3% extra tax for health insurance

[Pho_King]

A 3% flat tax is what my health insurance costs and then everyone is covered.
Would you have accepted that deal? A 3% flat tax increase on income and then you dont have to think about health insurance.

This is the deal I have through taxes: a 3% flat tax covers HC for everyone

If you earn 0 you pay 0
If you earn 10.000$ you’ve to pay 300$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 50.000$ you’ve to pay 1500$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 100.000$ you’ve to pay 3000$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 1.000.000$ you’ve to pay:30.000$ for HI pr. year
If you earn.100.000.000$ you’ve to pay:3.000.000$ for HI pr year.(3 million $ year).

Would this deal been good for you?

Why should i pay more for my health insurance than someone else?

Here's the deal I have no kids and my wife and I make just under 300K .

We would pay 9000 a year under your plan.

Now someone with 5 kids making 50K a year would only pay 1500 a year even though he would obviously have higher medical bills than I.

Sorry but I'll pass.

Its amazing that some think suc plan would come anywhere close to covering national medical expenses.

 

[Political Junky]

A 3% flat tax is what my health insurance costs and then everyone is covered.
Would you have accepted that deal? A 3% flat tax increase on income and then you dont have to think about health insurance.

This is the deal I have through taxes: a 3% flat tax covers HC for everyone

If you earn 0 you pay 0
If you earn 10.000$ you’ve to pay 300$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 50.000$ you’ve to pay 1500$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 100.000$ you’ve to pay 3000$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 1.000.000$ you’ve to pay:30.000$ for HI pr. year
If you earn.100.000.000$ you’ve to pay:3.000.000$ for HI pr year.(3 million $ year).

Would this deal been good for you?

Why should i pay more for my health insurance than someone else?

Here's the deal I have no kids and my wife and I make just under 300K .

We would pay 9000 a year under your plan.

Now someone with 5 kids making 50K a year would only pay 1500 a year even though he would obviously have higher medical bills than I.

Sorry but I'll pass.

Do you pay less than $9,000. a year now?

 

[American Horse]

Yes and the network catalog only contains like 5% of all doctors int he area. So plz explain how only being able to see 5% of doctors mean you can see them all

Simple: nothing keeps a person from seeing any doc they choose, the reimbursement will just be limited to the network allowance.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Yes and the network catalog only contains like 5% of all doctors int he area. So plz explain how only being able to see 5% of doctors mean you can see them all

Simple: nothing keeps a person from seeing any doc they choose, the reimbursement will just be limited to the network allowance.

Yes not being able to afford ot go to a doctor doesnt keep youi from seeing that doctor.
Have anymore retarded shit to say?

 

[Pho_King]

I am really quite amazed at the utter abandonment of any attempt at all by Starzz and Jokey to back up their claims, or even respond to the study I provided-one frequently replied upon by such simpletons.

 

[starcraftzzz]

I am really quite amazed at the utter abandonment of any attempt at all by Starzz and Jokey to back up their claims, or even respond to the study I provided-one frequently replied upon by such simpletons.

whats amazing si how damn cluless you are
come back when your iq is above 50
Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies - CNN

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclie...f.,cf.osb&fp=9d7077292e13d597&biw=816&bih=800

 

[Pho_King]

I am really quite amazed at the utter abandonment of any attempt at all by Starzz and Jokey to back up their claims, or even respond to the study I provided-one frequently replied upon by such simpletons.

whats amazing si how damn cluless you are
come back when your iq is above 50
Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies - CNN

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclie...f.,cf.osb&fp=9d7077292e13d597&biw=816&bih=800

Im sorry. i did not ask for a news article. I asked for a study. How about the study that the news piece cited used to form its conclusions?

and just a little advice. When you provide a news piece (and ggole search) when a study was asked for, and routinely misspell evin the simplest fo wirds, you then look vry stoopid accusing othirs of halfing a low qi.

 

[auditor0007]

A 3% flat tax is what my health insurance costs and then everyone is covered.
Would you have accepted that deal? A 3% flat tax increase on income and then you dont have to think about health insurance.

