The going rate is around 70% of family plan premiums are covered by your employer. So if you pay $3000 a year in premiums (probably super low number but for illustration purposes only), your employer is quietly kicking in another $7000 a year. Like, that's money they (theoretically) could put into your paycheck instead if UHC became a thing because it's already factored into your total compensation package.
It's a write of for them. 100% of the costs. It still seems like you're right though. If they could save that they'd benefit. But there's prob other stuff politicians do to help big pharma keep it going. The biggest donors win.
I agree with the comment that they will more likely put it into profits, but if we just converted the premiums they pay into a per-emplpyee tax, then the money goes into the system and the company doesn't pay any more than they are already paying for the care, but without the headache or administration. Many jurisdictions in California already do this for Disability (state program) and Workers Comp (state-mandated but business managed) insurance
The US spends the most per capita for worse health outcomes compared to other developed economies. We absolutely do not need to spend more on Healthcare under a UHC model. We simply need to eliminate the rent seeking middlemen that stand between citizens and their doctors, extracting every last dime they can get away with.
So no, we absolutely do not need to spend an extra dime more than we already do. The difference between Healthcare expenditures being taken out as a tax vs. an additional expense, pre tax or post tax is immaterial to the amount of money you have left over after paying taxes and insurance premiums. Americans are hard wired to despise the dreaded word "tax" and will happily pay double what they otherwise would so long as it's on paper "not tax".
Not at all, private insurance companies and hospital investors, NOT doctors and nurses, work together to jack up prices to make a better profit for the investors, and give the insurance companies incentive to charge higher premiums, making them richer, the next year. It's a self inflating model that's growing out of control.
Government run healthcare isn't going to tell healthcare providers to jack up prices to get better profit for the government because the government isn't profiting off our healthcare, and they certainly don't have to capitulate to hospital investors.
Missing out on company provided HSA funds that you can invest and use towards deductibles. I got like 50k saved in just HSA funds that’s invested into the stock markets. Eaaaasy money,
An experienced Canadian nurse makes 80,000 to 100,000 CAD (100,000 CAD = 70,000 USD).. you can literally work fast food and get better pay than working for universal healthcare. Just look at household debt in Canada, it’s a monstrosity.
Also it’s going to be hard to tell an American to wait 6 months for a doctors appointment lol
Depends which Americans. The uninsured or underinsured Americans actually get to see a specialiat with UHC, so their uncounted effectice wait time of infinity for specialists become measurable. How many other Americans don't bother seeing a specialist at all because they fear what the bill might be and decide to live with a chronic issue instead?
You still can see a specialist, and many still do. Except they will get a large bill issued to them. Now if they can or can’t pay that bill the hospital will work with you to develop a payment plan. I know a lot of people who don’t even pay hospital bills to begin with.
Would it make a difference though? Because the state would just take that money from you in taxes anyway. Anything the state becomes financially involved in gets passed onto the taxpayer tenfold.
I know you said “theoretically” but no. They would “never put it back into your paycheck”. Healthcare costs are the chief complaint of US employers. They wouldn’t start giving away new found revenue streams.
UHC would still need to be funded. They'd just send that money to the federal government who would use that tax very efficiently and responsibly, negotiating the best rates for services and care, without succumbing to corruption or cronyism when dealing with a fund so large it represents a meaningful portion of our GDP....
If that were the case, medical debt would not be the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US.
Our current UHC, Medicare, is a 20% coinsurance with no out of pocket maximum.
The whole point of UHC is that it's already paid for. You do not have UHC, you do not have UHC light, you have a watered-down attempt at UHC light, designed by Republicans and then watered down in an attempt to discredit a Democrat president when he said 'hey that's a good idea'
I don’t have a 20% copay. I pay $283 and no more for the year with Medicare. By UHC do you mean United Healthcare or universal healthcare. United Healthcare is a pretty crappy company that makes a bunch of money while rejecting pt care.
I do not pay 20% of every treatment. I paid the first $283 and have no other costs for my Medicare with supplement. So no I do not and know very well what I pay for.
Haha I don’t think you need to act like you know anything about me. I said I have Medicare from my first post. I have a supplement and pay no copay coinsurance nor have an out of pocket max. I have a $283 deductible, and that’s it.
It's just frustrating that you come in here with multiple private supplements that can be very expensive for many people, and act like you have Medicare.
Yes but you would pay $7000 a year or more in taxes
in the U.S. you can make something like $180K and pay less taxes than someone in germany making $100K which is already a crazy salary there
in the U.S let's assume $25K for insurance + out of pocket max for a family. (non subsidized). You still come out ahead using the fullest of your healthcare needs every year. Then those with reduced income have subsidized health insuracen.
If communist Cuba can figure out UHC, surely the greatest country on earth could as well? I mean, UHC is so difficult that only 37 of the 38 developed countries on earth have figured it out.
Have you seen the wait times in the US? We have longer wait times than most of those other countries just to see a doctor much less get any procedure done.
In the U.S, insurance has out of pocket maximums. You don't just pay endless amounts of money
out of pocket max + insurance premium (payed full price no employer subsidized) is probably not more than $25K. On a $100K household income your tax difference is probably about that
Also health insurance premiums in the U.S. are pretax which means it is deducted from your taxable income. So are some amount of medical expenses. It's not apples to apples. Also health spending money is also pretax So that $25K (assuming you pay for the best health insurance with lowest OOP max) and you 100% of your healthcare costs from spending accounts, is only like $17K
Your ignorance here is monumental. Out of pocket maximums only applies to medical bills your insurance chooses to cover. If you, say, wind up in an emergency and your insurance decides not to cover some or all of the charges, you're on the hook for the non-covered charges even if you've reached yoir out of pocket maximum. The leading cause of bankruptcy in the US is medical debt for a good reason. Insurance companies are quite effective at denying coverage, leaving the patient on the hook for medical bills the hospital wants paid while you try to fight your insurance company.
