California's Governor has proposed a health care reform in attempt to guarantee ALL Californians health insurance. The plan will cost $14 billion and includes the following (key points):
- Collecting up to 4% payroll tax on all employers with 2 or more employees.
- ALL Californians (working/non-working) will be required to spend up to 6% of their gross income on health coverage.
- All Californians are required by law to buy health insurance, failure to do so will result in fines.
- Those under the poverty level will have access to no-cost Medi-Cal.
Any thoughts?
2007-10-30 04:37:25 · 6 answers · asked by Lioness 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
The payroll tax will be passed down to the employees in some form or fashion. So slide that tax back over to the people. Now you're up to around an additional 10% tax on CA citizens. Add your Federal and various State taxes and fees to that. What about retirement savings? Another 6%? Then your costs of livng. That leaves very little salary left over to do things you really want to do in life...unless your very rich. It doesn't seem beneficial to me that those who rarely use the plan will be paying for the few who use the state insurance plan most.
I'd wait until the results are in on the Massachusetts mandatory pay plan before copying it. Learn from their mistakes first.
2007-10-30 06:29:50 · answer #1 · answered by JohnFromNC 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
On this forum I'll probably be considered to be one of thse left-wing loonies but nevertheless
The post-war Labour government introduced universal provision in 1947/1948 consisting of the NHS (National Health Service) and NI (National Insurance). Between them they provided health care and pensions and benefits during unemployment and illness for everyone. There was no commercial involvement and employees and employers paid a weekly percentage of the cost.
It was a magnificent step forward and it worked fine for many years. Until recently when privatization and outsourcing came into vogue since when everything has gone downhill.
But the idea was sound except for the fact that these provisions worked on a PAYG (pay as you go) basis without a funding or sinking fund programme in place.
The US would do well for its people if it followed in the footsteps of the original Brit system (but of course without its flaws).
It's always seemed mediaeval to me that the US allows vested commercial interests to in effect dictate who lives and who dies. An abrogation of governmental duty one might say.
2007-10-30 16:53:35 · answer #2 · answered by celtish 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Interesting. The GOP wants to deal with the health care crisis by taking away individual freedom--and hand insurance companies a multi-billion dollar windfall they haven't earned.
BTW--in the study of political science, tat kind of relationship between industry and the government has a specific name: fascism.
The more the Republicans talk about their version of health care reform, the better systems like Canada's and Britain's look!
2007-10-30 11:51:38 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
"ALL Californians (working/non-working) will be required to spend up to 6% of their gross income on health coverage."
Up to. Poor people, 0-2%. Rich people, 6% tax.
2007-10-30 11:49:49 · answer #4 · answered by Philip McCrevice 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
California is the home of the left wing liberal loonies. It seems Governor Arnold has been bitten by the liberal vampire.
Socialized medicine is never a good thing.
2007-10-30 11:42:21 · answer #5 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
aspirin Bayer and Kirschschnapps for all,in alternative order
2007-10-30 12:09:56 · answer #6 · answered by amleth 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