Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Would you pay 13% of your income to participate in Medicare?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:33 PM
Original message
Would you pay 13% of your income to participate in Medicare?
13% of income seems to be what alot of these gov plans consider reasonable. I wonder if people would be willing to pay 13% of their income to participate in Medicare or a similar single payer plan? The 13 % would stabilize Medicare I think. Better yet - you can pay 13% of your income for Medicare coverage or for private insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. Not unless I get a big raise, lol. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bbinacan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Me too. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:35 PM
Response to Original message
2. That's $812 a month on a salary of $75K a year.
and, no, most people can't cough up that much "extra" every month.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Will companies give their healthcare cost to the employee
would make it a closer question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
18. Let's assume for the moment that you don't have health care
through your company. That's the situation for a lot of small business owners and their employees, not to mention independent contractors (construction to software).

Your take home pay (after federal and state and local taxes) is likely $3500 a month, so we are talking about 1/4 of the after tax income. That's what most people in that income range will pay for rent or the mortgage ( they might be at, say $1200/month for that). Combined, it would take over half of their income, leaving $1500 a month for utilities, car payment, gas, car insurance, clothing, and food.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #18
33. But its a question of the difference between now and after
people may have other debt obligations besides the ones you mention, debts they could just carry. Any big shock causes another crisis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. My thought as well - I'm glad my employer pays but I may have to pay more with any reform
I suspect alot of people who think they want health insurance or single payer won't be excited if it costs real money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
20. The only way it works in my view
is the employees of mega corps that have been getting a relatively sweet deal, have to lose a few bucks a month, and the rest who have been shopping for individual policies need to be able to get covered for about the same cost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #20
35. I think so too - and a few buck may be thousands depending on income
but I think its the only way to get people in all income brackets and all employer situations covered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #7
26. I don't mind paying $300 to $400 a month for decent healthcare
insurance, but I'd rather it be paid through a modest tax increase that hits the wealthier harder than it hits me. They want me to work for slave wages, at least they can pay for me to have decent, but not gold plated, health care.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #26
40. Me too - but at 13% they would be paying alot more than those with lower incomes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #40
50. No, it's not 13% for EVERYONE
It's a requirement to purchase health care.

If you make $1M or $10M a year, it's the same cost... for a gold plated policy, about $20K a year. That's 2% and .2% respectively. For a more "standard" policy, divide by 2 or 3.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. I'm basing it on the percentage cap in the bill that is considered reasonable
benefits at work for my employees that is largely for health care is 25% for a single person or about 10,000 per year. its a similar percentage for me but then its more like 16,000 per year because I make more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
csziggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #26
43. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #26
88. and instead they force on us the most regressive back door tax,

effectively. the struggling middle class will be forced to pay what they can't afford (13% of their meager income just for premiums) for crappy/worthless policies, while the wealthy will be paying a tiny fraction of their income for Cadillac policies.

what a travesty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #88
100. So what do you support? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #100
102. Universal Health Care funded by progressive taxation,

like i said probably a million times before.


now your turn, what do YOU support?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #102
112. Sorry if I mischaracterized you. I am getting jumpy. I need a list of good guys and bad guys.
I also support universal health care for all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knixphan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 04:09 AM
Response to Reply #26
109. agreed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #7
99. I assume you are against single payer. So what do you favor? Status quo? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
86. and that's premiums only, that doesn't even include deductibles and copayments.


that's absolutely obscene. this is a total bonanza for insurance corps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #2
111. $975 by my math.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #111
113. hmmm...
$75,000 x .13 = $9,750 / 12 = $812.50

excludes any calculations related to taxes, tax credits, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #113
114. D'oh!
Divide by 12, moron.

My humble apologies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
5. Are you talking about individual or family?
Edited on Wed Sep-16-09 07:38 PM by pnwmom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. The trouble is those of us who have higher salaries have to make up for those who make less.
13% of someones salary making 20,000 per year won't come close to being enough. So many of us would have to pay alot more than 13000 to cover the rest of the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. And right now employers are (mostly) the ones doing the paying.
So for people with lower salaries -- and people with expensive conditions -- the benefit is a much higher proportion of their overall compensation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #17
27. Right - we clearly have to share the pain to get everyone covered
and some will benefit more while others will get pinched. 13% for some people - those with lower salaries or those who don't get any coverage due to serious conditions would be helped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #13
53. Yes, and that mostly comes from expected health care savings.
and, possibly, letting the bush tax cuts expire (if you make more than, say, $250K)

