4 ms·

but if there were no taxes there would be no doctor. Not that subtle to me. I'm not arguing that our system is not messed up, but I'm not willing to pay an ex

but if there were no taxes there would be no doctor. Not that subtle to me. I'm not arguing that our system is not messed up, but I'm not willing to pay an extra 10-20% taxes in order to have 'free" healthcare. I'd likely be footing the bill for everyone else.

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
run4yourlives 18y ago
> I'd likely be footing the bill for everyone else. You already are. The rates you pay are based on a pooled snapshot of medical usage of all the people that particular insurer has in that demographic. The only difference is that with a gov't plan the pool is larger. EDIT: Actually, I should correct myself. Most government plans have an additional difference - there are no costs based on usage. In a private plan, if you spend everyday at the hospital, you'll feel it in your next premium renewal, with a government plan this isn't always the case, although some countries implement user fees.
- goofygrin 18y ago
  This is very true. That said, I'd rather be in the pool of healthy, employed people than the unemployed moochers ;)
  - run4yourlives 18y ago
    Don't plan on growing old then. :-) The best part about a government plan is that in the grand scheme of things, moochers are a small subset of the picture. It poses problems for sure, like "crowded" emerge rooms, (brackets because the crowds vanish if you have a real issue) but overall the numbers all show that it's cheaper both to the consumer and to the system overall.
    - goofygrin 18y ago
      Like I said our system is screwed up, but getting rid of it is a HUGE ordeal with millions of jobs likely to be cut and a HUGE expense to cut over to it. And in this country, where big pharma and big medical business runs the show (congress, etc.) it is likely that a "universal" healthcare system will result in a crappy, inefficient implementation that everyone will hate.
  - mechanical_fish 18y ago
    Look both ways before you cross the street. You're only one car accident away from being disabled for life.
    - goofygrin 18y ago
      And this has 0 impact on the cost of my health insurance. It has a real cost in terms of long term care insurance (which is horrendously expensive, but not what the OP was asking about).
mechanical_fish 18y ago
I'm not willing to pay an extra 10-20% taxes in order to have 'free" healthcare And just what percentage of your income goes toward healthcare right now -- both for you and for other people? My wife and I pay $600 per month in post-tax dollars for our health insurance, thanks to Massachusetts' healthcare plan which lets anybody buy group insurance through the state. (If it wasn't for Massachusetts, I'm not sure what we'd be doing for healthcare -- we're both independent contractors, and you can't buy health insurance through IEEE anymore -- so I consider myself lucky to get that rate. And if that sounds incredibly expensive to you -- well, congratulations on being 23 years old! But don't expect to be 23 forever!!) The median annual household income in Massachusetts is 60K. (Source: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/elections/keyraces/census/ma/ http://projects.washingtonpost.com/elections/keyraces/census... ). That's in the 25% federal tax bracket. (http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm ) State income tax here is 5%. So $600 per month post-tax is $857 per month pretax. Thus, the median couple in Massachusetts can expect to pay $10,285 per year for their own health insurance, or about 17% of the median annual income. Now, you could argue that your median couple might be getting their insurance "free" from their employer. In increasingly many cases this is not true -- fewer and fewer employers provide health insurance -- but even if it is true it merely raises the couple's real income to $70,285 -- of which 14.6% goes toward health care. Now, that doesn't count the percentage of their federal taxes that goes towards health care for themselves and other people. As a quick estimate, a handy website (http://www.nationalpriorities.org/taxday2008 http://www.nationalpriorities.org/taxday2008 ) tells me that 22% of each Massachusetts resident's tax dollar went toward health in 2006. 60K * 30% * 22% is $3960, so that's another 6.6% of pretax income toward health care. Thus, health care costs consume something between 20% and 24% of the median family income in MA. So, if you ask the median Massachusetts resident if they're willing to have taxes raised "10-20%" in exchange for free, guaranteed, universal healthcare the first-order answer is "hell, yes" -- even if you assume that the U.S. healthcare system would remain terribly inefficient relative to other systems worldwide. Which I would hope it wouldn't.
- goofygrin 18y ago
  As I said below, I pay $270 a month for my family with a $5k deductible. Worst case, I'm out $8200 before my 100% coinsurance kicks in. I am self employed as well, so this is my total out of pocket cost, no employer contribution. Without getting into specifics, $8,200 is less than 10% of my income. I realize I am not in the "average" spectrum, but realize thay my opinion on the subject is just as valid as those on the other end of the income spectrum. When I was broke, sure I wanted the government to pay for everything (college, etc.). Now that I'm not broke, I don't want the government to pay for anything (for anyone) if it's going to cost me money. It's funny how things work like that :).

