The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Miss Mia on March 06, 2009, 01:20:52 PM
-
IdaBriggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Mar-06-09 08:55 AM
Original message (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5196821)
How much money would your household save if you didn't have to pay for medicine/health coverage?
I finally watched "Sicko" last weekend, and of course it got me thinking.
How much would the 'normal' household save if you didn't have to pay ONE CENT for
a) Doctor Visits
b) Emergency Room Visits
c) Hospital Stays
d) Ambulance Transport
e) Prescriptions
f) Dental Care
g) Insurance Costs
h) Miscellaneous, Unlisted Health Related Expenses
Would you do me the favor of taking a quick look at your monthly budget, and tossing some numbers up? It would also be interesting to see how many people in your household are 'covered' (or not) for that amount of money.
I'll post mine in a separate line to 'kick' the thread.
Belial Donating Member (317 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Mar-06-09 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. Maybe @ $6000 a year.. but I would pay the same
in a tax increases if not more to cover the cost.. BTW thats with spouse and two children..
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Mar-06-09 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
5. My wife's COBRA alone is $365/mo.
Her meds are are about $250/mo more. Her copays are about $300/mo. Luckily I'm on VA coverage so my meds are $8/mo each for 6 different ones.
slackmaster (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Mar-06-09 09:04 AM
Response to Original message
9. Between $2,000 and $3,000 per year, but someone would have to pay for it somehow
The concept of a normal household (meaning I assume middle class with at least one source of income) not having to pay for medical care somehow, makes absolutely no sense.
Kalyke (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Mar-06-09 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
19. But you would have to pay taxes.
Not that I mind that idea. I don't mind paying my taxes because I like roads and schools and libraries - and would love single-payer coverage.
That said, I still think the cost to the average American, even with a tax increase to pay for it, would still be far less than the $3,000 - $10,000 most people spend out-of-pocket yearly for employer or personal-provider health insurance.
ContinentalOp (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Mar-06-09 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
54. Ouch "employer payroll tax of 4.5% an employee payroll tax of 3.3%" my healthcare costs would triple
I'm fully in favor of single payer but I thought it would actually save me money. Sounds like it would be about 3x as expensive for my family.
ContinentalOp (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Mar-06-09 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #54
58. Actually, I redid the math and it would only be 2.5x more expensive than what we pay now.
Still, ouch.
-
ContinentalOp (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Mar-06-09 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
54. Ouch "employer payroll tax of 4.5% an employee payroll tax of 3.3%" my healthcare costs would triple
I'm fully in favor of single payer but I thought it would actually save me money. Sounds like it would be about 3x as expensive for my family.
All I can say is DUH! You were warned.
KC
-
A shitload less than what my energy cost..and food costs...and everything else I buy will go up.
-
Bigmack (1000+ posts) Fri Mar-06-09 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. How do you know that?
One of the advantages of single-payer health care is that admin costs go waaaay down. No advertising budget - or a very small one. Paperwork is minimized, too.
Social Security has the lowest admin costs of any financial security account.
Look and see who is fighting single-payer. Insurance companies.
Before we went on Medicare, my wife and I figured we could pay $9K per year in higher taxes in return for health care, and it would be a wash. The bonus would be that everyone would get care.
It also has the lowest gains. It is nothing more than theft. It is also rife with fraud and errors. You are too stupid to understand that though so nevermind.
KC
-
How much money would your household save if you didn't have to pay for medicine could enslave the medical profession
Let's be honest here. This has been what DemonRats and DUmpmonkeys have been looking for since the conclusion of the War of Northern Aggression. Can't enslave black folk anymore; lessee, what about bringing in Mexicans to do the jobs that Americans just won't do for slave wages, and "socializing" the most powerful economic engine this planet has ever before seen to enslave the entire working population to the few Democrat Marxists and Communists in offices of power.
The Democrats can be argued to have been the party of "get somebody else to do it for me" since the 1840's at least.
-
IdaBriggs
I finally watched "Sicko" last weekend, and of course it got me thinking.
0 bongs.
I've read IdiotBriggs for a few years now and have never seen her do anything which resembles "thinking."
.
-
I went to the link they have there about HR 676.
Why are they playing with numbers there? First they say;
A study by nationally recognized economist, Dean Baker, of the Center for Economic Research and Policy concluded that under H.R. 676, a family of three making $40,000 per year would spend approximately $1900 per year for healthcare coverage. Currently, (in 2007) the average annual premium for families covered under an employee health plan is $11,000. (National Coalition on Health Care.)
Ok, this is dishonest on its face. Why not use the 'standard' family of 4? And why use the figure of $40,000 for this family?
Now the next paragraph;
In 2005, without reform, the average employer that offers coverage was contributing $2,600 to healthcare per employee (for much skimpier benefits), or 217.00 per month. Under HR 676, the average costs to employers for an employee making $30,000 per year will be reduced to $1,425 per year; or about $119.00 per month.