No new taxes on the middle class. But the requirement is a regressive tax on the middle earners (earn too much to qualify for subsidies, and not enough as to where this is negligible).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
42. I think they said family -
Edited on Wed Sep-16-09 07:50 PM by stray cat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #42
56. Family of four, mom, dad, in 30s and 40s and two kids.
Probably all in relatively good health.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TxRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #56
90. If it's for a family of 4 that's not too bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #42
118. Why won't you commit to supporting either single payer or a strong public option? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
6. no
I would not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. And why should we?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. Someone has to pay - health care may be a right but its not free of any expense
Not to many sugar daddys will pay ones bills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #14
92. Universal Health Care funded by progressive taxation IS THE SOLUTION.

fuck insurance companies, sneaky ultra-regressive new taxes on the middle class and right-wing talking points that some DU'ers can't resist spouting. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:38 PM
Response to Original message
9. Good question. I don't know the answer. I think not. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yodoobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
10. Isn't it like 2% now?
Edited on Wed Sep-16-09 07:39 PM by yodoobo
A 600% increase seems a tad steep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. Only the elderly are covered and we are not close to breaking even
13% is the estimate for reasonable health care expenses according to government plans it seems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. I'd be interested in where you read about the 13%. I haven't seen that.
On the other hand, if everyone was on a government plan, the govt. would be able to keep costs from rising the way they have been -- and even be able to force them down. The 13% might apply to maintaining the situation we have now -- which is unacceptable. There's no reason the US costs should be twice as high as other 1st world countries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #23
119. This poster is suspect. Always sowing discontent and never committing to an issue. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #10
64. 1.45 from employee 1.45 from employer
way underfunded
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Betsy Ross Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
11. Would my employer give me a raise because he didn't have
Edited on Wed Sep-16-09 07:41 PM by Betsy Ross
to provide health insurance? It's not a simple equation of what percent of your wages are you willing to pay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DesertFlower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
12. i'm giving away hubby's income, but
Edited on Wed Sep-16-09 07:42 PM by DesertFlower
that would be $19,500 a year or $1625 a month. that's a bit much. if it were like the UK where everyone is covered from pre-birth to death, it would be make sense, but not for medicare as it is now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
icymist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
15. Where did you arrive at 13% from? What gov plans are you referring?
Edited on Wed Sep-16-09 07:56 PM by icymist
13% seems like a lot unless the money employers are currently paying private companies are counted into this number. Anything else would hurt a lot of people and further stifle the economy IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. NY times had some estimates about a month ago that were part of the discussions in the senate
for when a trigger would occur - they were considering more than 13% to be unreasonable but up to that as ok. Also, on Chris Matthews tonight the number 13% was being thrown around for those whose insurance doesn't require subsidization by the government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
icymist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #22
62. Wow! Do these people have any idea how hard it is to survive
on low paying jobs that don't qualify for any assistance? I work as a nurse aide. Government says I make too much money to qualify for a grant towards furthering my education. In fact, on my job the healthcare cost way too much for me to afford.... about the 13% we're talking about. I had to choose between healthcare or an apartment to live in. I choose not to be homeless. The plan my employer has is with Grouphealth... a co-op! Now they want to take that choice away from me a force me to either take on a roommate or take to the streets? What the hell kind of choice is that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #62
67. Up to 300% of poverty line would be heavily subsidized but still hurt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
icymist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #67
71. Problem is that I'm not considered to be near the poverty line, however
the cost of housing in Western Washington State somehow is never factored into these guys figuring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 10:40 PM
Original message
300% of the poverty level is only a little more than $32,000 for a single person
and I don't believe any adjustments are made for where you live or what other obligations you have. And, if the trigger would kick in at 13%, that means a 12% premium would be acceptable and a 12% premium on $32,000 comes to $322.50/month.

In addition, the bills being kicked around allow for some big deductibles. HR3200 thinks a person can afford and additional $5,000 in "cost-sharing" (good luck if you have a chronic condition) plus anything that isn't covered, like vision and dental for adults.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #67
89. 300% of the poverty level is only a little more than $32,000 for a single person
Edited on Wed Sep-16-09 10:41 PM by dflprincess
and I don't believe any adjustments are made for where you live or what other obligations you have. And, if the trigger would kick in at 13%, that means a 12% premium would be acceptable and a 12% premium on $32,000 comes to $322.50/month.

