Posted on 02/23/2017 11:58:06 AM PST by Eagle Forgotten
MSAs need to be universalized. Why shouldn’t you be able to put money in, tax free, unless your employer offers one?
I’m not sure I like subsidies, but if we gave vouchers to the poor to open MSAs, it would be less intrusive and give them more control.
Selling insurance across state lines will reduce costs and increase portability. the idea is to go back to teh old market system, but increase the control the patient, as opposed to the employer or the bureaucrats at either the insurance company or the government, has over health care.
There are free-market ways to address these issues.
And this was NOT done three weeks ago, why?
I have no idea, but I’ll bet that the GOP establishment twits have something to do with it.
I find it hard to blame Trump, considering how much he’s already done in just a little over a month, despite all the foot dragging and whining from the Washington establishment. Unless there’s solid proof that he’s lied to us, I’m going to trust that he’s doing what he promised, even if it’s not as fast as I would like.
Meanwhile, Congress (and Bannon) are trying to push through a massive new BAT tax.
Also, here’s half a trillion that Ivanka is working on:
And today she was soliciting input on which special-interest federal small biz programs could be expanded nationally:
And we haven’t even got to the trillion-dollar “infrastructure” bill you know both the Dems and GOPe will love—apparently among the first bills they’re looking to pass this session.
Exactly—what are McConnell and the GOP-run Senate doing with themselves? Other than slow walking Trump’s nominations, including Gorsuch.
Universalized by who? Who administers it? Companies do it as part of their benefit package but what about companies who don't offer healthcare plans? Where do people go for their MSA then?
I’m not sure I like subsidies, but if we gave vouchers to the poor to open MSAs, it would be less intrusive and give them more control.
An entitlement is an entitlement is an entitlement. Why is an Obamacare entitlement bad but an MSA entitlement good?
Selling insurance across state lines will reduce costs and increase portability. the idea is to go back to teh old market system, but increase the control the patient, as opposed to the employer or the bureaucrats at either the insurance company or the government, has over health care.
There are free-market ways to address these issues.
With all due respect what you seem to be advocating are government solutions.
Employers shouldn’t be the only ones providing MSAs, just as you put money into your own IRA, regardless of your employer.
And simply allowing sales across state lines would help lower costs and increase portability.
Also, why should employers get a tax deduction for buying you insurance when you can’t get that deduction yourself, and other kinds of groups (churches, civic organizations, and the like) can’t get it?
Obamacare is a disaster. But it identified a couple of problems — affordability and portability. Do you have a solution for those? I’m trying to find market solutions.
Where is the business case for financial companies to offer MSAs? How do they make money? Would you have the government get into that business?
And simply allowing sales across state lines would help lower costs and increase portability.
Why would it? Say I have insurance in my state and I move to Michigan. Why would my insurance company want to continue to insure me in a state where they have no network of providers to control their costs? Why would I want to continue to stay with them when it would cost me more in terms of deductible and copays?
Also, why should employers get a tax deduction for buying you insurance when you can’t get that deduction yourself, and other kinds of groups (churches, civic organizations, and the like) can’t get it?
Life sucks some times. Work for a company that provides health care.
Obamacare is a disaster. But it identified a couple of problems — affordability and portability. Do you have a solution for those? I’m trying to find market solutions.
No argument about the Obamacare disaster. But anything the government tries to do to control healthcare is going to be a disaster. So cut our loses and let the marketplace take care of things.
Obamacare limbo befuddles taxpayers
(I tried to post it but the FR posting app blocks Politico.)
The article makes great points:
1. Trump EO did not end the penalty.
2. Professional tax preparers are bound by professional ethics (and penalties of perjury!) not to sign a return they know owes the penalty and doesn't pay.
3. One strategy is to request the automatic extension for filing in hopes it does get repealed for 2016 taxes. But the chance of retroactive repeal after the April deadline is not likely due to the administrative nightmare (which already exists with so many returns already filed).
It's not Trump's fault. This lies squarely with the RINO Congress.
