Backdoor to socialized medicine?

[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.

[briansd1]

[quote=SK in CV]

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.[/quote]

Yes. you are correct.

If you look at any insurance billing statement you’ll see each employee listed and how much the premium is for each.

Most HR departments prepare annual compensation statements detailing salary and benefits. Those statements are not necessarily passed out to employees but executives see them.

[quote=abell]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.[/quote]

I think that it’s rare.

My John-and-Jane example was simplified. But I believe that most companies charge some amount (perhaps $20) out of each pay check for single insurance coverage. They charge a greater amount (perhaps $50) for family coverage but not the full difference.

I have a friend who works part-time, just to get out of the house, and so that her husband (who is self-employed) and child are covered.

[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.
[/quote]

A flat tax is very regressive.

Actually I support a higher percentage tax on higher income earners.

I also support social security and medicare tax on all income and not just the first portion of income.

[briansd1]

[quote=SK in CV]

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.[/quote]

Yes. you are correct.

If you look at any insurance billing statement you’ll see each employee listed and how much the premium is for each.

Most HR departments prepare annual compensation statements detailing salary and benefits. Those statements are not necessarily passed out to employees but executives see them.

[quote=abell]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.[/quote]

I think that it’s rare.

My John-and-Jane example was simplified. But I believe that most companies charge some amount (perhaps $20) out of each pay check for single insurance coverage. They charge a greater amount (perhaps $50) for family coverage but not the full difference.

I have a friend who works part-time, just to get out of the house, and so that her husband (who is self-employed) and child are covered.

[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.
[/quote]

A flat tax is very regressive.

Actually I support a higher percentage tax on higher income earners.

I also support social security and medicare tax on all income and not just the first portion of income.

[briansd1]

[quote=SK in CV]

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.[/quote]

Yes. you are correct.

If you look at any insurance billing statement you’ll see each employee listed and how much the premium is for each.

Most HR departments prepare annual compensation statements detailing salary and benefits. Those statements are not necessarily passed out to employees but executives see them.

[quote=abell]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.[/quote]

I think that it’s rare.

My John-and-Jane example was simplified. But I believe that most companies charge some amount (perhaps $20) out of each pay check for single insurance coverage. They charge a greater amount (perhaps $50) for family coverage but not the full difference.

I have a friend who works part-time, just to get out of the house, and so that her husband (who is self-employed) and child are covered.

[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.
[/quote]

A flat tax is very regressive.

Actually I support a higher percentage tax on higher income earners.

I also support social security and medicare tax on all income and not just the first portion of income.

[briansd1]

[quote=SK in CV]

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.[/quote]

Yes. you are correct.

If you look at any insurance billing statement you’ll see each employee listed and how much the premium is for each.

Most HR departments prepare annual compensation statements detailing salary and benefits. Those statements are not necessarily passed out to employees but executives see them.

[quote=abell]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.[/quote]

I think that it’s rare.

My John-and-Jane example was simplified. But I believe that most companies charge some amount (perhaps $20) out of each pay check for single insurance coverage. They charge a greater amount (perhaps $50) for family coverage but not the full difference.

I have a friend who works part-time, just to get out of the house, and so that her husband (who is self-employed) and child are covered.

[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.
[/quote]

A flat tax is very regressive.

Actually I support a higher percentage tax on higher income earners.

I also support social security and medicare tax on all income and not just the first portion of income.

[briansd1]

[quote=SK in CV]

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.[/quote]

Yes. you are correct.

If you look at any insurance billing statement you’ll see each employee listed and how much the premium is for each.

Most HR departments prepare annual compensation statements detailing salary and benefits. Those statements are not necessarily passed out to employees but executives see them.

[quote=abell]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.[/quote]

I think that it’s rare.

My John-and-Jane example was simplified. But I believe that most companies charge some amount (perhaps $20) out of each pay check for single insurance coverage. They charge a greater amount (perhaps $50) for family coverage but not the full difference.

I have a friend who works part-time, just to get out of the house, and so that her husband (who is self-employed) and child are covered.

[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.
[/quote]

A flat tax is very regressive.

Actually I support a higher percentage tax on higher income earners.

