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
-
Speaking of taxing "bad foods" Barkley California has seen their sales of sugar sweeetened soda drop by 10% and sales of water increases since they introduced a sales tax that taxes one cent per fluid ounce of drink, so 12 cents per can of soda. They're surprised the tax had an effect, but apparently taxes can influence consumption.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/first-us-sugar-tax-sees-soft-drink-sales-fall-by-almost-10-study-shows
Not sure why this thread is now the tax food thread, but you'd have to compare that to trends in CA, like cities, and the US as a whole to know if the tax has an effect. Sales of soda have been consistently declining everywhere, and sales of water are up (which is a bad thing, although not necessarily worse than high per capita consumption of sweetened soda, I wouldn't think).
I'd also be curious on obesity stats for Berkeley.
Philadelphia and Chicago are also doing the soda tax, and I don't expect it to affect consumption that much, but who knows. One issue is if purchases just move outside the limits of the relevant taxing authority.
(Soda had a pretty high tax in Chicago before the new tax, because most food in IL has a strongly discounted tax, something like 1-2% (our sales taxes are confusing and constantly changing), but soda was not discounted so had the standard quite high Chicago sales tax of 10.25%. This was before the new soda tax, and it also applies to prepared food and candy, I believe.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »The legal details I don't know and that would be a complicated issue for sure. For opinion and discussion purposes only one could say their is a difference in how certain foods are sold and contribute to health problems. Apples and bananas have a lot of sugar in them naturally as well but do they contribute to obesity more so than candy bars? Food for thought. Sorry for the pun.
Obesity comes from eating too much, it doesn't come from any specific food.
I didn't deny that eating too much causes obesity.
However, I have yet to find a person who has become obese from eating too many vegetables. Just saying.
With all respect, how could you possibly determine that? Are you viewing food logs for everyone that you encounter that is obese? Or is this just one of those "common sense" things because you personally believe that one can't consume more vegetables than they burn?
Here are the top sources of calories in the US diet:
What Americans Eat: Top 10 sources of calories in the U.S. diet
Grain-based desserts (cakes, cookies, donuts, pies, crisps, cobblers, and granola bars)
Yeast breads
Chicken and chicken-mixed dishes
Soda, energy drinks, and sports drinks
Pizza
Alcoholic beverages
Pasta and pasta dishes
Mexican mixed dishes
Beef and beef-mixed dishes
Dairy desserts
Source: http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/top-10-sources-of-calories-in-the-us-diet
Fruits and veggies don't make the top 10 list. Could there be some people that consume an unusually high amount of fruits and veggies that significantly contributes to a weight issue, sure. Not very likely though given the sources of calories in the US diet.
I think there is a big difference between saying something like "Here are the top sources of calories for the US population, a country that has a weight problem" (which is something that can be backed up by facts) and "I've never met a person who was overweight due to vegetables" (one person's personal experience that can't even be backed up by them knowing the diet of every overweight person they have ever met).
I think it's also worth noting that many of those things would be quite difficult to tax (how would you tax a "chicken-mixed dish"?). I know you're not arguing that everything on that list should be taxed, but the person I was responding to was making an argument that foods that contribute to obesity should face an special tax. This list makes it clear how difficult that would be.
My post did not say a person could not be overweight due to excess fruits and veggies. The sources of calories, plus the fact that Americans on average don't eat near the recommended amount of these items make it a very rare case someone is overweight due to these items.
Regarding taxes, soda, dairy desserts and grain based desserts are pretty easy to identify.
Most grain-based desserts I eat are prepared at home. Are we taxing flour and sugar and butter?
Taxing the base ingredients may well be a way to levy a tax. Sugars and caloric sugar substitutes, solids fats, etc.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I don't think anyone should have to pay for healthcare insurance.
What? Who pays the cost then, the good fairy or a unicorn?
Somehow the cost of healthcare has to be paid for. If not insurance, then taxes.
Need2 did not say healthcare should not be paid for, but insurance. In a single payer model (for one example) you'd pay for healthcare through taxes, but not insurance. (You could have a system where people could still buy insurance for supplemental care, but would not have to, also.)
This is the poster's statement:
I don't think anyone should have to pay for healthcare insurance
No mention how healthcare would be paid for. My statement should have been recognized as obviously tongue in cheek. I was interested in how i.e, what kind of taxes, the poster was thinking of.
Yeah, I know, my point was that she didn't say no payment for healthcare, but for insurance. In the US they seem to be equated sometimes.
I expect we all agree that taxes would then have to pay for them and that we (as a group) pay taxes.
Sure, I and my challenge is the "we". Everybody loves a tax if it doesn't cost them any money.0 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Speaking of taxing "bad foods" Barkley California has seen their sales of sugar sweeetened soda drop by 10% and sales of water increases since they introduced a sales tax that taxes one cent per fluid ounce of drink, so 12 cents per can of soda. They're surprised the tax had an effect, but apparently taxes can influence consumption.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/first-us-sugar-tax-sees-soft-drink-sales-fall-by-almost-10-study-shows
Does it apply to zero calorie soda, or only the kind sweetened with sugar and HFCS? If they're applying it to this, why not fruit juice (or "fruit juice cocktail" that contains mostly sugar, HFCS and water)? What about chocolate milk (and other flavors) that have a ton of sugar added to them?
Hershey's 2% chocolate milk has 29 grams of sugar in an 8 oz serving, for example, and no more protein and calcium than unflavored milk (which contains 12 g of sugar for the same serving size).
Berkeley's law is about added sugar, so it applies to any beverages with added sugar (not 100% fruit juice) and not diet soda. Chicago's applies to diet soda and so does Philadelphia's, I think. (I also think the point in those two cities was about revenue raising, mostly.)2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »The legal details I don't know and that would be a complicated issue for sure. For opinion and discussion purposes only one could say their is a difference in how certain foods are sold and contribute to health problems. Apples and bananas have a lot of sugar in them naturally as well but do they contribute to obesity more so than candy bars? Food for thought. Sorry for the pun.
Obesity comes from eating too much, it doesn't come from any specific food.
I didn't deny that eating too much causes obesity.
However, I have yet to find a person who has become obese from eating too many vegetables. Just saying.
With all respect, how could you possibly determine that? Are you viewing food logs for everyone that you encounter that is obese? Or is this just one of those "common sense" things because you personally believe that one can't consume more vegetables than they burn?
Here are the top sources of calories in the US diet:
What Americans Eat: Top 10 sources of calories in the U.S. diet
Grain-based desserts (cakes, cookies, donuts, pies, crisps, cobblers, and granola bars)
Yeast breads
Chicken and chicken-mixed dishes
Soda, energy drinks, and sports drinks
Pizza
Alcoholic beverages
Pasta and pasta dishes
Mexican mixed dishes
Beef and beef-mixed dishes
Dairy desserts
Source: http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/top-10-sources-of-calories-in-the-us-diet
Fruits and veggies don't make the top 10 list. Could there be some people that consume an unusually high amount of fruits and veggies that significantly contributes to a weight issue, sure. Not very likely though given the sources of calories in the US diet.
I think there is a big difference between saying something like "Here are the top sources of calories for the US population, a country that has a weight problem" (which is something that can be backed up by facts) and "I've never met a person who was overweight due to vegetables" (one person's personal experience that can't even be backed up by them knowing the diet of every overweight person they have ever met).
I think it's also worth noting that many of those things would be quite difficult to tax (how would you tax a "chicken-mixed dish"?). I know you're not arguing that everything on that list should be taxed, but the person I was responding to was making an argument that foods that contribute to obesity should face an special tax. This list makes it clear how difficult that would be.
My post did not say a person could not be overweight due to excess fruits and veggies. The sources of calories, plus the fact that Americans on average don't eat near the recommended amount of these items make it a very rare case someone is overweight due to these items.
Regarding taxes, soda, dairy desserts and grain based desserts are pretty easy to identify.
Most grain-based desserts I eat are prepared at home. Are we taxing flour and sugar and butter?
Taxing the base ingredients may well be a way to levy a tax. Sugars and caloric sugar substitutes, solids fats, etc.
Yep, but that would cause a much greater cost of food increase across the board. That's why these details are important.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »The legal details I don't know and that would be a complicated issue for sure. For opinion and discussion purposes only one could say their is a difference in how certain foods are sold and contribute to health problems. Apples and bananas have a lot of sugar in them naturally as well but do they contribute to obesity more so than candy bars? Food for thought. Sorry for the pun.
