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?

1171820222375

Replies

  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Frankly, the biggest issue in my mind is the idea that most people get their insurance thru a group plan via their job. This provides a disincentive to come up with these variable options. I'd rather insurance was always bought individually. Then it stays with you from job to job and likely there would be more flexibility.

    This is true. Tying insurance to job is problematic in a number of ways.

    ... and the fact that quality health insurance for most in America has been invariably tied to people's employment is a side-effect of the disastrous government policy of making the cost of group health employment benefits tax-deductible for employers.

    No, the cost of group health benefits for employees is treated no differently than the wages and salaries from a corporate tax perspective.

    The big thing from a tax perspective is the employee gets the company paid portion of the heath insurance premium and does not have to pay income taxes on it. Change to some government funded plan paid for by taxes, those employees lose that benefit. If the employer gives additional cash compensation, that compensation is taxed at the employee's marginal tax rate.

    I thought it was... (for example: http://healthcoverageguide.org/part-one/reasons-to-purchase-group-coverage/)

    Anyways, the point is the tying of health insurance to one's job is a side effect of government intervention (as is hyperinflation of medical costs). Each time government has intervened in the market for healthcare-related goods and services, regardless of how well-intentioned the intervention is, it's become more and more dysfunctional, which causes people to call for more government intervention.

    End result is: we're gonna get to 100% government-run healthcare in the USA, I have no doubt. So-called "single payer healthcare" is baked in the cake at this point, and you bet they'll discriminate against fat people. After all, they're already doing it in the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/obese-patients-and-smokers-banned-from-all-routine-operations-by/

    But they love their government-run healthcare, so I suppose we should too.

    This is going off topic, but I really wish more Americans understood what the drawbacks of single payer are. Soooo many people think it is wonderful...but if they are told they need to wait a year for that back surgery, they will probably riot. They think the government has an unlimited supply of money and everything should be free (healthcare, college, housing, food, etc.) but free for them just means some other taxpayers paid for it, and when their taxpayer money runs out, rationing results. The grass is always greener...

    Our NHS is presently being purposefully underfunded so it can be privatised by the tories, it is an amazing institution (and has saved the lives of myself and my family on numerous occasions), on top of this if you wish you can go private (google BUPA) or get private insurance if you want a non-emergency surgery where waiting lists exist. Our healthcare cost are less than half per person of those in the US and we have better outcomes for the general population. Sure you have the best healthcare if you are wealthy and can afford the best coverage/out of pocket care but universally that is not the case. I am an above average earner and I am happy for my taxes to be spent on the NHS, it is one of the things I am most proud of about my country. Healthcare should not be a business no different than any other emergency service.

    My only hope is that we can reverse the damage the Tories have done to our healthcare service, I balk at the idea that this sort of discussion might one day be our reality in the UK if we have to endure another Conservative parliament.

    Do you know how much you actually pay per year for your health costs (taxes etc). Would be curious to compare your number with what my family spends per year.

    Comparing one family vs another on their medical costs really doesn't matter due to different problems, insurance, etc. Looking at per capita cost or percent of gdp is a more meaningful measure

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
  • Macy9336
    Macy9336 Posts: 694 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Frankly, the biggest issue in my mind is the idea that most people get their insurance thru a group plan via their job. This provides a disincentive to come up with these variable options. I'd rather insurance was always bought individually. Then it stays with you from job to job and likely there would be more flexibility.

    This is true. Tying insurance to job is problematic in a number of ways.

    ... and the fact that quality health insurance for most in America has been invariably tied to people's employment is a side-effect of the disastrous government policy of making the cost of group health employment benefits tax-deductible for employers.

    No, the cost of group health benefits for employees is treated no differently than the wages and salaries from a corporate tax perspective.

    The big thing from a tax perspective is the employee gets the company paid portion of the heath insurance premium and does not have to pay income taxes on it. Change to some government funded plan paid for by taxes, those employees lose that benefit. If the employer gives additional cash compensation, that compensation is taxed at the employee's marginal tax rate.

    I thought it was... (for example: http://healthcoverageguide.org/part-one/reasons-to-purchase-group-coverage/)

    Anyways, the point is the tying of health insurance to one's job is a side effect of government intervention (as is hyperinflation of medical costs). Each time government has intervened in the market for healthcare-related goods and services, regardless of how well-intentioned the intervention is, it's become more and more dysfunctional, which causes people to call for more government intervention.

    End result is: we're gonna get to 100% government-run healthcare in the USA, I have no doubt. So-called "single payer healthcare" is baked in the cake at this point, and you bet they'll discriminate against fat people. After all, they're already doing it in the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/obese-patients-and-smokers-banned-from-all-routine-operations-by/

    But they love their government-run healthcare, so I suppose we should too.

    This is going off topic, but I really wish more Americans understood what the drawbacks of single payer are. Soooo many people think it is wonderful...but if they are told they need to wait a year for that back surgery, they will probably riot. They think the government has an unlimited supply of money and everything should be free (healthcare, college, housing, food, etc.) but free for them just means some other taxpayers paid for it, and when their taxpayer money runs out, rationing results. The grass is always greener...

    Our NHS is presently being purposefully underfunded so it can be privatised by the tories, it is an amazing institution (and has saved the lives of myself and my family on numerous occasions), on top of this if you wish you can go private (google BUPA) or get private insurance if you want a non-emergency surgery where waiting lists exist. Our healthcare cost are less than half per person of those in the US and we have better outcomes for the general population. Sure you have the best healthcare if you are wealthy and can afford the best coverage/out of pocket care but universally that is not the case. I am an above average earner and I am happy for my taxes to be spent on the NHS, it is one of the things I am most proud of about my country. Healthcare should not be a business no different than any other emergency service.

    My only hope is that we can reverse the damage the Tories have done to our healthcare service, I balk at the idea that this sort of discussion might one day be our reality in the UK if we have to endure another Conservative parliament.

    Do you know how much you actually pay per year for your health costs (taxes etc). Would be curious to compare your number with what my family spends per year.

    Comparing one family vs another on their medical costs really doesn't matter due to different problems, insurance, etc. Looking at per capita cost or percent of gdp is a more meaningful measure

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

    Here are the rates for the national insurance taxes. Keep in mind this tax covers all health care AND the UK equivalent of Social Security for disability benefits and pensioner/social security payments in old age. The example given is if you earn £1000 in a week, then £88 is what you'll pay in NI taxes.
    https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance-rates-letters/contribution-rates
    You can convert your pay in dollars to pounds and then compare what you'd pay in NI taxes to what you currently pay for social security, Medicare and health insurance for apples to apples comparison.

    What it covers: Kids under 16 prescriptions are free all prescriptions for adults are £8.40 each but if you need more than a couple a month, you can get unlimited prescriptions for £133/yr. No co pays all medical care is free. This includes ambulances, vaccines, in patient, out patient, physical and mental health, even if you are treated elsewhere in the EU. Teeth and eyes are not free and have various co pays.

  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Frankly, the biggest issue in my mind is the idea that most people get their insurance thru a group plan via their job. This provides a disincentive to come up with these variable options. I'd rather insurance was always bought individually. Then it stays with you from job to job and likely there would be more flexibility.

    This is true. Tying insurance to job is problematic in a number of ways.

    ... and the fact that quality health insurance for most in America has been invariably tied to people's employment is a side-effect of the disastrous government policy of making the cost of group health employment benefits tax-deductible for employers.

    No, the cost of group health benefits for employees is treated no differently than the wages and salaries from a corporate tax perspective.

    The big thing from a tax perspective is the employee gets the company paid portion of the heath insurance premium and does not have to pay income taxes on it. Change to some government funded plan paid for by taxes, those employees lose that benefit. If the employer gives additional cash compensation, that compensation is taxed at the employee's marginal tax rate.

    I thought it was... (for example: http://healthcoverageguide.org/part-one/reasons-to-purchase-group-coverage/)

    Anyways, the point is the tying of health insurance to one's job is a side effect of government intervention (as is hyperinflation of medical costs). Each time government has intervened in the market for healthcare-related goods and services, regardless of how well-intentioned the intervention is, it's become more and more dysfunctional, which causes people to call for more government intervention.

    End result is: we're gonna get to 100% government-run healthcare in the USA, I have no doubt. So-called "single payer healthcare" is baked in the cake at this point, and you bet they'll discriminate against fat people. After all, they're already doing it in the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/obese-patients-and-smokers-banned-from-all-routine-operations-by/

    But they love their government-run healthcare, so I suppose we should too.

    This is going off topic, but I really wish more Americans understood what the drawbacks of single payer are. Soooo many people think it is wonderful...but if they are told they need to wait a year for that back surgery, they will probably riot. They think the government has an unlimited supply of money and everything should be free (healthcare, college, housing, food, etc.) but free for them just means some other taxpayers paid for it, and when their taxpayer money runs out, rationing results. The grass is always greener...

    Our NHS is presently being purposefully underfunded so it can be privatised by the tories, it is an amazing institution (and has saved the lives of myself and my family on numerous occasions), on top of this if you wish you can go private (google BUPA) or get private insurance if you want a non-emergency surgery where waiting lists exist. Our healthcare cost are less than half per person of those in the US and we have better outcomes for the general population. Sure you have the best healthcare if you are wealthy and can afford the best coverage/out of pocket care but universally that is not the case. I am an above average earner and I am happy for my taxes to be spent on the NHS, it is one of the things I am most proud of about my country. Healthcare should not be a business no different than any other emergency service.

    My only hope is that we can reverse the damage the Tories have done to our healthcare service, I balk at the idea that this sort of discussion might one day be our reality in the UK if we have to endure another Conservative parliament.

    Do you know how much you actually pay per year for your health costs (taxes etc). Would be curious to compare your number with what my family spends per year.

    Comparing one family vs another on their medical costs really doesn't matter due to different problems, insurance, etc. Looking at per capita cost or percent of gdp is a more meaningful measure

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

    Here are the rates for the national insurance taxes. Keep in mind this tax covers all health care AND the UK equivalent of Social Security for disability benefits and pensioner/social security payments in old age. The example given is if you earn £1000 in a week, then £88 is what you'll pay in NI taxes.
    https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance-rates-letters/contribution-rates
    You can convert your pay in dollars to pounds and then compare what you'd pay in NI taxes to what you currently pay for social security, Medicare and health insurance for apples to apples comparison.

    What it covers: Kids under 16 prescriptions are free all prescriptions for adults are £8.40 each but if you need more than a couple a month, you can get unlimited prescriptions for £133/yr. No co pays all medical care is free. This includes ambulances, vaccines, in patient, out patient, physical and mental health, even if you are treated elsewhere in the EU. Teeth and eyes are not free and have various co pays.

    That's a bit more than I pay currently and my coverage includes dental and eyes.
  • Macy9336
    Macy9336 Posts: 694 Member
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Frankly, the biggest issue in my mind is the idea that most people get their insurance thru a group plan via their job. This provides a disincentive to come up with these variable options. I'd rather insurance was always bought individually. Then it stays with you from job to job and likely there would be more flexibility.

    This is true. Tying insurance to job is problematic in a number of ways.

    ... and the fact that quality health insurance for most in America has been invariably tied to people's employment is a side-effect of the disastrous government policy of making the cost of group health employment benefits tax-deductible for employers.

    No, the cost of group health benefits for employees is treated no differently than the wages and salaries from a corporate tax perspective.

    The big thing from a tax perspective is the employee gets the company paid portion of the heath insurance premium and does not have to pay income taxes on it. Change to some government funded plan paid for by taxes, those employees lose that benefit. If the employer gives additional cash compensation, that compensation is taxed at the employee's marginal tax rate.

    I thought it was... (for example: http://healthcoverageguide.org/part-one/reasons-to-purchase-group-coverage/)

    Anyways, the point is the tying of health insurance to one's job is a side effect of government intervention (as is hyperinflation of medical costs). Each time government has intervened in the market for healthcare-related goods and services, regardless of how well-intentioned the intervention is, it's become more and more dysfunctional, which causes people to call for more government intervention.

    End result is: we're gonna get to 100% government-run healthcare in the USA, I have no doubt. So-called "single payer healthcare" is baked in the cake at this point, and you bet they'll discriminate against fat people. After all, they're already doing it in the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/obese-patients-and-smokers-banned-from-all-routine-operations-by/

    But they love their government-run healthcare, so I suppose we should too.

    This is going off topic, but I really wish more Americans understood what the drawbacks of single payer are. Soooo many people think it is wonderful...but if they are told they need to wait a year for that back surgery, they will probably riot. They think the government has an unlimited supply of money and everything should be free (healthcare, college, housing, food, etc.) but free for them just means some other taxpayers paid for it, and when their taxpayer money runs out, rationing results. The grass is always greener...

    Our NHS is presently being purposefully underfunded so it can be privatised by the tories, it is an amazing institution (and has saved the lives of myself and my family on numerous occasions), on top of this if you wish you can go private (google BUPA) or get private insurance if you want a non-emergency surgery where waiting lists exist. Our healthcare cost are less than half per person of those in the US and we have better outcomes for the general population. Sure you have the best healthcare if you are wealthy and can afford the best coverage/out of pocket care but universally that is not the case. I am an above average earner and I am happy for my taxes to be spent on the NHS, it is one of the things I am most proud of about my country. Healthcare should not be a business no different than any other emergency service.

    My only hope is that we can reverse the damage the Tories have done to our healthcare service, I balk at the idea that this sort of discussion might one day be our reality in the UK if we have to endure another Conservative parliament.

    Do you know how much you actually pay per year for your health costs (taxes etc). Would be curious to compare your number with what my family spends per year.

    Comparing one family vs another on their medical costs really doesn't matter due to different problems, insurance, etc. Looking at per capita cost or percent of gdp is a more meaningful measure

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

    Here are the rates for the national insurance taxes. Keep in mind this tax covers all health care AND the UK equivalent of Social Security for disability benefits and pensioner/social security payments in old age. The example given is if you earn £1000 in a week, then £88 is what you'll pay in NI taxes.
    https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance-rates-letters/contribution-rates
    You can convert your pay in dollars to pounds and then compare what you'd pay in NI taxes to what you currently pay for social security, Medicare and health insurance for apples to apples comparison.

    What it covers: Kids under 16 prescriptions are free all prescriptions for adults are £8.40 each but if you need more than a couple a month, you can get unlimited prescriptions for £133/yr. No co pays all medical care is free. This includes ambulances, vaccines, in patient, out patient, physical and mental health, even if you are treated elsewhere in the EU. Teeth and eyes are not free and have various co pays.

    That's a bit more than I pay currently and my coverage includes dental and eyes.

    Wow. With social security and Medicare alone taking 7.65% of a pay check and the example given paying in 8.8% of a pay check in NI taxes, this means you are saying you pay less than 1.2% of your pay check on health insurance?
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Frankly, the biggest issue in my mind is the idea that most people get their insurance thru a group plan via their job. This provides a disincentive to come up with these variable options. I'd rather insurance was always bought individually. Then it stays with you from job to job and likely there would be more flexibility.

    This is true. Tying insurance to job is problematic in a number of ways.

    ... and the fact that quality health insurance for most in America has been invariably tied to people's employment is a side-effect of the disastrous government policy of making the cost of group health employment benefits tax-deductible for employers.

    No, the cost of group health benefits for employees is treated no differently than the wages and salaries from a corporate tax perspective.

    The big thing from a tax perspective is the employee gets the company paid portion of the heath insurance premium and does not have to pay income taxes on it. Change to some government funded plan paid for by taxes, those employees lose that benefit. If the employer gives additional cash compensation, that compensation is taxed at the employee's marginal tax rate.

    I thought it was... (for example: http://healthcoverageguide.org/part-one/reasons-to-purchase-group-coverage/)

    Anyways, the point is the tying of health insurance to one's job is a side effect of government intervention (as is hyperinflation of medical costs). Each time government has intervened in the market for healthcare-related goods and services, regardless of how well-intentioned the intervention is, it's become more and more dysfunctional, which causes people to call for more government intervention.

    End result is: we're gonna get to 100% government-run healthcare in the USA, I have no doubt. So-called "single payer healthcare" is baked in the cake at this point, and you bet they'll discriminate against fat people. After all, they're already doing it in the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/obese-patients-and-smokers-banned-from-all-routine-operations-by/

    But they love their government-run healthcare, so I suppose we should too.

    This is going off topic, but I really wish more Americans understood what the drawbacks of single payer are. Soooo many people think it is wonderful...but if they are told they need to wait a year for that back surgery, they will probably riot. They think the government has an unlimited supply of money and everything should be free (healthcare, college, housing, food, etc.) but free for them just means some other taxpayers paid for it, and when their taxpayer money runs out, rationing results. The grass is always greener...

    Our NHS is presently being purposefully underfunded so it can be privatised by the tories, it is an amazing institution (and has saved the lives of myself and my family on numerous occasions), on top of this if you wish you can go private (google BUPA) or get private insurance if you want a non-emergency surgery where waiting lists exist. Our healthcare cost are less than half per person of those in the US and we have better outcomes for the general population. Sure you have the best healthcare if you are wealthy and can afford the best coverage/out of pocket care but universally that is not the case. I am an above average earner and I am happy for my taxes to be spent on the NHS, it is one of the things I am most proud of about my country. Healthcare should not be a business no different than any other emergency service.

    My only hope is that we can reverse the damage the Tories have done to our healthcare service, I balk at the idea that this sort of discussion might one day be our reality in the UK if we have to endure another Conservative parliament.

    Do you know how much you actually pay per year for your health costs (taxes etc). Would be curious to compare your number with what my family spends per year.

    Comparing one family vs another on their medical costs really doesn't matter due to different problems, insurance, etc. Looking at per capita cost or percent of gdp is a more meaningful measure

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

    Here are the rates for the national insurance taxes. Keep in mind this tax covers all health care AND the UK equivalent of Social Security for disability benefits and pensioner/social security payments in old age. The example given is if you earn £1000 in a week, then £88 is what you'll pay in NI taxes.
    https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance-rates-letters/contribution-rates
    You can convert your pay in dollars to pounds and then compare what you'd pay in NI taxes to what you currently pay for social security, Medicare and health insurance for apples to apples comparison.

    What it covers: Kids under 16 prescriptions are free all prescriptions for adults are £8.40 each but if you need more than a couple a month, you can get unlimited prescriptions for £133/yr. No co pays all medical care is free. This includes ambulances, vaccines, in patient, out patient, physical and mental health, even if you are treated elsewhere in the EU. Teeth and eyes are not free and have various co pays.

    That's a bit more than I pay currently and my coverage includes dental and eyes.

    Wow. With social security and Medicare alone taking 7.65% of a pay check and the example given paying in 8.8% of a pay check in NI taxes, this means you are saying you pay less than 1.2% of your pay check on health insurance?

    Yes, that sounds low. Based on having what most would consider a pretty good job and suppose to be in the upper 25% of benefits for the company's peer group (companies like GM, DuPont, etc) I was paying about 3% for my portion of the insurance premium each month (of course that doesn't factor in the deductibles).
  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Frankly, the biggest issue in my mind is the idea that most people get their insurance thru a group plan via their job. This provides a disincentive to come up with these variable options. I'd rather insurance was always bought individually. Then it stays with you from job to job and likely there would be more flexibility.

    This is true. Tying insurance to job is problematic in a number of ways.

    ... and the fact that quality health insurance for most in America has been invariably tied to people's employment is a side-effect of the disastrous government policy of making the cost of group health employment benefits tax-deductible for employers.

    No, the cost of group health benefits for employees is treated no differently than the wages and salaries from a corporate tax perspective.

    The big thing from a tax perspective is the employee gets the company paid portion of the heath insurance premium and does not have to pay income taxes on it. Change to some government funded plan paid for by taxes, those employees lose that benefit. If the employer gives additional cash compensation, that compensation is taxed at the employee's marginal tax rate.

    I thought it was... (for example: http://healthcoverageguide.org/part-one/reasons-to-purchase-group-coverage/)

    Anyways, the point is the tying of health insurance to one's job is a side effect of government intervention (as is hyperinflation of medical costs). Each time government has intervened in the market for healthcare-related goods and services, regardless of how well-intentioned the intervention is, it's become more and more dysfunctional, which causes people to call for more government intervention.

    End result is: we're gonna get to 100% government-run healthcare in the USA, I have no doubt. So-called "single payer healthcare" is baked in the cake at this point, and you bet they'll discriminate against fat people. After all, they're already doing it in the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/obese-patients-and-smokers-banned-from-all-routine-operations-by/

    But they love their government-run healthcare, so I suppose we should too.

    This is going off topic, but I really wish more Americans understood what the drawbacks of single payer are. Soooo many people think it is wonderful...but if they are told they need to wait a year for that back surgery, they will probably riot. They think the government has an unlimited supply of money and everything should be free (healthcare, college, housing, food, etc.) but free for them just means some other taxpayers paid for it, and when their taxpayer money runs out, rationing results. The grass is always greener...

