Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It will go something like this: Employers will do the math. If it is cheaper to pay the tax, they will offer no insurance at all. Employees will also do the math. They will likely go to these "exchanges" and see that healthcare is just too much, so they be taxed, but furiously demand government "DO SOMETHING!" The result will be single payer, national healthcare. We will either have a Canadian style system, or a total government ran juggernaut, where doctors and nurses and others are actually government employees.
Our taxes will go to that of Canada at a minimum. I ran my numbers and that would be an additional $10K/year out of my current take-home pay. Now this could be lower, because I don't know if Canada offers any sort of standard deduction. I have no idea if our level of care is better or worse, but it is clear Canada has some issues because many border hospitals advertise services to Canadians. In addition, private healthcare has popped up in Canada, because of whatever issues they are having (court rulings have upheld these private plans/places of care last I've read).
What will basically happen is a massive shift in government funding. If we keep the same level of care, and you don't want healthcare professionals bailing, taxes will have to be raised, and other revenue shifted. Say good-bye to higher ed funding, I can see that going away. K-12 will be told "what you have is what you have, you had best take care of it." No more new schools, and anything that must be built will likely not be brick and stone, but stick buildings wrapped in vinyl siding just like the homes that millions live in. There will be no way to keep the status quo for everything and fund healthcare as it is now....millions will have no disposable income and our device based economy will pretty much collapse quickly. No one will be able to afford $100+ cable TV bills, $100+ smart phone cell bills, $800 HDTVs, etc..
.
Why would employers not facing the mandate make them any less likely to not cover employees? Under this law they face $2000 per employee fines if they have 50+ employees. Right now they do not face that fine. Why would this mandate make them less likely to cover people?
The rate of people who opt to pay the fine in MA (which has a similar plan) is 1-2%. So where in MA are these hordes of people who choose to pay the fine instead? There are subsidies for lower income people.
Canada's health care system costs 11% of GDP, it is funded about 85% taxes and 15% privately. In the US our health care system is about 18% of GDP, funded about 50-60% taxes and 40% privately (a mix of insurance and private spending). Federal spending on medicare, medicaid, HHS, etc. comes to $800 billion a year, about 5.5% of GDP alone. So in Canada, about 9% of all money earned is payed in taxes for health care. In the US about (drumroll) 10% of money earned is payed in taxes for health care. But we get to pay a ton more in private spending on top of that. We already pay more in taxes for health care than Canadians. I can't find the stats a the moment, but in real dollar terms we pay more in taxes already for health care than Canadians.
Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.
In actuality, taxes
are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent.
The issue about health care crowding out other expenses is a good one, but the Affordable Care Act was designed to address it. Of the 100 trillion or so in long term deficits the US is facing about 70-80 trillion are due to health programs.
The ACA sets up commissions to study medicare to find ways to keep costs at a reasonable level, it funds pilot programs to reduce costs and comparative effectiveness.
Why would employers not facing the mandate make them any less likely to not cover employees? Under this law they face $2000 per employee fines if they have 50+ employees. Right now they do not face that fine. Why would this mandate make them less likely to cover people?
Indiana University is paying just under $200,000,000 in healthcare for 17,000 employees, which covers over 30,000 people. They offer a decent plan, so many families opt to take the university insurance. Under Obamacare, they could toss the insurance plan totally, and pay the tax of $34,000,000. That is a savings of $164M dollars to the university! It is a pure numbers game. Most insurance plans for two adults (husband and wife) cost around $12,000. Why would a business pay an extra $10,000 to deal with the headache that is healthcare? This will come about, it was designed this way to make this happen. The private and local public sectors are getting sick dealing with "healthcare."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Park Chung Hee
The rate of people who opt to pay the fine in MA (which has a similar plan) is 1-2%. So where in MA are these hordes of people who choose to pay the fine instead? There are subsidies for lower income people.
