Poll: Regarding Health Coverage, What in your opinion is Affordable?

[Thickasabrick]

as a percentage of your income that you pay for health care coverage.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. How much is affordable for someone to pay, you mean? nt

[Thickasabrick]

2. Thank you - I'm going to try and make an edit.

[guitar man]

3. I'm paying about 15%now

And it's too high with no more salary than I make. It has doubled in the 3 years since I took up family health insurance. It was fine the first year I had it so 7.5-8% Is not too bad

[Thickasabrick]

4. I'm paying about 11% and I don't think that is affordable. Everything

over 7% is deductible if you itemize so I'm thinking 7% is the magic number - I hope it is anyway :)

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. oh and thank you for doing the exercise

8% to me is the outlier number... the true ceiling.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. I out eight percent which woudl be the upper level in my view

but here is an exercise. For those of you WHO HAVE insurance... seat down and do the math. How much of YOUR income is going to Health Care? Go ahead do that. You may find it a little shocking.

Add to your rates the following:

Co-Pays... every time to you to the doctor

Deductibles

Medications...

I am willing to bet that most of you are paying more than 8%, unless you do have a government program, let that be Tricare, medicare or the rest.

[pscot]

28. We're paying about 8%

and that's medicare with supplemental coverage.

[Alameda]

30. If you add in my insurance payments....it's at least 20%

and I'm in great health!

[bigwillq]

7. paying about 11-12 percent

from my paycheck. I am on no medications, have used only one prescription in the last year and only been to the doctors once in that same time span. I think 11-12 percent is a bit high.

[angryfirelord]

8. Not paying squat doesn't seem like a realistic option

If you're not paying for it, someone else is paying for it and if they're not paying for it, then we're going into debt, which isn't a solution. Therefore, I think a simple 8% national flat tax for health insurance would be a much better distribution on the population's income compared to trying to complicate things such as taxing health benefits and implementing a graduated income tax structure instead.

[JeanGrey]

10. Let the rich pay for it.

Simple.

[stray cat]

rich is relative - the plan seems to be those of us 300x over poverty

those making less will get some subsidy

[angryfirelord]

16. But if it's a universal service

Why shouldn't everyone with an income contribute to it? 8% for most people would be a lot cheaper compared to the current plans they're on now. And you're no longer as dependent on the rich, who may be finding ways to avoid paying under a more progressive structure, thus losing revenue.

[JeanGrey]

34. Because I am POOR and cannot afford the 8 percent.

Even if it is less than I pay now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Even if the rich went back to 90% taxing rates

it would not be enough to finance this, but I am sure you understand that, or perhaps not.

[JeanGrey]

35. Gee whiz, that isn't what I've been told ever since I was a

democrat. Totally different, as a matter of fact.

[exboyfil]

12. 8% is not nearly enough

I think you will have to double it.

I am a pretty well compensated employee, and my employer and I pay about $12k/yr for my insurance. This represents over 15% of my income, and I have a deductible of $4300. We can get some of this cost out through single payer, but 16% of wages is probably the best we are going to do.

Germany is about 8%/8%.

[angryfirelord]

18. It's a possibility

But also keep in mind that private systems have a lot of corporate overhead involved (some sources say as much as 30%), so reducing that would bring the cost down. But I haven't researched this issue that much in depth, so I can't say for certain what is the best system.

[Thickasabrick]

17. I agree but I was curious as to how many people really didn't want

to pay anything or opt out. I would like to see it at 7% but I think your 8% number would be more likely.

[LooseWilly]

33. Technically, if you're not paying for it, and you're not using it... then no one is paying for it.

Which is only right... when one is not getting any service (that one not be paying for it).

Yes yes... I know the argument about when one of us deadbeats without insurance goes into the ER... gets the bill in the mail... decides that we don't give a fuck... ruin our personal credit... and the poor employers who still offer coverage for employees are forced to raise the rates they charge their employees because their rates are increased by the insurance companies because they've created a handy excuse to do so... and so it is the poor who can't afford to pay for insurance which is liable to have absurdly high deductibles ($5k deductible with a $30k yearly ceiling on payments for $200 a month when one is 29 years old?... really??) and not pay enough to stave off the need for declaring bankruptcy anyway in case of any major illness... we're really the problem with the modern health care system (the numbers I cited were what I was looking at 10 years ago when I decided it was all a scam... I imagine they have only become more absurd).