In addition, the bills being kicked around allow for some big deductibles. HR3200 thinks a person can afford an additional $5,000 in "cost-sharing" (good luck if you have a chronic condition) plus anything that isn't covered, like vision and dental for adults.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #15
25. That is the cap for premiums in the Baucus Bill. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. Thanks for the reference!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLDCVADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
19. Nope n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madville Donating Member (743 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
21. How much would my supplemental policy be to cover the gaps?
How much would my supplemental policy be to cover the gaps? 13% plus another couple hundred a month to fill in the gaps, that sounds good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
subcomhd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
24. Hell Yes. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
W_HAMILTON Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
28. Maybe 10%, IF...
...it would pay for all the Medicare packages, i.e. traditional Medicare, doctor's visits (usually paid for through a separate program) and a prescription drug program (also normally a separate program). It may be a better deal than I could get through an employer, but the fact that I would essentially own my own healthcare, rather than being tied to an employer who provides it, would be enough to make me switch. That is why I want the public option to begin with.

Right now, approximately 5% of my pre-tax income goes towards paying for my healthcare plan (just my part of the contribution). So, if Medicare would provide all of those benefits I listed, I would happily double that total to be able to receive stress-free healthcare insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thelordofhell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
30. If the Supreme Court makes corporations people
Then sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
31. I think Medicare is not accepted by my doctors.

so no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLDCVADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #31
37. Same here
Our docs don't take Medicare, Medicaid or TriCare
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #37
106. All doctors should have to take all plans.
Or get out of the business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLDCVADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #106
117. I disagree n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uben Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
32. In a heartbeat!
Right now, I'm paying about 18% for a catastrophic policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #32
45. I think some of use who get employer subsidized insurance don't comprehend the benefit
or how expensive it really is on the free market. I hope some reform occurs that gives you a break! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:49 PM
Response to Original message
34. I would pay 13% of my income (in the form of additional taxes) for single payer. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
csziggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:49 PM
Response to Original message
36. Yes. My husband would probably end up with an increase in pay
Right now my husband's share of our health insurance is about 7% of his monthly income. I am sure that his employer pays a far higher percentage of his wages per month for their share. If the employer's share were part of my husband's income, 13% for Medicare would likely give him a net increase in take home pay.

When he paid into COBRA in 2002 while between jobs and while not covered with one job, the monthly payment was 50% of his previous take home. I don't even want to think what COBRA would cost these days. Probably more than he'd get from unemployment.

We would not have to worry about that if we were covered by Medicare. No worry about losing coverage between jobs, or paying massive amounts for COBRA, or being denied coverage, or being turned down for a job because of his age and how that would increase the insurance payments for the company.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek_sabre Donating Member (619 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:49 PM
Response to Original message
38. No thanks. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:49 PM
Response to Original message
39. It would not be 13% if paid for under a progressive tax system
Yet another benefit of tax-funded single payer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #39
47. It is progressive though - 13% of someone making 200,000 per year
pays the cost for those for who 13% is less than 2000 a year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #47
59. No, that's a flat fee. Progressive is when the percentage rises with income
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #59
63. True - right now the plan is to subsidize up to 300 X the poverty line
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #63
74. I think you mean 300%
Unless they're going to subsidize those making $3.4 million / year ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #47
120. What is the source of 13%? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
41. if
I could have the 16 percent that currently goes to health insurance, no problem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
44. Only if Medicare was adequately funded.
I know it's a popular program, but there is a problem with not being fully funded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #44
51. If we were all paying in what they want us to pay for insurance - I think it would be funded well
not sure but everyone would certainly be contributing more to the Medicare program.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #51
115. While that's correct, that is not the issue. Medicaid drs aren't being
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 04:58 PM by bobbolink
reimbursed in amounts that keeps the doctors going. As a result, those of us on Medicaid have a very hard time, if not IMPOSSIBLE time, finding a doctor. I understand that is happening more and more with Medicare.

Yet, it's not something that seems to be of much concern among "progressives". I guess as long as the muddleclass gets the care they want, that is all that matters.

If the increased money coming in (if a bill is passed) ISN'T spent to improve reimbursement in Medicaid and Medicare, we poor folk suffer. Does it matter?

We've already heard definitively that there will be large cuts in Medicare and Medicaid to pay for the reform. Where's the outrage on that?

