Agreed. Taxes are very complex. The question was more to do with how you would offset those extra costs to businesses. Are you saying that this would simply be effectively a new tax?
As I said, I’m not a tax expert. I don’t see where there are any additional costs to businesses. The way I see it, businesses would have lower costs because they are not paying for their employees’ health care. Yes, they would be taxed on the money they’re not spending; but they wouldn’t be taxed 100% of this increase to their profits.
But the money has to come from somewhere. In your example, the employer pays 100% of the insurance premium. With UHC, the money would come from a payroll tax on the employee. At first glance, this seems to be a raw deal for the employee; however, the employee will retain his health benefits even if he becomes unemployed or moves to a company that does not pay 100% of the health care costs (which most don’t). The UHC tax would also be deducted from the individual’s income when he files his tax return, so his adjusted gross income would be lower. For those employees who already pay part of their premium through a payroll deduction, their UHC contribution would be the same amount as they’re already paying; so they wouldn’t lose any income, but they would be gaining guaranteed care even if they become unemployed.
Okay, most people only pay a portion of the premium. Where does the rest come from? By having standardised care with costs set by the UHC Administration, medical costs will be controlled. So part of the funding would come through reduced costs.
I feel that I am like most people in this country. We don’t rush to the doctor when we have a cold or the flu. Instead, we say, “Damn. I have the flu,” and stay home in bed for a couple of days. I’ve paid thousands and thousands of dollars in medical insurance premiums over my life, and yet I’ve barely used any of the benefits. Where did all of my money go? A very small precentage went to pay my own health care costs, which I enumerated earlier. The rest went to the carious insurance companies. Some of that money went to pay for other people’s medical care; people I will never know. Some of it went to keep the insurance companies in business (salaries, offices, utilities, etc.). And much of it went to the stockholders of the insurance companies. So a lot of my money (and the money of others who pay insurance premiums) goes into the pockets of people who have nothing to do with keeping me healthy. UHC would be a non-profit operation. (Nothing wrong with it if it did make a profit, of course.)
People will squeel about a new tax, but they’ll overlook the fact that they are no longer paying the same amount through private insurance contributions. In other words, they’ll be complaining about a new tax even though it’s not costing them any more. But they’ll also have a greatly improved safety net.
I have been advocating UHC for years. Now that I’m underemployed and do not have, nor can I afford, to pay for health care; and even though I am almost never sick enough to go to a doctor, I miss having coverage. If I get injured, I don’t want the ER doctor to say, “Let’s shuffle him off to the charity hosiptal,” as happened to the guy I mentioned earlier who had been shot. If I’m sick or injured, I want to be treated as quickly as possible. And I think that everyone should be done so as well. If I do get sick enough to see a doctor, I will simply go to a doctor rather than taking up valuable space in an ER. UHC will reduce the workload of many ERs (especially in large cities) and result in lower health care costs because the uninsured and underinsured will get needed treatment earlier, which is generally cheaper than emergency care.
[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
As I said, I’m not a tax expert. I don’t see where there are any additional costs to businesses. The way I see it, businesses would have lower costs because they are not paying for their employees’ health care. Yes, they would be taxed on the money they’re not spending; but they wouldn’t be taxed 100% of this increase to their profits.
[QUOTE]
I thought you said that the money formally going to health insurance premiums would simply go to the government. You also said that the portion of that money which came from employwers would no longer be tax deductible. You have to have increased costs to business from such a scenario. No?
The situation is mixed. Some employers pay 100%. Many do not.
Oh, I see.
Have you any idea what fixed costs and standardized care will do the the medical industry? I’m not accusing, I’m honestly asking.
Well, you give the impression that more went to shareholders than to pay for medical care. Can you back this up, or is it merely your opinion?
Yes, but will this really be a savings? Can you back any of this up?
I have to ask if you read the thread. Most of the argument you have brought up have been addressed. I’m not complaining or anything. I just wonder since you seem convinced about several of the questions that have been asked here if you have any information which could help the rest of us.
It is true that the money that the employers were paying for insurance would count toward their net income, and therefore would be taxed. On the other hand, the additional income tax would be less than the money that went to insurance premiums. 100% of the money paid to insurance companies goes to the insurance companies (but results in a lowering of net income and thus would result in a tax savings), but only a portion of the money that would no longer be paid to the insurance companies would go to the government as taxes. Sounds like a net increase to me
This is true. I was addressing your scenario where you said, “Some companies now simply pay all of the costs for their employers.”
Based on what other posters who live in other countries have said, UHC seems to be working very well. Why would standardised costs work in France, but not here?
I didn’t intend to imply that more went to shareholders than to medical care. But certainly in my case I’ve paid much more into the system than I’ve ever gotten out of it. And shareholders definitely do get a cut.
Other posters earlier in this thread have pointed out that emergency care tends to cost more than preventative care. Can you show that preventative care costs more than critical care?
I read the first two pages, then I fell behind. I apologise if things I’ve brought up have already been discussed. I’ll go back and read them later.
Let me just make it clear where I’m coming from. I believe in the principle that “Whatsoever thing thou doest. To the least of mine and lowest, That thou doest unto me! Unto me!” A Capitalist might say, “If he is like to die, let him die! And decrease the surplus poulation!” This is the current situation. “Gee, it’s too bad that 40 million Americans don’t have insurance. Their tough luck.” But I believe that to do good, is to become more like the Diety. Or if there is no Diety, then it is to become a more compassionate human being. 40 million is a number. But each one of those 40 million is a person.
What I’m trying to say in my posts is that we can’t worry about the money. The money will take care of itself. I believe (and I will go back and read the posts I’ve missed) that we are capable as a nation of balancing the books so that we can afford it. I think, without proof, that new taxes to pay for UHC can be offset by savings in lost productivity and the reduction of the need for “last minute” care. How much health care can we buy for the billions we’re spending in Iraq? Probably lots. It’s about choices. I think that it is more productive to spend money on medical care than to spend it on foreign adventures. And I only mention Iraq because it’s the latest of our massive expenditures. How many nuclear missiles, submarines, and aircraft carriers do we need?
I’ve thought for many, many years that it’s about time to beat our swords into ploughshares. I still think we need to do it.
Again, I’m confused. We are going to add people to the roles of those who are covered. Yet we are going to collect a net decrease in the amoung of premiums? Is that what you are saying? Can you point to a study which confirms that this is reasonable?
Well, there are several reasons. America spend far more on medical care than France does. You seem to think that most of this difference is profit. I agree that some of it is. But I don’t think that the extra profit in America really accounts for all of the difference. I don’t think it even accounts for most of it. Americans simply use more medical services (and perhaps more opulent services) than others do. I think there are many causes for this. Mostly cultural IMHO.
Certainly I am not claiming that there is no way it could work. I am merely suggesting that the question is not obvious.
Not in a definitive way over the whole system. But take mamograms, for instance. Early treatment of cancer is much cheaper than radical surgery in later stages. However, how much would it cost to giver every woman a mamogram every 6 months? 12 months? Again, I’m not claiming that there would be a net loss. In fact, I favor increasing the amount of preventative medical care available to Americans. Especially in the form of education. All I’m saying is that the situation is not as simple as you make it seem.
No problem. I’m not trying to be a jerk at all. I’m most certainly not trying to be a junior mod or anything like that. It just seemed like you had answered some of the questions raised earlier.
This is your opinion, and I applaud you for it.
I would appreciate it, however, if you did not make aspertions on my opinions. I consider myself a capatilist. However, I haven’t nor would I ever say anything like those quotes.
Yes, and those 40 million recieve something like 125 billion dollars in medical care each year. 40 million uninsured is not the same as 40 million who cannot get medical care.
Ok, but this is pretty irresponsible, don’t you think?
I have never experienced this in my life. 
I’m willing to believe that this may be true. But it will not happen if we ignore the concerns of those worried about such schemes.
There is also administrative savings.
How many would we wish we had if we had needed them? I’m being flipant. But national defence is akin to insurance, if you will.
I agree. I’m not at all sure this is one of those plowshears, though. But that is what debate is all about, no?