Romney Care. The fact that MA passed it with a Republican governnor and that it was in many ways like Obamacare was one of the arguments that Democrats made for why Republicans should have supported the Obamacare bill. Of course, that argument didn't persuade any Republicans.
Just because the federal government has a law relating to some topic does not automatically mean that the federal law preempts any state laws on the same subject. In order for there to be state law preemption one of two conditions must exist: (1) the federal law itself expressly states that it preempts all state law on the subject or (2) a court determines that the federal law is so comprehensive on the matter that it completely shuts out any meaningful role for the states. Neither of those situations exist here.
The devil is in the details. It is not automatic that we would save money or that we would get better care. Our government agencies tend not to be well managed and there is the possibility that the medical care that most who are on private insurance now would get under a government run program would actually be worse. Done well we could get at least good care for less. My concern is that it is quite possible it would not be done well.
Medicare is the largest insurance network in the world. It rarely has complaints and most people who are on it do not have any problems with it. I didn't comment on the care, though I think that would improve from the current status because providers would not have to jump through the ridiculous hoops that insurance has them do. Nearly everyone would save money, particularly employers. The public employees who have their health insurance taken from tax money would mean property tax savings for most homeowners. We would save on auto insurance because we would no longer need health insurance payment coverage. Prescriptions would be exponentially cheaper. People wouldn't wait until the last minute and actually get preventative care, which is significantly cheaper than treating diseases. The bigwigs at the insurance companies wouldn't get multi-million dollar salaries/bonuses annually.
No need. I've heard the arguments for it. And they all sound great. If it is implemented well. But as I said, the devil is in the details.
Those not paying into it can buy into it. The info is also on their web page.
So, the only solution is to take money at the point of a sword?
Save? You mean after the nearly doubling of the personal and corporate income taxes coupled with the disruption in the economy that would occur when/if so many people were put out of work and investors lost their money or received less than an optimal return on their investments? Not to mention the well-known efficiency of government bureaucracies at providing services to the people.
Just for my school, the health insurance premium is almost $1M per month. 75% of that comes directly from the property tax of the taxpayers in the surrounding towns. As a school, we have no corporate tax. If you are saying that we couldn't find a better use for that $9M per year, I think we are too far apart ideologically.Those not paying into it can buy into it. The info is also on their web page.
So, the only solution is to take money at the point of a sword?
Save? You mean after the nearly doubling of the personal and corporate income taxes coupled with the disruption in the economy that would occur when/if so many people were put out of work and investors lost their money or received less than an optimal return on their investments? Not to mention the well-known efficiency of government bureaucracies at providing services to the people.
Read the estimates of the costs of a single payer plan then get back to me.
But while Medicare for all would shift the burden for health care cost from the school to the federal government, that shift is not free. Local property taxes might go down but federal taxes would go up. In the end, the issue is whether the extra federal taxes paid to get the Medicare for all would be more or less than the health care premiums that employers and individual employees now pay and what kind of health care we would get for that compared to the health care we get with private insurance. Again, it is not automatic that Medicare for all would be a great solution. The details matter.
Which might not benefit the employees, but rather the shareholders. If the employer doesn't have to pay for health insurance any more but employee pay remains the same and employee taxes go up, then those employees are worse off. That's just one example of those pesky details that I keep mentioning.
What makes you think for a second that the $1Mil per month (plus some) the school pays now to an insurance carrier isn't going to have to be paid to the feds if there is Medicare for all.
Because an enormous expense is the overhead costs of running such an insurance company. The CEO of BCBS of Michigan makes over $19M https://www.freep.com/story/money/business/2019/03/08/ceo-blue-cross-blue-shield-michigan/3071484002/. That is only one executive of one insurance company in one state.