    Our NHS is presently being purposefully underfunded so it can be privatised by the tories, it is an amazing institution (and has saved the lives of myself and my family on numerous occasions), on top of this if you wish you can go private (google BUPA) or get private insurance if you want a non-emergency surgery where waiting lists exist. Our healthcare cost are less than half per person of those in the US and we have better outcomes for the general population. Sure you have the best healthcare if you are wealthy and can afford the best coverage/out of pocket care but universally that is not the case. I am an above average earner and I am happy for my taxes to be spent on the NHS, it is one of the things I am most proud of about my country. Healthcare should not be a business no different than any other emergency service.

    My only hope is that we can reverse the damage the Tories have done to our healthcare service, I balk at the idea that this sort of discussion might one day be our reality in the UK if we have to endure another Conservative parliament.

    Do you know how much you actually pay per year for your health costs (taxes etc). Would be curious to compare your number with what my family spends per year.

    Comparing one family vs another on their medical costs really doesn't matter due to different problems, insurance, etc. Looking at per capita cost or percent of gdp is a more meaningful measure

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

    Here are the rates for the national insurance taxes. Keep in mind this tax covers all health care AND the UK equivalent of Social Security for disability benefits and pensioner/social security payments in old age. The example given is if you earn £1000 in a week, then £88 is what you'll pay in NI taxes.
    https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance-rates-letters/contribution-rates
    You can convert your pay in dollars to pounds and then compare what you'd pay in NI taxes to what you currently pay for social security, Medicare and health insurance for apples to apples comparison.

    What it covers: Kids under 16 prescriptions are free all prescriptions for adults are £8.40 each but if you need more than a couple a month, you can get unlimited prescriptions for £133/yr. No co pays all medical care is free. This includes ambulances, vaccines, in patient, out patient, physical and mental health, even if you are treated elsewhere in the EU. Teeth and eyes are not free and have various co pays.

    That's a bit more than I pay currently and my coverage includes dental and eyes.

    Wow. With social security and Medicare alone taking 7.65% of a pay check and the example given paying in 8.8% of a pay check in NI taxes, this means you are saying you pay less than 1.2% of your pay check on health insurance?

    Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I actually pay less than 1% of my salary for health insurance, including dental and eye. If you add up all that I have spent in the past year on healthcare (doctors, prescriptions, dentist) it's still under 1%.
  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Frankly, the biggest issue in my mind is the idea that most people get their insurance thru a group plan via their job. This provides a disincentive to come up with these variable options. I'd rather insurance was always bought individually. Then it stays with you from job to job and likely there would be more flexibility.

    This is true. Tying insurance to job is problematic in a number of ways.

    ... and the fact that quality health insurance for most in America has been invariably tied to people's employment is a side-effect of the disastrous government policy of making the cost of group health employment benefits tax-deductible for employers.

    No, the cost of group health benefits for employees is treated no differently than the wages and salaries from a corporate tax perspective.

    The big thing from a tax perspective is the employee gets the company paid portion of the heath insurance premium and does not have to pay income taxes on it. Change to some government funded plan paid for by taxes, those employees lose that benefit. If the employer gives additional cash compensation, that compensation is taxed at the employee's marginal tax rate.

    I thought it was... (for example: http://healthcoverageguide.org/part-one/reasons-to-purchase-group-coverage/)

    Anyways, the point is the tying of health insurance to one's job is a side effect of government intervention (as is hyperinflation of medical costs). Each time government has intervened in the market for healthcare-related goods and services, regardless of how well-intentioned the intervention is, it's become more and more dysfunctional, which causes people to call for more government intervention.

    End result is: we're gonna get to 100% government-run healthcare in the USA, I have no doubt. So-called "single payer healthcare" is baked in the cake at this point, and you bet they'll discriminate against fat people. After all, they're already doing it in the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/obese-patients-and-smokers-banned-from-all-routine-operations-by/

    But they love their government-run healthcare, so I suppose we should too.

    This is going off topic, but I really wish more Americans understood what the drawbacks of single payer are. Soooo many people think it is wonderful...but if they are told they need to wait a year for that back surgery, they will probably riot. They think the government has an unlimited supply of money and everything should be free (healthcare, college, housing, food, etc.) but free for them just means some other taxpayers paid for it, and when their taxpayer money runs out, rationing results. The grass is always greener...

    Our NHS is presently being purposefully underfunded so it can be privatised by the tories, it is an amazing institution (and has saved the lives of myself and my family on numerous occasions), on top of this if you wish you can go private (google BUPA) or get private insurance if you want a non-emergency surgery where waiting lists exist. Our healthcare cost are less than half per person of those in the US and we have better outcomes for the general population. Sure you have the best healthcare if you are wealthy and can afford the best coverage/out of pocket care but universally that is not the case. I am an above average earner and I am happy for my taxes to be spent on the NHS, it is one of the things I am most proud of about my country. Healthcare should not be a business no different than any other emergency service.

    My only hope is that we can reverse the damage the Tories have done to our healthcare service, I balk at the idea that this sort of discussion might one day be our reality in the UK if we have to endure another Conservative parliament.

    Do you know how much you actually pay per year for your health costs (taxes etc). Would be curious to compare your number with what my family spends per year.

    Comparing one family vs another on their medical costs really doesn't matter due to different problems, insurance, etc. Looking at per capita cost or percent of gdp is a more meaningful measure

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

    Here are the rates for the national insurance taxes. Keep in mind this tax covers all health care AND the UK equivalent of Social Security for disability benefits and pensioner/social security payments in old age. The example given is if you earn £1000 in a week, then £88 is what you'll pay in NI taxes.
    https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance-rates-letters/contribution-rates
    You can convert your pay in dollars to pounds and then compare what you'd pay in NI taxes to what you currently pay for social security, Medicare and health insurance for apples to apples comparison.

    What it covers: Kids under 16 prescriptions are free all prescriptions for adults are £8.40 each but if you need more than a couple a month, you can get unlimited prescriptions for £133/yr. No co pays all medical care is free. This includes ambulances, vaccines, in patient, out patient, physical and mental health, even if you are treated elsewhere in the EU. Teeth and eyes are not free and have various co pays.

    That's a bit more than I pay currently and my coverage includes dental and eyes.

    Wow. With social security and Medicare alone taking 7.65% of a pay check and the example given paying in 8.8% of a pay check in NI taxes, this means you are saying you pay less than 1.2% of your pay check on health insurance?

    Yes, that sounds low. Based on having what most would consider a pretty good job and suppose to be in the upper 25% of benefits for the company's peer group (companies like GM, DuPont, etc) I was paying about 3% for my portion of the insurance premium each month (of course that doesn't factor in the deductibles).

    While I will not be giving people income details, I have done the arithmetic and what I pay is less than 1% of my salary, not inclusive of bonuses and stock.
  • Macy9336
    Macy9336 Posts: 694 Member
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Frankly, the biggest issue in my mind is the idea that most people get their insurance thru a group plan via their job. This provides a disincentive to come up with these variable options. I'd rather insurance was always bought individually. Then it stays with you from job to job and likely there would be more flexibility.