That said.. an 8% flat tax for a Single Payer... I'm all for it.

[JeanGrey]

9. About 60 percent. Which is why I don't want to pay

anything. I've already paid enough.

[exboyfil]

11. In Germany it is about 8%/8%

employer/employee we would be fortunate to get to this level given what is spent now. Economists would argue the employer 8% actually comes from the worker's wages. I would hope such a wage tax would not be in addition to the Medicare withholding. I think the total would be similar for France, but it is broken up differently (employer pays more and they get funds from other sources such as gambling).

[Alameda]

13. I pay enough taxes now already, and don't want to pay anymore.

I feel like our taxes are squandered for things we, the citizens don't need. I want Universal Health Care...NOW!

[stray cat]

14. No taxes no benefits - easy

[Thickasabrick]

19. But if you had Universal Health Care, your taxes would definitely

go up. My only problem is the mandate to contribute to private insurance profits. It just seems so....wrong. If there is a public option - it will be easier for me to accept.

[Warpy]

15. It depends on your income

If you're making below subsistence, then nothing is affordable.

If you're making subsistence, nothing is affordable.

If you're making above subsistence, then a sliding scale of your disposable income might be affordable.

However, taking everything above subsistence is unaffordable as it doesn't allow you to save for retirement or anything else.

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. I said 7% or below...

... because although I know that healthcare costs 17% of gdp, I want to fit in.

[Thickasabrick]

21. LOL...thank you. Is the 17% number including Medicare and Private

Insurance now? I don't see how anyone could afford 17% of their income unless they were really wealthy and had nothing else to spend it on.

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. The actual cost is about $7000 per person.

That's $28,000 for my family, or about 60% of our gross income.

That's how much is spent in total by the state, my wife's employer and I.

The tone of these discussions is reminiscent of car insurance discussions with my children. It seems ridiculous when someone else is currently paying the tab. $600/year for insurance???? How can anyone expect me to pay that?

Mathematically it'd be possible to simply impose a 100% tax on the top few hundred families, but it's not especially realistic.

[MellowDem]

22. How much is it in other developed nations?

That would be a good place to start.

[stray cat]

25. Germany is about 8% - but anyone over poverty has to pay extra to cover those making less

[exboyfil]

31. Employee pays 8%

The employer also pays 8%. Economists would argue that the other 8% actually comes from compensating the employee less except in those cases in which the employee is near some preset minimum wage.

One thing to remember is that, if this is handled through payroll taxes like Germany, then the Medicare portion would go away under our current tax structure. Of course the Germans also have a different account for Long Term Care (2%). I personally think the LTC payment will be inadequate going forward (it pays 75% for nursing home care with the other 25% being picked up by the individual/family). Currently we handle LTC mostly through the Medicaid system, and that approach is not sustainable.

Your point about the current system in Germany sustaining low/no income is valid so the general tax spend should be reduced if a similar plan is adopted in the U.S. Given the large deficits currently being run I am not sure that you would see any reduction in Federal tax rates - it just would make that situation better.

Germany also has a maximum cap on insurance payments (they are kind of regressive in their approach). Rich people can also opt out of the system, but amazingly many do not.

[DFLforever]

29. I've heard it's about 10% in the UK

But a British DUer would have a better fix on the number.

[exboyfil]

32. I don't think the UK model would work in the U.S.

The structural change would be huge (switching to NHS employment for the providers), and we will be fighting a general revenue battle allocation like the UK.

A German model appears to be more likely.

[stray cat]

26. What I think is affordable can't touch a house - it doesn't mean someone will pay for my house

the problem is affordability versus what it costs - and some of us will have to pay more to cover those for which 25% of their income still won't cover the expense.

[Mudoria]

27. My employer pays all of my health insurance

I like it that way too.