[Jolie]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

The point remains that responsible employers who have paid for health care for their employees will pay no more than they currently pay for their employees and probably will pay less.

Not true, as I cited in post #30

http://allnurses.com/forums/f195/mas...ml#post2523908

[HM2Viking]

The data and evidence says otherwise on the world stage. The PNHP proposal does not call for "user fees." There is plenty of evidence available that shows our current system has significant barriers to access stemming from cost issues. Patients who deny care come in sicker and are more expensive to treat. All the objections and excuses in the world cannot hide the problems of under and uninsured patients.

From the PNHP FAQ:

The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and any and all other out of pocket payments. For the vast majority of people a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and in out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly for anyone who has had a serious illness or has a family member with a serious illness. It is also a fair and sustainable contribution.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepaye...hp#raise_taxes

[Jolie]

You continue to cite the same funding scheme, which will cost participants upwards of 10% of their yearly income, as I clearly demonstrated in my previous post:
http://allnurses.com/forums/f195/mas...ml#post2523908

You mentioned "user fees" in your own post # 8 "Implement a modest user fee for urgent care..."
http://allnurses.com/forums/f195/mas...le-264327.html

This funding scheme does not provide savings to many employers or employees.

[HM2Viking]

The majority will see a real savings. In the long run by limiting cost shifting from the uninsured to the insured this will reduce medical costs. There are a lot of ways to slice the apple in order to get the uninsured into the system. The evidence shows that a tax funded single payer system would deliver better results at lower costs. To put my thoughts in context

see:

In order to prevent cost sharing from penalizing people with serious medical problems -- the way Health Savings Accounts threaten to do -- the [French] government limits every individual's out-of-pocket expenses. In addition, the government has identified thirty chronic conditions, such as diabetes and hypertension, for which there is usually no cost sharing, in order to make sure people don't skimp on preventive care that might head off future complications.

The French do the same for pharmaceuticals, which are grouped into one of three classes and reimbursed at 35 percent, 65 percent, or 100 percent of cost, depending on whether data show their use to be cost effective. It's a wise straddle of a tricky problem, and one that other nations would do well to emulate.
Source: http://prospect.org/cs/articles?arti...lth_of_nations accessed 11/29/07.

The point is that if you have insurance at this time that you are more than likely asked to pay a copay. PNHP proposes elimination of copays for office visits through elimination of excessive administration costs. A well designed system would cover primary preventive care at 100%.

The evidence is that most people will see a reduction of cost for their health insurance under a properly designed universal access plan.

See:


Cutting our health care costs by 25% will result in real savings to the vast majority of people. PLUS they end up with better coverage.

There is a way to make the system work better:

[HM2Viking]

The following slide illustrates how the burdens would be shared more equitably between businesses. Responsible employers would see a roughly 20 Bn dollar reduction in costs. Irresponsible large employers (eg Walmart) would pay a fair share into the system.

[HM2Viking]

[HM2Viking]

One other thought that I had about relative burden and costs. While there is a degree of merit in the point that wages are held down by the employer side of payroll taxes and health care premiums paid on behalf of employees it is also evident that these are direct costs that have never been received by the employee so they are not "missed" wages. Coorporations that have been responsible have built these costs into their compensation packages. Irresponsible corporations (eg WALMART) have laid these costs at the foot of the taxpayer through putting their employees on MN CARE etc. and pocketed the unpaid benefit dollars.

[CRNA2007]

So viking wanna guess how many people and how much was paid when the income tax was first adopted in this country? History is not on your side with this pie in the sky everything covered medical scheme of the left; with less money out of everyones pockets. You blame Wal-Mart for taking advantage of Minnesota care, but wal-mart just plays by the rules enacted by your precious government. The same government that refused to let Wal-Mart sell generic drugs for $4. Wal-Mart does more positive things for this country in one day than liberals can accomplish in a lifetime.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3015


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...9/ai_n19125748

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

One other thought that I had about relative burden and costs. While there is a degree of merit in the point that wages are held down by the employer side of payroll taxes and health care premiums paid on behalf of employees it is also evident that these are direct costs that have never been received by the employee so they are not "missed" wages. Coorporations that have been responsible have built these costs into their compensation packages. Irresponsible corporations (eg WALMART) have laid these costs at the foot of the taxpayer through putting their employees on MN CARE etc. and pocketed the unpaid benefit dollars.

[HM2Viking]

I have no idea what the income tax has to do with this discussion. My central point was and remains that responsible employers have provided health care benefits to their employees while Walmart has not borne its fair share of the burden. I was pointing out that Walmart very deliberately uses medicaid and other public programs to augment employee incomes instead of paying a living wage. I have no problem with Walmart encouraging the use of Medicaid and Schip programs for its employees. I just think that they should be honest about it and pay into the health care system. Frankly, I have been in favor of allowing corporations to purchase their health benefits for their employees through Minnesota Care etc. Note that the word is purchase from the public not get it for free as a corporate subsidy.

Walmart is the epitome of corporate welfare capitalism. Every 200 jobs brought into a community costs around 400,000 dollars in public subsidies and resources.

I think that this graph shows that this is a rather mainstream position amongst the public.



PS The reason behind MN not selling below cost laws were derived from the very reasonable desire to protect small businesses from being driven out of business through predatory pricing practices. It is quite Jeffersonian in its goal. You know America being a land of Small farmers and shopkeepers......

[sharona97]

Originally Posted by CRNA2007

So viking wanna guess how many people and how much was paid when the income tax was first adopted in this country? History is not on your side with this pie in the sky everything covered medical scheme of the left; with less money out of everyones pockets. You blame Wal-Mart for taking advantage of Minnesota care, but wal-mart just plays by the rules enacted by your precious government. The same government that refused to let Wal-Mart sell generic drugs for $4. Wal-Mart does more positive things for this country in one day than liberals can accomplish in a lifetime.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3015


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...9/ai_n19125748

Let's all hope then that Walmart wins all the lawsuits brought against them over the years for SEVERAL reasons.