Bush* will propose a TAX INCREASE for anyone who has health care.

[spanone]

Robbing Peter to pay Paul.

~snip~ Bush is proposing to change to how the tax code treats health insurance, by counting employer contributions toward health insurance as taxable income while establishing a standard deduction for anyone with insurance. The White House says it would introduce increased market forces to the health care industry and make coverage more affordable for the uninsured.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-State-of-Union.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[originalpckelly]

1. Why the fuck would this make anything better?

It sounds like a fucking insane idea. I'm going to raise your taxes so that I will be able to give you a fucking tax break!

[Justitia]

7. It wouldn't, it's a horrible idea. I'm pretty sure it will be DOA. Filler for the SOTU. -eom

[originalpckelly]

12. I getcha.

All it will do is make him unpopular with conservatives who are anti-tax.

[WinkyDink]

42. Depends upon whom you want as the benefactor, now, doesn't it?

[mike_c]

2. one more monkey on the backs of the working class....

eom

[opihimoimoi]

6. Quack quack is right...he can propose all he wants....trying to look good

is whot he will be doing....

The man is a cornered rat....

[CountAllVotes]

3. quack quack

luckily * is a lame duck! :mad:

:dem: :kick:

[spanone]

4. White House says it would introduce increased market forces to the health care industry

This sounds like TAX BREAKS for the insurance biz to me....

[jedicord]

5. Another corporate incentive to lower their rates.

Yeah. Right. It's worked so well with his other incentives to lower pollution, increase wages, etc.

And from my perspective, many of the uninsured don't need tax deductions, because they are under the poverty level, so what good does THAT do them?

He is so out of touch with the American people, at least those not in the top 1%.

[Hobarticus]

8. How 'bout universal health care, instead?

It'd be cheaper and far more effective. I'd be embarrassed to be the elected leader of an industrialzed nation without it, myself.

[DaveJ]

11. Kerry practically offered it to America on a silver platter

And America turned it down. But you're correct, unfettered access to healthcare is integral in any civilized society.

[LSK]

46. no he didnt

What he proposed was to allow everyone to buy into the same plan the Senate has.

[zbdent]

32. Didn't I see your sig on the grassy knoll?

I guess he was successful, eh?

[Hobarticus]

39. He was one of the "bums" arrested soon after...

Fortunately he was able to get the flux capacitor warmed up and get back in time.

[Faux pas]

9. I don't work my ass of to have a pension with health benefits to

hand it over to the government. buck fush.

[DaveJ]

10. I seriously doubt he would make "coverage more affordable"

What does * consider 'more affordable', reducing what a family pays from $500/mo to $450? Meantime he wants to raise our taxes for the fake health coverage we get.

What this will do ultimately is raise the income of those related to the healthcare industry, and lower everyone else's take home pay, making it even more difficult for Democrats to establish a working health care system.

What an asshole.

[dmallind]

13. Yes it's a bad idea and all that

But we look silly if we don't use real facts to argue against it.

The tax would apply only to employer-paid premiums OVER $7500 for a single and $15000 for a family per year, and would be levied on both individual and corporate taxes.

If you pay $3000 a year and your employer pays $12000 or even $13000 then no taxes for either. The vast majority of employer paid plans for most workers do not cost this much.

What this WILL do is disincentivize very very expensive coverages. While Bush talks about the gold-plated CEO packages (and in fact it WOULD hurt them albeit marginally) the real target is generous health care plans won by union workers, who can of course less afford the taxes than CEOS and of whom there are more people for employers to pay additional taxes on.

[youthere]

14. So now I get to be taxed on the decreased coverage and increased premiums?

What a fucking genius...not.

[havocmom]

15. Fuck the workers - Standard GOP M.O.

Well, workers, remember this and fuck back in 08

[Kber]

16. As a small business owner

I think I'd have to increase my employees' salaries to make up for the increased tax. How exactly is this supposed to help anyone? My employees either take an income cut or, at best, remain whole (assuming I can afford it) and my business expenses go up.

