Universal health care. Anything less is unacceptable. Almost-universal health care is a great start, but Massachusetts’ plan may just very well be the most complicated, confusing bit of American public policy since Social Security.
Here’s a simple plan, based on my insurance policy. I think it’s pretty damn good insurance, and that it will work great for anyone who is employed and in my income tax bracket — 25% and higher. My employer contributes 16% of my salary for my insurance premium. I have single coverage and my insurance plan is managed by a major national organization (*cough*Blue Cross/Blue Shield*cough*), the same organization which manages many state governmental insurance plans across the country. I have a $300 out of pocket deductible per year, and one is hard pressed to find a health facility in America — even in certain parts of the world — that is not BCBS serviced.
So, group insurance is what lowers premiums and deductibles, right? OK, so let’s add just 10% to state taxes collected by employers per employee when their compensation would place them in the 25% income tax bracket. The new tax could not be passed on to the employee as to lower their net take-home pay. (I’m operating under the assumption that employees making $31,850 and more already have benefits packages including health care.) The employee, then, would be covered under the state health care plan. For full family coverage, the employer would contribute 13%.
As we go upward, employees in the 28% bracket ($64,250-$97,925) would have 14% and 18% contributions, in the 33% bracket ($97,925-$174,850) 20%/25% and in the top, 35% bracket would cap out at 27%/30%.
For employees in the 15% tax bracket ($7,825-$31,850 per year), employers would contribute 5% for single coverage, 7% for family. For those who are in the 10% tax bracket, or those who make up to $7,825 per year, the state would bear the burden of health insurance.
Employers would end up saving money, as they would not need to administer health benefits any longer. Employees would benefit by having large-scale, group insurance on an almost universal scale. States would then be able to reallocate resources to subsidize health insurance for the uninsured and deal less with underinsured. On top of it, insurance just got a whole lot easier.
