Another benefit from single payer government run health care I don't see

[shraby]

anyone mentioning.
If companies don't have to provide their employees with insurance benefits, that would free up capital to hire more people, who will in turn make the company more money. That money will result in the company having to pay more in taxes. Tax money that has the option of being used to pay for the government run health care.

[Hoyt]

1. I'm for SP, but recognize problems. Employers are going to pay a payroll tax under Single Payer.

If there are any savings there -- which is questionable -- they will have to pay some of that to employees in salary. Also, they will have to spend money in other ways to retain employees. Health Insurance has always been a way for employers to offer employees something different.

Again, I support SP. But to the extent legislation is built on fake sources of funding, it going to be tougher to enact.

[trof]

6. Health insurance has also been a union perk.

How will they feel about losing that inducement?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

15. It's not a "perk," it's a bargained benefit.

If they don't have to worry about health insurance, they can focus their energies on bargaining for other benefits.

[trof]

25. Semantics. It was part of my compensation package.

[Mariana]

21. The could spend more time and effort

bargaining for better pay, better working conditions, better retirement, and so on if healthcare wasn't such a critical issue.

[PSPS]

9. No. Single-payer is funded through the general fund (general income tax) not payroll tax.

[Hoyt]

12. Look at Sanders proposed funding sources he put out Wednesday, and get back with us.

[unblock]

2. Industry has been on a "let's focus on our core competency" craze for decades

They used it as an excuse to outsource and sell off and lay off.

Many outsource payroll, but for some reason they don't have the same motivation to outsource health insurance.

It's stupid.

Companies would be better positioned if they didn't have to worry about employee health care.

[Hoyt]

5. Well, the latest proposal is based upon a 7.2% payroll tax, and I bet it will have to be more.

So employers will still pay a lot toward coverage, they just won't get any benefit from it. Now, if the government removed any responsibility to employers, your comment might have some validity. But, without sticking employers with a payroll tax, there is no way to fund Single Payer without huge increases on individuals.

[PSPS]

10. Any proposal based on a payroll tax is not a workable model.

"huge increases on individuals" is a RW canard. The increase in taxes would be less than what people pay for-profit insurance companies in monthly premiums today.

[Hoyt]

11. Not if employers don't pay big piece. California, Vermont and Colorado ran into your canard

when they started calculating the cost and how much taxes would increase. They knew people wouldn't buy the "it's just replacing what you already pay," even though we are going to pick up uninsured, eliminate co-insurance/deductibles, cover dental, and remove utilization controls. All those are laudable, but will cost somebody.

[Hoyt]

13. So, Sanders proposed tax on employers is for an unworkable plan?

[PSPS]

14. If the plan relies on payroll tax, it won't work.

Look at how every other country in the world does it, including the plan we imposed on Iraq after invasion (really!)

Relying solely on payroll taxes automatically excludes people not earning wages from contributing the revenue source while providing them coverage. That's not a proper pooled-risk model and, thus, doomed to fail. If this is what Sanders is proposing, he doesn't comprehend how insurance and pooled risk works and he should seek guidance from someone who does.

[Hoyt]

16. You better tell Sanders. Most of his proposed funding comes from a payroll tax, another tax on

individuals, and other taxes.

Pooled risk don't work like you think. That's one reason those on dialysis, the disabled, etc., are removed from the insurance pool here.

[PSPS]

18. LOL. OK, champ. Whatever you say.

[unblock]

20. First, they currently spend a lot toward health care

Second, they spend time and effort hunting for good plans, figuring out what the competition spends, etc.

A lot of trouble that has nothing to do with their core business.

Finally, they do get a big benefit, namely, a healthy workforce and no need to worry about people getting sick.

[Hoyt]

22. And good plan offerings help retain workers.

[MLAA]

3. Single payer doesn't mean it's necessarily free for everyone does it?

Single payer would reduce cost of medical "insurance" (takes out the insurance company who makes something like 20% vs 2% overhead for Medicare). But why wouldn't those of us not eligible age wise just continue to pay for what would now be cheaper healthcare?

I support universal coverage for all, but I didn't think going single payer meant there would be no charge for anyone and the costs would be recouped through taxes.

Can anyone clarify?

[dsc]

7. That is exactly what single payer means

it isn't what universal health care necessarily means.

[Hoyt]

17. No. You just don't pay at the point of service. You pay through taxes or premiums to

the single payer organization.

[MLAA]

19. That's what I thought, one could pay Medicare instead of the Insurance company.

[Weekend Warrior]

4. I provide health insurance for my employees.

It is wrapped up in their compensation package. If I were to not provide it for them tomorrow, their compensation package would simply change, that includes my tax benefits, which are very limited, going to the employee. I don't think a lot of people are aware how this works when it comes to compensation. People often just think of big old corporate America. Ninety percent of the business entities I deal with are small local business.

Still, I think it should have no part in the employee employer relationship. I could very well pay a higher financial burden as a business owner under a single payer plan. I'm good with it as long as it's tied to my success and not arbitrary.

[wasupaloopa]

8. Companies are full of cash and capital and they aren't rushing to hire. That is trickle down thinking

[KelleyKramer]

23. Plus, when millions of Americans are sick less often, they can work more

When millions of people have access to full healthcare they are less likely to get sick. So they can work more, which means they are making more money and are paying more in taxes

[Lee-Lee]

24. A number of problems with your theory

First, virtually every plan I've seen includes a payroll tax to pay for it, so the money the employer pays for premiums now just gets paid to someone else.

Second, if you tried to do it only based on taxes on income and not a payroll tax it's still a hit. I'm assuming you are doing corporate income as well as individual so there is where that money goes. And even if you only hits raise taxes on individual income you still hit small businesses, who employs a huge chunk of our workers, hard. If that busiess owner saved $40,000 in insurance premiums but sees her individual taxes go up $30,000 she is just going to take that savings as profit to offset her increased tax burden.

There isn't any free lunch- the supply of money is the same so when it's getting spent on X it isn't there to spend other places. You may change the source but it's still the same amount of money leaving the system to pay for it (and then back into the overall system).

We just can't be afraid to just tell people, individual, corporations, that their tax rates are going to go up to pay for this and just just how it's going to be becuse it's the right thing to do.