What, exactly, are the magic market forces supposed to do about it? Lower our premiums? I'm not holding my breath.

[OllieLotte]

18. Increased tax on premium ns over $15K per year.

How much does insurance cost you per employee...if you don't mind my asking?

[Kber]

20. Between 150 and 450 a month, depending on the coverage level

So are you saying this wouldn't affect our business?

[dmallind]

22. NOPE

Not unless you - not the employee - contributes more than $7500 for single coverage ofr $15000 for family.

You're clear.

[Kber]

23. What about the employee paid portion of the premium

would this still be untaxed?

[dmallind]

26. As I understand it no

The (supposed) logic is for people to feel more of the cost of unnecessary and extravagant health care. Apparently the meme is that folks with good/low cost coverage like spending eight hours waiting in an emergency room so they go there to get Tylenol for free.

The (again supposed) solution is to tax people on very generous plans for which they do not bear the cost themselves - hence the basis in employer rather than employee contributions.


Just don't get all warm and fuzzy and give them full coverage no deductible elective/optical/mental/alternative/prescription coverage for free and you'll be fine under this proposal.

Although I suspect this proposal has zero chance as written and who knows what will come out of the Legislature if anything, and whether Bush would sign it if it does - but I'll bet my own coverage it won't be this idea as is.

[RB TexLa]

28. It will hit my wife, her employer plan cost the employer $9600 last year

So that would be an extra $693 if the rules were applied last year.

[dmallind]

36. Yep it would

GENERALIZED RESPONSE ALERT!!!!

I get the feeling some people here think I'm arguing FOR this proposal.

I just prefer to argue against the REAL proposal, not the misleading meme that all healthcare was going to be taxed.

Personally, like I suspect a good majority of posters here, I would prefer a universal health care system with no employer ties like the rest of the civilized world has. Not really relevant to arguing about this deal though.

[RB TexLa]

38. I agree the OP title is very misleading

As far as the plan I think it's DOA. I like the idea of letting people opt out, and get HSA's with a high deductable plan, that can be done without the other part.

[Justitia]

29. Meanwhile, top execs will still be offered extra coverage as "bennies", just like they are today

w/life insurance and will pay an insubstantial "imputed income" tax on the difference between the value of the benefit and the market rate. For the top execs, this will be a no-brainer and affordable.

The ordinary employee (or employee of a small business) will be forced into the marketplace as premiums rise (due to less spreading of risk) and are now prey for open market forces of individual policies (exclusion of pre-existing conditions, underwriting increases for individual cases).

This is a boon to insurance companies, not employees or employers.

There are better ways of controlling the costs of healthcare (slashing administrative costs, for example), but that is NOT the objective here.
The objective is to maximize the profit potential of insurance companies.
Eliminating the risk spreading benefit of group plans is an excellent way to do that.

[OllieLotte]

34. Top execs are the ones that the tax is aimed at.

$15K per family and $7500 per person. You want to cuts costs? The best way to do that is to pay the small stuff yourself. Let insurance handle the big stuff. Why pay $20 for a prescription and then have the insurance company (lots of paperwork) pay $40 for the rest of it? Heck, the insurance company spends $10 to process the request, the pharmacy spends $5 (I'm pulling these numbers from rear-but you get the idea). It adds to that overhead that you are referring to and it's unnecessary. Insurance should be set up for major purchases in a manner similar to the deductible on an automobile.

[Justitia]

37. High deductible / low benefits plans have been shown to be bad options.

Preventative measures are ignored for cost savings, illnesses are treated at a much later stage than necessary, emergency rooms are utilized much more often. They also lead to a catastrophic financial situation in cases of serious illnesses, as they cover much less of those too.

And what about reducing the risk spreading cost benefit by making the risk pool much smaller?

[RB TexLa]

40. Not when used with a HSA

I've been able to raise my deductible and plan to keep raising it and lowering the cost I have to pay.

