While proposing this high-end tax break, Mr. Bush is also proposing a tax increase - not on the wealthy, but on workers who, he thinks, have too much health insurance. The tax code, he said, "unwisely encourages workers to choose overly expensive, gold-plated plans. The result is that insurance premiums rise, and many Americans cannot afford the coverage they need."
I'm always afraid when people with no clue try to come up with solutions to important issues. I heard part of this proposal discussed on the radio today, i.e. tax people paying more for health insurance. I wonder if they realize some people have to pay more just to get some basic coverage because they are identified as uninsurable by health insurance companies. Who will determine the definition of a "gold-plated plan"?
Bush wants to cap how much a family or individual can pay for a health insurance policy.
It would work like this: The administration would cap the amount of benefits that can remain tax free at $15,000 for a family and $7,500 for an individual. Anyone whose health insurance cost more than that would pay taxes on the difference. For example, a family with coverage costing $16,000 a year would pay taxes on $1,000.
This proposal will never get through Congress, and Bush knows it. It's just his token nod toward doing something about health care.
I agree. They just want to get on record that they tried to fix health insurance. Having had private insurance (not provided by an employer) for over 20 years, this is a serious topic for me. I really don't want them making it any harder to get private health insurance than it already is. A reason to hope for a 65th birthday, Medicare, if it's still offered when I reach that age.
Submitted by CE Petro on Mon, 2007/01/22 - 7:02pm.
I also agree that this proposal won't get through Congress, but, as one that has been uninsured for a lengthy time (self-employed) it amazes me that there is even discussion about taxing those that are considered "over insured." Even the premier plans neglect needed basic health care, as I was trying to sho with the exclusions. Hearing problems? Foot problems? Vision? Dental? All of these should be part of basic health care, and they aren't.
The book I am currently reading is specifically about the excesses in the health care industry -- Money-driven Medicine, by Maggie Mahar. Very interesting reading, and definately worth the read. Knowing that the pharmaceuticals, insurance industry and for-profit doctor groups and hospitals are a major part of the rising cost in health care, rarely does anyone address "reform," such as responsibility, in these areas.
the whole change health care discussion is extremely discouraging, mostly because so many people "buy into" the spin (for instance the pharmaceuticals spend $800m a year on research & development)
the other thing that really bothers me about the rising cost discussion is blaming the rise in cost on the uninsured. Many non-profit hospitals do not treat the uninsured unless it is a dire emergency, contrary to popular belief. Also, the uninsured are charged more than double (sometimes as much as 10 times) that of an insured person for any given procedure. Think about the implications of that -- for instance, if a hospital charged an uninsured person double and collects half of that, they have collected the same as they would have from an insured person. On top of that, hospital collection tactics are so extreme, so much so that some state AG's have been going after hospitals for their collection tactics.
Granted, I'm not completely through the book, but it appears that even Maggie Mahar falls into the "blame the uninsured for rising costs" as well. However, the rest of the book (so far) is quite eye-opening.
Bush is also proposing a tax increase - not on the wealthy, but on workers who, he thinks, have too much health insurance.
I think we need to add a tax on the filthy rich to pay for everyone's health care, then sit back and watch how fast health costs come down. Adrift in the Sea of Humility
Submitted by boilerette on Wed, 2007/01/24 - 7:10pm.
doesn't the current way health insurance works, work for MOST people?
My concern is what happens when many of us are no longer under an employee-sponsored group plan?
I have a genetic condition... the last time I had medically necessary treatment for it was 26 years ago, and have had no complications from that incident, nor any complications since requiring medically necessary treatment.
But because 1 out of 10 people with this condition needs ongoing medical attention, the other 9 of us with little to no complications are deemed uninsurable.
I have read articles about people being denied health insurance for JOCK ITCH!
So even if I agree they won't cover complications related to the condition, I sure as heck shouldn't get anything else that everyone else gets unrelated to this condition b/c under Bush's plan I must buy private health insurance...
What's going to happen to us "uninsurable". And having read lists of uninsurable conditions, it's probably ruled out about 80% of people who have seen a DR for anything in the near past.
IF he goes with this plan, I think they MUST ensure that no one LOSES coverage who already has it now. Force the Insurance company (i.e. BCBS) to sell the policy to the individual at the same rate it costs under employee-sponsored (about $450/month in my case), and keep all the HIPAA rules that are currently in place, and adjust premiums with inflation.
But then I fear the poor kid with Jock Itch who just graduated college and is off on his own now and can't get insurance at any price.
That kid won't buy insurance (unless he gets a job that provides it) because he's immortal and invincible etc. And if he does, the insurance companies have special pools of low risk policyholders like him so they can sell him cheap policy with few benefits that they never have to pay out on anyway.
What we need is ONE BIG POOL and EVERYBODY INTO THE POOL.
I suggest Medicare, with sliding scale premiums based on income until 65 then it's free.
I had to start buying my own health insurance for me and my son a couple of years ago. I was asked 1 question by the salesman. He asked if we used more than 3 prescriptions a month. We do and he told me that the only plan we could get was a HIPPA plan from BCBS. It was over $700 in 2004. In 2005, it went up to over $1000 and now it's over $1350 a month. That's over $16,000 a year and it's no gold-plated plan! I have a $1000 individual deductible and $2000 family. There are no co-payments, except for medicines. If we go to the doctor, we have to pay the full amount.
We have no serious medical problems. Financially, we would do better if I put that money into the bank and paid all our medical expenses from it. But I'm terrified that one of us will get sick and then what would we do
Submitted by Socialist With ... on Wed, 2007/01/24 - 11:47pm.
CL, your situation is unfortunately all too common. As Randy has pointed out several times, the tying of health insurance to employment status is a major contributor to the problem of insurance affordability. Although I don't think a single-payer system is necessarily the best solution, it is utterly ludicrous that someone in your situation has to pay such high premiums, yet someone with the same medical conditions who works for a large employer would pay only a tenth of that amount for much better coverage.
Instead of a single-payer system, Congress could simply pass a law that requires each insurance company to provide the same coverage for the same premium to all of its customers, regardless of pre-existing conditions, employment status, or group membership. The insurance companies could then compete to provide the lowest premiums to their customers across the board, thereby preserving the falsely vaunted "market competition" the conservatives so dearly love. Each insurance company could provide a menu of policies, providing a wide range of coverage and deductible options. An insurance company with millions of customers would be able to implement such a policy with only a minor tweaking of the actuarial calculations they now use.
Insurance affordability is only part of the problem; the issue of medical cost inflation is the other main part of the problem, and it would have to be addressed at the same time. But I think that insurance homogenization across the population would go a long way toward reducing the burden on folks like you and your son. It could also serve as a mechanism to provide affordable insurance to the 47 million who currently have none. If premiums were calculated across an entire customer base instead of negotiated employer by employer, the whole country would benefit.
--Socialist With A Gold Card
"I'm a socialist with a gold card. I firmly believe we need a revolution; I'm just concerned that I won't be able to get good moisturizer afterwards." -- Brett Butler
Submitted by boilerette on Thu, 2007/01/25 - 10:49am.
New laws around 401K plans allow employers to automatically enroll their employee in the plan for up to 2% of their salary unless the employee requests, in writing, not to participate.
I have known people who have had the ability to get insurance with their company's group plan for as little as $25/pay period who choose not to b/c they'd rather have the latest ipod accessory...
They should do this for health insurance. Automatic enrollment unless otherwise requested in writing not to participate.
Also, if Bush's plan flies, which it probably won't, any company who chooses to drop their group plans and provide the employees with cash instead...
An individual should be allowed to roll over their group plan into an individual policy with the same insurance company, same level of coverage, etc..., with the same premium they had before (employee + company contriubutions). And, increase premiums only with inflation.
It's so simple. Most people who couldn’t afford health insurance also are too poor to owe taxes. But...if you give them a deduction from their taxes they don’t owe, they can use the money they're not getting back from what they haven't given to buy the health care they can't afford.
This proposal will never get through Congress, and Bush knows it. It's just his token nod toward doing something about health care.
Unless you're with Tony Snow, and think it's one of those diamonds.
In which case I've got a bridge in NY to show ya.
This proposal will never get through Congress, and Bush knows it. It's just his token nod toward doing something about health care.
I agree. They just want to get on record that they tried to fix health insurance. Having had private insurance (not provided by an employer) for over 20 years, this is a serious topic for me. I really don't want them making it any harder to get private health insurance than it already is. A reason to hope for a 65th birthday, Medicare, if it's still offered when I reach that age.
I also agree that this proposal won't get through Congress, but, as one that has been uninsured for a lengthy time (self-employed) it amazes me that there is even discussion about taxing those that are considered "over insured." Even the premier plans neglect needed basic health care, as I was trying to sho with the exclusions. Hearing problems? Foot problems? Vision? Dental? All of these should be part of basic health care, and they aren't.
The book I am currently reading is specifically about the excesses in the health care industry -- Money-driven Medicine, by Maggie Mahar. Very interesting reading, and definately worth the read. Knowing that the pharmaceuticals, insurance industry and for-profit doctor groups and hospitals are a major part of the rising cost in health care, rarely does anyone address "reform," such as responsibility, in these areas.
the whole change health care discussion is extremely discouraging, mostly because so many people "buy into" the spin (for instance the pharmaceuticals spend $800m a year on research & development)
the other thing that really bothers me about the rising cost discussion is blaming the rise in cost on the uninsured. Many non-profit hospitals do not treat the uninsured unless it is a dire emergency, contrary to popular belief. Also, the uninsured are charged more than double (sometimes as much as 10 times) that of an insured person for any given procedure. Think about the implications of that -- for instance, if a hospital charged an uninsured person double and collects half of that, they have collected the same as they would have from an insured person. On top of that, hospital collection tactics are so extreme, so much so that some state AG's have been going after hospitals for their collection tactics.
Granted, I'm not completely through the book, but it appears that even Maggie Mahar falls into the "blame the uninsured for rising costs" as well. However, the rest of the book (so far) is quite eye-opening.
"I'm always afraid when people with no clue try to come up with solutions to important issues."
Yabbut most political solutions are exactly what you describe.
www.lesjones.com
Bush is also proposing a tax increase - not on the wealthy, but on workers who, he thinks, have too much health insurance.
I think we need to add a tax on the filthy rich to pay for everyone's health care, then sit back and watch how fast health costs come down.
Adrift in the Sea of Humility
I think we need to compare and contrast true health care costs from health care prices...
doesn't the current way health insurance works, work for MOST people?
My concern is what happens when many of us are no longer under an employee-sponsored group plan?
I have a genetic condition... the last time I had medically necessary treatment for it was 26 years ago, and have had no complications from that incident, nor any complications since requiring medically necessary treatment.
But because 1 out of 10 people with this condition needs ongoing medical attention, the other 9 of us with little to no complications are deemed uninsurable.
I have read articles about people being denied health insurance for JOCK ITCH!
So even if I agree they won't cover complications related to the condition, I sure as heck shouldn't get anything else that everyone else gets unrelated to this condition b/c under Bush's plan I must buy private health insurance...
What's going to happen to us "uninsurable". And having read lists of uninsurable conditions, it's probably ruled out about 80% of people who have seen a DR for anything in the near past.
IF he goes with this plan, I think they MUST ensure that no one LOSES coverage who already has it now. Force the Insurance company (i.e. BCBS) to sell the policy to the individual at the same rate it costs under employee-sponsored (about $450/month in my case), and keep all the HIPAA rules that are currently in place, and adjust premiums with inflation.
But then I fear the poor kid with Jock Itch who just graduated college and is off on his own now and can't get insurance at any price.
That's one part of the problem.
That kid won't buy insurance (unless he gets a job that provides it) because he's immortal and invincible etc. And if he does, the insurance companies have special pools of low risk policyholders like him so they can sell him cheap policy with few benefits that they never have to pay out on anyway.
What we need is ONE BIG POOL and EVERYBODY INTO THE POOL.
I suggest Medicare, with sliding scale premiums based on income until 65 then it's free.
I had to start buying my own health insurance for me and my son a couple of years ago. I was asked 1 question by the salesman. He asked if we used more than 3 prescriptions a month. We do and he told me that the only plan we could get was a HIPPA plan from BCBS. It was over $700 in 2004. In 2005, it went up to over $1000 and now it's over $1350 a month. That's over $16,000 a year and it's no gold-plated plan! I have a $1000 individual deductible and $2000 family. There are no co-payments, except for medicines. If we go to the doctor, we have to pay the full amount.
We have no serious medical problems. Financially, we would do better if I put that money into the bank and paid all our medical expenses from it. But I'm terrified that one of us will get sick and then what would we do
CL, your situation is unfortunately all too common. As Randy has pointed out several times, the tying of health insurance to employment status is a major contributor to the problem of insurance affordability. Although I don't think a single-payer system is necessarily the best solution, it is utterly ludicrous that someone in your situation has to pay such high premiums, yet someone with the same medical conditions who works for a large employer would pay only a tenth of that amount for much better coverage.
Instead of a single-payer system, Congress could simply pass a law that requires each insurance company to provide the same coverage for the same premium to all of its customers, regardless of pre-existing conditions, employment status, or group membership. The insurance companies could then compete to provide the lowest premiums to their customers across the board, thereby preserving the falsely vaunted "market competition" the conservatives so dearly love. Each insurance company could provide a menu of policies, providing a wide range of coverage and deductible options. An insurance company with millions of customers would be able to implement such a policy with only a minor tweaking of the actuarial calculations they now use.
Insurance affordability is only part of the problem; the issue of medical cost inflation is the other main part of the problem, and it would have to be addressed at the same time. But I think that insurance homogenization across the population would go a long way toward reducing the burden on folks like you and your son. It could also serve as a mechanism to provide affordable insurance to the 47 million who currently have none. If premiums were calculated across an entire customer base instead of negotiated employer by employer, the whole country would benefit.
--Socialist With A Gold Card
"I'm a socialist with a gold card. I firmly believe we need a revolution; I'm just concerned that I won't be able to get good moisturizer afterwards." -- Brett Butler
New laws around 401K plans allow employers to automatically enroll their employee in the plan for up to 2% of their salary unless the employee requests, in writing, not to participate.
I have known people who have had the ability to get insurance with their company's group plan for as little as $25/pay period who choose not to b/c they'd rather have the latest ipod accessory...
They should do this for health insurance. Automatic enrollment unless otherwise requested in writing not to participate.
Also, if Bush's plan flies, which it probably won't, any company who chooses to drop their group plans and provide the employees with cash instead...
An individual should be allowed to roll over their group plan into an individual policy with the same insurance company, same level of coverage, etc..., with the same premium they had before (employee + company contriubutions). And, increase premiums only with inflation.
It's so simple. Most people who couldn’t afford health insurance also are too poor to owe taxes. But...if you give them a deduction from their taxes they don’t owe, they can use the money they're not getting back from what they haven't given to buy the health care they can't afford.
Post new comment