3 ms·

It’s still a tax hike, regardless of your rationalizing

by endisneigh 5y ago

ceejayoz 5y ago
Then a focus on tax rates instead of total cost is entirely disingenuous.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  Not really, there are people who get great health care for free from their employer, and others who get a greatly discounted rate. Their employers will not necessarily savings with their employees. The result for these employees could be more taxes for the same or worse care they’re already receiving. In aggregate I believe it’s the right move but let’s not act like everyone wins here.
  - DaveExeter 5y ago
    > Not really, there are people who get great health care for free from their employer It is not 'for free' it is part of your compensation! It's like saying your employer pays 6.2% + 1.45% in SS/Medicaid taxes 'for free'. That is part of your compensation.
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      I meant free in that you don’t pay a premium, but fair point.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > Not really, there are people who get great health care for free from their employer, and others are a greatly discounted rate, who will not necessarily share savings with their employees. Then require that savings be shared. Make it a legal requirement that any company that has employer-provided healthcare must rebate employees the premium costs if they opt-out.
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      That makes no sense, salaries would simply be adjusted to compensate. The kind of bureaucracy you’re proposing is why things are already so complicated to begin with.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        > That makes no sense, salaries would simply be adjusted to compensate. If you cut the salaries of employees who opt-out, but not those who don't, you'd be in very clear violation of the law I'm suggesting.
        endisneigh 5y ago
        No, what I’m saying is that they wouldn’t offer an alternative to the state run health care, as why would they anymore? No incentive.
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        I'm not seeing the downside.
        endisneigh 5y ago
        The downside is that you could be paying more taxes for something that you already had.
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        Then perhaps it's time to unlink employment and health care coverage entirely.
        endisneigh 5y ago
        No disagreement here.
throw0101a 5y ago
> It’s still a tax hike, regardless of your rationalizing You're already paying for health care coverage via monthly/annual premiums and via reduced salaries where your employer's portion is part of the 'total compensation' you get (but doesn't show up in your pay check). Even if the amount at the end stays exactly the same it may be an improvement because (a) there are no "in network" worries about going to the "wrong" hospital or getting the "wrong" doctor", and (b) it is universal coverage so (i) you may not have to worry about losing your job and losing coverage as well as (ii) you can change jobs and have the same (universal) coverage.

It’s still a tax hike, regardless of your rationalizing

ceejayoz 5y ago

Then a focus on tax rates instead of total cost is entirely disingenuous.

endisneigh 5y ago
Not really, there are people who get great health care for free from their employer, and others who get a greatly discounted rate. Their employers will not necessarily savings with their employees. The result for these employees could be more taxes for the same or worse care they’re already receiving. In aggregate I believe it’s the right move but let’s not act like everyone wins here.
- DaveExeter 5y ago
  > Not really, there are people who get great health care for free from their employer It is not 'for free' it is part of your compensation! It's like saying your employer pays 6.2% + 1.45% in SS/Medicaid taxes 'for free'. That is part of your compensation.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    I meant free in that you don’t pay a premium, but fair point.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > Not really, there are people who get great health care for free from their employer, and others are a greatly discounted rate, who will not necessarily share savings with their employees. Then require that savings be shared. Make it a legal requirement that any company that has employer-provided healthcare must rebate employees the premium costs if they opt-out.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    That makes no sense, salaries would simply be adjusted to compensate. The kind of bureaucracy you’re proposing is why things are already so complicated to begin with.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      > That makes no sense, salaries would simply be adjusted to compensate. If you cut the salaries of employees who opt-out, but not those who don't, you'd be in very clear violation of the law I'm suggesting.
      - endisneigh 5y ago
        No, what I’m saying is that they wouldn’t offer an alternative to the state run health care, as why would they anymore? No incentive.
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        I'm not seeing the downside.
        endisneigh 5y ago
        The downside is that you could be paying more taxes for something that you already had.
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        Then perhaps it's time to unlink employment and health care coverage entirely.
        endisneigh 5y ago
        No disagreement here.

throw0101a 5y ago

> It’s still a tax hike, regardless of your rationalizing You're already paying for health care coverage via monthly/annual premiums and via reduced salaries where your employer's portion is part of the 'total compensation' you get (but doesn't show up in your pay check). Even if the amount at the end stays exactly the same it may be an improvement because (a) there are no "in network" worries about going to the "wrong" hospital or getting the "wrong" doctor", and (b) it is universal coverage so (i) you may not have to worry about losing your job and losing coverage as well as (ii) you can change jobs and have the same (universal) coverage.