If we got rid of private insurance and mandated public insurance wouldn't that be a tax?

[dkf]

So isn't mandating private insurance a tax plus insurance company profits?

And doesn't that break Obama's pledge about taxing the middle and lower classes?

[Peacetrain]

1. That is an honest and good question.. because he did campaign against mandates

[dkf]

2. I thought he would eventuallly need to tax further down because

taxing those making over $250,000 won't make a dent in the deficit.

But I didn't think he would tax as heavily as what I see this mandate costing individuals. That is big money!
This increases the burdens on the middle/lower income classes and we haven't yet thought about closing the deficit.
I find this incredibly scary.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. The top 1% control double the net worth of the bottom 80%. (34% vs. 19%)

There's plenty of dough there.

[dkf]

10. But we are not taxed on net worth.

We are taxed on income. And there isn't enough income made over $250,000 to bring us to break even much less pay down the deficit. Sad but true.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

14. Sad but not true.

The top 0.01% rakes in 5% of U.S. income.

The top decile, 50% of income.

[dpbrown]

3. To conflate your thought - a mandate that insurance companies profit

This mandate is at our expense, because there is apparently going to be no legal, non-profit or government-run alternative to private, for-profit health insurance.

If there is no robust public plan to create competition and give people "mandated" to buy health insurance in the final bill, then I prefer that the private mandate be found unconstitutional.

[dkf]

4. Me too.

I think its ironic that they are now saying healthcare is a right, but you have to pay for it. The contradictions are driving me batty.

[dipsydoodle]

5. Not a contradiction at all.

That's how the UK's NHS is and has always been funded - by a form of secondary income tax on both employlees and employers. It's no big deal. It's been running since 1948 and it works.

You pay for what you get in the USA - we get what we need in the UK.

[dkf]

8. A tax is different.

It goes into government coffers.

[dipsydoodle]

11. That's correct

and the government then runs the health service. It works believe it or not.

If there is something that should be more important to a government than the population of its country then please do enlighten me/ us.

[jeanpalmer]

18. dispsy

do you think the NHS system would work in the US? How much are you taxed to support NHS?

[dipsydoodle]

19. Works like so

Using a level of the first £6000 which is exempt - employees pay c. 10% of gross up to c. £ 36000 or so and therefafter 1% and employers pay c. 12% with no upper limit. However - that covers state pensions and other benefits too. Lower rate apply to those self employed - about 4% only. Everyone is covered one way or another and if some benefit by not paying one way or another then so what - they are a minority. I'd much rather that than the funds be subverted to pay for wars which is what has actually happened.

If it works in the UK , which it has done so since 1948 , then yes of course it would work in the USA. Used to be refered to as "cradle to grave" but given that these days it covers IVF treatment too you might as well change that to "conception to grave". The original concept revolved around the fact that nothing was more important than the general health of the population.

In the USA the well being of your population obviously doesn't matter. :sarcasm:

Overall I'd say you have a system of government so bent and corrupt it is beyond repair - all lobbying should be be made illegal.

Rant over.

:hi:

[Hello_Kitty]

6. Basically, it's a cost-plus contract.

They are guaranteed 15% profit on whatever they cover, paid for by you and me. Not only will insurance companies profit but providers, drug companies, and medical supply companies will reap a bonanza.

[tinrobot]

12. ...and the cost of bandages will skyrocket.

15% of a $200 bandage is a much bigger profit than 15% of a $2 bandage.

...and you know that's going to happen.

[Hello_Kitty]

13. Exactly.

I was in the military and I saw the price-gouging by defense contractors. It was disgusting.

[quaker bill]

20. insurance companies

have little control over this. Further, i rather expect that in a world of $10.00 asprin, there are no $2.00 bandages. Of course, the reason that asprin run $10.00+ is to cover the cost of uncompensated care. This will largely be eliminated by mandatory insurance that will spread the real cost of healthcare somewhat more evenly in proportion to income.

[brentspeak]

9. Mandating private insurance = tax + insurance co profits + maintaining permanent cartel

It's the gift that will keep on giving and giving and giving to the insurance cartel.

[Vinca]

16. Which will, in turn, write checks to the politicians.

[Armstead]

15. I notice there are no direct factual replies contradicting this

But we must pass the bill without thinking about such things.

[Mimosa]

17. Shh! Only 'leftists' ask those pesky questions... n/t

[vaberella]

21. Yeah...I've said this before. By and large it's been ignored. n/t

[andym]

22. Not necessarily, the government could still sell "insurance"

For example, the government could mandate that one buy insurance from the single-payer (itself) at cost or even above cost-- similar to the idea of opening up Medicare for a buy-in. Those who refused to pay would get fined. I'm not sure why they would do this, but they could.

It would only be a tax, if everyone were automatically included in the program and then the service was paid for completely out of taxes.

[dflprincess]

23. If I were paying a tax for a public program

I would expect to actually have access to care - just like in civilized countries.

The mandate to buy the same crappy products we have been stuck with does not guarantee that access.

Obama, like Tim Pawlenty in Minnesota, is finding creative ways to tax the middle and lower classes - both think if they don't call it a "tax" then it's not. Like the "health impact fee" that was added to cigarettes in Minnesota is not a tax according to Timmy. Pawlenty also believes that it only counts if some kind of state tax is raised but if the state just cuts off funds to cities and those cities have to raise your property tax to pay for services, then Pawlenty had nothing to do with raising that tax.

I suppose Obama will believe he's not raising taxes because what we're being told to pay is a premium and we will pay it to a private company not the government so even though it's required, it can't possibly be considered a tax. :sarcasm: