Posted on 05/13/2009 6:51:25 AM PDT by re_tail20
President Blasted McCain on This Issue, but Experts Say It Could Help Pay for Reform
During last year's campaign, Barack Obama poured millions of dollars into television ads attacking John McCain for wanting to tax employer-provided health care benefits.
But now that Congress is beginning to consider ways to fix the health care system, a concept once pilloried by Obama is being placed on the agenda by a key member of the president's own party.
Under current law, any money spent on employer-provided health plans is excluded entirely from employee's taxable income.
"That tax provision should be on the table, because it currently is, too regressive. It just skews the system," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chair of the Senate Finance Committee. "I do not favor eliminating it. . . But I do think it needs to be trimmed, limited, looked at."
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
So, at 57, I am the oldest person working at my company, and my employer pays more for my health insurance than he does for the 20-somethings I work with. So if we’re taxed at the same rate, I will pay much more in taxes on my health insurance that they will.
Hope there is an age-discrimination lawsuit here....
Why do you think this is a good idea? Why is taxing any benefit a good thing?
When the employeesrealize they have to pay $500 a month in taxes on their gold plated insurance benefit, they might negotiate to get the employer out of the medical insurance business, and buy their own.
Then, they’d buy sensible policies, not over consume medical care (which drives up costs) and take better care of themselves, because private insurers charge different rates based on risk.
Imagine people signing up for the policy that requires a $500 copay for MRI scans. We’d see far fewer instances of people getting scans for a headache. (”No thanks, Doctor, I think I’ll be OK.”)
The distorted tax treatment of medical insurance benefits causes this to be a less healthy nation with inflated health care costs.
Yep, raising the cost of health insurance is a surefire way to get more people insured.
So, at 57, I am the oldest person working at my company, and my employer pays more for my health insurance than he does for the 20-somethings I work with. So if we’re taxed at the same rate, I will pay much more in taxes on my health insurance that they will.
Hope there is an age-discrimination lawsuit here....
You’re not discriminated because of your age, your charged more because of your demonstrably increased medical risks.
Public money, tax funds of one sort or another for healthcare, are about $2,000 per person per year. The total outlay is triple that. Health care is about sixth of the US economy (probably more, now that the transportation and mining industries are in decay).
In a single answer NO!
YEp I haven’t talked to my BIL who voted for zero. Since they want to tax soda and now healthcare benefits he should be very happy since he has healthcare and works for Coke. :)
Taxing all benefits equally makes sense.
When the employeesrealize they have to pay $500 a month in taxes on their gold plated insurance benefit, they might negotiate to get the employer out of the medical insurance business, and buy their own.
Then, they’d buy sensible policies, not over consume medical care (which drives up costs) and take better care of themselves, because private insurers charge different rates based on risk.
Imagine people signing up for the policy that requires a $500 copay for MRI scans. We’d see far fewer instances of people getting scans for a headache. (”No thanks, Doctor, I think I’ll be OK.”)
The distorted tax treatment of medical insurance benefits causes this to be a less healthy nation with inflated health care costs.
Good luck with choosing a health care insurance carrier. They will be out of business like Chrysler and GM. You forget who is running the show and what the end-game is.
Self pay? Choice? Sorry but that is not what is going to happen. The taxes will be on the employer who will forced to drop the insurance and then take up a GOVERNMENT-run health insurance program. Physicians will not be able to take self-pay patients.
I suggest you read “The Plan” by Rohm Emanuel or “Critical” by Tom Daschele. After you have read these books, come back to me and tell me you think taxing benefits (either employer or employee side) will help health care costs!
BTW, I just paid $638co-pay for MRI for daughter—state of art equipment—best, newest facility in the State. I think there are only a few Magnetic Imaging machines in ALL of Canada btw. Oh, lest you think it was a frivolous MRI, daughter has a herniated disk.
I should add that we (who probably have a “gold-plated” policy by your standards), have had to assume and increased cost for our employer provided insurance. So we pay and now we are supposed to get taxed to make it fair? No thanks!!!
>>So wait, you like taxes?
Uh, no. You miss the point. Two principles:
1. Taxes are bad (that’s oversimplified, and clumsy, but good enough for my point).
2. Discrimination in taxes distorts markets (usually for the worse) and also tends to be associated with political corruption and favoritism.
Both these principles can coexist.
Your last post:
Uh, no. You miss the point. Two principles:
1. Taxes are bad (that’s oversimplified, and clumsy, but good enough for my point).
2. Discrimination in taxes distorts markets (usually for the worse) and also tends to be associated with political corruption and favoritism.
Both these principles can coexist.
Your previous post:
Taxing all benefits equally makes sense.
When the employeesrealize they have to pay $500 a month in taxes on their gold plated insurance benefit, they might negotiate to get the employer out of the medical insurance business, and buy their own.
Then, they’d buy sensible policies, not over consume medical care (which drives up costs) and take better care of themselves, because private insurers charge different rates based on risk.
