Politics

The Bush Health Care Plan: Terminally Ill?

1fastdog.

Posted to Politics on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 12:49:54 PM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

One of the proposals that President Bush worked into his State of the Union address last week was a health care initiative that's garnering attention and opposition in equal amounts.

Bush's proposal seeks to eliminate the long-standing tax break for job-based medical insurance, requiring that a worker's taxable income include any money his employer contributes to help pay the premiums. A new tax deduction -- $15,000 a year for families and $7,500 for individuals -- would help people pay the premiums, either through their job or on their own.

Bush has targeted the so-called "gold-plated" health care plans in which people have more coverage than is necessary and tend to use those benefits in a way that drives up costs across the board for everyone. Supposedly, the new plan would shift the burden of health insurance from its current province as an employer-paid-for benefit, directly onto  the shoulders of employees with an end result of forcing consumers to be aggressive in price-shopping for coverage, while at the same time reminding consumers not to pursue needless medical procedures that drive up health care costs. Color the skeptics unimpressed that the proposal will help those who need health care coverage the most: the uninsured.

Representative John D. Dingell, the Michigan Democrat who is the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, said, "The president's proposal would do little to help the uninsured, but would undermine the employer-based system through which 160 million people get coverage."

Richard J. Umbdenstock, president of the American Hospital Association, agreed. "The tax proposal would have the effect of driving people to the small-group insurance market -- a market that has proved unstable," Mr. Umbdenstock said. "For many people, even with a tax break, coverage would remain unaffordable."

Some critics are seeing the proposal as a reworking of a Bush administration mainstay: a Health Savings Account.

What Bush seems to be proposing is nothing more than a back door tax cut--surprise--for people who buy inexpensive health insurance and therefore a Health Savings Account empowerment act. (In other words, if you buy a $2000 HSA, you still get a $7500 deduction). There also seems to be a serious scam involved--stiffing public hospitals of the subsidies they receive to treat uninsured patients, on the ridiculous assumption that everybody will simply go out and buy health insurance the moment the proposal tumbles from the President's mouth

Even those presently well-insured may soon be facing some tough choices as they edge towards retirement since leaving a work-related insurance plan to buy private insurance is so expensive that many face the decision of whether or not to continue working strictly for more affordable health care coverage.

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by 1fastdog, health care, insurance, Health Savings Accounts, President Bush, uninsured (all tags)

This story: 24 comments (4 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
2

Re: The Bush Health Care Plan: Terminally Ill?

rEvolution inAction.

Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 02:30:18 PM EST

5.00 (astute, brilliant)

This read to me as: Save on taxes by skimping on health insurance.

Are health charges (medical procedures, prescriptions, hospital stays) tax deductible?

Tipping Sacred Cows

3

^ 2

Re: The Bush Health Care Plan: Terminally Ill?

MayorBob.

Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 02:44:41 PM EST

5.00

Any accumulated medical costs above 7.5 percent of your adjusted gross income is deductible.  In other words, if a taxpayer is filing with an AGI of $100,000, then every documented dollar he or she spent above $7,500 is deductible.  This is a look at how much was allowed thru 2000.

 

Illegitimi non carborundum.

21

^ 3

Re: The Bush Health Care Plan: Terminally Ill?

rEvolution inAction.

Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 03:16:59 AM EST

none

I'd suggest lowering htat, but then you'd have taxpayers paying for Rush Limbaugh's drug habit (or does that not apply to pharmaceuticals?).

Tipping Sacred Cows

1

Puzzle me this.

MayorBob.

Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 02:27:26 PM EST

4.00

The idea is to slap a tax on the value above $10K of "gold-plated" health policies most people who are signed onto a group policy through their employers have.  The revenues produced to the government will then be turned around to allow for substantial tax breaks for all those who buy their own health insurance policies.  The plan is being sold as a real benefit to lower income people who can't afford to buy their own policies now.

Question:  If the low income persons don't have the money to afford to front the cost of a health insurance policy as it is, how does dangling a tax break in front of them for something they can't afford to pay now make any sense at all.  I'm thinking the plan might make health insurance more affordable for people who are in business for themselves or people like real estate agents, but other than this, is this anything more than another attack on the middle class and a bad joke at the expense of the working poor?

Illegitimi non carborundum.

4

^ 1

Re: Puzzle me this.

Steve Urkel.

Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 03:51:32 PM EST

5.00 (informative)

The way the tax code is now if your employer buys your health insurance it's tax deductible, if you buy your own it isn't. So the CEO making millions of dollars a year get's his generous health care purchased with pre-taxed income. The janitor who's low paying job has no health benefits has to buy his own health insurance with his after tax income.

6

^ 4

Re: Puzzle me this.

Thalia.

Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 03:55:23 PM EST

4.66 (astute, interesting)

More precisely, your employer-purchased health plan is not considered part of your income, and your employer can also deduct it as a business expense.  This makes a big difference.  

But "individually purchased health plans" are incredibly expensive for anyone with a preexisting condition.  And as I found out to my surprise, having kids is considered a "preexisting condition."  So is having ever consulted a psychiatrist, any illnesses requiring hospitalization, and even having had anesthesia for any reason.  Insurance for me, as a childbearing woman, is ridiculously expensive.  Through my employer, I have a group plan, which means that my personal health conditions are not taken into account.  Reproduce that and we can talk about the new plan not screwing over people.

Thalia

9

^ 6

Re: Puzzle me this.

gerrymander.

Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 05:12:29 PM EST

3.00 (astute)

Through my employer, I have a group plan, which means that my personal health conditions are not taken into account.

But it is. Your health is taken into account by making other plans -- the individually requested ones -- more expensive. Insurance companies have some fairly detailed charts which assume any large group will include x% of various pre-existing conditions. In other words, they make a calculated guess, and they offset that by forcing statistical certainties (people seeking non-employer coverage) to pay a premium.

The Bush plan is, in essence, a 25% to 35% (roughly, depending on income) reduction in the cost of that premium. For some people without medical insurance (and I'm guessing a majority of those self-employed or with small businesses), this is a godsend. More the point, it would encourage people to start small businesses and/or take "no insurance" jobs when they otherwise wouldn't. This should sound familiar, because it's a close relative to the welfare reform passed under Clinton. That plan has been a constant, ongoing success.

7

^ 6

Re: Puzzle me this.

Steve Urkel.

Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 04:12:10 PM EST

none

You're a highly paid attorney, yet want others have to subsidize your health care. I find your greed apalling. Also, individual nsurance rates vary by state, would it really cost your family more than $15,000 a year for insurance where you live?

8

^ 7

Re: Puzzle me this.

1fastdog.

Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 04:34:03 PM EST

none

A friend at work was paying 1,200 a month for the most basic of coverage before he landed a job with our company - he came to work for us strictly because of the health care coverage. So yeah, $15,000 or more a year for pretty bad coverage is fairly standard here in the Northeast.

Somewhere in my soul, there's always Rock -n- Roll... Joe Strummer

10

^ 8

Re: Puzzle me this.

Steve Urkel.

Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 06:14:08 PM EST

none

A bit of searching suggests the average cost of a plan for a family of four is around $11500, so 15K strikes me as reasonable (I am unfamiliar with the details of Bush's plan, but then I don't think it's going to pass).

Many states' interventions in the insurance  drive up the price of premiums, by reducing competion and mandating coverage of certain conditions.

11

^ 7

Re: Puzzle me this.

Thalia.

Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 06:37:46 PM EST

none

You do realize that I would win with this plan, right?  Because I'm a highly paid attorney, and I could write off my healthcare costs.  Right now I can't write off that amount.  Remember that I'm a partner, and I am my own employer.  I subsidize my employee's premiums, not vice versa.  Seriously, this plan would probably make me, as an employer & a law firm partner, an extra $20K, plus an extra $30K in tax write-offs.  Not bad.  But I still oppose it because it's a sucky plan for most middle class people.

Thalia

17

^ 11

Re: Puzzle me this.

Steve Urkel.

Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 08:55:22 PM EST

5.00 (funny)

"You do realize that I would win with this plan, right?"

I'm willing to advocate good public policies, even if such policies benefit you. That's the type of humanitarian I am.

