Let me get this new White House health care plan straight....

[JohnnyRingo]

Tell me if I got this right

Buxh will announce a health care plan for everyone in Tuesday's State of the Union Address:

First he's adding the annual value of employer supplied health care to everyone's taxable income. (Wow..It's like getting a raise).

Then as I understand it, everyone who has health care in the US gets a Federal tax deduction of $7500 per year. Families get $14,000 total. (More tax cuts)....so.....

Poorer taxpayers without health care can now use this deduction as incentive to purchase their own insurance. But since the deduction isn't a tax rebate, it just exempts the 1st $7500 of income from taxation, the savings wont be enough for anything but basic coverage. Not purchasing health care means no tax cut. (The insurance companies will be grateful for any new business, I'm sure)

The hourly middle class workers will pay the income tax on their health care benefit value totaling beyond the deduction. George Buxh says this will give these people incentive to obtain less expensive coverage from their employers. (Now the companies are grateful).

Now the lucky ones:

The well heeled class of taxpayers generally buy their own wall to wall health care plans as they own the previously mentioned companies. These people will retain the same affordable (to them) insurance while granting their family a $14,000 tax cut they didn't have before. Their health care isn't added as income because it isn't employer supplied. (Now Dick Cheney's happy)

Guess which class above will shoulder the greatest burden in taxes.

Another "Mission Accomplished".

I can't wait to hear how: "The Democrats don't have a health care plan"

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/16508954.htm

[Fovea]

1. And if you are already disabled

on private disablity insurance and having to pay your healthcare out of pocket, please just die now.

That's the message I get, anyway.

[Hieronymus]

2. This is what's possible for a government that cares for it's citizens.

May 20, 2004

FRENCH HEALTHCARE....The Economist provides a capsule summary of healthcare in France:

Its hospitals gleam. Waiting-lists are non-existent. Doctors still make home visits. Life expectancy is two years longer than average for the western world.

....For the patient, the French health system is still a joy. Same-day appointments can be made easily; if one doctor's advice displeases, you can consult another, a habit known as nomadisme médical. Individual hospital rooms are the norm. Specialists can be consulted without referral. And while the patient pays up front, almost all the money is reimbursed, either through the public insurance system or a top-up private policy.

For family doctors too, liberty prevails. They are self-employed, can set up a practice where they like, prescribe what they like, and are paid per consultation. As the health ministry's own diagnosis put it recently: "The French system offers more freedom than any other in the world."

And despite the Economist's scary headline, which proclaims that "crisis looms," the French system provides this service to everyone in the country and does it for less than half the cost per person of the U.S. Even if they decide to raise taxes to cover a growing deficit in their healthcare fund (the subject of the Economist's article) their costs will still be less than half ours per person.

Now, there are undoubtedly drawbacks to the French system. They probably have fewer high-tech machines than we do, and the comparative cost figures may be skewed by the American love of elective procedures. Still, there would have to be a lot of drawbacks to make their system less attractive than ours.

So why not adopt it? Well, that would be socialized medicine. Can't have that, can we? After all, everyone knows that when you socialize something it automatically declines slowly into anarchy and uselessness. Right?

[JohnnyRingo]

4. My Ditto-Head friend once carped about Canada's system

He said it was failing because "everytime someone gets a cold they run to the doctor and burden the system".

I feigned shock and replied "Don't tell me they go to a doctor when they're sick!"

Probably sounded better when Rush briefed him on the evils of socialism.

[Lasher]

11. About Canada's system

This side-by-side comparison clearly shows we are paying twice as much as Canadians, and getting less. People who favor the USA's health care system are usually not Canadians.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

26. When my mother had an accident in France

on vacation (she fell down some concrete steps in front of a museum) she was transported in an ambulance to a hospital where she was thoroughly examined, given numerous tests to make sure there was no unseen damage, and held overnight in a spotless hospital for observation. She paid little or nothing (she did have trip insurance and her private insurance but never was billed by either of those entities.) The only billing she ever saw implied that $200 was due and would be paid from some entity.

Contrast with the experience of my father-in-law who had a horrendous fall down the cellar stairs at the age of eighty. He had a very cursory look-over in the emergency room after waiting for hours and then was sent home without even pain medication even though he looked like someone took a baseball bat to him. It was a disgusting, disheartening, expensive, crummy medical experience. They literally DID NOT CARE if he went home and died. I said that after that experience, I have seen better care offered by veterinarians.