I think that is the first clue that poor folk will be shafted in all of this. We simply don't have the support of the population at large. We are invisible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #51
121. So do you support Medicare or not? Why won't you commit? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lakeguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
46. yup
between what i pay and my company pays for my insurance coverage, it works out for us at least. plus, i wouldn't have to deal with insurance companies any more. that would almost be worth it alone. if we didn't have to pay copays, or not as much at least, we'd be ahead.

this must be based on current health care costs though? seems high. cost should go down if insurance companies were cut out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
biermeister Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:56 PM
Response to Original message
48. NO!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:56 PM
Response to Original message
49. Between my Medicate taken from my SSI and Mrs. WCGreen's
match at work for our primary insurance and then the deductables and prescriptions, we are payuing a little less than 11%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MichiganVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
52. Sure, just as soon as I sell everything I own so, God forbid, we don't tax the wealthy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zywiec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
55. No. I'm paying less than 2% now. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
57. Countdown is repeating the 13% off the top number in the Bachus bill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doremus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
58. I pay 25% now for crappier coverage. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #58
61. That stinks - and it is one big reason we need some sort of reform!
to keep people like yourself from covering the entire expense independently. I worry that reforms may not be enacted because many of us have a relatively sweet deal going we just don't really realize it. While others like yourself are paying through the nose and would be helped by any meaningful reform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doremus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #61
81. We've been paying our own insurance for years. It's gotten very expensive in the last 5.
It went from $550/mo to over $700 then $1000.

All this time I knew reform would come eventually, as soon as there were enough *other* people paying through the nose.

That time has finally come. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
margotb822 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
60. Well, if I move out of my apartment
WTF?!?!

Am I misunderstanding the word 'affordable'???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
65. I pay about 20% now and so does my employer
So 13% would net me about $1200 a year in savings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lisa0825 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
66. As a singe person with no dependents, I have paid almost nothing at most employers during my career.
The employer has paid the whole premium for the employee, and then the employee pays for dependents. Or I have paid a small amount, like up to $60 a month for one employer. 13% would come out to about $540 a month (if you take it out of the gross pay). That woud be a HUGE bill to suddenly have when I have been used to paying much less or nothing. So, I would repeat what others have asked... would this be assuming the employer will pass on the savings to me, so whatever was being paid toward my benefit I can now turn around and put toward that 13%? If not, then I would probably have to sell my house, because I can't afford a new $540 per month bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #66
69. I would guess as long as you were covered by the employer plan - there would be no added fee
unless they tax the benefit -
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lisa0825 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #69
72. Since the question mentioned single payer I assumed it meant we'd ALL be paying in,
Edited on Wed Sep-16-09 08:26 PM by Lisa0825
as opposed to still having employer-paid private insurance.

But still... in this "plan," would a single person with no dependents be paying the same percentage of their salary as a family of four?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #66
96. Yes, same here
I pay $22/wk for insurance now, including medical, dental, vision, life and short/long term disability. If I had to pay out 13% it would be $280/month, which is quite a difference.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
68. What if everyone paid in at normal Medicare rates?
I'm disabled and on Medicare, so I'm already paying about 13% since I don't have a lot of income, but what if everyone with a certain income paid in at regular rates, with lower rates for the very poor? Why wouldn't that work?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #68
70. Right now Medicare is losing money and not reimbursing at sufficient levels to cover costs
We would have to pay more - but he question would really be how much more - I don't really know how the expenses would play out if everyone participated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #70
122. Link please. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
73. No my employer pays 100% of my insurance
premium. I pay 10% of my bills up to a yearly maximum of $1000.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue State Blues Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
75. I pay MORE than that NOW
for bad coverage that can vanish through recission.

So yes, I would. But I don't think I would have to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryAmish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
76. Hell no. Insurance is a lot cheaper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doremus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #76
80. Not if you're paying the whole cost of it.
Apparently your employer pays your insurance.

If you had to pay it all, you would quickly see how expensive it is. $800/mo. is a bargain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryAmish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #80
82. I am my own employer
I pay it all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThoughtCriminal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
77. Most people have no idea what they are paying now
Just because your employer is paying for it doesn't mean there is zero cost to you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RagAss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
78. I guess they'll do anything not to disturb the rich...Fuck No ! I won't pay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. Thank you. And gawd forbid we should cut defense spending.
I mean, we can only blow up the world 37 times over right now. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yo_Mama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
83. This is about what most countries charge
We already pay 2.9% for Medicare, plus Medicare recipients pay about $100 a month. That is for 80/20 coverage, and not everything is covered. If Medicare recipient want more coverage they have to pay more in the way of premiums - about $30 a month for drug coverage, which is 75% funded by government taxes, and about

13% + 2.9% is about 15.9% which is about what it costs in Germany.

