3 ms·

I read through the bill and there are no specifics written on how the entire thing is supposed to be funded, other than saying that payroll taxes will be increa

I read through the bill and there are no specifics written on how the entire thing is supposed to be funded, other than saying that payroll taxes will be increased to fund it. My guess is that once the numbers come out on how much tax would have to be paid that this bill would be dead.

yazaddaruvala 4y ago
Companies currently provide health insurance and pay per employee. Per employee costs go up due to health care payroll taxes. Per employee costs come down due to not paying for health insurance. Overall, net-neutral cost to companies and simplifies health care payments for hospitals, clinics, etc so fewer employees to explain and collect payments so cost of care comes down. Seems like a win - win - win.
- ceeplusplus 4y ago
  Health insurance is a constant cost per employee, effectively decreasing in percentage of income as income goes up. Payroll taxes scale up as your income goes up. So no, it's not net-neutral as it's highly redistributive. If single payer were implemented as a flat tax, then it would be net-neutral.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Having it scale is fine imo as it fights against the overtime/overwork issue where since the health costs are constant it’s better to overpay and overwork one employee than to hire two.
- RHSeeger 4y ago
  If you follow this specific thread, the discussion looks like this >>>> Person complaining about how his previous state-run health care system was awful >>> Person replying that your current plan will still be there, no one will force you to take the state run plan >> Person commenting on how funding for the bill will kill it > Response that funding will come from the money that companies were paying on health plans. So if everything in this one thread is true, then - Companies will continue to offer the health plan they currently offer - The state will provide a single payer health plan - The money that companies currently pay on health plans will pay for both of those, with no increase in cost to the employee Clearly that's not realistic.
  - theptip 4y ago
    It was later edited, but I think the bit where the thread diverges from your summary is > - Companies will continue to offer the health plan they currently offer I think the GP (GGP?) reading was that the current health plans would have to change; they can't duplicate the state mandatory coverage. (But they can build on top of it). So theoretically a $1k/mo plan paid by the employer might turn into a $400/mo plan for extra coverage, and the baseline would cost $600/mo and that part would be taken over by the state. Best-case they can streamline that portion and decrease the cost through economy of scale; worst-case you have 2x the operating costs for two different insurance plans and the quality goes down because of the duplication and billing uncertainty for providers. (I'd hope that the bit covered by the state would be good enough for many people to have as their only coverage though).

yazaddaruvala 4y ago

Companies currently provide health insurance and pay per employee. Per employee costs go up due to health care payroll taxes. Per employee costs come down due to not paying for health insurance. Overall, net-neutral cost to companies and simplifies health care payments for hospitals, clinics, etc so fewer employees to explain and collect payments so cost of care comes down. Seems like a win - win - win.

ceeplusplus 4y ago
Health insurance is a constant cost per employee, effectively decreasing in percentage of income as income goes up. Payroll taxes scale up as your income goes up. So no, it's not net-neutral as it's highly redistributive. If single payer were implemented as a flat tax, then it would be net-neutral.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Having it scale is fine imo as it fights against the overtime/overwork issue where since the health costs are constant it’s better to overpay and overwork one employee than to hire two.
RHSeeger 4y ago
If you follow this specific thread, the discussion looks like this >>>> Person complaining about how his previous state-run health care system was awful >>> Person replying that your current plan will still be there, no one will force you to take the state run plan >> Person commenting on how funding for the bill will kill it > Response that funding will come from the money that companies were paying on health plans. So if everything in this one thread is true, then - Companies will continue to offer the health plan they currently offer - The state will provide a single payer health plan - The money that companies currently pay on health plans will pay for both of those, with no increase in cost to the employee Clearly that's not realistic.
- theptip 4y ago
  It was later edited, but I think the bit where the thread diverges from your summary is > - Companies will continue to offer the health plan they currently offer I think the GP (GGP?) reading was that the current health plans would have to change; they can't duplicate the state mandatory coverage. (But they can build on top of it). So theoretically a $1k/mo plan paid by the employer might turn into a $400/mo plan for extra coverage, and the baseline would cost $600/mo and that part would be taken over by the state. Best-case they can streamline that portion and decrease the cost through economy of scale; worst-case you have 2x the operating costs for two different insurance plans and the quality goes down because of the duplication and billing uncertainty for providers. (I'd hope that the bit covered by the state would be good enough for many people to have as their only coverage though).