Our system is broken. People who tout American health care just simply do not know that in other countries, their citizens receive comparable if not better care and medications for a fraction of the cost. Just remember, the head of United Health received 1 BILLION dollars in compensation and stock options. That's where your healthcare dollars are going. For-profit healthcare is nonsense.

[OnionPatch]

73. I was in an accident in Canada

and broke my nose. I was taken care of quickly and efficiently by people who were as caring as my grandmother! No one even questioned how it was going to be paid for. They said not to worry about it (can you imagine??!!) but I made my insurance pay them anyway.

I take any complaints I hear about foreign health care plans and how horrible they are with a big old grain of salt.

[antigop]

42. We have "socialized medicine" now -- it's called Medicare

It just happens to be for people 65 and over.

Anytime someone says, "I don't want socialized medicine", then you should ask, "Well, I guess you want to get rid of Medicare then?"

[illinoisprogressive]

3. all coded for privitization - how much you bet the medicare and medicaid get swept in

[kath]

5. Not to mention that, even WITH insurance, health care costs will still be too high for

the working poor. Even with so-called "good" coverage it's $20-$30 copays for each visit, $30 or 50 or god knows HOW much for prescriptions, hundreds of dollars for deductibles, poor or minimal dental coverage - the working poor can NOT afford such costs.

Heck, my daughter injured her knee a couple months back. $20 for each visit to the Orthopod (x3 so far), haven't gotten the bill yet for the fancy brace, physical therapy is a $200 deductible to start, then we have to pay 30% of the charge per session, which will come to about $50 that it costs us per session (the "initial PT evaluation" was much more than that)- we're in it for $700 -800 already, plus whatever the insurance company won't pay for the brace. And this was for a relatively minor injury.

We can afford it, luckily, but how many people working low-wage jobs could say the same?

SINGLE PAYER. NOW. The American people deserve nothing less.

[tblue37]

29. I had a mild stroke in July of 2004. I have excellent insurance,

but I still ended up owing $1000 for going to the emergency room and for subsequent tests. It took me a year to pay it off. Here's the kicker: I didn't even call an ambulance! No one I knew was in town that day, and I didn't have cash for a cab (and couldn't have afforded one if I did!), and I knew I couldn't afford an ambulance. My right side was nearly paralyzed (I am VERY right-handed; my left hand is stupid), and my speech was slurred, but I managed to dial a phone with my left hand and call a friend 45 minutes away to come and take me to the emergency room. He left work and came in to do that, and stayed with me until we could reach my sister (who also lives 45 minutes away). When she arrived--three hours later, since we couldn't reach her for a while), he went back to work and she stayed with me until I was released much later that evening.

The point is that I really needed an ambulance but was afraid to call one, because I knew it would cost more than I could afford--even with my insurance, which is better than most.

My little stroke didn't produce too much in the way of permanent damage. My right side remained a bit weak for a few months, but I worked it hard and got about 99% of my strength back. But the immediate effects were very dramatic, and I couldn't know that they wouldn't be permanent.

Nevertheless, I delayed getting care (and with a stroke, immediate care usually makes the difference in degree and permanency of damage--or even between life and death) because I couldn't afford to pay for my share of the ambulance cost and couldn't even afford the $20 a round-trip cab ride would have cost. By the time my friend came to get me and drive me to the emergency room, more than an hour had passed between my stroke and admission to the emergency room.

And keep in mind that I am one of the lucky ones. I actually have way better than average health insurance, though what I have to pay keeps going up (including co-pays) and what is covered keeps going down.

[JohnnyRingo]

46. I believe it's all a well engineered plan by the health care industry

To make sure every working man and woman dies penniless, their life savings absorbed by HMOs, hospitals, and insurance companies.

Through our "insured life", we're nickle, dimed, and dollared for every attempt to maintain health through our coverage. Co-pays, uninsured costs, and upgrades are like a tax that flows uphill.

One serious injury or illness can, and likely will, wipe out any savings accrued through a lifetime of work. Whatever amount is left over after a lucky and healthy life is distributed to the rest home at the rate of $4,000 per month.

After the bank accounts have been emptied, the home sold, and assets dissolved, the govt gives minimal care until death.

The "Greatest Generation" will be the last working class group to leave their children with an inheritence....

