But at least you will all get the same........
Posted on 01/22/2007 9:24:00 PM PST by freedomdefender
About 30 million Americans could face a tax hike under President George W. Bush's plan to expand health insurance coverage and address rising health care costs, the White House said on Monday.
"There are always going to be some winners and some losers, but the people who might initially be losers have options," Kate Baicker, a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, told reporters.
There are about 47 million people with no health insurance in a country of 300 million. Baicker said Bush's tax proposal would result in "upwards of 3 million or more newly insured people."
Bush plans to highlight the plan in Tuesday's State of the Union speech to the U.S. Congress.
Bush is proposing to make health insurance premiums taxable income, with people who get employer-provided plans that cost more than $15,000 a year facing a tax hike if they do not get cheaper insurance, the White House said. Average family coverage offered by employers costs about $11,500 annually.
The president is proposing tax deductions -- $15,000 for a family and $7,500 for an individual whether or not they purchase their own health coverage or get it from their job -- to help buy insurance.
The plan also envisions funneling federal money to states that seek to arrange for uninsured residents to get coverage. But a White House statement said this would involve no new federal spending or entitlements, instead "allocating current federal health care funding more effectively."
Baicker said about 30 million Americans could face higher taxes under the president's plan "if they didn't change their behavior" -- meaning giving up an employer's more generous health plan in favor of a less-costly one. The White House added that "more than 100 million Americans" would save money under Bush's plan.
Baicker described Bush's proposed tax changes as "revenue-neutral," meaning they would neither increase nor decrease the overall income taxes paid to Washington.
DEMOCRATS SKEPTICAL
"The President's so-called health care proposal won't help the uninsured, most of whom have limited incomes and are already in low tax brackets," said California Democratic Rep. Pete Stark, Chairman of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee.
"But it will hurt middle-income Americans, whose employers will shift even more cost and risk to their employees," he added.
Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said Bush will emphasize opposition to proposals favored by some Democrats for universal health coverage run by the government. Without offering many details, Leavitt also said Bush wants to "partner with the states" in developing plans that provide Americans access to basic affordable health coverage.
Under Bush's plan, states could subsidize health insurance premiums directly, they could establish high-risk pools for the sickest people, and could help individuals and small businesses create their own insurance pools.
To get the federal money states would need to make health insurance affordable by such means as "reducing benefit or premium mandates," it said. Currently, each state has its own set of mandated conditions that health insurers must cover.
States already work with the federal government under the Medicare, Medicaid and children's health insurance plans for the elderly, needy and the very young.
Doesn't necessarily sound that bad, but I want to see the details.
Do-Goodery will be the death of us.
This will just drive up the cost of health care even further.
Bush sucks.
And that's been such a huge success, we should try to duplicate it.
Why the hostility to folks with good health plans?
Stand by -- your thread will be pulled too.
Because its tax deductible. If health care is a form of employee compensation, why should it be allowed unlimited taxfree treatment?
Besides, under paygo, the tax cuts for the uninsured have to be offset. A good health plan also gives an incentive to consume excess healthcare.
100 million would save money through the tax CUTS.
Sounds like a good plan to me.
OK Bush Bots are finally getting it that this guy is not the conservative we voted for in 2004 and 2000. What a disappointment is all I can say. The guy is a freaking liberal.
And, as usual, the full burden is placed on the consumer and taxpayer. Not even a tiny effort to go to the real source of the problem, the runaway costs of the medical industry, due to the uncontrolled spending by Medicare and Medicade, etc. The government makes little significant effort to negotiate and control what these programs cost the taxpayer. Thus the medical industry keeps the costs at whatever the governemnt is willing to pay and that, combined with uncontrolled tort cases and frivolous liability law, makes for an out-of-control medical system with obscence costs.
So again the easy path is taken. Just dump it on the taxpayer.
And that's been such a huge success, we should try to duplicate it. Why the hostility to folks with good health plans?
Are you serious????
First off, Medicare and Medicaid payments don't nearly cover the cost of the service provided. Those losses are passed along to us schmoes with private insurance in the form of higher prices.
Second, those "good" health plans that cover everything encourage waste (i.e. running to the M.D. or emergency room for every scratch and sniffle) and discourage patients from seeking ways to keep costs down.
A better idea is to simply abolish Medicaid and lower taxes overall so that people can afford health insurance.
That's what I want to know. I already pay extra to make sure I have a more comprehensive plan that protects us in case of a big medical problem (and it's no better than the state's $50 plan for those with low incomes.)
I am so unimpressed with this idea.
"But it will hurt middle-income Americans, whose employers will shift even more cost and risk to their employees," he added.
I can't believe I am agreeing with a Democrat, but there ya go.
