@doschicos the word I forgot to type was taxes not society.
I understand the concepts of wanting healthcare for everyone, but is it really possible?
“I understand the concepts of wanting healthcare for everyone, but is it really possible?”
Other countries, with less resources than ours, seem to make it work. Having certain billionaires pay taxes would be a good start towards affording a national healthcare system. That is a much bigger issue than whether or not your sister pays taxes. Our tax code is pretty flawed.
My BCBS PPO provided coverage to both kids thru age 26, including the years they were in college in LA and S has been living and working in DC. There are many in network providers throughout the US, including Stanford, UCSF, National Jewish, and pretty much most providers in HI and elsewhere we’ve wanted to use.
We did get one surprise out of network bill from pediatric anesthesiologist who attended S in outpatient procedure. I successfully fought and got insurer to increase reimbursement as we had no say in who provided care and used in network med center and other MDs. The ped anesthesiology practice accepted the increased reimbursement from our insurer as full payment and declined copay from us. All of this was over a decade ago.
Our premiums for our insurance which allows us to go to most BCBS providers nationwide is similar to Kaiser HMO that is much more restrictive on what is in network. Our plan is possible from H’s former employer, the fed govt. I believe it is the same plan most Congressional workers have.
Sure, but what are the tax rates of those countries?
In my area, BCBS PPOs - or any option - under ACA do not participate in nationwide networks. At all. You are fortunate to have a good plan. Which brings up another thought - If the federal government can employ 2.79 million civil servants around the world (OPM data from 2011) and provide generous, quality insurance for their employees and their families, which would magnify that number quite a bit, it should be capable of providing a platform for the same for all Americans.
The federal government insures its employees just the same way any large employer insures them: by using private insurers.
While the rich are always a convenient target, the reality is that US taxes are fairly low across the board.
Yes, the fed govt uses private insurers but sets the conditions that have to be part of the policy if insurers want to get the contract. The policies are very good–better than anything I’ve found when trying to get insurance for my kids.
Great, which means that if it can be done for close to 3Billion employees plus their defendants, and a system works for 50+ million more through medicare, and around 65+ million for medicaid, let’s just make one big pool.
I agree, @hebegebe, that’s why I said a good way to start. 
In other countries, folks are getting more for those tax dollars, like healthcare.
I don’t understand the hate toward the “top 1 %” in general. That 1% of the population funded 44.7% of the total taxes in 2014 while earning 17% of the total income.
They should be praised, not hated. Without them, programs the like ACA could not exist.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-federal-income-taxes.html
This is the real issue. People want European style social programs without the middle class tax rates required to pay for them.
And if anything, European tax rates are too low for their range of benefits, because many countries freeride on the US for their defense.
It would be interesting to see the chart in your link, @hebegebe, for earners at a multiple much higher than 200% the average national wage.
Also, remember that in many countries citizens are getting much more than healthcare. They get generous maternity leaves, much cheaper higher ed costs, etc. I’m willing to pay more taxes for all that stuff. I’m also willing to do less policing of the world.
The federal government doesn’t do anything different about health insurance than big tech employers. Any large business can get good insurance policies-- if they are willing to pay.
Yes, she can get it under her own name but she MUST Include her parents’ income under her household income because she is a dependent. She will not legally get a subsidy.
Does the federal government self insure and use insurance companies purely for an administrative function? That’s what many large employers do. Given the number of enrollees on the federal plans, my guess is that is what they do. Does anyone know?
@romanigypsyeyes Are you sure? On the website the definition of household is:
“Your household includes you, your spouse if you’re married, and everyone you’ll claim as a dependent on your tax return.”
They probably do self-insure, but the insurer administers the plan. And “administers” here means, among other things, the insurer sets up the network and negotiates prices with the providers. From our point of view, it’s uninteresting who funds the insurance and takes the risk. It might be the employer, it might be the insurer, we shouldn’t really care.
The issue here is how the federal government gets its employees a good insurance network: by paying an insurer to set it up.
Yes. If you are dependent on someone’s taxes, they must apply for the insurance.
Look at the 2nd question.
ETA: this is because it is a tax subsidy… which is why it goes through the tax payer. As a dependent, her tax subsidy is based on the main filer’s household income.
She files her own tax returns
“The issue here is how the federal government gets its employees a good insurance network: by paying an insurer to set it up.”
Yeah, I get that. I guess my point is that they can do this for close to 3 million employees and their dependents, 50+ million medicare enrollees, and 65+ million medicaid recipients, I think its doable for everyone. That’s already a big chunk of our population.
@Jpgranier Why would your sister not apply for insurance under your parent’s plan? My kids are under are plan this year. They both file their own taxes but are still dependents.