2
   

Why are so many health coverage companies advertising on TV these days?

 
 
chai2
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 01:07 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Your tax free allowance is less than ours. I've not seen anything to support Linkat's claim that ordinary people pay "significantly" more.



Not certain of your context here.
When you say "ordinary people" meaning in US or England?

I converted the numbers you gave in pounds to US dollars so I wouldn't have to think in apples and oranges.

Yes, it is true that your "tax free" compared to our "standard deduction is higher by about $2000.

However, once one gets past that, the advantage quickly disappears it seems.

Again, I've put this all into dollars.

0% Tax: US < $12,000 - 0% Tax: England < $14,427
12% Tax: US $12,000 - $38,700 - 20% Tax: England $14,228 -$56,613
22% Tax: US $37,701 - $82,500 - 40% Tax: England $56,614 - $183,214
24% Tax: US $82,500 - 157,500 - 45% Tax: England $183,215 and up
32% Tax: US $157,501 to $200,000
35% Tax: US $200,001 to $500,000
37% Tax: US $500,001 or more

So yes, in the US, people making between $12,000 (standard deduction) and $14,227 are indeed paying 12% tax where in England they wouldn't be paying anything. They're out anywhere from $28 and $33 a week.

After that though, moderate earners and above have a lower rate in the US.

Unless there is some additional data, and I'm sure there is, it's pretty clear where the money for Englands free health insurance is coming from. From people making more than 12,000 pounds a year and up. Especially from people making about 46,000 pounds and more.

I don't think it's a better or worse system, just different. There's I'm sure many more factors at play.






chai2
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 01:22 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

I have to complete a tax form myself, because I'm always due a refund.

I don't know about other people's rates. It doesn't affect me. I used to work as a civil servant dealing with National Insurance but that was in the late 80s, and I've done numerous jobs since then.



So how do you know most people don't have to fill out a tax form, especially if your interest in that is low because it doesn't affect you?

I can't really think how most people don't have to submit some sort of tax forms to reconcile all the different things that could happen in any given year.

Linkat
 
  0  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 01:22 pm
@chai2,
Hey what do you know - you got pretty much what I did as part of the exchange rate - I used the 57K as the middle income - so for an "ordinary person" - not a corporation or anything else - I was shooting for ordinary

22% vs 40% so if you want to stay simple here he is. That seems significant to me.

But from there I actually added on our average state tax thus boosting up our tax rates - I did an average tax rate overall by calculating out the tiers (again this you would think would favor England cuz our lower tiers are taxed higher and I added in an average state tax) it still came out looking significantly lower.

You asked a simple thing -saying you did not see where ORDINARY people pay significantly more - and I supported that so you could see that claim. Chai just supported pretty much what I was saying and I used a very similar exchange rate and the same tier of tax rates.

Neither of us are making a dig or saying anything disrespectful of your healthcare system - I don't know it enough as I stated before to make any judgment - I am simply supporting the fact of how I obtained that ordinary people pay significantly more in taxes.

You asked - I answered - and I will not stoop and try and insult you, your country or your healthcare system - just showing plain facts.

The systems are different - they work for us (with some issues) and from what you say yours works for you - which I have to assume there are some issues - as none is perfect. No reason to be defensive or start pulling stuff out of the air. Jeepers.
JGoldman10
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 01:23 pm
@JGoldman10,
JGoldman10 wrote:

What's the difference between Medicare supplement plans and Medicare advantage plans?


Does anyone here know the answer to this?
Linkat
 
  0  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 01:26 pm
@JGoldman10,
A simple google search should help.

https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/medicare/supplement-all/medicare-advantage-vs-medicare-supplement-plans
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 01:33 pm
@chai2,
I know most people don't have to fill out a tax form because most people are employees or retired. I filled my first tax form in when I was in my forties and no longer an employee.

I'm not lying about this, the only people I know who have to fill out tax forms are self employed. People get awarded a tax code and only tend to deal with the tax office if their tax code changes.
chai2
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 01:33 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

I'm not going to start doing a load of maths, but it doesn't seem that different, not enough to warrant the use of the word significantly.



The thing is, one really has to do the math to really see what is going on. Maybe you're uninterested in the data I came up with, but it shows the amounts and to me at least it's clear the word significant can apply.

Anyone can say things like it doesn't affect me, so I don't know, or I'm not willing to run the numbers but I don't think it's that different. That's supposition.

