- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: California Single Payer Healthcare Plan Sails Through Initial Committee Test
Posted on 5/23/17 at 2:58 pm to FutureRATeammember
Posted on 5/23/17 at 2:58 pm to FutureRATeammember
quote:
It's unworkable by Californias own estimates.
This is untrue.
quote:
The cost of singly payer is hundreds of billions over californias entire budget.
And half of that figure is covered by existing money, the other half almost covered by what's already spent.
quote:
A huge tax on all workers is being proposed to cover the costs.
A 15% increase in payroll tax, which would be offset by the reduction in health insurance premiums, copays, deductibles. Sky isn't falling, champ.
9
Posted on 5/23/17 at 2:59 pm to tarzana
quote:
The analysis found that the proposal would require:
•A total cost of $400 billion per year to cover all healthcare and administrative costs.
•Of that, $200 billion of existing federal, state and local funds could be repurposed to go toward the single-payer system.
•The additional $200 billion would need to be raised from new taxes.
The analysis proposes one scenario in which a new payroll tax on employers — with a rate of 15% of earned income — could supply the new revenue. But the measure itself does not contain a specific tax proposal, and therefore would not, at this point, need a two-thirds vote to approve a new tax.
The write-up also notes that a universal healthcare proposal would likely reduce spending by employers and employees statewide, which currently ranges between $100 billion and $150 billion annually. Therefore, the total new spending under the bill would be between $50 billion and $100 billion each year.
found it:
The Healthy California Act
This post was edited on 5/23/17 at 3:27 pm
Posted on 5/23/17 at 2:59 pm to tarzana
quote:
why not do it on a state by state basis?
Holy shite, libs just discovered the entire purpose of federalism.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 3:04 pm to tarzana
quote:
California Single Payer Healthcare Plan Sails Through Initial Committee Test
Well, why not?
Because it's not government's place to provide healthcare, just look at the VA for why.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 3:07 pm to tarzana
'differently documented?' 
You people have no shortage of ridiculous euphemisms to avoid 'hurting people's feelings' and calling the kettle black.
You people have no shortage of ridiculous euphemisms to avoid 'hurting people's feelings' and calling the kettle black.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 3:09 pm to tarzana
quote:
differently documented
Wtf?
Posted on 5/23/17 at 3:11 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
A 15% increase in payroll tax, which would be offset by the reduction in health insurance premiums, copays, deductibles. Sky isn't falling, champ.
15% on top of their high State income tax and federal and sales taxes is a lot of damn money.
I make 100k so for me that would be another 15 grand in taxes per year. I don't spend anywhere near that on health insurance premiums or deductibles or health costs yearly.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 3:12 pm to goldennugget
SJW want wants you to pay more. That's the goal.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 3:12 pm to back9Tiger
quote:
How fricking stupid are people in California? are the closer to the sun and getting their brains baked? This will utterly collapse the entire state and they deserve it.
Or perhaps they are geniuses.
Think about it. CA represents what the 10 largest economy in the World, right?!! Well as we have seen when things are too big to fail the Federal Govt comes into bail said entities out of their jam under the auspices of it will cause a bigger detriment to the country as whole if they fail. Perhaps the legislators in CA know single payor will fail but that the Feds will ultimately bail them out because CALIFORNIA IS TO BIG TO FAIL!
Thus, CA keeps single payor in the backs of the federal treasury and the rest of the lib states say, "Wait , if CA has single payor paid for and or subsidized by the Feds, our state wants it to!"
This post was edited on 5/23/17 at 3:16 pm
Posted on 5/23/17 at 3:16 pm to roadGator
Smart Asset says that a 100k income in California has an overall tax burden of 36%
Add 15% onto that and you are paying 51% in taxes. No thanks
Add 15% onto that and you are paying 51% in taxes. No thanks
Posted on 5/23/17 at 3:16 pm to GumboPot
quote:
ood. States have the right to self determination even if they determine fiscal suicide.
