How much of your gross income do you spend on healthcare.

What percentage of your gross income does your healthcare cost?

  • 41 to 50%

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 51% and above.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    8
  • Poll closed .

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
So little I can't really calculate. My boss provides 100 percent of our group insurance costs. Over time I would guess a percent or two. It's so little that I don't think about it. I did have to pay out of pocket for my glasses however. Does that count? Medicare also comes out of my pay. What is that, 2 percent or so?
 
Upvote 0

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
43,649
13,930
Broken Arrow, OK
✟689,334.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I am speaking of costs beyond what is taken out for taxes.

If you add up everything you spend on healthcare -

Insurance
Office visit deductibles
Medicines - both over the counter and prescription etc.


What percentage of your gross income does it take?
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
In Premiums, Copays and Deductibles, about 15% currently, though the Company I own pays about 75% of the premiums for our 25 employees (currently about $250K/year)
Even If Single payer increased my and my employees individual Income tax by 15%, equaling what we all currently pay for healthcare overall, the increase in wages I would be able to offer my employees when I no longer have to foot the bill for 75% of their premiums, and the drastic reduction in copays & deductibles, would effectively cut that 15% in half, resulting in an income increase of 7.5% for each employee, and a better than $100K increase in yearly profit for my company.

But we can't do that because.... Socialism?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: SummerMadness
Upvote 0

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,875
USA
✟580,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If you add up everything you spend on healthcare -

Insurance
Office visit deductibles
Medicines - both over the counter and prescription etc.

What percentage of your gross income does it take?
I and my wife are well below 10%. We haven't needed medicine or a doctor since the 1980s. I also cancelled my employer-funded health insurance years before I retired. I give the Lord the glory. But that is how it works for me.
 
Upvote 0

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
43,649
13,930
Broken Arrow, OK
✟689,334.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
In Premiums, Copays and Deductibles, about 15% currently, though the Company I own pays about 75% of the premiums for our 25 employees (currently about $250K/year)
Even If Single payer increased my and my employees individual Income tax by 15%, equaling what we all currently pay for healthcare overall, the increase in wages I would be able to offer my employees when I no longer have to foot the bill for 75% of their premiums, and the drastic reduction in copays & deductibles, would effectively cut that 15% in half, resulting in an income increase of 7.5% for each employee, and a better than $100K increase in yearly profit for my company.

But we can't do that because.... Socialism?

Most employees and employers in the U.S. are required to pay taxes to support the Social Security system, but the program limits the amount of earnings subject to the tax. In 2010, employers were required to pay a matching amount of Social Security tax, which equaled the employee's portion.

The current tax rate for social security is 6.2% for the employer and 6.2% for the employee, or 12.4% total. The current rate for Medicare is 1.45% for the employer and 1.45% for the employee, or 2.9% total
If your employees portion going to pay goes up - so does yours.

The CBO is estimating an increase in taxes to 31% to 45%. That would indicate that the total increase is for medical coverage - That means your portion will increase also.

Forbes did an interesting article just yesterday:

Small Businesses Are Making A Big Mistake By Supporting Single-Payer

But Medicare for All won't just make those costs and administrative burdens disappear. It will just shift them elsewhere—primarily to their employees.

As a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office warns, the transition to Medicare for All "could be complicated, challenging, and potentially disruptive." The report goes on to note that patients could face "increased wait times and reduced access to care" under single-payer and "would not have a choice of insurer or health benefits."​
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
But Medicare for All won't just make those costs and administrative burdens disappear. It will just shift them elsewhere—primarily to their employees.​

Then instead of Medicare for all, how about Medicare for Anyone who wants it?

Currently, Medicare has four parts: Part A covers hospital stays, Part B pays for medical services, Part C pays for private insurance coverage, and Part D covers prescription drugs.

How about we create “Medicare Part E,” which covers “everybody.” Just let any citizen in the United States buy into Medicare.

It would be so easy. There is no need to reinvent the wheel with the so-called “public option,” which would mean setting up a whole new program from the ground up. Medicare already exists. It works. Some people will like it; others won’t, just like the Post Office versus UPS.

Just pass a simple bill—it could probably be just a few lines, like when Medicare was expanded to include disabled people— that says that any American citizen can buy into the program at a rate to be set by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Department of Health and Human Services that reflects the actual cost for us to buy into it.

Thus, Medicare Part E would be revenue neutral!

To make it available to people with a low income, Congress could raise the rates slightly for all currently noneligible people to cover the cost of subsidizing families that live below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. Revenue neutral again.

This would blow up all the rumors about “death panels” and “pulling the plug on Grandma” and everything else: everybody knows what Medicare is. And nobody would be forced to enroll in Medicare. Those who scorn it and think of it as “socialized medicine” can continue give their hard-earned pay to United Healthcare so that it can pay its CEO $744 million in stock options. Those who like Medicare can buy into Part E.

Explain the downside.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Radicchio
Upvote 0

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
43,649
13,930
Broken Arrow, OK
✟689,334.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Explain the downside.

if Medicaid did sponsored through taxes, how do you raise only the taxes on those who opt in?

if you are just going to send the payments in, how is that different from sending your money to a private insurance vs a government run insurance??

besides the issue that government is horrible at running any type of business venture.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
if Medicaid did sponsored through taxes, how do you raise only the taxes on those who opt in?

if you are just going to send the payments in, how is that different from sending your money to a private insurance vs a government run insurance??

besides the issue that government is horrible at running any type of business venture.

You got that right. My brother (who was privy to this) told me about a new Federal agency being set up. It was 'fully' funded for around $16 million. By the time they secured a suitable building, upgraded it for their needs, furnished it with desks, computer, etc., hired and trained staff and management, all the money was spent and they hadn't started implementing the program. They had to go back and get additional money from Congress. :swoon:
 
Upvote 0

GreekOrthodox

Psalti Chrysostom
Oct 25, 2010
4,121
4,187
Yorktown VA
✟176,292.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I'm a contractor at a federal facility and no, the government does not know how to do things efficiently. However....

In 2009, I was working for a 4 person company that did not have company insurance. The other three people were on health insurance from their wives, while I was on Massachusetts health care (Romneycare). I was offered a raise which put me over the limit to be on state health insurance. So they had to look for a plan which was going to cost me $500 per month MORE than the raise was worth. I had to decline the raise.

This is just one of the many dilemmas we have with health insurance in the US.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: hislegacy
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
if you are just going to send the payments in, how is that different from sending your money to a private insurance vs a government run insurance??

It's different because you'd be paying a 2-3% overhead instead of a 30% overhead to pay for the higher cost of operating it as a private for profit business, as well as extravagant executive Bonuses.

One instance you're supporting a For Profit enterprise, while on the other you're not.
Health insurer CEOs score big paychecks despite public scrutiny
CEO of health insurer Centene made $59M in pandemic year
What the CEOs of the 8 largest insurers earned in 2018
besides the issue that government is horrible at running any type of business venture.
Why should Health insurance be a business venture?

The Military is not a Business venture, is it?

The Military Loses Money every year. By the Billions. There is no financial ROI we get from Military spending.
Should we therefore scrap it and turn it over to private, for profit enterprise?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm a contractor at a federal facility and no, the government does not know how to do things efficiently.

Therefore we should turn the Military over to 100% private, for profit Contractors, since they can do it more efficiently, right?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
43,649
13,930
Broken Arrow, OK
✟689,334.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It's different because you'd be paying a 2-3% overhead instead of a 30% overhead that goes to executive Bonuses.

Citation requested.

Please show that 30% of what you pay to insurance companies go to executive bonuses.

You can start here:

Detroit-based Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan recorded a $120 million operating gain for 2020 on total revenues of $30.1 billion across all lines of business that includes health insurance and Lansing-based worker’s compensation provider Accident Fund Insurance Co.
30% of 30.1 billion = 9.03 billion - please show where Michigan Blue Cross paid 9 billion dollars in executive bonuses last year.

Thank you.
 
Upvote 0

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
43,649
13,930
Broken Arrow, OK
✟689,334.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Why should Health insurance be a business venture?

What Is a Business?

The term "business" also refers to the organized efforts and activities of individuals to produce and sell goods and services for profit

It is a business venture - customer pay for services rendered, and for products produced, it encompasses hundreds of thousands of employees across a number of different platforms. That is EXACTLY what a business is.

And that is EXACTLY where the Federal government fails every time. For 245 years they have not run one business effectively or financially solvent.

The Military is not a Business venture, is it?

What Is a Business?
The term "business" also refers to the organized efforts and activities of individuals to produce and sell goods and services for profit

No - by definition and design the Military is not a business venture. They produce and sell no goods, nor do they provide services for profit.
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What Is a Business?

The term "business" also refers to the organized efforts and activities of individuals to produce and sell goods and services for profit

It is a business venture - customer pay for services rendered, and for products produced, it encompasses hundreds of thousands of employees across a number of different platforms. That is EXACTLY what a business is.

That didn’t answer my question. I asked why health insurance should be a business venture.

And your definition can absolutely be applied to the military. Without question we pay for services it renders, and it encompasses hundreds of thousands of employees across a number of different platforms. The only thing missing from the definition of a business is they don’t do it “for a profit”.

And that is EXACTLY where the Federal government fails every time. For 245 years they have not run one business effectively or financially solvent.

Show me how the military is financially solvent, or show me how the fact that they’re not being financially solvent means they are ineffective?

Last I checked, we have the most effective military in the history of the human race, despite the fact that they are not financially solvent by any stretch. In fact they’re the exact opposite of financially solvent, and not one single private enterprise in 245 years has operated a financially insolvent military effectively, nor could they.
No - by definition and design the Military is not a business venture. They produce and sell no goods, nor do they provide services for profit.

EXACTLY!!But they do provide a service that we are forced to pay for as individuals do they not? They just don’t do it for a profit. Why is it OK for the military to do that in your view, to the tune of billions and billions - even TRILLIONS of tax dollars spent with zero financial ROI to the American public, But not OK to have available health insurance that operates similarly?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Didn't we do that with Blackwater? :p
Exactly. Somethings just aren’t meant to be for profit enterprises. Some things, especially important things like military, government just does better Then private enterprise ever could, plain and simple.
 
Upvote 0