Transitioning from employer-paid healthcare to tax-paid healthcare

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I got to

the single payer system liberals and apparently most Americans want

and had to stop. If you start with that sort of premise/assumption, how can anything later be even close to reality?

I agree, but I still played along. Seriously though, if some plan can address my two main concerns, I'm all ears on it. Until those two are addressed though, it's a double deal breaker.

Chuck

Im in the same boat.

My part of my current benefits are approx. 11% of my gross, and thats for a gold plated plan. My employer's portion is about 16% of my gross, so altogether 27% of my gross is for healthcare. Now, unless the government's cost is 1/2 or more of current (which is HIGHLY unlikely), my increase from my employer (the $$$ I pay for my portion) wont offset the new increase in taxes to cover my new healthcare plan. This troubles me.

Well, perhaps you ought to consider NOT getting a gold-plated plan.

One of the contributors to increasing health care costs is plans that cover almost anything, with very small or no deductibles or co-pays. When consumers have such plans, they have absolutely no incentive to reduce their consumption of and demand for health care services.

If the changes in funding premiums induces people such as you to NOT get gold-plated plans, that's a GOOD thing, regardless of what you personally would prefer.

So how does the gov't subsidizing(public option/medicare/etc)/providing HC(UHC) address the issue you state?(bolded)

One option under consideration is a 40% tax on the portion of HC premiums that exceed a threshold figure - currently, I think that figure is $25,000 a year for a family. That would represent a big dis-incentive for buying these plans.


You know, the hypocrisy of the right-wing posters on the topic of HC reform is astounding. They all say, "we need to reduce costs." But when presented with practical ways to reduce costs - the public option (to foster competition) or taxing gold-plated plans (to reduce the incidence of these plans, and thus the demand for services) - right wingers are all up in arms.

I guess the right just wants to mouth good-sounding phrases, but doesn't have the gumption to actually do anything about what they say is important.

Why would you want to further increase costs of gold plated plans especially for people like me who NEED them?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: shiraWell, perhaps you ought to consider NOT getting a gold-plated plan.

One of the contributors to increasing health care costs is plans that cover almost anything, with very small or no deductibles or co-pays. When consumers have such plans, they have absolutely no incentive to reduce their consumption of and demand for health care services.

If the changes in funding premiums induces people such as you to NOT get gold-plated plans, that's a GOOD thing, regardless of what you personally would prefer.

That is the libtard mentality in a nutshell. You should lose your earned benefits so it can be handed over to others who have not done a thing to earn them. Force you to lose your "gold plated" coverage, which is part of your compensation package, so countless illegal immigrants and welfare recipients can be added under the socialist healthcare umbrella. Thanks, that sounds great!

"Should lose?" Where is THAT coming from? And where is employer-subsidized HC an "earned" benefit. You get HC from your employer or you don't - nothing "earned" about it.

Nothing in any of the HC proposals forces companies to NOT offer gold-plated plans (although there are proposed disincentives, since those plans are BAD for overall cost-containment). Blankangst was concerned that if his employer decided to stop paying the lion's share of his HC premiums, then paying for an equivalent gold-plated plan on the exchange would be very expensive for him. So, under that scenario, suggesting that he convert to a non-gold-plated plan to control his out-of-pocket costs is outrageous? A loss of his "earned" benefit?

Learn to read.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: Craig234
The question I have there is how the people without employer insurance will be paid for. Will it all be lumped onto business?

Everyone -- children, seniors, employed, unemployed -- would have the same coverage. That coverage would be financed through a combination of contributions from employees, employers, pension and government. 46¢ of every dollar spent on health care in the US today comes from public funds. If all the money now going into the patchwork of government paid care ( i.e. medicare, medicaid, working poor) plus employer premiums and employee contributions were directed toward a single financing system, we would have more than enough to provide quality care to everyone at less cost. That wouldn't necessarily mean either a government run insurance company (which is probably a bad idea) or government run health delivery. In France and Germany, the collected revenues are handled by large non-profit funds that pay for private providers.

