If you have employer-paid and don't think your salary would increase without it and pay less than 1%, then you are a perfect example of someone who would pay MORE in a true free market situation with employment and insurance uncoupled. (Or policies that would lead to that, for example, if they just treated it like other salary and taxed it.)
So am I, so that's not something I'm condemning.
Seeing trends, I think it's hard to assume that your insurance would not be "worse" now than it was a few years ago absent gov't involvement. But people like me (and you, probably) would be worse off with a different system, because we benefit from the current system, whether we notice it or not.
Something has to be done to constrain costs, IMO, and in other countries with different versions of more gov't based health care, overall costs are lower. It's also not that reasonable to link employment and health care, why should employers have to be in the health care business.
You're not really selling me on changing to a system that is guaranteed to not have any increased benefit to me.
Maybe no benefit for you today, but you might not always have your current job with your current insurance.5 -
All i can say is that I'm a huge loser from the ACA
1. All but one insurance company left my state (Minnesota) (we had 7 only 3 years ago, and more than 20 prior).
2. I happened to purchase insurance from that company, and have done so every year since I was 19 as I've been self - employed most of my adult life. I valued the wide network that I had access to with Blue Cross, and the PPO structure guaranteed in- network access nationwide. But last year they cancelled all individual policies, and only allowed enrollment in a limited regional HMO
3. The only option PPO for me covers only local primary care. The closest specialists in ANY SPECIALTY are a 4.5 hour drive. Even though we have a perfectly good number of specialists in town, they were all assigned to the Twin Cities HMO, while the primary care physicians were assigned to the Sioux Falls/Fargo PPO.
4. there is no in network trauma coverage our surgery closer than 4.5 hours away. I live 60 minutes from world class health care, and cannot access it. If I'm in a bad accident, i will have to be airlifted to Fargo, ND (over an hour by helicopter) even through getting me to St Cloud would take 20 minutes because of the stupid network assignment
5. My premiums have risen from $105/mo to $420/mo in only five years.
6. My deductible has risen from $2000 to $6750 in that same time
I'm in agreement that every time the government meddles in health insurance it gets worse.6 -
.0
-
Edit to the above: the only option HMO for me covers only local primary care, and Sioux Falls/Fargo are covered under an HMO. There is no private-purchase PPO available.0
-
1. Nobody should have to pay more for insurance than someone else. The whole concept of insurance is that those who are the least sick pay to help make up the difference for those who are the most sick. Nobody should ever be turned down or charged more for pre-existing conditions and nobody should ever have to choose between their life or the life of their loved ones and their home or business.
2. The correct thing to do from an economic, fairness, and common sense view would be to get rid of private insurance companies all together and move to a single-payer healthcare system modeled after the NHS in the UK.
3. The ACA was great, but it didn't work in states where they have Republican governors where they don't want it to work... like Minnesota. It worked very well in states where governors wanted it to work, like California.10 -
... I'm so glad I live in Australia.6
-
paultireland wrote: »1. Nobody should have to pay more for insurance than someone else. The whole concept of insurance is that those who are the least sick pay to help make up the difference for those who are the most sick. Nobody should ever be turned down or charged more for pre-existing conditions and nobody should ever have to choose between their life or the life of their loved ones and their home or business.
2. The correct thing to do from an economic, fairness, and common sense view would be to get rid of private insurance companies all together and move to a single-payer healthcare system modeled after the NHS in the UK.
3. The ACA was great, but it didn't work in states where they have Republican governors where they don't want it to work... like Minnesota. It worked very well in states where governors wanted it to work, like California.
The ACA was and is a cluster *kitten*. Does nothing to address the root problem which is the total cost of healthcare on a per person basis in the US compared to the rest of the industrialized world.
BTW, I live in a state were the Dems controlled the Legislature and the Governor's Mansion when it was implemented. Still sucks.3 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »animatorswearbras wrote: »Now a question for you, how much does your insurance cost, and do you have a deductible or any out of pocket expenses if we're to compare and contrast.
As I have stated, my insurance costs me less than 1% of my salary.
Does this include everything your employer pays too (if you get insurance through your employer)? If not, it's not comparing like to like.