I also support social security and medicare tax on all income and not just the first portion of income.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
Unless ObamaCare (which I admit I haven’t read through the XXX pages of documents) has a way of ensuring that every company pays the same amount for the same coverage
[/quote]

Same amount for same coverage and same age, yes.

Same amount for same coverage for different age, no. Because each insured is age rated. If you’re older, the insurance costs more.

It’s the nature of private insurance.

Nothing new here. It’s been like that.

As SK posted, the insurance exchanges (a feature of the bill) allow businesses to have access to the same rate schedules. But individual employees are still age rated within those schedules.

[quote=flu]
But why is this extra cost a “benefit” for every other employee that is taxed more?
[/quote]

Because they get more value. If the company didn’t offer health insurance but paid a higher salary so employees could buy their own insurance, that higher salary would be taxed.

If the company gives you a personal family vacation worth $10,000, that’s a taxable benefit to you.

Only generous Cadillac health plans would be taxed.

[quote=flu]
Cause/effect relationship #1: Would some of your best health/most capable employee just get pissed and leave and go work for Company B, and wouldn’t Company A end up having issues to remain competitive?
[/quote]

No that would not happen. Nobody would leave because of health insurance.

A 30 year old’s insurance benefits would be the same at Company A as it would at Company B.

But if Company A has a higher proportion of older employees, then its total health care expenses would be higher than Company B.

Older riskier employees cost more to insure. That’s the nature of insurance.

That “problem” you identify has been a problem. Nothing new. Except that, so far, there aren’t insurance exchanges to make some advantageous rate schedules available to all companies.

Thanks to insurance exchanges, Company A would be pay the same rate as Company B for the a 30 year old or a 50 year old employee

Company A
John 50yo $500
Jake 50yo $500
Don 35yo $400

Total $1,400

Company B

Dave 50yo $500
Jane 35yo $400
Joe 35yo $400

Total $1,300 Company B pays $100 less in total.

Without this bill and the insurance exchanges, Company A could be paying $550 for each 50yo and $435 for each 35yo because it’s a “riskier company.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
Unless ObamaCare (which I admit I haven’t read through the XXX pages of documents) has a way of ensuring that every company pays the same amount for the same coverage
[/quote]

Same amount for same coverage and same age, yes.

Same amount for same coverage for different age, no. Because each insured is age rated. If you’re older, the insurance costs more.

It’s the nature of private insurance.

Nothing new here. It’s been like that.

As SK posted, the insurance exchanges (a feature of the bill) allow businesses to have access to the same rate schedules. But individual employees are still age rated within those schedules.

[quote=flu]
But why is this extra cost a “benefit” for every other employee that is taxed more?
[/quote]

Because they get more value. If the company didn’t offer health insurance but paid a higher salary so employees could buy their own insurance, that higher salary would be taxed.

If the company gives you a personal family vacation worth $10,000, that’s a taxable benefit to you.

Only generous Cadillac health plans would be taxed.

[quote=flu]
Cause/effect relationship #1: Would some of your best health/most capable employee just get pissed and leave and go work for Company B, and wouldn’t Company A end up having issues to remain competitive?
[/quote]

No that would not happen. Nobody would leave because of health insurance.

A 30 year old’s insurance benefits would be the same at Company A as it would at Company B.

But if Company A has a higher proportion of older employees, then its total health care expenses would be higher than Company B.

Older riskier employees cost more to insure. That’s the nature of insurance.

That “problem” you identify has been a problem. Nothing new. Except that, so far, there aren’t insurance exchanges to make some advantageous rate schedules available to all companies.

Thanks to insurance exchanges, Company A would be pay the same rate as Company B for the a 30 year old or a 50 year old employee

Company A
John 50yo $500
Jake 50yo $500
Don 35yo $400

Total $1,400

Company B

Dave 50yo $500
Jane 35yo $400
Joe 35yo $400

Total $1,300 Company B pays $100 less in total.

Without this bill and the insurance exchanges, Company A could be paying $550 for each 50yo and $435 for each 35yo because it’s a “riskier company.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
Unless ObamaCare (which I admit I haven’t read through the XXX pages of documents) has a way of ensuring that every company pays the same amount for the same coverage
[/quote]

Same amount for same coverage and same age, yes.

