PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Republican health care plan? Raise everyone's taxes!


banyon
05-20-2009, 09:06 PM
LOL, I hope you guys who were so outraged at the richest 1%'s rates don't mind when you have to give up a much bigger chunk of your own money.

<object id="_ds_6150293" name="_ds_6150293" width="670" height="550" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://viewer.docstoc.com/"><param name="FlashVars" value="doc_id=6150293&mem_id=683130&doc_type=pdf&fullscreen=0" /><param name="movie" value="http://viewer.docstoc.com/"/><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /></object><br /><font size="1"><a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6150293/PCASummary">PCASummary</a> - </font>

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286548605041517.html

WASHINGTON -- Republican lawmakers stepped up their opposition to Democrats' plans for overhauling the nation's health-care system, introducing legislation on Wednesday that would give Americans tax credits to pay for health insurance.

The plan, backed by some Republicans in the House and Senate, offers a glimpse into how the GOP is mobilizing against Democrats' effort to create a public insurance plan and to require companies to provide or otherwise pay for health-insurance coverage for workers. Republican lawmakers say such measures would bureaucratize the nation's health system and stifle job creation.


Paul Ryan
Given the Democrats' control of Congress, the Republican plan has little chance of passage. But it reflects some Republican lawmakers' growing dissatisfaction with a bipartisan effort to fix the health-care system. Congressional leaders hope to pass a health-care overhaul this summer.

The government would run a health plan "with the compassion of the IRS, the efficiency of the post office, and the incompetence of Katrina," according to a summary of the Republicans' plan unveiled on Wednesday. Called the Patients' Choice Act, it would eliminate the tax break that employers receive for providing health-insurance benefits to their workers. Instead, it would give an annual tax credit of $2,300 to each individual and $5,700 to each family that they could use to offset the cost of their health insurance. Low-income families would get extra money to buy into private insurance plans.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) said the system of employer-based coverage is becoming "a 21st century relic" as companies become less generous with benefits.

President Barack Obama has tasked Congress with drawing up legislation to reduce health-care costs and expand health-insurance coverage. He and many Democrats want to create a new public insurance plan to help cover the uninsured and create competition for private insurers.

The Republican plan introduced Wednesday shares some things in common with measures Democrats are pushing. Both parties want to create insurance exchanges that make it easier to comparison-shop for health-care plans. They also want to shift health-care dollars toward preventing chronic diseases like heart disease and diabetes, not just because it will make Americans healthier, but because prevention is cheaper than treating people once they get really sick.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.), who is leading the effort to draft a health overhaul, said that while this Republican measure meets many of his goals, eliminating the tax incentives for employer-provided health benefits "would destroy the employer-based health-care system we have today."

Karen Davenport, director of health policy at the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress Action Fund, said the Republican plan's tax subsidy wouldn't cover half of the cost of the average family's health-care premiums.

Rep. Ryan introduced the legislation with Sens. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) and Richard Burr (R., N.C.), and Rep. Devin Nunes (R., Calif.).

Many Democrats are backing the idea of curbing the health-care tax exclusion, which exempts employer health-care benefits from taxation. Under proposed changes, wealthy individuals and people with particularly generous benefits could pay some taxes on their benefits. But most Democrats don't want the exemption eliminated altogether, as called for under the Republican plan.

KCChiefsMan
05-20-2009, 09:41 PM
how about they just stop charging $3,000 for a visit where the DR spends 10 minutes hooking you up to an IV and then telling you that you are good to go.

jAZ
05-20-2009, 10:42 PM
[COLOR="Blue"] it would eliminate the tax break that employers receive for providing health-insurance benefits to their workers. Instead, it would give an annual tax credit of $2,300 to each individual and $5,700 to each family that they could use to offset the cost of their health insurance.
Can someone explain to me how that wouldn't effectively eliminate the employer healthcare plans that exist today? And thus move more people from the lower premium group ratings to the higher premium individual ratings?

WoodDraw
05-20-2009, 10:58 PM
Better yet, can someone explain to me how that wouldn't increase health care costs further?

Unless I've fallen asleep in every econ class I've ever taken, subsidies will effectively lower the cost of private health care, thereby raising the demand. And if the demand raises, what happens to the price then?

I'm all for creative solutions to health care, but at some point isn't giving out tax credits for health care effectively increasing taxes?

cookster50
05-21-2009, 07:26 AM
Can someone explain to me how that wouldn't effectively eliminate the employer healthcare plans that exist today? And thus move more people from the lower premium group ratings to the higher premium individual ratings?

If you are a company that is now taxed on paying for healthcare insurance, why would you not look at this and say, well shucks, I'm not going to pay for anyone's insurance if I'm going to get taxed for it and if my employees are now getting government help for health insurance. Let the good ole government take care of it!

HonestChieffan
05-21-2009, 07:32 AM
Competitive forces would support that in order to retain the best people benefits play a big role. The employer in this case does take a hit by losing the deduction. However, I think that Banyon misunderstood the term tax credit. The tax credit would go to everyone and they would have the freedom to pay for their insurance wherever they want to, not have it forced upon us by government. This plan has flaws but it allows competition among the providers to continue, it keeps government and all the garbage they would bring out, and would still allow corporations and employees to benefit from group plans.

Of course if you believe that huge government agencies can outperform the private sector then this plan is not going to be too favorable to you.

Cannibal
05-21-2009, 08:07 AM
Competitive forces would support that in order to retain the best people benefits play a big role. The employer in this case does take a hit by losing the deduction. However, I think that Banyon misunderstood the term tax credit. The tax credit would go to everyone and they would have the freedom to pay for their insurance wherever they want to, not have it forced upon us by government. This plan has flaws but it allows competition among the providers to continue, it keeps government and all the garbage they would bring out, and would still allow corporations and employees to benefit from group plans.

Of course if you believe that huge government agencies can outperform the private sector then this plan is not going to be too favorable to you.

You're still missing the point. Insurance companies are nothing but crooks. What good is insurance if you still have to out the ass to have anything done because the insurance companies refuse to pay?

HonestChieffan
05-21-2009, 08:13 AM
If that is the point then raising taxes or governmental insurance wont address the issue...if that is an issue, why is that not the focus of any of these kookie plans floated by either party?...Then again, is it the insurance companies that are at fault or is it the system itself?

I have Aetna and have never had a dispute with them on any claim I have ever submitted.

Cannibal
05-21-2009, 08:16 AM
If that is the point then raising taxes or governmental insurance wont address the issue...if that is an issue, why is that not the focus of any of these kookie plans floated by either party?...Then again, is it the insurance companies that are at fault or is it the system itself?

I have Aetna and have never had a dispute with them on any claim I have ever submitted.

I'm happy for you. But these assholes are becoming more and more bold at not paying claims. It's been all over the news, in magazines, on the internet for the last 5+ years. They have divisions within their companies who's sole purpose is to figure out how to get out of claims.

Garcia Bronco
05-21-2009, 09:03 AM
Can someone explain to me how that wouldn't effectively eliminate the employer healthcare plans that exist today? And thus move more people from the lower premium group ratings to the higher premium individual ratings?

I can't. They should leave it the F alone.

mikey23545
05-21-2009, 09:07 AM
The Dems plan: Print More Money!

mikey23545
05-21-2009, 09:10 AM
<b>Instead, it would give an annual tax credit of $2,300 to each individual and $5,700 to each family that they could use to offset the cost of their health insurance. Low-income families would get extra money to buy into private insurance plans.</b>

WTF? This is raising everyone's taxes?

banyon
05-21-2009, 09:11 AM
Competitive forces would support that in order to retain the best people benefits play a big role. The employer in this case does take a hit by losing the deduction. However, I think that Banyon misunderstood the term tax credit. The tax credit would go to everyone and they would have the freedom to pay for their insurance wherever they want to, not have it forced upon us by government. This plan has flaws but it allows competition among the providers to continue, it keeps government and all the garbage they would bring out, and would still allow corporations and employees to benefit from group plans.
.

I think you misunderstand. The "credit" isn't nearly enough to cover any type of family health insurance for the year, and previously those benefits were tax incentivized to the employer. Therefore, it would be up to families to make up the difference out of their own pockets or just forego having insurance.

jAZ
05-21-2009, 09:28 AM
If you are a company that is now taxed on paying for healthcare insurance, why would you not look at this and say, well shucks, I'm not going to pay for anyone's insurance if I'm going to get taxed for it and if my employees are now getting government help for health insurance. Let the good ole government take care of it!

So it would indeed eliminate the employer incentive to be part of the healthcare solution.

jAZ
05-21-2009, 09:31 AM
The tax credit would go to everyone and they would have the freedom to pay for their insurance wherever they want to

....would still allow corporations and employees to benefit from group plans.

What would keep these employer provided group plans from becoming fewer and fewer, thus making people buy individual rate plans in greater and greater number, thus shifting the balance of buyer/supplyer power in the market dramatically to the supplier, increasing costs, etc.

Radar Chief
05-21-2009, 09:33 AM
I was told that what Republicans need to do to win elections again was become more like Democrats. Well, there you go, they’re acting more like Democrats all the time. ;)

jAZ
05-21-2009, 09:36 AM
I can't. They should leave it the F alone.

So we can agree that WRT this element, unless there is something more that I'm not seeing, this is a bad idea?

HonestChieffan
05-21-2009, 09:49 AM
I think you misunderstand. The "credit" isn't nearly enough to cover any type of family health insurance for the year, and previously those benefits were tax incentivized to the employer. Therefore, it would be up to families to make up the difference out of their own pockets or just forego having insurance.


So you would say its bad to help people pay for the insurance they get? How much does it cost for health coverage for a family? Better to hire an army of govt drones like the ones we have now to run health care? Maybe we can get the Drivers Lic guys or better yet the county health departments to do it...be far better than industry. Plus you could say its all free...

cookster50
05-21-2009, 10:19 AM
So it would indeed eliminate the employer incentive to be part of the healthcare solution.

That's how I read it. Maybe I'm wrong......nah, that would never happen!

jAZ
05-21-2009, 10:24 AM
That's how I read it. Maybe I'm wrong......nah, that would never happen!

I'm ok with that, and employers are OK with that, but without replacing or expanding the value gained by having 5, 50, 1000, 50,000 people collective negotiate insurance premiums as a single pool, you are effectively raising the costs to the insured, and that tax credit becomes a handout to the insurance industry.

Unless I'm missing something, which I continue to maintain is entirely possible, I can't see how this is nothing but a pure scam by insurance company lobbists exploiting honest conservative ideology to get enacted.

banyon
05-21-2009, 11:27 AM
So you would say its bad to help people pay for the insurance they get?

No. Where did I say anything like that?

How much does it cost for health coverage for a family?

Family of 4 around $10k according to the Republicans' own numbers in the plan. Leaves about a $5k shortfall. Probably pocket change to you, but to many people, it's important money that they don't have lying around.

Better to hire an army of govt drones like the ones we have now to run health care? Maybe we can get the Drivers Lic guys or better yet the county health departments to do it...be far better than industry. Plus you could say its all free...

This comment is, of course, irrelevant, as it is just a personal animus of yours.

patteeu
05-21-2009, 11:47 AM
Can someone explain to me how that wouldn't effectively eliminate the employer healthcare plans that exist today? And thus move more people from the lower premium group ratings to the higher premium individual ratings?

Yes, I can. First of all, let me say to banyon that this idea has been floated by both Republicans and democrats over the past few years. It's a great idea and people on both sides of the aisle who are serious about trying to unscrew some of the screwed up things our government has done to healthcare over the years are understandably interested in this idea. The important thing here is getting rid of the incentive for employer provided healthcare, not the tax increase. A revenue-neutral change would be just as good in terms of it's impact on the healthcare equation.

This is certainly an effort to make employer provided healthcare less attractive. It's an effort to move people from these employer-defined group plans into alternative plans that cater either to individuals or to non-employer groups, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have to be higher premium plans. The reason employers get cheaper rates is because they can get a volume discount. But if one segment of the population is getting a volume discount, the other segment of the population (who has less consumer clout) is making up for it by paying the premiums that you allude to. If no one gets the volume discount, then no one has to pay the premiums to cover for those discounts.

patteeu
05-21-2009, 11:51 AM
Better yet, can someone explain to me how that wouldn't increase health care costs further?

Unless I've fallen asleep in every econ class I've ever taken, subsidies will effectively lower the cost of private health care, thereby raising the demand. And if the demand raises, what happens to the price then?

I'm all for creative solutions to health care, but at some point isn't giving out tax credits for health care effectively increasing taxes?

I don't care for the tax credits myself. The reason they are there is a response to banyon's objection that this is a tax increase. The goal of these policy-minded politicians is to separate healthcare from employment. The single biggest reason healthcare is tied to employment right now is the tax break. The political problem with taking the tax break away is that your opponents will call it a tax increase. The tax credits are the political sugar that lawmakers are trying to add to make the actual policy medicine go down.

HonestChieffan
05-21-2009, 11:53 AM
Banyon, you started this thread bashing a proposal to help people pay for their own insurance so I suppose thats where I got my impression....

You have never bought health insurance for a family yet seem to have great insight into the costs....more of your windbag BS you use to attack ideas that are not supportive of the government/nanny state you desire. Of course you as a public employee are vested in the expansion of government so its understandable.

banyon
05-21-2009, 11:55 AM
Banyon, you started this thread bashing a proposal to help people pay for their own insurance so I suppose thats where I got my impression....

You have never bought health insurance for a family yet seem to have great insight into the costs....more of your windbag BS you use to attack ideas that are not supportive of the government/nanny state you desire. Of course you as a public employee are vested in the expansion of government so its understandable.

If you didn't have anything of substance to say and just wanted to say GFY, just leave it at that next time, ok buddy?

patteeu
05-21-2009, 11:58 AM
So we can agree that WRT this element, unless there is something more that I'm not seeing, this is a bad idea?

It's a good idea. In addition to creating the situation of haves (those with access to group rates) and have nots (those who are subject to individual rates) that we have today, it also created portability problems.

patteeu
05-21-2009, 12:00 PM
I'm ok with that, and employers are OK with that, but without replacing or expanding the value gained by having 5, 50, 1000, 50,000 people collective negotiate insurance premiums as a single pool, you are effectively raising the costs to the insured, and that tax credit becomes a handout to the insurance industry.

Unless I'm missing something, which I continue to maintain is entirely possible, I can't see how this is nothing but a pure scam by insurance company lobbists exploiting honest conservative ideology to get enacted.

There's no reason why individuals can't get together in healthcare pools that are independent of employment.

In addition to the tax credit that the government would give individuals under this plan, over time, cash compensation from employers should rise too because the cost of providing health insurance would no longer be there.

HonestChieffan
05-21-2009, 12:07 PM
If you didn't have anything of substance to say and just wanted to say GFY, just leave it at that next time, ok buddy?

Wow...you start the thread with a misguided and unsupported conclusion and Mr Smarterthananyone has panty in a wad when he is shown to be once again on the weak side of an arguement.

Hang in there, there will be something more understandable for you to opine about as the day progresses.

BucEyedPea
05-21-2009, 12:09 PM
There's no reason why individuals can't get together in healthcare pools that are independent of employment.
They do....well there is the National Association of the Self Employed's Health Care available which I used to have.

HonestChieffan
05-21-2009, 12:27 PM
There's no reason why individuals can't get together in healthcare pools that are independent of employment.

In addition to the tax credit that the government would give individuals under this plan, over time, cash compensation from employers should rise too because the cost of providing health insurance would no longer be there.


The GovtNanny crowd has no interest in you making a decision on your own. Some twit in a huge rooom at a govt desk can make your decisions far better than you can.

FishingRod
05-21-2009, 12:40 PM
"it would eliminate the tax break that employers receive"

Isn't that what everyone wants? To take away the tax breaks from the big evil companies?

For what its worth I don't think this plan is particularly better than what we are doing now. Which does suck.

Chief Henry
05-21-2009, 12:43 PM
Politicians have NO RIGHT to tell me what I can do with my body or HEALTH CARE for my BODY.

banyon
05-21-2009, 12:47 PM
Wow...you start the thread with a misguided and unsupported conclusion and Mr Smarterthananyone has panty in a wad when he is shown to be once again on the weak side of an arguement.[

You didn't show that any conclusion I had was unwarranted, you just whined about how much you hate government and then called me some names. Don't act like you posted some sort of analytical refutation here.

Hang in there, there will be something more understandable for you to opine about as the day progresses.

If it's supposed to be in one of your posts, I won't hold my breath.

banyon
05-21-2009, 12:49 PM
"it would eliminate the tax break that employers receive"

Isn't that what everyone wants? To take away the tax breaks from the big evil companies?

For what its worth I don't think this plan is particularly better than what we are doing now. Which does suck.

That's a tax break to your benefit. But as the "big evil" companies continue to cut wages and outsource decent jobs, I guess you guys will just continue to cut off your noses to spite your face until there's nothing left to cut.

HonestChieffan
05-21-2009, 01:14 PM
"it would eliminate the tax break that employers receive"

Isn't that what everyone wants? To take away the tax breaks from the big evil companies?

For what its worth I don't think this plan is particularly better than what we are doing now. Which does suck.

Just recognize tax cannot be said in a positive manner in Baynon-land without "increase" being mentioned. And no one knows what you need or want more than a government agency. They know better than you. The very idea a tax credit would be allowed and you as an individual allowed to make a choice of whatever health care you want is simply unacceptable. What all government employees want is bigger government and suspend liberty for the individual.

Look at it this way...if you work for a big company you want to see the company grow and your success grow with it.

If you work for the government you want to see it grow as well. The difference is profit and productivity drive business. Government is counterproductive by nature and growth is only good if increasing tax dollars employ more people doing less productive work and make sure it goes unmeasured. The more "stuff" you can bring to government to do the better.

Its not about whats right...its all about whats right for "me". Hidden under a cloak of "doing good", its still the same old greed.

cookster50
05-21-2009, 02:06 PM
This is certainly an effort to make employer provided healthcare less attractive.

Why? What is wrong with employer provided healthcare?

FishingRod
05-21-2009, 02:14 PM
"That's a tax break to your benefit."

"Sarcasm on" How could a tax break for a company be good for me? "Sarcasm off."

I am painfully aware that many of our manufactures are moving their facilities to other countries. Their labor force has little or no benefits. Wages are lower than Americans could/would be able to live on. Their costs to meet environmental standards are a fraction of what they are here and, a host of other reasons prompt them to do so. A companies job is to remain profitable to its owners. To do so they must provide the products Americans want to by at a price that can compete with China, Vietnam, Mexico, South Korea and their ilk or that company will cease to exist. I don't like it. I would prefer the US to lead the world in exports. It would be nice if an employee could work for the company their whole life and the company would take care of them in retirement. The reality is that there in no longer loyalty for or from either side. If someone has some decent ideas of how to reverse this trend I'm all ears but the idea that companies are just mean and bad is over used and over simplistic. The left has done a marvelous marketing job pushing the idea Companies are greedy. Rich people don't deserve what they have and, I'm from the IRS errr Government and I'm here to help you. The Republicans until they lost the last election were essentially doing the same thing but trying to downplay the governments role. The Repub talk is now back to smaller government , lower taxes and keeping Uncle Sam out of our pockets. Sounds great but, in reality I'm not impressed. With their track record I just see it as slightly, and I mean slightly, less bad. I admit that Government can in some ways help or hinder our situation yet we are part of a world economy. Like it or not we now compete with people that will work for $00.50 an hr. or less. No amount of whining, complaining, or raising of taxes on those more wealthy than ourselves will change this. We need to adapt and frankly if we are to continue our lofty standard of living will will have to take advantage of the poor people of other countries and exploit then just like we did with each round of immigrants into our great country. Otherwise we are going to have to adjust our idea of what our needs vs.. wants are and accept less of everything.

patteeu
05-21-2009, 02:59 PM
Why? What is wrong with employer provided healthcare?

It puts an extra level of bureaucracy between the person and their medical provider. The employer becomes the insurance company's customer not the employee.

It favors employees of big business over those of small business or people who are self employment. As jAZ alluded to earlier in the thread, under the current system, people who work for big employers have an advantage over people who work for smaller employers because their "group" is larger and can demand favorable treatment (which comes at the expense of everyone else).

It makes it harder for people to change jobs. People who have family members with health issues become tied to jobs with good healthcare benefits instead of being able to purchase that particular plan regardless of where they work.

Velvet_Jones
05-21-2009, 03:10 PM
There's no reason why individuals can't get together in healthcare pools that are independent of employment.

In addition to the tax credit that the government would give individuals under this plan, over time, cash compensation from employers should rise too because the cost of providing health insurance would no longer be there.

FYI - they already can. Its called an MET - Multiple Employers Trust. Don't let the employers part mislead you - individuals are able to join - you just have to be a member of the trust.

banyon
05-21-2009, 04:01 PM
Just recognize tax cannot be said in a positive manner in Baynon-land without "increase" being mentioned. And no one knows what you need or want more than a government agency. They know better than you. The very idea a tax credit would be allowed and you as an individual allowed to make a choice of whatever health care you want is simply unacceptable. What all government employees want is bigger government and suspend liberty for the individual.

There is already a tax credit, they are reducing it, that's the friggin point. Jesus.

Look at it this way...if you work for a big company you want to see the company grow and your success grow with it.

If you work for the government you want to see it grow as well. The difference is profit and productivity drive business. Government is counterproductive by nature and growth is only good if increasing tax dollars employ more people doing less productive work and make sure it goes unmeasured. The more "stuff" you can bring to government to do the better.

Its not about whats right...its all about whats right for "me". Hidden under a cloak of "doing good", its still the same old greed.

I tell you what, I'll just tell everyone at my office to stop doing their jobs, since they aren't productive, and all of the people that we have to let go free can just stay at your house, deal?

HonestChieffan
05-21-2009, 10:22 PM
I'd like you to point out where I missed this tax credit you claim exists. Don't work on it too long. Its not there.

I have no more desire to house you or your coworkers any more than you will reach out to the unemployed in your community as a result of the Obama tax and spending that has already occured. Should we ever be blessed with a reduction in governmental employees, there will probably be a place for most in the real world jobs that the rest of us do.

banyon
05-21-2009, 10:27 PM
I'd like you to point out where I missed this tax credit you claim exists. Don't work on it too long. Its not there.

You don't think businesses receive a tax credit for providing health care to workers?

I have no more desire to house you or your coworkers any more than you will reach out to the unemployed in your community as a result of the Obama tax and spending that has already occured. Should we ever be blessed with a reduction in governmental employees, there will probably be a place for most in the real world jobs that the rest of us do.

I wasn't referring to my coworkers. Probably too subtle for you, eh?

HonestChieffan
05-21-2009, 10:40 PM
Well jeewhiz buckwheat...the proposal is to give the individuals the tax credit...dipwad.

No Business does not get a credit. Business can deduct the cost as an expence, however if you had any clue about such things, expences are still expences and no business is successful by adding expences to the balance sheet. The value of the deduction varys according to the tax rate being paid by the company. In many cases that is equal to the tax rate of the business owner. In any case the real value of the deduction amouts to roughly 30% so 70% comes right off the business' bottom line.

I assumed you cared about your coworkers. My error. Maybe you are less in to living in the new Obama Collective than I thought. But you did ask if all the people let go in your office could come to my house...so maybe you did refer to your coworkers....its hard to follow just what you are saying especially when you are emotional and trying to dig your way out of your own pit of stupidity.

banyon
05-21-2009, 10:50 PM
Well jeewhiz buckwheat...the proposal is to give the individuals the tax credit...dipwad.

Well, you said I was "against a credit", so it took a while to get you to understand that it was in fact a net reduction of a credit, but it seems like you still don't get it. But I like the fact that you feel the need to stick a name on the end of your "argument" it really makes you sound like you know what you are talking about. :rolleyes:

No Business does not get a credit. Business can deduct the cost as an expence,

:spock: Er, what do you think a tax credit is, anyway? I don't think it's me who doesn't understand how this works based on the explanation you've just offered.

however if you had any clue about such things, expences are still expences and no business is successful by adding expences to the balance sheet. The value of the deduction varys according to the tax rate being paid by the company. In many cases that is equal to the tax rate of the business owner. In any case the real value of the deduction amouts to roughly 30% so 70% comes right off the business' bottom line.

I don't know about you, but if I run a business and I have a 10% profit margin before taxes, and then you allow me to deduct expenses with a benefit and thereby attract better, more highly qualified workers, my business will be more successful. I don't know why you would be unable to use that to your business's advantage.

HonestChieffan]I assumed you cared about your coworkers. My error. Maybe you are less in to living in the new Obama Collective than I thought. But you did ask if all the people let go in your office could come to my house...so maybe you did refer to your coworkers....its hard to follow just what you are saying especially when you are emotional and trying to dig your way out of your own pit of stupidity.

Of course I care about my coworkers, where did I say anything even remotely close to what you allege here?

Since you're apparently unable to figure it out with less than an explicit word-for-word explanation, I was referring to that fact that if I stopped prosecuting criminals and we freed them out of the jails and prison system because we weren't being "productive" as you alleged, then those people could come visit you in your neighborhood and you could determine whether or not that impacted your productivity, up close and personal like.

HonestChieffan
05-21-2009, 10:56 PM
Oh. Ok. Great job keeping those criminals locked up. Bet you would be pissed if you had some guy locked up and the Pres decided to let em go, just cause he didnt like the old boss...

A tax credit is a thing the government does at the bottom of the tax form...you figure tax owed. Then if there is a tax credit, you subtract that amount from the tax owed.

Keep locking up bad guys and avoid these discussions where you fail to understand the difference between a credit and a deduction.

You can do the math and see the huge difference in a credit off taxes owed vs a deduction. I bet you know an accountant who can explain it if you still don't get the difference.

banyon
05-21-2009, 11:07 PM
Oh. Ok. Great job keeping those criminals locked up. Bet you would be pissed if you had some guy locked up and the Pres decided to let em go, just cause he didnt like the old boss...

Probably. I can't remember the last time I enthusiastically supported a presidential pardon.

A tax credit is a thing the government does at the bottom of the tax form...you figure tax owed. Then if there is a tax credit, you subtract that amount from the tax owed.

Keep locking up bad guys and avoid these discussions where you fail to understand the difference between a credit and a deduction.

You can do the math and see the huge difference in a credit off taxes owed vs a deduction. I bet you know an accountant who can explain it if you still don't get the difference.

If you wanted to win some little semantic battle, I will concede it. But the point was that it will be a net detriment to most taxpayers who had been insured through their employer. That's going to be true regardless of this semantic distinction you've emphasized here.

HonestChieffan
05-21-2009, 11:30 PM
if you believe a credit is the same thing as a deduction you cannot be helped.

banyon
05-21-2009, 11:32 PM
if you believe a credit is the same thing as a deduction you cannot be helped.

Apparently, you are illiterate and could not read my last post.

jAZ
05-22-2009, 01:13 AM
There's no reason why individuals can't get together in healthcare pools that are independent of employment.

In addition to the tax credit that the government would give individuals under this plan, over time, cash compensation from employers should rise too because the cost of providing health insurance would no longer be there.

Yes there are.

It's called an insurance death spiral.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_spiral_(insurance)

Employer based pools don't have this effect, as people are particpating in the "pool" for reasons other than purely insurance.

BWillie
05-22-2009, 02:33 AM
You're still missing the point. Insurance companies are nothing but crooks. What good is insurance if you still have to out the ass to have anything done because the insurance companies refuse to pay?

:rolleyes:

patteeu
05-22-2009, 06:56 AM
You don't think businesses receive a tax credit for providing health care to workers?



I wasn't referring to my coworkers. Probably too subtle for you, eh?

Technically, they just get a deduction which is not nearly as valuable as a tax credit.

Family of 4 around $10k according to the Republicans' own numbers in the plan. Leaves about a $5k shortfall. Probably pocket change to you, but to many people, it's important money that they don't have lying around.

If your numbers (or, I should say, the Republican's numbers that you quote) are right, the tax credit is more than enough to cover the benefit that's being withdrawn. The $5,700 tax credit for a typical family in the 35% tax bracket is worth the same as a $16,285 deduction. In lower tax brackets, the equivalent deduction would be even greater. By comparison, the $10,000 deduction that a corporate employer is getting for providing health care to an employee is equivalent to a tax credit of only $3,500 at a 35% corporate tax rate.

The issue that remains is that it would take some amount of time before a new compensation equilibrium was established. At first, the employer would see a savings of $6,500 ($10,000 cost of insurance minus $3,500 tax benefit) on it's labor cost, but eventually competitive forces would be likely to force them to pass most if not all of that savings on to the employee in the form of higher wages. And I suppose that it's possible that legislation could actually require employers to pass the $6,500 on to their employees immediately when they withdraw their health care programs and the equilibrium process to the extent necessary could work in the opposite direction (although that might work against the purpose of the reform in that it would give employers less incentive and perhaps even a disincentive to get out of the health care business).

patteeu
05-22-2009, 07:02 AM
Yes there are.

It's called an insurance death spiral.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_spiral_(insurance)

Employer based pools don't have this effect, as people are particpating in the "pool" for reasons other than purely insurance.

Employer based pools aren't a solution to that particular problem. You're mixing apples and oranges. As others have already pointed out, there are non-employer-based health care pools in existence today. Whether those are the right model for the future or not, I don't know, but some kind of non-employer-based pooling is the right answer here. The problem that you're talking about should be addressed separately.

BTW, didn't you applaud this particular reform idea (separating health care from employment) when you thought it was a new democrat idea a couple of months ago? And then I pointed out that it wasn't a new idea and that Republicans had proposed it previously.