Just like the income tax, back when it was first enacted…
Dio, that’s not universally true. It’s true for a lot of people, no doubt, and I’ve said that people below a certain income should have health care made available to them, but there are plenty of people who do exactly what you say-chose not to buy insurance. If this proposal helps tip the balance in favor of getting coverage for those people, then it’s a good thing.
Open article.
Search for “index”.
Don’t find it.
Hmmm… a plan with a built-in creep-down of the taxable level of insurance toward the normal levels required to protect a middle-class family…
That is simply wrong. We can quibble over if “most” or not can afford it, but a significant portion of the uninsured have incomes that are well above the poverty line. For example, in Maryland over 50% of the uninsured are in families with income above $29,000 a year. Cite
Being above an artificially created (and rather lowball) “poverty line” doesn’t mean you can buy health insurance.
So you want a family making 32,000 a year to pay a third of that on health insurance? But wait… That’s 10,000 they don’t have to pay taxes on… except they didn’t have 10,000 that they were paying taxes on to begin with.
No, not everyone above that line can afford it. However, quite a few people above that line can certainly find the money for a bare-bones plan, if they truly want it. Whether or not these individuals think their money would be better spent on other things, that’s another debate.
I know I voluntarily went without insurance for a few years because it was not worth it to me. I took my chances, kept the money I would have spent on premiums, and was better off for it. I could have afforded it, but what insurance offerred me was not as valuable to me as other things I could have spent that money on. Plenty of people make a similar choice.
Certainly not. I don’t support mandating anyone to have health insurance. I also think that it’s possible to find a policy for much less than $10,000 a year. Of course, here in Maryland government regulations and mandates have driven up the cost of insurance. That’s a problem that isn’t often discussed – how government mandates make insurance unaffordable.
I’m not saying Bush’s plan would help those folks. I’m simply pointing out that the idea that the only people without health insurance are those who cannot afford it is false.
Well if it’s truly a choice, then they don’t need a tax break. What does this plan do for the vast majority who don’t have that choice?
Basically, it sounds like this plan only gives tax breaks to people who can already afford health insurance. Yippy skippy. What a humanitarian this president is.
Do you really think those that can afford it, but choose not to purchase it will be lured in by the fact that they’ll just get a 10-30% discount when you figure in the tax break?
Some may. Right now those who aren’t purchasing health insurance even though they can afford it do not think that the plans offerred are worth the price being charged for them. If you lower the price (which a tax break would do), these policies may then have some value for them.
People purchase things when the items’ value meets or exceeds the items’ price. It’s simple economics.
Of course, everyone has a different value for health insurance, so it’s unclear how many people would be helped by this.
The “vast majority” do not have a choice, huh? As my cite showed, a good number of those without insurance cannot be considered “poor.”
The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that Bush’s domestic policy advisors are smoking crack.
The people who are going to raise holy hell over having their benefits taxed are, by and large, the upper-middle-class (and, as the tax threshold creeps inexorably downward, the just-plain-middle-class) portion of the Republican base. (The people who reject the idea because of its source are irrelevant, since the Republicans can’t persuade them in any case.)
Actually, I doubt that the administration is going to get any real chance to try to sell this turkey; their usual opinion outlets are going to spontaneously jump on the “Bush wants to increase your taxes” portion of the plan.
Maybe Poppy could explain to Junior about the “no new taxes” thing…
Why not? Because of an artificially drawn “poverty line?”
Arguing that people who are technically above the poverty line are not “poor” is sophist on its face. Moreover, the question is not whether the government defines a given household as poor but whether that household can afford health insurance. Most people who don’t have it don’t have a choice about it. Regardless of what percentage of those without health care you are willing to believe can’t afford it, the point remains that this plan does nothing for them, and they’re the ones who need help.
I still don’t fully grasp Bush’s proposal. Isn’t it essentially nothing more than a 15k tax deduction for everyone, no matter what?
I’m not basing this on a poverty line. I’m basing this on an analysis of census numbers that discusses those who are uninsured and the incomes made by their families.
I’m not doing so.
Yes, it is. People who make, say $30,000 a year can arguably afford to buy an insurance plan.
Maybe most. But the “vast majority”? No.
True, the Bush plan does nothing for them. Of course, there are a variety of other government plans, such as Medicaid and SCHIP to help them (or at the very least, their children) afford health care. There are also other plans, such as the one in Maryland mentioned above, to help poor folks afford health insurance.
The problematic part is the proposed immediate tax increase if you have health benefits worth more than $7500/$15000 (including the part that is nominally paid by your employer) and the future tax increase when inflation brings normal middle-class benefits above those levels.
You’re the kind of person the insurance companies want to insure, since you are unlikely to cost them more than the premiums. You, and other relatively young and high income people not buying insurance are making a rational choice for yourselves, but hurting the system as a whole. How many people are really going to buy insurance with the new plan? If you expect to spend $200 a year for healthcare, is cutting premiums effectively from $2,00 a year to $1500 a year going to change your choice?
People below the poverty line get Medicaid or the equivalent. It’s the working poor, who don’t get health care from their employers who are not going to be helped. They’re not paying much in taxes, so the “discount” will be trivial. The real beneficiaries are the well to do who are buying individual healthcare now. They’ll get a nice tax break with no change of behavior.
Screwing the working poor, helping the well to do - business as usual.
I have to disagree with this – at least that they can buy anything any good.
This plan is pretty much a nonsensical non-starter. I think a much better starting point for a program to address health care costs on a national level would be the Republican plan in California or the Republican plan in Massachusetts.
I also think that removing the burden of health care costs to American businesses through a universal health care program would be huge.