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

run4yourlives 18y ago

> I'd likely be footing the bill for everyone else. You already are. The rates you pay are based on a pooled snapshot of medical usage of all the people that particular insurer has in that demographic. The only difference is that with a gov't plan the pool is larger. EDIT: Actually, I should correct myself. Most government plans have an additional difference - there are no costs based on usage. In a private plan, if you spend everyday at the hospital, you'll feel it in your next premium renewal, with a government plan this isn't always the case, although some countries implement user fees.

goofygrin 18y ago
This is very true. That said, I'd rather be in the pool of healthy, employed people than the unemployed moochers ;)
- run4yourlives 18y ago
  Don't plan on growing old then. :-) The best part about a government plan is that in the grand scheme of things, moochers are a small subset of the picture. It poses problems for sure, like "crowded" emerge rooms, (brackets because the crowds vanish if you have a real issue) but overall the numbers all show that it's cheaper both to the consumer and to the system overall.
  - goofygrin 18y ago
    Like I said our system is screwed up, but getting rid of it is a HUGE ordeal with millions of jobs likely to be cut and a HUGE expense to cut over to it. And in this country, where big pharma and big medical business runs the show (congress, etc.) it is likely that a "universal" healthcare system will result in a crappy, inefficient implementation that everyone will hate.
- mechanical_fish 18y ago
  Look both ways before you cross the street. You're only one car accident away from being disabled for life.
  - goofygrin 18y ago
    And this has 0 impact on the cost of my health insurance. It has a real cost in terms of long term care insurance (which is horrendously expensive, but not what the OP was asking about).

mechanical_fish 18y ago

I'm not willing to pay an extra 10-20% taxes in order to have 'free" healthcare And just what percentage of your income goes toward healthcare right now -- both for you and for other people? My wife and I pay $600 per month in post-tax dollars for our health insurance, thanks to Massachusetts' healthcare plan which lets anybody buy group insurance through the state. (If it wasn't for Massachusetts, I'm not sure what we'd be doing for healthcare -- we're both independent contractors, and you can't buy health insurance through IEEE anymore -- so I consider myself lucky to get that rate. And if that sounds incredibly expensive to you -- well, congratulations on being 23 years old! But don't expect to be 23 forever!!) The median annual household income in Massachusetts is 60K. (Source: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/elections/keyraces/census/ma/ http://projects.washingtonpost.com/elections/keyraces/census... ). That's in the 25% federal tax bracket. (http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm ) State income tax here is 5%. So $600 per month post-tax is $857 per month pretax. Thus, the median couple in Massachusetts can expect to pay $10,285 per year for their own health insurance, or about 17% of the median annual income. Now, you could argue that your median couple might be getting their insurance "free" from their employer. In increasingly many cases this is not true -- fewer and fewer employers provide health insurance -- but even if it is true it merely raises the couple's real income to $70,285 -- of which 14.6% goes toward health care. Now, that doesn't count the percentage of their federal taxes that goes towards health care for themselves and other people. As a quick estimate, a handy website (http://www.nationalpriorities.org/taxday2008 http://www.nationalpriorities.org/taxday2008 ) tells me that 22% of each Massachusetts resident's tax dollar went toward health in 2006. 60K * 30% * 22% is $3960, so that's another 6.6% of pretax income toward health care. Thus, health care costs consume something between 20% and 24% of the median family income in MA. So, if you ask the median Massachusetts resident if they're willing to have taxes raised "10-20%" in exchange for free, guaranteed, universal healthcare the first-order answer is "hell, yes" -- even if you assume that the U.S. healthcare system would remain terribly inefficient relative to other systems worldwide. Which I would hope it wouldn't.

goofygrin 18y ago
As I said below, I pay $270 a month for my family with a $5k deductible. Worst case, I'm out $8200 before my 100% coinsurance kicks in. I am self employed as well, so this is my total out of pocket cost, no employer contribution. Without getting into specifics, $8,200 is less than 10% of my income. I realize I am not in the "average" spectrum, but realize thay my opinion on the subject is just as valid as those on the other end of the income spectrum. When I was broke, sure I wanted the government to pay for everything (college, etc.). Now that I'm not broke, I don't want the government to pay for anything (for anyone) if it's going to cost me money. It's funny how things work like that :).