All by design.

[NiteOwll]

6. This is great...

:sarcasm:

So, for instance, if you're a union employee, who doesn't pay anything additional for healthcare coverage, you're going to take a big hit to the pocketbook? I hope that's not what they're proposing.

[Dr.Phool]

12. Thats exactly what they're proposing.

The chimp said shortly after the 2004 election, that he was going to eliminate the employer deduction for health insurance. This was right about the same time he said he was going to privatize Social Security.

Impeach this lunatic now!

[Deja Q]

25. I know many who ARE union and are paying big-time out of their pockets.

I wonder how they feel if Bush's trick gets through. And, oddly, many of those folks blindly support the guy (on 9/11, they were shouting "____ Democrats!" While the truth is always in the middle, Bush had MONTHS to undo the damage purportedly made by Clinton. All Bush did was sit around and ultimately it happened. That makes him no better and much like Microsoft's antipiracy measures, Bush's antiterrorism measures do more to chokehold the innocent than to stop the bad guys - and as with piracy, most of the bad guys are overseas (so there is some truth in the statement "fighting them on their own soil", but I kinda thought Saddam (vile as he was) was a mosquito compared to others. BTW, where's Osama? Much like how OJ said he'd find "the real killers", Bush gave up looking for Osama a long time ago. Now that does not mean to imply Bush was the man behind 9/11 (MIHOP is too much a fairy tale), but to say "I'll never stop looking" and only a few months later say "I'm not concerned" is taking a long piss on the American people. The Americans demand and deserve Osama and Bush openly admitted he was not concerned!)

Never mind his slow reaction to Katrina, and the news media hyping up how much quicker the corporate world was in responding. (Note to media: The corporate world was putting on a show, New Orleans isn't exactly better off now than it was just after the hurricane... I know how bad "big government" is. I still need proof that "big corporation" is good by comparison.)

[countmyvote4real]

7. Galdamn Frogs. Who do they think they are?

I hope that I'm obviously jesting.

[krispos42]

8. It's another faith-based initiative

Pray you don't get sick.

[radfringe]

13. yep

it's a pray as you go plan

[Lasher]

9. They want to end employer-paid healthcare

"George Bush says this will give these people incentive to obtain less expensive coverage from their employers."

In this OP Salin predicted a year ago that Republicans would "...push for Americans to use less expensive catastrophic coverage policies...". At that time he predicted an increase in the amount of money that can be sheltered in health savings accounts but it seems the same type of penalty/incentive shell game is going to be achieved with the taxable income/tax break ploy.

Salin predicted that the health savings account changes would be coupled with an elimination of "...tax incentives/subsidies to employers that provide health insurance to its employees." We'll need to watch and see if this is part of the proposal. If it is, it might be hard to spot since there is a motive to conceal it from us.

[Toucano]

22. I would like to end employer-paid healthcare, too.

Healthcare should have nothing to do with employment status.

But I sure as hell don't want to offer the alternative of NOTHING, as Bush apparently does.

[Lasher]

27. I agree. It should be replaced with single provider universal health care.

But you shouldn't even have to analyze it at all to know that whatever Junior proposes will be good for corporations and the richest 10% of us, and bad for everyone else. The big insurance companies will be especially delighted. They should be, they'll be writing the proposal - but not the legislation this time, thanks to the wise voters who gave Democrats control of Congress.

Just think if you're an employee with medical benefits and suddlenly it's 'here's a tax break for you, go buy your own individual policy.' If you have existing medical conditions, you'll just be expected to die, and please be polite and do it quietly.

[salin]

32. Round two, a year later.

They seem to have backed off a little bit in this proposal per using the tax code to encourage employers to dump health benefits. Let's see the fine print, though - that is where they dump the insidious stuff with the INTENDED (rather than unintended) consequences.

I find this leak interesting. Still based on the premise that the escalating cost of health care is based on consumers using TOO much health care and that the solution is to force folks to use less health care. Guess that since they pushed through various tort reforms they can no longer blame the still escalating costs on malpractice suits.

I don't completely discount the "people use too much" - as dr.s in the family do express concerns that some patients opt for more expensive elective procedures and meds 'because my insurance will pay for it' - even when the options are not being pushed by the dr. It isn't the cause of escalating costs but it is is a contributing factor.