You can never look at something like Romneycare and compare it with Obamacare. Obamacare spreads Romneycare to the US borders. Here is an example: One larger company located in Boston has officers throughout the US. Companies are still thought of as the place to get healthcare benefits, so that company has to offer a plan anyways to deal with hundreds to thousands of employees nationwide, if not worldwide. Also, people who opt to pay the fine are just the gamblers who wouldn't pay for insurance even if it was offered. You see, this is nothing more than a tax grab. The welfare population is a huge, massive drain on healthcare, and the government doesn't like it when the productive class doesn't pay their fair share. This really just seems like one big push to force healthy 21-30 year old singles into the system. A large % of this group will be healthy, and even if they will use the system since they are paying, chances are for most it won't be just a couple of doctor visits a year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Park Chung Hee
I can't find the stats a the moment, but in real dollar terms we pay more in taxes already for health care than Canadians.
Comparing Canada to the US, or France to the US, or anything else to the US is pointless. Here is a good example. Edmonton, Alberta is about as big as Indianapolis. On one travel forum, someone asked some locals where the ghetto/unsafe areas were. They were met with a big laugh. Someone said the "rough" part of Edmonton was a small area about two square city blocks. I read the same thing about Calgary, also a city with close to or over one million people. Compare that to US cities with around a million people. Indy has square miles of blight, filled with 100% consumers. We are talking tens of thousands, if not a hundred thousand people on the dole. When you hear of these stories of gang bangers getting shot and bandaged up, you think they are actually paying for that? We will have thousands shot, treated on the taxpayer's dime. How many thousands of people are shot in Canada? What about France?
People have to understand that culture plays a huge part in what will shape our healthcare future. Say we get the Canadian system. If US citizens demand twice the number of doctor visits, it stands to reason our system will cost more. If the new system treats 30% more non-taxpaying, welfare benefit types, it stands to reason that remaining people in the country, the taxpayers, will have to pay additional funds to cover the poor. These are the types of numbers and facts one has to look out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Park Chung Hee
Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.
That Denver newspaper article/letter is making the rounds. Big deal. I found it nothing more than a pro-single payer cheerleading piece. If the author leans left, I would expect such a letter. If the author leaned right, I would expect something different. I spoke with a young lawyer years ago. Originally from Calgary. Said K-12 in Canada is amazing. Said, at least back then, their higher education wasn't as great as US. His family went from India to Canada, then to the US. He followed, went to undergrand then law school here. Another Canadian, truck driver, complained about his wife having to show up for a procedure twice, and get told it was cancled, finally getting what she needed. He said that in one instance, the doctor just took a personal day...no accountability...at least back then.
Things change, and maybe Canada's system is a complete 180. Maybe their higher education has gotten better. I don't know. I do know Canada seems like an example of Carmel vs. Indy: Carmel has none of the lower income problems that burden Indy's social services. This means Carmel gets to have lower property taxes, but has very nice stuff. Some facts I've read are that 11% of the Canadian population lives in poverty vs. 15% in the US. But I don't know how Canada defines poverty, nor do I know if their lower income people have more, the same, or less usage of the healthcare system up there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Park Chung Hee
The issue about health care crowding out other expenses is a good one, but the Affordable Care Act was designed to address it.
The fact is, the left wants everyone to believe that cutting out insurance companies will be some sort of savior when it comes to cost. Well, Indiana University, back in the late 2000s, formed a committee to study healthcare. They were paying out around $156M, with less than $10M going to their "provider," or more like middle man, the insurance company. The left never wants to villify the hospital CEOs, or the six-figure wages of doctors, or the nurses I know who work at hospitals making $80K/year. They can totally bypass the health insurance companies, but something has to replace it, which means higher taxes if it is a government managing body or quasi-government body. Eventually paycuts in the 10-20% range will have to affect all upper leve wage earners in the field to really save some money.
These quotes were all taken from your one post. I could answer a lot of your questions, but I won't. Educate yourself and then you can spout facts instead of "ifs."
People have to understand that culture plays a huge part in what will shape our healthcare future. Say we get the Canadian system. If US citizens demand twice the number of doctor visits, it stands to reason our system will cost more. If the new system treats 30% more non-taxpaying, welfare benefit types, it stands to reason that remaining people in the country, the taxpayers, will have to pay additional funds to cover the poor. These are the types of numbers and facts one has to look out.
Sounds like you're making reference to the Appalachian Region. The Appalachian Region per capita personal transfer payments (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) were higher than the U.S. average in the Appalachian portion of every state except Georgia, and they increased significantly from 2007 to 2009 throughout Appalachia. Per capita transfer payments were more than 25% higher than the national average in Appalachian Kentucky, New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. In Appalachian Kentucky, they were 35% higher than the U.S. average.
