At first glance this looks ok, but it turns out to really be "giving with one hand and taking with the other" as in shifting costs around instead.
Code:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush will propose a tax deduction of $7,500 for individuals and $15,000 for families regardless of whether they buy their own health insurance or receive medical coverage at work.
The proposal, to be announced Tuesday in his State of the Uni0n address, is aimed at giving the uninsured an incentive to purchase a medical plan. It also is designed to encourage those with generous plans to either embrace cheaper insurance or pay taxes on the part that exceeds the deduction, a Bush administration official familiar with the proposals said Saturday.
If passed by Congress, the proposal would be the first time that workers could get a tax break if they bought their own insurance.
But it also would be the first time that some employer-provided health care benefits could be taxed. Health care benefits provided by companies are currently exempt from income and payroll taxes.
In his nationally televised speech, Bush also will announce steps to take some federal money now going to hospitals and other facilities and give it to states for programs to reduce the number of uninsured people.
The cost of health care is growing more than two times faster than wages, making it harder for families to buy insurance and for employers to sponsor a health benefit for workers, Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address.
"Our challenge is clear: We must address these rising costs, so that more Americans can afford basic health insurance," Bush said. "And we need to do it without creating a new federal entitlement program or raising taxes."
Further details of the two proposals were to be announced in the State of the Uni0n address.
"The tax code unfairly penalizes people who do not get health insurance through their job," Bush said.
Rangel: Proposal shifts costs 'from employers to employees'
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-New York, is not embracing the idea.
"This is a dangerous policy that ultimately shifts cost and risk from employers to employees and could result in a higher number of uninsured," Rangel said. "The new, Democratic majority in Congress is interested in relieving, not increasing, working families' tax burden."
But another senior administration official said the size of the deduction is higher than the cost of an average policy, which currently is estimated at $11,500.
Because of this, about 80 percent of people with employer-based plans will actually see their tax liability fall because their insurance policies cost less than the deduction, he said.
Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not want to pre-empt the president's speech.
Up to 48 million Americans uninsured at some point in year
There are an estimated 46 million to 48 million people in the United States who are uninsured at some point during the year.
"Most of the uninsured are people who are working and they've got a little bit too high of income to qualify for Medicaid or other government programs. If they buy health insurance they have to pay for it entirely out of their own pocket," Mark McClellan, former administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, said in a telephone interview. "This would be a significant amount of new help for them."
Bush also wants to redirect federal dollars that hospitals and other institutions get to help cover costs for caring for the uninsured. With this money, states would set up programs to assist people in getting health coverage and help people with high-cost health conditions.
Several states are working to reduce the number of people living without health insurance.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, for instance, has announced a plan that would cost $12 billion a year to extend health care coverage to most of the state's 6.5 million uninsured. That would make it the second state, after Massachusetts, to require everyone to carry insurance.
Hospital administrators are worried about what the president's plan will mean for their facilities. They fear they will get fewer dollars when they treat Medicare patients. They say federal reimbursements already fail to cover costs.
From the article (which we probably shouldn't be quoting in full):
Quote:
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-New York, is not embracing the idea.
"This is a dangerous policy that ultimately shifts cost and risk from employers to employees and could result in a higher number of uninsured," Rangel said. "The new, Democratic majority in Congress is interested in relieving, not increasing, working families' tax burden."
Rangel appears to be entirely wrong. I'd like an explanation as this seems like fear-mongering.
What Bush is suggesting would probably benefit the most people in the country although not me personally as my health coverage benefits are very generous.
sjc Thinker
Joined: Nov 12, 2006
Posts: 423
Posted:
Tue Jan 23, 2007 8:22 am
Saitou wrote:
From the article (which we probably shouldn't be quoting in full):
Quote:
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-New York, is not embracing the idea.
"This is a dangerous policy that ultimately shifts cost and risk from employers to employees and could result in a higher number of uninsured," Rangel said. "The new, Democratic majority in Congress is interested in relieving, not increasing, working families' tax burden."
Rangel appears to be entirely wrong. I'd like an explanation as this seems like fear-mongering.
What Bush is suggesting would probably benefit the most people in the country although not me personally as my health coverage benefits are very generous.
No, he is right about what Bush is doing. All it is doing is shifting the costs to those who can least afford it and he explained.
Saitou Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 02, 2002
Posts: 5018
Location: USA
Posted:
Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:28 am
If he explained it show me where. An explanation does not exist in this thread. If you think there was then it simply shows you are easily fooled by rhetoric.
If employers stop buying their employee's health coverage for them then the employers will give their employees that money so they can buy it themselves. If that money is untaxed then most people will come out the same or ahead. They might find adequate insurance in another plan that covers less and costs less and keep the difference. This could result in a downward pressure on health coverage costs as people shop around.
sjc Thinker
Joined: Nov 12, 2006
Posts: 423
Posted:
Wed Jan 24, 2007 6:36 am
Saitou wrote:
If he explained it show me where. An explanation does not exist in this thread. If you think there was then it simply shows you are easily fooled by rhetoric.
You're the one who is also denying the facts of global warming. I never expect you to understand any of this in terms of the real human costs. You talk standard of living while I speak about quality of life.
Quote:
If employers stop buying their employee's health coverage for them then the employers will give their employees that money so they can buy it themselves.
The employers get a volume discount. A single employee, and their family, wouldn't so it'll end up costing them much more.
Quote:
If that money is untaxed then most people will come out the same or ahead.
This will be taxable now when it wasn't before.
Quote:
They might find adequate insurance in another plan that covers less and costs less and keep the difference.
Maybe you can show the 48 million Americans, without any health insurance, this?
Quote:
This could result in a downward pressure on health coverage costs as people shop around.
Yeah, and the Sun could go nova tomorrow as well. Proper health care coverage in America is a growing problem. It adversely affects over 162 million Americans. It goes from no coverage at all to crappy coverage, to full but just one extended stay at a hospital from causing the holder to go bankrupt. Some of the policies available are worse than nothing at all. What with their sky high deductibles and extremely limited coverage.
Saitou Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 02, 2002
Posts: 5018
Location: USA
Posted:
Thu Jan 25, 2007 6:57 am
sjc wrote:
You talk standard of living while I speak about quality of life.
In what way do you differentiate the two?
Quote:
If employers stop buying their employee's health coverage for them then the employers will give their employees that money so they can buy it themselves.
sjc wrote:
The employers get a volume discount. A single employee, and their family, wouldn't so it'll end up costing them much more.
It would still be possible to get group and volume discounts. You're assuming certain this won't change because you are trying to pile on negatives.
Quote:
If that money is untaxed then most people will come out the same or ahead.
sjc wrote:
This will be taxable now when it wasn't before.
Only the money that's above a certain amount. And WOW! suddenly sjc is against taxes!
Quote:
This could result in a downward pressure on health coverage costs as people shop around.
sjc wrote:
Proper health care coverage in America is a growing problem. It adversely affects over 162 million Americans. It goes from no coverage at all to crappy coverage, to full but just one extended stay at a hospital from causing the holder to go bankrupt. Some of the policies available are worse than nothing at all. What with their sky high deductibles and extremely limited coverage.
Your nonsense here is full of gross exaggerations and typical manufactured liberal negativism and hand-wringing. Costs need to come down and what Bush is suggesting is a non-socialist step in the right direction.
(at least compared to socializing the entire system)
sjc Thinker
Joined: Nov 12, 2006
Posts: 423
Posted:
Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:10 am
You really must hate America to be such a loser.
Saitou Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 02, 2002
Posts: 5018
Location: USA
Posted:
Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:39 am
sjc wrote:
You really must hate America to be such a loser.
How can I be a loser? My standard of living and my quality of life are both better than yours. I'm also taller, more handsome, and fill out my pants better.
This could result in a downward pressure on health coverage costs as people shop around.
sjc wrote:
Proper health care coverage in America is a growing problem. It adversely affects over 162 million Americans. It goes from no coverage at all to crappy coverage, to full but just one extended stay at a hospital from causing the holder to go bankrupt. Some of the policies available are worse than nothing at all. What with their sky high deductibles and extremely limited coverage.
Your nonsense here is full of gross exaggerations and typical manufactured liberal negativism and hand-wringing. Costs need to come down and what Bush is suggesting is a non-socialist step in the right direction.
(at least compared to socializing the entire system)
I've got to agree with the conservatives on this one. I'm quite unaccustomed to advocating tax hikes (even though I confess that I'm not sure whether this will be a tax hike or just a transfer of the tax burden), but we've got to start moving towards a system where the people spending the money are the people paying. That's the only way to truly solve the health care situation.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Proper health care coverage in America is a growing problem. It adversely affects over 162 million Americans. It goes from no coverage at all to crappy coverage, to full but just one extended stay at a hospital from causing the holder to go bankrupt. Some of the policies available are worse than nothing at all. What with their sky high deductibles and extremely limited coverage.
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file