I have cost information for my employer's share of health insurance (from a couple of years ago for these figures) and it was around $7000 for a single employer, more for married. We consider that part of salary, but most employees do not (and do not have to pay taxes on it). This is before whatever they pay out of pocket.
$7000 is far more than 1% of most people's salaries, obviously.
Costs differ employer to employer, of course.
Since my employer does not give me the financial difference if I decline to take their health insurance option, I do not consider it "part of my salary".
Fair enough, but your employer considers it part of your salary, and the gov't does, and it gets included in health care costs, which is what is being compared when we compare with other countries.
If health care costs for employers were lower, salaries would be higher, at least for many people. As it is, many people take health care benefits into account when looking at compensation.
And don't forget, if employer paid healthcare would "go away" with a single payer plan and salaries go up, the additional salaries would be taxed as ordinary income at the marginal tax rate. If this would happen, I believe I have read this would be the largest tax increase in US history.
I would expect so, if you mean some kind of Medicare for all (which I'd favor, although it is not the only change I'd favor).
There are multiple ways to decouple employment and health care, not all of which assume gov't paid health care.It's really a political mess in the US. The traditional Democratic base government workers, unions, etc have employer health care as a current benefit and most likely will tell their representatives they don't want to lose it. The Republicans at present don't seem to have much appetite for single payer.
It's partly a mess because people who benefit from the current system are scared of being worse off, costs are high and increasing, and people who benefit under the current system are often in denial about the fact they benefit and think of it as just the free market. Add to that that insurance policies are confusing, and that people often have no idea what the overall costs are, because they don't see them.
I would say that since every intervention the government has made into health care has actually made things worse for me, my fears are pretty well founded at this point. The second the government touches it, I pay more and get less out of it. Every single time. What on earth is supposed to make me thing single payer would be any different?
The same thing that allows you to believe in fairies and unicorns.
So other countries have models (not necessarily single payer) that are generally more government-involved and cheaper, and yet we can't do that, period, it could never work? Are we just not as competent as everyone else?
That's what makes no sense to me.
Also, I will say again that the current system (including the pre Obamacare system) is not a free market system, one issue is that the vast majority of people who like their health care don't see the costs, and it's not a great idea to couple employment and health care as plenty of people on both the right and left have acknowledged (i.e., the McCain plan I mentioned above).6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »animatorswearbras wrote: »Now a question for you, how much does your insurance cost, and do you have a deductible or any out of pocket expenses if we're to compare and contrast.
As I have stated, my insurance costs me less than 1% of my salary.
Does this include everything your employer pays too (if you get insurance through your employer)? If not, it's not comparing like to like.
I have cost information for my employer's share of health insurance (from a couple of years ago for these figures) and it was around $7000 for a single employer, more for married. We consider that part of salary, but most employees do not (and do not have to pay taxes on it). This is before whatever they pay out of pocket.
$7000 is far more than 1% of most people's salaries, obviously.
Costs differ employer to employer, of course.
Since my employer does not give me the financial difference if I decline to take their health insurance option, I do not consider it "part of my salary".
Fair enough, but your employer considers it part of your salary, and the gov't does, and it gets included in health care costs, which is what is being compared when we compare with other countries.
If health care costs for employers were lower, salaries would be higher, at least for many people. As it is, many people take health care benefits into account when looking at compensation.
And don't forget, if employer paid healthcare would "go away" with a single payer plan and salaries go up, the additional salaries would be taxed as ordinary income at the marginal tax rate. If this would happen, I believe I have read this would be the largest tax increase in US history.
I would expect so, if you mean some kind of Medicare for all (which I'd favor, although it is not the only change I'd favor).
There are multiple ways to decouple employment and health care, not all of which assume gov't paid health care.It's really a political mess in the US. The traditional Democratic base government workers, unions, etc have employer health care as a current benefit and most likely will tell their representatives they don't want to lose it. The Republicans at present don't seem to have much appetite for single payer.
It's partly a mess because people who benefit from the current system are scared of being worse off, costs are high and increasing, and people who benefit under the current system are often in denial about the fact they benefit and think of it as just the free market. Add to that that insurance policies are confusing, and that people often have no idea what the overall costs are, because they don't see them.
