Paying for National Healthcare - Employees are Next

[lawrocket 3]

LA Times article:
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-health-tax28-2009mar28,0,6232958.story

Many of you who wanted socialized health care probably didn't figure that you'd actually be paying for it. The rich could pay for it. Businesses could pay more. Everyone else can.

Nope. Employees will be taxed on it. So work up $50k in medical bills? Expect it to be treated like $50k in income and you'll be taxed accordingly.

Sure, you may only make $30k per year as a family, and have 5 kids. At, oh, a fair rate of 40%, you've got an additional $10k or so to live on for the rest of the year.

So free health care ain't so free. There's something to be said about the difference between a deductibles and taxes. Deductibles have limits but taxes don't. The more expensive the health care gets, the more taxes you'll pay. As you may know, the government WILL get its money. It's not yours anymore.

"If you think healthcare is expensive now just wait until it's free." - P.J. O'Rourke

p.s. - how do you think unions feel about this? Oh, they don't like it at all. How can their employees pay union dues if they are bankrupted by government health care? Only employers should be bankrupted.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Is there any change that we could get the GOPers here to stop posting "sky is falling" threads?

For fuck's sake, there isn't even a proposal yet, just that they're investigating the idea. The Democrat lead Congress is not going to pass a bill 75% of voters hate just because they now have Obama to sign it. So get a grip already.

I expect this reform to go the same way as SS reform. No one wants to be the brave (and dead) one.

[shropshire 0]

I doubt that anyone every said that it was going to be FREE.

Ours is Free at the point of delivery but it has to be paid for out of the country's Tax Pot.

Now, if stopped wasting money on other peoples stupid wars, our would be better tha it currently is too.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

LA Times article:
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-health-tax28-2009mar28,0,6232958.story


Nope. Employees will be taxed on it. So work up $50k in medical bills? Expect it to be treated like $50k in income and you'll be taxed accordingly.

As far as I read it, the taxes are on the insurance package itself. Have a $1000/month family plan; pay $280 a month in taxes or whatever.

It might get interesting for large employers who self-insure (presumably they'd setup a wholy owned insurance company that they bought insurance from at cost).

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Is there any change that we could get the GOPers here to stop posting "sky is falling" threads?
For fuck's sake, there isn't even a proposal yet, just that they're investigating the idea.

So when do you think is the best time to start opposing a bad idea?

It seems to me, the answer is; "as soon as the bad idea surfaces." In other words, right now.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Perhaps you'd prefer a return to the days when all policy deliberations were done in secret, with no chance to respond until the policy is set in stone? The way you guys fly off the handle every time an idea you don't like is just brought up for discussion, instead of rationally stating why you think it's a bad idea (or better yet, suggesting a better alternative), it makes me think maybe Dick Cheney had the right idea holding secret discussions with energy company executives and then cramming his energy policy down our throats. No, I'd still prefer to have these things discussed in public, at least then there may be a chance for constructive comment in venues that may influence the final decision (Speakers Corner doesn't count in that regard unfortunately). (Random thought: maybe more politicians should be skydivers? We'd probably all be better off if that was the case.)

Quote

So work up $50k in medical bills? Expect it to be treated like $50k in income and you'll be taxed accordingly.

The policy under discussion says nothing of the sort. It does say that some portion of the employer's share of the insurance premiums would be treated as income, and be subject to taxes. No-one has suggested that the benefits paid under the insurance (i.e. the value of the medical bills paid) would be subject to taxation. Lawrocket, you're a really smart guy and usually bring interesting discussion to the table, you've changed my mind on some topics on occasion. So I wonder why you'd misinterpret this one so badly. Could it be that you are so opposed to "socialized healthcare" that you're seeing the bogeymen that you want to see?

For my part, I don't like the proposal, although it does have a certain logic. I am very concerned that it will erode the little incentive that remains for employers to offer health insurance benefits. That could result in even more people without insurance. I am also concerned that the same reasoning would lead to employer contributions to retirement plans and other benefits also being counted as taxable income. Last year one of my city commisioners tried to get the city to drop health insurance for all employees, on the grounds that some employees have family coverage (which costs the city more) and some have coverage only for themselves (which costs less of course), so in effect some employees are paid more than others for the same job. He argued that everyone in the same job should be paid the same, and they could go and buy private insurance for themselves or their families if they wish. Of course that would strip people of the opportunity to participate in a group plan, which is usually more affordable than individual policies, and as many city employees already work 2 or even 3 jobs to make ends meet as the city pays so little (if that's your only job, most people qualify for food stamps), private insurance would be out of reach for many. Still there is a certain Scrooge-like logic, and if employer-supplemented benefits were to be treated as income that logic would be reinforced.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Is there any change that we could get the GOPers here to stop posting "sky is falling" threads?

For fuck's sake, there isn't even a proposal yet, just that they're investigating the idea. The Democrat lead Congress is not going to pass a bill 75% of voters hate just because they now have Obama to sign it. So get a grip already.

I expect this reform to go the same way as SS reform. No one wants to be the brave (and dead) one.

Most Americans are against the bailouts as they are being handled, yet Congress still passes them. What's funny is that this taxable income on insurance benefits was in McCain's plan too. It's amazing how much the "hype" has blinded people...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

it makes me think maybe {Obama} had the right idea holding secret discussions with {insert industry here} company executives and then cramming his {insert costly} policy down our throats.

mild update to highlight the crooks on both sides are cut from the same cloth

no reason, just cut from that point, I promise to read the rest of the tirade in a sec

edit: read it, nice post - actually, I LIKE the scrooge-like logic. You CHOOSE to have 6 kids, you pay insurance from your income for all of you. You CHOOSE to have fewer, then why shouldn't you have more take home pay - for the same job. I bet a TON of group options would surface from the industry and people could coop for plan economics.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

I've been wrong in the past. Heck, I'm seriously questioning my position on dark matter and dark energy and whether it has, in my mind been proven. I am leaning toward "it has." One person made a post pointing to evidence and, dang it, I am having trouble poking a hole in it.

And yes, I am against socialized medicine. I'm so against it that even a policy that spreads the cost to employees is, in my mind, rotten.

Look - very few people are against receiving benefits paid for by others. It isn't the right wing that is coming out against this unless you count labor unions as their lackies.

This is merely an attempt to equalize misery for all.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Fair enough. As I said I've been mistaken/changed my mind on issues. You make a good point about people receiving benefits paid for by others. However, while we can probably all agree that we shouldn't have to pay for someone else's nose job, I think it's a different situation (or at least more complicated) when it comes to life-saving emergency or trauma care, which is highly "socialized". I started another thread on that, and I'm really curious about your opinion.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[lawrocket 3]

I'm torn in many ways but made a decision - I think we should take care of ourselves and not each other. I know what is best for me but not for you and vice versa.

If I am broken I don't think it should be your responsibility to fix me. Why should is be your problem? Why stop there? Pay my mortgage. Pay for my kids' toys.

I'm a selfish man and I'd abuse it. I believe that almost everyone, if given the opportunity of something for nothing, would take it. Why prepare if somebody else will cover it, why be fiscally sound when the government will bail you out at taxpayer's expense?

I stay consistent. Bailing out AIG is the same thing as bailing myself out. It's a bailout. While AIG may cry all the way to the bank so do a million individuals. Take $100k from 1 person it is bad. Take $100k from 100k people, you've STILL taken $100k.

The shrewd man takes it from 100k people. They don't care and it is not worth their time to complain.

Hence, government at its essence.

Is there anything more fair that "carry your own weight" or "if you break it you buy it?". In my mind, no. Others disagree. There is no right or wrong answer.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

If I am broken I don't think it should be your responsibility to fix me. Why should is be your problem? Why stop there? Pay my mortgage. Pay for my kids' toys.

If you were drowning, and I was in a position to throw you a life preserver, I'd do that. I wouldn't just turn my back and say "I don't know if it's best for you that you don't drown". If you ask me to pay for your kids toys, I'd tell you to get stuffed. I'm capable of nuance like that. I like to think most people are. I suspect you are too, in fact I'd bet money on it.

Does the word "society" have any meaning, or are we just "islands" of selfishness with no interests in common? Doesn't your own profession extort money from me? I've been married for 26 years, I have no plans to change that, so why should I pay for courthouses/judges/clerks etc so other people can end their marriages? I help pay for those things, despite hoping that I will never need them myself, because the efficient operation of a system of laws, contracts, etc is necessary to maintain an orderly and efficiently operating society. I benefit on some level from those services because I benefit from living in a somewhat orderly society, so I pay my share without complaint (well, almost without complaint).