I have no problem with this. Just don't ask me for any money.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 3:16 pm to tarzana
quote:
Well, why not? If Trump and the Republican Congress can't put through a meaningful, comprehensive healthcare plan, why not do it on a state by state basis?
Single payer will be death of the American healthcare system, but with that being said as a supporter if states rights, I fully support Cali proving how big of a disaster it is.
quote:
differently documented immigrants
WTF is that ****?
Posted on 5/23/17 at 3:16 pm to BamaAtl
A California bill that would eliminate health insurance companies and provide government-funded health coverage for everyone in the state would cost $400 billion and require significant tax increases, legislative analysts said Monday.
Much of the cost would be offset by existing state, federal and private spending on health coverage, the analysis found, but total health care costs would increase by an estimated $50 billion to $100 billion a year.
That's a massive sum in a state where the entire general fund budget is $125 billion.
The measure envisions using all public money spent on health care — from Medicare, Medicaid, federal public health funds and "Obamacare" subsidies. That's enough to cover about half of the $400 billion cost, according to the legislative analysis.
The rest would come from higher taxes on businesses, residents or both. It would take a 15 percent payroll tax to raise enough money, the analysis said.
California
What they did not address is how shorfalls would be made up when costs go up.
Much of the cost would be offset by existing state, federal and private spending on health coverage, the analysis found, but total health care costs would increase by an estimated $50 billion to $100 billion a year.
That's a massive sum in a state where the entire general fund budget is $125 billion.
The measure envisions using all public money spent on health care — from Medicare, Medicaid, federal public health funds and "Obamacare" subsidies. That's enough to cover about half of the $400 billion cost, according to the legislative analysis.
The rest would come from higher taxes on businesses, residents or both. It would take a 15 percent payroll tax to raise enough money, the analysis said.
California
What they did not address is how shorfalls would be made up when costs go up.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 3:18 pm to Aubie Spr96
quote:
ood. States have the right to self determination even if they determine fiscal suicide.
I have no problem with this. Just don't ask me for any money.
And herein lies the problem. I am pretty sure California was in dire straits financially at one point and was asking for federal funds to bail them out. Same for New York.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 3:18 pm to tarzana
I'm in California. If this comes close to becoming law, my house is going on the market and I'm out. High sales tax, car registration, 1.5% property tax, state sales tax, highest gas tax in the country, and now a 10k per person tax for health care is beyond rediculous.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 3:18 pm to tarzana
Good for California, they will catch Massachusetts in the most debt per capita race now. Couldn't do it without a healthcare debacle
Posted on 5/23/17 at 3:21 pm to BamaAtl
BamaAtl, research shows that payroll taxes on employers falls mostly on workers in the form of lower wages. If this is a plan where 7.5 is paid by workers and 7.5 paid by employers, in reality it is closer to 11% paid by workers.
An 11% increase in taxes would make A LOT of people worse off
An 11% increase in taxes would make A LOT of people worse off
Posted on 5/23/17 at 3:23 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
A 15% increase in payroll tax, which would be offset by the reduction in health insurance premiums, copays, deductibles. Sky isn't falling, champ.
Ummmm yeah go frick yourself
Posted on 5/23/17 at 3:24 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
A 15% increase in payroll tax, which would be offset by the reduction in health insurance premiums, copays, deductibles. Sky isn't falling, champ.
That is not correct.
The offsets are going to take care of one half. The other half was going to be taken with a 15% payroll tax.
That was going to be primarily leveled at companies.
The rest would come from higher taxes on businesses, residents or both. It would take a 15 percent payroll tax to raise enough money, the analysis said.
ABC News
I would think it would be an increase leveled at both residents and businesses. maybe sharing half of the burden? Either way, they could expect a huge influx of illegal immigrants hoping to cash in on free insurance, and a "safe space", if you will. This would surely escalate costs.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 3:27 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
The rest would come from higher taxes on businesses
Isn't the state experiencing a mass exodus of companies?
Not sure how this will help solve that problem.
This post was edited on 5/23/17 at 3:30 pm
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News