12

^ 7

Re: Puzzle me this.

Thalia.

Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 06:39:30 PM EST

none

When I looked into private healthcare at one point, I found that for my family of 3 (now almost 4) the cost would be approximately $40K.  Why?  My husband has a preexisting condition, I'm overweight, and my son is a toddler in full time daycare.  I expect it would be more now, because I'm also expecting a child, which is an expensive endeavor and likely to involve medical intervention.

Thalia

19

^ 12

Re: Puzzle me this.

ms sue.

Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 09:14:49 PM EST

none

I'm also expecting a child

Congratulations. That was certainly quick. It seems as if it were just yesterday that you were wondering aloud about whether to increase your family.

5

Read, as the saying goes, the whole thing

Steve Urkel.

Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 03:55:16 PM EST

none

Here's a good overview from National Journal which explains why this plan would not only result in a more economically efficient allocation of health care resources but would also be fairer.

13

^ 5

Re: Read, as the saying goes, the whole thing

Thalia.

Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 06:40:37 PM EST

none

Except for the part where most of the people who are uninsured are paying almost nothing in taxes.  How is this going to help them again?  How is this going to help the already overstretched hospitals who are going to get less money for emergency care they'll still have to render?

Thlaia

14

^ 13

Simple

Lou.

Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 06:46:21 PM EST

none

How is this going to help the already overstretched hospitals who are going to get less money for emergency care they'll still have to render?

They will only give aid to those folks who have proof of insurance.  

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

15

^ 14

Re: Simple

Thalia.

Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 06:50:26 PM EST

none

16

^ 15

Good link

Lou.

Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 07:08:12 PM EST

none

However, Thalia...we both know that laws are changed all the time.  All it will take to rescind this is for the hospital lobby to cry pain and suffering from the loss of income while at the same a Bushian smoke and mirrors panacea to take care of those who can't pay.  Something like, ummm, free medical transportation to the Mother Theresa Memorial Hospital and Dying Center.  

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

18

^ 13

or UFOs

Steve Urkel.

Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 09:04:12 PM EST

none

That's obviously a non sequitur, as not implementing this plan doesn't do anything for the poor either, but (as Crook points out, you should read the whole thing) the savings from such plans would free up more money in general for all sorts of things, from health care for the poor to UFO research.

"overstretched hospitals who are going to get less money for emergency care "

Switching people from employer based insurance to HSA's has nothing to do with funding levels for emergency care.

20

^ 18

Yeah, but

Lou.

Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 09:56:27 PM EST

none

Switching people from employer based insurance to HSA's has nothing to do with funding levels for emergency care.

Doesn't funding for emergency care come in part from what insurance companies pay?  And while it's nice to think that once we reach this Bushian utopian health care plan the riches will be available so that the poor, uninsured, and underinsured will be provided for, I doubt it.  

My response to the Bush HCP?  Don't get sick.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

22

^ 13

Re: Read, as the saying goes, the whole thing

gerrymander.

Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 11:01:54 AM EST

none

Except for the part where most of the people who are uninsured are paying almost nothing in taxes.  How is this going to help them again?

People who are both uninsured and paying almost nothing in taxes are likely to be eligible for Medicaid, which Bush's plan does not change.

23

^ 5

Re: Read, as the saying goes, the whole thing

thefadd.

Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 04:58:49 PM EST

none

Here's a good overview from National Journal which explains why this plan would not only result in a more economically efficient allocation of health care resources but would also be fairer.

The sad fact is you are probably right...and that would still leave a wide bearth for Bush's latest SS. Crap Ship propoal to float into Utter Uselessness Harbor.

escalators never fail; they just become stairs

24

^ 23

Re: Read, as the saying goes, the whole thing

Steve Urkel.

Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 05:49:08 PM EST

none

I'm not sure what the latest SS proposal is, but like that article notes that bloated medicare drug benefit, which in my opinion shouldn't have been done at all, was done first, although given voter demographics, it's not suprising a bad change which pays off old people takes priority over a good change which benefits younger people. The irony is the old people weren't greatful.

This story: 24 comments (4 from subqueue)
Post a Comment