Oregon considers nation’s first universal health plan
Wed Oct 9, 1:06 AM ET
By BRAD CAIN, Associated Press Writer
SALEM, Ore. - Every man, woman and child in Oregon would receive full medical insurance — no co-payments, no deductibles — under a measure on the Nov. 5 ballot that would create the first universal health care plan in the nation.
The question is whether Oregonians are willing to pay higher taxes for a plan so generous it would cover even acupuncture and massage therapy.
without arguing whether or not this is a good idea (it’s not), i was wondering if a business would actually save money because of this. my friend keeps arguing that since they wont have to pay for health insurance, for their employees, they will be saving money. i just don’t see how that is plausible, since they will be paying 11.5% tax on their payroll. help me out here.
It’s late here, so I’ll just post a few quick things. I’ll get back to you tomorrow (probably in GD).
First off, the likely incidence of payroll tax is mostly on workers, not businesses (regardless of the fact that the legal liability is on employers).
Secondly, it seems to be the case that full coverage is a good idea from the point of cost control. Deductibles are a poor way of controlling health costs.
Thirdly, whilst universal coverage is a good idea, just implementing a scheme such as this does not make the problems go away. Doing it well is very complicated. One state trying it would be foolhardy.
The OP is simply a Copy and Pasted verbatim AP article, which may be found at this website, among many others.
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2002/10/08/oregon_health_care/
Welcome to the SDMB, poink. We have a policy regarding the quoting of copyrighted works. In general it is best not to quote more than a paragraph or two. I have deleted the bulk to the article you quoted. A link to the article is always appreciated. The rest of the article can be read by following the link provided by Duck Duck Goose.
bibliophage
moderator GQ
This will mean that the state of Oregon will steal as much taxpayer money as they claim they need to make the system “work”, while at the same time giving them the power to decide who needs what kind of care.
As a resident and small employer in the state of Oregon, I feel it would be a disaster. We have experimented with the “Oregon Health Plan” which has been a drain on state resources and of little benefit to working people. Under the Oregon Health Plan, most full-time employees make too much to qualify. This leaves them without insurance (if not provided by the employer.) Or forces them to take P/T hours to qualify for the OHP.
A sad situation. I’m rather alarmed by the “womb to tomb” aspect of the proposed system. Language in the bill includes “long term care”, which could be translated to nursing home care. The state would be the principle bargainer with all health care facilities and providers. I feel this would drive the best doctors & providers out of the state.
And by adding a 3-11.5% payroll tax, and an up to 8% personal income tax increase, it would place a huge burden on the residents of Oregon. Oregon was the first state in the nation to offically declare a recession (October of 2001) and has the highest unemployment rate. Prices for goods & services would increase, and some employers may pull out of Oregon to relocate to more cost efficient locations.
Coupled with another ballot measure to increase the minimum wage to $6.90 p/h, with raises annually to reflect inflation; you’ve got a recipe for disaster. Outside of the Portland/metro area, we’re a poor state.
Passing measure 23 would increase prices of goods & services (as employers are known for passing on the increased price of doing business to the consumers), and swell the already bloated ranks of the unemployed.
Here’s a link to HealthCareforAllOregon, for those that may want to read a pro-measure 23 site.
I’m voting “NO!!”, myself.