[Justitia]

45. There is a reason only 4% of employees choose high ded plans & HSAs.

(Per the Kaiser Family Foundation) - they are not cost beneficial for most people.

If you don't have children, don't take any prescription medicine, never see a doctor and have the cash resources to supplement a catastrophic illness, the decision may be a wash for you.

[OllieLotte]

49. I don't save money by not changing the oil in my car.

Why do you think that I would make the same bad choice with my healthcare?

[Justitia]

50. People prioritize. Health ins or electricity? They gamble on good health and hope to save $$$ for

the light bill. Just a fact of life. If it was cheap & useful, everyone would have health insurance.

[mainegreen]

25. *wrong place*

whoops.

[ProfessorGAC]

17. It's Not A Horrible Concept

It's just a horrible plan to execute it. The level at which taxes would be paied is too low. So, it's at the point where the average, $60k per year union worker with good benefits would pay on that, if they're not married. $7500 is too low. A tax increase on people who have massive coverage, including elective surgeries, etc. tend to be exec level people, and this would be a reasonable tax increase, on those making several hundred grand and up. But, those type of premiums tend to be very pricey. I think numbers of something like $10k/$20k might be ok, probably higher, but not at this level. This is too damned low.
The Professor

[notadmblnd]

19. So his answer to "Millions of Americans don't have insurance"....

is; Let's tax the ones that do?

[sakabatou]

21. Quack!

[AllegroRondo]

24. His plan is to make companies not offer insurance

if everyone gets a standard deduction for health insurance, there is no incentive for employers to offer it.

Low risk employees would choose to drop out of the current employer offered care, to join less expensive insurance they could get on their own. Why not? It would save them money. This would leave the higher risk employees in the employer's insurance, and increase rates for them. After a certain point, it becomes too expensive to cover the ones left.

[WinkyDink]

43. Where is this "less expensive insurance", pray tell?

[AllegroRondo]

47. People who are younger & healthier, pay less for insurance

so if the choice is stay with your companies plan that insures everyone who works there, or go with an outside plan targeted towards healthier people, they'll take the cheaper one.

currently, they would stay with the company plan, and bring down rates for everyone in it, because there is no incentive to look outside. but if this goes into effect, why should they stay with a company plan?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

27. Note to Republican Managerial/Professional Types

If there is a bigger bunch of ignorant fucktards in this country, I've never met them. I'm talking to you, the Rush Limbaugh-listening, concealed weapon-carrying, white collar assholes who created this idiotic administration because you were so pissed of at Jane Fonda you'd vote for any mouth-breathing freakshow on the ballot, just so as long as there was an "(R)" behind his name.

This is what you get. Your health plan, if you're fortunate enough to have one two or three years from now, is going to be completely taxable -- even the part that's paid by your employer. Congratulations, fuckwits! You've just raised your taxes by several thousand dollars per year and have not a thing to show for it other than what you already had.

You know in the Roadrunner cartoons, where the rocket-powered roller skates suddenly malfunction and Wylie Coyote finds himself suspended in midair over a canyon? You know that look on his face when he realizes that he's made a huge mistake and is about to pay the price?

Look in the mirror, assholes, that look ought to be pretty familiar just about now.

[mtnester]

30. I have never been so compelled to use this phrase...

lead balloon

[spanone]

31. ...and would these changes apply to Congress???...I seriously doubt it.

[Matariki]

33. Single payer

Raise in taxes to pay for it. Especially corporate taxes.

The fact that companies will no longer have to pay for employee health insurance should more than cover it.

[Zuiderelle]

35. Good. Since they tax domestic partner health benefits already.

Maybe it will educate some people about how horrible that is by making them face the concept of having to pay for it too.

[alfredo]

41. this is aimed at union members who have good coverage.

[AllegroRondo]

48. bingo!

[KansDem]

44. Link goes to "Bush to Seek Cutback in Gas Consumption"

Am I missing something here?