Regarding corporate tax rates, I just looked that up.

Currently the corporate tax rate in the UK is 19%. It's going to be dropped to 18% soon.

The corporate tax rate in the US is 21%. Not close to double.

May I ask where you found that information?

This is where I got mine:

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Tax/dttl-tax-corporate-tax-rates.pdf

Now the following I'm not familiar with, but the "branch corp tax rate" in the US is 30%. As near as I can make out, it has to do with foreign corporations.

0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 01:43 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:


I'm not lying about this,


I'm not saying you're lying about anything. I'm asking questions.

Me? I seldom talk to anyone about their filling out their taxes. I don't think most people do except in a very broad way. I don't know anything about what my friends or neighbors do or don't do as far as their filing.

I'm wondering how employeed people make sure they are paying the correct amount of tax each year when in any given year so many things can happen.

You start to work, stop, change jobs, get raises go part time, go full time, take a leave of absense and so on.

If a person is let's say single, they pay the same tax rates and amounts as someone who is single and has 5 children? Or married with similar dependents?

0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 01:44 pm
@Linkat,
Or you could choose a different amount and get 22% 20%.

Your use of the word significant is misleading.

Also you're confusing personal allowances with tax codes. £11, 850 is the personal allowance. On top of that there is an individual's tax code which is the bit about dependents/benefits etc.

Those who do pay 40% may find that only a tiny fraction of their salary is taxed at that rate, most is at 20%.

The thing is, neither of us are tax experts, and unless we do a proper case by case we're just going to keep running around in circles.

When you look at taxes and health in isolation you ignore everything else like other public services, education, transport, everything.

The big issue you're not addressing is why you pay more per capita in healthcare than we do. Logically you should be paying less, all our healthcare is free, and most of yours isn't. That's just like for like health spending, it gives a more accurate picture.
Linkat
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 02:03 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:


The thing is, neither of us are tax experts, and unless we do a proper case by case we're just going to keep running around in circles.


Actually I may not be an expert but I do work in the field of taxation and accounting. I do not know a whole lot about your taxation though and fully admit it - thus I asked questions and had a notation about such.

Yes we have personal allowances as well - and allowances for dependents/benefits etc and also our deductions. Partly why I said it is dependent on other things - the 40% vs 22% is dependent on our personal deductions as well as whatever deductions and allowances you have

I was not getting into anything about the per capita cost as there are various reasons why they are different - some good and some not so good - some that I might think there is a good reason for it and I would prefer to have it as such and you may not - this comes down to opinion

Like I said earlier I was only answering your question on how I can up with significant. And understanding taxes and accounting I stand by this.

Your healthcare is not free - you pay through taxes. Do your doctors work for free? The nurses? Who pays for the hospital buildings? The medical equipment? The prescriptions? The surgery?

Someone pays for it. It is not free.
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 02:18 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Or you could choose a different amount and get 22% 20%.

Your use of the word significant is misleading.

Also you're confusing personal allowances with tax codes. £11, 850 is the personal allowance. On top of that there is an individual's tax code which is the bit about dependents/benefits etc.

Those who do pay 40% may find that only a tiny fraction of their salary is taxed at that rate, most is at 20%.

The thing is, neither of us are tax experts, and unless we do a proper case by case we're just going to keep running around in circles.

When you look at taxes and health in isolation you ignore everything else like other public services, education, transport, everything.

The big issue you're not addressing is why you pay more per capita in healthcare than we do. Logically you should be paying less, all our healthcare is free, and most of yours isn't. That's just like for like health spending, it gives a more accurate picture.


But you can change it to many many more numbers and come up with 20, or 40%
Look again at the data I provided. While there is some overlap, there are a lot more money amounts by dollars or pounds that put you in the higher zones in the UK.

A lot more amounts that would put you in the lower brackets.

Here's a copy and paste of what I figured before, which I'm thinking you didn't look at..
0% Tax: US < $12,000 - 0% Tax: England < $14,427
12% Tax: US $12,000 - $38,700 - 20% Tax: England $14,228 -$56,613
22% Tax: US $37,701 - $82,500 - 40% Tax: England $56,614 - $183,214
24% Tax: US $82,500 - 157,500 - 45% Tax: England $183,215 and up
32% Tax: US $157,501 to $200,000
35% Tax: US $200,001 to $500,000
37% Tax: US $500,001 or more
There are a lot more points on the number line where more is paid in the UK.
Am I saying many people in the UK are beyond just the tip of the 40% bracket, and are only paying a small portion at that rate? Of course not. No more than I'm saying that a large portion of americans are in the 35% and up range.
We don't have to do a case by case examination, that's what statistics are for.

Sorry if you don't like the math, but there it is.

I'm still not clear if taxes are done for just individuals, or if married people combine.

Both Linkat and I understand that those who get into the 40% rate may only have a small portion of their income at that rate.
It is the same in the US, as I stated before, we both have graduated tax rates.

You may not consider youself a tax expert. I think Linkat and I are much more comfortable with taxes. Linkat I believe works in finance and has a degree in economics.

As for me, I just love figuring this stuff out, and actually enjoy doing my taxes, even in years where they are complicated. I've done taxes professionally in the far past.

It feels like since you're not affected by something, there's no reason to look at it. I personally don't feel that way. I like looking at it.

I don't think either of us are ignoring anything like other public services. It seems the overall higher income taxes paid in your country is used for that also.
There really is no such thing as a free lunch. Every countries health care system is paid for by it's citizens one way or the other.

Frankly, I just think all these numbers are beyond your pay grade, so you don't think anyone should have input about it, since you don't care.

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't think either linkat or I are going to get drug down the path you obviously want to go down. The fact you don't want to, or can't interpret data doesn't mean the alternative is the usual drama route.

If you don't understand something, either examine and learn, or just listen to others. You don't need to be the ringleader in every opportunity, no matter how slight, to make everything a fight about something you decide to just toss in.

izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 04:26 pm
@chai2,
You're not my mother Chai.
Linkat
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 04:53 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

You're not my mother Chai.


Thank the Lord for that --- talk about a dysfunctional family if that were true!!

chai2
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 05:10 pm
@izzythepush,
No, I'm not, and I have no idea where that could be coming from, but it's going no further with you.

Anyway, I was running some more numbers, since I got curious about the fact the US does indeed spend about twice as much per capita as the UK.

Coming back to the idea that the UK's healthcare is "free", and there is no "significant difference in the typical persons taxes in either country.

I ran the numbers on few scenerios, again putting it all into dollars. I took earnings anywhere from $17,000 to $100,000, and found that the break even point for equality in the amount of tax is way down at the $17,500 mark, which is 14,335 pounds.

That amount in the US is below more than the minimum wage in well over half the states here that have a minimum wage, so for a full time worker they wouldn't even be making that little.
I'm going to go with the idea here that making $14,335 pounds a year for a full time job is pretty minimal in the UK.

Anyway, what I found....

Earnings
US Tax
UK Tax

$17,000
$600 us
$554 uk

$17,500
$660 us
$644 uk

$20,000
$960 US (17% less)
$1154 UK

seeing where this was going, I jumped up to

$40,000
$3464 US (32% less)
$5154 UK

$70,000
$10,090 US (27% less)
$13831 UK

$100,000
$17,040 US (34% less)
$25832 UK

So yes, none of the tax savings are double in the US compared to the UK. An average GP in the UK makes $110,000, in the US the make $150,000.
The average UK RN makes $30,500, in the US it's about $60,000
No disagreement that the US has higher drug cost etc. However, the whole story cannot be dumped on "big pharma"

So yeah, costs are still higher, but the fact is, no country has free healthcare.
The US pays in higher premiums, the UK pays in higher income taxes. If nurses in the UK realized how much their skills were worth, and either demanded more, or chose to move to a higher paying country, they would probably have their salaries increased over a short period of time.....and where would that money come from? Either higher taxes, or cutting expenses somewhere else. More than likely higher taxes.

Some may not like all these numbers that tell facts thrown around, or having it pointed out, for instance that corporate taxes in the US are nowhere near double as in the UK, and are in fact mere percentage points off, or that cost difference extend far beyond the evil big pharma, but that's where the evidence leads.

chai2
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 05:11 pm
@Linkat,
Linkat wrote:

izzythepush wrote:

You're not my mother Chai.


Thank the Lord for that --- talk about a dysfunctional family if that were true!!




Seriously. Especially considering I'm sure I'd be serving a life sentence if I had ever had a child.
0 Replies
 
JGoldman10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2019 09:56 pm
Usually, if you have one product and/or service that is successful it is bound to spawn imitators.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2019 12:46 am
@chai2,
It's better than the alternative, allowing poor people to die from preventable diseases.