That said, basing the entire "policy fix" on this one (and not the *major* one) factor will not address the problem (just as tort reform didn't). And this approach would do *nothing* or *very little* to health insurance to the uninsured. One doesn't get the tax break (which as is pointed out above *isn't the same thing as additional $ in the pocket - it is the ability to raise the amount of $ one earns that is not taxed) -one has to have already shelled out the $ for the health insurance. So where does one suddenly get an additional $600 (for one or $1000 for family) a month to buy this insurance? And since they are pushing "lower cost" insurance (e.g., catastrophic coverage with very high deductibles that one has to pay out of pocket before the insurance kicks in) one has to pay for the insurance (perhaps the 'lower cost = $350/$700 a month?) AND put aside money each month to cover the out of pocket expenses. Second or third jobs just to pay for insurance? One has to accrue those costs in the year before one qualifies for the tax deduction. Just not likely to induce a whole lot of uninsured to suddenly take the new huge out of pocket costs to become insured.

Meanwhile it would lead to a FEDERAL push to employers to lower the standard care offered through health plans. Yes, it appears that at the beginning the amount of the deduction is high enough to cover most plans (that is not many folks would be above the level that one would begin being held responsible for paying taxes on health benefits) - but with the rate of escalation of health care - how quickly will that number be surpassed? Then a push to move the currently insured (through employment) into the ranks of the 'under-insured'?

I will look forward to reading more details of what they are proposing. As I said the problem, (and the intentions per WHO benefits) is always in the details with bushco.

btw - just a minor correction to your post... salin is a "she" ;-)

Thanks for replaying my old post - it is interesting to see how things are playing out one year later. It will be very inter sting if when he reveals this new "proposal" he also obliquely relates it to a 'simplification of the tax code' - if he does that then all of this is smoke and mirrors - and we are still on the push I described a year ago.

[Lasher]

41. I was hoping you would weigh in, Salin

Oops, I didn't know you were a woman. Although I have gotten to know you here somewhat, I guess your gender never seemed important to me. I did check your profile before to find that was undeclared so I guessed. I'll remember now.

I thought you might enjoy looking back to your predictions of a year ago and see how accurate you were. We'll see. For what it's worth, I'm in the same boat as I agreed with you then. Some people who have the courage to make such informed projections enjoy subjecting themselves to such analysis, and some don't. Time can be a very harsh critic in these cases but also a very good instructor.

I hope you have time to opine more on the subject as this unfolds. Thanks for pitching in.

Lasher

[salin]

47. thanks for the heads-up

On the surface, this sounds rather different than what they were saying a year ago. I really need more info (which hopefully we will get in upcoming days/weeks) to get a sense of where they might be trying to take us. One thing is clear, though, they will try to sell it as the GOP doing something about the high number of uninsured citizens -but the policy won't really address that problem, and very well could make it worse.

[antigop]

43. Lasher -- they want to move everyone to high-deductible plans

The GOP has been pushing health savings accounts (HSAs) that you couple with a high-deductible plan.

Bush mentioned HSAs in one of the presidential debates (which should have tipped everyone), and HSAs are mentioned in the GOP platform at gop.com

Please pay attention to how a "good insurance plan" will be defined -- I'll bet it will be defined as anything that's NOT a high-deductible plan. So, I'll guess that anything that is not a high-deductible plan will be taxed.

IMO, this is nothing more than a giveaway to the insurance companies (high-deductible policies), and banks and mutual funds (who will be just so happy to manage that HSA for you.)

My guess -- let's see if I'm right.

Also, I'm pretty sure that there are some ERISA requirements for company health plans that offer workers protections. If the companies manage to move employees off of employer plans to the private market, those ERISA protections are no longer there for workers. (Not an ERISA expert, but I'm wondering if this is part of it.)

[salin]

48. Very important point....

self-insurers in most states are more likely to have "preconditions" (that is deemed to have existed before the policy was taken out) that will *not* be covered - or will be outright rejected. Big LA Times piece a week or so ago on how difficult it is for folks to get insurance for themselves - and what conditions are cited by Ins co.s to reject individuals. Thus more people pushed off of programs where they are covered via employer, suddenly can not get full (even more expensive) coverage -saving the ins companies money by further picking and choosing what they will cover and not cover.