Bummer. I am still holding out for the possibility of a repeal. Thanks for the post.
Seems a total waste of time & money to keep a program that is only going to make things worse. If they wait until a suitable replacement is found,we may never get rid of it.
Seems a total waste of time & money to keep a program that is only going to make things worse. If they wait until a suitable replacement is found,we may never get rid of it.
Not just financial companies. Everyone.
You have IRAs. They’re pretty popular. They’re independent of the employer. Why wouldn’t they offer an MSA on a similar basis? if doing so is bad business, then so is your IRA and mone. Apparently, the banks don’t believe that it is.
The more competitors you have, the more competition you have. Look at life insurance and auto insurance. And teh more competition you have, the more incentive there is to provide good services at low prices. Monopolies, duopolies, and other restricted markets “competitions” have no such incentive.
Besides, that gives you portability. You can change jobs without having to change insurance. And you and your doctor will have more control by reducing bureaucratic involvement.
(We also need limits on malpractice awards and a loser pays law. That will help cut costs immensely.)
There is no good reason why your employer should get a tax deduction for buying insurance (over which ultimately you have little control.) That is a vestige of FDR’s New Deal wage and price controls.
But as long as we’re extending that, then we should extend its reach so that you can get health insurance through your church or civic organization — or on your own. (Or not buy insurance, if that is your choice.)
Let’s make the rules work in a pro-market way instead of a pro-government way. I’m trying to remove restrictions.
First and foremost companies want to make a profit. Health insurance companies control their costs by establishing a network of providers that provide services at a preset, negotiated cost. If I move to a different state where the insurance company I use does not have a network established will the government force them to continue to cover me? And why would I want to continue coverage with them when it means nothing but higher deductibles, higher co-pays, and higher premiums?
(We also need limits on malpractice awards and a loser pays law. That will help cut costs immensely.)
Around half the states have already enacted tort reform that caps liability payouts. And in not a single one of those states is there any evidence that it has reduced healthcare insurance premiums.
There is no good reason why your employer should get a tax deduction for buying insurance (over which ultimately you have little control.) That is a vestige of FDR’s New Deal wage and price controls.
My employer does not get a tax deduction for buying insurance. No employer of any size buys healthcare insurance. My company, like all companies of any size, self insures. It allocates a specific amount of money for healthcare claim and contracts with Cigna to manage it. That money spent on those costs are an expense. Deducted from revenue it reduces taxes and that's about it. By self-insuring, a company reduces its liability and its costs. An individual can get similar tax savings by getting a very high deductible policy and deducting medical expenses above a certain limit.
But as long as we’re extending that, then we should extend its reach so that you can get health insurance through your church or civic organization — or on your own. (Or not buy insurance, if that is your choice.)
I'm not sure what the benefit to the church or civic organization is but I'm OK with that.
Let’s make the rules work in a pro-market way instead of a pro-government way. I’m trying to remove restrictions.
Insurance companies will do what is in their best interest, regardless of whether you consider it pro-market or not.
It shouldn’t be hard to establish a network. Doctors like to be covered by as many insurance companies as possible.
Loser pays and limits on awards would have to be nationwide. That way, the chance of judge shopping is greatly reduced. It reduces the premiums for the doctor, which reduces the amount he has to charge you and me, and the insurance company.
The tax deduction for employer provided insurance goes back to the New Deal. It’s still on the books. Why limit that to only employer provided insurance instead of freeing up the market to let other kinds of organizations — and individuals themselves — get the same advantage?
Insurance companies are here to make a profit. if they can make it by offering a bare-bones policy, something Obamacare doesn’t allow, they’ll do that. If they can sell more policies at a lower rate, increasing their profits that way, they’ll do that. A bigger, wider customer pool allows them to do that.
This is, BTW, one of President Trump’s favorite proposals. He clumsily referred to it as “erasing the lines around the states.” Clumsy verbiage, good policy.
And unconstitutional on 10th Amendment grounds.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.