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

241–250 of 363 posts

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#241

Post by twiddling »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #225
jobu wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the headline could easily be flipped with the subheading and most people's reaction would be drastically different. Overall I think a single-payer system is for the best. Having healthcare tied to your job creates another anchor to keep people tied to large, stable companies instead of taking risks with startups or small businesses. The main downside is that companies have started doing tiered healthcare costs…

> Having income tax based on your weight or smoking status is probably a non-starter Australia has very high taxes on cigarettes mainly because they want to keep their (universal) healthcare costs down. They could do the same thing to sugary snacks as well, even the conservatives would get onboard if it was to save money on healthcare expenditures.

and funnel money away from crop subsidies?

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#242

Post by jimbob45 »

jjav wrote: post #206
cobrabyte wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my thought, as well. When your private insurance company stinks, you find a new insurer. When you're forced to pay the government for health insurance, you're stuck without options. Health insurance isn't one of the services that I trust the government to be able to run well. They don't have a particularly great track record where efficiency, customer service, and speed are concerned.

> This is my thought, as well. When your private insurance company stinks, you find a new insurer. You can't, because the health insurance is provided by your employes so you get whatever they give you. My health insurance (blue shield) is absolutely terrible (right now I need some medicine they refuse to let me have because it cuts into their profit margins) but there's nothing I can do about it. And that's after pa…

>You can't, because the health insurance is provided by your employees so you get whatever they give you.

That's not true, is it? You could decline coverage and then go purchase a policy of your own elsewhere. Yes, that might be expensive but the original claim was "Y'all actually have one of the best systems in the world, it's just way too expensive." and that still tracks.

Even better, you could purchase a policy through the Obamacare exchanges.

If the government offers you bad medical care, you turn to the black market or you fly to the US to get the procedure done because the government has banned alternative care. This is a very normal Conservative talking point and the inherent competition in US healthcare is arguably the biggest benefit of its current system.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#243

Post by Maxion »

Kye wrote: post #157
epmatsw wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is an odd argument for many reasons, but it seems to be the one that is given more often. Yet I've never seen any specific reasons why a single-payer system can work in e.g. Finland and Sweden and not in the US.

Healthcare benefits from having a larger population, and it is harder to provide quality care for a smaller population (read more expensive). Yet Finland spends less per capita and has better outcomes.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#244

Post by Justin_K »

yongjik wrote: post #223
Justin_K wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly - no doctor who has his crap together is going to accept the government's insurance. Medicare has the same problem. My mother many times can't find a decent doctor that accepts Medicare and when she does, they take so few appointments it takes weeks to get seen whenever an issue pops up.

> Exactly - no doctor who has his crap together is going to accept the government's insurance. Isn't the whole point of a single payer system putting and end to this madness? You no longer need to worry about a doctor accepting your insurance, because there's only one insurance, and everybody accepts it. (You can still buy additional insurances if you're worried about a medical disaster, but that's a separate concern…

Do you think an entire industry is going to let a dysfunctional, bureaucratic government to dictate what their rates are? There will always be a market for better care to the highest bidder.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#245

Post by KerrAvon »

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.

It would also eliminate the healthcare costs taken out of your salary, though. Could be an even trade or better for most people, even higher earners, AND you'd have the freedom of never having to consider healthcare again when considering switching jobs or doing your own thing for a while.

Lots of devils in lots of details, of course.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#246

Post by dragonwriter »

California's health spending per capita is about double it's tax receipts per capita, and the majority of that spending is private spending, so even if this analysis is accurate, doubling taxes to fund full public healthcare would be a significant overall cost savings.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#247

Post by dragonwriter »

Justin_K wrote: post #210
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…

Except anybody you consider to be a "good" doctor won't take this insurance because the payouts are too low. So, your employer will still buy "aftermarket" plans to provide better care. Now you'll be paying both for a plan you won't use and a plan you will use.

> Except anybody you consider to be a "good" doctor won't take this insurance because the payouts are too low

When you are the single payer for the entire state, yes, I think the doctors in the state will take it.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#248

Post by tedyoung »

devmunchies wrote: post #51
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…

I hope Kaiser Permanente lobbies this or we can opt out. I've lived in many states and my exp with Kaiser in California is among the best. I don't see the state (especially bloated California) doing better. (I pay out of pocket via a side business, not from my current employer.)

> don't see the state (especially bloated California) doing better [than Kaiser Permanente]

In what sense? What do you like about KP: the doctors, nurses, etc.? The billing department? Single-payer would not take the staff away. It would get rid of large swathes of the billing department that are pure waste.

Not everyone has had your positive experience with KP. We switched away due to lack of availability of certain specialists.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#249

Post by qwytw »

perrylaj wrote: post #214
cal5k wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want an extreme example of how bad a single payer system can get, look at Canada. Not only do we have a single-payer system, we've actually banned private pay of any kind for "medically necessary" services. The net effect is predictable - Canada consistently ranks very poorly in international health system comparisons. We have far fewer ICU beds, doctors, imaging machines, etc. per capita than peer nations, an…

> The net effect is predictable - Canada consistently ranks very poorly in international health system comparisons. Funny that despite this 'extreme example', Canadians have almost 3 years longer life expectancy than us in the US, are healthier throughout their lives, and have comparable or better outcomes with treatments. Where the US has better outcomes (e.g. - some forms of cancer, some organ transplants), it's on…

> Canadians have almost 3 years longer life expectancy than us in the US, are healthier throughout their lives...

Which is more likely caused by different lifestyle choices (e.g. 27% vs 42% obesity rate). Also if you take out all the southern states the gap get quite a bit smaller (e.g. 82.4 in Ontario vs 81.7 in California and 81.4 in New York).

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#250

Post by dragonwriter »

conanbatt wrote: post #216
jobu wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the headline could easily be flipped with the subheading and most people's reaction would be drastically different. Overall I think a single-payer system is for the best. Having healthcare tied to your job creates another anchor to keep people tied to large, stable companies instead of taking risks with startups or small businesses. The main downside is that companies have started doing tiered healthcare costs…

But now it is tied to the government, which is way worse...You can't complain to the government.

> You can't complain to the government.

Yes, you can.

And you get a vote on who is running it, too

Post reply on HN