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[billvon 2,442]

>If I am broken I don't think it should be your responsibility to fix me.
>Why should is be your problem?

Because we are human beings. Even the most die-hard libertarian would go out of his/her way to help the kid dying in the street.

>Why stop there? Pay my mortgage. Pay for my kids' toys.

Again, we have compassion because we are human beings. That does not extend to allowing you to get a really nice house or yet another toy for your kids. (And if you are trying to claim that saving a child's life is the same as buying them another toy, then we really have nothing further to talk about; we're not living in the same world.)

>Is there anything more fair that "carry your own weight" or "if you break it you buy it?"

Nope. The fairest thing in the world is to let the 10 year old die bleeding in the street because she didn't have insurance. I am glad we are not that "fair."

[lawrocket 3]

Kids are a different story, bill. They have no choice. If you are trying to compare covering an adult's ass with saving a kid's life then we really have nothing further to discuss.

As far as saving someone? Yeah. Do it. Should someone be compelled by rule to help someone? No.

I'll put it this way. If I build a dam and it bursts, should those costs be spread to society? Or should society go to me and say, "you broke it. The cost is on you? "

I'd think that society should not bear the cost. I think that kids should be treated differently. I think that a kid is the responsibility of the parent. If a parent cannot take care socirty should step in because kids have no choice.

I also think adults should stop being treated like children. "Oh, the poor adult didn't want to get insured. Instead he did 130 jumps last year and now he's got a fractured femur and pelvis and subdural hematoma. Let's help the poor guy out"

Thyat guy had a choice. That guy chose to engage in a risky activity without protecting himself. So who should pay? A compassionate person?

I think compassion works both ways. I will show you the compassion of not burdening you. I pay a HEFTY amount in insurance each month to make sure of it.

Is my tactic the wrong tactic? Shall I let it slide and let others cover me?

I don't want that. I will sacrifice to make sure. Should I sacrifice for others, too? those who don't find it worthwhile themselves?

I wish to honor their intentions. Health care isn't important to you. I will honor that. It is important? Prove it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Is there any change that we could get the GOPers here to stop posting "sky is falling" threads?
For fuck's sake, there isn't even a proposal yet, just that they're investigating the idea.

So when do you think is the best time to start opposing a bad idea?

It seems to me, the answer is; "as soon as the bad idea surfaces." In other words, right now.

And that's done by saying "XXX has suggested that we tax this way, and it would be bad for us."

As opposed to what Lawrocket wrote here - the Redcoats are Coming!@

[GeorgiaDon 340]

OK, so you're talking about an abstract principle. I can see where you're coming from, although I'm not in complete agreement. However, lets imagine a real world scenario. That poor adult skydiver with the fractured femur and pelvis and subdural hematoma has been life-flighted, unconcious, into your trauma center. He is actually insured up the wazoo, as he is a responsible adult and pays a HEFTY amount in insurance every month. However you have no way of knowing that, as his wallet is in his gear bag back at the DZ. You have, in fact, no knowledge about his financial health, but you do know that if you don't begin treatment immediately he will die or suffer irreversible brain damage from the hemotoma. Do you really think he should be allowed to die, because his insurance status is unknown when he arrives at the hospital? How long will you leave him on the table while you try to track down his insurance or bank account balance? Or will you treat him, save his life, and sort the insurance/payment out later? We'll put aside for the moment the possibility that, if you don't treat him and he dies/is disabled as a result, and it turns out he was in fact insured, you'll be hearing from some lawyers pretty soon.
It's my understanding that when a patient's life is in danger, EMS personnel will stabilize and transport as quickly as possible, which means they often do not spend time to track down wallets/purses/gear bags, and so critically injured patients often arrive at the hospital without ID. If I'm wrong I'm sure someone will correct me, but I believe the scenario I described is very plausable. Abstract principle meets real world, and the clock is ticking. What will you do?

Oh, and thanks for the discussion and making your perspective clear. I may not agree, but I do like hearing other points of view.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

>If I am broken I don't think it should be your responsibility to fix me.
>Why should is be your problem?

Because we are human beings. Even the most die-hard libertarian would go out of his/her way to help the kid dying in the street.

There is a HUGE difference between "would go out of his way to help" and "should be forced to help on pain of incarceration."

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

>If I am broken I don't think it should be your responsibility to fix me.
>Why should is be your problem?

Because we are human beings. Even the most die-hard libertarian would go out of his/her way to help the kid dying in the street.

