A Medicare for all system will mean that ALL businesses will be absolved from the cost of providing healthcare for their employees, correct? It would seem that lost revenue will have to be made up from somewhere, i.e. additional taxes on the taxpayers, correct? So exactly what would that new tax code look like? Would that come in the form as simply more money coming out of our existing Medicare tax? Would it be based on Marginal rates or a flat tax?
I would imagine it would be an extension of the current medicare tax. The employer and employee each pay a portion, with high earners paying additional.
No, currently employee’s pay 1.45% and employers pay 1.45% with high income earnings paying more.
Those rates would go up, but then employers wouldn’t have have to pay for baseline HI for full time. I imagine ER insurance would go toward catastrophic coverage only.
Thanks for the link. I assume that 1.45% is based off a person’s salary, correct? Does anyone have figures on what that rate would be in a Medicare for all system?
Because MC doesn’t seek to turn a profit, and doesn’t have shareholders, that takes some $ out of the top line pricing. Also, I know no-one wants to admit this, but MC is very efficient. So there’s that.
I don’t. But keep in mind, if your MC rate goes up and you don’t have to buy HI, you probably come out ahead. The people this will hurt are those who have an increase in MC rate, and choose to stay with Private HI.
Sadly, I’ve had more than enough dealing with HI companies over the last two years, and I have to tell you, it’s disgusting the way the insurance companies dictate the care you receive.
Is term shareholder accurate for private companies? My understanding is that private companies typically have individual investors typically with significant financial positions in the company. In other words I can buy 1 share of Apple’s stock for $160 (not sure where it is today), but it is not like I can buy a $160 stake in a private company? Again I am not an expert here but that’s how I understand it.
FYI - all corporations have shareholders. Publicly traded ones sell their shares to the public, on public stock markets, and in exchange for access to these investors, they submit to lots of regulations. (For example, they must be audited by CPAs, to ensure they aren’t manipulating their books.) In addition, public stock markets typically won’t list and trade shares of companies until they reach a certain size.
Private companies by contrast, don’t sell their shares publicly on public stock markets, but they can and do sell shares privately. As a result, they are less regulated.
I have to assume that in a Medicare for all system that the tax would not be different from one person to the next based on the number of children a person has. If it is a tax wouldn’t the tax either be the same for everyone or be a marginal tax? Also if it is Medicare for all you wouldn’t be able to tax someone who is making minimum wage and has two kids more than a single person making six figures.
My question would be will alternative incomes be included (should they be or should they be excluded) instead of basing it strictly on “wages”.
If I’m a small business owner and take all profit as income I’m responsible for paying taxes on all that “wage”. However if I incorporate and pay myself a minimum salary (lower taxes) and take other income as dividends then “wage” taxes done apply.
We don’t pay medicare/social security on dividends, interest, stock sales, for profit sale of valuables (homes, cars, etc.), would those type of incomes also be on the table.
.
.
.
.
It really hard to be for (or against) medicare for all (MFA) without knowing the plan. One number that has been thrown out is 32 Trillion over ten years - that’s a scary number. But what is the cost of private health care insurance going to be over that same time period. If that number goes WAY down because of MFA, the scare number might not be as impactful.
