Would you pay 13% of your income to participate in Medicare?

13% of income seems to be what alot of these gov plans consider reasonable. I wonder if people would be willing to pay 13% of their income to participate in Medicare or a similar single payer plan? The 13 % would stabilize Medicare I think. Better yet - you can pay 13% of your income for Medicare coverage or for private insurance.

and, no, most people can't cough up that much "extra" every month.

would make it a closer question.

through your company. That's the situation for a lot of small business owners and their employees, not to mention independent contractors (construction to software).

Your take home pay (after federal and state and local taxes) is likely $3500 a month, so we are talking about 1/4 of the after tax income. That's what most people in that income range will pay for rent or the mortgage ( they might be at, say $1200/month for that). Combined, it would take over half of their income, leaving $1500 a month for utilities, car payment, gas, car insurance, clothing, and food.

people may have other debt obligations besides the ones you mention, debts they could just carry. Any big shock causes another crisis.

I suspect alot of people who think they want health insurance or single payer won't be excited if it costs real money.

is the employees of mega corps that have been getting a relatively sweet deal, have to lose a few bucks a month, and the rest who have been shopping for individual policies need to be able to get covered for about the same cost.

but I think its the only way to get people in all income brackets and all employer situations covered.

insurance, but I'd rather it be paid through a modest tax increase that hits the wealthier harder than it hits me. They want me to work for slave wages, at least they can pay for me to have decent, but not gold plated, health care.

It's a requirement to purchase health care.

If you make $1M or $10M a year, it's the same cost... for a gold plated policy, about $20K a year. That's 2% and .2% respectively. For a more "standard" policy, divide by 2 or 3.

benefits at work for my employees that is largely for health care is 25% for a single person or about 10,000 per year. its a similar percentage for me but then its more like 16,000 per year because I make more.

effectively. the struggling middle class will be forced to pay what they can't afford (13% of their meager income just for premiums) for crappy/worthless policies, while the wealthy will be paying a tiny fraction of their income for Cadillac policies.

what a travesty.

like i said probably a million times before.


now your turn, what do YOU support?

I also support universal health care for all.

that's absolutely obscene. this is a total bonanza for insurance corps.

:shrug:

$75,000 x .13 = $9,750 / 12 = $812.50

excludes any calculations related to taxes, tax credits, etc.

Divide by 12, moron.

My humble apologies.

13% of someones salary making 20,000 per year won't come close to being enough. So many of us would have to pay alot more than 13000 to cover the rest of the people.

So for people with lower salaries -- and people with expensive conditions -- the benefit is a much higher proportion of their overall compensation.

and some will benefit more while others will get pinched. 13% for some people - those with lower salaries or those who don't get any coverage due to serious conditions would be helped.

and, possibly, letting the bush tax cuts expire (if you make more than, say, $250K)

No new taxes on the middle class. But the requirement is a regressive tax on the middle earners (earn too much to qualify for subsidies, and not enough as to where this is negligible).

Probably all in relatively good health.

I would not.

:shrug:

Not to many sugar daddys will pay ones bills.

fuck insurance companies, sneaky ultra-regressive new taxes on the middle class and right-wing talking points that some DU'ers can't resist spouting. :puke:

A 600% increase seems a tad steep.

13% is the estimate for reasonable health care expenses according to government plans it seems.

On the other hand, if everyone was on a government plan, the govt. would be able to keep costs from rising the way they have been -- and even be able to force them down. The 13% might apply to maintaining the situation we have now -- which is unacceptable. There's no reason the US costs should be twice as high as other 1st world countries.

way underfunded

to provide health insurance? It's not a simple equation of what percent of your wages are you willing to pay.

that would be $19,500 a year or $1625 a month. that's a bit much. if it were like the UK where everyone is covered from pre-birth to death, it would be make sense, but not for medicare as it is now.

13% seems like a lot unless the money employers are currently paying private companies are counted into this number. Anything else would hurt a lot of people and further stifle the economy IMHO.

for when a trigger would occur - they were considering more than 13% to be unreasonable but up to that as ok. Also, on Chris Matthews tonight the number 13% was being thrown around for those whose insurance doesn't require subsidization by the government.

on low paying jobs that don't qualify for any assistance? I work as a nurse aide. Government says I make too much money to qualify for a grant towards furthering my education. In fact, on my job the healthcare cost way too much for me to afford.... about the 13% we're talking about. I had to choose between healthcare or an apartment to live in. I choose not to be homeless. The plan my employer has is with Grouphealth... a co-op! Now they want to take that choice away from me a force me to either take on a roommate or take to the streets? What the hell kind of choice is that?

the cost of housing in Western Washington State somehow is never factored into these guys figuring.

and I don't believe any adjustments are made for where you live or what other obligations you have. And, if the trigger would kick in at 13%, that means a 12% premium would be acceptable and a 12% premium on $32,000 comes to $322.50/month.

In addition, the bills being kicked around allow for some big deductibles. HR3200 thinks a person can afford and additional $5,000 in "cost-sharing" (good luck if you have a chronic condition) plus anything that isn't covered, like vision and dental for adults.

and I don't believe any adjustments are made for where you live or what other obligations you have. And, if the trigger would kick in at 13%, that means a 12% premium would be acceptable and a 12% premium on $32,000 comes to $322.50/month.

In addition, the bills being kicked around allow for some big deductibles. HR3200 thinks a person can afford an additional $5,000 in "cost-sharing" (good luck if you have a chronic condition) plus anything that isn't covered, like vision and dental for adults.

How much would my supplemental policy be to cover the gaps? 13% plus another couple hundred a month to fill in the gaps, that sounds good.

...it would pay for all the Medicare packages, i.e. traditional Medicare, doctor's visits (usually paid for through a separate program) and a prescription drug program (also normally a separate program). It may be a better deal than I could get through an employer, but the fact that I would essentially own my own healthcare, rather than being tied to an employer who provides it, would be enough to make me switch. That is why I want the public option to begin with.

Right now, approximately 5% of my pre-tax income goes towards paying for my healthcare plan (just my part of the contribution). So, if Medicare would provide all of those benefits I listed, I would happily double that total to be able to receive stress-free healthcare insurance.

Then sure.

so no.

Our docs don't take Medicare, Medicaid or TriCare

Or get out of the business.

Right now, I'm paying about 18% for a catastrophic policy.

or how expensive it really is on the free market. I hope some reform occurs that gives you a break! :hi:

Right now my husband's share of our health insurance is about 7% of his monthly income. I am sure that his employer pays a far higher percentage of his wages per month for their share. If the employer's share were part of my husband's income, 13% for Medicare would likely give him a net increase in take home pay.

When he paid into COBRA in 2002 while between jobs and while not covered with one job, the monthly payment was 50% of his previous take home. I don't even want to think what COBRA would cost these days. Probably more than he'd get from unemployment.

We would not have to worry about that if we were covered by Medicare. No worry about losing coverage between jobs, or paying massive amounts for COBRA, or being denied coverage, or being turned down for a job because of his age and how that would increase the insurance payments for the company.

Yet another benefit of tax-funded single payer.

pays the cost for those for who 13% is less than 2000 a year.

Unless they're going to subsidize those making $3.4 million / year ;)

I could have the 16 percent that currently goes to health insurance, no problem

I know it's a popular program, but there is a problem with not being fully funded.

not sure but everyone would certainly be contributing more to the Medicare program.

reimbursed in amounts that keeps the doctors going. As a result, those of us on Medicaid have a very hard time, if not IMPOSSIBLE time, finding a doctor. I understand that is happening more and more with Medicare.

Yet, it's not something that seems to be of much concern among "progressives". I guess as long as the muddleclass gets the care they want, that is all that matters.

If the increased money coming in (if a bill is passed) ISN'T spent to improve reimbursement in Medicaid and Medicare, we poor folk suffer. Does it matter?

We've already heard definitively that there will be large cuts in Medicare and Medicaid to pay for the reform. Where's the outrage on that?

I think that is the first clue that poor folk will be shafted in all of this. We simply don't have the support of the population at large. We are invisible.

between what i pay and my company pays for my insurance coverage, it works out for us at least. plus, i wouldn't have to deal with insurance companies any more. that would almost be worth it alone. if we didn't have to pay copays, or not as much at least, we'd be ahead.

this must be based on current health care costs though? seems high. cost should go down if insurance companies were cut out.

match at work for our primary insurance and then the deductables and prescriptions, we are payuing a little less than 11%.

to keep people like yourself from covering the entire expense independently. I worry that reforms may not be enacted because many of us have a relatively sweet deal going we just don't really realize it. While others like yourself are paying through the nose and would be helped by any meaningful reform.

It went from $550/mo to over $700 then $1000.

All this time I knew reform would come eventually, as soon as there were enough *other* people paying through the nose.

That time has finally come. :thumbsup:

WTF?!?!

Am I misunderstanding the word 'affordable'???

So 13% would net me about $1200 a year in savings.

The employer has paid the whole premium for the employee, and then the employee pays for dependents. Or I have paid a small amount, like up to $60 a month for one employer. 13% would come out to about $540 a month (if you take it out of the gross pay). That woud be a HUGE bill to suddenly have when I have been used to paying much less or nothing. So, I would repeat what others have asked... would this be assuming the employer will pass on the savings to me, so whatever was being paid toward my benefit I can now turn around and put toward that 13%? If not, then I would probably have to sell my house, because I can't afford a new $540 per month bill.

unless they tax the benefit -

as opposed to still having employer-paid private insurance.

But still... in this "plan," would a single person with no dependents be paying the same percentage of their salary as a family of four?

I pay $22/wk for insurance now, including medical, dental, vision, life and short/long term disability. If I had to pay out 13% it would be $280/month, which is quite a difference.

I'm disabled and on Medicare, so I'm already paying about 13% since I don't have a lot of income, but what if everyone with a certain income paid in at regular rates, with lower rates for the very poor? Why wouldn't that work?

We would have to pay more - but he question would really be how much more - I don't really know how the expenses would play out if everyone participated.

premium. I pay 10% of my bills up to a yearly maximum of $1000.

for bad coverage that can vanish through recission.

So yes, I would. But I don't think I would have to.

Apparently your employer pays your insurance.

If you had to pay it all, you would quickly see how expensive it is. $800/mo. is a bargain.

I pay it all.

Just because your employer is paying for it doesn't mean there is zero cost to you.

I mean, we can only blow up the world 37 times over right now. :sarcasm:

We already pay 2.9% for Medicare, plus Medicare recipients pay about $100 a month. That is for 80/20 coverage, and not everything is covered. If Medicare recipient want more coverage they have to pay more in the way of premiums - about $30 a month for drug coverage, which is 75% funded by government taxes, and about

13% + 2.9% is about 15.9% which is about what it costs in Germany.

I think the problem is that most people are wildly unrealistic about what insurance really costs. It's not as bad as it sounds, because usually the employer pays half directly and the employee pays half, and in any case, since most employers are paying much more now on average, many people would get a raise or be able to bargain for one. And then, if your income went down, you wouldn't suddenly be hit with a big bill. What good is COBRA when you get laid off and presented with a $1,000 a month premium all of a sudden? Is that reasonable?

If people are not willing to do this, then we won't get reform. Because we are not going to get it out of the poorer people, so of course people who make 100K a year will have to pay much more. All socialized health care systems work this way.

Do people really expect to get good health care for free?

And for those of you who think the rich can pay it, you're crazy. If you confiscated all the wealth of all the billionaires in this country, it wouldn't pay for one year of Medicare for everyone. The only persons who can pay for it are the people themselves.

Maybe the problem is less the politicians than an uninformed public.

I don't think it is outrageous for a family, but for myself, a single person with no dependents, it's a heckuva lot!

Actually the total tax would be more than 13%. It would be over 17%, so you would be paying between 8 and 9% as your share.

However, the employer would pay half of it, which would often be less than it is currently paying, so you might end up getting more in wages. Also, you'd have lifetime security. If you were unemployed, you'd still have the same access.

The asset protection is a much higher benefit for people who have savings, etc, and when you get older, you would find it very difficult or nearly impossible to get insurance on your own. That is why losing a job in your fifties creates such a crisis for so many people who have been financialy responsible.

The current plans all underfund, and the closer they get to funding the program the more people reject them. Health insurance is expensive anywhere - our employer-funded system has just prevented people from knowing the true cost. Over a lifetime, you would probably be much better off if you are a higher-paid worker. Americans just don't like to save.

The tax rate should be a graduated one. The more you make, the more you pay. Ontario has single payor and its tax rates for OHIP are not that high.

13% is unreasonable for the bottom 40% of the US population in terms of income. That hurts a lot.

I think most of us would find that a pretty hefty price. On the other hand, if that 13% covered everything and we didn't have to worry about deductibles and copays and coming up with cash at point of service, maybe it would work. But I believe it's quite a bit more than what is paid in other countries.

I've read quite a lot of your comments regarding medical care in the US and they tend to be thoughtful and well informed. I have been a proponent of Medicare for all and I'm hoping you will share your reasoning about why that would not be a good thing. I know there's been a lot of snark on the DU lately but honestly, I'd be grateful for one of your thoughtful responses.

Thanks
Rosemary

Medicare provides less coverage than my current insurance I pay no premiums.

