- 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 4:20 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Posted on 5/23/17 at 4:20 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
150,000 times .15
Thats not how they are doing this though.
The tax(which they admit is just a hypothetical right now and has no structural details) would be on the employer side. Meaning it would add 15% of a person's hired salary to their tax bill. For the employer.
This post was edited on 5/23/17 at 4:21 pm
3
Posted on 5/23/17 at 4:22 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
quote:
150,000 times .15
Thats not how they are doing this though.
The tax(which they admit is just a hypothetical right now and has no structural details) would be on the employer side. Meaning it would add 15% of a person's hired salary to their tax bill. For the employer.
There is little difference in practice, homie. That is coming out of the employee's paycheck, particularly if it's only employees in California.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 4:23 pm to tarzana
quote:
including differently documented immigrants:
just 
Posted on 5/23/17 at 4:24 pm to tarzana
Lol will only cost twice the current budget for the entire state. Seems like a good thing to do.
quote:also it's hard to even imagine a mind so deranged as to use the term differently documented
This will cover ALL Californians, including differently documented immigrants:
This post was edited on 5/23/17 at 4:54 pm
Posted on 5/23/17 at 4:26 pm to bonhoeffer45
Why is it fair that employers pay for the healthcare of everyone?
Posted on 5/23/17 at 4:30 pm to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
There is little difference in practice, homie. That is coming out of the employee's paycheck, particularly if it's only employees in California.
It would require them to reduce a person's salary to offset that cost.
In some fields that could happen, in high demand fields it wouldn't be so easy.
And getting back to the "compared to what" component. The average yearly total premium expense for a family of 4 in California is nearly $20,000. Out of pocket costs are nearly 2000.
Even under a completely cost shifted scenario, it's close to a net wash.
This post was edited on 5/23/17 at 4:31 pm
Posted on 5/23/17 at 4:33 pm to back9Tiger
quote:
oh and BTW, all illegals would get 100% full benefits so they won't pay into the system and those that do will have to cover their cost as well...AWESOME!!!!
That's just the price we must pay for being privileged fricking white males. It's how socialism works -- white people pay for the welfare of illegals.
Ain't it grand?
Posted on 5/23/17 at 4:33 pm to tarzana
Wait, if it's going to cost 400 Billion to cover 40 million people, then we are talking what, 3.3 trillion to cover 330 million Americans?
It would take our entire revenue JUST for healthcare. Seems legit.
It would take our entire revenue JUST for healthcare. Seems legit.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 4:34 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Why is it fair that employers pay for the healthcare of everyone?
You asking me?
I wish we had never implemented the employer tax credit and didn't build up our system around employer insurance to begin with. So I am probably not the one to ask this too.
But since the incentive is cooked in, since our tax code is how it is, its hard to avoid employer taxation in a scenario such as this where California can't magically re-write federal tax code. Where they are operating within state constraints.
Though on a moral level, I am not against corporate taxation. Its not like they don't benefit from all manner of investment, protections, infrastructure, educated workforce etc. But economically speaking, I would prefer minimizing their tax burden.
This post was edited on 5/23/17 at 4:35 pm
Posted on 5/23/17 at 4:36 pm to tarzana
quote:
differently documented immigrants:
I have to commend you and those like you on your ability to gradually shift the language so it sounds less and less harsh. I mean, it also makes you intellectually dishonest, but it's been effective up until now.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 4:38 pm to SoulGlo
quote:
Holy shite, libs just discovered the entire purpose of federalism.
but only when someone whose policies they don't agree with is in office
Posted on 5/23/17 at 4:39 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
It would require them to reduce a person's salary to offset that cost.
In some fields that could happen, in high demand fields it wouldn't be so easy.
And getting back to the "compared to what" component. The average yearly total premium expense for a family of 4 in California is nearly $20,000. Out of pocket costs are nearly 2000.
Even under a completely cost shifted scenario, it's close to a net wash.
The ones that can will shift a lot of that high demand out of state. Google and the like talk a good game, but they'll see it for what it is, and they'll keep shifting and expanding here in the West Loop and in Atlanta and everywhere else. "Non-tradeables" like real estate and healthcare are kind of screwed, but there are still ways around that. Do you think employers are going to automatically submit to a 15% increase in payroll? Absolutely not.
quote:
Even under a completely cost shifted scenario, it's close to a net wash.
Yea, in a pie-in-the-sky scenario without considering second- and third-order effects, maybe. Can't wait until all of the California risk pools magically look like shite and a further hike is needed.
ETA: And, again, this already failed once at the state level, and that was with an increase that was 1/3 lower than this.
This post was edited on 5/23/17 at 4:42 pm
Posted on 5/23/17 at 4:44 pm to AbuTheMonkey
quote:Many businesses would end up with zero profit or negative profits with a payroll tax increase like that.
Do you think employers are going to automatically submit to a 15% increase in payroll? Absolutely not.
The businesses that get fricked the most are the ones that employ low wage people in services like food. They won't get any cost savings from single payer, yet they'll get extra labor costs.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 4:44 pm to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
The ones that can will shift a lot of that high demand out of state. Google and the like talk a good game, but they'll see it for what it is, and they'll keep shifting and expanding here in the West Loop and in Atlanta and everywhere else. "Non-tradeables" like real estate and healthcare are kind of screwed, but there are still ways around that. Do you think employers are going to automatically submit to a 15% increase in payroll? Absolutely not.
This is a different argument though. One I mentioned in another thread on this.
This is one of the problems with single-payer state reform.
Companies can just relocate. And I suspect some will.
Though you just can't replace the Silicon Valley incubator over night, and can't ignore the desirability for people to be in certain locations. Think the Kansas experiment. By cold rational economic logic, most of the countries companies in higher taxed areas should of swarmed to Kansas. But some people just don't want to live in shitty places, and build companies where there is not a whole lot of quality labor supply, infrastructure and allure.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 4:45 pm to tarzana
quote:
This will cover ALL Californians, including differently documented immigrants:
States, having no ability to print money, abandon state-run healthcare systems within 3-5 years. This will be an even shorter-lived experiment.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 4:46 pm to olemc999
quote:
I think Vermont tried single payer and it failed. I don't think the rest of the country noticed
Kentucky has done a version of this. Hawaii tried it for just children.
All failures.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 4:47 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
increase in payroll tax, which would be offset by the reduction in health insurance premiums, copays, deductibles.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 4:48 pm to the808bass
quote:
Kentucky has done a version of this. Hawaii tried it for just children.
Hawaii does have a near UHC system, and has for a long time.
They just went a different route. Mandated insurance benefits for all employees that work 20 or more hours. Its been around since 1974. Was actually in the spirit of Nixon's proposal.
This post was edited on 5/23/17 at 4:51 pm
Posted on 5/23/17 at 4:50 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
Meaning it would add 15% of a person's hired salary to their tax bill. For the employer.
Well shite. If it's just for the employer then we good mane.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 4:51 pm to tarzana
Seems okay for a state to decide his of its residents agree. As long as no federal money supports it.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News