Taxes

[Gardnr]

Very interesting. I’ve seen other sites that say it’s 45%. I truly have a tough time deciphering all these web sites and finding the truth. I’m looking for further explanations as to why some say 45%. If we have learned everything’s, facts can be bent to fit the personal bias of the writer.

26% is a really lot of money for the government to be kicking in for healthcare when we are all kicking in a bunch as well.

I posted the sources in an earlier message. 26% does not come from additional taxation but the FED takes credit for all of it even though this comes from trust funds that yes, we all pay into.

[LDAHL]

I posted the sources in an earlier message. 26% does not come from additional taxation but the FED takes credit for all of it even though this comes from trust funds that yes, we all pay into.

It accounts for 26% of federal spending. Federal spending comes from taxes and debt that will ultimately need to be serviced from taxes. The Medicare tax is just another tax. Surpluses and deficits in the Medicare “trust fund” are merely IOUs the government writes to itself and funds with taxes. Calling different taxes by different names does not mean that the 26% those programs represent of federal spending isn’t funded by federal taxes.

[iris lilies]

I also don't mind my tax rates. I do however mind that those who earn much more than I do, have so many loopholes that they pay a lower marginal rate.

My brother just sold his business (his lifes's hard work), for 25million. Not a single year has he ever paid the same marginal rate as we did. We argued about it every time taxes came up. I know he'll pay dearly now and frankly, I am happy about that. I'm sure his tax attorney and accountant will do an excellent job of coming up with loopholes to significantly decrease his capital gains tax, but it is time for him to pay!

However, his total still will not be as high as our long-term marginal tax rate so he still wins!

your brother—was his income lower than yours?

[catherine]

We spend much more per person on healthcare than other countries. We should go single payer with a payroll tax like Social Security but without a cap on the earnings taxed. Taxes will go up but almost everyone's costs will go down.

Other expenditures should be offset by cuts elsewhere, starting with endless wars.

+1 on every point made here.

[LDAHL]

We spend much more per person on healthcare than other countries. We should go single payer with a payroll tax like Social Security but without a cap on the earnings taxed. Taxes will go up but almost everyone's costs will go down.

Other expenditures should be offset by cuts elsewhere, starting with endless wars.

If you first eliminate employer-subsidized insurance, and then fund trillions of single payer costs solely with a tax on currently working people, I would expect a significant political reaction from the employed segment of the population.

[catherine]

If you first eliminate employer-subsidized insurance, and then fund trillions of single payer costs solely with a tax on currently working people, I would expect a significant political reaction from the employed segment of the population.

That depends. If the out-of-pocket costs remain roughly the same, I don't see any uprising. In fact, if OOP premiums and deductibles are the same, I see great benefit for the employed people: a) they are free to follow dreams of entrepreneurship without being handcuffed to their jobs for healthcare security and b) they don't have to go through quagmires of red tape choosing one plan over another, and then having restrictions when traveling/moving to other states.

Doctors will save money by being able to reduce staff size. Most practices have at least FTE JUST for sorting through insurance paperwork, getting prior authorizations for every darn medicine they prescribe, etc.

[ApatheticNoMore]

If you first eliminate employer-subsidized insurance, and then fund trillions of single payer costs solely with a tax on currently working people, I would expect a significant political reaction from the employed segment of the population.

it's not a bad plan, but income taxes might be better, or a combination of both.

[LDAHL]

That depends. If the out-of-pocket costs remain roughly the same, I don't see any uprising. In fact, if OOP premiums and deductibles are the same, I see great benefit for the employed people: a) they are free to follow dreams of entrepreneurship without being handcuffed to their jobs for healthcare security and b) they don't have to go through quagmires of red tape choosing one plan over another, and then having restrictions when traveling/moving to other states.

Doctors will save money by being able to reduce staff size. Most practices have at least FTE JUST for sorting through insurance paperwork, getting prior authorizations for every darn medicine they prescribe, etc.

Something like 60% of the population is employed. Paying for a single payer system by putting the entire burden on a payroll tax while at the same time eliminating any subsidies they get though employers would almost certainly increase their combined out of pocket and tax burden substantially; although I would think the non-working population would be very satisfied with the situation.

It’s hard for me to believe the difference for working people would be made up by a series of managerial miracles. Rationing healthcare, increased wait times, etc. more stringently than people with employer-provided care are used to will also provoke a reaction.

[flowerseverywhere]

That depends. If the out-of-pocket costs remain roughly the same, I don't see any uprising. In fact, if OOP premiums and deductibles are the same, I see great benefit for the employed people: a) they are free to follow dreams of entrepreneurship without being handcuffed to their jobs for healthcare security and b) they don't have to go through quagmires of red tape choosing one plan over another, and then having restrictions when traveling/moving to other states.

Doctors will save money by being able to reduce staff size. Most practices have at least FTE JUST for sorting through insurance paperwork, getting prior authorizations for every darn medicine they prescribe, etc.

however think of all the people employed by BCBS, Aetna and so on. From CEO’s to office cleaners, hospital reviewers to adjusters to bill payers. They will be unemployed. Think of all the politicians who accept money from various health and pharmaceutical companies through direct donations, pacs, individual donations and so on. The spin and fallout by eliminating the health insurance business involves a great deal of upheaval in our country.
It’s all about the money, the people be damned.

For perspective, BCBS employs more than 17 million unionized employees, retirees and their families.

https://www.bcbs.com/about-us/the-bl...-shield-system

united healthcare over 260,000

aetna over 50,000

[catherine]

however think of all the people employed by BCBS, Aetna and so on. From CEO’s to office cleaners, hospital reviewers to adjusters to bill payers. They will be unemployed. Think of all the politicians who accept money from various health and pharmaceutical companies through direct donations, pacs, individual donations and so on. The spin and fallout by eliminating the health insurance business involves a great deal of upheaval in our country.
It’s all about the money, the people be damned.

For perspective, BCBS employs more than 17 million unionized employees, retirees and their families.

https://www.bcbs.com/about-us/the-bl...-shield-system

united healthcare over 260,000

aetna over 50,000

Well, as they say, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. This is the argument they raise about moving away from fossil fuels--"but where would all the gas station attendants go?"

I'm not suggesting that on January 21, 2021, if the electorate wisely votes in Bernie or Elizabeth, millions of health insurance employees would be out of work. Believe me, if it took Obama moving heaven and earth and making tough deals to get Obamacare done, I don't expect that Rome will be built in a day.

I just feel that no matter what, we need to move toward universal health care. For-profit healthcare insurance has ONLY been around for 70 years, and it has not served us well, as evidenced by the fact that we spend the most and get far less bang for the buck than countries with universal health care.

But the oligarchy will fight a good fight to be sure. This article talks about the money billionaires are getting ready to spend to keep Sanders and Warren out of the White House.