[antigop]

51. Yes, I think so -- that's what I was getting at

If you are in an employer plan, there is no exclusion of employees for pre-existing conditions. (That may be an ERISA condition -- I'm not sure.)

But if those people are moved to the individual market -- the insurance companies get to cherry pick and exclude from coverage people with "pre-existing conditions". So if people are covered now under an employer plan, they may not be able to get insurance because of pre-existing conditions if they move outside that employer plan.

So what good does getting tax break for buying your own insurance get you if you can't get insurance?

[antigop]

53. LA Times articles

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-reject8jan08,0,5668276.story

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rejectdrugsbox8jan08,0,797050.story

Here are some drugs that could render users ineligible for individual health insurance, according to underwriting guidelines of several health plans.

TOP SELLERS

Eight of the 20 top-selling prescription drugs, ranked by their 2005 U.S. sales:

Lipitor (cholesterol)

Zocor (cholesterol)

Nexium (heartburn, ulcers)

Prevacid (heartburn, ulcers)

Advair (asthma)

Zoloft (depression)

Singulair (asthma)

Protonix (heartburn, ulcers)

Read the article for the rest of the list

[Lasher]

55. You are proving to be a valuable resource on one of my favorite subjects

Pleased to meet you, antigop. Please continue to contribute on the subject as you approach the occasion of your 1000th post.

[antigop]

58. Lasher -- been following health care for some time

I've been following the corporate world and what it is doing to its employees.

Are you familiar with the employer groups -- the ones that pushed cash balance pensions? I follow what those same employer groups are doing with healthcare.

[Lasher]

61. I am well acquainted with CBP conversions

And I'm up on what they're doing to healthcare. I'm glad you are too.

Actually, I've lived through a CBP conversion and healthcare erosion. I was working for a major corporation when cafeteria heathcare benefits were first forced on us years ago.

As far as employer groups that pushed CBP conversions, I'm going to guess that you're thinking of the ERIC http://www.eric.org/forms/documents/DocumentFormPublic/

[antigop]

63. ERIC and the American Benefits Council

There is a push to move to high-deductible policies combined with health savings accounts.

I think Bush's plan is just that. People will be "enticed" to take the high-deductible policy.

[Lasher]

65. Yes, employers have been pushing for this for some time

Salin predicted this a year ago, as I pointed out upthread here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3168098&mesg_id=3168273

Corporate executives are salivating over the prospect of eliminating or reducing employee healthcare. By reduction of just such known future liabilities that have been accounted for on the corporate books, they can declare big profits without having to do anything unreasonable - like actually running a business so that it really does turn a profit. And then it's humongus bonuses all around for the senior executives, on account of the increased earnings they will report.

This is exactly how it works, and it's just what senior executives are thinking. It's also why defined benefit pensions are pretty much a thing of the past.

[antigop]

66. FAS106 -- Ellen Schultz from WSJ wrote about this

I predicted this a while back, too -- if they can eliminate retiree medical, they can claim FAS106 income.

[antigop]

67. And the race may be on because FASB is supposed to make changes

I'm wondering if there will be a big grab for FAS106 income before the FASB makes changes.

[antigop]

68. PBS NOW interview with Ellen Schultz from the WSJ

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcriptNOW113_full.html
>>
ELLEN SCHULTZ: In fact, when retirees drop out it is boosting companies' income. And depending on how many people drop out, you get enough gains added to your income on a quarterly basis that it can actually help you meet your earnings targets.
>>

[antigop]

69. Ellen Shultz article here -- on FAS 106

http://www.dukeemployees.com/wsj1.html

Scroll down to
Companies Transform Retiree-Medical Plans into Source of Profits

It explains how FAS 106 works.

[Lasher]

71. Very good detective work. I'm a big fan of Ellen Schultz of the WSJ

I actually traded emails a few times with her a few years back. I was involved in a movement or two to oppose employee pension and benefit erosion that we are discussing here.

Very good scoop here, antigop. I wish I could absorb it all but you know I am preoccupied right now. Just let me point out that there is a bill called HR 1322 that would prohibit termination of healthcare benefits for retirees. You're always swimming upstream with that sort of thing but it does sometimes work.

