  Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1305 Registered: 08-2006 |
A move is afoot in Congress to tax employer provided health benefits as taxable income. "With President Obama's plan to tax the rich to pay for health care facing deep skepticism on Capitol Hill, key lawmakers are pressing a different way to raise money: taxing the health benefits workers receive from their employers. Since companies began offering group health insurance on a large scale during World War II, the value of that benefit has never been counted as income, reducing workers' taxable earnings by an average of $9,000 a year for family coverage." If Congress succeeds, that $9,000 a year in a 15% income bracket would equal an extra $1,350 of annual taxes. | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 8681 Registered: 02-2007 |
Just in case you don't have that good a memory -- that idea was introduced as part of McCain's health plan, and the senator, Max Baucus (BD - Montana), pushing it is a solid Blue Dog heavily in the pocket of Big Insurance, and has a long history of throwing road blocks in the way of health care reform | ||
Flanders_field Member Username: Flanders_field Post Number: 1797 Registered: 01-2008 |
I would like to see Congress implement an internet porn federal tax of 10% for pay sites. As far as taxing health insurance, businesses might as well stop paying part of the premiums, and just increase employee's wages by the same amount, as what would be the difference? Many companies who can afford to pay for part of the premiums also offer HSAs, that allow an individual or family to estimate their annual out of pocket costs for deductibles and co-pays, using pre-tax income to pay them, rather than after tax income, which has saved me quite a bit of money over the years, unlike those unfortunate employees who do not have an employer paid portion of their health insurance, IF they are even offered any group health insurance at all. IMO, everyone should be able to have access to affordable and complete coverage health insurance, pre-existing conditions or not, and I am completely opposed to permitting ANY medical/dental insurer to profit from the illness and/or injury of US citizens. They should all be required to operate as non-profit HMOs, PPOs, ect... (Message edited by Flanders_field on March 13, 2009) | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1306 Registered: 08-2006 |
I should have included the link for the OP for Rb. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03 /11/AR2009031103827.html Flanders, I agree. I have a employer paid health care plan. If we get a national health care program, I would prefer that the amount my employer presently pays into my health care plan be paid as cash instead. Then the government could pay for my health care because I would no longer have insurance and I would be dollars ahead - even after paying taxes. My employer would probably be glad to oblige. Such a new arrangement would work out especially well for retirees. (Message edited by oladub on March 13, 2009) | ||
20043_stotter Member Username: 20043_stotter Post Number: 828 Registered: 03-2007 |
Seems to me that this is not a new idea. The repubs wanted this along with bastardizing SS to be stock market based. I don't think that repub idea will ever fly again. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19384 Registered: 11-2006 |
For crying out loud....Obama specifically criticized McCain for suggesting a diluted form of this, and now? Just like he said no lobbyist in his administration, not earmarks, and 5 days for public evaluation of bills before signing. | ||
20043_stotter Member Username: 20043_stotter Post Number: 829 Registered: 03-2007 |
Batty, your party lost. Bitch all you want, but in the end, You've got to eat it and pay some of my taxes too. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19390 Registered: 11-2006 |
True...we did. But I am looking forward with hope to the future. Everything the libs do that lacks integrity and harms the country will weigh into the decision at the next elections. | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1307 Registered: 08-2006 |
Bats, Just because the President has already waffled on lobbyists, earmarks, and the 5 day public evaluation of bills does not mean that the President will not maintain his campaign opposition to this new tax. If you read the article you would know that this is being led by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the tax-writing Finance Committee, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and twelve other 13 other senators -- 'from both sides of the aisle'. The article goes on to say, "some congressional Democrats say the White House has signaled that Obama would accept a tax on employer benefits as long as he didn't have to propose it himself." That is just speculation. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 3454 Registered: 02-2007 |
Quote: "and just increase employee's wages by the same amount, as what would be the difference?" About 300% increase in premiums. Just for the hay of it, get a quote for an individual policy, you'll have a new found respect for your employer. And that price you they give you, keep in mind they will increase your premiums every year, and substantially. Large group policies have the bargaining power to keep premiums low. Individually, a person is powerless to sway any bargaining. | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1309 Registered: 08-2006 |
Sstashmoo, My sense of what flanders was saying is that if the federal government is going to offer free health care for everyone without insurance, then it would make sense to accept additional wages instead of employer paid for health care. Both the employer and employee might then be better off. It would be the government that gets stuck with an unanticipated number of uninsured and their expenses. Instead of the now 46M uninsured, the government would also have to insure the additional employees fleeing their private plans. | ||
Bigb23 Member Username: Bigb23 Post Number: 4188 Registered: 11-2007 |
So your private plan works, Oladub ? Thanks for the heads up. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19404 Registered: 11-2006 |
So, if I drop my insurance, (even though I can afford it), the government will pick it up for free? Or, will it be based on the Marxist principle of to each according to his need, and from each according to his ability. Who decides that? | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1312 Registered: 08-2006 |
Bigb23, I don't think you understood my point. However, my private plan does work although it probably should be cheaper and without the ongoing arguments. I wouldn't object to a state plan though if it could offer the same health care at a significant discount. I was trying to point out that the estimates for what a national health care program might cost might be far more than just the cost of insuring the present 46M uninsured because of people jumping out of their private plans - especially if their present employer contributions are taxed more. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19412 Registered: 11-2006 |
HSAs work very well, and are a nice bridge to eventual privatization. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19413 Registered: 11-2006 |
Most importantly. A person can do it right now, and the government is not involved at all...Hmmm, maybe that is why it works? | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 3455 Registered: 02-2007 |
My understanding Of Obama's healthcare plan is it is not free, rather it will be "affordable". And there was some rumblings that medical insurance coverage is to be mandatory, like car insurance. This is what he was saying during his campaign from what I recall. | ||
Flanders_field Member Username: Flanders_field Post Number: 1800 Registered: 01-2008 |
The global economy is here to stay, like it or not. In order to keep US based businesses, other than huge multinational conglomerates competitive, medical/dental insurance should be nationalized. It will need to be heavily regulated, for example, in order to prevent for-profit insurers from cherry-picking only the healthiest and youngest insureds, and denying/dropping coverage for the elderly, infirm, and those with pre-existing conditions. It wouldprobably take pages and pages of law legalese to cover every possible regulation. The McCain plan was deceptive and misleading in the statement that consumers should be able to shop for better coverage across state lines. Well, the fact is that there are reasons why many insurers choose to operate in only certain selected states/areas, and that is due in part, to how loosely or tightly they are controlled and taxed, the general public health, the type of area that they operate in (urban/rural),who they will accept/deny/drop coverage to, how many and what the sizes are of groups/individuals and what types of plans that they will offer. The health "insurance" grass should not be greener on the other side of the fence. Does Wyoming have better and cheaper health insurance coverage than New Jersey? If it does, it is because that state is sparsely populated and is primarily rural. Would a health insurance company in Casper really WANT to cover an individual living in Newark? What about hospitalization and HMOs/PPOs whose insureds must visit certain participating physicians, hospitals, and clinics? | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19439 Registered: 11-2006 |
Obama's plan phases in full socialization over time. | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 8686 Registered: 02-2007 |
and your proof for that is? oh, as usual, non-existent | ||
Flanders_field Member Username: Flanders_field Post Number: 1809 Registered: 01-2008 |
Anything more than troops, officers, and the executive, legislative and judicial levels of government is socialism to Bats, as total privatization apparently improves the odds towards winning the multi-millionaire lifestyle lottery for wealth aspiring objectivists, who really could not care less what happens to the rest of society. "Individual responsibility" is their buzzword excuse to justify their ulterior motives. Grease the wheels for some, and hobble everyone else who have not as yet or can not participate in the race to riches. Life is short, and time will run out, which makes objectivists that much more frantic as they age. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19476 Registered: 11-2006 |
Proof? Tax credits/welfare proposed, universal health care, stimulus packages costing trillions, increased government spending and departments, his budget....what more compelling proof could exist? The government owns 80 percent of AIG, and 40 percent of Citibank now, has a big stake in 2 of the 3 automakers, and on, and on....phasing in control over the means of production. Rb, are you in denial, blind, or both? | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 8697 Registered: 02-2007 |
none of that proves socialism, bats. his call for universal health care doesn't even come close to socialized medicine. you will have to do far better. Govt ownership of AIG & Citi came about UNDER BUSH and bank takeovers on a larger scale are being touted by REPUBLICANS sensible regulation of the markets is NOT socialism. progressive taxes are NOT socialism. Show me ONE thing that indicates Obama wants to permanently nationalize ANYTHING. sorry, you can't. all you have is phony rhetoric that ignores, as usual, the facts. either you are knowingly lying, or you simply have no grasp on truth. which is it? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4563 Registered: 10-2003 |
Mind you, AIG and Citibank came begging the federal government on their hands and knees for a bailout to stay afloat. If Obama was hellbent on socialism, he'd be executing government-initiated corporate takeovers. | ||
Detroitej72 Member Username: Detroitej72 Post Number: 1330 Registered: 05-2006 |
Maybe the government should nationalise doctors. The cost of medicine will come down and everyone wins. Healthcare becomes affordable, and Bats will be forced to be part of a great socialist government all at once!!! | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1325 Registered: 08-2006 |
Detroitej72, Then, maybe doctors will join a union and refuse to work more than 40 hours/week and we will suddenly be short of doctors. I would like this, because my daughter and her boyfriend are working 60-70 hours a week and it is no good for them in a variety of ways. Vive duh Revolution! | ||
Thames Member Username: Thames Post Number: 422 Registered: 02-2007 |
We paid for private health insurance for 10 years because employer sponsored was not available to us. Unlike employer sponsored, we did not get a "pretax deduction" from our income like employees do when they are paying a portion of the premium that the employer pays that gets automatically deducted from their check. 100% of our health insurance premiums, were paid from after tax dollars. It was very hard to make those payments, but we had no choice, we have kids. I do not understand why workers with employer sponsored health insurance can write off 100% of their health insurances premiums from their gross income,and people who pay privately cannot. IMO, if you want to give people a fighting chance, then EVERYONE should get a 100% write off on the money paid for health insurance premiums. I think more people would consider buying privately if they were afforded the same consideration when paying for it. So anyway, now that we have employer sponsored health insurance and we get our nifty pretax deduction for the payments we make, the rumblings are getting louder to tax it. Great. | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 1738 Registered: 12-2007 |
funny...all the doctors I know say they like Medicaid best...they get paid in a timely fashion, instead of jumping through hoops with the insurance companies... | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19504 Registered: 11-2006 |
Yes, 100 percent write off for all health care expenses is a start in the right direction. Medicaid pays, at best, 40 cents on the dollar. | ||
Detroitej72 Member Username: Detroitej72 Post Number: 1332 Registered: 05-2006 |
Maybe you charge 60 cents on the dollar too much? | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19540 Registered: 11-2006 |
Not a bad point. Ideally I would charge as much and as little as a market would indicate. Slightly less than the competition, and/or in exchange for slightly more in the way of quality for the price. The result? highest quality at the lowest cost. EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF A SOCIALIZED SYSTEM. |
