Single Payer Question

[JANdad]

Another thread got me to thinking about how to fund UHC and as a payroll manager type person I got to thinking of the money employers are required to pay into workers comp insurance. I checked the Scopes manual for FL and GA and it seems the average charge to an employer is 10.34% of payroll dollars up to 40 hours worked.

Here is where I need some help with my math:

Assuming there are approx 200 Million workers in the US with an average yearly earnings of $45k, the total employer contribution to Workers Comp is: $929,160,000,000.00

I would like to think that if that money were switched to paying for UHC with a very minimal contribution on the part of employees, we could fund the UHC program.

Please poke some holes in my theory/numbers...

Thanks

[OlderButWiser]

1. ten percent seems high

isn't it more like 1 or 2 percent?

[JANdad]

2. Nope...

I sampled 441 classifications in FL and GA and the average is 10.324%

Incredible huh??????

[papau]

7. I believe you forgot to mention the wage cap on the tax that in effect reduces it

as a percentage of actual payroll

[Warren Stupidity]

3. You are off by a factor of 10.

You have a math error somewhere. 1-2% is more like it.

[JANdad]

4. I can PM you the rates and classifications if you like

I have them copied and pasted into an excel sheet straight from the Scopes manual...

[Lasher]

5. Workers compensation is not the same as health care.

I'm not in favor of de-funding workers comp.

But since you mentioned single payer UHC, the funding would be simple. Eliminate the insurance company middlemen and you would save enough to cover everybody.

The potential administrative savings of $286 billion annually under national health insurance could:

1. Offset the cost of covering the uninsured (estimated at $80 billion)

2. Cover all out-of-pocket prescription drugs costs for seniors as well as those under 65 (estimated at $53 billion in 2003)

3. Fund retraining and job placement programs for insurance workers and others who would lose their jobs under NHI (estimated at $20 billion)

4. Make substantial improvements in coverage and quality of care for U.S. consumers who already have insurance

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1623

[Tesha]

6. Whether it's 1% or 10%, the OP makes a good point.

Whether it's 1% or 10%, the OP makes a good point: a lot
of all the administrivia in our collective system is
targetted at allocating health care costs to some guilty
party or other.

Workers' Comp is a perfect example, but you can also think
of significant portions of your auto insurance premiums,
home-owners' insurance premiums, a huge swath of payments
to lawyers (and not just "ambulance chasers"), hospital
billing departments, a finance person or two in every
doctor's and dentist's office, etc., etc.

A lot of costs in the overall American health care
system don't contribute one jot to the health of
anyone, and only exist to make sure that the beans
are picked from the "most correct" pocket.

If everyone were simply entitled to health care all the
time, no matter the source of their sickness or injury,
a huge financial resource could be redirected to paying
nurses, doctors, dentists, and other *DIRECT CONTRIBUTORS*
to our health.

Tesha