I don't think this is correct. My understanding is that families who purchase insurance on the exchange are free to choose ANY of the policies offered, which will range from basic (but good) plans that meet a pre-defined set of "floor" requirements to premium plans. The vouchers will help those at the middle and lower portions of the income scale afford their policies, but anyone who wants to can pay more to get a better policy.

Edit: And note that the policies will be offered by private insurance companies and by coops, not by the government (unless the "public option" is included). Thus, there in theory will be many policies to choose from, even in the same "class."

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: shiraWell, perhaps you ought to consider NOT getting a gold-plated plan.

One of the contributors to increasing health care costs is plans that cover almost anything, with very small or no deductibles or co-pays. When consumers have such plans, they have absolutely no incentive to reduce their consumption of and demand for health care services.

If the changes in funding premiums induces people such as you to NOT get gold-plated plans, that's a GOOD thing, regardless of what you personally would prefer.

That is the libtard mentality in a nutshell. You should lose your earned benefits so it can be handed over to others who have not done a thing to earn them. Force you to lose your "gold plated" coverage, which is part of your compensation package, so countless illegal immigrants and welfare recipients can be added under the socialist healthcare umbrella. Thanks, that sounds great!

"Should lose?" Where is THAT coming from? And where is employer-subsidized HC an "earned" benefit. You get HC from your employer or you don't - nothing "earned" about it.

Nothing in any of the HC proposals forces companies to NOT offer gold-plated plans (although there are proposed disincentives, since those plans are BAD for overall cost-containment). Blankangst was concerned that if his employer decided to stop paying the lion's share of his HC premiums, then paying for an equivalent gold-plated plan on the exchange would be very expensive for him. So, under that scenario, suggesting that he convert to a non-gold-plated plan to control his out-of-pocket costs is outrageous? A loss of his "earned" benefit?

Learn to read.

Dude.

Learn to read.

My employer does NOT pay the lions share of my plan.

Learn to read.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: Craig234
The question I have there is how the people without employer insurance will be paid for. Will it all be lumped onto business?

Everyone -- children, seniors, employed, unemployed -- would have the same coverage. That coverage would be financed through a combination of contributions from employees, employers, pension and government. 46¢ of every dollar spent on health care in the US today comes from public funds. If all the money now going into the patchwork of government paid care ( i.e. medicare, medicaid, working poor) plus employer premiums and employee contributions were directed toward a single financing system, we would have more than enough to provide quality care to everyone at less cost. That wouldn't necessarily mean either a government run insurance company (which is probably a bad idea) or government run health delivery. In France and Germany, the collected revenues are handled by large non-profit funds that pay for private providers.

I don't think this is correct. My understanding is that families who purchase insurance on the exchange are free to choose ANY of the policies offered, which will range from basic (but good) plans that meet a pre-defined set of "floor" requirements to premium plans. The vouchers will help those at the middle and lower portions of the income scale afford their policies, but anyone who wants to can pay more to get a better policy.

Edit: And note that the policies will be offered by private insurance companies and by coops, not by the government (unless the "public option" is included). Thus, there in theory will be many policies to choose from, even in the same "class."

And, since it sounds like you've read the bill, what is the net cost to the consumer for these various plans vs going through an employer?

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: boomerang
Try to see both sides of the issue. Remember who employs the majority of people in this country - small businesses.

Remember which employers are most hurt by our current dysfunctional health care financing model: small businesses. 60% of small businesses do not offer any coverage to their employes. In most cases, that's not because they don't want to but because they can't afford it. Health insurance policies fo small businesses are rated in the same way that individual policies are -- by age, sex, and medical history. A family business with a significant number of long time employees pays significantly more than a similar sized start-up with few older people. The billing clerk's high-risk delivery of twins can increase the business owner's by thousands.

