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

321–330 of 363 posts

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#321

Post by kcplate »

fortran77 wrote: post #318
kcplate wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahh yes, the old “just lose weight” argument, likely spoken by someone who is not and has never been overweight or obese. Speaking as someone who has lost over a 170lbs…it ain’t eas. It is the hardest damn thing I have ever done and your body fights you every step of the way…forever. It never ends—for the rest of your life your body is constantly fighting you to get back up to the weight you were. Also, your concept…

I have been obese. Please don't falsely accuse me of things.

I didn’t falsely accuse you of anything. I said “likely”.

If you were obese and now are not, I applaud you. But I also know it wasn’t easy for you to make that change. I used the word “likely”, because it felt to me like you communicated in a dismissive and nonchalant manner, like someone who hasn’t gone through the difficulties necessary to do it.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#322

Post by kcplate »

jimbob45 wrote: post #319
kcplate wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahh yes, the old “just lose weight” argument, likely spoken by someone who is not and has never been overweight or obese. Speaking as someone who has lost over a 170lbs…it ain’t eas. It is the hardest damn thing I have ever done and your body fights you every step of the way…forever. It never ends—for the rest of your life your body is constantly fighting you to get back up to the weight you were. Also, your concept…

That’s why you tax soft drinks instead of taxing weight directly. It may be difficult to lose weight but it isn’t particularly difficult to cut out the most extremely unhealthy foods.

I’d be ok with that, but I don’t think it’s all that simple to cut out unhealthy foods. One, most healthy foods are pretty expensive and a lot of unhealthy foods are not. It can be difficult for people on a tight budget to eat healthy.

You also need to consider that a sugar tax can hit lower income people a bit harder.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#323

Post by conanbatt »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #220
conanbatt wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> But now it is tied to the government, which is way worse...You can't complain to the government. Elections have consequences. Try un-electing your group plan provider.

Uh, you can change group plan providers. You cant change the gov. Hell you might not even be able to vote at all.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#324

Post by conanbatt »

jjav wrote: post #211
devmunchies wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Kaiser posted $3B in profits in a quarter. All that money is overhead that can be removed from the costs if health care didn't have to funnel through a private company taking profits from it. https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals/kaiser-permanente...

Profits is not what makes healthcare expensive…

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#325

Post by conanbatt »

beej71 wrote: post #300
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…

There is no free market for expensive, emergency care. You're not going to drive to Nevada to get cheaper care while you're having a heart attack. There's no free market for health insurance for the people who need care. Insurers don't want those people as customers, not from any state. They're money losers. What pressure is there to lower costs? Why would they charge less?

Competition

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#326

Post by SllX »

KerrAvon wrote: post #245
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.

The total cost of my plan, including the part my employer pays for is less than $500/month, and I’m of the opinion it includes too many provisions but I couldn’t find similar plans that didn’t include the coverage I didn’t want.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#327

Post by Sparyjerry »

jjav wrote: post #211
devmunchies wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Kaiser posted $3B in profits in a quarter. All that money is overhead that can be removed from the costs if health care didn't have to funnel through a private company taking profits from it. https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals/kaiser-permanente...

If you had no profit motivation then there is no incentive to do the best and most efficient job. This is why government organizations are always extremely bloated, inefficient, and employees don't care about the service level. It's because a monopoly means you don't have to care about any of that anymore.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#328

Post by usefulcat »

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.

I have the cheapest insurance plan offered at my company. The deductible is near $10k and it costs more than my mortgage. For a family of 4.

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#329

Post by likeabbas »

jjav wrote: post #262
likeabbas wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right but if you only consider those that are covered by health insurance then overall health quality is top notch. In the US system you have the luxury of choosing your providers and having your insurance cover things (like elective surgeries) that wouldn't be covered by single payer systems. For example, I had a knee surgery for a partial patellar tendon tear last year that cost me <$500 out of pocket (insurance wa…

> Right but if you only consider those that are covered by health insurance then overall health quality is top notch. That is debatable. I have the top-tier plan my employes makes available (blue shield platinum). It's $2500/month. That still doesn't guarantee anything, if the insurance company doesn't feel like paying it because it cuts into their profit margin too much. Right now I've been prescribed some medicine…

I 100% agree the US system isn’t that great. I don’t like that your health care choices are tied to your employer.

Ideally we should just have an open private insurance market where you shop for whatever insurance you want and your employer pays some part of it or reimburses somehow. Imo this would drive competitiveness amongst private insurers the best and give everyone their best plan.

With that said, I prefer private insurance over single payer because I’ve had good experiences with my insurers so far. I am one of the lucky ones though

Re: California Considers Doubling Its Taxes

#330

Post by seanmcdirmid »

conanbatt wrote: post #323
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But now it is tied to the government, which is way worse...You can't complain to the government. Elections have consequences. Try un-electing your group plan provider.

Uh, you can change group plan providers. You cant change the gov. Hell you might not even be able to vote at all.

You can change jobs you mean? Group plans are provided by employers, the majority way that Americans get health insurance.
Post reply on HN