|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The question really is, would an american pay that.
Comparisons are pointless, since Broetchenholers "plan" pays for everything. There's no "yeah but that's not covered". Except unnecessary stuff like beauty OPs, obviously. Including payment in case you're not able to work through an accident and things like that.
Isn't one supposed upshot that if your employer isn't paying your healthcare anymore they can give you that money as pay instead? Not that I actually believe that's how it will work in practice. But if they don't have to pay insurance for you that money should become pay compensation or something...
They can't not pay your healthcare. If they employ you, they pay.
edit: it's mandatory, you're required by law to be health insured.
|
It's been quite well proven that there are considerable fundamental problems in democracy; and that voters are demonstrably stupid and make unsound choices. That just hasn't filtered down to the public consciousness very well. The mythology of democracy is still very strong.
what to do about the problem isn't so clear though.
Hmm, I think the best way to advance single payer health care would be to require employers to show you full compensation breakdown (including what was spent on your employers health plan, taxes withheld, and all other costs). most people probably just think of their salary; despite the overall cost of an employee being 2-3x their salary iirc.
|
On August 30 2017 00:32 m4ini wrote:The question really is, would an american pay that. Comparisons are pointless, since Broetchenholers "plan" pays for everything. There's no "yeah but that's not covered". Except unnecessary stuff like beauty OPs, obviously. Including payment in case you're not able to work through an accident and things like that. Show nested quote +Isn't one supposed upshot that if your employer isn't paying your healthcare anymore they can give you that money as pay instead? Not that I actually believe that's how it will work in practice. But if they don't have to pay insurance for you that money should become pay compensation or something...
They can't not pay your healthcare. If they employ you, they pay. edit: it's mandatory, you're required by law to be health insured.
--i'm an idiot and didn't understand we weren't talking about murica
+ Show Spoiler +our post is fairly misleading.
one can be uninsured and pay the penalty.
similarly only employers with more than 50 full time employees are given a similar mandate.
employers with less than 50 FTE have no such requirement
|
On August 30 2017 00:38 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 00:32 m4ini wrote:The question really is, would an american pay that. Comparisons are pointless, since Broetchenholers "plan" pays for everything. There's no "yeah but that's not covered". Except unnecessary stuff like beauty OPs, obviously. Including payment in case you're not able to work through an accident and things like that. Isn't one supposed upshot that if your employer isn't paying your healthcare anymore they can give you that money as pay instead? Not that I actually believe that's how it will work in practice. But if they don't have to pay insurance for you that money should become pay compensation or something...
They can't not pay your healthcare. If they employ you, they pay. edit: it's mandatory, you're required by law to be health insured. your post is fairly misleading. one can be uninsured and pay the penalty. similarly only employers with more than 50 full time employees are given a similar mandate. employers with less than 50 FTE have no such requirement.
It's not, since i'm explaining the system that Broetchenholer is under.
|
ah, sorry. i did mean to include that perhaps it just wasn't clear, and forgot to. that's clearly what i had been missing.
|
No worries, all good.
edit: i might be biased (lived in that system for more than 34 years until i went to the UK), but really, i can't understand why someone would not want to not need to worry about getting sick or injured, ever. As someone who had a fair share of car accidents (both as "victim" and "instigator"), and cancer in the family, i genuinely can't.
edit2: for example, my cluster headache treatment is £90 for 6 doses, through which i go in one to two days (if i'm in a bad phase). Without these systems, my other option would be to go back to what cluster headaches were originally called: suicide headaches.
|
9008 Posts
On August 30 2017 00:37 zlefin wrote:
It's been quite well proven that there are considerable fundamental problems in democracy; and that voters are demonstrably stupid and make unsound choices. That just hasn't filtered down to the public consciousness very well. The mythology of democracy is still very strong.
what to do about the problem isn't so clear though.
Hmm, I think the best way to advance single payer health care would be to require employers to show you full compensation breakdown (including what was spent on your employers health plan, taxes withheld, and all other costs). most people probably just think of their salary; despite the overall cost of an employee being 2-3x their salary iirc.
Since I'm covered though the VA, I'll deny the employee healthcare plan but accept the dental plan. My overall compensation should reflect that and I should take home more. Which we both know won't happen. So how does that work?
|
United States43342 Posts
On August 30 2017 00:45 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 00:37 zlefin wrote:
It's been quite well proven that there are considerable fundamental problems in democracy; and that voters are demonstrably stupid and make unsound choices. That just hasn't filtered down to the public consciousness very well. The mythology of democracy is still very strong.
what to do about the problem isn't so clear though.
Hmm, I think the best way to advance single payer health care would be to require employers to show you full compensation breakdown (including what was spent on your employers health plan, taxes withheld, and all other costs). most people probably just think of their salary; despite the overall cost of an employee being 2-3x their salary iirc. Since I'm covered though the VA, I'll deny the employee healthcare plan but accept the dental plan. My overall compensation should reflect that and I should take home more. Which we both know won't happen. So how does that work?
There wouldn't be a need for a VA in a medicare for all world.
|
On August 30 2017 00:45 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 00:37 zlefin wrote:
It's been quite well proven that there are considerable fundamental problems in democracy; and that voters are demonstrably stupid and make unsound choices. That just hasn't filtered down to the public consciousness very well. The mythology of democracy is still very strong.
what to do about the problem isn't so clear though.
Hmm, I think the best way to advance single payer health care would be to require employers to show you full compensation breakdown (including what was spent on your employers health plan, taxes withheld, and all other costs). most people probably just think of their salary; despite the overall cost of an employee being 2-3x their salary iirc. Since I'm covered though the VA, I'll deny the employee healthcare plan but accept the dental plan. My overall compensation should reflect that and I should take home more. Which we both know won't happen. So how does that work?