Lasher

[antigop]

72. Yes, I'm familiar with HR 1322

but it never had any Republican co-sponsors

[antigop]

70. Here it is -- Reuters article -- explains it

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=healthNews&storyID=2007-01-21T011140Z_01_N19343305_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-HEALTHCARE.xml&pageNumber=1&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage1

>>
Currently, employees who receive health coverage through their jobs do not pay taxes on the benefit. Bush would cap the amount of coverage that would be considered tax-free. Anything above that would be taxed as income. The limit for deductions would be $15,000 for families and $7,500 for individuals. The average cost of family health coverage is $11,500.

TAX DEDUCTIONS

While some people would get hit with higher taxes, there would be a windfall for those who opted for low-cost plans.

For example, a family who bought a $10,000 plan could still take the full $15,000 deduction and pocket the extra money.
>>

THERE WOULD BE A WINDFALL FOR THOSE WHO OPTED FOR LOW-COST PLANS.

The low-cost plans would be the ones with the high(er) deductibles.

[antigop]

59. Pleased to meet you, Lasher n/t

[Lasher]

49. Thanks for sharing

My mother is having surgery tomorrow morning, so I don't have time right now to react to the good points you have made. Please read Salin's reply to me in this subthread, and help us watch developments. I'm sure there will be an OP here at DU right after the SOTU address, perhaps by Salin if she is inclined. I would very much like for you to participate in that, and will give you a heads-up via PM if I am able.

Lasher

[drm604]

10. I hope Congress has the sense not to go along with this. n/t

[DoYouEverWonder]

14. It seems Bush's idea of health care reform

is to screw employers and employees even more then they're already getting screwed.

[maine_raptor]

15. Another Bush Plan?

Jeesh Louise, haven't we learned enough already?

How many plans has he had in the past that went belly up? Iraq, Katrina, Tax Cuts, Cowboy Diplomacy, the list is endless and it's too damn early on a Sunday morning to remember them all.

After 6 years of this idiot coming up with ideas that NEVER work, you'd think people would learn.

Before any Congress-critter even thinks about voting for this, his latest, I want them to ask themselves a simple question; "How can I possibly think he finally got one right?"


Want to solve the problems we have in America? Here's a good start:

Ignore George W. Bush!

[JohnnyRingo]

50. I think "obstruct" will be the word used by loyal Republicans

Of course I don't expect this stupid plan to get through Congress, but we'll get a chance to see who's in the pockets of the insurance companies.

I'm looking at you Lieberman.

[radfringe]

16. Question: who "wrote" this proposal? Insurance companies?

Bush to offer tax proposals to cover uninsured
Health care plan likely to draw fire from labor, business
Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Robert Pear, New York Times
Sunday, January 21, 2007
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/01/21/MNG2ONMBHA1.DTL

---snip---

The basic concept of the president's plan is that employer-provided health insurance, now treated as a fringe benefit exempt from taxation, would no longer be entirely tax-free. Workers could be taxed if their coverage exceeded limits set by the government. But the government would also offer a new tax deduction for people buying health insurance on their own. **

**many insurance companies do not offer individual health plans that "regular people" can afford. either the premiums are extremely high, or the high deductables make the plan next to useless

---snip---

That would amount to a tectonic shift in the way people get and pay for their health coverage, and historically it has been all but impossible to win congressional approval for such changes. When President Ronald Reagan made a similar proposal in 1986, it died in Congress, with Rangel helping to lead the opposition. **

**more recycling by the bushies

--snip--

In his radio address Saturday, Bush described his proposal as a way to "treat health insurance more like home ownership," giving people tax deductions for their health insurance in much the same way as they get tax deductions for home mortgage interest. He said the current system "unwisely encourages workers to choose overly expensive, gold-plated plans," **driving up the overall cost of coverage and care.

**so we're stupid for wanting the best possible health coverage we can get? and we'll be better off by getting el-cheapo-covers-nothing insurance?

-------------------------------

Question: who "wrote" this proposal? Insurance companies?

What this will do is encourage more health insurance plans which cover nothing, charge high premiums and have high deductibles. Basically, an empty box with a pretty ribbon.

[antigop]

44. Not just insurance companies -- banks and mutual funds maybe

If the goal is to move everyone towards high-deductible policies, there will be marketing efforts to couple those high-deductible policies with health savings accounts. The banks and mutual funds will ber ever so happy to manage those accounts for you.

That's my guess.

<edit>> fixed subject line

[jmowreader]

60. I thought about this. The insurance companies wouldn't have written this

The insurance companies know what they're doing. Trust me on this.

