Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush to float health insurance tax break
yahoo (via AP) ^ | 1/20/2007 | DEB RIECHMANN

Posted on 01/20/2007 8:18:47 AM PST by PtrainerNYC

WASHINGTON - President Bush will propose in his State of the Union address a tax break for people who buy their own health insurance and a limit on how much coverage individuals can receive tax free at work. ADVERTISEMENT

The proposal to be announced Tuesday offers a tax deduction to people who purchase coverage and urges those with generous plans to either embrace cheaper insurance or pay taxes on part of it, according to a Bush administration official familiar with the proposals.

If passed by Congress, the plan would be the first time that workers could get a tax break for buying their own insurance. At the same time, it would be the first time that some employer-provided health care benefits could be taxed.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: healthinsurance
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-116 next last
Basically if you dont have health insurance you get a tax break. If your job gives you health insurance you'll pay tax on it to cover the new tax break. Redistribution at its worst!
1 posted on 01/20/2007 8:18:48 AM PST by PtrainerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PtrainerNYC

Can someone explain the difference between Democrats and Republicans again? Lately, I'm having a hard time differentiating between the two.


2 posted on 01/20/2007 8:25:04 AM PST by CrawDaddyCA (Paul/Tancredo 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PtrainerNYC

God help us. Now our compassionate conservative (LMFAO) President is going socialist on us AGAIN. Another move to redistribute the wealth of America. Karl Marx would be proud of such a proposal. Every time we turn around now, Bush is pandering to the socialists.

Oh, yes, read my lips: "No New Taxes"...straight from the Bush legacy.


3 posted on 01/20/2007 8:25:22 AM PST by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PtrainerNYC

Sub-S employees that own more than 2% of the company already pay Federal and State taxes on health insurance coverage. However, if you own 2% of a company you usually can afford it. I would prefer to pay for my own health insurance because I would get only a major medical policy with a high deductible in conjunction with a Health Savings Account. It would be cheaper.


4 posted on 01/20/2007 8:29:06 AM PST by flynmudd (Proud Navy Mom to OSSA Blalock-DDG 61)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PtrainerNYC
urges those with generous plans to either embrace cheaper insurance or pay taxes on part of it,

Somebody, somewhere, needs to go embrace a grenade. (Any damages incurred will likely be covered by their embraceable cheaper insurance.)

5 posted on 01/20/2007 8:30:09 AM PST by DumpsterDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PtrainerNYC

You're not correct.

FR does NOT have a good feel for this world. The reason is most FReepers are getting a group plan through their jobs. The problem with this is it corrupts FR's perspective of normal American life -- which are the self employed, employees of very small businesses who can't offer health insurance, and a growing additional group are early retirees -- who by definition are not yet 65 and can't get Medicare yet.

Group plans do NOT exclude pre-existing conditions. Repeat. Group plans generally do not exclude pre-existing conditions.

Individual plans can. Insurers won't take on that risk.

The world is changing, people. Retirees are almost NEVER provided health insurance as part of an early out package. They have to find their own -- and if during those years they were part of a group plan they developed a health problem then they have a pre-existing condition and No Insurer Will Cover Them.

As for the idea of taxing superb health coverage, that generally will focus on senior executives who go to hyper thorough physicals that cost 10's of thousands of dollars. The cost of that is paid by the company and the company is now currently taking it as a deduction from its generic sales revenue. So this would not really be a tax increase. It would be more of a closing of that loophole of the company.

People, FR has to get calibrated on this. Health Insurance is likely going to be a bigger issue in 2008 than Iraq. Iraq will be done as a victory or done as a defeat by then.

The problem of pre-existing conditions is crushing. Early retirees face risks to their life savings by not being able to get insurance. The boomers are aging and this group is growing.


6 posted on 01/20/2007 8:30:46 AM PST by Owen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CrawDaddyCA

Can someone explain the difference between Democrats and Republicans again? Lately, I'm having a hard time differentiating between the two.

They are all the same.  Power hungry idiots who have long forgotten who they work for.

As I see it, most of our lawmakers ARE corrupt and the ones who aren't are too scared when they go home at night to stand up to the corrupt ones.