This is the deal I have through taxes: a 3% flat tax covers HC for everyone

If you earn 0 you pay 0
If you earn 10.000$ you’ve to pay 300$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 50.000$ you’ve to pay 1500$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 100.000$ you’ve to pay 3000$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 1.000.000$ you’ve to pay:30.000$ for HI pr. year
If you earn.100.000.000$ you’ve to pay:3.000.000$ for HI pr year.(3 million $ year).

Would this deal been good for you?

Why should i pay more for my health insurance than someone else?

Here's the deal I have no kids and my wife and I make just under 300K .

We would pay 9000 a year under your plan.

Now someone with 5 kids making 50K a year would only pay 1500 a year even though he would obviously have higher medical bills than I.

Sorry but I'll pass.

Well, the entire premise is absurd to begin with. 3% of wages is not going to cover our healthcare costs. We are already paying that 3% for Medicare. The combined employer/employee rate is 2.9% on all earned income. You should know that Skull.

Now if we move away from the ridiculous figure of 3% and discuss a one-payer system where most of the administrative costs are removed, and then try to determine how we would pay for that, things change. You say you don't want to pay for everyone else's insurance, but I think you already do. I can't remember, but I believe you are a business owner with employees, and if you are, you most likely pay a good portion of their healthcare costs. Even if you don't, most employers do and that cost is passed on to all of us. You are just paying for it through different avenues. So realizing this, the question then becomes how to find the best way to reduce costs without giving up quality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

so tjvh and pho-king believe that bankruptcy because of medical costs is due to selfishness. they can't cite anything, but what they hey, that doesn't matter.

 

[rightwinger]

3% would work for me. I hate medical bills

 

[Pho_King]

so tjvh and pho-king believe that bankruptcy because of medical costs is due to selfishness. they can't cite anything, but what they hey, that doesn't matter.

Funny, but my whole premise is that almost no bks are caused by medical costs. Medical costs are a contributing factor. And I did provide evidence- typically the same evidence the tards on the left use to justify their absurdity.

 

[Euro]

A 3% flat tax is what my health insurance costs and then everyone is covered.
Would you have accepted that deal? A 3% flat tax increase on income and then you dont have to think about health insurance.

This is the deal I have through taxes: a 3% flat tax covers HC for everyone

If you earn 0 you pay 0
If you earn 10.000$ you’ve to pay 300$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 50.000$ you’ve to pay 1500$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 100.000$ you’ve to pay 3000$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 1.000.000$ you’ve to pay:30.000$ for HI pr. year
If you earn.100.000.000$ you’ve to pay:3.000.000$ for HI pr year.(3 million $ year).

Would this deal been good for you?

Why should i pay more for my health insurance than someone else?

Here's the deal I have no kids and my wife and I make just under 300K .

We would pay 9000 a year under your plan.

Now someone with 5 kids making 50K a year would only pay 1500 a year even though he would obviously have higher medical bills than I.

Sorry but I'll pass.

Well, the entire premise is absurd to begin with. 3% of wages is not going to cover our healthcare costs. We are already paying that 3% for Medicare. The combined employer/employee rate is 2.9% on all earned income. You should know that Skull.

Now if we move away from the ridiculous figure of 3% and discuss a one-payer system where most of the administrative costs are removed, and then try to determine how we would pay for that, things change. You say you don't want to pay for everyone else's insurance, but I think you already do. I can't remember, but I believe you are a business owner with employees, and if you are, you most likely pay a good portion of their healthcare costs. Even if you don't, most employers do and that cost is passed on to all of us. You are just paying for it through different avenues. So realizing this, the question then becomes how to find the best way to reduce costs without giving up quality.

The problem is all the bureaucracy in the US HC system. Have you ever thought of all the private sector bureaucracy in the insurance companies? Monitroring the cnsumers.
On top of that you have government monitoring bureaucracy.

With the system US have now you can’t, but what must be done is to cut all the bureacracy and paperwork. The US HC system is the least efficient and most bureaucratic therefore also most expensive. Most of your insurance goes to paperwork,administration and proffit for insurance companies not for treatment. That’s why it cost so much, bureaucracy.Treatment is not any difference in price to other countries, but the bureaucracy suck up the money.

 

[Pho_King]

Why should i pay more for my health insurance than someone else?

Here's the deal I have no kids and my wife and I make just under 300K .

We would pay 9000 a year under your plan.

Now someone with 5 kids making 50K a year would only pay 1500 a year even though he would obviously have higher medical bills than I.

Sorry but I'll pass.

Well, the entire premise is absurd to begin with. 3% of wages is not going to cover our healthcare costs. We are already paying that 3% for Medicare. The combined employer/employee rate is 2.9% on all earned income. You should know that Skull.

Now if we move away from the ridiculous figure of 3% and discuss a one-payer system where most of the administrative costs are removed, and then try to determine how we would pay for that, things change. You say you don't want to pay for everyone else's insurance, but I think you already do. I can't remember, but I believe you are a business owner with employees, and if you are, you most likely pay a good portion of their healthcare costs. Even if you don't, most employers do and that cost is passed on to all of us. You are just paying for it through different avenues. So realizing this, the question then becomes how to find the best way to reduce costs without giving up quality.

The problem is all the bureaucracy in the US HC system. Have you ever thought of all the private sector bureaucracy in the insurance companies? Monitroring the cnsumers.
On top of that you have government monitoring bureaucracy.

With the system US have now you can’t, but what must be done is to cut all the bureacracy and paperwork. The US HC system is the least efficient and most bureaucratic therefore also most expensive. Most of your insurance goes to paperwork,administration and proffit for insurance companies not for treatment. That’s why it cost so much, bureaucracy.Treatment is not any difference in price to other countries, but the bureaucracy suck up the money.

Well that, and the sedentary lifestyle, skyrocketing rates of obesity, and general lower quality of health enjoyed by Americans.

 

[dblack]

A 3% flat tax is what my health insurance costs and then everyone is covered.
Would you have accepted that deal? A 3% flat tax increase on income and then you dont have to think about health insurance.

This is the deal I have through taxes: a 3% flat tax covers HC for everyone

If you earn 0 you pay 0
If you earn 10.000$ you’ve to pay 300$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 50.000$ you’ve to pay 1500$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 100.000$ you’ve to pay 3000$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 1.000.000$ you’ve to pay:30.000$ for HI pr. year
If you earn.100.000.000$ you’ve to pay:3.000.000$ for HI pr year.(3 million $ year).

Would this deal been good for you?

It would definitely be better than ACA - and is a far better avenue for socializing health care. The problem is, it still ignores the primary problem with health care, which is unchecked inflation. Like ACA, it focuses on how we pay for our health care instead of why it costs too much. If health care prices keep going up, it doesn't matter who is paying for it - eventually we won't be able to keep up.

That's what so frustrating about the ACA. There is a real problem with health care that we all agree needs to be addressed (out of control price inflation). But the Democrats can't resist attempting to redirect that demand toward the tangential goal of socializing it.

 

[Pho_King]

A 3% flat tax is what my health insurance costs and then everyone is covered.
Would you have accepted that deal? A 3% flat tax increase on income and then you dont have to think about health insurance.

This is the deal I have through taxes: a 3% flat tax covers HC for everyone

If you earn 0 you pay 0
If you earn 10.000$ you’ve to pay 300$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 50.000$ you’ve to pay 1500$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 100.000$ you’ve to pay 3000$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 1.000.000$ you’ve to pay:30.000$ for HI pr. year
If you earn.100.000.000$ you’ve to pay:3.000.000$ for HI pr year.(3 million $ year).

Would this deal been good for you?

It would definitely be better than ACA - and is a far better avenue for socializing health care. The problem is, it still ignores the primary problem with health care, which is unchecked inflation. Like ACA, it focuses on how we pay for our health care instead of why it costs too much. If health care prices keep going up, it doesn't matter who is paying for it - eventually we won't be able to keep up.

