Health Care: If you like what you have-Tough!

[laughingliberal]

Job-Based Health Care Threatened

WASHINGTON — Job-based health care benefits could wind up on the chopping block if President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans get serious about cutting the deficit.

Budget proposals from leaders in both parties have urged shrinking or eliminating tax breaks that help make employer health insurance the leading source of coverage in the nation and a middle-class mainstay.

The idea isn't to just raise revenue, economists say, but finally to turn Americans into frugal health care consumers by having them face the full costs of their medical decisions.

Such a re-engineering was rejected by Democrats only a few months ago, at the height of the health care overhaul debate. But Washington has changed, with Republicans back in power and widespread fears that the burden of government debt may drag down the economy. <snip>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/28/health-care-tax-break-deficit_n_788852.html

Bush's 'ownership society' anyone?

[leftstreet]

1. K&R

[saracat]

2. "Just die " anyone??????? That's frugal! K+R

[laughingliberal]

10. Or...don't get sick. Simple, huh? nt

[Autumn]

3. They are dead serious about cutting the deficit,

it won't cause any pain at all to Obama and congressional leaders.

[Toucano]

4. Interesting.

Since "what you have" is wildly inefficient, perhaps this will force a wake up to the merits of single-payer.

It seems punitive in the short term, however.

[egoclothes]

5. The leaders of Obama's deficit commission .. have proposed to limit the tax break or eliminate i

no surprise.


....The leaders of Obama's deficit commission – Democrat Erskine Bowles, a former Clinton White House chief of staff, and Alan Simpson, a former GOP senator from Wyoming – have proposed to limit the tax break or eliminate it along with other cherished deductions, such as the one for mortgage interest. That would allow for a big cut in tax rates.

The commission is supposed to report its plan on Wednesday. It's unclear if leaders have the votes to back their sweeping changes.

[Chan790]

6. Ironically...

that might be the first step towards a single-payer system.

One of the big stumbling blocks to that end is actually employer-based insurance programs and how to allow people to maintain their current job-based coverage if they so choose in a single-payer environment. Further, by shifting that expense to one that wage-earners can more easily see it becomes easier to discuss a single-payer program in terms of costs to the public. (Your taxes will go up X yearly, but your out-of-pocket is currently Y; where X <80% of Y.) Three, it will piss off a lot of people looking for wallet relief and single-payer offers both end-consumers/taxpayers and the federal government wallet-relief.

Now all we have to do is not shoot ourselves in the foot by ever referring to it as Medicare Part E or Medicare-for-all. Medicare is seen as an expensive, poorly-run, ineffective and not-entirely-useful entitlement by most non-seniors.

[laughingliberal]

8. However, reality in the good, ole US of A is costs will shift to individuals & it'll be...

"Mission Accomplished." We'll all be long dead before it results in any push for single payer.

[Autumn]

7. What the fuck does Tom Daschle have to do

with anything? from the article:

"There is no short-term prospect of enactment," former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a leading Democratic adviser on health care. "However, in a tax reform (and) deficit reducing context in the long term, the prospects are much better," said Daschle. He opposes repealing the tax break by itself, but says he would be "willing to look" at it with other changes that improve access to quality health care while reducing costs.

He's a fucking lobbyist ?????:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Little Star]

9. Good question!