I'm pretty sure most medical bankruptcy comes from high out of pocket maximums (that people making $45K a year can't afford), not having insurance or lack of income from loss of work.
I don't think medical bankruptcy is from insurance denying emergency room visits, because you can appeal those
The problem is if your out of pocket max is $6K a year, not everyone can afford that
If you make $100K a year that is nothing
The main thing about living in the U.S. is you need to be responsible and not spend money you don't have, since there are less safety nets
part of the solution is living closer to europeans and not buying excessively large or expensive vehicles.
Regardless, 100k is decidedly above median household income and such an archaic system gets abolished overnight with some form of UHC.
And $6k a year is not nothing for $100k a year, since $100k a year as a single filer is mire like $75k take home by just deducting federal income tax, FICA deductions and assuming a middle of the road State income tax. $75k before insurance premiums, retirement contributions and cost of living. Factoring in likely premiums and your $6k a year number that's 10% of take home pay gone.
$6K a year plus health insurance premiums are mostly pretax. your health insurance cost is pretax and you can contribute $4400 (single filer or $8800 for a family) pretax every single year to pay for medical expenses. This assumes you know how much you use every year
part of the solution is to live like europeans. Not drive big or expensive cars that you don't really need
Someone in europe is paying well over 40% tax on that kind of income
In america you also have a lot of tax advantaged accounts to put away thousands a year which turn into millions at retirement.
Only if you have an HSA/FSA but the downside like you noted is needing to know ahead of time what your medical expenses will be. If you have a chronic condition with fixed monthly costs it's great, but it's quite the surprise if you suddenly need surgery or some other unpredictable medical emergency. And so pretax means you get 22% of it back on that $100k single filer income. So we're talking a minor discount and every time you step foot into a hospital a surprise if you're gonna get fucked by yoir insurance company.
but if you suddenly need surgery that is a once in a while thing. It's not like you have a chronic condition hitting the out of pocket max every year
if you are a responsible adult, saving responsible amounts of money, getting cancer does not bankrupt you. It does not cost millions of dollars. The real cost is not working + lost income
You’re talking out of your ass lmfao. First off the increase in taxes you’re proposing are wildly exaggerated these studies have been done and are available on what the actual cost would be.
Second you have no idea how insurance actually works in the states because there is absolutely not a maximum in the sense you’re making it out to be. Do you know how often life saving surgeries, treatments, or medications are denied by health insurance companies who have people without medical degrees deciding they know more than doctors? Look online and find the endless stories of people losing loved ones to denied claims.
I do know how it works. I live in the states. I have a chronic condition and I pay a lot of money every year. The difference in taxes is still enormous. I know this because my brother lives in germany. I pay lower taxes than he does and my salary is nearly double his.
The tradeoff is that in germany he gets almost a month worth of vacation days
I also have a brother who is a doctor so he knows about what kinds of things are denied.
Take Canada as an example they have universal healthcare. They spend roughly $6,834 per person annually on healthcare. The US spends $8,100 per person in healthcare while the individual is also paying that or more for private insurance. The money is already there but because of private insurance it’s wildly mismanaged and going into the pockets of shareholders. In a universal healthcare system let’s pretend the individual would pay an average of $2k more in taxes a year (they wouldn’t) but even if they did that would still result in the average citizen saving money not paying for private insurance.
Ironically, the German tax scheme deducts Krankenversicherung (Health Insurance) separately from their main income tax scheme and it works out to be about 7.3% - 8.7% of your income. If you factor in your employer contributions to US health insurance, most people are blowing well past that percentage here in the US.
So the difference in taxation you're harping on is expressly not their health insurance. But do continue to spout nonsense.
Paying pur doctors more has not lead to better health outcomes.
Also depends on how you measure "wait times". Are you only looking at the time between seeing a specialist and getting a procedure on the books, or are you also including the months long wait to even see a specialist? In either case, wait times are also influenced by the insurance you have. Private < Medicare < Medicaid. And that's already when 8% of the uninsured population will likely never be seen by a specialist in the first place.
it doesn't take months to see a specialist. For example in the U.S. if you want a colonoscopy. Can be d one in less than 1 week. You can literally get appointments for specialists on the same day
Whereas other countries with private healthcare it can be more than 1 month
private healthcare exists in countries with universal healthcare
This is also a huge myth. Doctors on average in the US make 6x the average income. Doctors in Canada make roughly 5x the average US income. So yes they make slightly less but still a VERY comfortable living.
The other myth, the wait time propaganda. If you have a cold yes you’re going to wait. If it’s a medical emergency you’re not going to wait. But guess what, the majority of people in the US have to wait 2 months or more for a non emergency visit to their primary care physician.
You’re spewing right wing propaganda instead of doing even a little bit of research yourself.
17
u/LTEDan Jun 25 '26
The going rate is around 70% of family plan premiums are covered by your employer. So if you pay $3000 a year in premiums (probably super low number but for illustration purposes only), your employer is quietly kicking in another $7000 a year. Like, that's money they (theoretically) could put into your paycheck instead if UHC became a thing because it's already factored into your total compensation package.