There's nothing in the current bills that would actually help small business owners who want to do better. The only advantage of the exchanges is that they would eliminate sex-based rating. It seems to me that instead of fining small businesses for not offering health care and hoping that the fine would somehow end up paying for the employees subsidized private insurance, it would be much more effective to have a mandatory payroll deduction for all employees that would go into coverage for those employees. That's how most countries deal with the problem. ALL employers pay into the fund and everyone has the same level of care. If some employers want to additional coverage, let them buy private, supplementary insurance for their employees.

Health Care Abroad: Germany

Health Care Abroad: France

Health Care for All - Germany and France

You've taken one line of my post out of context and you've put a spin on it. I was responding to a question asking why are businesses against a tax based health care model.

Taken within that context, your reply is meaningless.

I'd like to respond to your statement below.

If some employers want to additional coverage, let them buy private, supplementary insurance for their employees.

You should make sure this will be legal with the adoption of UHC. It's no secret that the ultimate goal of this administration is a solely government run health care system. Should they attain this, under current constitutional law interpretation, offering one group different coverage than another will be illegal under the constitution. It will be discrimination. It will also be illegal to deny health care coverage to anyone within the boundaries of our country. If you're here, you're entitled to the same coverage as everyone else. With the proper language in whatever bill comes to pass, varying types of coverage could very well be illegal even without a public option.

The only people that will have different coverage than every other individual here (besides the rich and powerful) will be Congress. I have a commitment from my Congressional representative that he will fight with all the power he has to ensure that Congress falls under the same health care plan as is deemed good for the rest of us. He will fail at this I'm certain of it.

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: shira
I don't think this is correct. My understanding is that families who purchase insurance on the exchange ...

Umm, this discussion isn't about the proposals under consideration in Congress -- which are basically schemes to pay for more of what is not working. The title of the thread is Transitioning from employer paid healthcare and I was pointing out how it coud/should/does work in other places.

You know, the hypocrisy of the right-wing posters on the topic of HC reform is astounding. They all say, "we need to reduce costs." But when presented with practical ways to reduce costs - the public option (to foster competition) or taxing gold-plated plans (to reduce the incidence of these plans, and thus the demand for services) - right wingers are all up in arms.

FWIW, I don't consider myself a right-wing opponent of health care reform. On the contrary, I want actual reform. And I don't think that either of the points you mention would do anything at all as far as getting us to something comparable with the health security enjoyed by citizens of every other industrialized nation. One of the most distressing features of the discussion has been the degree to which the left has bought into discredited economic falsehoods and parroted them.

The evidence from both here in the US and elsewhere is that competition among insurers doesn't help with costs. FACT: The more insurers in a market, the weaker they all become in the face of provider cost demands. No country with a successful national health plan depends on "competition" to control costs...not one. Private insurance is integrated into various models of national healthcare but competition among companies is seen as a positive factor in improving quality, not cost.

There is zero evidence that "gold plated" insurance plans drive up costs overall. I have no objections to eliminating the tax exemption for employers and letting everyone exempt premiums from taxable income but I do not see how raising the cost of insurance for those who can afford extra coverage is supposed to improve health security for the rest of us. The plan to tax them is a misguided attempt to find financing for more of the same thing that got us into this fix in the first place.

And if Congress really wants influence consumer demand with respect to costs, it could ban mass market advertisements for prescription drugs. Pharmaceutical companies spend more on advertising than they do on research and the net effect has been skyrocketing consumer demand for more expensive drugs that frequently do no better than less expensive alternatives.

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: boomerang
You should make sure this will be legal with the adoption of UHC.

I think you mean that "we" should be sure that any Universal Healthcare proposal does not prohibit private, supplementary policies

It's no secret that the ultimate goal of this administration is a solely government run health care system.