Why do we now jump to a $30,000 annual salary?
Am I reading this right ..... as a self employed person can I expect my taxes to go up by 7.8% should some dumbass manage to get this to pass? So on top of the 25% - 35% taxes I have been paying I can expect them to go up by another 8%? Really? I must be reading that wrong.
KC
-
Talk about someone who has drank the koolaid;
demodonkey (1000+ posts)
Fri Mar-06-09 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #31
35. Oh yes -- one more thing. Local, county, and state governments would pay less for their employees
...so you should get a tax cut in local and state tax.
Right now some of these local and state governmental entities are paying 25-30 percent (or more) of their payrolls ADDITIONAL in employer-share of employees' healthcare and workers compensation costs. You as a "working" taxpayer have to pay for this in addition to your own healthcare costs, in the form of higher local and state taxes.
This program would lower employer healthcare costs for local and state governments from 25-30 percent to about 11-12 percent of payroll. That is a huge savings that can go back to the "working people" in the form of lower local and state taxes.
Is there anyone, one person, any person you know, who would actually believe that statement? Just one?
KC
-
We have a winner for dumbest post of the day!!
Yellow Horse (350 posts)
Fri Mar-06-09 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #20
43. You would only pay 3.3% of salary, & save the $2-3K you are paying now -- get lots more coverage.
You would NOT get a 7.8% cut in your pay. The 4.5% employer payroll tax is paid by your employer -- NOT YOU (in lieu of what they are paying in healthcare coverage for you now.)
"Dude, you're not getting it .... YOU don't pay for it, your EMPLOYER is paying for it! Don't you see ..... it is another way to stick it to the MAN! Yeah, we are gonna make the guy who writes our checks pay that 4.5% not you." /dummie
KC
-
Yellow Horse (350 posts)
Fri Mar-06-09 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #20
43. You would only pay 3.3% of salary, & save the $2-3K you are paying now -- get lots more coverage.
3.3% of my salary is more than I usually spend per year on the deductible for my current family health insurance, chump. No deal.
-
The costs of this without severe rationing would be astronomical.
DUmmy visits alone in their pursuit of getting removed from the productive workforce and society due to medical or mental issues would be more then anyone could imagine.
-
And let's see, that's $9000 my employer would have to pay, making my "medical insurance" $15,600 / year.
Boy, that doesn't seem like a good deal to me.
It's not supposed to be. It is supposed to be a good deal for 'them'.
KC
-
It's not supposed to be. It is supposed to be a good deal for 'them'.
KC
LMFAO HI5!
-
How much money would your household save if you didn't have to pay for medicine/health coverage?
Zero. Obama will raise taxes to make sure you don't see a dime of any saved income.
-
We have a winner for dumbest post of the day!!
"Dude, you're not getting it .... YOU don't pay for it, your EMPLOYER is paying for it! Don't you see ..... it is another way to stick it to the MAN! Yeah, we are gonna make the guy who writes our checks pay that 4.5% not you." /dummie
KC
Arguing with a DUmmie is like beating your dog for chewing on your shoes............
3 days later.
-
0 bongs.
I've read IdiotBriggs for a few years now and have never seen her do anything which resembles "thinking."
Why doesn't the Idiot Briggs primitive ask something more sensible like "how much money would you save if you didn't have to pay rent [or mortgage, if applicable]?" or "how much money would you save if you didn't have to pay for groceries?"
-
Why doesn't the Idiot Briggs primitive ask something more sensible like "how much money would you save if you didn't have to pay rent [or mortgage, if applicable]?" or "how much money would you save if you didn't have to pay for groceries?"
We've been buying their groceries, paying their rent and paying for their healthcare for 45 years now.....that's why we have a national debt.......and just where would we be right now without a national debt?
-
We've been buying their groceries, paying their rent and paying for their healthcare for 45 years now.....that's why we have a national debt.......and just where would we be right now without a national debt?
Remember, the Idiot Briggs primitive is the landlady in Michigan with a tenant who got behind on the rent, and then went out to buy an automobile.
I imagine the Idiot Briggs primitive is still all bent out of shape over that, having a tenant who acts like a primitive.
-
Why doesn't the Idiot Briggs primitive ask something more sensible like "how much money would you save if you didn't have to pay rent [or mortgage, if applicable]?" or "how much money would you save if you didn't have to pay for groceries?"
More appropriate for the DUmmies would be "How much money would you save if you didn't have to pay for your booze, pot and Doritos?"
-
The costs of this without severe rationing would be astronomical.
DUmmy visits alone in their pursuit of getting removed from the productive workforce and society due to medical or mental issues would be more then anyone could imagine.
it would be very severe rationing. goodbye incentives for innovations
-
Gee, why stop at medicine? Think of how much money a DUmmy family could save if they didn't have to pay for their mortgage/rent, utilities, car, gas, food, pot, cheetos, beer, cable tv, or internet connection.