<p>“when all was said and done, it was less expensive, a lot less, because of the tax deductions for the business”</p>
<p>But people who are in group plans also get a tax deduction as one is not taxed on the amount of the premium withheld from your paycheck.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>steveMa, I’m not sure how you can claim that with a straight face. Perhaps your view is clouded because you have a professional interest in the system remaining the same? No, everyone does not have access to medical care. We have friends who are physicians who spend several weekends a year travelling across the country with a group who offer free care to people without health insurance. It’s been going on for years and they have never, not even once!, been able to accomodate everyone who has lined up, sometimes for days, to see a doctor, a dentist, to have their eyes checked, etc. You are absolutely wrong that everyone has access to care and it is disingenuous of you to continue to claim that it is so.</p>
<p>You can read the blogs all you want. I live here and know what the system is like, firsthand. Much of what you are claiming is simply not true. </p>
<p>This topic is probably the most repeated discussion in the Parent Cafe and every time it is raised, more and more misinformation is spread. I can tell you that Canadians are baffled by the U.S. system and peoples’ objection to universal healthcare. It’s particularly obvious when so many issues are raised by Americans about their system which some seem to think is so wonderful, issues that are never a concern in Canada. Even those who have insurance in the U.S. aren’t happy as is evident from this thread alone. As I said, the Canadian system would never fly in the U.S. because of the difference in attitude surrounding a social safety net and looking after the entire population, but that doesn’t mean that improvements aren’t necessary in the system. And it’s appalling that there are millions who have no health insurance at all in the supposed ‘greatest country on earth’.</p>
<p>LasMa–never said there was-Emily is arguing for a national plan similar to Canada’s and the UK’s and that is what that response was directed to…everything I’ve said is on google and from links others have posted and I said as much…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not sure which blue ones and red ones you’re referring to, but if you mean insurance plans:</p>
<p>Under ACA, the PRIVATE market will offer all kinds of insurance plans on the Exchange. Market forces will operate in the Exchange; if Blue Cross charges twice as much for the same coverage, they won’t attract many customers, and downward pressure will be exerted on premiums. You can choose whatever plan you want, from whatever carrier you want. You’re in the insurance business, and you know all of that.</p>
<p>If you mean doctors, procedures, tests, treatment, again – ACA does not prevent you from choosing whatever treatment or provider you want. You know that too.</p>
<p>Again, if you have information refuting this, post a link.</p>
<p>emilybee–just on the premiums and costs above 7.5% of income—business owners get to deduct ALL costs…</p>
<p>alwaysamom–not having health insurance is not the same as not having ACCESS to health insurance–yes, everyone in the US has access to health insurance, whether they choose to take it or not is a different story…and what gets tossed around as “national crisis” via the media. Call an ENT and find out the wait time and the policy for getting a cochlear implant done in Canada and then come back and tell me I’m wrong.</p>
<p>Steve, it’s true that everyone can get medical care in an ER (only because federal law forces the hospitals to take all comers). For the uninsured, those bills usually get paid by the rest of us. If I’m going to pay for someone’s non-emergency medical care, I’d rather pay for them to get it in a doctor’s office than an ER. Even if the morality of this issue means nothing to you, our system is financially idiotic.</p>
<p>Also, the uninisured can get EMERGENCY care in an ER. They cannot get physical therapy or chemotherapy or routine mammogram or a lipid panel or non-emergency surgery. In other words, they cannot get the care that you and I routinely get, care which prevents and treats disease before it gets to the emergency stage.</p>
<p>“emilybee–just on the premiums and costs above 7.5% of income—business owners get to deduct ALL costs…”</p>
<p>Of course business owners do - it is an incentive for them to offer health insurance to their employees. </p>
<p>And I understand completely why you like the present system as it is. I love my health insurance plan and it’s dirt cheap, too. But, it’s not all about me.</p>
<p>You know, alwaysamom, Americans are very generous people, as has been demonstrated time and again. We are not, however, fools. Anyone who takes the attitude that the federal government should be entrusted with our hard-earned money in unlimited amounts with no responsibility and no accountability is a fool. Despite what my mayor says, there is not an infinite pool of money and we need to prioritize what and how to spend it on. The ACA is a mess and will create all sorts of unintended consequences and in this great country, we can do better than that, but our elected officials of both parties created the mess. To think of entrusting them with even more money for such important work,makes me nauseous. I am very glad that you and your husband were able to make the choice for your family that you find most appropriate. </p>
<p>As someone who works with illegal immigrants, I worry about some of those unintended consequences because my students, who are often my friends, are very vulnerable, and as a citizen I worry about fraud and abuse.</p>
<p>Emilybee,</p>
<p>Jumping back in and back to your post 324. So I guess I should have said if you make over $93k (where subsidy eligility stops), the prediction is that a family of four will pay an average of $17,000 for the worst coverage (60%) at an exchange. If you live in an area in the top half of that average, then $20,000 sounds quite possible.</p>
<p>^^ I guess that 17K-20K annual cost for a family of 4 is what makes it the AFFORDABLE Care Act ;)</p>
<p>I found the calculator and entered an income of $100k, 50 years old, family of four in a higher cost region. It says I’d pay $20,229 for the worst coverage, and not be eligible for subsidies or tax credits.</p>
<p>“Jumping back in and back to your post 324. So I guess I should have said if you make over $93k (where subsidy eligility stops), the prediction is that a family of four will pay an average of $17,000 for the worst coverage (60%) at an exchange. If you live in an area in the top half of that average, then $20,000 sounds quite possible.”</p>
<p>I honestly don’t know and until the exchanges are up and running I don’t think anyone can know for sure. But, the majority of people who will need to buy insurance from an exchange are those that cannot afford any insurance now and they will be heavily subsidized. I also believe most people will still be getting their insurance through their employers.</p>
<p>Since Romneycare in Mass went into effect more employers in that state began offering health insurance to their employees. </p>
<p>"A spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services, Erin Shields Britt, said that the passage of a law in Massachusetts requiring employers to provide insurance or pay a penalty and creating new options for individuals to buy coverage had led to an increase in the number of people in that state who received health insurance at work. "</p>
<p><a href=“Deloitte: One in 10 U.S. Employers to Drop Health Coverage - WSJ”>Deloitte: One in 10 U.S. Employers to Drop Health Coverage - WSJ;
<p>
</p>
<p>This is what you actually said, stevema:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s a difference. And it just isn’t true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The process for Cochlear Implants involves assessment, evaluation, necessary testing, counselling, and meetings with the surgeons. This process usually takes approximately six to eight weeks to complete. If the patient is a good candidate for the surgery, they will be scheduled after being vaccinated against meningitis. My sister-in-law is a part of the program at one of the five hospitals in Ontario that perform the surgery and since 2010, it’s generally, on average, about six months time from start to finish. I know one adult and one child who have had the surgery and both were in the 4-5 month range from initial consulation to having the procedure done. Hundreds of these are done every year in Ontario. It’s possible that the times are longer in other provinces, I can’t answer that as each province is responsible for the care of its own residents.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said otherwise, zoosermom. I am an American.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see anyone here suggesting that this should be the case. The ACA may, indeed, be a mess. That doesn’t mean that the current situation isn’t in need of improvement.</p>
<p>If the numbers that Bay is quoting in #351 are correct, that just seems crazy to me. I don’t understand how a tax increase is unwanted by so many but paying that exorbitant amount for the worst possible plan is okay. That would certainly be a much higher amount than any difference in taxes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I absolutely believe the current system needs massive improvement, but I am not sure that what we got will be better. There will still be tens of millions of people uninsured, the CBO says costs will rise, people are already having their hours cut, and all sorts of unintended things. It is outrageous that the people charged with acting on behalf of the people have been derelict in their duty.</p>
<p>“Friedman modeled one financing scheme consistent with HR 676: current federal health spending, current state Medicaid spending, plus a small financial transactions tax, high income surtax (6 percent on top 5 percent of income-earners), surtax on unearned income (6 percent), and 4-7 percent payroll tax (4 percent on bottom 40 percent).”</p>
<p>Well, emily, when one looks at the title of his article, it tells all.
“Funding a National Single-Payer System
Medicare for All” would save billions, and could be distributive”</p>
<p>Not just making health care available for everyone and improving the system, but accomplishing the goal of being DISTRIBUTIVE. Interesting. Creepy.</p>
<p>Tacking on an additional tax of 7% (payroll) and 6% surtax? Wow, adding an additional 13% to what high earners already pay, yep, that would accomplish his goals. Hey, if you lived in NY, you could pay about 66% of your income in taxes. California, Oregon, Hawaii, even more. Why work?</p>
<p>
Well, why don’t you find out? You could always stop working and choose to live at the poverty level. I bet you’ll find that life on food stamps, Section 8 and Medicaid is just wonderful.</p>
<p>:rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Total strawman. There is not a single person who has expressed an attitude remotely resembling that. Therefore, it doesn’t even merit addressing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OK, then what is your alternative? What do you think would address the issues of out-of-control insurance costs, free riders, the working-class uninsured and denial of coverage to those with “pre-existing conditions” in a better manner?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hopeless nonsense. In the 2008 election, Americans overwhelmingly elected a president who ran on a platform including health care reform. In the 2012 election, Americans overwhelmingly re-elected that same president who ran on a platform of preserving that health care reform, when his opponent ran on a platform specifically calling for the repeal of that health care reform. That you disagree with that health care reform is neither here nor there. We have a democratically-elected government which enacted that reform and the Supreme Court ruled it to be within the constitutional powers granted to the government.</p>
<p>Elections have consequences.</p>
<p>“Well, why don’t you find out? You could always stop working and choose to live at the poverty level. I bet you’ll find that life on food stamps, Section 8 and Medicaid is just wonderful.”</p>
<p>No, I wouldn’t need to live on the government dole, but thanks for the thought. We have saved for retirement.</p>
<p>Would you work for 33% of your pay? Or would you retire early? I wish I had a job that I liked enough to do it for free, but I don’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If my pay was $3 million, sure.</p>
<p>Not to mention that these rates are marginal, meaning it’s wrong and misleading to suggest that the tax would add up to “66%” of income. Nor are you considering that state taxes can be deducted from federal income taxes.</p>
<p>“If my pay was $3 million, sure”</p>
<p>The proposal is on the top 5%, which I believe is about 200K, not 3 million.</p>
<p>“Not to mention that these rates are marginal, meaning it’s wrong and misleading to suggest that the tax would add up to “66%” of income”</p>
<p>If you are an upper income wage slave, you have very few deductions and pay the top rate on a large portion of your income. I didn’t even include social security or property/sales tax in that estimate.</p>