It's certainly been well kept from me. Obama has made no secret that he would prefer a single-payer system -- which is implemented in several different ways around the world -- but neither he, nor anyone in his administration has ever advocated a "government run health care system".

Should they attain this, under current constitutional law interpretation, offering one group different coverage than another will be illegal under the constitution. It will be discrimination.

Unless specifically prohibited by Congress, it would not be illegal for private parties to supplement what ever is offered or manadated by the government. We have have a thriving market for MediGap policies today. What makes you think it would be different if we moved to a national health program for everyone?

It will also be illegal to deny health care coverage to anyone within the boundaries of our country. If you're here, you're entitled to the same coverage as everyone else.

Again, that depends on the legislation. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits that. And if you are thinking about the school situation; SCOTUS said that states could not charge illegal residents for public schooling. Congress could in fact step in with legislation but has refrained from doing so.

FWIW, I personally thought it was a mistake for the Democrats to start work on health care before getting some sort of control over our immigration problem. I happen to believe that unrestricted, low wage immigration (both legal and illegal) has been bad for the citizenry and that grassroots desire to reform immigration would spill over into opposition for attacking our health care problems. In that, I think I've been proven right.

The only people that will have different coverage than every other individual here (besides the rich and powerful) will be Congress. I have a commitment from my Congressional representative that he will fight with all the power he has to ensure that Congress falls under the same health care plan as is deemed good for the rest of us. He will fail at this I'm certain of it.

This discussion is not about the current proposals -- most of which are about how to pay for more of what already does not work. This discussion about where we might go if we started thinking about real alternatives.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Ausm
From what I read, most employers are fighting against this. It really baffles me why they are reluctant to go to a tax based HC system for their employees. I think it boils down to power. The power that employers have over their employees.

45% if the population DOES NOT PAY TAXES OR GETS A CREDIT.
What, do you think that the money will magically appear under your pillow to pay for those people if the system goes to a tax based HC system?

THERE IS NO MONEY. Those people have no skin in the game.

Maybe it is time for them to pay THEIR FAIR SHARE.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Ausm
From what I read, most employers are fighting against this. It really baffles me why they are reluctant to go to a tax based HC system for their employees. I think it boils down to power. The power that employers have over their employees.

45% if the population DOES NOT PAY TAXES OR GETS A CREDIT.
What, do you think that the money will magically appear under your pillow to pay for those people if the system goes to a tax based HC system?

THERE IS NO MONEY. Those people have no skin in the game.

Maybe it is time for them to pay THEIR FAIR SHARE.

Problem is they never will pay their fair share. It is supposedly our job as an advanced society to take care of those that cannot take care of themselves regardless of the circumstances. I have a lot of pity for those who are able bodied and actively seeking employment. I couldn't give a rats ass about people who just sit on the couch all day popping out babies.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Ausm
From what I read, most employers are fighting against this. It really baffles me why they are reluctant to go to a tax based HC system for their employees. I think it boils down to power. The power that employers have over their employees.

45% if the population DOES NOT PAY TAXES OR GETS A CREDIT.
What, do you think that the money will magically appear under your pillow to pay for those people if the system goes to a tax based HC system?

THERE IS NO MONEY. Those people have no skin in the game.

Maybe it is time for them to pay THEIR FAIR SHARE.

I definitely do not fall in the 45% category and I do agree the tax code needs to be fixed of loopholes and deadbeats.

But wouldn't it be more beneficial for businesses to not have to worry about obtaining healthcare for their employees?

 

[piasabird]

Bank of America just fired a lot of people to make up the difference. They got the bailout and my wife got fired. Thanks a lot Mr O'Bamma. Just send me $40,000.00 a year to make up the difference. So they closed all the smaller lockboxes to make up for all the bonuses that they gave to their new investmant firm. I have a better Idea. Close Bank of America. We have enough banks to get by.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I got to

the single payer system liberals and apparently most Americans want

and had to stop. If you start with that sort of premise/assumption, how can anything later be even close to reality?

