You are not everyone. You’re self employed right? My premiums cost me about 400 a year. I’m single and I make 100k. Putting me solidly middle class. I’d see a huge jump, as would many people who are much worse off than me.
To be clear I dont care if my contribution goes up - I just wanted to finally hear someone admit that it would/could/will.
Your pay would jump drastically. Your premiums definitely cost many many times 400 dollars a year for your employer… and they would absolutely share it with you because you’re a tech employee in high demand. Other employers would immediately raise their compensation to compensate and your company would pass on at least some of the savings. You’re paying for it whether you see a line on your paycheck or not.
Also my insurance comes from my wife’s nursing job. We’ve had it for two whole weeks. Our options out in Obamacare land were dramatically worse than what we got through her job. The #1 reason she got a job was health insurance.
His employer pays closer to 6k a year so 15x actually. Possibly more if the coinsurance is actually cheap.
Lol so now we’re placing hope in employers paying their employees more just to be nice. I’m not trying to be insulting here, but are you serious?
Their Medicare differences alone are pretty massive
The market for employees, especially employees like you, is very competitive. Health insurance costs are a huge part of overall employee costs. It’s extremely safe to say that at least some of the savings will get passed on to employees. Thinking otherwise is silly.
Overall compensation for every role out there would go up by at least the amount of the tax increase, but most likely a bit more… especially in areas where there’s a shortage of qualified employees like tech.
Again - I don’t know why we are framing this from such a personal level. I am not everyone. In fact, I am like less than 1% of everyone. What you are trying to sell you are trying to sell to the general public - so yea, not everyone is like me and willing to take a 5% salary hit (likely) while losing the ability to choose whatever doctor I want, all for the greater good. Genuinely, I am willing to do this.
But you’re trying to sell this to the general electorate. It is not an easy pill to swallow, especially when you hide hard, obvious truths behind these vague, extremely optimistic predictions. I was happy to hear Bernie say what he said.
Honestly, Mayor Pete’s MFA + Private insurance will be what likely happens, if it ever does.
Eh I expect employers will probably be paying increased taxes as well. I’m not sure whether I’d expect wages to go up for non-union jobs, but maybe. I’m sure there are papers written on the topic.
Every doctor will take single payer or they won’t have patients. Employers won’t want their employees to start wondering if they could get paid better elsewhere so they will most likely change compensation to keep net pay the same or better. If they don’t it will absolutely drive employee turnover in a big way.
Remember that most people not in your situation are paying more for health insurance to get less. If you tell them their taxes are going up but their premium and coinsurance is going to zero they are going to be ready to party. The higher end employees will just see their net pay true’d up by their employers. The higher end people have way more leverage to demand this than the people in the lower social strata.
Sure for lower level jobs though losing the cost of health care is a big deal for most employees. They barely pay taxes now but they pay a LOT for health insurance.
I genuinely might be missing something, but I think jmakin’s point is along the lines of the tax cuts that were implemented.
It was an expense that was reduced for companies, and what did they do? Raise salaries? No, for the most part they bought back stock. If they don’t have the expense of paying for their employees’ insurance anymore, why wouldn’t they just do the same thing?
It was a tax break on their company profits. It didn’t affect their cost basis and their employees didn’t have to pay additional taxes as a result of it. The Trump tax break literally just made their shares worth more money as each share got to keep a larger % of the profits of the company.
Hence the “I might be missing something.” Thanks.
Yeah sorry that came across condescending and I deleted it. I seriously didn’t mean it that way.
Grunching, but it’s important stuff.
I liked this post, because I agree with parts of it quite a bit… I think the problem that people should have with Hunter Biden is, like, how much of a role did his last name play in getting into Yale Law or in getting hired by MBNA? (MBNA is headquartered in Delaware, for those who don’t know, and a major donor to Joe Biden over the years.)
On the surface it doesn’t look like Joe Biden or Hunter Biden did anything wrong… they quite possibly benefited from the “soft corruption” that runs rampant through our society. How much more did they benefit over a non-connected rich kid with the last name Smith who was able to go to a fancy private school for high school that served as an Ivy League pipeline? Probably not that much, right? Like, maybe that kid would have had to network a little harder at Georgetown and Yale for that first gig, or “slave” away a little longer making low six figures before the big promotions, and maybe he would have had a lower ceiling on his career…
But the problem here isn’t Joe and Hunter Biden, unless/until we get evidence that they did anything wrong to receive benefits that are wrong. In other words, from what we currently know, the Bidens’ only moral crime is not turning down the benefits that were offered to them.
Now, let’s assume Joe helped him out a bit getting a job at MBNA. If there was no quid pro quo, not even the slightest hint of any of it, is that wrong? Like, my Dad got me a summer job making ~$10 an hour doing physical labor where he worked. I got the job because of my Dad, and I made more than minimum wage… Was that wrong? I got my first “good” (air quotes because it paid $13K, but it was a huge opportunity) play-by-play job through a Syracuse connection. Normally hundreds of people apply for those jobs, but this one was really only open to 3-4 people. Was that wrong? Someone called me and said, “Hey, would this interest you?” and I said yes and sent in my materials.
Now, if you have no problem with someone like me (lower-middle class) taking advantage of leg-up opportunities that came through networking, or a physical labor summer job from the place my Dad worked, then we’re talking about shades of gray here. The real problem is the system and the fact that the average person’s “leg up” opportunities are pretty small when compared to the Bidens. But is Joe Biden not allowed to call a friend at MBNA and ask them to take a look at his son’s resume, assuming that’s what happened? (And for all we know, that didn’t even happen.)
The issue here is with the system making that a huge leg up, not the action (possibly) taken by Joe.
And if we attack the Bidens instead of the system, we’re never going to solve any of these problems.
How do we even begin to fix the system? Improve public education so that private schools that rich kids go to don’t offer as big of an advantage. Reverse Citizens United and make maximum campaign donations per cycle lower, so that people can’t bundle and get undue influence. Term limits could play a role, although I have mixed feelings on that.
So we can play whack-a-mole and try to target people who benefit from the system without breaking the law, or we can go after the system and try to reform it. Seems obvious to me… and I say that as someone who wants almost anyone but Biden to win the primary.
That’s exactly my point. I was going to make a snarky post including the words trickle down but decided it was too on the nose.
This discussion has me totally lost. I have supplemental health insurance through work, and it gets deducted off my paycheque at source. If I didn’t have insurance, my net pay would increase because my deductions would be less.
Are you saying this isn’t how employee health insurance works in the States? If not, how exactly does it work? And if it does, why wouldn’t your take home pay skyrocket once insurance costs are no longer deducted?
This is laughably absurd. Whoever wins can craft a bill and present it to Congress and it’ll get voted on, and they’ll be able to pressure the entire Democratic Party into supporting it. To pretend that the POTUS has no influence on legislation and is some impotent rubber stamp who must say yay or nay on whatever comes out of Congress, while having no idea what’s coming through the pipes is ridiculous.
LOLnunnehi.
The Dem candidate, and the POTUS if we win, will be setting the table for the discussion. There will be no perceived appetite for it if Biden is the nominee. If Biden wins, there’s a 0% chance of single payer before 2028.
The Senate is in play in 2020, and even more so with Collins, Gardner, McSally, Tillis, Ernst, etc likely being forced to a vote on impeachment.
That’s a bad take. Pete’s for packing the Supreme Court as part of a huge democracy reform strategy - this is why I still have him at #3, he gets it on one of the most important issues. Biden is vehemently in favor of the status quo on the Supreme Court, and I haven’t heard him talk about democracy reform at all.
Pete’s also to the left of him on most issues, I think.
Anybody who supports either Bernie or Liz should vote for whoever has the better chance to win the nomination, assuming their state is proportional. They should vote for whoever has the better chance to win the state if it’s winner take all. Anything else is a grave strategic error.