All five Appalachian subregions had significantly lower per capita incomes than the nation as a whole. Per capita incomes tend to be relatively higher in Northern and Southern Appalachia and lowest in Central Appalachia. In Central Appalachia, per capita personal income was only 68% of the national average in 2009, and per capita market income (personal income less transfer payments) was just $15,964, nearly half the national average.
BTW, Appalachia is a Red State region. Shame on that socialist Obama for having compassion and looking out for the interest of the uneducated poor who have duped into voting against their own interest. Shameless!!!!
Sounds like you're making reference to the Appalachian Region. The Appalachian Region per capita personal transfer payments (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) were higher than the U.S. average in the Appalachian portion of every state except Georgia, and they increased significantly from 2007 to 2009 throughout Appalachia. Per capita transfer payments were more than 25% higher than the national average in Appalachian Kentucky, New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. In Appalachian Kentucky, they were 35% higher than the U.S. average.
All five Appalachian subregions had significantly lower per capita incomes than the nation as a whole. Per capita incomes tend to be relatively higher in Northern and Southern Appalachia and lowest in Central Appalachia. In Central Appalachia, per capita personal income was only 68% of the national average in 2009, and per capita market income (personal income less transfer payments) was just $15,964, nearly half the national average.
BTW, Appalachia is a Red State region. Shame on that socialist Obama for having compassion and looking out for the interest of the uneducated poor who have duped into voting against their own interest. Shameless!!!!
giving government handouts so the working class people have to supply welfare and handouts to the lazy is NOT compassion by any means. its immoral and against the founding father principles.
Obama is the most anti-american president ever. he makes Jimmy Carter and FDR look like hard core founding father americans.
These quotes were all taken from your one post. I could answer a lot of your questions, but I won't. Educate yourself and then you can spout facts instead of "ifs."
Likely no big loss to me or others, as most people answer questions with some political bias anyway. As far as getting educated, I've already posted Canadian tax rates. If Canada doesn't have a standard deduction like the US, I would pay thousands more in national and provincial taxes. I have no idea if my healthcare would be better or not, since I don't live in Canada and use that system. If you are so enlightened, then share with the forum all that you know. I really have no questions, what will be is what will be. If my taxes skyrocket, I get a job that pays less for a better life, less stress, and doing what I want. Let others pay high taxes and work hard to fund my healthcare and whatever else I want (subsidized rent, food stamps, subsidized daycare, disability insurance, etc.).
Seriously, tell us the breakdown between Canada and the US. What will taxes be like here in the US? How many people in Canada are shot, don't pay anything into the system, yet get $50K-$200K in taxpayer provided healthcare? What are smoking rates like in Canada, and how does that relate to healthcare and payouts? Obesity? Alcohol consumption?
giving government handouts so the working class people have to supply welfare and handouts to the lazy is NOT compassion by any means. its immoral and against the founding father principles.
Obama is the most anti-american president ever. he makes Jimmy Carter and FDR look like hard core founding father americans.
Are you equating being poor with being lazy? I guess you propose that we put the mentally challenged to sleep? What do you suggest we do with the elderly? How about discarding those veterans who proudly served our nation but can no longer work because of a service connected injury? "Thank you for your service now can you quickly die because the working class folks don't believe in handouts!!!" What about the child who suffers from an aliment caused by contamination do to the passage of some obscure environmental deregulation law? Let me guess . . . put the child to death because it is a burden to society. Broadrippleguy, I can give you a laundry list of situations where an individual could be in dire need medical assistance and their work ethic would not be the issue.
If the founding father's principles were as perfect as you make them out to be then the passage of 14th amendment would not have been necessary. Women would have had the right to vote from the very beginning. The Trail of Tears would not have existed in Native American history and this debate would be nil and void.
Since you brought up Obama could you please kindly provide attribution to back up your most anti-american president claim?
giving government handouts so the working class people have to supply welfare and handouts to the lazy is NOT compassion by any means. its immoral and against the founding father principles.
Obama is the most anti-american president ever. he makes Jimmy Carter and FDR look like hard core founding father americans.
If u want to become mayor of indianapolis some day choose better words and stop with the mass generalizations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Alex P. Keaton must be your role model.