There is a HUGE difference between "would go out of his way to help" and "should be forced to help on pain of incarceration."

Come on. Why must people couch the debate in "all or nothing" terms? That may provide tasty slogans and sound bites, but it doesn't advance the policy discussion one whit. We already live in a society which provides general public services paid for by taxes collected "upon pain of incarceration." The only debate is over the degree.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Come on. Why must people couch the debate in "all or nothing" terms? That may provide tasty slogans and sound bites, but it doesn't advance the policy discussion one whit. We already live in a society which provides general public services paid for by taxes collected "upon pain of incarceration." The only debate is over the degree.

I disagree. Once we consent to it only being a matter of degree, we've already surrendered our personal sovereignty. I really do believe that the collection of taxes is a form of slavery enforced upon us by pain of incarceration. I really do believe it is deeply wrong ("evil" might actually come closer to capturing my feeling about it).

You are basically saying that the only real debate is over what degree of your viewpoint prevails. I refuse to accept those terms.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I really do believe that the collection of taxes is a form of slavery enforced upon us by pain of incarceration. I really do believe it is deeply wrong ("evil" might actually come closer to capturing my feeling about it).

I understand the philosophy, but general taxation of one kind or another has existed in the US for over 100 years now. That's the playing field. As much as one might like to re-cast society into a tax-free one, it won't happen.

Quote

You are basically saying that the only real debate is over what degree of your viewpoint prevails.

Well, it's not about me; but no, I'm basically saying what I'm saying.

[tkhayes 140]

***

No one said health care is 'free'

Universal healthcare means everyone pays for it, usually through income taxes. It is just cheaper/person when everyone is paying their share.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

What's funny is that this taxable income on insurance benefits was in McCain's plan too. It's amazing how much the "hype" has blinded people...

Actually, this is not the same as McCains tax plan.

McCain's plan included a tax credit to offset the cost.
Therefore, the cost would be less.
McCain openly stated this during his campaign.

The Obama plan does not have a tax credit.
It is a great deal more expensive to the taxpayer.

The interesting part is that Obama criticized the McCain
plan as a huge tax increase, when it wasn't.
Obama framed it as being without the tax credit.

Now he is promoted the version without the tax credit, the worst version, that he criticized.

The O-cult isn't really discussing this major flip-flop.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The Obama plan does not have a tax credit.
It is a great deal more expensive to the taxpayer.

Again, what "plan" are you referring to? This is discussion on the Hill. Obama hasn't proposed anything, and if you think he will put forth one that taxes all without any base allowance, let me sell you some bank stocks.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Again, what "plan" are you referring to? This is discussion on the Hill. Obama hasn't proposed anything, and if you think he will put forth one that taxes all without any base allowance, let me sell you some bank stocks.

Ok... according to what you typed above...
- there is no plan.
- O hasn't proposed anything.

But, you are able to tell me the content of the proposal that doesn't exist?

You are absolutely certain that it will contain
a base allowance (tax credit)?
Because that was in the McCain plan that Obama
ripped during his campaign.

Remember when Biden did the math on that, during the Biden-Palin debate?
Biden referred to taxing health care, WITH the tax credit, as the "ultimate bridge to nowhere".
click to hear it in his own words
So, you are certain that this is Obama's plan?
(Or, as others are calling it, the McCain plan.)

[happythoughts 0]

the plan

Don't you love the title of the article?

Quote

Health care tax still on table
Obama advisers careful to protect campaign pledge
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Monday, March 16, 2009

President Flip-Flop has painted himself into a corner
by supporting a plan that was a cornerstone of his
attack on McCain.

Forbes magazine

Quote

Now, however, according to a Sunday story in The New York Times, President Obama appears to be "open" to any Congressional proposal that in principle should attract the support of free-market advocates. Create the desired parity between self-employed and other-employed people by subjecting both to taxation.

The prudent backsliding on his campaign is rich in irony, for it blows a huge hole in a promise Obama made most recently in his Feb. 24 State of the Union address: families that earn less than $250,000 a year will not see their taxes increased by "one single dime." It is just that their deductions will be reduced.

So, this is Flip-Flopping on two fronts.
1- A major change in how his health care program will work.
2- A change in his "no new taxes for Americans" promise.

So, journalists and economists everywhere seem to
be discussing the NY Times report as credible news.

Only the O-sheep don't want to discuss it.
Understandable...