We need to have Medicare for all not another band aid law.

[KWR65]

We can have Medicare for all. Each employer that has an employee would pay a manadotory $11k calendar year for each employee they have. If an employee works 1 hour a calendar month then the employer would have to pay the tax/fee. Everyone would pay a flat 3% tax on all income no matter the source. Present FICA taxes would remain the same. If someone wants to buy health care or insurance on the open market that is fine but the tax is still required.
YMMV. IMHO.

[MichMary]

1. Not all employers can afford that

I am treasurer for a non-profit. Right now we have seven employees, and at times as many as nine or ten. There is no way we can afford an additional $77,000--$100,000 added to our payroll. We already have a lot of trouble making ends meet. If this ever passed, it would put us out of business on the spot.

[madinmaryland]

9. Does your firm offer paid health insurance to their employees?

If they do, how much do they pay towards the premiums?

[MichMary]

10. They get no benefits

Five are part time, and two are salaried exempt. Our manager doesn't want or need health coverage, since she has coverage through her husband's employment.

If our payroll were to increase by $11,000/person, we would probably get rid of six of our employees, and make do with volunteers.

[madinmaryland]

14. I get it. A business that is not providing their employees with insurance. Hopefully

they are able to use the ACA to get insurance. That was the whole fucking idea was to provide employees with insurance for companies that cannot or do not want to provide their employees with insurance.

[JI7]

17. That's why many small businesses like the ACA

Including people want to try starting their own business without worrying about losing coverage.

[MichMary]

23. We are not a business

We are a non-profit no-kill animal shelter. We provide for the health and safety of up to 20 dogs and (sometimes, like during "kitten season&quot as many as 100 cats and kittens. Every animal is spayed/neutered and vaccinated prior to adoption, and no animal is ever euthanized due to reasons of time or space.

In addition, we have met extraordinary veterinary needs, including diabetes and surgeries. We have paid for vet care for animals who have been hit by cars, and when one cat gets an upper respiratory infection, it flies through the cat rooms before we get a chance to isolate and treat, and we can end up with dozens of sick cats, requiring isolation, antibiotics, and the associated additional labor expense.

We get no state or federal funding. When we are lucky we get grants for specific purposes, usually related to the health and safety of the animals. Other than that, every nickel we spend on payroll, building maintenance, heat, electricity, vet expenses, and food comes from donations and fundraisers.

Due to the nature of the work, we have high turnover among our kennel/cat room cleaners. We have seven employees at this time, but we sent out probably 12 or 15 W-2s. Under the scenario described in the OP, that would be $132,000--$165,000, which would more than double our payroll expense.

Our first priority is the animals. That is our mission. I have no idea where our employees get their health insurance, or if they even have it. Some are married, and probably have coverage through their spouses. The rest may be on Medicaid, or have the ACA.

In any case, such an onerous, punitive tax would most likely cause us to shut down. We are not alone in this. There are thousands of non-profits, and small businesses that could not afford this.

[eShirl]

24. I didn't think single payer was supposed to be implemented that way. n/t

[OKNancy]

2. that's nuts

[Demsrule86]

3. It won't happen ...why not call you senator and get what you can an ACA where

they are forced to stabilize the markets and people don't die. I want a unicorn...but sadly I won't have one anytime soon.

[Jimbo101]

4. EXACTLY !

(for emphasis - not yelling)

[DemocraticWing]

5. We can do it if we try.

The ones who don't want to try just want to keep their money and feel good about the evil system which made them so privileged.

[JI7]

12. In the case of most small businesses, they don't have the money

[DemocraticWing]

15. Small business tyrants will be their own downfall.

If you can't afford to treat your workers like humans, you shouldn't be stealing the fruits of their labor anyway.

[JI7]

16. Stealing ? In that case most small businesses will shut down and there will be a few huge mega corps

That control everything.

And many small businesses can't afford to pay themselves either and often work other jobs.

[DemocraticWing]

18. Let's get rid of the corporations too.

Labor is entitled to all it creates. Capitalists are not.

[JI7]

19. what does that even mean ? many small business owners work jobs while trying to run their business

i know what you say may make you feel cool and revolutionary but none of it deals with how things actually are.

[DemocraticWing]

20. The way things actually are will change. They always do.

[BzaDem]

21. But that doesn't mean they will change in the direction of your fantasy of no corporations. n/t

[Yupster]

22. I think he's kidding

Just trying to have some fun with you.

[Demsrule86]

28. That is such BS...I am a capitalist... I believe in a system that has protections for workers

What we we have now is not capitalism...but something akin to fascism. I am not a socialist and neither are most of the American people including many Democrats.

[Demsrule86]

27. with the ACA low wage worker get coverage through medicaid or through subsidized premiums.

[Demsrule86]

25. Those who don't want to try recognize the futility of a push with all branches of the government

controlled by the GOP for single payer. We recognized that the ACA saves lives...and only the truly privleged would be willing to sacrifice those lives for ideology...for something they can't get and may never get.

[mythology]

6. That would encourage employers to change employees to independent contractors

And that's above and beyond all the companies that would immediately fold. You can't drop that much of a cost increase and have no impact.

[Demsrule86]

26. It would never pass and the GOP would be in control for years if we tried a stunt

like that.

[MiddleClass]

7. Too burdensome on small businesses

I would say a public option that would act like Medicare for all in the ACA, leave the tax structure as is, those that want to provide healthcare can do so, they also got the option to pay for the public option in the individual market under ACA. All government subsidies go to the public option, otherwise pay the premium to the private market if you choose. Let people vote with their pocketbook, and if they choose the public option. It will de facto be Medicare for all.

All Medicare protections (there is a huge amount outside actual coverage) applied to the public option things like only allowed to charge up to Medicare allowed cost, is deductible is not paid in 18 months, Medicare reimburses, cannot sue for the cost above that privately. All protections that are written Medicare that people don't realize

As an additional protection, Medicare, optional at 55. And see what happens.


Politicians would not be happy, number 1 wedge issue gone

[NCTraveler]

8. This would increase corporate power even more.

As the chairs on the deck were moved around there would be fewer corporate entities in the end. That would be severely damaging and goes against our fight to bring down wealth inequality.

[JI7]

11. Most businesses can't afford that

[dsc]

13. This would greatly increase the cost of hiring low paid employees

Let's say I employee someone for 25 hours at $15 an hour. For 50 weeks that is $18,750 making the 11k 59% of the cost of hiring that employee. A broad based tax on sales and income would be a much better idea.

[Lee-Lee]

29. Do you want all low income workers pushed or of work

Because if you turned around tomorrow and told the employer of every restaurant server, cashier, grocery store cashier and other low wage worker that you just raised the cost of employing that person $900 a month regardless of how many hours they worked you just caused a huge wave of layoffs.

Welcome to automation being more lucrative and making fewer employees work more hours more lucrative. If I can work 4 employees 50 hours a week instead of 5 employees 40 hours a week that overtime will be cheaper than that 5th employees wages plus the extra $900.

You just ensured it will be way, way harder for any small business to ever hire their first employees or keep people employed.

[exboyfil]

30. It should be like the German system

7.5%/7.5% employer and employee withholding (assuming we can get to that amount since we spend so much more than the Germans). The actual percentage increase will be somewhat lower because we already have Medicare withholding.

Expecting $11K/yr. to hire any employee would not work as indicated by the other comments on the thread.

Any system needs to encourage full time work (at at least not discourage it). Making a minimum number of hours to obtain benefits is a disincentive to employ workers for more hours so that is not a good approach. Your approach will lead to more avoidance, more automation, but also more hours per employee (which is a good thing).

Perhaps there is a middle ground?

Any approach will need to aggressively work the cost side as well. In addition to cutting the insurance companies out of the loop, you will need to negotiate drug and service provider prices, make "death" panel like decisions, have aggressive fraud enforcement, and continue to have a tiered system (where wealthier individuals can access additional care).

I also think the system should include copays based on income.