Who would protect them?  So, the good lawmakers have to be "good little people" and just go along with the corrupt lawmakers or else!  Pity, isn't it. 


7 posted on 01/20/2007 8:44:57 AM PST by SheLion (When you're right, take up the fight!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PtrainerNYC
Big government Republicanism meets social engineering.

What's up Doc!? LOL

8 posted on 01/20/2007 8:49:08 AM PST by Reagan Man (Conservatives don't vote for liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Owen
"The problem of pre-existing conditions is crushing. Early retirees face risks to their life savings by not being able to get insurance. The boomers are aging and this group is growing."

It's not nearly as bad as it once was and we've made enormous strides in addressing this problem, however it's a state issue and every state is different. Pre ex is largely waived if you've had continuous coverage however individual carriers may decline you outright since they can't attach pre ex. California and many states have addressed this by offered guarantee issue policies for early retirees however at a greater expense. We also have 36 monhts of COBRA so we're really talking about folks who retire pre age 62 with health conditions who have to pay a mark up for the guaranteed product. I think we've come a long way in this area and could solve this issue separately.
I agree this is in no way a tax increase and more resembles the efforts to reduce the marriage penalty. He's talking about reducing the deduction for group insurance, not eliminating it and correspondingly increasing the deduction for private individual insurance. This is a glaring gap that's existed far too long and strikes me as a no brainer. Groups need to continue increasing their deductibles and decreasing their deductibles. I'm on a HSA as of Jan. 1 and I can't tell you enough about how efficient it is.
9 posted on 01/20/2007 8:51:51 AM PST by Bogeygolfer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Owen

Early retirees? What age do you consider being an early retiree? I mean, I don't want to sound rude, but for many Americans the only reason they work is for health insurance. So why should early retirees be any different? At least the retiree as something like 18 months of cobra. Then, at 65, they get Medicare...what am I missing here?


10 posted on 01/20/2007 8:52:53 AM PST by Hildy (Words are mere bubbles of water...but deeds are drops of gold.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PtrainerNYC

what? I have to pay taxes now on my employer provided health insurance?


11 posted on 01/20/2007 8:53:03 AM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Owen

The problem of pre-existing conditions is crushing. Early retirees face risks to their life savings by not being able to get insurance. The boomers are aging and this group is growing.
------
Yes, this is a major problem. So what is your idea for a solution?? What can early retirees do? Should the government disallow rejection for pre-existing conditions, or allow targeted Medicare coverage for pre-existing issues for those not yet 65 who have thier own policies...the latter sounds like a fair idea to me.


12 posted on 01/20/2007 8:55:01 AM PST by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PtrainerNYC
"Basically if you dont have health insurance you get a tax break. If your job gives you health insurance you'll pay tax on it to cover the new tax break. Redistribution at its worst!"

That's not even close to a fair analysis. As it stands people with individual coverage are left paying with after tax dollars while group coverage gets a 100% deduction. This is an effort to balance that as well as to continue to encourage higher deductibles which eliminate waste in the system. People run to the emergency room with colds or pains on a regular basis as well as uncounted trips to the doctors which could be handled with over the counter meds. Waste is a killer and the high deductible do wonders. The break in premium so far outweighs the higher deductible since the insurance carrier knows the end result will be far less claims when it's our money we're spending they can pass it along and still come out ahead. So far it's working extremely well and health savings accounts are booming.
13 posted on 01/20/2007 8:56:28 AM PST by Bogeygolfer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PtrainerNYC

What are you talking about?

You don't get the tax break UNLESS YOU buy insurance. Personal responsibility. Right now it's skewed all in favor of employers which is a very inefficient way to insure people.


14 posted on 01/20/2007 8:57:26 AM PST by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Owen

the "normal american life" you cite does include those groups yiu mention - but also includes a boatload of people in the private sector EARNING health coverage as part of their compensation. My employer doesn't GIVE me health coverage, I EARN it. and now I have to pay a new tax on it?

the hell with this.

if this tax passes, the republican party can kiss the votes of middle class private sector wage earners with health coverage - goodbye.


