Posted on 06/30/2009 6:22:11 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
Something I read elsewhere, just as Obama wouldn’t give a straight answer last week regarding whether he’d limit his family’s treatment under a national plan, ask your Congress Critter whether their special health plan will be abolished and everyone, including them, go on ObamaCare !
That would be a better solution, especially if coupled with an HDHP/HSA option. To ensure completely equal tax treatment, though, the Feds would have to rebate the FICA taxes paid, too, as employees purchasing health care through their employer do not pay FICA taxes on health care premiums.
In this case, the "stick" is the catalyst to put billions of dollars into the medical free markets (lowering costs) and increase individual responsibility.
It's a way for businesses to get disentangled from the overwhelming responsibilities they've taken over people's lives in the form of health care and for the money to go back into consumers' pockets.
That doesn't go far enough to reform the system. Corporations need to be unwound from the responsibility they've taken for deciding what kind of health care people get.
A tax deduction isn't enough incentive to change the system; individuals won't choose that like they would a tax credit. And there would be no incentive for corporations to get out of the health care quagmire.
Before or after it passes through the Feds' pockets?
After all, that's exactly what McCain's "plan" demands. Businesses (and individuals) would pay taxes to the Government on health care premiums and the Government would just...give them their money back as a tax credit? Would that be in the following year, after filing a federal tax return, which would now be required in order to get the credit, or during the current year through decreased withholding? [Either way, it's a paperwork nightmare.]
Oh, and remember, Government has costs too, so not all the taxes paid in will be paid back out, if at all. Furthermore, what happens if the tax credit is set as a fixed amount, or adjusted in accordance with official inflation figures (as opposed to real inflation figures), or otherwise improperly adjusted from year to year by our wonderful central planners? You'll end up with the same situation that college students are in now, with Pell Grants that can barely cover a semester at a four-year public college or a year at a community college.
Why would you want to create incentives for private corporations to get out of health care? [Oh, wait, did you mean employers -- the two are not synonymous.]
I want to create incentives for Government to get its hands out of health care.
The biggest issue is government control. I don’t want any.
Yes. As soon as the State provides your healthcare, you will no longer dare criticize the State. All future elections will be about who will give you the best health care and all other issues critical to our nation's survival will be far down the list of priorities. As healthcare sucks up most of our nation's wealth, defense will suffer, and every third-world tinpot dictator with a nuke will be coming after us. There will be nobody left to defend Europe and it will suffer terribly for it.
A colossal disaster is looming for our nation. And for the world.
Just another glaring example of the disconnect between Republican politicians and the people who are cornered into voting for them.
There are two types of "conservative" Republicans. The first type believes that government is broken, but simplyneeds Republicans to better manage it, while the other believeswe need to actually reduce government. The first type can enjoy long careers by peppering their continuing support for the status quo with conservative-sounding language. The second type tends to make fewer friends because their career-long language consists of telling Democrats, Republicans, and even their constituents one word: "No." (source)
I don't want the Government inserting itself into health care decisions, including funding decisions. McCain's plan is "pepper[ed]...with conservative-sounding language" but is in actuality not at all conservative. In fact, the only palatable "solution" -- if it can even be called that -- is okie01's, which would simply equalize the tax treatment of privately-purchased insurance with insurance purchased through an employer by granting individuals the right to deduct the cost of private insurance on their tax returns.
You know how this game is played. If your income is north of $75,000, you may get it the first year or two. Then the limitations will start coming and your credit will be phased out. Pretty soon, nobody will get the credit. I can't believe anybody would believe anything our government says or promises.
The entire income tax system ought to be abolished outright, along with seventy to eighty percent of the Government, if not more. As it stands right now, the Federal tax code is a convoluted maze of regulations that impose massive costs on individuals, households, and businesses in order to enable the Government’s central planning and “engineering” of our society in order to conform to the social goals of a select few at the top.
To free men money cost is irrelevant. Anything we set our minds to we can accomplish. To serfs everything is too expensive.
Not so sure individuals would pay taxes on premiums.
As far as I know, in the current HSA program (which many people love) premiums ARE tax deductible. I would think this might be similar.
As far as inflation, I believe the initial effect would be that health costs would drop dramatically. Returning to a more free-market based system where the individual pays out of pocket tends to do that because doctors are under way more scrutiny by the consumer.
Because employer-based health care makes health care more expensive across the board.
Anything that gives government more control of anything — especially as it relates to our lives and livlihood — is a move in the wrong direction and should be resisted.
That’s a good plan. Tort reform would sure help too but I haven’t heard a Republican say that phrase in at least a decade.
Mark Sanford co-authored (with a M.D. from Stanford who also works with the Hoover Institution think-tank in DC) an excellent policy proposal in The Washington Times this month that talked about tort reform (link):
We believe it's imperative that we fix our medical liability system. By some estimates, abuse of our legal system costs our health system $80 billion annually. Key tort reforms, including reasonable caps on noneconomic damages; freedom to use dispute resolution outside of our courts; and requiring adherence to medical guidelines as a standard for liability in malpractice trials would be a good start.
Unfortunately, he got torpedoed badly by the Democrats and the RINOs -- I'm not excusing his screw-up right here, but the timing of the reveal of his mistakes was rather curious, especially with all the subsequent talk about Romney benefiting from his fall -- and Republicans immediately abandoned him, just like they abandoned him in his lonely fight against the Obama porkulus.
The long-term consequences of the Sanford implosion will be terrible. Irrespective of his charisma, or lack thereof, the conservatarian movement suffered a terrible loss when he fell.
The biggest issue is FREEDOM, not cost. Take away the freedom and cost means nothing. The second issue is access to care which will be curtailed totally for some classes of citizens and some to a lot for all citizens except for the ruling class.
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.