I agree, but I still played along. Seriously though, if some plan can address my two main concerns, I'm all ears on it. Until those two are addressed though, it's a double deal breaker.

Chuck

Im in the same boat.

My part of my current benefits are approx. 11% of my gross, and thats for a gold plated plan. My employer's portion is about 16% of my gross, so altogether 27% of my gross is for healthcare. Now, unless the government's cost is 1/2 or more of current (which is HIGHLY unlikely), my increase from my employer (the $$$ I pay for my portion) wont offset the new increase in taxes to cover my new healthcare plan. This troubles me.

Well, perhaps you ought to consider NOT getting a gold-plated plan.

One of the contributors to increasing health care costs is plans that cover almost anything, with very small or no deductibles or co-pays. When consumers have such plans, they have absolutely no incentive to reduce their consumption of and demand for health care services.

If the changes in funding premiums induces people such as you to NOT get gold-plated plans, that's a GOOD thing, regardless of what you personally would prefer.

So how does the gov't subsidizing(public option/medicare/etc)/providing HC(UHC) address the issue you state?(bolded)

One option under consideration is a 40% tax on the portion of HC premiums that exceed a threshold figure - currently, I think that figure is $25,000 a year for a family. That would represent a big dis-incentive for buying these plans.


You know, the hypocrisy of the right-wing posters on the topic of HC reform is astounding. They all say, "we need to reduce costs." But when presented with practical ways to reduce costs - the public option (to foster competition) or taxing gold-plated plans (to reduce the incidence of these plans, and thus the demand for services) - right wingers are all up in arms.

I guess the right just wants to mouth good-sounding phrases, but doesn't have the gumption to actually do anything about what they say is important.

Why would you want to further increase costs of gold plated plans especially for people like me who NEED them?

I'm not sure why anyone needs a gold-plated policy as compared with a standard policy. I am currently covered by a "standard" PPO group policy by United Health Care (just about the worst-rated company out there). Maximum yearly OOP is $2000 (not counting drug co-pays) for in-network services. The network of physicians is extensive, and I've never had any problems finding multiple specialists in my area. The formulary covers branded drugs even when there's a generic alternative (although the co-pay is higher in such circumstances). And there's dental and vision coverage. A gold-plated plan would probably have higher yearly dental limits, lower drug co-pays, lower or zero office-visit co-pays, and perhaps a broader network. But YOU pay thousands more up-front for the privilege, whereas I pay only if I need the service or drug.

About the only situation where I can envision a gold-plated plan being really worth it is if you knew you would continually be using an expensive drug for maintenance purposes, and your gold-plated plan covered most of its cost whereas a standard plan did not.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: shira
I'm not sure why anyone needs a gold-plated policy as compared with a standard policy.

Its called *choice*...but we would never want that.
I can *choose* to get a plan with lower monthly rates and a higher deductible and a life time cap.
I can *choose* to get a plan with high monthly rates, low deductible and a low co-pay.
I can *choose* to get a plan with an ultra high monthly rate, zero deductible, and zero co-pay.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: shira
I'm not sure why anyone needs a gold-plated policy as compared with a standard policy.

Its called *choice*...but we would never want that.
I can *choose* to get a plan with lower monthly rates and a higher deductible and a life time cap.
I can *choose* to get a plan with high monthly rates, low deductible and a low co-pay.
I can *choose* to get a plan with an ultra high monthly rate, zero deductible, and zero co-pay.

How can we have choice now if we are locked into 1 plan where we work or if we do not have employer based insurance when Blue Cross has95% of the business in my state?

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Ausm
How can we have choice now if we are locked into 1 plan where we work or if we do not have employer based insurance when Blue Cross has95% of the business in my state?

Tell your employer you want a different plan.
Buy your own plan
Find a new job that offers a different plan.

And to answer your final point, I am all for allowing health insurance companies the ability to compete across state lines.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Ausm
How can we have choice now if we are locked into 1 plan where we work or if we do not have employer based insurance when Blue Cross has95% of the business in my state?

Tell your employer you want a different plan.
Buy your own plan
Find a new job that offers a different plan.

And to answer your final point, I am all for allowing health insurance companies the ability to compete across state lines.

1)Tell your Employer you want a different plan??? hahaha Do you have a job? it doesn't work that way IRL.

2) Buying an individual plan is ok if you enjoy legalized rape.

3) Not going to quit my job after 30 years.

4)Nice GOP talking point that I don't buy into.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: shira
I'm not sure why anyone needs a gold-plated policy as compared with a standard policy.

Its called *choice*...but we would never want that.
I can *choose* to get a plan with lower monthly rates and a higher deductible and a life time cap.
I can *choose* to get a plan with high monthly rates, low deductible and a low co-pay.
I can *choose* to get a plan with an ultra high monthly rate, zero deductible, and zero co-pay.

No argument from me.

Blackangst expressed concern that his out-of-pocket cost for his gold-plated plan would probably go way up if his employer dropped the benefit. My response was that in that case he should consider converting to a standard plan if he wanted to save money. And in my last post, I pointed out there was virtually no benefit to gold-plated plans for most people. Obviously, if he faces this problem, he'll have a choice.

Whenever there are major changes to in institution, there will be winners and losers. Nothing about the HC proposal would force his employer to drop coverage. But if it did, he'd be BETTER off with the choices that will be available under HC reform than he would be had no reform taken place ,

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira

Where is this "nationalize health care" coming from.

Did you not read the thread title when you clicked on it? Did you then skip right over the OP? Sheesh - you must really want to beat harvey and mcowen...

The thread title was "tax paid" healthcare," not "nationalized health care." And even "tax paid" is a gross misnomer: The plan under consideration would subsidize HC premiums for low- and middle-income households with vouchers. Nothing in the OP refers to "nationalized HC," which would be a single-payer system run entirely by the government, not a voucher-subsidized, multi-payer system run mostly by private insurance company's.

Sheesh - you must really be trying to beat PJABBER and Patranus.

[/quote]to one in which taxes pay for most healthcare (the single payer system)[/quote]

Really harvey mcowen?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I got to

the single payer system liberals and apparently most Americans want

and had to stop. If you start with that sort of premise/assumption, how can anything later be even close to reality?

I agree, but I still played along. Seriously though, if some plan can address my two main concerns, I'm all ears on it. Until those two are addressed though, it's a double deal breaker.

Chuck

Im in the same boat.

My part of my current benefits are approx. 11% of my gross, and thats for a gold plated plan. My employer's portion is about 16% of my gross, so altogether 27% of my gross is for healthcare. Now, unless the government's cost is 1/2 or more of current (which is HIGHLY unlikely), my increase from my employer (the $$$ I pay for my portion) wont offset the new increase in taxes to cover my new healthcare plan. This troubles me.

Well, perhaps you ought to consider NOT getting a gold-plated plan.

One of the contributors to increasing health care costs is plans that cover almost anything, with very small or no deductibles or co-pays. When consumers have such plans, they have absolutely no incentive to reduce their consumption of and demand for health care services.

If the changes in funding premiums induces people such as you to NOT get gold-plated plans, that's a GOOD thing, regardless of what you personally would prefer.

So how does the gov't subsidizing(public option/medicare/etc)/providing HC(UHC) address the issue you state?(bolded)

One option under consideration is a 40% tax on the portion of HC premiums that exceed a threshold figure - currently, I think that figure is $25,000 a year for a family. That would represent a big dis-incentive for buying these plans.


You know, the hypocrisy of the right-wing posters on the topic of HC reform is astounding. They all say, "we need to reduce costs." But when presented with practical ways to reduce costs - the public option (to foster competition) or taxing gold-plated plans (to reduce the incidence of these plans, and thus the demand for services) - right wingers are all up in arms.

I guess the right just wants to mouth good-sounding phrases, but doesn't have the gumption to actually do anything about what they say is important.

You didn't address my question and the "public option" doesn't reduce "cost" you nitwit. It just changes who pays the "costs"

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Ausm
How can we have choice now if we are locked into 1 plan where we work or if we do not have employer based insurance when Blue Cross has95% of the business in my state?

Tell your employer you want a different plan.
Buy your own plan
Find a new job that offers a different plan.

And to answer your final point, I am all for allowing health insurance companies the ability to compete across state lines.

1)Tell your Employer you want a different plan??? hahaha Do you have a job? it doesn't work that way IRL.

2) Buying an individual plan is ok if you enjoy legalized rape.

3) Not going to quit my job after 30 years.

4)Nice GOP talking point that I don't buy into.

1. I sit on a committee that deals with employee benefits for my company. I represent my team plus a few admin folks. I take their concerns to the committee.

2. your CHOICE

3. your CHOICE

4. isn't the excuse you leftists use for obamacare's public option is more competition?

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
to one in which taxes pay for most healthcare (the single payer system)

Really harvey mcowen?

Using taxes to finance healthcare doesn't necessarily equal a single-payer system...and single payer doesn't necessarily mean"government run". For example, both Canada and the UK use general income taxes to finance health care but they have completely different delivery models. In France and Germany, payroll contributions from both employers and employees are combined with general tax money to finance a single system for all eligible residents -- which is administered through multiple funds with care delivered privately. In the Netherlands, everyone purchases individual private insurance through payroll deduction. Employers are required to reimburse the cost and the state subsidizes healthcare costs for over 60% of the population.

IOW, there are lots of different ways to implement "tax-paid" healthcare.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

to one in which taxes pay for most healthcare (the single payer system)

Really harvey mcowen?

Using taxes to finance healthcare doesn't necessarily equal a single-payer system...and single payer doesn't necessarily mean"government run". For example, both Canada and the UK use general income taxes to finance health care but they have completely different delivery models. In France and Germany, payroll contributions from both employers and employees are combined with general tax money to finance a single system for all eligible residents -- which is administered through multiple funds with care delivered privately. In the Netherlands, everyone purchases individual private insurance through payroll deduction. Employers are required to reimburse the cost and the state subsidizes healthcare costs for over 60% of the population.

IOW, there are lots of different implement to use "tax-paid" healthcare.

The quoting got messed up - it came from the OP. The OP shira claimed didn't mention or mean single-payer...

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Ausm
How can we have choice now if we are locked into 1 plan where we work or if we do not have employer based insurance when Blue Cross has95% of the business in my state?

Tell your employer you want a different plan.
Buy your own plan
Find a new job that offers a different plan.

And to answer your final point, I am all for allowing health insurance companies the ability to compete across state lines.

1)Tell your Employer you want a different plan??? hahaha Do you have a job? it doesn't work that way IRL.

2) Buying an individual plan is ok if you enjoy legalized rape.

3) Not going to quit my job after 30 years.

4)Nice GOP talking point that I don't buy into.

1. I sit on a committee that deals with employee benefits for my company. I represent my team plus a few admin folks. I take their concerns to the committee.

2. your CHOICE

3. your CHOICE

4. isn't the excuse you leftists use for obamacare's public option is more competition?

1) It ain't going to happen where I work

2) So if your only choice is no choice or rape is that good?

3) No shit sherlock

4):roll: So why wouldn't the public option work? If it didn't work then why is the insurance industry fighting it tooth and nail?

 

[Jadow]

heh, I'm against govt health care BUT I plan on retiring fairly early (around 52-55) and there will be a GAP there of 10-13 years before I can get Medicare, so for my own selfish reasons, I hope they pass a single payer system right around when I"m 52 years old!