Incorrect.
They're talking about a 15% payroll tax increase. That's not the same thing as an income tax increase.
Anyway.... Given a choice between 15% payroll taxes, and having to pay insurance premiums? I'm guessing that for most people, the tax will wind up as a better deal.
LOL.....you naysayers have been predicting California's doom for the last 4 decades....and California continues to do just fine. Hey Ocean....no one is forcing you to stay there behind the orange curtain. You are free to go any time you would like. Texas is probably more your style.
LOL.....you naysayers have been predicting California's doom for the last 4 decades....and California continues to do just fine. Hey Ocean....no one is forcing you to stay there behind the orange curtain. You are free to go any time you would like. Texas is probably more your style.
Single-payer healthcare plan advances in California Senate ?*without a way to pay its $400-billion tab - LA Times
Cali si making some legislative noise to do this, projected tax increases are 15%.
Would you accept paying 15% more in taxes for Government directed and controlled Single Payer healthcare?
No. The government is filled with **** ups. I see no reason for me to have to be stuck with 1 option when I can be stuck with a few others. I have a better chance of negotiating if I have options to leave my crappy health insurance company.
Negotiating what?
No. The concept of pricing any "private" good/service at a fixed percentage of one's income is a bad idea. Worse still is the concept of letting the government decide what that "private" good/service which you must buy is. Single payer means a single decider of what is being paid for.
I suppose "just fine" depends on how you feel about higher taxes, real estate prices that preclude home ownership for most young people, etc. Not "just fine" at all imho.
People have been leaving California at an alarming rate:
A lot of people are moving out of California because they can't afford to live there anymore.
We already have those, and have had them for quite sometime.Wait times, GB, wait times. Every single payer in the world has varying degrees of "are you ****ting" me long wait times.
I presume that me and my spouse would then have zero deducted from our paychecks for premiums, and my employer would have to pay zero for premiums, which would offset at least some of that tax increase, so... maybe.Single-payer healthcare plan advances in California Senate ?*without a way to pay its $400-billion tab - LA Times
Cali si making some legislative noise to do this, projected tax increases are 15%.
Would you accept paying 15% more in taxes for Government directed and controlled Single Payer healthcare?
Single-payer healthcare plan advances in California Senate ?*without a way to pay its $400-billion tab - LA Times
Cali si making some legislative noise to do this, projected tax increases are 15%.
Would you accept paying 15% more in taxes for Government directed and controlled Single Payer healthcare?
...as opposed to some faceless insurance company doctor/shill who does the same exact thing based on his employer's profit matgin. Sorry, I'm not seeing a difference.It also probably means the government would be deciding if one should get a certain procedure or not. Basically, if one lives or dies. All decided by the government. By some unelected bureaucrat, civil servant.
Single-payer healthcare plan advances in California Senate ?*without a way to pay its $400-billion tab - LA Times
Cali si making some legislative noise to do this, projected tax increases are 15%.
Would you accept paying 15% more in taxes for Government directed and controlled Single Payer healthcare?
Renae,
Why did you post the poll as 15% in income tax?
I see no mention of that in the article, or in a quick google search. If that's wrong, I think you should correct it.
There is a picture in the article that shows a few potential ways to fund it, and one is a 15% PAYROLL tax. That's employers.
Also note that two things would occur:
1. business already pays x% for insurance, it would stop paying that, and would be part of this 15%.
2. individuals would stop paying their portion, and it could in some way be factored back into what the employer pays, offsetting the 15% yet again.
They have no clue what they actual numbers are, because it's not settled yet. They are trying to pass the plan, and figure out funding later (again!).
But it's not likely to be terrible, maybe 8% net increase on payroll? I forget.
CAs plan I thought was too costly;
1. They wanted platinum level insurance for everyone, I think it should be sliver/gold, with the option for individuals to raise it higher with income...compromise and choice + safety net
2. they wanted all illegals to be covered - I think they should pass that separate for pete's sake!
3. Being at the state level, it would be much more costly than at the federal level, due to reimbursements as well as scale and competition issues
4. Done at the state level, it appears its going to fall on all business. Federally I would prefer it to fall in part on employer, and in part on the ultra-wealthy. Much more tolerable and less impactful to business.
Texas is an interesting state. Interesting in the sense that they've got a lot of industry, higher education, technology,...and poverty. LOTS of poverty.
Really, that state is a textbook example of the division between the Haves and the Have-nots.
Texas was number 38 among the states for the household poverty rate. California was 35 and the District of Columbia number 41.
Nor is Texas very remarkable on the Gini coefficient, an index of income inequality. At 0.469 Texas beats NY, CT, DC CA, and MA. 0.469 is the same Gini coefficient as the US as a whole.
So saying that Texas is a "textbook example" of the division between the haves and have nots is an outright falsehood.
It's all in Wikipedia.org.
That **** is already decided by the insurance companies.
That's true, but in a market situation the consumer can always choose another insurer. That will no longer be an option if it goes single payer. We saw kind of the same thing here in AZ where those not covered by an employer's plan have a grand total of one option for an insurance carrier.
That's true, but in a market situation the consumer can always choose another insurer. That will no longer be an option if it goes single payer. We saw kind of the same thing here in AZ where those not covered by an employer's plan have a grand total of one option for an insurance carrier.
Good points. However, the definition of poverty is badly out of date. Also there's also the issue of how easy it is to escape poverty:
(Source)
Still, that chart suggests that the biggest traps to escaping poverty lie in the Southeast and the Upper Midwest, not Texas. So, well-played. The next question becomes why some states--and certain parts of states in particular--are so much more difficult to escape poverty than others.
Excuse my French but **** no. My employer pays about 5% of my salary for my health insurance take that and make single payer fine by me but no to anything else.
What are they defining as poor? If it's just income level, that's the most asinine map ever made.
For example, here in San Antonio, you can buy a 1 acre plot of land and put a 4 bed 3 bath house on it in the SA City Limits for less than 250k.
Try that in LA or SF.
If you were to look at just the incomes needed to support that COL, SF or LA would seem "wealthier" but in reality you're paying **** tons more.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?