I think the problem is that most people are wildly unrealistic about what insurance really costs. It's not as bad as it sounds, because usually the employer pays half directly and the employee pays half, and in any case, since most employers are paying much more now on average, many people would get a raise or be able to bargain for one. And then, if your income went down, you wouldn't suddenly be hit with a big bill. What good is COBRA when you get laid off and presented with a $1,000 a month premium all of a sudden? Is that reasonable?

If people are not willing to do this, then we won't get reform. Because we are not going to get it out of the poorer people, so of course people who make 100K a year will have to pay much more. All socialized health care systems work this way.

Do people really expect to get good health care for free?

And for those of you who think the rich can pay it, you're crazy. If you confiscated all the wealth of all the billionaires in this country, it wouldn't pay for one year of Medicare for everyone. The only persons who can pay for it are the people themselves.

Maybe the problem is less the politicians than an uninformed public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lisa0825 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #83
94. per indivdual or per family?
I don't think it is outrageous for a family, but for myself, a single person with no dependents, it's a heckuva lot!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yo_Mama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #94
103. Per individual
Actually the total tax would be more than 13%. It would be over 17%, so you would be paying between 8 and 9% as your share.

However, the employer would pay half of it, which would often be less than it is currently paying, so you might end up getting more in wages. Also, you'd have lifetime security. If you were unemployed, you'd still have the same access.

The asset protection is a much higher benefit for people who have savings, etc, and when you get older, you would find it very difficult or nearly impossible to get insurance on your own. That is why losing a job in your fifties creates such a crisis for so many people who have been financialy responsible.

The current plans all underfund, and the closer they get to funding the program the more people reject them. Health insurance is expensive anywhere - our employer-funded system has just prevented people from knowing the true cost. Over a lifetime, you would probably be much better off if you are a higher-paid worker. Americans just don't like to save.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roamer65 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
84. No...I wouldn't...I'd probably move to Canada.
Edited on Wed Sep-16-09 10:11 PM by roamer65
The tax rate should be a graduated one. The more you make, the more you pay. Ontario has single payor and its tax rates for OHIP are not that high.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
85. What if you are unemployed? I'm unemployed currently with no coverage. Do I get nothing?
13% is unreasonable for the bottom 40% of the US population in terms of income. That hurts a lot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
87. If we were in all one big pool we could probably get by for less that a 13% tax for Medicare
I think most of us would find that a pretty hefty price. On the other hand, if that 13% covered everything and we didn't have to worry about deductibles and copays and coming up with cash at point of service, maybe it would work. But I believe it's quite a bit more than what is paid in other countries.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 10:47 PM
Response to Original message
91. YES !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
93. Hell no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmileyRose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #93
97. Can I ask why?
I've read quite a lot of your comments regarding medical care in the US and they tend to be thoughtful and well informed. I have been a proponent of Medicare for all and I'm hoping you will share your reasoning about why that would not be a good thing. I know there's been a lot of snark on the DU lately but honestly, I'd be grateful for one of your thoughtful responses.

Thanks
Rosemary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #97
98. I was just answering the question in regards to my own insurance choices.
Medicare provides less coverage than my current insurance I pay no premiums.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milk Donating Member (55 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
95. I would but it's not necessary.
Single payer (Medicare) is cheaper than that. If everyone is enrolled in the plan it would lower costs. When I was employed my premiums were going up to the point that my former employer switched plans. Our premiums were then a few dollars less per week but the plan was garbage. It had high deductibles and pretty much didn't cover you if you got cancer or something serious. When the plan switched I stopped going to the doctor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
andym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:56 AM
Response to Original message
101. Quick calculation that if healthcare was made available soley by flat income tax -> 20% needed
So your post is a very interesting. Calculating the actual costs and then the costs as a percentage of income across the population is a very interesting exercise. 13% doesn't sound unreasonable.

