What if you were asked to pay a tax of 2-4% on your personal income?

Question

Would you do it to have health insurance? A small percentage of your pay check instead of high insurance premiums.

Keeping in mind the additional tax could be deducted from your earned income.

Wisconsin is trying, read below...

http://www.progressivestates.org/content/629/nations-most-comprehensive-health-plan-approved-in-wisconsin-senate#1

Answer 1

NO! It starts out as 2-4%. Once you let the camel's foot in the tent, surely the tent will come down. When the State goverment finally tells it's people that 2-4% isn't enough, there will be a mandate to cover the true costs. That's when they'll jack up the price to what it reallly costs. In the mean time, they'll cut services in a money crisis and ask the people to sacrifice for this "nobel" cause. Don't take this swindle.

Answer 2

i would as long as it's real insurance.

i work for a large boston area hospital, running a medicare billing unit - and medicare is not REAL insurance.

you'd be shocked to find out how much stuff medicare NEVER covers.

medicare never covers anything that is dental related - have an abscess tooth? too bad, medicare won't cover it.

medicare also pays a fraction of the actual cost of care, resulting in losses at hospitals all over the nation.

medicare also has a very badly antiquated computer system, one that is literally a hold-over from the 1980's and works very badly.

medicare has become the standard in the industry and hospitals all over the nation struggle to keep up with medicare's semi-annual arbitrary diagnosis and cpt code changes.

i would love to take medicare to court where they could explain why, exactly, we need these yearly changes.

don't get me wrong, we need universal healthcare, but if it's to be medicare, it needs a makeover...

Answer 3

The % of your income that you pay is nowhere near your tax bracket % unless you're in a zero bracket (pay no tax). The president's staff's tax returns are not public record, so no way to answer that. Blind trusts just mean that the office holder doesn't know what specific assets are held, someone else manages that. It doesn't mean they aren't taxable income.

Answer 4

I would much prefer the freedom to have a choice of insurance, choice of coverage, and choice of doctors. Trying to have the government run a health care system would result in runaway costs, and inferior care. If you want to see how poor the government is at running health care, look at the Veterans Administration hospitals. Costs there are out of control, and the care is shamefully substandard.

Answer 5

2-4% wouldn't cover it .They might start with a small amount but it wouldn't take long before we would be told that taxes would have to go up to cover new cost. Look at Medicare each year the government has to increase the amount that people have to pay so why would this be any different?

Answer 6

No, because the insurance I'd get from it would come from the government and would most likely suck compared to the coverage I have now. Also, there's nothing to say it will stay at 2-4%, and they'll try to hit higher income earners with a higher tax to try and pay for everyone else.

Answer 7

Read it again and add it up. I came to 25%. Let's put that on top of the almost 30% you are paying now, and lets not forget all the other taxes you pay so we are talking 70% here. No thank you.

Answer 8

In aminute and I do and have never regretted a penny of it....When I am fortunate then I have no problem taking some and giving to the poor less fortunate...isn't it what the Bible preaches but instead of Tith we give to the government who gives back with no strings attached..how much do people give to the Catholic church and what comes back..it supports the golden idols in Rome...

Answer 9

I'd be fine with it. It would be a smaller percentage of my paycheck taken out then is currently for insurance.

Answer 10

Nature lover....you read it again. you are adding all the figures together.