Assume this goes through exactly as it's written. A vast number of companies will drop their employee health coverage.

At the same time, the people whose company-sponsored healthcare plans vaporized won't be buying the same level of coverage as they had through their companies--it'll be way too expensive. If you were a health insurance company, you'd much rather have someone on an expensive policy that would give you the option of dictating care and denying claims than have them on a really cheap policy--or worse, on no policy at all.

There's controversy as to whether the "let them eat cake" line attributed to Marie Antoinette was ever said by her. But in the case of Bush? If you told Bush we can't give the peasants any bread, he'd have you tell them to go out and buy cakes instead.

[annabanana]

17. You have to hand it to him.. . .

he's consistent.

If there is any possible plan, any available configuration that will screw a greater number of people for the benefit of fewer, he and his greedmeisters will burrow down and find it.

[MzNov]

18. My frantic letter writing campaign to congress has already begun!

Some other questions to ask yourself as you shake your head over yet another attempt to make the corporate cronies richer:

You would have to buy your own health care, so won't your choices probably be limited to the biggest bush contributors, i.e., United Health Care? We may be forced to choose only the largest pig at the trough.

In that case, we can pay COBRA-like monthly premiums that could run $600/mo. (most like more) if there is no competition. That's for a person with no dependents. I now pay about $80/mo. out of my own pocket since my employer provides a choice of health care companies, and lower rates because it's a large employer.

So that's thousands of bucks a year cost for me, and let's say my "deduction" is $7,500. Is that automatic, or is that if I itemize on my income taxes?

These are questions I have now, but to be sure, the Bush Crime Family gives NOTHING to the average American, so don't be fooled by another scam like he tried to pull with S.S. We can pretty much figure that his "concern" about health care in this country is just another plot to make another gluttonous bush sucking corporation CEO even fatter.

[tbyg52]

45. Bingo

If "they" force each of us to buy his/her own health insurance, then all the leverage is removed from the insured and given to the insurers. Divide and conquer.

[focusfan]

19. No health insurance period for anyone

Do away with health insurance altogether pay for it through sales taxes,or use part of the militaries budget to pay for it they just waste it anyway and do away with hospital CEO`s that would save untold billions of wasted money.

[Toucano]

20. Excellent analysis.

I wonder if anyone in the media will put it as well as you did.

[napi21]

21. I don't think the idiot hassaid enough yet to know what he has in mind.

IF you are right in the description, this will NEVER fly! This is as useful to low income workers as his health savings plans were! What nobody seems to understandis, if you don't haveANY money left after you pay your rent, buy your gas, and some food for your family, there is NO MONEY left to put in a health savings account, and any tax deduction is useless becausemost low incom people don't owe taxes anyway!

[Betty88]

23. Would I now get a tax break on my domestic partners health care?

I am lucky in that I work for a company who offers health benefits to the partners of its workers. How this works is that they "give" me an extra $3500 a year in my pay, that I never see, but goes to pay the cost of the policy. The feds then tax this money as income. Could I now deduct this amount from my taxes? Somehow I bet I won't be able to.

[Deja Q]

24. They want people to live in debt... which seems odd as

they also tell us all to save more and get educated. (meanwhile, all those jobs education is good for are going bye-bye because offshoring jobs is 'trade'. With their definition, it also (to them) justifies slavery. Though China has every right to boast about getting more than 1/3rd its people out of poverty in a day and age when more and more Americans are slipping into it. I'm not going to blame China on that!)

Talk about mixed messages, even I admit that leading is about making a decision. Not flip-flopping...

[tblue37]

28. Say it: "Bush wants to raise taxes on the middle class and

working class. Tax cuts for the rich, more taxes for those who work for a living!"

And taxing healthcare will put it out of reach for even more Americans. A proposal like that will make the people rise up and demand impeachment. The inability to survive a healthcare crisis ebcause of no or insufficient insurance is probably the biggest fear most Americans have right now.

[MiniMe]

36. Exactly. He says that he wants to do this without raising taxes, but thats exactly

what he is doing, and it has to be pointed out.

[MiniMe]

37. He is trying to kill the poor and middle class off by giving them inferior health insurance

He really thinks that the reason health care is sooooo expensive is because we have good health care plans. What a tool. Has he seen the profits that the insurance companies make?? Has he seen the obscene CEO bonuses?

