Upfront costs complicate Obama's health care plan (Tax HC benefits?)

[slipslidingaway]

Senate ponders how to pay for expanded health coverage; cost could go as high as $1.5 trillion

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Upfront-costs-complicate-apf-15193703.html


"Costs are emerging as the biggest obstacle to President Barack Obama's ambitious plan to provide health insurance for everybody.

Details of the health legislation have not been written, but the broad outlines of the overhaul are known. Economists and other experts say the $634 billion that Obama's budget sets aside for health care will pay perhaps half the cost....

In the campaign, Obama opposed tampering with tax-free employer-based health care, saying it would undermine the system that delivers coverage to most people. Other prominent Democrats agree. Asked if he would support taxing benefits, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., the top tax-writer in the House, simply said: "No way!"

Baucus says doing away with the tax break altogether would cause harm, but some limitations might curb waste in the system. Obama's aides say he's still opposed, but willing to consider any serious proposals from Congress..."

[slipslidingaway]

1. Someone is putting out the idea that HC benefits might have to be

taxed at some rate???

[ChazII]

2. That is scary. n/t

[slipslidingaway]

3. I agree n/t

[stray cat]

4. It is one way they are considering to help finance the plan - see link below

I would hate to see it happen but it seems to be under serious consideration. Someone has to pay.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/us/politics/15health.html?fta=y

The Obama administration is signaling to Congress that the president could support taxing some employee health benefits, as several influential lawmakers and many economists favor, to help pay for overhauling the health care system

[madrchsod]

5. that`s the dumbest fucking idea i`ve heard in a long time

[slipslidingaway]

6. Thanks for the article, just skimmed for now, wonder how many

people would be in favor of this.

:shrug:

[SmileyRose]

7. Bullshit

if universal single payer is enacted and providers have no choice but to contract with the government at a fair price at a more reasonable profit margin then we will be able to deliver basic medical care to everyone in this country for FAR cheaper than we collectively spend on medical care now.

[slipslidingaway]

8. Problem is, they are not considering SP, Tuesday is the last

roundtable discussion by the Senate Finance Committee.

[SmileyRose]

9. I know

sorry. You know when I reread my post I realized it came off as harsh toward you personally and I didn't mean that. Just the article. It's pure propaganda in that it doesn't even cover the reality of what I mentioned.

Anyway, sorry for the harshness. The medical care this is a little TOO personal right now.

[slipslidingaway]

10. Thanks and actually it was not harsh, what I sensed was

frustration and apparently for good reason.

No problem :)

[TheBigotBasher]

11. There is a thriving medical insurance industry in the UK

even after tax relief was removed in 1997. They have to compete against FREE. They do so by being low cost, but offering a luxury service.

[slipslidingaway]

12. kick nt

[pnutbutr]

13. hooray for the screw job

I'd be taxed an additional $100 a month when I already live paycheck to paycheck on a tight budget.

[slipslidingaway]

14. Waiting to see how they will sell any tax on HC benefits....

if that is what they decide to do, this might be one way.

See the HC industries are contributing, now the workers need to contribute.

:(


http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1111675020090511

"UPDATE 1-Obama: Health overhaul could save U.S. trillions"