That's what so frustrating about the ACA. There is a real problem with health care that we all agree needs to be addressed (out of control price inflation). But the Democrats can't resist attempting to redirect that demand toward the tangential goal of socializing it.

cost and price are two different things.

 

[dblack]

A 3% flat tax is what my health insurance costs and then everyone is covered.
Would you have accepted that deal? A 3% flat tax increase on income and then you dont have to think about health insurance.

This is the deal I have through taxes: a 3% flat tax covers HC for everyone

If you earn 0 you pay 0
If you earn 10.000$ you’ve to pay 300$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 50.000$ you’ve to pay 1500$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 100.000$ you’ve to pay 3000$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 1.000.000$ you’ve to pay:30.000$ for HI pr. year
If you earn.100.000.000$ you’ve to pay:3.000.000$ for HI pr year.(3 million $ year).

Would this deal been good for you?

It would definitely be better than ACA - and is a far better avenue for socializing health care. The problem is, it still ignores the primary problem with health care, which is unchecked inflation. Like ACA, it focuses on how we pay for our health care instead of why it costs too much. If health care prices keep going up, it doesn't matter who is paying for it - eventually we won't be able to keep up.

That's what so frustrating about the ACA. There is a real problem with health care that we all agree needs to be addressed (out of control price inflation). But the Democrats can't resist attempting to redirect that demand toward the tangential goal of socializing it.

cost and price are two different things.

Yep

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

A 3% flat tax is what my health insurance costs and then everyone is covered.
Would you have accepted that deal? A 3% flat tax increase on income and then you dont have to think about health insurance.

This is the deal I have through taxes: a 3% flat tax covers HC for everyone

If you earn 0 you pay 0
If you earn 10.000$ you’ve to pay 300$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 50.000$ you’ve to pay 1500$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 100.000$ you’ve to pay 3000$ for HI pr. year
If you earn 1.000.000$ you’ve to pay:30.000$ for HI pr. year
If you earn.100.000.000$ you’ve to pay:3.000.000$ for HI pr year.(3 million $ year).

Would this deal been good for you?

That depends on what kind of healthcare I'm going to get.

 

[JakeStarkey]

so tjvh and pho-king believe that bankruptcy because of medical costs is due to selfishness. they can't cite anything, but what they hey, that doesn't matter.

Funny, but my whole premise is that almost no bks are caused by medical costs. Medical costs are a contributing factor. And I did provide evidence- typically the same evidence the tards on the left use to justify their absurdity.

You provided one anecdotal event. Son, that is not compelling evidence. Here, let me help.

You give a Premise (you have done that half-assed)

You then give compelling Evidence (you haven't doned that even unassed)

Then you give a Conclusion that demonstrates the Signficance of what you have argued (which so far you have made an ass of yourself)

 

[Pho_King]

so tjvh and pho-king believe that bankruptcy because of medical costs is due to selfishness. they can't cite anything, but what they hey, that doesn't matter.

Funny, but my whole premise is that almost no bks are caused by medical costs. Medical costs are a contributing factor. And I did provide evidence- typically the same evidence the tards on the left use to justify their absurdity.

You provided one anecdotal event. Son, that is not compelling evidence. Here, let me help.

You give a Premise (you have done that half-assed)

You then give compelling Evidence (you haven't doned that even unassed)

Then you give a Conclusion that demonstrates the Signficance of what you have argued (which so far you have made an ass of yourself)

Actually, what I provided is the same study you dumbasses rely on when concluding that millions of bks are caused by medical debt. I did that for you, since you are too lazy to do any work for yourself. You may find some articles that editorialize that your premise is accurate, but you will not find any hard figures.

Tell me, boywonder, how many of those millions of individuals that filed bk "because of medical debt" also had other debts they filed on?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You provided no study.

So let's try again, OK.

You don't get to rebuttal until you build an affirmative case. Get to work.