Taxing Employer-Sponsored Health Benefits
 

How many people are gonna lose their health benefit now?


I think this is a backdoor way Obama is setting up for single-payer health care.

There is no backdoor to single payer health care.

Single payer won't happen here for a very very long time, if it ever does happen.

Just because you want single-payer doesn't mean that everything being done right now is secretly a way to give you what you want.

Taxing employers health benefits to their worker is supposedly going into fixing the health care problem.

That doesn't make sense at all because the system is already broken.


There is a system already in place that can cover every body in the USA.....Medicare

Overnight the health insurance company will go away.

You're living in never-never land bro.

If you came here to advocate for single payer you're wasting your breath. Even if we all agreed with you that it would be the best thing, it will not happen this year.

Change happens slowly. If we eventually end up with single payer it will be through attrition. In a scenario where the public plan is superior to the private plans, so most people choose the public plan, and we end up with a defacto single payer plan.

You can't go to the floor of the U.S. Congress right now though, and say we're going to force all Americans to have health insurance through the government and we won't allow any other type of insurance or payment.
You'd be laughed all the way to North Carolina.

BTW, I don't think that there will be a tax on employer based health benefits. If there is, it'll be minimal, at the margins....for instance the first $XXXX is tax free, but anything over $XXXXX counts as income.
So people with gold plated health plans may have to pay tax on a portion of their benefits...but the garden variety health plan will still have the same tax advantages it has today.

I think this is very smart on Obama's part. He's not ruling anything in or out and he's not negotiating in the press.
You can't make deals that way. He hasn't publicly insisted on a public plan option, although most people feel pretty certain there will be one, and he hasn't ruled out a tax on benefits to help pay for the plan, although there probably won't be one.

Remember when George Bush said he wanted to "negotiate" with Democrats to fix social security, but ruled out any tax increase whatsoever ahead of time?
Well there was never even a meeting. You have to come to the table willing to give and take, not just take.

I've read alot of books about the Clinton administration, and the biggest reason they couldn't get anything done on health care, even with a democratic majority, was that they insisted on writing the bill themselves. They insisted on doing it their way, and wanted no input from the relevant committees.
That's the problem with Presidents who have all this "executive experience" but no legislative experience. They don't understand how the legislative process works. They don't understand how powerful the committee chairmen are. They think they're going to come to Washington and own the place, and it ends up owning them.

If Clinton had been willing to let congress take the lead, we would have had the Dole-Moynihan universal health care bill back in 1993. Instead, they wanted all the credit so we, the people, got nothing.

Very astute on Obama's part to let congress take the lead. That's the benefit of having a President who understands the legislative process. This time, we'll get something, even if it's not perfect.

I'm no fan of big government but Obama does have a point with this. Employer-sponsored healthcare benefits are the biggest single cause of skyrocketing health insurance premiums.

I'm not sure I understand your reason for thinking this. Could you elaborate?

fuck all taxes

Nope not me. DTI pays 100% :)

Let me play Devil's advocate here. Let's say this caused most employers to drop health care benefits. Well then you'd have millions of people that would need private individual plans. Wouldn't millions of people getting health insurance form places like blue cross REDUCE premiums for all? Of course that's assuming you could get people to take the money they are no longer paying for health insurance through a job and use that money for a private plan. Most people would probably blow it.

Actually the best way to lower health care costs is to get everyone to eat right and exercise and stop smoking and drink less and stop doing drugs. 80% of the population dies from either heart disease or cancer and most of the root cause for both is lifestyle related. But people don't want to listen to that because that would require EFFORT on peoples part. Just like when Obama suggested that making sure you tires inflated would save as much oil as we could get from drilling offshore. Everyone scoffed at that because saying "drill baby drill" is easier than spending 97 cents on a tire gauge and then checking your fucking tires once a week.

I wonder how many people would never see any money if their employer dropped their health insurance. I have had jobs in the past (and know people now) that pay nothing for their health insurance - their employer covers it all. So if the employer dumps it there is a decent chance they will just put that money in their pocket and not give it to employees. this would cause people a lot of troubles because someone that has a family of four could suddenly find themselves having to shelve out a lot of cash to get the health coverage.

You are right though. Taking care of yourself is the best way to lower the cost of healthcare.

Most people are misunderstanding this altogether.

The proposals that are on the table wouldn't change the setup for employers at all, vis a vis taxes.
Workers would have to pay taxes on their benefits as if they were income. Employers would write off the cost of health insurance as wages paid to employees, so to them, there's no difference.

There would be no incentive to "drop people's healthcare" by employers. As a matter of fact, this would be done in concert with overall reform that would require employers to provide insurance or make a contribution to the public plan for their employees. :2 cents:

I see. So say, hypothetically, you worked for a company that provided your health insurance and that insurance cost $7500 a year. You would then have to pay taxes on that $7500 as if it were income correct? That sucks.

Taxing employer-sponsored health benefits in a time when it's already tough for employers to provide health insurance is the most fucking retarded thing I've ever heard.

Exactly, which might make someone consider getting an outside plan, so that they could pay less taxes.

Keep in mind that this would include Dental, Health and possibly even Aflac. Which as stated above, could be several thousands of dollars, depending on the number of dependents that your employer covers.

No doubt. I read not too long ago that an average family of four cost the employer around $12,500 per year to cover with insurance. I assume that is health, dental and maybe even life insurance. That is a lot of new taxes for people.

I remember Obama blasting McCain because he was planing on doing this. If he blasted McCain for it then turns around and does it without something in place that could allow people to get equal heath care without the heavy taxes it is going to reflect pretty poorly on him.

Personally I think people should get their own health plans separate from their work. This way they aren't as reliant on their job. I pay what I feel is a pittance every month for decent coverage. It's all these people with kids or shitty pre-existing conditions that have trouble affording insurance. It's amazing that we pay the most for healthcare and somehow don't receive the best service(34th i believe). Until the healthcare costs are made reasonable people will continue to get screwed from every angle.

Yes that's the gist of it. Although most of the plans currently on the table would only tax a portion of that, not all of it.

You're missing the point. The tax won't be borne by the employers and it won't affect their ability to provide coverage for their employees.

That's part of the argument for taxing the benefits. By giving employer based benefits special tax considerations, it distorts the free market and doesn't encourage consumers to act in an efficient manner.

I'm not saying I agree with that, I'm just saying that's one of the big arguments the proponents of taxing benefits make.

Well it's important to remember that this isn't Obama's idea. It's something that's been put on the table by members of congress, and in order to negotiate in good faith Obama can't dismiss it out of hand.
You can't get comprehensive reform passed without putting everything on the table. It may be something he has to "give" in the process of "give and take" in order to get something done.
As opposed to standing on principle and winning the media war, but not getting anything done for the American people.

Or consider a health savings account.

Of course it will be borne on employers. If your employee is taking home less money because of extra taxes, he'll either need to make more money from his employer or find a new job that pays more.

that is true. You have to be willing to look at every option when you are trying to reform something.

This will be a huge issue so I'm sure there will be many other theories and options tossed out there over the coming months. It will be interesting to see what they eventually come up with. Hopefully it is something that is reasonable and won't cause havoc to the health care system or further bankrupt the country.

That's some pretty tortured logic.

It's ok to admit you were wrong and didn't think it through. You'll look like less of a douche that way than you will constantly trying to defend this ridiculous point.