15 posted on 01/20/2007 8:57:28 AM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

if I want to retire at 58, unless I can buy into my (former) employers plan - its hard to get gap insurance to bridge to medicare.


16 posted on 01/20/2007 8:58:34 AM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PtrainerNYC
Basically if you dont have health insurance you get a tax break. If your job gives you health insurance you'll pay tax on it to cover the new tax break. Redistribution at its worst!

Not really. Employer-paid benefits are in fact income and should be taxed as such. Removing the tax break for non-cash benefits would be an important step toward unhooking from the third-party payment system, which is a big part of the health care problem.

If we are going to subsidize health insurance at all (which IMHO we should not, except for low-income individuals), the subsidy should be equalized for people whose employers don't cover them.

There is no reason why Joe, who works for GM, Intel, or the government, should receive tax-subsidized health care while Sam, who works for the corner laundry, does not. In fact, Joe is probably making a lot more to begin with. While there are certainly exceptions to the rule, the tax treatment of health insurance is a classic regressive subsidy.

17 posted on 01/20/2007 8:59:52 AM PST by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Owen

so you think the tax is only going to cover "senior executives"? I doubt that, that segment is too small to be worthy of some special tax. no, its likely to be a broad based tax on anyone earning a decent health care plan at their place of employment.


18 posted on 01/20/2007 9:00:17 AM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

There are lots of options out there. You may have to pay through the nose. But most private payers do. Why should you be different?


19 posted on 01/20/2007 9:00:43 AM PST by Hildy (Words are mere bubbles of water...but deeds are drops of gold.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sphinx

so let's use the tax to punish everyone down to a level where they are getting crappy coverage. that sounds like your plan.


20 posted on 01/20/2007 9:01:27 AM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CrawDaddyCA
Both parties are "tone" deaf....

Politicians are such scum bags.......

I working my butt off and the taxing authorities are killing me.

21 posted on 01/20/2007 9:01:30 AM PST by pointsal (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PtrainerNYC

Solution:

http://fairtax.org


22 posted on 01/20/2007 9:02:31 AM PST by groanup (Limited government is the answer. Now, what's the question?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

I am not saying I should be, I am just identifying this as a problem area for alot of people.


23 posted on 01/20/2007 9:02:32 AM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PtrainerNYC

Here's the deal folks. It's better for you as an employee to have the right to deduct the cost of getting your own insurance. The company that you work for should not have this right solely. THIS IS GOOD NOT BAD. This way, an individual can get a Health Savings Account and deduct its cost. Why should the employer be the only one with this benefit? HSAs are GOOD, because they will help us keep health care costs down and you get to keep the cash that you do not use. They are proven.

Granted, if you don't get the insurance, you don't get the tax break. That's no big deal, because you weren't getting it before.

You can take this insurance with you wherever you work. It is transportable. It is yours. There are tons of benefits.


24 posted on 01/20/2007 9:02:52 AM PST by cowtowney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: groanup

indeed. before I embrace having my employer provided plan (the part of it I don't pay for with co-pays) taxed as income, I'd be in favor of universal medicare funded by a broad based consumption tax.

we have to stop taxing the hell out of wages in this country.


25 posted on 01/20/2007 9:04:45 AM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cowtowney

that part of the plan is fine, the new tax is not.


26 posted on 01/20/2007 9:05:28 AM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: CrawDaddyCA
Can someone explain the difference between Democrats and Republicans again? Lately, I'm having a hard time differentiating between the two.

Democrats tax and spend.

Republicans spend and tax.

27 posted on 01/20/2007 9:07:09 AM PST by Mad_Tom_Rackham (Well, it's 2007. Time to get ready for 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

Potentially - the idea is not to tax you, but to get people to go out and buy their own health insurance on the open market. Putting people in massive group plans drives costs up, does nothing to encourage individual responsibility (in that it pools the costs of the healthy and the least healthy), and denies individual flexibility.

The ideal system would feature individually-purchased low-premium, high-deductible insurance combined with various tax measures, and health savings accounts.

The present "insurance" system is horribly wasteful in large part because it's expected to behave in a way which no other type of "insurance" does - namely, to cover the day-to-day costs of health care. Imagine what auto insurance would cost if it covered the cost of oil changes and wheel reblanacnings.


28 posted on 01/20/2007 9:11:05 AM PST by furquhart (Time for a New Crusade - Deus lo Volt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
If people paid for minor health care themselves and left major care (surgery, etc.) to insurance, costs could drop significantly.

But then again, Bush needs a tax increase to pay for medical care of the millions of illegal immigrants he is letting flood into our country.

29 posted on 01/20/2007 9:14:49 AM PST by Mad_Tom_Rackham (Well, it's 2007. Time to get ready for 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Owen

What you say is true. Getting health insurance these days can be a nightmare for our kids.

But you don't solve the problem by piling more and more bureaucratic layers on top of it. That road was taken by Canada and Europe, and it is destroying their economies and medical systems.

One reason why healthcare is so expensive is that the lawyers and insurers are getting more and more of the money and the doctors less and less. Paperwork is crushing, too. Where a small group practice used to have one secretary, they now have to hire five, just to fill out all the required forms.

Hillarycare failed, but clinton managed to pile a number of reforms on anyway. It's noticeable that costs have skyrocketed ever since, and a lot of huge insurance buildings were built with the proceeds.


30 posted on 01/20/2007 9:16:16 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
so let's use the tax to punish everyone down to a level where they are getting crappy coverage. that sounds like your plan.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

As a matter of good tax policy, all income should be treated equally. If it were up to me, I would count all employer paid benefits as income. I would also count all government transfer payments as income. Broaden the base and reduce the rates.

On a parallel track, good health policy would shift us from third-party payment to individual control. Get the employers out of the loop. And again, if there is to be any subsidy at all (apart from the poor, who will have to be subsidized in any system), it makes no sense to award the subsidy arbitrarily, based on employer choices.

In general, the bigger the employer the higher the wages and the richer the benefit package. That's fine. But there is no reason to provide a tax-code distorting, health-system distorting regressive subsidy on top of that.

For the record, I now work for a large employer, am well paid, and have good benefits. I am goring my own ox here, but if we are serious about tax and health-care reform, we have to be willing to let the chips fall where they may.

For a similar set of reasons, we should phase out the home mortgage interest deduction (which is mostly an illusion anyhow). We wrongfoot ourselves if we complain about housing subsidies for the poor while receiving significantly greater subsidies ourselves. The only difference is that their subsidies are paid by HUD and ours are laundered through the IRS.

31 posted on 01/20/2007 9:17:54 AM PST by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Owen
hg
The problem of pre-existing conditions is crushing
 
There is a way around this.  Until just recently I would have agreed with you. I'm preparing to move my permanent residence back to the Kansas City area and would prefer to live on the Johnson County Kansas side of the city where I spent most of my adult life both working and living. However, during the last 15 years my residence of record has been Lake Ozark Missouri and I have had Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Missouri.
 
If I move back to Kansas I have to change insurers. It will still be BC/BS but of Kansas instead of of Missouri, a different policy and hence, my diabetes will be considered a pre-existing condition and will no longer be covered.
 
Essentially, I thought I would be a prisoner of the state of Missouri the rest of my life.  But the exception is this:  AARP offers group medical insurance that appears to be as good as my private Blue Cross at a group price.  Any doctor I want, same deductibles etc.  And one can join AARP at age 50.

 

32 posted on 01/20/2007 9:29:05 AM PST by HawaiianGecko (Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
I think this is one of the Bush Admins plans to preempt Hillary.

I bet you will see more Health Care issues being pushed from the President in the new future, because Hillary will be coming out with Plans very soon.
33 posted on 01/20/2007 9:29:18 AM PST by FLOutdoorsman (The Man who says it can't be done should not interrupt the man doing it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: PtrainerNYC
"Basically if you dont have health insurance you get a tax break. If your job gives you health insurance you'll pay tax on it to cover the new tax break. Redistribution at its worst!"