Bush is becoming a Pander Bear. Oh well, we can always look forward to immigration reform./s
Wow, what a coincidence. Just as some conservatives are going insane about possible tax raises that may or may not be in this new plan, Al Rotorooter jumped in with this piece of tripe.
Ain't that the dangedest thing?
The government initially made health insurance contributions by employers tax free to encourage employers to help employees obtain group rated insurance. Now it is percieved as 'taxfree treatment' and emloyers will be expected to cough up even more to the federal government. And if they decide to cancel insurance offerings because they can't bear the costs Ted Kennedy will swoop in and save the 'uninsured' with a new government plan and additional taxes on employers and those who would earn a wage instead of rely on Teddy's handouts.
Step by step the Republicans and the Democrats are forcing us into socialized medicine.
Ron Paul for president. You can be damn sure tax increases and socialized medicine would get his veto.
His daddy broke the "Read My Lips... No NEW taxes"!!!
This IS a NEW tax!!! (none exists there now!)
I understand the logic - become economically responsible for your own health insurance and get a hefty tax deduction.
Most employer-sponsored health plans include the employer paying some % of the premium cost; in the most generous plans they pay all of it. If you go get your own health inusurance is your employer going to pay you in salary what it had been paying-out in health premiums for you? And if not, why not?
The advantage of most employer-sponsored health plans, even when the employee pays the lions-share of the premium cost, is that they usually cost less per-employee than a comparable plan that the employee can get on their own. So, unless the employer is going to replace the health premiums they no longer pay with additional salary, will the April 15th tax dededuction be incentive enough to most people? I am not convinced it is.
Or, conversely, will there be enough people willing to take considerably less actual coverage, for the lesser-price they can afford, again, unless the employer's former health plan contribution adds back into salary, providing $$$ for a personal health savings account to weather major events covered more frugally in the cheaper personal plan.
You manage to both get the key point - and then miss it entirely.
This is a form of behavior which isn't natural to the market - it's a direct result of something the government did before, and it's necessary to undo it (if only partially) in order to make any progress.
This is pushing for the very opposite of socialized medicine - pushing everyone into giant group-rated insurance pools is a far bigger factor in doing so.
Basically, putting everyone into these giant pools is a classic example of "the tragedy of the commons." When everyone has health insurance through their employer, through giant groups:
1) Health insurance companies have little incentive to improve inidividual service.
2) Individuals have nearly zero incentive to control costs.
3) Individuals have little financial incentive to take personal responsibility for their health.
actually it will do the opposite.
See the rising costs of college educations as an example of the effect of "free money" on a market.
Oh, for Christ's sake, folks - this is a very good step, if enacted, a major step away from socialized medicine towards a free-market system of health care.
You folks, many of whom rant about the media, are falling for their BS hook, line, and sinker on this one.
This is a tax change - one which will eventually benefit an overwhelming majority of Americans, and which would actually take the country away from socialized medicine and, frankly, make such a system an awful lot harder to enact.
The goal here is to get people buying their own health insurance, rather than being dumped into giant insurance pools. It would be a lot easier to shift from a system where most people are already part of giant insurance pools to one with just one big pool than to shift from one which each individual is in their own cup.
This, I think . is key. "reducing benefit or premium mandates,"
Lavish employer provided health care plans are one of the big reasons for increased health care costs.
Reign in the excess packages and introduce more personal connection to the health care payment and you will see health care costs go down via marketplace adjustment.
The expansion of employer provided health care benefits came about as government interference (wage caps) and the offering of health care benefits was a way around it. As usual, the unintended consequences would eventually raise their ugly head.
The fastest way to reign in a market saturated by "free money" demand is to make the money less free.
This is also the problem with the rising costs of college education. Scholarships, grants, cheap student loans all contribute to a "free money" atmosphere. As such the consumers are less frugal with their education dollars. When consumers are less frugal, they spend more. When they spend more, the suppliers will charge more because basically because they can.
If everyone was moved to a health care policy like MSA or HSA accounts where they paid out of pocket, received a high deductible policy and could bank their health care dollars and earn interest, they'd be more responsible with their use of the health care system. Instead, everyone now wants a rolls royce because they don't feel like they're paying for the car.
So are you looking forward to Hillary's health care plan?
Absolutely.
The WORST thing that could happen to our health care system is to let the government run it.
And they would find providers becoming more responsive. Look at how the cost of the typically uninsured lasic surgery has come down. Free market competition is a wonderful thing.
Exactly right.
And, what makes it more difficult for any future Congress or President to socialize medicine?
Having health care decisions put back into the hands of the individual.