Obesity comes from eating too much, it doesn't come from any specific food.
I didn't deny that eating too much causes obesity.
However, I have yet to find a person who has become obese from eating too many vegetables. Just saying.
With all respect, how could you possibly determine that? Are you viewing food logs for everyone that you encounter that is obese? Or is this just one of those "common sense" things because you personally believe that one can't consume more vegetables than they burn?
Here are the top sources of calories in the US diet:
What Americans Eat: Top 10 sources of calories in the U.S. diet
Grain-based desserts (cakes, cookies, donuts, pies, crisps, cobblers, and granola bars)
Yeast breads
Chicken and chicken-mixed dishes
Soda, energy drinks, and sports drinks
Pizza
Alcoholic beverages
Pasta and pasta dishes
Mexican mixed dishes
Beef and beef-mixed dishes
Dairy desserts
Source: http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/top-10-sources-of-calories-in-the-us-diet
Fruits and veggies don't make the top 10 list. Could there be some people that consume an unusually high amount of fruits and veggies that significantly contributes to a weight issue, sure. Not very likely though given the sources of calories in the US diet.
I think there is a big difference between saying something like "Here are the top sources of calories for the US population, a country that has a weight problem" (which is something that can be backed up by facts) and "I've never met a person who was overweight due to vegetables" (one person's personal experience that can't even be backed up by them knowing the diet of every overweight person they have ever met).
I think it's also worth noting that many of those things would be quite difficult to tax (how would you tax a "chicken-mixed dish"?). I know you're not arguing that everything on that list should be taxed, but the person I was responding to was making an argument that foods that contribute to obesity should face an special tax. This list makes it clear how difficult that would be.
My post did not say a person could not be overweight due to excess fruits and veggies. The sources of calories, plus the fact that Americans on average don't eat near the recommended amount of these items make it a very rare case someone is overweight due to these items.
Regarding taxes, soda, dairy desserts and grain based desserts are pretty easy to identify.
Most grain-based desserts I eat are prepared at home. Are we taxing flour and sugar and butter?
Taxing the base ingredients may well be a way to levy a tax. Sugars and caloric sugar substitutes, solids fats, etc.
Flour too, presumably? Or would we move to include all grains since they can be turned into flour?0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I don't think anyone should have to pay for healthcare insurance.
What? Who pays the cost then, the good fairy or a unicorn?
Somehow the cost of healthcare has to be paid for. If not insurance, then taxes.
Need2 did not say healthcare should not be paid for, but insurance. In a single payer model (for one example) you'd pay for healthcare through taxes, but not insurance. (You could have a system where people could still buy insurance for supplemental care, but would not have to, also.)
This is the poster's statement:
I don't think anyone should have to pay for healthcare insurance
No mention how healthcare would be paid for. My statement should have been recognized as obviously tongue in cheek. I was interested in how i.e, what kind of taxes, the poster was thinking of.
Yeah, I know, my point was that she didn't say no payment for healthcare, but for insurance. In the US they seem to be equated sometimes.
I expect we all agree that taxes would then have to pay for them and that we (as a group) pay taxes.
Sure, I and my challenge is the "we". Everybody loves a tax if it doesn't cost them any money.
Okay.
I'd rather have basic health care costs paid for through a tax (with the ability to get supplemental insurance or pay out of pocket for things not covered or elective things). I fully expect my taxes would go up a bunch as a result. (I pay a lot of taxes.)
My current health care situation is quite fortunate -- I have good employer-based care. So this is not about personal interest, but what I think would be best for the country overall. This idea that only people who think they will get free stuff think the government should pay for it annoys me. It's not what I see around me at all.6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I don't think anyone should have to pay for healthcare insurance.
What? Who pays the cost then, the good fairy or a unicorn?
Somehow the cost of healthcare has to be paid for. If not insurance, then taxes.
Need2 did not say healthcare should not be paid for, but insurance. In a single payer model (for one example) you'd pay for healthcare through taxes, but not insurance. (You could have a system where people could still buy insurance for supplemental care, but would not have to, also.)
