Posted on 01/23/2007 4:45:40 PM PST by STARWISE
Edited on 01/23/2007 6:37:01 PM PST by Lead Moderator. [history]
I thought the problem was the out-of-control inflation in health care costs....
But isn't the real problem that our government, rather than limiting itself to those specific tasks set for it (which are hard enough that government isn't doing them adequately), has set itself to solving all of the people's problems?
If congress holds hearings, we can hear from participants in the current system how this proposal would effect plans. I doubt companies would drop their plans, they would probably cut them down to size, or at least offer plans that were cut down to size. Then the workers could decide for themselves if they want a cadillac or a ford plan, and if they want a better plan than 90% of the country, they wouldn't get tax incentives for that last few thousand.
That allows the government to provide the same tax deduction to those who choose their OWN health care plans as is currently given only to people who choose government-favored employer plans.
I've been saying for YEARS that the solution is to forbid companies to offer health care plans, or at least to tax it as ordinary income, and then provide the tax deductions to individuals, but only to a limit . That gives people the incentive to look for the most cost-effective insurance provider, gives the insurance companies a direct stake in pleasing the people who are USING the insurance (right now, employer plans primarily are focused on pleasing the company).
Sure, it's a paradigm shift, and could be painful in the short run, but in the long run we will be better off if every individual picks their own health plan the same way they pick their own car insurance and homeowners insurance, or for that matter their own cars, houses, and TVs.
When government says "We'll give you other people's tax money if you spend it the way WE want", that is government control and socialism. We'd be better with a flat tax and virtually no deductions. Let people spend money based on their own perceived value, without government skewing the valuation using my tax dollars.
Bush's Health Insurance Proposal thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1772651/posts
He did speak about stopping the frivolous and out of control lawsuits that are damaging our health care in this nation (tort reform). He got huge applause from Republicans. Zero claps from Dems. No surprise there.
NICE!!!!!!!
The easiest, least expensive, and most effective way to improve education across the board is to get UNIONS OUT OF IT.
Giving everybody the same tax deductions is not unfair redistribution of wealth, it is simple fairness.
It is not everyone getting the same tax deduction, and you know it. I would have to (as a single person, and if my employer paid more than $7,500 for my health benefits) have to pay taxes on anything over that in order to keep my employer's benefit that I got as a part of my salary for agreeing to work at his business. That is part of my compensation, my salary. Now the IRS comes along and says those benefits that I was given when I was hired are now going to be taxed. That's money out of my pocket. So now I'm put in the position of accepting that I will be taxed or go out and try to find a health insurance plan that will be under the $7,500, in order not to be taxed. The odds are I will not find a policy that had the same benefits or better than the one I already had through my employment. So I stick with my employer's plan (that's assuming all employers don't use Bush's plan as an excuse to dump all their employees' health benefits, if Bush's plan goes through and which is the true motivation of Bush, give another perk to big business), I'm taxed. Now, Joe Schmoe doesn't have a health insurance plan where he works, and because of who knows, intelligence IQ, schooling, laziness, short attention span at any given job, just bad luck, etc., will get a tax break to go buy a health insurance plan rather than having to save his own money for it, and that money will come from the taxes on the wealthier person's health plan who keeps his employers' insurance in spite of being taxed on it because it is better than any plan he could go out and buy himself. And that's the way it really is. Can't have anyone having too good a health plan, can we, without taxing it. Just the whole concept of TAXING your health benefits sucks. It's more taxes on those who weren't paying it on their benefits before. And if you are a self-insurer, go work for someone if you don't want to pay after-taxes on a health plan, rather than ripping the money off from someone else to use as the great leveler. How can you not see this?
Bush isn't good on immigration, although he is doing exactly what he said he would do during his campaign.
But he doesn't support amnesty, or at least he would prefer a program that is NOT amnesty -- I fear he will go along with amnesty if that's what the democrats send up.
If you are in a zero tax bracket, the tax deduction has no value.
can only say: He who asserts must prove. And if you are unwilling to do so, for whatever reason (lack of energy or otherwise), then perhaps you should carefully consider advancing other types of arguments which don't rely entirely on your recollection.
Sorry Charlie, my recollection is very good. And I owe you nothing for butting into this.
"I'm sure to some it is quite beneath them to greet him (Lurch flew out, Herself had to powder her nose for the cameras, etc.)"
Yes, I noticed that too - the minute the speech ended, Lurch ran for the exits. Ungracious, self-important !@(*#.
"I am still waiting on the link to Bush's health plan that you have all figured out....have you even read it"
Yes, do your own work. I'm not going to do it for you.
I'd take offense to what you said if it wasn't so true. LOL! I'm glad you stepped in. My next post could have included the words, "nah-nah-nanah-nah". ;)
Just a bump for keeping the dialog going!
Darn.....I saw a bunch of them racing out, but missed Lerch. I'll bet he ran off to check on the Big T...getting drunk the bathroom or sumthin...
does your employer pay more than 7500/yr (single) for your health ins.?
If so that is a unusually good health ins plan.
Egad, closeups are not Hillary's friend.
I am curious how you got all of this information and so quickly formed a negative opinion. Granted I've been busy with school work this week, but I have heard virtually nothing until today.
I think such a plan (401k-type) would be a better idea, but it still smacks of government trying to dictate ways we should care for our own needs (that's not a "harsh criticism", since I realise that given where we are today, we are hardly going to have an appropriately limited government tomorrow).
I would like to see encouragement of true "health care insurance", meaning catastrophic care insurance with large (thousands of dollars) deductables, coupled with a 401-k type plan to provide the tax deductions for the money spent up to the deductable (again, assuming we have to have tax deductions at all).
Health "insurance" that is simply a pass-through for the costs of normal medical expenses distorts the markets.
However, I am also a fan of plans where you pay the doctors directly and they provide fixed-fee servise (like the Kaiser plan -- although my employee offers one and I don't use it, even though it costs 1/3rd of what I pay, and everybody in it loves it).
Looks like a lot of us 50 somethings might get a chance to go. I am thinking of stepping up. Anyone with me?
I believe IBM gave their employees health care from the beginning, but I'm not sure. They never had unions, but they truly were like a family more than a business with their employees, until the 80s.
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.