Right now, I'm sorry to say, a majority of insured people would barely notice the socialization of medicine. It would simply mean that their health care would pass from one insurer they don't choose to another.
I think that reductions in benefit and/or premium "mandates" should only be implemented with increased tax-favor to and implentation of Health Savings Accounts.
The practical affects of less premium "mandates" is, I believe, generally less mandated benefits as well; so the two often go together.
Less mandated benefits also means some increase in risk of lower coverage at some critical juncture.
Health Savings Accounts, which remain in the spectrum of assets of the individual would be a welcome way to obtain some "insurance" against the greater risk of lower benefits.
I respectfully disaggree. Millions of Americans are comfortable with and TRUST the physicians they see. Most of us still have the freedom to choose our physicians. This is a GOOD thing. On the other hand, many good physicians are retiring early. Already the paperwork and the battles for payment are a heavier load than patient care (which is heavy enough). Other possible future physicians are opting for a different career path, for many of the same reasons. We are losing many gifted healers.
God save us from socialized medicine!
This is a key component. Basic health insurance is expensive in large part because of all the things the states makes insurance companies cover in a basic healthcare plan.
Having a very generous plan through my employer, I have mixed emotions about this, but the idea sounds intriguing and innovative. Which almost surely dooms it for failure inside the Beltway.
The big question, as always, is:
Will people who work for government (politicians, teachers, bureaucrats, municipal workers, etc.) be included in whatever "health-care plan" gets signed, and if so, how will their "employer-paid health-care insurance premiums" be calculated?
Read my lips...yadda yadda yadda. The second administration is always more liberal in a Presidency, with the exception of Clinton's. Alas, that's when conservatives controlled the Capital.
"There are about 47 million people with no health insurance in a country of 300 million."
No there are not.
During the course of a year there are, approximately, 47 million people who from time to time, during some point in the year, went without health care insurance.
Some were "without" for days, as they moved from one job to another, or from employer plan to another plan in retirement, or from a parent's plan while in school to employer's plan with first job, etc., etc., etc. . Some of those were "without" for no more than a day, but a single day "without" gets them included in the XX million in the latest report.
Some were "without" while they were looking for a job, but found a job with benefits in weeks or months at the most.
Some were "without" because they are here illegally.
Some were "without" even though their income was low enough that they could have enrolled in Medicaid, if they only would have. And some had Medicaid, moved and did not re-appply in the state they moved to, even though still eligible.
Some have adequate incomes, and maybe even have an employer-sponsored plan they could join with some employee contribution, but they chose not to spend any money on health insurance (many in their early 20s).
Some, very wealthy, are better-off simply self-insuring - using one of their asset accounts as their healthcare reserve (as it continues to earn income or increase in value as long as it is not needed).
But, throughout all 365 days of the year there was never, continuously, 47 million people who were without health care insurance, all at the same time.
Because no one who reports this number ever says what they actually know about it, the manner of its reporting always constitutes a myth.
I had to get a flight physical as a condition of my employment last year. It was cheaper to pay cash to the doctor instead of getting hammered by the insurance company for their initial pound of flesh. I have to re-up the medical in March. I'll do the same again.
They tax us when we EARN a dollar, then they tax what we SPEND on what's left of that same dollar. If you OWN anything (which you busted your ass to get), you get taxed on the VALUE (whatever they deem it to be) of what you OWN even after you were taxed on the dollars you earned before AND after you BOUGHT it.
You want a telephone? Well, there are taxes on even HAVING a telephone, whether you use it much, or not. You are taxed on your cable or satellite TV, your utilities (that's if you want heat, lights and water) and your garbage pick up.
You plan to grow old, do you? Maybe you're counting on Social Security to bolster the retirement dollars you somehow managed to save over the years (after being taxed on any interest you earned by saving)? Those Social "Security" dollars they took out of every paycheck you ever earned (which were taxed when you earned it, and for which you didn't receive a penny of interest) are now taxed AGAIN when you dare to grow old enough to collect part of what you paid in over the years.
If somehow you managed to accumulate some real wealth (in dollars or property) after all this, DON'T DIE! Whatever you earned isn't really yours to give to your heirs. THE GOVERNMENT will decide how much you can leave behind after you are DEAD! Even with all that money that was stolen from you over your lifetime, you never have any say in how it's spent.
Good plan! I like the map thing. I'll have to make a note of that! =)
I do, too. Sad to say, many don't feel that responsibility.
Someone want to explain this to me??? WHERE do I get cheaper insurance than I get from my work???? I know people who are paying outragious amonts to get insurance on their own!!!!
Well, there's always going on welfare. /s
Heh, you beat me to the punch. Bush = super-liberal. Time to get his carcass out of White House.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.