Backdoor to socialized medicine?

[abell]

[quote=briansd1]There are all kinds of unfairness. We can only work to reduce them.

I personally think that employer provided health care is unfair. And I’d rather see a single payer system funded by income taxes.

For example, John is equally qualified as Jane in every respect. They are paid the same in salary at the same company.

John is single and healthy and his health plan costs the company $200/mo.

Jane has 3 kids and a husband who is a self employed carpenter so he gets his insurance through his wife. Her family’s health plan costs the company $1,200/mo.

Why is Jane making $12,000/year more than John?

If I were John, I should be very upset because I’m doing the same job and getting compensated less.

Jane is also probably getting more “sick” days off because of her kids.[/quote]

Many companies do not pay the full cost of a family health care plan for their employees. Maybe it just applies to non union workers or employees for small companies. The companies that my husband or I have worked for seem to offer to pay approximately what it would cost for the employee for health insurance and if the employee wants family coverage, the employee has to cover the difference.

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]Company A likely pays more than Company B.

That’s the nature of the private market.

Older people cost more and pay more. Thus the older employees get compensated higher by their employers who pay higher health insurance premiums.

However, under the new legislation, with insurance exchanges that employers could join, Company A would pay the same as Company B.

This Health Care Bill creates a level playing field.[/quote]

Unless I misunderstand what you’re saying here, I’m pretty sure you’re not right here Brian. Company A & Company B would have access to the same policies and acess to the same rate schedules. In that regard there will be a level playing field. They would not, however, pay the same rates. Insurance can still be age rated. Insurance for 60 year olds will stil be more expensive than insurance for 20 year olds.

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]Company A likely pays more than Company B.

That’s the nature of the private market.

Older people cost more and pay more. Thus the older employees get compensated higher by their employers who pay higher health insurance premiums.

However, under the new legislation, with insurance exchanges that employers could join, Company A would pay the same as Company B.

This Health Care Bill creates a level playing field.[/quote]

Unless I misunderstand what you’re saying here, I’m pretty sure you’re not right here Brian. Company A & Company B would have access to the same policies and acess to the same rate schedules. In that regard there will be a level playing field. They would not, however, pay the same rates. Insurance can still be age rated. Insurance for 60 year olds will stil be more expensive than insurance for 20 year olds.

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]Company A likely pays more than Company B.

That’s the nature of the private market.

Older people cost more and pay more. Thus the older employees get compensated higher by their employers who pay higher health insurance premiums.

However, under the new legislation, with insurance exchanges that employers could join, Company A would pay the same as Company B.

This Health Care Bill creates a level playing field.[/quote]

Unless I misunderstand what you’re saying here, I’m pretty sure you’re not right here Brian. Company A & Company B would have access to the same policies and acess to the same rate schedules. In that regard there will be a level playing field. They would not, however, pay the same rates. Insurance can still be age rated. Insurance for 60 year olds will stil be more expensive than insurance for 20 year olds.

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]Company A likely pays more than Company B.

That’s the nature of the private market.

Older people cost more and pay more. Thus the older employees get compensated higher by their employers who pay higher health insurance premiums.

However, under the new legislation, with insurance exchanges that employers could join, Company A would pay the same as Company B.

This Health Care Bill creates a level playing field.[/quote]

Unless I misunderstand what you’re saying here, I’m pretty sure you’re not right here Brian. Company A & Company B would have access to the same policies and acess to the same rate schedules. In that regard there will be a level playing field. They would not, however, pay the same rates. Insurance can still be age rated. Insurance for 60 year olds will stil be more expensive than insurance for 20 year olds.

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]Company A likely pays more than Company B.

That’s the nature of the private market.

Older people cost more and pay more. Thus the older employees get compensated higher by their employers who pay higher health insurance premiums.

However, under the new legislation, with insurance exchanges that employers could join, Company A would pay the same as Company B.

This Health Care Bill creates a level playing field.[/quote]

Unless I misunderstand what you’re saying here, I’m pretty sure you’re not right here Brian. Company A & Company B would have access to the same policies and acess to the same rate schedules. In that regard there will be a level playing field. They would not, however, pay the same rates. Insurance can still be age rated. Insurance for 60 year olds will stil be more expensive than insurance for 20 year olds.

[Hobie]

Then Brian you should be in favor of the ‘Fair Tax’ or other similar flat tax and the government should spend within its means.

This system would require a fraction of the government employees. Just think how much money would become available to ‘help’ others.

[Hobie]

Then Brian you should be in favor of the ‘Fair Tax’ or other similar flat tax and the government should spend within its means.

This system would require a fraction of the government employees. Just think how much money would become available to ‘help’ others.

[Hobie]

Then Brian you should be in favor of the ‘Fair Tax’ or other similar flat tax and the government should spend within its means.

This system would require a fraction of the government employees. Just think how much money would become available to ‘help’ others.

[Hobie]

Then Brian you should be in favor of the ‘Fair Tax’ or other similar flat tax and the government should spend within its means.

This system would require a fraction of the government employees. Just think how much money would become available to ‘help’ others.

[Hobie]

Then Brian you should be in favor of the ‘Fair Tax’ or other similar flat tax and the government should spend within its means.

This system would require a fraction of the government employees. Just think how much money would become available to ‘help’ others.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]Then Brian you should be in favor of the ‘Fair Tax’ or other similar flat tax and the government should spend within its means.

This system would require a fraction of the government employees. Just think how much money would become available to ‘help’ others.[/quote]

I’m opposed to a flat tax, purely because of it’s regressiveness, but that aside, there’s no reason that it would result in any cost savings in administration. I’m presuming that assertion is based on it simplifying the tax code. It won’t. The tax rate schedule is among the simplest part of computing tax. The complications in the tax code are in defining income. Those definitions comprise most of the more than 5 million words in the US tax code. The tax rate sections are a tiny piece. It can be simplified. But in many cases, simplifying it invites exploitation of loop holes.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]Then Brian you should be in favor of the ‘Fair Tax’ or other similar flat tax and the government should spend within its means.

This system would require a fraction of the government employees. Just think how much money would become available to ‘help’ others.[/quote]

I’m opposed to a flat tax, purely because of it’s regressiveness, but that aside, there’s no reason that it would result in any cost savings in administration. I’m presuming that assertion is based on it simplifying the tax code. It won’t. The tax rate schedule is among the simplest part of computing tax. The complications in the tax code are in defining income. Those definitions comprise most of the more than 5 million words in the US tax code. The tax rate sections are a tiny piece. It can be simplified. But in many cases, simplifying it invites exploitation of loop holes.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]Then Brian you should be in favor of the ‘Fair Tax’ or other similar flat tax and the government should spend within its means.

This system would require a fraction of the government employees. Just think how much money would become available to ‘help’ others.[/quote]

I’m opposed to a flat tax, purely because of it’s regressiveness, but that aside, there’s no reason that it would result in any cost savings in administration. I’m presuming that assertion is based on it simplifying the tax code. It won’t. The tax rate schedule is among the simplest part of computing tax. The complications in the tax code are in defining income. Those definitions comprise most of the more than 5 million words in the US tax code. The tax rate sections are a tiny piece. It can be simplified. But in many cases, simplifying it invites exploitation of loop holes.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]Then Brian you should be in favor of the ‘Fair Tax’ or other similar flat tax and the government should spend within its means.

This system would require a fraction of the government employees. Just think how much money would become available to ‘help’ others.[/quote]

I’m opposed to a flat tax, purely because of it’s regressiveness, but that aside, there’s no reason that it would result in any cost savings in administration. I’m presuming that assertion is based on it simplifying the tax code. It won’t. The tax rate schedule is among the simplest part of computing tax. The complications in the tax code are in defining income. Those definitions comprise most of the more than 5 million words in the US tax code. The tax rate sections are a tiny piece. It can be simplified. But in many cases, simplifying it invites exploitation of loop holes.

[Author]

Posts