    This is true. Tying insurance to job is problematic in a number of ways.

    ... and the fact that quality health insurance for most in America has been invariably tied to people's employment is a side-effect of the disastrous government policy of making the cost of group health employment benefits tax-deductible for employers.

    No, the cost of group health benefits for employees is treated no differently than the wages and salaries from a corporate tax perspective.

    The big thing from a tax perspective is the employee gets the company paid portion of the heath insurance premium and does not have to pay income taxes on it. Change to some government funded plan paid for by taxes, those employees lose that benefit. If the employer gives additional cash compensation, that compensation is taxed at the employee's marginal tax rate.

    I thought it was... (for example: http://healthcoverageguide.org/part-one/reasons-to-purchase-group-coverage/)

    Anyways, the point is the tying of health insurance to one's job is a side effect of government intervention (as is hyperinflation of medical costs). Each time government has intervened in the market for healthcare-related goods and services, regardless of how well-intentioned the intervention is, it's become more and more dysfunctional, which causes people to call for more government intervention.

    End result is: we're gonna get to 100% government-run healthcare in the USA, I have no doubt. So-called "single payer healthcare" is baked in the cake at this point, and you bet they'll discriminate against fat people. After all, they're already doing it in the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/obese-patients-and-smokers-banned-from-all-routine-operations-by/

    But they love their government-run healthcare, so I suppose we should too.

    This is going off topic, but I really wish more Americans understood what the drawbacks of single payer are. Soooo many people think it is wonderful...but if they are told they need to wait a year for that back surgery, they will probably riot. They think the government has an unlimited supply of money and everything should be free (healthcare, college, housing, food, etc.) but free for them just means some other taxpayers paid for it, and when their taxpayer money runs out, rationing results. The grass is always greener...

    Our NHS is presently being purposefully underfunded so it can be privatised by the tories, it is an amazing institution (and has saved the lives of myself and my family on numerous occasions), on top of this if you wish you can go private (google BUPA) or get private insurance if you want a non-emergency surgery where waiting lists exist. Our healthcare cost are less than half per person of those in the US and we have better outcomes for the general population. Sure you have the best healthcare if you are wealthy and can afford the best coverage/out of pocket care but universally that is not the case. I am an above average earner and I am happy for my taxes to be spent on the NHS, it is one of the things I am most proud of about my country. Healthcare should not be a business no different than any other emergency service.

    My only hope is that we can reverse the damage the Tories have done to our healthcare service, I balk at the idea that this sort of discussion might one day be our reality in the UK if we have to endure another Conservative parliament.

    Do you know how much you actually pay per year for your health costs (taxes etc). Would be curious to compare your number with what my family spends per year.

    Comparing one family vs another on their medical costs really doesn't matter due to different problems, insurance, etc. Looking at per capita cost or percent of gdp is a more meaningful measure

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

    Here are the rates for the national insurance taxes. Keep in mind this tax covers all health care AND the UK equivalent of Social Security for disability benefits and pensioner/social security payments in old age. The example given is if you earn £1000 in a week, then £88 is what you'll pay in NI taxes.
    https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance-rates-letters/contribution-rates
    You can convert your pay in dollars to pounds and then compare what you'd pay in NI taxes to what you currently pay for social security, Medicare and health insurance for apples to apples comparison.

    What it covers: Kids under 16 prescriptions are free all prescriptions for adults are £8.40 each but if you need more than a couple a month, you can get unlimited prescriptions for £133/yr. No co pays all medical care is free. This includes ambulances, vaccines, in patient, out patient, physical and mental health, even if you are treated elsewhere in the EU. Teeth and eyes are not free and have various co pays.

    That's a bit more than I pay currently and my coverage includes dental and eyes.

    Wow. With social security and Medicare alone taking 7.65% of a pay check and the example given paying in 8.8% of a pay check in NI taxes, this means you are saying you pay less than 1.2% of your pay check on health insurance?

    Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I actually pay less than 1% of my salary for health insurance, including dental and eye. If you add up all that I have spent in the past year on healthcare (doctors, prescriptions, dentist) it's still under 1%.

    Thank you for sharing as I know it's somewhat personal information. I was spending close to 6% of my income on health costs alone in the US (pre existing conditions of asthma/allergies and higher cost family coverage).
  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Frankly, the biggest issue in my mind is the idea that most people get their insurance thru a group plan via their job. This provides a disincentive to come up with these variable options. I'd rather insurance was always bought individually. Then it stays with you from job to job and likely there would be more flexibility.

    This is true. Tying insurance to job is problematic in a number of ways.

    ... and the fact that quality health insurance for most in America has been invariably tied to people's employment is a side-effect of the disastrous government policy of making the cost of group health employment benefits tax-deductible for employers.

    No, the cost of group health benefits for employees is treated no differently than the wages and salaries from a corporate tax perspective.

    The big thing from a tax perspective is the employee gets the company paid portion of the heath insurance premium and does not have to pay income taxes on it. Change to some government funded plan paid for by taxes, those employees lose that benefit. If the employer gives additional cash compensation, that compensation is taxed at the employee's marginal tax rate.

    I thought it was... (for example: http://healthcoverageguide.org/part-one/reasons-to-purchase-group-coverage/)

    Anyways, the point is the tying of health insurance to one's job is a side effect of government intervention (as is hyperinflation of medical costs). Each time government has intervened in the market for healthcare-related goods and services, regardless of how well-intentioned the intervention is, it's become more and more dysfunctional, which causes people to call for more government intervention.

    End result is: we're gonna get to 100% government-run healthcare in the USA, I have no doubt. So-called "single payer healthcare" is baked in the cake at this point, and you bet they'll discriminate against fat people. After all, they're already doing it in the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/obese-patients-and-smokers-banned-from-all-routine-operations-by/

    But they love their government-run healthcare, so I suppose we should too.

    This is going off topic, but I really wish more Americans understood what the drawbacks of single payer are. Soooo many people think it is wonderful...but if they are told they need to wait a year for that back surgery, they will probably riot. They think the government has an unlimited supply of money and everything should be free (healthcare, college, housing, food, etc.) but free for them just means some other taxpayers paid for it, and when their taxpayer money runs out, rationing results. The grass is always greener...

    Our NHS is presently being purposefully underfunded so it can be privatised by the tories, it is an amazing institution (and has saved the lives of myself and my family on numerous occasions), on top of this if you wish you can go private (google BUPA) or get private insurance if you want a non-emergency surgery where waiting lists exist. Our healthcare cost are less than half per person of those in the US and we have better outcomes for the general population. Sure you have the best healthcare if you are wealthy and can afford the best coverage/out of pocket care but universally that is not the case. I am an above average earner and I am happy for my taxes to be spent on the NHS, it is one of the things I am most proud of about my country. Healthcare should not be a business no different than any other emergency service.

    My only hope is that we can reverse the damage the Tories have done to our healthcare service, I balk at the idea that this sort of discussion might one day be our reality in the UK if we have to endure another Conservative parliament.