I found one source listing annualized 2008 total personal income @ 12.1 trillion (http://www.eflorida.com/ContentSubpage.aspx?id=1898 ). (GDP is 14.1 trillion) Total health care costs ~2.4 trillion in 2008. That would mean 2.4/12.1 = 20% of total income if spread evenly. Yikes!!!! Can't even begin to think about doing it based on income.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Go2Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 03:50 AM
Response to Reply #101
108. Total health care costs will include lasik, tummy tucks, dentistry, massage, chiro, richcare
So that is not a good figure to use. Canada Pays 10-11%. Average income is what, about 42k for a household, or $3650 / Month. So about $375 a month per household average. That sounds like a lot when you are 25 years old. Healthcare costs currently covered by insurance take about 17% of GDP, so you are already paying the equivilent of about $525/Month per household. You just don't see it as it get's removed from your wages as an expense and never get's in your check.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Juche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 01:33 AM
Response to Original message
104. I'd prefer a high deductible plan
Personally I'd rather have a plan with a $1000-2000 deductible than 13% on a plan with no deductible.

If I could buy into medicare with a deductible for 8-10% then yes I'd do that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 02:01 AM
Response to Original message
105. They say that rent (or mortgage) should be no more than 25% of take home.
Why should insurance premiums be half the rent? I guarantee that if they just raised the taxes to pay for Medicare a little bit (3-4%), there would be enough money to expand it to all, at far less cost than ANY insurance plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yo_Mama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #105
110. No, you have the numbers way wrong
I guarantee that if they just raised the taxes to pay for Medicare a little bit (3-4%), there would be enough money to expand it to all

To cover the hospital insurance deficit, the 2009 Trustees report recommended raising Medicare tax to 3.88% from 2.9%. But that is just tp cover retirees. If you are going to add 250 million more people to the system, you are going to have to raise the payroll tax way high.

For SMI parts B & D, or C, 75% of the cost is supposed to be paid from income taxes and 25% from premiums. Current beneficiaries paid about 55 billion (there are about 45 million beneficiaries) in premiums. The general fund picked up the rest. The total outlay last year for Medicare was about 468 billion to cover 45 million people. The cost per beneficiary was about 11K each.

If you were to move the entire population onto Medicare, you'd need to raise about 1.5 trillion dollars each year to do it. The payroll tax would be over 17%. Mind you, that is for partial drug coverage and 80/20 with a monthly premium of currently about $130. If you wanted more coverage you would have to pay $100-200 more each month. However suppose the tax was 20%, and your employer paid half and you paid half. The employer wouldn't be paying insurance premiums, so you might get a raise. Plus, you'd have consistent coverage always, and the cost wouldn't go up as you aged or if you lost your job.

It would be cheaper on average to cover the rest of the population, but not that much cheaper.

The reason we don't have universal insurance is because people are so ludicrously wrong about the numbers, so they believe they should be getting it almost free. But no other country does. They pay high payroll taxes, but they have economic security.

Our current system is regressive and punitive to those who are ill or older, and you absolutely could find yourself in your 50s with no job trying to scrape up $1,500 a month to continue paying your insurance. Think about the alternative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight armadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #110
124. I question your numbers
There is no reason why Medicare couldn't negotiate bulk drug purchases, vastly lowering the drug costs. Wal-mart does Rx's for $4...and that with far fewer customers than the entire US population. Tackling Medicare fraud (which is under-investigated I understand) would further save money. After some time, critical care costs should decline with improved preventative care.

Right now the US blows through ~$7500/person per year at a cost of $2.26 trillion. France, by comparison spends about $3000 per person. Adopting those numbers, a single-payer system could potentially save the US economy ~$1.3 trillion. Yes, the Medicare tax would increase (how much I don't know), but at the same time the private insurance costs (AND the personnel to plan and administer that stuff) would be dropped, creating a net savings for biz & people alike. Further, companies would have to rely more on salary to compete for workers rather than salary + health benefits, perhaps creating pressure for higher wages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr_Willie_Feelgood Donating Member (129 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 03:29 AM
Response to Original message
107. Is that 13% AFTER Taxes?
Right now I am grossing $1200 a month BEFORE taxes. As an "Independent Contractor", I am responsible for my own taxes, SS, medicare, which leaves me with about $900 a month income (any wonder I have no car and am sleeping in a friend's spare bedroom?).

So now will I be on the hook for 13% of $900 ($117 a month) or of $1200 ($156)? Or would I be covered under a subsidy? Would I still have a $5000 deductable, which is nearly half my income?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kjackson227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
116. Compared to $550 or more per month that I'd have to pay...
yes, I'd gladly pay 13% of my paycheck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:35 PM
Response to Original message
123. I already pay 17% for Medicare premiums and for a Medigap policy so
13% for the same coverage would be welcome. People should really figure out what percentage they are paying out of their income now for health care coverage and I think they will find that 13% is a bargain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Dec 22nd 2014, 07:15 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC