President Bush gets something right.... (Taxes/tax breaks shift health costs) [ed.]

Article

…maybe. Personally, this would be great for me, and great for almost every person I know who is paying for their own health insurance. I pay for health insurance for my family of 4, it costs a little over $400 per month. It’s pretty good coverage too, vision and dental are covered, as are prescriptions. Doctor visits are covered 100% up to a certain point each year, my co-pay for an injury or accident visit to the ER is manageable, and the deductible on the plan only kicks in for the big stuff, there is a hard out of pocket maximum and if I’m unlucky enough to suffer the really big stuff (like heart attack, stroke, cancer, etc…) it won’t cost me a dime. At roughly $400/month, that’s just over $5,000 per year. Which, of course, I write off on my taxes. I was smart enough to set up an HRA so I can deduct out of pocket costs as well, but we’re a healthy family (knock wood), they tend to be insignificant. If this plan goes through, I’d be able to write off 15K instead of 5, which would be about 3K back in my pocket each year. (Very rough numbers) Very nice! That’s a nice chunk to stick in an IRA, or to take a vacation, heck, divide that by 12 and it’s $250 a month, if I subtract that from my health insurance premiums, they’re down below $200/month. That will make a big difference to a lot of people who are uninsured now due to cost.

However it’s the other part of the plan that’s going to raise a lot of people’s ire. Taxing their benefits? Oh, they’ll be out in force against that! The thing is, it’s not going to apply to most people. I’ve seen the numbers (I do not have a link to them, this was in an industry publication), and less that 5% of those covered by employer’s health plans have plans that cost more than 15K/family and 7.5K individual. Even then the tax is only on the difference between 15K and the actual cost. Many health plans are overpriced because nobody every asks if the benefits are necessary ( Example: I went to the dentist for an abscess. He prescribed an antibiotic that cost over $100. Because name brands cost me significantly more than generics under my plan, I asked if a generic was available. He said sure and wrote me a script for amoxocillin. Cost me $8 to fill, less than my co-pay. I ASKED because I am aware of the various costs under my plan, if I had little or no co-pay for name brands I wouldn’t have bothered, and insurance would have paid over $100 where $8 would have sufficed.) or takes the time to learn what things actually cost. While this is far, far from the largest thing affecting high costs in the insurance industry, it does contribute. If this goes through, I think you’ll see that 5% scaling their plans back just a bit so that they don’t get hit with the tax. 15K/year still buys an awful lot of health insurance. I’ve been doing this for 10 years and I have never once sold a policy that costs that much or more. (I do not work with employer supplied insurance however. I know there are some out there that do cost that much) So…some drawbacks to the plan, but they are fairly minor, IMO.

However…I have no idea how one would sell this plan to the American public. Most people are going to hear the words “taxing benefits” and go ape shit without bothering to find out that it doesn’t apply to them. Many others aren’t going to be able to get past the fact that it’s Bush proposing it, no matter what it says. This isn’t universal health care, it’s not socialized medicine. I know a lot of you want that, can we limit this thread to a discussion of this particular proposal as compared to the current system and not “This sucks because it’s not X” please?. X isn’t on the table. If X ever comes to the table, it will be germain to the discussion, but now it’s not. Right now this is on the table, and I’d welcome your opinions on it.

(If we can discuss the proposal as it sits and on it’s own merits with a minimum of the obligatory Bush bashing, I’d be grateful for that too. I want to talk about the plan, not the person proposing it)

I read an article about this and at the end I thought to myself “and this is supposed to do what?”. From what I gather the point is to encourage people to get less insurance, thus driving down demand for medical treatments, and thus reducing cost. Seems like a decent enough idea, but is it really going to do anything in the long run? I just can’t imagine very many people deciding the amount of insurance they should buy on tax reasons. If anything I could see healthy people deciding to reduce coverage to save even more money on taxes.

At most this is a drop in the bucket that’s just going to royally piss off everyone. Democrats are going to hate it because it doesn’t really do anything for the 10s of millions of Americans without health insurance. Republicans are going to hate it because they don’t want to pay more taxes. I think this proposal is going to die an ugly death. It doesn’t solve any problems in the U.S. health care system, and the only reason people will like it is for reasons given in the OP, i.e. they will get money out of it.

You say you want to keep socialized medicine out of the discussion, but that’s not really fair. If we want to save money in health care you can’t simply ignore the massive amount of money going to the insurance industry that could otherwise be spent on health care, or simply saved.

And what does this plan do for people like me – self-employed, and unable to get insurance at any price, due to pre-existing conditions?

It’s a decent plan but it won’t really change too much. It will affect some folks on the margins, but it’s not the overhaul our system needs.

For one, Congress needs to pass a law allowing individuals and businesses that don’t self-insure to purchase insurance from a company that is out-of-state. Currently, no state allows this and as such there really is no national health insurance market.

Two, individuals who purchase insurance should be able to do so from pre-tax dollars. Currently, companies get a tax break if they provide health insurance for employees but individuals who purchase their own insurance do not. This leads to the situation we have today, where a third-party buys your insurance and you lose it when you leave a job. That doesn’t make any sense.

We need to move to a system where individuals purchase their own health insurance. Doing the two things above would do a lot more to solve the health insurance “crisis” than anything Bush is proposing.

But I’m not sure that really addresses the issue. A health insurance crisis is less an actual insurance issue than a ‘cost of health care’ issue.

So as not to hijack Dave’s perfectly reasonable thread I think I’ll start something on this.

Health insurance and the cost of health care are inextricably tied. Because insurance pays for so much of our health care (I think the average American spends pays for less than 20% of his/her health care costs), patients have little incentive to seek affordable care. Thus the price continues to skyrocket.

I tend to think the US’s health care/insurance situation is screwed up enough that significant changes are needed - this strikes me as nibbling around the edges - as well as complicating already complex personal choices regarding insurance and taxes. I’m trying to figure out exactly who is going to be caused to do what under this system, and who is going to derive significant savings and benefits from where?

I’m not a big fan of assuming “the market” will adapt to provide products to correct a flawed system, and I believe creation of additional “choice” in this manner imposes a significant burden on the individual.

Personally, I pay approx $300/month, and my employer $700, but I do not have optional dental and vision. Figured the added premiums were probably pretty close to annual eye and dental checkups for everyone, hoping no one needed major procedures. And encouraged everyone to floss more! Plus, I can have up to $5K taken out pre-tax to pay out-of-pocket medical costs, so I get the tax savings there.

:confused: Tax breaks for people who can’t afford health insurance? They probably don’t pay much income tax anyway.

Well, quite a few people don’t buy health insurance who have fairly high incomes. Perhaps this will help them do so, or at least give them an incentive to do so.

This is a problem that I think each state should address individually. Maryland has done a beautiful job of this with the Maryland Health Insurance Plan, which is partially funded with federal money. Other states have enacted similar plans, but many have not. It’s great. Cost may still be an issue, but I never have to tell a client “I’m sorry, but you can’t get any coverage because of your health” anymore. It’s not even that expensive (comparatively. It’s not cheep, you can check the rates off the link). Write your state legislator and tell him/her to emulate what Maryland has done.

That’s not true. That is, in fact, exactly what I do-make individuals part of a national pool with more than a million other people in order to get better deals on their own coverage. Small business groups are coming, we’re testing them in some areas now.

How does this work in light of the regulations Maryland puts on individual and small-group policies? Any policies you sell must comply with these rules, correct?

By offering a choice between health insurance and a tax break? How is that an incentive to buy health insurance?

Right now people who have enough income to buy insurance but do not do so don’t see the value of the insurance at the price it is being sold. By giving them a tax break, it effectively lowers the price of insurance. For some, that lower price may be right for them.

I just don’t see this affecting much. As it stands, I have no choice in my health coverage. I can get individual coverage or family coverage. Currently I (me + employer) pay around 6600 in premiums. The article stipulates that it is benefits that would be taxed, so I’m assuming they’d lump in the total cost of all your doctors visits, pill costs, etc etc. If I get sick, need oral surgury or glasses or something (or og-forbid all 3), I could easily end up breaking the current cap and I have no way to avoid it other than not taking care of myself. Plans to address the problem should promote choices in the work place and preventative care. This doesn’t do either and could potentially work against both.

What an utterly worthless idea. People don’t go with health insurance because they want to or because they don’t have an “incentive.” They’re living check to check. They don’t have the money on a month-to-month basis to pay the premiums. A tax break isn’t going to help them in practical terms.

Socialized medicine is really the only thing that’s ever going to work. I deon’t know why people have such a problem with that other than that they’re brainwashed to think “socialism” = “EEEEEEVIL.”

By the way, who is going to pay for all of these tax breaks?

Um…no. The tax is on premiums that exceed 15K/year. Out of pocket medical expenses are immaterial to the discussion (unless they exceed 7 1/2 % of your income or you have an HRA in which case they are tax deductible). But this is a good example of the type of misunderstanding which I think is going to surround this proposal.

Actually, it’s a tax break if you buy health insurance, not a choice between a tax break and health insurance, and it can make a big difference to people. (Warning: anecdotal evidence ahead!) I see people all the time who claim they “can’t afford” health insurance who change their mind when I show them the tax breaks that they can get with, for example, an HRA. It’s a huge selling point for qualifying small businesses.

If you can’t buy health insurance, then a tax break doesn’t mean anything. Most people who don’t have it don’t have it because they CAN’T, not because they choose not to. Even if you think there are 8 or 9 people in the country who will buy insurance because of this, it still doesn’t do anything for the millions of people who CAN’T buy it, period.

Then why do they use the term ‘benefits’ instead of ‘premiums’? Benefits (to me anyway) would mean anything spent on your behalf. If this will be a common misunderstanding, maybe its poorly worded and should be rethought - though its possible that was the wording of the article itself. Even then, until we see some sort of legislation drawn up we can’t really know or argue the specifics - and the specifics are extremely important in a plan like this.

Sure. And they do. You’d have to ask the lawyers in the compliance dept. how it all works, my knowledge doesn’t extend to that area.