So it looks like the California Government wants to provide healthcare for all its citizens by taxing the hospitals, doctors, and employers.
I saw this briefly on CNBC, so forgive if the numbers are a bit off, I can't seem to find them as of right now:
-2% tax on doctors
-4% tax on Hospitals
-7.5% payroll tax on employers who do not provide healthcare
Personally, I am extremely against taxes on doctors and hospitals to pay for universal healthcare, because it smacks of retaliatory taxes. And as for the payroll tax, yet more incentive to not hire people who might concievably raise your insurance premiums (but could encourage employers to hire young people as opposed to older people)
The tax on employers that don't provide healthcare is ok to me. It forces them to choose between being a good corporate citizen and doing some thing ALL business owners hate doing, paying more taxes.
But taxing Doctors and hospitals will only serve to raise health care costs. That defeats the point and makes healthcare more expensive for everyone. Not a good idea.
Health coverage for all should serve two purposes:
1) actually making sure people who get sick can get better
2) and it should also help lower the costs for everyone. It's how insurance work, those that don't need it subsidize those that do, and the more people that have it and don't use the cheaper it should be for everyone.
The mass plan, while flawed on many levels realized that if the state got all the males between the ages of 20-40 covered, then health insurance costs would drop for everyone because that demographic was very underinsured and used the least amount of health care.
and it should also help lower the costs for everyone. It's how insurance work, those that don't need it subsidize those that do, and the more people that have it and don't use the cheaper it should be for everyone.
One weird thing about healthcare is that the more technology progresses, the more healthcare costs. Though a given amount of healthcare will trend downwards, healthcare overall increases in cost because they can treat something new as opposed to not treating it (and the new treatments are usually expensive)
The mass plan, while flawed on many levels realized that if the state got all the males between the ages of 20-40 covered, then health insurance costs would drop for everyone because that demographic was very underinsured and used the least amount of health care.
Forcing a bunch of people into a risk aggregation pool to lower overall risk per person is definitely a backhanded way of taxing people and putting money into the pockets of health insurance companies.
The mass plan, while flawed on many levels realized that if the state got all the males between the ages of 20-40 covered, then health insurance costs would drop for everyone because that demographic was very underinsured and used the least amount of health care.
Forcing a bunch of people into a risk aggregation pool to lower overall risk per person is definitely a backhanded way of taxing people and putting money into the pockets of health insurance companies.
No, because people in that category ARE going to need medical attention at some point and they also should be seeking out preventitive care at least once every two years. Both of these things make it beneficial for them, and society as a whole to participate in the system.
Heathen_Dave said:
You can be insured for under $1000 a year.
That's not even $3 a day.
who, what, where, when, and how? Cause the only coverage that i would want is about $23 a day, and the cheapest i can find is $8, and i am a healthy no preexisting conditions, non-smoker light drinker 25 year old man.
That's a terrible plan. Does not address the problem. A tax on hospitals an doctors? What's to stop them from raising their rates higher to even out the cost?
And taxing businesses who don't provide health insurance is absurd. Many don't because the cost is too high, not because they don't want to. 7% is a massive hit for a small business. Hopefully that number is for larger businesses who don't provide health insurance.
Oh I agree, the numbers do seem bad, its just a shame that all of my income tax can't cover my health care costs. Does anyone actually know what that big chunk o change goes to anyway?
freshprncebelair
Ellicott City, MD
June 2004
SEP 13, 2007 05:58 AM