Let’s say we added a new employer payroll tax of 7% of all employee pay.
In exchange employers would be totally relieved of responsibility for providing healthcare benefits and all that goes with it.
Would employers go for it? I’m guessing in a heartbeat.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
Medicare doesn’t offer 100% coverage, even to those age 65+. It certainly doesn’t offer 100% coverage to those under 65. Part A alone is about 3% of pay. And part A limits the number of days of hospitalization, after what many think is a big deductible, despite price fixing at levels only about a third of private charges. Tack on B and D and you have 7+% to cover 60MM folks.
The other 260MM or so -= much more than 7% of wages.
Isn’t health care spend 19% of GDP , which would be 23% of net national income and at least 30 % of wages.
They might start at 7%, watch it increase after a few months – or worse, watch income taxes increase and/or the deficit explode.
LikeLike
I believe employers would go for it, especially the larger ones. The questions would come from the small operators with a couple of employees and the ones who pick up labor as needed. Also the self employed who don’t have employees.
LikeLike
Trust the government with it? I don’t think so. They can’t manage a McDonald’s franchise….
LikeLike
How about Medicare?
LikeLike
Medicare is going broke isn’t it?
LikeLike
Medicare Part A trust is, but part B and D can’t because there are no trusts. I just want anyone to show a viable alternative that meets the criteria of 100% coverage, elimination of cost shifting and affordability based on need.
LikeLike
They would. For the same reasons they switched to defined contribution retirement plans – it takes away a lot of risk/uncertainty. The employer wouldn’t have to worry about the cost of health insurance going up each year. The question is – who will be providing the insurance that otherwise would be through the employer?
LikeLike
Employers would simply deduct that additional 7% from the employees checks – wouldn’t they?
LikeLike