Same amount for same coverage for different age, no. Because each insured is age rated. If you’re older, the insurance costs more.

It’s the nature of private insurance.

Nothing new here. It’s been like that.

As SK posted, the insurance exchanges (a feature of the bill) allow businesses to have access to the same rate schedules. But individual employees are still age rated within those schedules.

[quote=flu]
But why is this extra cost a “benefit” for every other employee that is taxed more?
[/quote]

Because they get more value. If the company didn’t offer health insurance but paid a higher salary so employees could buy their own insurance, that higher salary would be taxed.

If the company gives you a personal family vacation worth $10,000, that’s a taxable benefit to you.

Only generous Cadillac health plans would be taxed.

[quote=flu]
Cause/effect relationship #1: Would some of your best health/most capable employee just get pissed and leave and go work for Company B, and wouldn’t Company A end up having issues to remain competitive?
[/quote]

No that would not happen. Nobody would leave because of health insurance.

A 30 year old’s insurance benefits would be the same at Company A as it would at Company B.

But if Company A has a higher proportion of older employees, then its total health care expenses would be higher than Company B.

Older riskier employees cost more to insure. That’s the nature of insurance.

That “problem” you identify has been a problem. Nothing new. Except that, so far, there aren’t insurance exchanges to make some advantageous rate schedules available to all companies.

Thanks to insurance exchanges, Company A would be pay the same rate as Company B for the a 30 year old or a 50 year old employee

Company A
John 50yo $500
Jake 50yo $500
Don 35yo $400

Total $1,400

Company B

Dave 50yo $500
Jane 35yo $400
Joe 35yo $400

Total $1,300 Company B pays $100 less in total.

Without this bill and the insurance exchanges, Company A could be paying $550 for each 50yo and $435 for each 35yo because it’s a “riskier company.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
Unless ObamaCare (which I admit I haven’t read through the XXX pages of documents) has a way of ensuring that every company pays the same amount for the same coverage
[/quote]

Same amount for same coverage and same age, yes.

Same amount for same coverage for different age, no. Because each insured is age rated. If you’re older, the insurance costs more.

It’s the nature of private insurance.

Nothing new here. It’s been like that.

As SK posted, the insurance exchanges (a feature of the bill) allow businesses to have access to the same rate schedules. But individual employees are still age rated within those schedules.

[quote=flu]
But why is this extra cost a “benefit” for every other employee that is taxed more?
[/quote]

Because they get more value. If the company didn’t offer health insurance but paid a higher salary so employees could buy their own insurance, that higher salary would be taxed.

If the company gives you a personal family vacation worth $10,000, that’s a taxable benefit to you.

Only generous Cadillac health plans would be taxed.

[quote=flu]
Cause/effect relationship #1: Would some of your best health/most capable employee just get pissed and leave and go work for Company B, and wouldn’t Company A end up having issues to remain competitive?
[/quote]

No that would not happen. Nobody would leave because of health insurance.

A 30 year old’s insurance benefits would be the same at Company A as it would at Company B.

But if Company A has a higher proportion of older employees, then its total health care expenses would be higher than Company B.

Older riskier employees cost more to insure. That’s the nature of insurance.

That “problem” you identify has been a problem. Nothing new. Except that, so far, there aren’t insurance exchanges to make some advantageous rate schedules available to all companies.

Thanks to insurance exchanges, Company A would be pay the same rate as Company B for the a 30 year old or a 50 year old employee

Company A
John 50yo $500
Jake 50yo $500
Don 35yo $400

Total $1,400

Company B

Dave 50yo $500
Jane 35yo $400
Joe 35yo $400

Total $1,300 Company B pays $100 less in total.

Without this bill and the insurance exchanges, Company A could be paying $550 for each 50yo and $435 for each 35yo because it’s a “riskier company.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
Unless ObamaCare (which I admit I haven’t read through the XXX pages of documents) has a way of ensuring that every company pays the same amount for the same coverage
[/quote]

Same amount for same coverage and same age, yes.

Same amount for same coverage for different age, no. Because each insured is age rated. If you’re older, the insurance costs more.