Oh, I forgot, they are his "base", the haves and the have mores. :sarcasm:

[area51]

30. nazis adding "annual value of employer supplied health care to everyone's taxable income"

Tax-and-spend republinazis.

I love how they think that everyone can afford their own health insurance. No mention of people with pre-existing med conditions who can't buy insurance at any price.

We need to have single-payer now, and get rid of the rightwing, anti-American health insurance companies.

[The Backlash Cometh]

31. Why doesn't the President go after the benefits from his CEO buddies?

Why does Bush have to keep knocking the little guy for whatever perks they might be able to scrimp and save?

Shame, shame on that spoiled frat boy. I hope he ends up in a small cell without doors around his toilet.

[jmowreader]

62. Little guys don't raise $250,000 for the Republican Party

I don't know why ANYONE here would ask a question like that.

Bush doesn't know any little guys, he doesn't care about any little guys, he hasn't ever been a little guy so he doesn't know what it's like.

Bush has always had health insurance. His parents bought it for him when he was a little kid, we bought it for him when he was making cross-border raids on Juarez while he was defending Texas from the Vietcong, the companies he bankrupted bought his insurance when he was still in the business of running oil companies into the ground, the citizens of Texas bought it for him when he was governor, and now we issue him a doctor. He doesn't know what it's like to not have it.

[Zodiak]

33. You guys are missing the silver lining

If Bush suddenly counts health care coverage as income, suddenly it looks like many in the country got a raise, and then Elain Chao can talk about how Bush "increased wages throughout the country" and his "tax cuts work".

Yeah, these people are that evil and that transparent.

[salin]

40. *snicker*

and his economic team can declare that the negative savings figures have gone away b/c of that increase in pay now will exceed the increase in outgoing expenses (which says nothing about savings - but what do facts mean to these folks?)

[Lasher]

56. And flipping burgers is a manufacturing job

Maybe if they put enough money into all those conservative stink tanks, night really will become day.

[salin]

57. well at least one company wants to rush a bunch

of coal plants before there are any 'really clear the skies' initiatives from Congress - guess they are trying to work on the night is day plan.

[JohnnyRingo]

52. I believe you're right

This will statistically be considered a raise in income for hourly workers with employer supplied health care, those who are regarded as "the backbone of the American economy", and would be touted loudly by the White House.

George Buxh, the middle class president....hahaha

[unblock]

34. i don't think that's quite right -- it's the retirees who gain

right now, 100% of the portion of your labor income (salary/wages) that goes to healthcare premiums can be lopped off the top of your reported income. i.e., it's 100% deductible NOW. but if you are retired, you can't take advantage of this because you don't have labor income.

shrub is proposing getting rid of this and replacing it with a deduction for anyone who gets health insurance -- i.e., it's would then be separated from labor income.

so the retirees would be able to take the deduction, in exchange for limiting the deduction of laborors.

[progressoid]

35. It doesn't have to pass - just muddy the waters.

Best way to fuck up a sound Democratic idea (heath care reform) is to bog it down with ridiculous ideas.

[smoogatz]

38. Ain't gonna happen.

But I almost wish it would--it'd be the end of privatized health insurance in this country forever. The obvious, first result of this idiotic, lobbyist-induced "plan" is that the price of even basic health insurance will skyrocket, because individuals lack whatever purchasing power corporations are able to exert on the insurance companies. Wages will not go up commensurate with the loss of the insurance benefit, either--there will be no incentive for employers to increase wages, they'll just pocket the difference. Stupid plan generated by stupid, greedy people.

[Vinca]

39. A good summary.

Poor slobs like me (too poor for a private policy, too well off for Medicaid) who can't foot the bill in the first place, won't get the deduction and won't have health care. Poor slobs like many of you (whose employers pay for coverage) will be paying higher taxes to fund tax cuts for the wealthy who can afford to buy insurance and who will get (yet another) tax deduction. This is typical Bush - screw the little guy to give a break to the well off.

[antigop]

54. Will Congress have to pay taxes on its golden medical plan? n/t

[Tatiana]

64. Simple logic: if Bush is for it, then I'm against it.

This will do nothing to provide those who really are struggling to make ends meet (and who don't qualify for Medicaid) obtain useful health insurance. And, it penalizes those who barely make ends meet but do have health insurance.

Lose-lose situation.