    Do you know how much you actually pay per year for your health costs (taxes etc). Would be curious to compare your number with what my family spends per year.

    Comparing one family vs another on their medical costs really doesn't matter due to different problems, insurance, etc. Looking at per capita cost or percent of gdp is a more meaningful measure

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

    Here are the rates for the national insurance taxes. Keep in mind this tax covers all health care AND the UK equivalent of Social Security for disability benefits and pensioner/social security payments in old age. The example given is if you earn £1000 in a week, then £88 is what you'll pay in NI taxes.
    https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance-rates-letters/contribution-rates
    You can convert your pay in dollars to pounds and then compare what you'd pay in NI taxes to what you currently pay for social security, Medicare and health insurance for apples to apples comparison.

    What it covers: Kids under 16 prescriptions are free all prescriptions for adults are £8.40 each but if you need more than a couple a month, you can get unlimited prescriptions for £133/yr. No co pays all medical care is free. This includes ambulances, vaccines, in patient, out patient, physical and mental health, even if you are treated elsewhere in the EU. Teeth and eyes are not free and have various co pays.

    That's a bit more than I pay currently and my coverage includes dental and eyes.

    Wow. With social security and Medicare alone taking 7.65% of a pay check and the example given paying in 8.8% of a pay check in NI taxes, this means you are saying you pay less than 1.2% of your pay check on health insurance?

    Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I actually pay less than 1% of my salary for health insurance, including dental and eye. If you add up all that I have spent in the past year on healthcare (doctors, prescriptions, dentist) it's still under 1%.

    Thank you for sharing as I know it's somewhat personal information. I was spending close to 6% of my income on health costs alone in the US (pre existing conditions of asthma/allergies and higher cost family coverage).

    Where I live, continuous health insurance meant that one could not be denied coverage or charged more for "preexisting conditions". I have maintained health insurance my entire adult life and was covered by my parents until I was an adult.

    Coverage for an individual costs less than coverage for more people. Do you disagree with premiums being higher when there are more people using the policy?
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Frankly, the biggest issue in my mind is the idea that most people get their insurance thru a group plan via their job. This provides a disincentive to come up with these variable options. I'd rather insurance was always bought individually. Then it stays with you from job to job and likely there would be more flexibility.

    This is true. Tying insurance to job is problematic in a number of ways.

    ... and the fact that quality health insurance for most in America has been invariably tied to people's employment is a side-effect of the disastrous government policy of making the cost of group health employment benefits tax-deductible for employers.

    No, the cost of group health benefits for employees is treated no differently than the wages and salaries from a corporate tax perspective.

    The big thing from a tax perspective is the employee gets the company paid portion of the heath insurance premium and does not have to pay income taxes on it. Change to some government funded plan paid for by taxes, those employees lose that benefit. If the employer gives additional cash compensation, that compensation is taxed at the employee's marginal tax rate.

    I thought it was... (for example: http://healthcoverageguide.org/part-one/reasons-to-purchase-group-coverage/)

    Anyways, the point is the tying of health insurance to one's job is a side effect of government intervention (as is hyperinflation of medical costs). Each time government has intervened in the market for healthcare-related goods and services, regardless of how well-intentioned the intervention is, it's become more and more dysfunctional, which causes people to call for more government intervention.

    End result is: we're gonna get to 100% government-run healthcare in the USA, I have no doubt. So-called "single payer healthcare" is baked in the cake at this point, and you bet they'll discriminate against fat people. After all, they're already doing it in the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/obese-patients-and-smokers-banned-from-all-routine-operations-by/

    But they love their government-run healthcare, so I suppose we should too.

    This is going off topic, but I really wish more Americans understood what the drawbacks of single payer are. Soooo many people think it is wonderful...but if they are told they need to wait a year for that back surgery, they will probably riot. They think the government has an unlimited supply of money and everything should be free (healthcare, college, housing, food, etc.) but free for them just means some other taxpayers paid for it, and when their taxpayer money runs out, rationing results. The grass is always greener...

    Our NHS is presently being purposefully underfunded so it can be privatised by the tories, it is an amazing institution (and has saved the lives of myself and my family on numerous occasions), on top of this if you wish you can go private (google BUPA) or get private insurance if you want a non-emergency surgery where waiting lists exist. Our healthcare cost are less than half per person of those in the US and we have better outcomes for the general population. Sure you have the best healthcare if you are wealthy and can afford the best coverage/out of pocket care but universally that is not the case. I am an above average earner and I am happy for my taxes to be spent on the NHS, it is one of the things I am most proud of about my country. Healthcare should not be a business no different than any other emergency service.

    My only hope is that we can reverse the damage the Tories have done to our healthcare service, I balk at the idea that this sort of discussion might one day be our reality in the UK if we have to endure another Conservative parliament.

    Do you know how much you actually pay per year for your health costs (taxes etc). Would be curious to compare your number with what my family spends per year.

    Comparing one family vs another on their medical costs really doesn't matter due to different problems, insurance, etc. Looking at per capita cost or percent of gdp is a more meaningful measure

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

    Here are the rates for the national insurance taxes. Keep in mind this tax covers all health care AND the UK equivalent of Social Security for disability benefits and pensioner/social security payments in old age. The example given is if you earn £1000 in a week, then £88 is what you'll pay in NI taxes.
    https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance-rates-letters/contribution-rates
    You can convert your pay in dollars to pounds and then compare what you'd pay in NI taxes to what you currently pay for social security, Medicare and health insurance for apples to apples comparison.

    What it covers: Kids under 16 prescriptions are free all prescriptions for adults are £8.40 each but if you need more than a couple a month, you can get unlimited prescriptions for £133/yr. No co pays all medical care is free. This includes ambulances, vaccines, in patient, out patient, physical and mental health, even if you are treated elsewhere in the EU. Teeth and eyes are not free and have various co pays.

    That's a bit more than I pay currently and my coverage includes dental and eyes.

    Wow. With social security and Medicare alone taking 7.65% of a pay check and the example given paying in 8.8% of a pay check in NI taxes, this means you are saying you pay less than 1.2% of your pay check on health insurance?

    Yes, that sounds low. Based on having what most would consider a pretty good job and suppose to be in the upper 25% of benefits for the company's peer group (companies like GM, DuPont, etc) I was paying about 3% for my portion of the insurance premium each month (of course that doesn't factor in the deductibles).

    While I will not be giving people income details, I have done the arithmetic and what I pay is less than 1% of my salary, not inclusive of bonuses and stock.

    That's fair. You're doing well and/or you have a really low premium for your insurance. Either way a win/win :).
  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Frankly, the biggest issue in my mind is the idea that most people get their insurance thru a group plan via their job. This provides a disincentive to come up with these variable options. I'd rather insurance was always bought individually. Then it stays with you from job to job and likely there would be more flexibility.

    This is true. Tying insurance to job is problematic in a number of ways.

    ... and the fact that quality health insurance for most in America has been invariably tied to people's employment is a side-effect of the disastrous government policy of making the cost of group health employment benefits tax-deductible for employers.

    No, the cost of group health benefits for employees is treated no differently than the wages and salaries from a corporate tax perspective.

    The big thing from a tax perspective is the employee gets the company paid portion of the heath insurance premium and does not have to pay income taxes on it. Change to some government funded plan paid for by taxes, those employees lose that benefit. If the employer gives additional cash compensation, that compensation is taxed at the employee's marginal tax rate.

    I thought it was... (for example: http://healthcoverageguide.org/part-one/reasons-to-purchase-group-coverage/)

    Anyways, the point is the tying of health insurance to one's job is a side effect of government intervention (as is hyperinflation of medical costs). Each time government has intervened in the market for healthcare-related goods and services, regardless of how well-intentioned the intervention is, it's become more and more dysfunctional, which causes people to call for more government intervention.

    End result is: we're gonna get to 100% government-run healthcare in the USA, I have no doubt. So-called "single payer healthcare" is baked in the cake at this point, and you bet they'll discriminate against fat people. After all, they're already doing it in the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/obese-patients-and-smokers-banned-from-all-routine-operations-by/

    But they love their government-run healthcare, so I suppose we should too.

    This is going off topic, but I really wish more Americans understood what the drawbacks of single payer are. Soooo many people think it is wonderful...but if they are told they need to wait a year for that back surgery, they will probably riot. They think the government has an unlimited supply of money and everything should be free (healthcare, college, housing, food, etc.) but free for them just means some other taxpayers paid for it, and when their taxpayer money runs out, rationing results. The grass is always greener...

    Our NHS is presently being purposefully underfunded so it can be privatised by the tories, it is an amazing institution (and has saved the lives of myself and my family on numerous occasions), on top of this if you wish you can go private (google BUPA) or get private insurance if you want a non-emergency surgery where waiting lists exist. Our healthcare cost are less than half per person of those in the US and we have better outcomes for the general population. Sure you have the best healthcare if you are wealthy and can afford the best coverage/out of pocket care but universally that is not the case. I am an above average earner and I am happy for my taxes to be spent on the NHS, it is one of the things I am most proud of about my country. Healthcare should not be a business no different than any other emergency service.

    My only hope is that we can reverse the damage the Tories have done to our healthcare service, I balk at the idea that this sort of discussion might one day be our reality in the UK if we have to endure another Conservative parliament.

    Do you know how much you actually pay per year for your health costs (taxes etc). Would be curious to compare your number with what my family spends per year.

    Comparing one family vs another on their medical costs really doesn't matter due to different problems, insurance, etc. Looking at per capita cost or percent of gdp is a more meaningful measure

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

    Here are the rates for the national insurance taxes. Keep in mind this tax covers all health care AND the UK equivalent of Social Security for disability benefits and pensioner/social security payments in old age. The example given is if you earn £1000 in a week, then £88 is what you'll pay in NI taxes.
    https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance-rates-letters/contribution-rates
    You can convert your pay in dollars to pounds and then compare what you'd pay in NI taxes to what you currently pay for social security, Medicare and health insurance for apples to apples comparison.

    What it covers: Kids under 16 prescriptions are free all prescriptions for adults are £8.40 each but if you need more than a couple a month, you can get unlimited prescriptions for £133/yr. No co pays all medical care is free. This includes ambulances, vaccines, in patient, out patient, physical and mental health, even if you are treated elsewhere in the EU. Teeth and eyes are not free and have various co pays.

    That's a bit more than I pay currently and my coverage includes dental and eyes.

    Wow. With social security and Medicare alone taking 7.65% of a pay check and the example given paying in 8.8% of a pay check in NI taxes, this means you are saying you pay less than 1.2% of your pay check on health insurance?

    Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I actually pay less than 1% of my salary for health insurance, including dental and eye. If you add up all that I have spent in the past year on healthcare (doctors, prescriptions, dentist) it's still under 1%.

    Thank you for sharing as I know it's somewhat personal information. I was spending close to 6% of my income on health costs alone in the US (pre existing conditions of asthma/allergies and higher cost family coverage).

    Where I live, continuous health insurance meant that one could not be denied coverage or charged more for "preexisting conditions". I have maintained health insurance my entire adult life and was covered by my parents until I was an adult.

    Coverage for an individual costs less than coverage for more people. Do you disagree with premiums being higher when there are more people using the policy?

    Our situation is a bit more complicated as have moved back and forth across the pond four times now. Yes, have always been covered my entire life as well but it's been a mixture of NHS, TRICARE and private insurance via private sector employers. US insurance companies do not "count" the NHS as being covered so they charge you as if you were previously uninsured which means they can then do the preexisting condition higher costs. ( I never used Obamacare). The same thing, oddly enough, happens with car insurance...having U.K. Car insurance does not "count" to US companies and they charge you as if you were previously uninsured.

    I think that charging every wage earner in a family from age 16 to 66 is a sufficient means of ensuring funding because each individual pays when they are economically able. I don't think there should be any charges or costs for children under 16 at all. It's a different mindset though as I view healthcare as a human right so I am fine with some money going to other people's kids or grandparents or the unemployed or the disabled. Rather have my money go to that than to some health insurance company!

    I don't have a problem with charging for everyone who uses the benefits, regardless of their age. When it comes to minors, it's the responsibility of their parents to pay for them, as it is with food, clothing and shelter. Then again, I do not see any of those things as rights, and that includes healthcare. I think we have the right to barter our skills and labor to obtain those things, but not to have any of those things handed to us.

    Yes, it's a different mindset, but that's what I think.
  • fatblatta
    fatblatta Posts: 333 Member
    No. The Nazi's lost.
  • animatorswearbras
    animatorswearbras Posts: 1,001 Member
    edited May 2017
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    DrEnalg wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Frankly, the biggest issue in my mind is the idea that most people get their insurance thru a group plan via their job. This provides a disincentive to come up with these variable options. I'd rather insurance was always bought individually. Then it stays with you from job to job and likely there would be more flexibility.

    This is true. Tying insurance to job is problematic in a number of ways.

    ... and the fact that quality health insurance for most in America has been invariably tied to people's employment is a side-effect of the disastrous government policy of making the cost of group health employment benefits tax-deductible for employers.

    No, the cost of group health benefits for employees is treated no differently than the wages and salaries from a corporate tax perspective.

    The big thing from a tax perspective is the employee gets the company paid portion of the heath insurance premium and does not have to pay income taxes on it. Change to some government funded plan paid for by taxes, those employees lose that benefit. If the employer gives additional cash compensation, that compensation is taxed at the employee's marginal tax rate.

    I thought it was... (for example: http://healthcoverageguide.org/part-one/reasons-to-purchase-group-coverage/)

    Anyways, the point is the tying of health insurance to one's job is a side effect of government intervention (as is hyperinflation of medical costs). Each time government has intervened in the market for healthcare-related goods and services, regardless of how well-intentioned the intervention is, it's become more and more dysfunctional, which causes people to call for more government intervention.