I would say that since every intervention the government has made into health care has actually made things worse for me, my fears are pretty well founded at this point. The second the government touches it, I pay more and get less out of it. Every single time. What on earth is supposed to make me thing single payer would be any different?
The same thing that allows you to believe in fairies and unicorns.
So other countries have models (not necessarily single payer) that are generally more government-involved and cheaper, and yet we can't do that, period, it could never work? Are we just not as competent as everyone else?
That's what makes no sense to me.
Also, I will say again that the current system (including the pre Obamacare system) is not a free market system, one issue is that the vast majority of people who like their health care don't see the costs, and it's not a great idea to couple employment and health care as plenty of people on both the right and left have acknowledged (i.e., the McCain plan I mentioned above).
The comparative cost of healthcare in other nations is fallacious. The US subsidizes the world's heathcare as every other nation negotiates the price of drugs to ensure availability beyond the cost of research. The US does not do this.
There are no free market systems in place. The right and left have this wrong - it's not government or corporations, but the collusion of the two that is the root cause. Business and governments must be allowed to wither and die for newer, more efficient systems to take their place.5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »animatorswearbras wrote: »Now a question for you, how much does your insurance cost, and do you have a deductible or any out of pocket expenses if we're to compare and contrast.
As I have stated, my insurance costs me less than 1% of my salary.
Does this include everything your employer pays too (if you get insurance through your employer)? If not, it's not comparing like to like.
I have cost information for my employer's share of health insurance (from a couple of years ago for these figures) and it was around $7000 for a single employer, more for married. We consider that part of salary, but most employees do not (and do not have to pay taxes on it). This is before whatever they pay out of pocket.
$7000 is far more than 1% of most people's salaries, obviously.
Costs differ employer to employer, of course.
Since my employer does not give me the financial difference if I decline to take their health insurance option, I do not consider it "part of my salary".
Fair enough, but your employer considers it part of your salary, and the gov't does, and it gets included in health care costs, which is what is being compared when we compare with other countries.
If health care costs for employers were lower, salaries would be higher, at least for many people. As it is, many people take health care benefits into account when looking at compensation.
And don't forget, if employer paid healthcare would "go away" with a single payer plan and salaries go up, the additional salaries would be taxed as ordinary income at the marginal tax rate. If this would happen, I believe I have read this would be the largest tax increase in US history.
I would expect so, if you mean some kind of Medicare for all (which I'd favor, although it is not the only change I'd favor).
There are multiple ways to decouple employment and health care, not all of which assume gov't paid health care.It's really a political mess in the US. The traditional Democratic base government workers, unions, etc have employer health care as a current benefit and most likely will tell their representatives they don't want to lose it. The Republicans at present don't seem to have much appetite for single payer.
It's partly a mess because people who benefit from the current system are scared of being worse off, costs are high and increasing, and people who benefit under the current system are often in denial about the fact they benefit and think of it as just the free market. Add to that that insurance policies are confusing, and that people often have no idea what the overall costs are, because they don't see them.
I would say that since every intervention the government has made into health care has actually made things worse for me, my fears are pretty well founded at this point. The second the government touches it, I pay more and get less out of it. Every single time. What on earth is supposed to make me thing single payer would be any different?
The same thing that allows you to believe in fairies and unicorns.
So other countries have models (not necessarily single payer) that are generally more government-involved and cheaper, and yet we can't do that, period, it could never work? Are we just not as competent as everyone else?
That's what makes no sense to me.
Also, I will say again that the current system (including the pre Obamacare system) is not a free market system, one issue is that the vast majority of people who like their health care don't see the costs, and it's not a great idea to couple employment and health care as plenty of people on both the right and left have acknowledged (i.e., the McCain plan I mentioned above).
The comparative cost of healthcare in other nations is fallacious. The US subsidizes the world's heathcare as every other nation negotiates the price of drugs to ensure availability beyond the cost of research. The US does not do this.
That makes as much sense as someone paying sticker price for a car claiming they helped pay for everyone else's cars who negotiated their prices down and that if they hadn't paid the sticker price, those other people wouldn't have gotten lower prices.
5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions