Would you pay 5% tax on your Income to pay for public option?

[Lebam in LA]

I would save $1300 a year

[ColbertWatcher]

1. Yes and kick and rec. n/t

[hobbit709]

2. Hell yes!

Counting my wife's COBRA and copays on all our meds we're paying about a $1000/mo. 5% would only be about $1800/yr.

[mtf80123]

3. Yes......

Beats the 1/4 I'm paying now.

[rurallib]

4. Like to see the NOs explain why not. I am curious.

Unless they are in poverty.

[Lebam in LA]

6. I should have added that question

I was thinking the same thing

[noamnety]

7. I just voted no, even though I would personally pay it

because I oppose the flat tax. It needs to be progressive. The poll is worded as a flat tax question.

[Lebam in LA]

10. It is a pretty sloppy poll

My 1st one and not a very good one at that:spank:

[glitch]

20. I would prefer to see an equivalent (or more) reduction in military spending for single-payer. nt

[earth mom]

21. They voted no & u/r because it makes their hero look bad.

:puke:

[Ms. Toad]

31. Right, because everyone who doesn't agree with you

is a hero worshiper who deserves to be barfed on.

We couldn't possibly have legitimate concerns about a flat tax, or about whether a generic public option (without being defined and without being required to meet minimum criteria) would really be any better than our current system.

[Ms. Toad]

30. Because a public option that is undefined

and doesn't meet minimum criteria, and which does not require competing insurance companies to play by the same rules, is no reform at all.

If insurance companies are allowed to cherry pick all the most profitable patients by rejecting applicants from those health issues (or perceived health issues), the per capita cost for care will be far higher for the public health option than private insurance since rejected applicants will have no place else to go.

Allowing insurance companies to continue to refuse to cover pre-existing conditions will further increase the per capita cost for care in the public option since those with pre-existing conditions will have no other option.

Allowing insurance companies to impose lifetime caps will further increase the per capital cost for care in the public option since those who have exceeded the lifetime max (most of whom are likely to continue to be expensive patients) will have no other option.

This arrangement means that a public option will cost far more than private insurance (for those who are eligible), again denying coverage to those who need it most.

I am willing to pay a 5% tax for a public health option that meets minimum standards. The generic calls by Dean and Obama do not. The Kennedy plan does. The House plan does - if I am willing to wait until 2013, which I am not. So - to the general question without specific guarantees as to what a public option means - my answer is no.

[dflprincess]

5. Only if the out of pocket expenses were eliminated or lowered

I'd be more inclined to pay a 5% tax for a single payer system.

[mike_c]

8. no, not the CURRENT public option....

I didn't vote, because my answer is not a simple yes or no. I would happily pay additional tax for single payer universal health care for all Americans, but I would not choose to do so for the limited public option in HR 3200. But you know what? Real single payer would SAVE money-- billions annually-- so we wouldn't have to raise taxes to pay for it.

[MercutioATC]

9. It depends on the language of the bill.

"Public Option" is a general term...it offers few specifics. The actual form it took would determine my secision.

[onehandle]

11. Sorry. No flat taxes ever. Start at 0% for the poor and go up to 5%, Hell 10% on the rich.

I voted no.

[imdjh]

32. Define poor.

When I was making $10 per hour, which is not considered poor for a single person but which many consider just getting by, I paid $840 per year for my portion of employer benefit health and dental. In addition, I had copays which probably totalled $50/yr for health (assuming no hospitalization) and $400 per year dental. So I was paying $1290 for health. If I paid 5% on gross, I would pay about $1040 per year. Seems like a good deal to have benefits which are not dependent on employer.

BTW, if I had had Single Payer I would have made an additional $2k to $4K fairly soon after going to work for this company, because I would have gone to work for the competitor down the road. But because medical coverage is actually more important than pay to me, I stayed where I was rather than risk a coverage gap.

[onehandle]

47. $10 an hour is poor to me.

Few at DU would go by the government's definition of poor.

[RoadRage]

45. So..

I work hard and make a $100,000 salary - I should be taxed 10%.. and someone else doesn't want to work as hard, and works part time at Burger King and makes $12,000 and they get free healthcare? So, basically I pay for the person who doesn't work hard's health care?

No thanks.

If someone has a disability, etc.. i'm fine with that. But I don't think it's fair to push this whole program onto the people who are working hard for it. Nothing is really "free".. and if everyone wants healthcare in this country, then I think everyone should chip in.

[onehandle]

46. $100,000 is not rich.

And what I proposed is how our tax system already works.

If you have a problem with that, you are welcome to attend your local teabagger party.

No flat taxes, period.

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. Yes. Exactly right. That's the downside of being in the 90th percentile.

There's plenty of room down here in the 40th percentile if you prefer.

[baldguy]

12. I would save $5000/yr

[LiberalFighter]

13. Should had also added...

If you already have insurance would you pay 5% tax on your income in lieu of paying insurance premiums?

If it was me I would be willing to pay 10% tax provided the employer would increase my income by about 75% of what they paid in premiums.

[Lebam in LA]

26. My bad

I didn't think the question out very well before posting

[LiberalFighter]

33. Not many realize that if we eliminate insurance companies as the provider

we eliminate the insurance premiums that many currently pay either 100% by the employer or partially with employees picking up the remainder.

The best system would eliminate insurance premiums paid to insurance companies whether by the employers and/or employees. Then everyone would pay into a federal or possibly a regional government fund to provide the coverage to everyone.

Also, the insurance tax would probably have to be higher than 5% for most everyone. I say that because back in the 90's my coverage cost over $700 a month as a single person. That is over $8,400 annually. Without insurance companies involved it should cost about $6550 or $546 a month. A tax of about 17.5% would be needed to pay it. Now I would go for that if the employer would increase my wages by 17.5%. The employer would still save at least $1,850 a year for each employee. This health insurance also included vision and dental which I don't think would be included in Congress's plan. So the insurance tax would be lower still. And lower yet when everyone would be included.

[Donnachaidh]

37. that proviso is something that everyone tosses out, but the question remains

WOULD employers put that savings into the actual employees' paychecks? Even Obama has cited this a couple of times - and call me cynical, but I DON'T see employers, even the large ones, stepping up to the plate and automatically giving that money to the employees as a pay increase.

Why should they? If you look at it from their viewpoint, they never really *gave* this sort of cash to the employees in the first place. It was a benefit, that they used as a write-off in their expenses for running the company. It was a come on, to induce good talent to apply for jobs.


I'll bet even if we did get single-payer, those cost savings would be pocketed by the companies. Quietly, of course, so as not to cause a ruckus from people hoping for that savings to be given to them as a form of a raise.

Hell, we have companies prepared to ship jobs out of the country to save a few bucks per hour per employee. Anyone who thinks these mega-corporations are going to suddenly get *generous* to anyone other than their stockholders needs to have a reality check. Ain't gonna happen dude. :shrug:

[abbeyco]

14. I'd happily pay my 5% and double it

for a person that could not pay it. I feel that if I'm doing well then I can assist someone who is in need.

[Maru Kitteh]

15. hell yes

[slampoet]

16. It beats all the other Govt programs that don't benefit anyone who isn't a Lobbyist

[Mr. Sparkle]

17. If everyone paid 5% of their wages, it would raise $350 billions a year. n/t

[Salviati]

23. If something like this were to go into effect, it should be ALL income, not just wages...

We used to be a nation that respected hard work. We need to go back to those days, and it's time for our tax structure to show that.

[mirrera]

18. Single payer... 5%- 10%... Worth it.

[MadHound]

19. I wouldn't be for that unless the following are met

1. The wealthy class are contributing their fair share. For far too long both individuals and corporations have been given a free ride in this country. Tax rates for the upper brackets have decrease steadily over the past sixty years, while the tax loopholes allowed to the rich have increased. This imbalance needs to be ended.