Single payer (Medicare) is cheaper than that. If everyone is enrolled in the plan it would lower costs. When I was employed my premiums were going up to the point that my former employer switched plans. Our premiums were then a few dollars less per week but the plan was garbage. It had high deductibles and pretty much didn't cover you if you got cancer or something serious. When the plan switched I stopped going to the doctor.

So your post is a very interesting. Calculating the actual costs and then the costs as a percentage of income across the population is a very interesting exercise. 13% doesn't sound unreasonable.

I found one source listing annualized 2008 total personal income @ 12.1 trillion (http://www.eflorida.com/ContentSubpage.aspx?id=1898). (GDP is 14.1 trillion) Total health care costs ~2.4 trillion in 2008. That would mean 2.4/12.1 = 20% of total income if spread evenly. Yikes!!!! Can't even begin to think about doing it based on income.

So that is not a good figure to use. Canada Pays 10-11%. Average income is what, about 42k for a household, or $3650 / Month. So about $375 a month per household average. That sounds like a lot when you are 25 years old. Healthcare costs currently covered by insurance take about 17% of GDP, so you are already paying the equivilent of about $525/Month per household. You just don't see it as it get's removed from your wages as an expense and never get's in your check.

Personally I'd rather have a plan with a $1000-2000 deductible than 13% on a plan with no deductible.

If I could buy into medicare with a deductible for 8-10% then yes I'd do that.

Why should insurance premiums be half the rent? I guarantee that if they just raised the taxes to pay for Medicare a little bit (3-4%), there would be enough money to expand it to all, at far less cost than ANY insurance plan.

I guarantee that if they just raised the taxes to pay for Medicare a little bit (3-4%), there would be enough money to expand it to all

To cover the hospital insurance deficit, the 2009 Trustees report recommended raising Medicare tax to 3.88% from 2.9%. But that is just tp cover retirees. If you are going to add 250 million more people to the system, you are going to have to raise the payroll tax way high.

For SMI parts B & D, or C, 75% of the cost is supposed to be paid from income taxes and 25% from premiums. Current beneficiaries paid about 55 billion (there are about 45 million beneficiaries) in premiums. The general fund picked up the rest. The total outlay last year for Medicare was about 468 billion to cover 45 million people. The cost per beneficiary was about 11K each.

If you were to move the entire population onto Medicare, you'd need to raise about 1.5 trillion dollars each year to do it. The payroll tax would be over 17%. Mind you, that is for partial drug coverage and 80/20 with a monthly premium of currently about $130. If you wanted more coverage you would have to pay $100-200 more each month. However suppose the tax was 20%, and your employer paid half and you paid half. The employer wouldn't be paying insurance premiums, so you might get a raise. Plus, you'd have consistent coverage always, and the cost wouldn't go up as you aged or if you lost your job.

It would be cheaper on average to cover the rest of the population, but not that much cheaper.

The reason we don't have universal insurance is because people are so ludicrously wrong about the numbers, so they believe they should be getting it almost free. But no other country does. They pay high payroll taxes, but they have economic security.

Our current system is regressive and punitive to those who are ill or older, and you absolutely could find yourself in your 50s with no job trying to scrape up $1,500 a month to continue paying your insurance. Think about the alternative.

There is no reason why Medicare couldn't negotiate bulk drug purchases, vastly lowering the drug costs. Wal-mart does Rx's for $4...and that with far fewer customers than the entire US population. Tackling Medicare fraud (which is under-investigated I understand) would further save money. After some time, critical care costs should decline with improved preventative care.

Right now the US blows through ~$7500/person per year at a cost of $2.26 trillion. France, by comparison spends about $3000 per person. Adopting those numbers, a single-payer system could potentially save the US economy ~$1.3 trillion. Yes, the Medicare tax would increase (how much I don't know), but at the same time the private insurance costs (AND the personnel to plan and administer that stuff) would be dropped, creating a net savings for biz & people alike. Further, companies would have to rely more on salary to compete for workers rather than salary + health benefits, perhaps creating pressure for higher wages.

Right now I am grossing $1200 a month BEFORE taxes. As an "Independent Contractor", I am responsible for my own taxes, SS, medicare, which leaves me with about $900 a month income (any wonder I have no car and am sleeping in a friend's spare bedroom?).

So now will I be on the hook for 13% of $900 ($117 a month) or of $1200 ($156)? Or would I be covered under a subsidy? Would I still have a $5000 deductable, which is nearly half my income?

yes, I'd gladly pay 13% of my paycheck.

13% for the same coverage would be welcome. People should really figure out what percentage they are paying out of their income now for health care coverage and I think they will find that 13% is a bargain.