Imagine people signing up for the policy that requires a $500 copay for MRI scans. We’d see far fewer instances of people getting scans for a headache. (”No thanks, Doctor, I think I’ll be OK.”)
The distorted tax treatment of medical insurance benefits causes this to be a less healthy nation with inflated health care costs.
My solution is NOT TO TAX BENEFITS, it is to allow for money to go into TAX-FREE accounts and allow us to purchase. Why tax?!!!
I “missed the point”? What is the point?! You seem to be alluding to the point that taxing benefits will somehow equalize the system. That sounds like just the sort of thing the occupant is pushing. What more taxes will do are fund the uninsured (income redistribution), run private run insurance companies out of business or have them become government managed like GM or the banks, discourage the best and brightest to go to Med school as their careers will be totally managed by the government.
So we are to be taxed at $500 on our “gold plated policies” for a while—then the government will compete with Blue Cross, etc. and run them out of business or “help” them like they are helping many other industries.
Don’t you see we won’t have choice. We will not be able to go out and buy a policy—we will be brought into the government system because it will be the only system. Sort of like Social Security? Medicare? Two fine examples of taxation of benefits with no return! We will be told by the government what our coverage will be—that is where this will go—look at UK or Canada. Look at what this administration has socialized in past 125 days. Do you really think they will allow for private choice LOL???!
The Republicans tried to move towards a consumer-driven health care system where people could go out and self-purchase insurance—chose their own and dems fought it. I know, I was around in the 90s. Did you know that in the 90s, it was going to be illegal for physicians to opt out of government system. BTW, thru work, our family has several choices, levels of coverage—WE chose what WE want and what we are willing to pay for—yes, we actually PAY for most of our premiums. So of course we want to be taxed on them?
In reading your posts, you seem to have a real problem with people who have access to decent health care? Why? I have not been to doc in several years. I am not “over consuming the system,” but I want access if I SHOULD DEEM THAT I need it. My choice—not government. As I stated, my daughter had an MRI—she was in same day as doc said it was needed. So you think we overused the system? The provider was a private facility competing with the local hospital, so they have the newest machine in the State (best images) and we got in same day (a Saturday no less) with a 15-minute waiting room wait. Think that company will survive obamacare? Doubt it. They need to make a profit.
Over consuming. Hmmm, just WHO is to say what is “over consuming?” You? Surely you don’t want the government to be saying. Eh maybe you do.
Yeah, I think taxes are bad. The fewer the taxes, the happier I am. So you think that benefits should be taxed. If employers are taxed, that means fewer jobs, less profits. If employees are taxed, it means less discretionary income—or perhaps I should say income to pay the higher taxes we are going to be paying in every other sector—example energy cap & trade.
No, my point is why would you want to tax benefits—AT ALL?! This administration wants to tax anything that moves and everything we own. Why would a conservative think it is a good idea to tax anything—especially in this environment?
Don’t you see that this is merely an income redistribution scheme and an opportunity for the government to begin dictating absolutely every behavior in our lives? Did you hear about the sugar tax today? How bout the threat to sieze Cheerios yesterday?
Don’t you see that we will not have choice in a decade if this administration is allowed to “solve the health care crisis.” As Rohm E. says...”Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste.” This is a great opportunity for socialization. There will be no private insurance companies. There will only be government doctors and government facilities. The government will be telling you what you can eat, what you can and can’t do, when you can do it, and when you can live and die.
Why not advocate for using our Flexible Spending Accounts (tax free NOT TAXED money) to purchase insurance?
I would suggest you read the following 3 books if you want to understand what is at stake here:
1. “The Plan” by Rohm Emanuel
2. “Crisis” Tom Daschle
3. Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky
I understand what is at stake. I also think that treating income in the form of medical insurance benefits as untaxable has been a harmful policy.
Sorry I don’t think you do understand what is at stake, because if you did, you would not be advocating for taxes and government intervention. BTW, you did not address my questions:
1. Why do you feel you are the decider of what is over-consumption?
2. Why do you have an issue with poeple who have good health care?
3. Why would you, a long-time FR want more taxes. Why not a non-tax account?
Like PJ O’Rourke said, “If you think health care is expensive now, just wait till it is free!”
Enough.
1. Why do you feel you are the decider of what is over-consumption?
I’m not. Individuals are the best decider in a level, free market (that we lack).
2. Why do you have an issue with poeple who have good health care?
I don’t. And you can buzz off if you keep with the straw-man rhetoric.
3. Why would you, a long-time FR want more taxes. Why not a non-tax account?
I don’t want more taxes, I want medical insurance treated as income. I’d prefer to abolish the income tax, or to make the reform revenue neutral.
I’d prefer reform of the unequal treatment to an increase of rates for any taxpayers.
Enough? Buzz Off? I don’t have straw man arguments. I was hoping to have real, thotful debate. Rude reply, Waste of my time.
Enough, I will buzz off. Enjoy your choice. :[
I personally rely on health insurance through my company....I have a pre existing condition and no private insurance company would ever insure me for an individual plan. What are those people to do?
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.