2. The military has been reduced significantly and that cost savings is being used to fund health care in this country. We spend the most of any nation on this planet on our military. In fact we spend more than the next twenty five countries combined. I think that we could reduce that spending considerably, still have a strong defense in this country and pay for health care.

3. Finally, if we're going to assess this five percent tax increase, then let it go to a single payer plan, true UHC. Otherwise we're just leaving the door open for the insurance industry to continue to run rampant.

Meet those conditions, then sure, I'll kick in five percent.

[The Gunslinger]

22. I would for single payer

[juno jones]

24. Hells yeah!

If only someone would pay me enough to actually OWE taxes, I'd be freaking happy to pay out some shekels for the amenities of civilization.

[HughMoran]

25. That's more than I pay now for insurance, I would still have to pay premiums on top of that?

Aren't we hoping for lower healthcare costs here? What am I missing?

[notesdev]

27. Isn't the whole point of reform

to make this stuff cost less?

[tandot]

28. Yes, of course

We have great health insurance because my husband works for a County in CA. We had to pay zero throughout our pregnancy and zero for treatments for two herniated disks in my lower back which I have since October 08. I have surgery in August and will have to pay nothing.

I think everyone in America should have that care

[LWolf]

29. No, but I would for universal, single-payer, not-for-profit. nt

[Hannah Bell]

34. for transition costs only. we have the most expensive health care in the world, why would we

pay even *more* to get some approximation of what the rest of the world gets?

[omega minimo]

35. Would you post a poll that provided some information that was relevant?

[Fiendish Thingy]

36. No for public option, but I would gladly pay 5% more for single payer n/t

[abumbyanyothername]

38. What's 5% of $0.00?

Honestly I wish I could find something to do.

I just don't know what it would be.

I already finished my work on the crew that brought you the complete destruction of the credit markets.

[lonestarnot]

39. Aren't we already paying that and more?

[crickets]

40. I would for Single Payer. -nt

[eridani]

41. Hell no! We are ALREADY PAYING for universal health care!

We just aren't GETTING it! Get the useless sociopathic shitstain middlemen our of the way!

[endarkenment]

42. However I would prefer that public 'option' be available to all

and not be some crippled fenced in bullshit put out to betray us and satisfy the corrupting greed of the elites. Gummint, according to the party line, can't do anything efficiently, so surely it cannot compete with the private sector in delivering low cost high quality health insurance, right? So why should the billionaire class be so afraid of a non-profit government run health insurance program?

[pipoman]

43. The only people who would answer this with yes or no

are either making an assumption about what "public option" means or encompasses, or have no knowledge of the current insurance system. There are many health insurance plans which one would be crazy to pay 5% for, while other plans that would be a fantastic deal. To understand the complexity of this issue one only needs to request a copy of a health insurance policy, not the application or summary of benefits, an actual copy of the policy. Insurance policies are extremely complex legal contracts which most people never read beyond the summary because comprehension almost requires a law degree. I can't imagine that a 'public option' health plan would be any different. In fact of all the health plans, medicare and Medicaid (medicare is generally retirement government provided insurance, medicaid is more the low income/welfare government provided health insurance) are among the most complex and require health providers spend far more to process claims than almost any other form of insurance. So no, without a reasonable definition I would not blindly support such a plan and unless your income is $0 you would be well advised not to support such an undefined plan either.


edit..To illustrate this check out this page. It is the basic guidelines for medicare coverage.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/home/medicare.asp

[Jester Messiah]

44. It needs to be a budget-neutral change, as Obama is insisting.

Take the 5% out of GOP pork and put it to better use. Framing the question in terms of "yes/no tax increase" just plays into GOP hands.

[lumberjack_jeff]

49. Of course. Health care consumes 17% of the US GDP.

Every single dollar earned, by everyone and every corporation would have to be taxed at 17% to pay for it.

It's like asking people if they'd pay $1.00 per gallon for gas.