btw, it was trump that removed the 'penalty' of declaring your obama care as additional income at tax time... now don't forget to say thank you to mr. president trump
Wrong! Why do people comment of things they know nothing about? In 2010 the deductible was $12,000 when it went up to $25 I'll have to ask.
That's the maximum possible across multiple people for a policy with multiple people on it. No individual person in such a policy can experience more than the individual maximum out-of-pocket amount (i.e., half that). If you're in a family plan with a combined $12K out-of-pocket family max, it doesn't matter if you incur a million dollars in medical bills, you won't pay more than $6K out out-of-pocket. Deductibles and OOP maximums have been embedded for a few years now. edit// In ACA-compliant plans, that is. Don't apply what I'm saying to Trump's junk plans.
I get your frustration, paying $22,000 for healthcare is outrageous. I think you are getting ripped off. My monthly family payment for my employer coverage is $800 per month, with a $6,000 deductible, and 70% coverage. And my healthcare is considered pricey where I live. Doctors are actually highly paid and that is part of the reason your healthcare costs so much. Doctors earn between $100,000 and $500,000 with an average of $250,000. Other countries have a lot more doctors and they don't cost nearly as much. Insurance companies are part of the reason healthcare is expensive. They have a 12% overhead, but that is only part of the problem. Hospitals charge as much as they can and will try to charge 3.5 times the cost of care. Insurance companies negotiate that price down as much as they can, but hospitals still earn a 15% profit margin, and a high administration cost which makes administrative cost for US healthcare about 25%. Medical procedures and drugs in the US cost twice as much as other developed countries and its due to overpaid insurance, doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and myriads of middlemen. The poor are freeloaders, but they just can't afford to pay $10,000 in insurance premiums and possibly thousands to tens of thousands out of pocket. If they don't have Medicaid, they will just be forever in healthcare debt whenever they get sick, and its us who will have to pay anyway. So we have three choices. 1. Deny care to pay who can't pay. 2. Find a private system that is so affordable that the poor are able to pay (maybe with some taxpayer help), 3. go to a universal healthcare system. Other countries pay as much for their universal healthcare systems as we do on just Medicare and Medicaid. So you were in Germany, you would also get free healthcare for the same tax we pay now. A good example of a cost-effective private system is Kaiser insurance which has their own doctors and facilities. They charge $500 per month for family care, a $1,400 deductible, 80% coverage, and $6,500 out of pocket max.
I will be very interested to see that new thread. However, I've known all my long life that the female of our species can make a very effective, far-sighted leader. British PM Margaret Thatcher, Chinese Empress Wu Ze Tian, and Queen Elizabeth come to mind.... But, yes, then there's also confused failures who are ashamed of their own countries, like Angela Merkel.... I do notice a lot of the new crop of women politicians who are strong advocates for all this "Medicare for All" give-away welfare -- without any idea at all of how to pay for it. Medicare is an EARNED benefit, for people who have paid into the system all their working lives and have become 65 years old -- not for every ne'er-do-well person who can't/won't provide for their own medical needs. Lyndon Johnson set up the MEDICAID system for those who don't/won't pay their own medical costs....
The German system has some merits but you left out some of it too. All Germans pay 8% of their gross for health care. However, their employers must also pay about 8%. The actual cost is about 15% of your gross income. This is a good feature because even the poor have skin in the game. This keeps them accountable and helps keep costs down. Second, if you do not have a German Health Care Card, you do not get medical coverage unless you pay for it up front. If the US would implement these two provisions, I would support a single payer system. However the Democrats would never allow that. If the deadbeats have to start paying for their own way they will not see any benefit in the Democratic party.
I do think that any healthcare tax should be flat and the poor should pay the same percent as anyone else. I can see the democrats voting for a flat healthcare tax for such a system as a bipartisan compromise. I was disappointed with Obamacare because they threw all their taxes on the rich, and those taxes didn't get a lot of revenue anyway.
Google concierge doctors. It's a growing industry where you have a doctor on a "retainer", similar to what some lawyers do. It cuts out the middleman (insurance) and you can then buy catastrophic insurance for things like cancer etc.
exactly how i feel about 'fines', ie: traffic violations... it should be a percentage of net worth, a billionaire paying a hundred bucks for textin while drivin??? c'mon, make him pay 1 million, it's the same effect as a blue collar guy payin 100 bucks...
I get what you are saying but that aint happening, they have lawyers on retainer for the measely stuff.
all taxes, all fines, all 'rates' for all things, should be pro-rated on net worth, not 'flat' across the board for everyone... yeah, basically everything should 'cost the same' for everyone...
No, it think it all should be rollup up into an income tax. I don't believe in net worth wealth taxes. When you earn money, and its taxed, you keep it.
a percentage of net worth/income for fines & insurances is reasonable, ie: insurance at 3%; earn 50,000 annually then insurance is 1500/year, earn 50 million annually your insurance should be 1,500,000/year to 'feel' the same effect: traffic fines should be a percentage also , not flat for all...
Again, I don't like wealth taxes because it discourages saving. I believe that once you have wealth it should be safe from the government. Also it poses a problem for investors who have their wealth in investments and will see their profits taken by the government. Why not just tax income like we already do?
that's the problem, they are 'protected' disproportionately and as their wealth increases so does their 'protection'... necessities/requirements/fines should be billed out proportional to wealth; luxuries should always be 'what market bares', which will keep the classes separate, as well as, keeping required costs 'equivalent' to all...
No sorry. The medical service providers charge $10,000. The insurance companies pay $2500 and the providers accept that as full payment. The uninsured are expected to pay the full $10,000 and when they don't the providers write off the imaginary loss. The whole thing is a scam between the medical providers and the insurance providers designed to disadvantage anyone who doesn't want to pay the grift for insurance. .
Actually you have accidentally hit one of the really great things about a wealth tax. It does discourage hoarding money and encourages investing it to make more money so that the tax on wealth does not gradually erode the base. It is exactly why hiding money in a mattress isn't a good idea because inflation will gradually erode it's real value. A wealth tax of say 3% has exactly the same effect making investing to get a return an even greater necessity. Think of it as the best thing that could ever happen to create a booming economy.
Sorry but your post makes no sense. Nothing stops you from shopping around for medical services. What you are wanting is the government to mandate that medical service providers have listed prices for every procedure which if you have ever been in an emergency situation is an impossibility since of course no one actually knows what is going to be required until the testing and analysis of the issue begins and then even at that point the outcome and eventual medical requirements are far from certain.
Problem is that the rich invest almost all of their money so its doubtful that a wealth tax will take in much revenue at all. If anything inflation is already very sufficient as a wealth tax.
I doubt you can actually provide any factual evidence that the rich invest almost all of their money in investments that sitimulate the US economy. The rich invest in stock, bonds, and property worldwide. Try looking at any asset allocation model. And no inflation is not a wealth tax unless one is a total investment idiot and literally holds the money in cash or cash equivalents.
