Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

taxfoundation.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 363 posts

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#151

Post by _moof »

no_wizard wrote: post #4

> to fund a first-in-the-nation single-payer health-care system. This is key here. So instead of paying this out to a private insurance company I pay it in taxes, there by my actual change is net zero, in most cases. I have a feeling most reactions might be headline driven here. I think it’s worth doing the math on how much it costs you in healthcare coverage before really judging a book by its cover here. If my comp…

The way this headline is written reminds me of a recent article that asked if you would rather have a treatment with a 10% chance of death or one with a 90% chance of success.

This is from an advocacy organization that is more or less anti-tax. There are probably much more balanced takes on this proposal from other sources.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#152

Post by oxymoran »

onphonenow wrote: post #55
after_care wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s very hard to do the math here. It’s largely invisible to me how much my employer is paying in health insurance premiums and it’s unknown that they will add that sum to my salary.

I've got access to employer numbers. Grandfathered plans are an absolutely screaming deal. You can do an HSA plan with a $2000 deductible and low OOP max, fully fund the HSA ($7,200) and come out way ahead at modest cost. This let's you do things like vision / dental / chiro / accu / whatever day to day stuff on the HSA, then keep costs controlled (after 2K) for a major issue. If you don't end up using the HSA you ca…

It’s the preexisting injury part that jacked up the prices. They aren’t allowed to deny enrollment or charge significantly higher premiums if some was has cancer or something. And that totally makes sense morally, but that causes the risk burden to be offset on the aggregate of the subscribers resulting in higher premiums for everyone.

It would be kind of similar to forcing auto insurance carriers to afford coverage to cars they didn’t previously insure after they had already been in an accident.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#153

Post by jdashg »

eat_veggies wrote: post #83
no_wizard wrote: post #4

> to fund a first-in-the-nation single-payer health-care system. This is key here. So instead of paying this out to a private insurance company I pay it in taxes, there by my actual change is net zero, in most cases. I have a feeling most reactions might be headline driven here. I think it’s worth doing the math on how much it costs you in healthcare coverage before really judging a book by its cover here. If my comp…

Another thing that people are missing is that a net zero change, or even a small loss would be worth it in terms of freedom. You're no longer compelled to stay at your current job just to keep your healthcare, and if you lose your job then you only have one problem rather than two -- especially in the middle of a pandemic, when lots of people are getting laid off and needing to go to the hospital due to covid

HN and VCs ought to be extremely interested in single-payer for this reason. Healthcare (for themselves and their families) is a big reason why, in practice, people stick around at stable employers.

Also, private stock valuation can't simply pay health insurance bills.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#154

Post by onphonenow »

sneak wrote: post #129
Maxion wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you believe single-payer is a bad idea? The model works very well in most European countries.

Most european countries have fewer poor people by percentage than the USA. Single payer "works" in europe in the sense that you still end up having to pay out of pocket if you want not-crap (private) care.

Not true really. Germany has had pretty good success. Wait times even on the public side are reasonable. But govt is actually not very involved in providing care - they are more of a market administrator. 100+ nonprofits compete for patients in various ways. And everyone has to have coverage.

Also, coverage is rationed more in these systems, they would never approve these the $20,000 per bill with limited evidence type treatments.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#155

Post by SllX »

sam0x17 wrote: post #127
SllX wrote: post #20

This will be one of the easiest “No” votes I’ll have ever filled out on my ballot. For those following along at home, this resolution would take the form of a Constitutional Amendment, if passed by Californians on the ballot that would raise per household taxes by $12,500/year. The important thing here is that Californians have to agree to pass it.

I pay $1.3k/month for private insurance for myself + my husband, so it would be an easy yes vote for me.

I pay less than half of that. So in effect you’re seeking to drive up my costs in order to drive yours down. I can at least understand why you would want to, but I won’t be your ally.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#156

Post by onphonenow »

john_moscow wrote: post #116

So, we are not building new hospitals, not creating new ICU beds, not investing into more medical programs at universities (or making them more affordable), not cracking down on opaque pricing and exponentially growing hospital administration. Instead we are introducing another bureaucratic layer to manage access to an extremely limited resource that has not been keeping up with the increasing population. What could…

Or relaxing licensing rules?

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#157

Post by Kye »

epmatsw wrote: post #77
mdavis6890 wrote: post #15

I do not believe single-payer is a good idea, but then lots of people DO seem to think it is, and the state is probably the best level at which to conduct an experiment this way. As a Californian, I'll be happy to see the experiment conducted, sad that it happens in my state, and excited to be a guinea pig. My only hope if we do this is that the federal govt or other states do not leap quickly into this and give it a…

Seems like every other first-world country in the world should be sufficient experimentation.

I expect "that won't work in the US" to become "the rest of the country isn't like California" after it's a resounding success.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#158

Post by ARandumGuy »

likeabbas wrote: post #24
jppope wrote: post #10

The healthcare system in the United States is debatably one of the worst in the world. Cheers to California for trying to find a way to guarantee that all Californian's have access to the worlds worst healthcare system.

The US health care treatments are the best in the world, just the costs are higher than the rest of the world.

While the US does contain some stellar hospitals and surgeons, by broader metrics the US performs poorly. From 2010 to 2015 (before COVID messed with the data), the US ranked 43rd [1] in overall life expectancy. This is behind countries like Cuba and Slovenia, and well behind other rich countries like Japan, Canada, or the UK.

Healthcare costs and outcomes can't be separated from each other. The more expensive it is to receive treatment, the fewer people will get the treatment they need. Having good service isn't sufficient if that service isn't available to everyone.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_life...

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#159

Post by reghtlkjlkj »

Maxion wrote: post #34
mdavis6890 wrote: post #15

I do not believe single-payer is a good idea, but then lots of people DO seem to think it is, and the state is probably the best level at which to conduct an experiment this way. As a Californian, I'll be happy to see the experiment conducted, sad that it happens in my state, and excited to be a guinea pig. My only hope if we do this is that the federal govt or other states do not leap quickly into this and give it a…

Why do you believe single-payer is a bad idea? The model works very well in most European countries.

No post body was provided.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#160

Post by lukemercado »

lax4ever wrote: post #11
no_wizard wrote: post #4

> to fund a first-in-the-nation single-payer health-care system. This is key here. So instead of paying this out to a private insurance company I pay it in taxes, there by my actual change is net zero, in most cases. I have a feeling most reactions might be headline driven here. I think it’s worth doing the math on how much it costs you in healthcare coverage before really judging a book by its cover here. If my comp…

Do you actually pay that much a year in insurance premiums? I don't live in CA, but I sure don't and my health coverage is pretty good. Keep in mind, this is also just the insurance premium, there's no talk of what co-pays or deductibles would be. In addition, your employer now has to pay more based on their gross receipts and if you make more than 150k a year you are paying even more.

Uh, yeah. My business budgets out 20k/year for insurance premiums on the employer side per employee. This might be an old shorthand, but it's what we use in our models. Some employees pay extra out of pocket for added dependents.
Post reply on HN