More on the Max Tax

/23 Comments/in , /by

A bunch of outlets have now released Bad Max’s framework on health care.

Here are some ways to think of Max Tax:

Maximum amount a family of four making $67,000 would have to pay for health care, per year: $20,610 (31% of income)

Total amount that family of four would pay in fine if they did not get health care insurance: $3,800

Total amount a corporation with more than 50 employees would pay in fine if it did not offer health insurance: $400 per employee

Total amount a corporation can pay for health care plans without paying 35% tax: $8000 individual, $21,000 family

23 replies
  2. ballerinaX says:

    My husband works for the State. we have excellent health coverage(low deductible, very low premiums etc…)through his employment, but his salary is about 10% below natl. avg for a family of three.This sounds a complete disaster for a family like ours.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        You would also move an entire culture away, in police and entertainment terms, from the French Connection to DaVinci’s Inquest. You could still follow ice hockey, vote in federal elections and your friends would understand the rules of rugby, whether Union or Australian. You could even live in a university town called London without the hassles of the big city.

        But what would happen to America if its most talented liberals went where they were appreciated rather than stayed at home to be pelted by the Alters and Liebermans and Romneys for trying to make life livable for their neighbors?

    • Leen says:

      Now at those prices I could have afforded to insure myself and my three children (who are now grown).

      Self employed. Have made anywhere between 25,ooo and 30,ooo a year. Was not able to afford catastrophic insurance when they were growing up. Rolled the dice and spent 6000 out of pocket in 30 years. No catastrophic medical needs

  4. emptywheel says:

    So if you’re a 50-person employer, you can avoid paying 210,000 in health care costs by paying $20,000.

    And your employees will, collectively, pay either much higher rates for health care themselves, or pay their own fine.

  7. Kinmo says:

    Our insurance policy STINKS, high deductable, low coverage, big list of non-covered procedures and drugs. I was thinking last night that we could be in really big trouble if one or more of us were hospitalized with the stupid pig flu, not to mention if all four of us were to be hit with it hard. Just that alone could be big big trouble. yikes.

  8. 19genco says:

    I do not understand the political calculus that informed the Democrat’s decision to go into the negotiation conceding the single payer option. It seems to me the smart starting position would be to simply eliminate the age restriction on medicare as your initial position, then go to timed reductions, say buy into medicare now at 55, then 2 years buy in at 45, etc., and if you have to, negotiate from that to a public insurance option. The only reason that might justify the failure to start from that point is if you wanted to get to a watered down public option (i.e. “triggers”) from the beginning.

  9. WilliamOckham says:

    Gotta run to a meeting, but I think this is telling. Take a look at the document properties of the pdf that ew links to above. The author is Liz Fowler. The Liz Fowler who was vice president for public policy and external affairs for Wellpoint, the nation’s second-largest health-insurance company, until she re-joined Baucus’ staff in Feb. 2008. She had done an earlier stint with Baucus from 2000-2005.

  10. joanneleon says:

    Thanks for publishing info. on the numbers.

    Last month I was working through some of the numbers on the House bills with some others online and coming to some of the same conclusions and those bills were much better than the Bad Max Tax bill, but the numbers are still pretty awful.

    There are too many people who just don’t understand the situation and the actual numbers. And politicians seem to avoid talking to people about real numbers. And that’s not even getting into the details of adjusted taxable income. How many people even know that number off the top of their heads? And it changes from year to year. And people who pay rent instead of owning property (a growing number with almost 4 million foreclosures in 2008 and 2009) can’t deduct any of it from taxable income, and so on and so on.

    The scariest part of it all is that there’s no real guarantee that the insurance companies will change their ways, other than the pre-existing conditions. I’ve found, from experience, that they have a hundred different ways of screwing you over in any given situation. Mostly it comes in the form of not paying what the doctor or hospital charges, leaving you with the balance. But they have a ton of other ways too with claim denials or telling you what kind of care you’re allowed to have (instead of what your doctor says you need). And this happens even with the “best” PPO insurance.

    There’s no rational argument for this crap, nor for ditching the public option. The public option, as it stands in House bills, is a scrawny bare minimum way of fighting back against this and they still won’t “allow” it. These companies should be regulated and the anti-trust exemption removed in addition to letting people opt-in and pay for Medicare instead of private junk insurance.

    Can’t wait to see Max et al twist themselves into pretzels trying to justify all of this.

  11. fatster says:

    Thnx so much. I sent that plus EW’s estimates of Plan B (Baucus, or Barf) in an email to just about everyone I could think of, and urging them to call their Senators/Reps. Not much, but at least something I could do.

  12. fatster says:

    What am I missing here? Any of you in/around MA can explain to me why Rep. Capuano is wobbling on commitment to the “public option” while taking steps to run for the Senate-Kennedy’s seat?

    Capuano Gets Papers For Kennedy’s Senate Seat, Meehan Not Running
    Eric Kleefeld | September 8, 2009, 3:07PM

    Link.

  13. PJEvans says:

    (EPUd on previous thread)
    Well, last spring, I paid the Feds $13,000, because I had capital gains (and that was using as much of the losses as I could). That’s on a taxable income of $67000, single, renting. (I also paid the state of CA $2600, on taxable income of $73000. That’s equal to a month’s take-home pay for me.)

    I can tell that Max is totally clueless about the real world.

Comments are closed.