This is the poster's statement:
I don't think anyone should have to pay for healthcare insurance
No mention how healthcare would be paid for. My statement should have been recognized as obviously tongue in cheek. I was interested in how i.e, what kind of taxes, the poster was thinking of.
Yeah, I know, my point was that she didn't say no payment for healthcare, but for insurance. In the US they seem to be equated sometimes.
I expect we all agree that taxes would then have to pay for them and that we (as a group) pay taxes.
Sure, I and my challenge is the "we". Everybody loves a tax if it doesn't cost them any money.
Okay.
I'd rather have basic health care costs paid for through a tax (with the ability to get supplemental insurance or pay out of pocket for things not covered or elective things). I fully expect my taxes would go up a bunch as a result. (I pay a lot of taxes.)
My current health care situation is quite fortunate -- I have good employer-based care. So this is not about personal interest, but what I think would be best for the country overall. This idea that only people who think they will get free stuff think the government should pay for it annoys me. It's not what I see around me at all.
You're lucky! I work in jobs and family services/child support so it's what I see everyday all day
0 -
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". What I pay means exactly that - something that I pay after I have been paid. If the option was that my salary went up by whatever their cost is for the health insurance plan and I could choose to buy it or not, that would be me paying for it.
But that's not one of the options, either. And it's not like they're going to bump up my salary to cover the cost of the additional taxes that I would have to pay the government for health insurance, either. They'd simply not be paying it anymore, so the cost to me would once again would go up.0 -
My husband's company has programs to get money off your insurance. Twice a year, we get a full blood panel done and get our weight checked. If you are normal BMI, you automatically get the second credit of $600, if you are overweight or obese, you have to either log exercise for 90 days or do 3 health coaching calls. I think more companies should have incentives like this.4
-
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.7 -
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.4 -
BurlzGettingFit wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I don't think anyone should have to pay for healthcare insurance.
What? Who pays the cost then, the good fairy or a unicorn?
Somehow the cost of healthcare has to be paid for. If not insurance, then taxes.
Need2 did not say healthcare should not be paid for, but insurance. In a single payer model (for one example) you'd pay for healthcare through taxes, but not insurance. (You could have a system where people could still buy insurance for supplemental care, but would not have to, also.)
This is the poster's statement:
I don't think anyone should have to pay for healthcare insurance
No mention how healthcare would be paid for. My statement should have been recognized as obviously tongue in cheek. I was interested in how i.e, what kind of taxes, the poster was thinking of.
Yeah, I know, my point was that she didn't say no payment for healthcare, but for insurance. In the US they seem to be equated sometimes.
I expect we all agree that taxes would then have to pay for them and that we (as a group) pay taxes.
Sure, I and my challenge is the "we". Everybody loves a tax if it doesn't cost them any money.
Okay.
I'd rather have basic health care costs paid for through a tax (with the ability to get supplemental insurance or pay out of pocket for things not covered or elective things). I fully expect my taxes would go up a bunch as a result. (I pay a lot of taxes.)
My current health care situation is quite fortunate -- I have good employer-based care. So this is not about personal interest, but what I think would be best for the country overall. This idea that only people who think they will get free stuff think the government should pay for it annoys me. It's not what I see around me at all.
You're lucky! I work in jobs and family services/child support so it's what I see everyday all day
Yep, personally not in those jobs, but friends in law enforcement, family services, education, etc. The entitlement attitude is high.1 -
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?
Not too many.
But either way, I'm pretty sure that I'll be getting completely bent over by it. Much like I did with the passage of the ACA, where now I pay more, and have deductibles that kicked as soon as the ACA provisions did. The only people who don't get completely run over by a tax increase and single-payer are people who don't have health insurance and don't pay taxes. They would win like crazy.1 -
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?
Not too many.
But either way, I'm pretty sure that I'll be getting completely bent over by it. Much like I did with the passage of the ACA, where now I pay more, and have deductibles that kicked as soon as the ACA provisions did. The only people who don't get completely run over by a tax increase and single-payer are people who don't have health insurance and don't pay taxes. They would win like crazy.
Yep friends that have their own businesses really took it. They joked that they needed to include a trial size of Vaseline with the bill.2 -
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.4 -
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?5 -
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).2 -
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.3
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