You don't seem that curious about per capita spending on health as you've not addressed that but continued to go on about tax.

0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2019 03:34 pm
@chai2,
Actually, I did address per capita cost right here, see quote below.
It's 3 posts above the one your last post.

I chose not to get into every specific of why per capita cost is higher, for couple reasons. #1, obviously I don't know all the reasons. But there are obviously more reasons than "big pharma" Another reason was that I didn't think you would need more examples listed. I presumed giving one fact, like doctors and nurses salaries are higher, would lead the listener to understand there must be multiple reasons.

The thing is, per capita spending on health care, and taxes, are intertwined. As I think I said before, the UK's health care isn't free, it's paid for via the higher taxes paid by people. In the US, we pay premiums.
So right there, that premium cost is part of the per capita expenditure.
Since the UK pays for it's healthcare in the form of taxes, I don't think it would fall into the bucket labeled healthcare, so not in the per capita amount.

I don't mind at all talking about the per capita difference. In fact I've talked about per capita spending exactly the same number of times that you had said it wasn't being addressed.

I also talked about how I wasn't taking health care costs in isolation from other things taxes are spent on.

Since you do want to address the whys of the reason the US per capita spending is higher than the UK, here a few more reasons. As I've said though, I obviously don't know every reason.

As I just said, I'm guessing the US's health insurance premiums are added into the healthcare per capita bucket. In the UK, the cost flies under the radar under the idea it is free, when actually it's being paid for by demonstratively higher taxes. I demonstrated that in the same post as the one where I addressed per capita spending.

Another reason, also already addressed, is that the salaries for health care providers are significantly higher in the US.
Examples (in dollars):
Cardiologist - $316K vs $198K
General Practioner - $166K vs $110K
Registered Nurse - $32/hr vs $15/hr
Dentist - $175K vs $104K

Add to that the fact that there are many more of these healthcare providers in the US than in the UK
This is taking into account the population of the US is 5 times that of the UK.

Another difference: Cosmetic surgery. Americans love their facelifts it seems, and that cost goes in the health care bucket.
There are over 4 million cosmetic surgeries in the US per year. There's only 28,000 in the UK.
That's 1.4% of the US population
.04% of the UK populaton

Are drug companies part of it? Sure.
Is it the whole story? Not by far.

It's not merely we spend more, it's what we spend it on, and what the market will bear.



chai2 wrote:


So yes, none of the tax savings are double in the US compared to the UK. An average GP in the UK makes $110,000, in the US the make $150,000.
The average UK RN makes $30,500, in the US it's about $60,000
No disagreement that the US has higher drug cost etc. However, the whole story cannot be dumped on "big pharma"

So yeah, costs are still higher, but the fact is, no country has free healthcare.
The US pays in higher premiums, the UK pays in higher income taxes. If nurses in the UK realized how much their skills were worth, and either demanded more, or chose to move to a higher paying country, they would probably have their salaries increased over a short period of time.....and where would that money come from? Either higher taxes, or cutting expenses somewhere else. More than likely higher taxes.

Some may not like all these numbers that tell facts thrown around, or having it pointed out, for instance that corporate taxes in the US are nowhere near double as in the UK, and are in fact mere percentage points off, or that cost difference extend far beyond the evil big pharma, but that's where the evidence leads.


0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2019 03:45 pm
Oh. Wanted to mention once again.

This is in no way expressing or arguing an opinion one nations hc system is better or worse than anothers.

They are just different.

izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Oct, 2019 04:05 pm
@chai2,
They're not different. Your system allows people to die from treatable diseases. It effectively culls the poor.

Throughout the developed World the American healthcare system is put up as an example of the very worst excesses of runaway capitalism.

I'm sorry, but I think your system is evil, it disgusts me.

That's how I feel, and that's how most of us this side of the pond feel.
 

Related Topics

Immortality and Doctor Volkov - Discussion by edgarblythe
Sleep Paralysis - Discussion by Nick Ashley
On the edge and toppling off.... - Discussion by Izzie
Surgery--Again - Discussion by Roberta
PTSD, is it caused by a blow to the head? - Question by Rickoshay75
THE GIRL IS ILL - Discussion by Setanta
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/22/2019 at 05:36:40