Healthcare burden growing

Absolutely inaccurate attribution to me.

I have cited this (Which is considerably less than 10%):

A universal public system would be financed this way: The public financing already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees’ health care. 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.
Source: http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepaye...hp#raise_taxes accessed today.

We can and must do better with our health care dollars from both a quality and equity of access perspective.


See also:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/char...ttrib_id=14465 accesed 12/7/07.

As usual the evidence is better care at lower cost.

To fix the system I think we have to adopt a "pay or play" policy for businesses. In other words provide group insurance purchased on the open market or buy insurance from FEHP or the various state plans. I also think that we need to open the MN Care's etc to enrollment by subscription for businesses and private individuals.

Not an inaccurate attribution. Just simple math, as I demonstrated in the following thread:

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

(posts #30, #7, #10)

9% payroll taxes plus "user fees" will most definitely amount to at least 10% of a worker's income, and will have the greatest impact on the working poor who currently pay no insurance premiums, and will see a reduction in wages equal to the 7% payroll employer tax plus their own 2% obligation. Face it, Viking the 7% tax "paid by the employer" will be money directly out of the employee's pocket. If the employer didn't have to contribute 7% of an employee's income to universal healthcare, he could afford to pay the money directly to the employee instead. It's just like SS taxes now. Employees who believe that their employer pays 6.2% "for them" and they pay the other 6.2% are ill-informed and naive. The employee is losing a full 12.4% of his/her pay to SS, since the employer must reduce salaries by 6.2 % in order to afford the taxes.

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. Irresponsible employers who have not provided health care (and I am not calling small business owners irresponsible as this comment is directed towards the WalMarts and Home Depots) will have to pay into the system to obtain affordable and effective health care for their employees.

Most of the excess spending is administrative and profit.

This is an argument for letting responsible employers "buy in" to Minnesota Care etc. Their business costs will be lower.

This is a path to reducing the number of under and uninsured people.