I don't know; my main point is that removing the "stealth" from a stealth tax makes it a lot easier to change.
|
On August 30 2017 00:21 Broetchenholer wrote:
As healthcare pops up again in the thread, quick question for you guys. What do you think you or the broad population of the US would agree to pay for in health insurance. I have had a few conversations with Europeans about why the US won't get what we are having and some people said, you are simply not ready to pay the monthly rates we do.
It's more a matter of mass misinformation. People have been conned into the beliefe that the government can't handle health insurance without being stupidly wasteful. That getting their money and giving it to private companies would be cheaper than doing it through the government. That just because they're young and healthy now, they should have to pay more because of sick people, despite the fact that they are 1 accident away from the ER room.
|
Which is kind of a weird concept (to believe in), since private insurance companies will always work "for profit" and not "for you". That's why privatised jails are idiotic, too.
|
On August 30 2017 01:00 m4ini wrote:
Which is kind of a weird concept (to believe in), since private insurance companies will always work "for profit" and not "for you". That's why privatised jails are idiotic, too.
America has this delusion that for profit industry is magically more efficient that goverment. They don't engage with the concept the efficiency brought about by the free market is the result of inefficient actors failing. So we get dumb ideas like for profit public services but failure is bailed out by the government because we can't have schools/prisons/healthcare failing.
|
9008 Posts
On August 30 2017 00:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 00:45 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 30 2017 00:37 zlefin wrote:
It's been quite well proven that there are considerable fundamental problems in democracy; and that voters are demonstrably stupid and make unsound choices. That just hasn't filtered down to the public consciousness very well. The mythology of democracy is still very strong.
what to do about the problem isn't so clear though.
Hmm, I think the best way to advance single payer health care would be to require employers to show you full compensation breakdown (including what was spent on your employers health plan, taxes withheld, and all other costs). most people probably just think of their salary; despite the overall cost of an employee being 2-3x their salary iirc. Since I'm covered though the VA, I'll deny the employee healthcare plan but accept the dental plan. My overall compensation should reflect that and I should take home more. Which we both know won't happen. So how does that work? There wouldn't be a need for a VA in a medicare for all world.
I think there would be a need for a VA just to separate the patients who need the help. A specialized place that alleviates the already congested waiting rooms. Granted, if it was a better system, then there wouldn't be a ton of bad VA press.
|
Okay, so you say the American population would be okay with paying that amount of money for a general health insurance if they believed it was handled correctly? So, if someone were to make a bill to insure everyone, but at the cost of a flat tax of 10%, would those that want general healthcare still be for it? Because that is what it costs to do it. And if people believe it would be cheaper then that, they would be wrong.
|
On August 30 2017 01:09 Broetchenholer wrote:
Okay, so you say the American population would be okay with paying that amount of money for a general health insurance if they believed it was handled correctly? So, if someone were to make a bill to insure everyone, but at the cost of a flat tax of 10%, would those that want general healthcare still be for it? Because that is what it costs to do it. And if people believe it would be cheaper then that, they would be wrong.
Tax policy is its own kind of minefield that any kind of healthcare reform has to tread across and is a large part of why your seemingly common sense conclusions turn into anything but when floated in the US political arena.
|
He signed the letter himself. There is nothing about the Russia investigation he has not lied about.
|
Lol these idiots didn't disclose this until the media found it. Wonder why. Now they just look worse.
|
I agree if we want healthcare to go anywhere we need people to see their total compemsation statement from their employer so they can see what their employer is paying already for health insurance. In theory this money could be used for a larger medicare tax and its possible individuals could make out ahead.
|
On August 30 2017 01:12 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 01:09 Broetchenholer wrote:
Okay, so you say the American population would be okay with paying that amount of money for a general health insurance if they believed it was handled correctly? So, if someone were to make a bill to insure everyone, but at the cost of a flat tax of 10%, would those that want general healthcare still be for it? Because that is what it costs to do it. And if people believe it would be cheaper then that, they would be wrong. Tax policy is its own kind of minefield that any kind of healthcare reform has to tread across and is a large part of why your seemingly common sense conclusions turn into anything but when floated in the US political arena.
Okay, so let me rephrase again. If we would ask everyone in the United States if he would be willing to pay 10% of his income to have general healthcare, would the percentage of people for that be higher or lower then the percentage of people wanting general healthcare? Of course you can't tell me that as you don't have statistics, but what is your gut feeling 
|
United States43342 Posts
On August 30 2017 01:31 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 01:12 farvacola wrote:On August 30 2017 01:09 Broetchenholer wrote:
Okay, so you say the American population would be okay with paying that amount of money for a general health insurance if they believed it was handled correctly? So, if someone were to make a bill to insure everyone, but at the cost of a flat tax of 10%, would those that want general healthcare still be for it? Because that is what it costs to do it. And if people believe it would be cheaper then that, they would be wrong. Tax policy is its own kind of minefield that any kind of healthcare reform has to tread across and is a large part of why your seemingly common sense conclusions turn into anything but when floated in the US political arena. Okay, so let me rephrase again. If we would ask everyone in the United States if he would be willing to pay 10% of his income to have general healthcare, would the percentage of people for that be higher or lower then the percentage of people wanting general healthcare? Of course you can't tell me that as you don't have statistics, but what is your gut feeling
Are we talking about an additional 10% tax on top of the existing system or instead of the existing system?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