    End result is: we're gonna get to 100% government-run healthcare in the USA, I have no doubt. So-called "single payer healthcare" is baked in the cake at this point, and you bet they'll discriminate against fat people. After all, they're already doing it in the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/obese-patients-and-smokers-banned-from-all-routine-operations-by/

    But they love their government-run healthcare, so I suppose we should too.

    This is going off topic, but I really wish more Americans understood what the drawbacks of single payer are. Soooo many people think it is wonderful...but if they are told they need to wait a year for that back surgery, they will probably riot. They think the government has an unlimited supply of money and everything should be free (healthcare, college, housing, food, etc.) but free for them just means some other taxpayers paid for it, and when their taxpayer money runs out, rationing results. The grass is always greener...

    Our NHS is presently being purposefully underfunded so it can be privatised by the tories, it is an amazing institution (and has saved the lives of myself and my family on numerous occasions), on top of this if you wish you can go private (google BUPA) or get private insurance if you want a non-emergency surgery where waiting lists exist. Our healthcare cost are less than half per person of those in the US and we have better outcomes for the general population. Sure you have the best healthcare if you are wealthy and can afford the best coverage/out of pocket care but universally that is not the case. I am an above average earner and I am happy for my taxes to be spent on the NHS, it is one of the things I am most proud of about my country. Healthcare should not be a business no different than any other emergency service.

    My only hope is that we can reverse the damage the Tories have done to our healthcare service, I balk at the idea that this sort of discussion might one day be our reality in the UK if we have to endure another Conservative parliament.

    Do you know how much you actually pay per year for your health costs (taxes etc). Would be curious to compare your number with what my family spends per year.

    Looking at my last payslip 8.25% came out in national insurance, this not only covers the NHS, but state pension which is presently £122.30 a week paid as soon as you reach 65 (increases with inflation) but there are other top ups that I haven't looked into (I am also saving for a private pension through my work pension scheme), and benefits (welfare?) such as unemployment, disability or sickness. Also our eyecare and dental is subsidised with the NI contributions but we have to pay a flat fee (an excess/deductible if you will) dependent on treatment, for example with dental (if you don't have private dental insurance) is as follows

    Band 1: £20.60 covers an examination, diagnosis and advice. If necessary, it also includes X-rays, a scale and polish and planning for further treatment.
    Band 2: £56.30 covers all treatment covered by Band 1, plus additional treatment, such as fillings, root canal treatment and removing teeth (extractions).
    Band 3: £244.30 covers all treatment covered by Bands 1 and 2, plus more complex procedures, such as crowns, dentures and bridges.

    I do not have to pay any excess/deductible for doctors visits or any medical procedure. I have once paid privately to have a dermatologist appointment as I have (did have) acne, I was being treated by the NHS for it but there was a waiting list to be referred to a specialist since my acne was moderate and mostly cosmetic so I paid to see someone privately.

    If I was to ever become unemployed I am still covered, if I had any children I would not have to pay any extra, also during pregnancy dental treatment is free (no excess/deductible) for a pregnant women during pregnancy and a year after due to pregnancies calcium draining effect on the teeth and your prescription drugs are free instead of the £8.30 flat rate. children under 18 (or 19 if in F/T education) pay nothing towards dental or prescriptions (all free).

    Hope that helps. :)

    edit: typos and clarification of anglicised terminology
  • Sivadee00
    Sivadee00 Posts: 428 Member
    millcreekr wrote: »
    Isn't this a pre-existing condition? I thought with the health care system in place, and even the one the legislature is considering, people with pre-existing conditions would not be penalized.

    The legislation that was just repealed was preX friendly. The new legislation replacing it is not.
    millcreekr wrote: »
    Maybe the soda companies and candy companies and potato chip companies and fast food restaurants should be penalized, how's that for an idea?

    That's pretty bad as ideas go. Those companies weren't doing anything illegal. Nobody was forced to go out and buy potato chips and soda. People bought that stuff because they liked it; those companies made that stuff because people wanted it.

    This reminds me of the days when companies, selling tobacco, were just beginning to be penalized with taxes. They also had to stop using advertising to target a young target audience etc.

    Some people still smoke today but I don't see nearly as many smokers as I did twenty years ago.

    Therefore, I wonder if the same actions were applied, with the sale of known unhealthy foods, would it have the same results? Why doesn't the same principles and/or precautions be applied also?
  • ladyreva78
    ladyreva78 Posts: 4,080 Member
    Sivadee00 wrote: »
    millcreekr wrote: »
    Isn't this a pre-existing condition? I thought with the health care system in place, and even the one the legislature is considering, people with pre-existing conditions would not be penalized.

    The legislation that was just repealed was preX friendly. The new legislation replacing it is not.
    millcreekr wrote: »
    Maybe the soda companies and candy companies and potato chip companies and fast food restaurants should be penalized, how's that for an idea?

    That's pretty bad as ideas go. Those companies weren't doing anything illegal. Nobody was forced to go out and buy potato chips and soda. People bought that stuff because they liked it; those companies made that stuff because people wanted it.

    This reminds me of the days when companies, selling tobacco, were just beginning to be penalized with taxes. They also had to stop using advertising to target a young target audience etc.

    Some people still smoke today but I don't see nearly as many smokers as I did twenty years ago.

    Therefore, I wonder if the same actions were applied, with the sale of known unhealthy foods, would it have the same results? Why doesn't the same principles and/or precautions be applied also?

    Because who determines what's "unhealthy food"? There was clear cut research and proof of causation about the dangers of smoking. I don't think it's quite so clear with food. It's too much of a food more than a specific food which causes problems.

    A vegan's idea of 'unhealthy' will be wholly different to a paleo-adherent's idea. How do you decide who's idea of unhealthy is correct?
  • pinuplove
    pinuplove Posts: 12,874 Member
    ladyreva78 wrote: »
    Sivadee00 wrote: »
    millcreekr wrote: »
    Isn't this a pre-existing condition? I thought with the health care system in place, and even the one the legislature is considering, people with pre-existing conditions would not be penalized.

    The legislation that was just repealed was preX friendly. The new legislation replacing it is not.
    millcreekr wrote: »
    Maybe the soda companies and candy companies and potato chip companies and fast food restaurants should be penalized, how's that for an idea?

    That's pretty bad as ideas go. Those companies weren't doing anything illegal. Nobody was forced to go out and buy potato chips and soda. People bought that stuff because they liked it; those companies made that stuff because people wanted it.

    This reminds me of the days when companies, selling tobacco, were just beginning to be penalized with taxes. They also had to stop using advertising to target a young target audience etc.

    Some people still smoke today but I don't see nearly as many smokers as I did twenty years ago.

    Therefore, I wonder if the same actions were applied, with the sale of known unhealthy foods, would it have the same results? Why doesn't the same principles and/or precautions be applied also?

    Because who determines what's "unhealthy food"? There was clear cut research and proof of causation about the dangers of smoking. I don't think it's quite so clear with food. It's too much of a food more than a specific food which causes problems.

    A vegan's idea of 'unhealthy' will be wholly different to a paleo-adherent's idea. How do you decide who's idea of unhealthy is correct?

    Let's not get the government involved in the 'clean eating' debate. Perish the though!