It’s the nature of private insurance.

Nothing new here. It’s been like that.

As SK posted, the insurance exchanges (a feature of the bill) allow businesses to have access to the same rate schedules. But individual employees are still age rated within those schedules.

[quote=flu]
But why is this extra cost a “benefit” for every other employee that is taxed more?
[/quote]

Because they get more value. If the company didn’t offer health insurance but paid a higher salary so employees could buy their own insurance, that higher salary would be taxed.

If the company gives you a personal family vacation worth $10,000, that’s a taxable benefit to you.

Only generous Cadillac health plans would be taxed.

[quote=flu]
Cause/effect relationship #1: Would some of your best health/most capable employee just get pissed and leave and go work for Company B, and wouldn’t Company A end up having issues to remain competitive?
[/quote]

No that would not happen. Nobody would leave because of health insurance.

A 30 year old’s insurance benefits would be the same at Company A as it would at Company B.

But if Company A has a higher proportion of older employees, then its total health care expenses would be higher than Company B.

Older riskier employees cost more to insure. That’s the nature of insurance.

That “problem” you identify has been a problem. Nothing new. Except that, so far, there aren’t insurance exchanges to make some advantageous rate schedules available to all companies.

Thanks to insurance exchanges, Company A would be pay the same rate as Company B for the a 30 year old or a 50 year old employee

Company A
John 50yo $500
Jake 50yo $500
Don 35yo $400

Total $1,400

Company B

Dave 50yo $500
Jane 35yo $400
Joe 35yo $400

Total $1,300 Company B pays $100 less in total.

Without this bill and the insurance exchanges, Company A could be paying $550 for each 50yo and $435 for each 35yo because it’s a “riskier company.

[CardiffBaseball]

I would like to know how a flat tax is regressive? Most proposals exclude a certain amount of income automatically making it progressive.

Let’s say we had a 20% tax on all income over 50K.

Family A – 60K
Taxable income – 10k
Tax Paid – 10k*20% = 2K
Income Tax % – $2k/60K = 3.33%

Family B – 80K
Taxable Income – 30K
Tax Paid – $30k*20% = 6K
Income Tax % – 6k/80k = 7.5%

Family C – 150K
Taxable Income – 100K
Tax Paid – $100k*20% = 20k
Income Tax % – 20K/150K = 13.3%

[CardiffBaseball]

I would like to know how a flat tax is regressive? Most proposals exclude a certain amount of income automatically making it progressive.

Let’s say we had a 20% tax on all income over 50K.

Family A – 60K
Taxable income – 10k
Tax Paid – 10k*20% = 2K
Income Tax % – $2k/60K = 3.33%

Family B – 80K
Taxable Income – 30K
Tax Paid – $30k*20% = 6K
Income Tax % – 6k/80k = 7.5%

Family C – 150K
Taxable Income – 100K
Tax Paid – $100k*20% = 20k
Income Tax % – 20K/150K = 13.3%

[CardiffBaseball]

I would like to know how a flat tax is regressive? Most proposals exclude a certain amount of income automatically making it progressive.

Let’s say we had a 20% tax on all income over 50K.

Family A – 60K
Taxable income – 10k
Tax Paid – 10k*20% = 2K
Income Tax % – $2k/60K = 3.33%

Family B – 80K
Taxable Income – 30K
Tax Paid – $30k*20% = 6K
Income Tax % – 6k/80k = 7.5%

Family C – 150K
Taxable Income – 100K
Tax Paid – $100k*20% = 20k
Income Tax % – 20K/150K = 13.3%

[CardiffBaseball]

I would like to know how a flat tax is regressive? Most proposals exclude a certain amount of income automatically making it progressive.

Let’s say we had a 20% tax on all income over 50K.

Family A – 60K
Taxable income – 10k
Tax Paid – 10k*20% = 2K
Income Tax % – $2k/60K = 3.33%

Family B – 80K
Taxable Income – 30K
Tax Paid – $30k*20% = 6K
Income Tax % – 6k/80k = 7.5%

Family C – 150K
Taxable Income – 100K
Tax Paid – $100k*20% = 20k
Income Tax % – 20K/150K = 13.3%

[Author]

Posts