You've got it all wrong. When you receive insurance from your work, it is tax free. However, if you pay for it yourself, you get taxed on the dollars you used to pay for it. Bush is trying to put them on equal footing, which is the right thing to do. Plus, and this is what really needs to be done, TOO MUCH INSURANCE COVERAGE AND FREE COVERAGE FROM EMPLOYERS IS WHAT IS CAUSING HIGH HEALTH CARE COSTS. Until people understand that, and it does sound counterintuitive, we will have health care problems.
34 posted on 01/20/2007 9:29:48 AM PST by Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sphinx

Still sounds like a TAX INCREASE to me (and it will be a tax increase for me as I have very good employer-provided coverage.)

What a dumb idea. This State-of-the-Union speech already has "disaster" written all over it. You can bet your last dollar that the MSM will be talking about the "Bush tax increase" for weeks after the speech (recalling the experience of his father).


35 posted on 01/20/2007 9:30:35 AM PST by nj26 (Border Security=Homeland Security... Put Our Military on the Border! (Proud2BNRA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Hendrix

"TOO MUCH INSURANCE COVERAGE AND FREE COVERAGE FROM EMPLOYERS IS WHAT IS CAUSING HIGH HEALTH CARE COSTS. Until people understand that, and it does sound counterintuitive, we will have health care problems."

There's a vote loser. Recalls the phrase: "We are going to take things away from you for the common good."

I have good health care coverage from my employer, and I don't want it taken away (or taxed) by Bush or any other politician.

Bush is acting like a Socialist. Rehearsal for President Hillary.


36 posted on 01/20/2007 9:32:03 AM PST by nj26 (Border Security=Homeland Security... Put Our Military on the Border! (Proud2BNRA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: FLOutdoorsman

"I think this is one of the Bush Admins plans to preempt Hillary."

He's certainly acting like a Socialist tax raiser. Warm-up for President Hillary.


37 posted on 01/20/2007 9:33:02 AM PST by nj26 (Border Security=Homeland Security... Put Our Military on the Border! (Proud2BNRA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
if I want to retire at 58, unless I can buy into my (former) employers plan - its hard to get gap insurance to bridge to medicare.

you can move to Califronia and let the state supply you with insurance thanks to the Governator....
38 posted on 01/20/2007 9:33:30 AM PST by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Bogeygolfer
"That's not even close to a fair analysis. As it stands people with individual coverage are left paying with after tax dollars while group coverage gets a 100% deduction. This is an effort to balance that as well as to continue to encourage higher deductibles which eliminate waste in the system. People run to the emergency room with colds or pains on a regular basis as well as uncounted trips to the doctors which could be handled with over the counter meds. Waste is a killer and the high deductible do wonders. The break in premium so far outweighs the higher deductible since the insurance carrier knows the end result will be far less claims when it's our money we're spending they can pass it along and still come out ahead. So far it's working extremely well and health savings accounts are booming."

BINGO! We have somebody on this board who actually understands the problem and the solution.
39 posted on 01/20/2007 9:34:09 AM PST by Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: flynmudd

Dear flynmudd,

"Sub-S employees that own more than 2% of the company already pay Federal and State taxes on health insurance coverage."

That was once true, but I don't think it is anymore.

During the late 1990s and early 2000s, deductibility of health insurance premiums for folks who own their own businesses was phased in. I remember when I didn't receive any deduction for my premiums, but I remember that over the years, I received increasingly higher percentages of deductibility, until now, it's either 80% or 100% (I don't remember off the top of my head).

However, we just started a plan with an HSA component, and as the owner, I don't get the deduction for contributions to my own Health Savings Account (although, of course, my business gets a deduction for contributions to my workers' accounts).


sitetest


40 posted on 01/20/2007 9:34:40 AM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: nj26
There's a vote loser. Recalls the phrase: "We are going to take things away from you for the common good."

Bush is not going to take it away. He is just going to discourage too much FREE insurance coverage by not allowing it to go untaxed. If your employer wants to give too much coverage, it would still be able to do so but it will be taxed. The end result is that insurance coverage must only cover big things, not every cold, etc. or people will use too much of it when it is free and that causes the price of health care coverage to go up. Again, too much free insurance coverage (from employers and the government) has caused the high health care costs in this country.
41 posted on 01/20/2007 9:38:26 AM PST by Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: nj26
He's certainly acting like a Socialist tax raiser.

No, a socialist would invent a government health care program a la Hillary.

Pres. Bush is trying here to turn health care over to the free market. Far from socialism.

42 posted on 01/20/2007 9:39:19 AM PST by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

"That was once true, but I don't think it is anymore."

True. That is old law.


43 posted on 01/20/2007 9:39:45 AM PST by Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Owen

Dear Owen,

"Group plans do NOT exclude pre-existing conditions."

I think that varies from state to state and plan to plan, as well as, on the size of the plan.

My small business buys small group health insurance. Because we're in Maryland, the insurance company may not exclude pre-existing conditions. Also, we have community rating in Maryland, so we can't be charged more for a relatively sicker small group.

However, over the river in Virginia, I believe that for small groups, they can exclude pre-existing conditions, subject to the conditions of federal law (which, I believe, generally prevent pre-existing exclusions for folks who have been continuously insured for some length of time). As well, in Virginia, small groups can be rated for the health of the group. Thus, one person with a serious illness can cause significantly higher premiums for the group.

"Early retirees face risks to their life savings by not being able to get insurance."

For folks who have been continuously covered by health insurance, I'm pretty sure that HIPAA mandates that pre-existing condition exclusions will be reduced, even to nothing.

Thus, if someone retires from a company where they were continuously covered by health insurance for years, if they're no longer eligible for any sort of group insurance, and they arrange for individual health insurance to pick up continuously, or nearly so, from the end of their former employer's group coverage, their new insurance policy must cover pre-existing conditions from the start.

The real difficulty is in the cost of individual health insurance, especially as folks age.

In the state of Maryland good coverage for a family with a middle-aged head of household is easily over $1,000 per month.

Ouch.


sitetest


44 posted on 01/20/2007 9:45:36 AM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PtrainerNYC
Basically if you dont have health insurance you get a tax break

Where did you see that? It says the tax break is for those who buy their own health insurance.

45 posted on 01/20/2007 9:48:27 AM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sphinx

I work for the Federal government and I get no healthcare coverage, nor am I allowed to buy into the Federal plan.

The only Federal health coverage I have is if I am injured on the job.


46 posted on 01/20/2007 9:52:18 AM PST by XRdsRev (The Democrat Party - Keeping Black folks on the "Plantation" since 1790)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: what's up
"Pres. Bush is trying here to turn health care over to the free market. Far from socialism."

In our market system, people make their purchase decisions (how much to buy) based on the cost of the item being purchased.

However, our government, though tax laws, set up a system where people health care for free without having to make any decision on the cost of using it. That leads to people using too much healthcare, which drives up the cost of health care. Our free market is not working correctly with health care because government tax laws (and state laws which set minimum insurance standards that are way too high) have taken the price decision from the user of health care. When people have to make a decision about whether to go to the doctor (for smaller things) because of cost, our system will start working properly again and health care costs will go down because people will stop wasting it and using too much of it.
47 posted on 01/20/2007 9:54:26 AM PST by Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: XRdsRev

Dear XRdsRev,

Do you work for, or are you a federal contractor?

Or are you in one of those "temporary" jobs that don't come with benefits?


sitetest


48 posted on 01/20/2007 9:55:51 AM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

I am in a "temporary" job 42+ hours per week, 52 weeks a year. My position is expected to last for 7-8 years. No health care, no vacation, no pension, no sick days...nothing.

That having been said. Seriously, I am proud to be working for the agency I am employed with. I am proud of my job and the work we are doing for the country.


49 posted on 01/20/2007 10:01:50 AM PST by XRdsRev (The Democrat Party - Keeping Black folks on the "Plantation" since 1790)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Hendrix
our system will start working properly again and health care costs will go down because people will stop wasting it and using too much of it.

Kind of like how when people conserve electricity, the electric companies raise rates to maintain profits.

50 posted on 01/20/2007 10:02:57 AM PST by King Moonracer (Bad lighting and cheap fabric, thats how you sell clothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-116 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson