Seen in my neighborhood on my morning walk.
The Future is Now
Share this article
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
Comments
190 responses to “The Future is Now”
-
“Because the employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) exclusion reduces taxable income, it is worth more to taxpayers in higher tax brackets than to those in lower brackets, who are less likely to be covered by ESI in the first place. ” This is a true statement but misleading. By reducing your taxable income, the ESI reduces your taxes at the margin, which means, at the marginal rate. And yes, higher tax bracket folks get a bigger benefit. If you buy your own health insurance you use after tax dollars — except, you probably have a health reimbursement account (HRA) that allows you to set aside pre-tax dollars and pay no tax on payments out of the HRA if used for qualified health expenses. And just this year, the HRA rules were expanded to allow the ICHRA, which expands qualified health expenses to include the premium and deductibles paid for any ACA-compliant health policy. See e.g. https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/15934-reimburse-employees-for-health-insurance.html Which gets you right back to the same place, tax-wise.
I don’t know why Congress doesn’t take a far simpler route by simply doing away with both the income deduction and also HRAs and simply allowing a deduction from taxable income for medical expenses including the cost of ACA-compliant health insurance. (There used to be, and still is, a general health-expenses personal income deduction in principle but there’s a huge deductible amount now before it kicks in, so it’s of no practical benefit to most of us unless we’ve got catastrophic health costs not covered by insurance). Many low income folks never heard of an HRA and wouldn’t have a clue how to set one up; they are the ones who need this benefit the most and don’t have it. But for most of us in a stable income situation, the HRA dodge is available and puts those who buy individual health insurance in exactly the same place as those who have a group health plan through employment. And thus puts the government in the same place for tax revenue purposes.
-
ACA-complaint does not mean ACA. Most EP is ACA-compliant but it is purchased with pretax dollars whereas ACA insurance is purchased with post-tax dollars – so no subsidy there.
The “value” of pre-tax for EP is that the money used to pay for it not taxed, Federal, State or FICA – which is 30% even for low income folks and over 50% for high income folks.
HRAs require a high-deductible insurance plan which has huge deductibles so if you get a serious illness you’ll owe a hefty bill. Obamacare sells it also but it’s a bad bet for people who end up with big health care costs and it’s no good for folks with chronic conditions.
A much more fair approach, especially in the gig economy would be to give everyone a tax credit for their health insurance AND a way for people to truly shop for the type of coverage they want over and above what that credit provides.
EP health insurance is but one of the subsidies the govt provides to some folks. It’s the biggest and for many, it can be twice the 7K credit for EVs and it’s every year for as long as you work – a hundred thousand dollars or more for some folks.
-
Well, there’s a simpler solution. Move the medical deductions from Schedule A to the back of the 1040 and change the flavor from income deduction to a tax credit at a fixed-for-all rate, say 24%.
This would dovetail the employee portion of ESI with the ACA and eliminate the tax advantages to high compenstation employees.
Still you’ll have to do some whittling on HRA use but that’s easy if everyone gets access to a tax credit for medical expenses. Trump screwed you over by burying us with a huge Standard Deduction. Nice but people forget what that SD covers. Things like medical, mortgage and charitable.
The premise of the ACA is everyone is responsible for medical expenses the first 10% of their income… same as the Schedule A deduction. It’s just that for people under 4x poverty, you get a payable in advance credit you can give in 12 pieces to Aetna, or Anthem, etc.
Of course, you could just turn the Schedule A into a fixed-for-all rate tax credit, and reduce the Standard Deduction and fix mortgage and charitable contributions at the same time.
-
Since employer paid health care originated during WW II as a way around wage and price controls, our health care system would function would operate more efficiently if the deduction was eliminated and the value of coverage was added to employee wages–grossed up.
-
Absolutely not. If the employee is to pay for it by having it added to their wages, why would they ever want their employer to pick the coverage for them?
-
“if the deduction was eliminated and the value of coverage was added to employee wages–grossed up.”
What other conclusion would you want?
How about a $7.35/hour employee? Is the employer going to raise his wages some $5,000 per yer to but healthcare insurance?
-
I doubt that the $7.25 employee has employer provided health care. If he or she does adding the value of the insurance to the employee’s salary only costs the employer the value of its deduction. Let people choose their own insurance and spend their own dollars and the system will be much better.
-
-
And younger workers, whose premiums largely subsidize the healthcare of older workers, may opt out of it entirely. That would really cause problems.
-
Hence the mandate.
-
You are jumping to a conclusion that was no where in my comment. Employees would choose their own coverage. Projecting is a dangerous activity.
-
Yes! And then, the ACA premium credit and the Sched A deduction do dovetail nicely for persons making from poverty to around $150,000 (more like 10x a family plan premium).
-
Getting down in the weeds is a way to get lost. Too many assumptions for something that should happen but won’t.
-
-
-
Most of the credits and deductions in the tax code are essentially social engineering – they seek to incentivize a perceived social “good”.
The initial reason for Employer Provided was to incentivize a perceived social good but over time it has distorted the health care economy AND harmed those whose employers did not offer it or a quality version of it.
So today – for instance, if you are in the 20% Federal tax category, and pay 5% state tax and 15% FICA – none of this is taken from your wages that pay for health insurance. It’s effectively a 40% discount. But for people who don’t have employer-provided and have to buy it in the market – even ObamaCare – they do not get that discount, They have to pay with money that has already been taxed.
We had a similar approach to housing with credits and deductions.
And for retirement – IRA and 401ks.
All of these cost the treasury money – that they have to make up with higher tax rates on everyone – so , people who work but don’t get EP, or rent instead of own and their employer does not offer an IRA – they’re also paying taxes that pay for these benefits for others.
-
The EIC is so wealthy people can pay crap and you and I pick up the difference between crap and a living wage.
-
-
If people had the ability to choose their coverage AND it was portable , many people would be more interested in improving their job situation – even if risky if they could keep their insurance.
In countries with universal coverage – all other developed countries, there is no such thing as “job lock”. The employers have to work harder to keep good employees.
In this country, Obamacare is portable insurance and people who get it actually then have to give it up if the next employer offers EP. If the employer offers EP (and it’s affordable), you are not eligible for Obamacare and, in fact, if you don’t promptly cancel it, you’ll get dinged for the tax credits.
-
Some numbers to play with
https://www.peoplekeep.com/blog/what-percent-of-health-insurance-is-paid-by-employers
-
If you get a W2, look for box 12 and the code DD. That’s the money paid for your health insurance.
If you retire that number is on the 1099R but it’s usually a much smaller number.
If you get Medicare Part B (for providers),, it’s means tested but most pay about $145 a month and that’s 25% of the total premium cost. Medicare costs about $7000 a year per subscriber.
-
-
I don’t have to get in the weeds Bill, because for 3 years I bought healthcare insurance on the MarketPlace.
If you really want to know how it works, and all the gorey details, just ask.
-
That isn’t a competitive market place.
-
-
what are we looking at?
-
Wypipo… and one who probably is getting a tax break and working from home while BIPOCs are dying disproportionately due to Covid and cops thanks to systemic racism.
Or its local to RVA an indirect coal-powered car.
what are we looking at?
-
Wypipo… and one who probably is getting a tax break and working from home while BIPOCs are dying disproportionately due to Covid and cops thanks to systemic racism.
Or its local to RVA an indirect coal-powered car.
Shouldn’t there be an “In this house” sign in the yard too?
Shouldn’t there be an “In this house” sign in the yard too?
Hey, if people work from home, shouldn’t transportation money be used for internet?
Hey, if people work from home, shouldn’t transportation money be used for internet?
Looks like he’s plugged into his walkway light convenience.
So, they can refuel anywhere. A 50′ extension cord and a bulb to plug converter and someone who leaves the porch light on all night is all he needs.
Looks like he’s plugged into his walkway light convenience.
So, they can refuel anywhere. A 50′ extension cord and a bulb to plug converter and someone who leaves the porch light on all night is all he needs.
Did you kick in $7500 for your neighbor to buy an Ecar? Another $2000 if VA goes that way ,so $9500
From taxpayers per Ecar
-
I’d rather chip in for EVs than EIC for nearly all WalMart’s employees.
-
As long as they force us all to share in the cost, (“the tragedy of the commons?”) do not expect them to lose a moment’s sleep over ripping us off.
Did you kick in $7500 for your neighbor to buy an Ecar? Another $2000 if VA goes that way ,so $9500
From taxpayers per Ecar
-
I’d rather chip in for EVs than EIC for nearly all WalMart’s employees.
-
As long as they force us all to share in the cost, (“the tragedy of the commons?”) do not expect them to lose a moment’s sleep over ripping us off.
Looks like a Tesla Model 3 which is the cheaper version. Reportedly, the Model 3 Standard Range Plus starts at $37,990, the Long Range starts at $46,990, and the Performance starts at $54,990. If I understand, the $38k version was hard (if not impossible) to get.
Charging this way would be fairly slow, but fine if you are parking for while. Many owners will probably opt for beefing up their garage to 220 volts for faster charge.
At this point Tesla has sold over 200,000 electric vehicles, so the Federal $7500 tax credit is over. However, the Democrat house has just passed a proposed GREEN bill to extend the Federal rebates to 600,000 vehicles per auto maker – usually Dems also try to make it a flat rebate vs. tax credit so we shall see.
-
A REALLY generous tax credit is the one for geothermal. Looks like 25% of the cost! That’s far more than the credit for a Tesla. AND it also includes SOLAR stuff!
You gotta wonder since that GeoThermal/SOLAR credit has been in the tax code for years now, whether it was those dastardly Dems who did it, no?
-
Interesting story recently that what Musk is making off the car is a fraction of what he is making on the renewable energy credits for the cars, which apparently are retained by the company and traded separately. That’s the real scam here, the REC market — monetized virtue signaling. That’s how lefties live in 10,000 square foot houses with five cars, fly private jets, they buy RECS and claim “offsets.” Gates was talking about his REC use in a recent interview when challenged on his lifestyle.
-
It appears the 1989 lessons learned by Martin Riggs and Roger Murtaugh about South Africans have not been heeded.
-
So a good question might be, is the GOP running against this? My impression is that they also voted for it , at least in the past. Is the GOP now opposed and are they making it an election issue?
-
Wherever subsidies have been reduced or removed, demand for EVs has dropped. Musk is a wealthy, arrogant charlatan. California has a zero emissions regulation. He earns a bunch of credits which he then sell to auto makers who sell internal combustion vehicles. At one point, the money from selling these credits was his major source of revenue.
Since all major automakers have committed to transition to EVs over the next decade or so, why are subsidies still needed.-
It’s in the tax code and it includes other things like Geothermal and other solar and it’s been there for years and one presumes it had bipartisan support.
Has the GOP changed it’s mind and now is opposed to these?
-
I’m for eliminating the subsidies. The concept of subsidizing the public’s transition to new technology that confers some public good down the road, makes some sense — but subsidies usually end up being distorted themselves to serve one or another special interest, in excess of any public good conferred. And even if not, why subsidize one public good over another? The best way is for the government to stay out of picking winners and losers (and stick to seed-money investments in R&D that simply wouldn’t occur without the jump-start).
-
Agree. health care is distorted and so is owning homes and IRAs too!
And said earlier – a geo-thermal HVAC will get a 25% credit which can be twice the EV credit.
-
-
-
Correct…it too late to stop Electric Car mandates.
Electric cars are already mandated by California and the Blue states. So you either sell plug-ins, or you pay hefty fines. This also keeps the price of plug-in cars lower than otherwise, because the automakers simply *must* sell plug-ins, or pay the penalty for failure to do so. so the hefty profit margin on regular SUV’s is needed.-
So how get to 100% EV if that means there is no “regular SUV” to get the hefty profit margin from?
-
Well the theory is that Moore’s Law will take over and the cost of electric vehicles will come down. But we are already 10-years into mandates and generous rebates and Congress needs to really start mandating more sales since it is not taking off like early hopes. One thing happened is gaso prices came down after the spike up several years ago.
I think where we are heading, is you can buy your SUV but the auto-company gets CAFE credits from the Dems for selling electrics, so electric sales are mandated to make up for regular vehicles sold.
-
not yet – a 12 volt lithium battery costs $800:
-
-
This is a big problem looming though and that is the most popular vehicles by far are pickup trucks which also yield the most profit for the manufacturers and converting them to EV is likely to be a hard sell.
-
-
Looks like a Tesla Model 3 which is the cheaper version. Reportedly, the Model 3 Standard Range Plus starts at $37,990, the Long Range starts at $46,990, and the Performance starts at $54,990. If I understand, the $38k version was hard (if not impossible) to get.
Charging this way would be fairly slow, but fine if you are parking for while. Many owners will probably opt for beefing up their garage to 220 volts for faster charge.
At this point Tesla has sold over 200,000 electric vehicles, so the Federal $7500 tax credit is over. However, the Democrat house has just passed a proposed GREEN bill to extend the Federal rebates to 600,000 vehicles per auto maker – usually Dems also try to make it a flat rebate vs. tax credit so we shall see.
-
A REALLY generous tax credit is the one for geothermal. Looks like 25% of the cost! That’s far more than the credit for a Tesla. AND it also includes SOLAR stuff!
You gotta wonder since that GeoThermal/SOLAR credit has been in the tax code for years now, whether it was those dastardly Dems who did it, no?
-
Interesting story recently that what Musk is making off the car is a fraction of what he is making on the renewable energy credits for the cars, which apparently are retained by the company and traded separately. That’s the real scam here, the REC market — monetized virtue signaling. That’s how lefties live in 10,000 square foot houses with five cars, fly private jets, they buy RECS and claim “offsets.” Gates was talking about his REC use in a recent interview when challenged on his lifestyle.
-
It appears the 1989 lessons learned by Martin Riggs and Roger Murtaugh about South Africans have not been heeded.
-
So a good question might be, is the GOP running against this? My impression is that they also voted for it , at least in the past. Is the GOP now opposed and are they making it an election issue?
-
Wherever subsidies have been reduced or removed, demand for EVs has dropped. Musk is a wealthy, arrogant charlatan. California has a zero emissions regulation. He earns a bunch of credits which he then sell to auto makers who sell internal combustion vehicles. At one point, the money from selling these credits was his major source of revenue.
Since all major automakers have committed to transition to EVs over the next decade or so, why are subsidies still needed.-
It’s in the tax code and it includes other things like Geothermal and other solar and it’s been there for years and one presumes it had bipartisan support.
Has the GOP changed it’s mind and now is opposed to these?
-
I’m for eliminating the subsidies. The concept of subsidizing the public’s transition to new technology that confers some public good down the road, makes some sense — but subsidies usually end up being distorted themselves to serve one or another special interest, in excess of any public good conferred. And even if not, why subsidize one public good over another? The best way is for the government to stay out of picking winners and losers (and stick to seed-money investments in R&D that simply wouldn’t occur without the jump-start).
-
Agree. health care is distorted and so is owning homes and IRAs too!
And said earlier – a geo-thermal HVAC will get a 25% credit which can be twice the EV credit.
-
-
-
Correct…it too late to stop Electric Car mandates.
Electric cars are already mandated by California and the Blue states. So you either sell plug-ins, or you pay hefty fines. This also keeps the price of plug-in cars lower than otherwise, because the automakers simply *must* sell plug-ins, or pay the penalty for failure to do so. so the hefty profit margin on regular SUV’s is needed.-
So how get to 100% EV if that means there is no “regular SUV” to get the hefty profit margin from?
-
Well the theory is that Moore’s Law will take over and the cost of electric vehicles will come down. But we are already 10-years into mandates and generous rebates and Congress needs to really start mandating more sales since it is not taking off like early hopes. One thing happened is gaso prices came down after the spike up several years ago.
I think where we are heading, is you can buy your SUV but the auto-company gets CAFE credits from the Dems for selling electrics, so electric sales are mandated to make up for regular vehicles sold.
-
not yet – a 12 volt lithium battery costs $800:
-
-
This is a big problem looming though and that is the most popular vehicles by far are pickup trucks which also yield the most profit for the manufacturers and converting them to EV is likely to be a hard sell.
-
-
Force us all to share the cost? You pay for public schools even if you have no kids in school, right? At least this is a benefit you can cash in on if/when you buy an EV. And RECs – virtue signaling made profitable. Yes, it’s the commons; there are lots of ways that government spends my taxes that positively harm me; but I haven’t decided to crash the capitol and kidnap a Delegate or Senator — yet.
-
And… you can do it all by yourself… unlike a kid.
-
Many people who have employer-provided health insurance receive subsidies of thousands of dollars a year and hardly a whimper about it from the same folks arguing against EV subsidies.
” The exclusion of employer-paid premiums for health insurance from federal income and payroll taxes is the single largest tax expenditure, costing the federal government an estimated $273 billion in fiscal year 2019. Further, because the employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) exclusion reduces taxable income, it is worth more to taxpayers in higher tax brackets than to those in lower brackets, who are less likely to be covered by ESI in the first place. In subsidizing the after-tax cost of employer-sponsored coverage, the ESI exclusion encourages employers to offer coverage, but may also contribute to higher health care outlays.”
If it’s YOUR subsidy – leave it alone. If it is someone elses, it’s wrong!
-
Comparing exclusions for employer paid health insurance and subsidies for EVs is clearly a case of apples and oranges. One has been around since the 1940s, while the other is an inducement to buy.
-
doesn’t matter how long it has been around if it is, in fact, a subsidy.
EP is not only outmoded but an impediment, long past it’s justification and it’s 10 times more costly to taxpayers than EV subsidies.
There are other subsidies, like mortgage deductions, no taxes on imputed rent, deductions for property taxes on properties not the main home… flood insurance subsidies, etc…
If we want to cut subsidies – then let’s talk about it for more than one.
-
-
-
Neither have I, yet. Sorry, I don’t see the same general public benefit comparing public education to somebody’s Tesla.
Force us all to share the cost? You pay for public schools even if you have no kids in school, right? At least this is a benefit you can cash in on if/when you buy an EV. And RECs – virtue signaling made profitable. Yes, it’s the commons; there are lots of ways that government spends my taxes that positively harm me; but I haven’t decided to crash the capitol and kidnap a Delegate or Senator — yet.
-
Neither have I, yet. Sorry, I don’t see the same general public benefit comparing public education to somebody’s Tesla.
-
And… you can do it all by yourself… unlike a kid.
-
Many people who have employer-provided health insurance receive subsidies of thousands of dollars a year and hardly a whimper about it from the same folks arguing against EV subsidies.
” The exclusion of employer-paid premiums for health insurance from federal income and payroll taxes is the single largest tax expenditure, costing the federal government an estimated $273 billion in fiscal year 2019. Further, because the employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) exclusion reduces taxable income, it is worth more to taxpayers in higher tax brackets than to those in lower brackets, who are less likely to be covered by ESI in the first place. In subsidizing the after-tax cost of employer-sponsored coverage, the ESI exclusion encourages employers to offer coverage, but may also contribute to higher health care outlays.”
If it’s YOUR subsidy – leave it alone. If it is someone elses, it’s wrong!
-
Comparing exclusions for employer paid health insurance and subsidies for EVs is clearly a case of apples and oranges. One has been around since the 1940s, while the other is an inducement to buy.
-
doesn’t matter how long it has been around if it is, in fact, a subsidy.
EP is not only outmoded but an impediment, long past it’s justification and it’s 10 times more costly to taxpayers than EV subsidies.
There are other subsidies, like mortgage deductions, no taxes on imputed rent, deductions for property taxes on properties not the main home… flood insurance subsidies, etc…
If we want to cut subsidies – then let’s talk about it for more than one.
-
-
Vaccine Update email contained…
”
Virginians who have previously registered through their local health district will be automatically moved into the new system and do not need to register again. Data migration is continuing throughout the week and it may take several days for your name to appear in the centralized system. Everyone who has previously registered is still on the list, and their status will not be affected. For those that do not have internet access, please call 1-877-VAX-IN-VA (877-829-4682) to pre-register for your vaccine.”
For those who don’t have WHAT?
-
So, six weeks after Florida had multiple major counties up and running Virginia might have the reservation system in operational order?
https://www.baconsrebellion.com/covid-vaccine-distribution-what-can-virginia-learn-from-florida/
-
Will an apple a day make the Dr Governor go away?
-
-
That is what they say, but that is not the reality. I registered both my wife and me on the local Henrico database. About a week after the state database became active, I check for our names. They were not there. So, I registered with the state database. So much for the claims of registrations automatically being moved to the new system.
Of course, in addition to CVS, we now have Walgreens, and soon Kroger and Walmart providing vaccinations, all with their own registration systems separate from the state system. However, that does not seem to be the state’s fault, the private companies are “reluctant” to interface with the state system. What a mess!
-
J&J will have 3 million doses out by next week… we’re on the way.
We registered with the Peninsula HD and we checked within the first week of the transfer and we were both in the VDH set up, BUT only one of us received an email confirmation.
Oh well, sure beats the MarketPlace rollout. That was a mess, but to the Feds credit, it only took two weeks to knock 99% of the bugs out.
Solarwinds fear?
-
Vaccine Update email contained…
”
Virginians who have previously registered through their local health district will be automatically moved into the new system and do not need to register again. Data migration is continuing throughout the week and it may take several days for your name to appear in the centralized system. Everyone who has previously registered is still on the list, and their status will not be affected. For those that do not have internet access, please call 1-877-VAX-IN-VA (877-829-4682) to pre-register for your vaccine.”
For those who don’t have WHAT?
-
That is what they say, but that is not the reality. I registered both my wife and me on the local Henrico database. About a week after the state database became active, I check for our names. They were not there. So, I registered with the state database. So much for the claims of registrations automatically being moved to the new system.
Of course, in addition to CVS, we now have Walgreens, and soon Kroger and Walmart providing vaccinations, all with their own registration systems separate from the state system. However, that does not seem to be the state’s fault, the private companies are “reluctant” to interface with the state system. What a mess!
-
J&J will have 3 million doses out by next week… we’re on the way.
We registered with the Peninsula HD and we checked within the first week of the transfer and we were both in the VDH set up, BUT only one of us received an email confirmation.
Oh well, sure beats the MarketPlace rollout. That was a mess, but to the Feds credit, it only took two weeks to knock 99% of the bugs out.
Solarwinds fear?
-
-
So, six weeks after Florida had multiple major counties up and running Virginia might have the reservation system in operational order?
https://www.baconsrebellion.com/covid-vaccine-distribution-what-can-virginia-learn-from-florida/
-
Will an apple a day make the Dr Governor go away?
-
“Because the employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) exclusion reduces taxable income, it is worth more to taxpayers in higher tax brackets than to those in lower brackets, who are less likely to be covered by ESI in the first place. ” This is a true statement but misleading. By reducing your taxable income, the ESI reduces your taxes at the margin, which means, at the marginal rate. And yes, higher tax bracket folks get a bigger benefit. If you buy your own health insurance you use after tax dollars — except, you probably have a health reimbursement account (HRA) that allows you to set aside pre-tax dollars and pay no tax on payments out of the HRA if used for qualified health expenses. And just this year, the HRA rules were expanded to allow the ICHRA, which expands qualified health expenses to include the premium and deductibles paid for any ACA-compliant health policy. See e.g. https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/15934-reimburse-employees-for-health-insurance.html Which gets you right back to the same place, tax-wise.
I don’t know why Congress doesn’t take a far simpler route by simply doing away with both the income deduction and also HRAs and simply allowing a deduction from taxable income for medical expenses including the cost of ACA-compliant health insurance. (There used to be, and still is, a general health-expenses personal income deduction in principle but there’s a huge deductible amount now before it kicks in, so it’s of no practical benefit to most of us unless we’ve got catastrophic health costs not covered by insurance). Many low income folks never heard of an HRA and wouldn’t have a clue how to set one up; they are the ones who need this benefit the most and don’t have it. But for most of us in a stable income situation, the HRA dodge is available and puts those who buy individual health insurance in exactly the same place as those who have a group health plan through employment. And thus puts the government in the same place for tax revenue purposes.
-
ACA-complaint does not mean ACA. Most EP is ACA-compliant but it is purchased with pretax dollars whereas ACA insurance is purchased with post-tax dollars – so no subsidy there.
The “value” of pre-tax for EP is that the money used to pay for it not taxed, Federal, State or FICA – which is 30% even for low income folks and over 50% for high income folks.
HRAs require a high-deductible insurance plan which has huge deductibles so if you get a serious illness you’ll owe a hefty bill. Obamacare sells it also but it’s a bad bet for people who end up with big health care costs and it’s no good for folks with chronic conditions.
A much more fair approach, especially in the gig economy would be to give everyone a tax credit for their health insurance AND a way for people to truly shop for the type of coverage they want over and above what that credit provides.
EP health insurance is but one of the subsidies the govt provides to some folks. It’s the biggest and for many, it can be twice the 7K credit for EVs and it’s every year for as long as you work – a hundred thousand dollars or more for some folks.
-
Well, there’s a simpler solution. Move the medical deductions from Schedule A to the back of the 1040 and change the flavor from income deduction to a tax credit at a fixed-for-all rate, say 24%.
This would dovetail the employee portion of ESI with the ACA and eliminate the tax advantages to high compenstation employees.
Still you’ll have to do some whittling on HRA use but that’s easy if everyone gets access to a tax credit for medical expenses. Trump screwed you over by burying us with a huge Standard Deduction. Nice but people forget what that SD covers. Things like medical, mortgage and charitable.
The premise of the ACA is everyone is responsible for medical expenses the first 10% of their income… same as the Schedule A deduction. It’s just that for people under 4x poverty, you get a payable in advance credit you can give in 12 pieces to Aetna, or Anthem, etc.
Of course, you could just turn the Schedule A into a fixed-for-all rate tax credit, and reduce the Standard Deduction and fix mortgage and charitable contributions at the same time.
-
Since employer paid health care originated during WW II as a way around wage and price controls, our health care system would function would operate more efficiently if the deduction was eliminated and the value of coverage was added to employee wages–grossed up.
-
Absolutely not. If the employee is to pay for it by having it added to their wages, why would they ever want their employer to pick the coverage for them?
-
And younger workers, whose premiums largely subsidize the healthcare of older workers, may opt out of it entirely. That would really cause problems.
-
Hence the mandate.
-
You are jumping to a conclusion that was no where in my comment. Employees would choose their own coverage. Projecting is a dangerous activity.
-
“if the deduction was eliminated and the value of coverage was added to employee wages–grossed up.”
What other conclusion would you want?
How about a $7.35/hour employee? Is the employer going to raise his wages some $5,000 per yer to but healthcare insurance?
-
I doubt that the $7.25 employee has employer provided health care. If he or she does adding the value of the insurance to the employee’s salary only costs the employer the value of its deduction. Let people choose their own insurance and spend their own dollars and the system will be much better.
-
-
Yes! And then, the ACA premium credit and the Sched A deduction do dovetail nicely for persons making from poverty to around $150,000 (more like 10x a family plan premium).
-
Getting down in the weeds is a way to get lost. Too many assumptions for something that should happen but won’t.
-
-
-
Most of the credits and deductions in the tax code are essentially social engineering – they seek to incentivize a perceived social “good”.
The initial reason for Employer Provided was to incentivize a perceived social good but over time it has distorted the health care economy AND harmed those whose employers did not offer it or a quality version of it.
So today – for instance, if you are in the 20% Federal tax category, and pay 5% state tax and 15% FICA – none of this is taken from your wages that pay for health insurance. It’s effectively a 40% discount. But for people who don’t have employer-provided and have to buy it in the market – even ObamaCare – they do not get that discount, They have to pay with money that has already been taxed.
We had a similar approach to housing with credits and deductions.
And for retirement – IRA and 401ks.
All of these cost the treasury money – that they have to make up with higher tax rates on everyone – so , people who work but don’t get EP, or rent instead of own and their employer does not offer an IRA – they’re also paying taxes that pay for these benefits for others.
-
The EIC is so wealthy people can pay crap and you and I pick up the difference between crap and a living wage.
-
-
If people had the ability to choose their coverage AND it was portable , many people would be more interested in improving their job situation – even if risky if they could keep their insurance.
In countries with universal coverage – all other developed countries, there is no such thing as “job lock”. The employers have to work harder to keep good employees.
In this country, Obamacare is portable insurance and people who get it actually then have to give it up if the next employer offers EP. If the employer offers EP (and it’s affordable), you are not eligible for Obamacare and, in fact, if you don’t promptly cancel it, you’ll get dinged for the tax credits.
-
Some numbers to play with
https://www.peoplekeep.com/blog/what-percent-of-health-insurance-is-paid-by-employers
-
If you get a W2, look for box 12 and the code DD. That’s the money paid for your health insurance.
If you retire that number is on the 1099R but it’s usually a much smaller number.
If you get Medicare Part B (for providers),, it’s means tested but most pay about $145 a month and that’s 25% of the total premium cost. Medicare costs about $7000 a year per subscriber.
-
-
I don’t have to get in the weeds Bill, because for 3 years I bought healthcare insurance on the MarketPlace.
If you really want to know how it works, and all the gorey details, just ask.
-
That isn’t a competitive market place.
-
Somehow I got on the email lists for several Montgomery County councilmembers. I took the time to read an email today from one of the councilmembers as he was discussing his opposition to limits placed on solar farms in the Agricultural Reserve. I’m glad I did, as his message included one of the best statements on energy and climate change that I’ve ever seen.
“There is nothing more important to saving the climate than creating cheap clean energy.” If every “energy reform” and “save the Planet” proposal in Virginia was tested against this goal, damn few would pass. Why isn’t this the goal?
-
I thought cheap and clean WAS solar, no? I’m missing the point here obviosly.
Somehow I got on the email lists for several Montgomery County councilmembers. I took the time to read an email today from one of the councilmembers as he was discussing his opposition to limits placed on solar farms in the Agricultural Reserve. I’m glad I did, as his message included one of the best statements on energy and climate change that I’ve ever seen.
“There is nothing more important to saving the climate than creating cheap clean energy.” If every “energy reform” and “save the Planet” proposal in Virginia was tested against this goal, damn few would pass. Why isn’t this the goal?
-
I thought cheap and clean WAS solar, no? I’m missing the point here obviosly.
Nancy_Naive | February 25, 2021 at 11:21 am |
Yes! And then, the ACA premium credit and the Sched A deduction do dovetail nicely for persons making from poverty to around $150,000 (more like 10x a family plan premium).
If we allowed employees the CHOICE to either take the company EP …OR go out and buy Obamacare (with post tax dollars) – guess what would happen?
-
Those aren’t the only choices. Why don’t you trust people to act in their own best interest?
-
ANY choice, agree. But you’re gonna find that the Obamacare policies are safer choices… in terms of what they cover and out-of-pocket , etc.
They have a marketplace where one can choose based on criteria that fit your needs. Outside of Obamacare, there is not such an easy compare tool.
-
With employees having the money to buy their own, competition would develop but states have to allow companies to sell across state lines. Virginia has a balkanized system where only certain companies can sell in certain areas.
-
I think that’s an old and disproven claim. If an insurance company has to pay claims in one state that are higher than another state – charging lower premiums from another state to pay the higher claims in another state would be dumb.
This is similar to the similarly rejected canard about torts.
Nether one works and if they did – you just had an All GOP Congress that did nothing about it while they systematically changed immigration and environmental regs….
-
Are you consciously trying not to understand the value of increased competition? Being able to sell across state lines has nothing to do with claims being higher in one state than another. I suggest that you take the time to review literature on improving health insurance. It is rich and goes back a number of decades.
-
-
You’re attempting to converse with someone who thinks single-payer is cheap and quality.
-
-
The PPACA isn’t sustainable without the Government subsidizing the insurance companies.
You’re never going to make anything affordable when the Government is paying the companies a subsidy via a law they helped write.
-
Almost ALL health insurance is subsidized in the US.
The average EP policy is heavily subsidized also but have not seen a comparison with the PPACA.
If people had to pay for employer-provided health insurance sans the tax subsidies, in others words with post-tax money like ACA costs, it would cost 40% more.
Medicare and Medicaid is also heavily subsidized.
-
Through the PPACA the Government pays the insurance companies to keep the premiums “low”. Which is a joke, they are just getting their Government pay day. It’s unsustainable hence why there is a 2 year extension of funds in the $1.9 trillion dollar COVID-19 relief bill.
If you would’ve bothered to read my article, you would’ve seen that the PPACA subsidies have already outpaced Medicaid.
“If people had to pay for employer-provided health insurance sans the tax subsidies, in others words with post-tax money like ACA costs, it would cost 40% more.”
That is utterly false, the prices do not get driven down when the Government enters the market, they inflate because the supply knows the Fed will always have the cash to pay. Price Controls do not do anything but benefit the seller.
-
$6300 per subscriber , about what the Govt pays for Medicare also.
re: ” the prices do not get driven down when the Government enters the market, they inflate because the supply knows the Fed will always have the cash to pay. Price Controls do not do anything but benefit the seller”
and you just described what has happened to employer-provided which is also subsidized.
Single-payer is much cheaper to administer than multi-payer.
If you let people CHOOSE ACA over employer-provided, it would be cheaper to pay the ACA subsidy that not tax the money used to pay for EP health insurance.
Conservative think tanks have advocated doing away with employer-provided for years because of it’s adverse impact on health insurance competition and cost to taxpayers.
The EP subsidy is very real – and documented:
-
Larry,
If you’re not going to read what you’re supplied I find no reason to respond to anything you type.
“The CBO’s latest projections from earlier this year show government paying out an average of $6,300 annually for every subsidized enrollee in fiscal 2018. It estimates that number will rise to nearly $12,500 in 2028. In contrast, Medicaid spends $4,230 per non-disabled adult, set to inflate at 5.2% annually to just over $7,000 per person in 2028.”
Employers do not set “Price Controls”, they are a function of Government.
Single-payer is not cheaper nor is it quality healthcare.
“If you let people CHOOSE ACA over employer-provided, it would be cheaper to pay the ACA subsidy that not tax the money used to pay for EP health insurance.”
No, no it wouldn’t. The prices for premiums will continue to raise and continue to require huge Government subsidies.
-
-
Nancy_Naive | February 25, 2021 at 11:21 am |
Yes! And then, the ACA premium credit and the Sched A deduction do dovetail nicely for persons making from poverty to around $150,000 (more like 10x a family plan premium).
If we allowed employees the CHOICE to either take the company EP …OR go out and buy Obamacare (with post tax dollars) – guess what would happen?
-
Those aren’t the only choices. Why don’t you trust people to act in their own best interest?
-
ANY choice, agree. But you’re gonna find that the Obamacare policies are safer choices… in terms of what they cover and out-of-pocket , etc.
They have a marketplace where one can choose based on criteria that fit your needs. Outside of Obamacare, there is not such an easy compare tool.
-
With employees having the money to buy their own, competition would develop but states have to allow companies to sell across state lines. Virginia has a balkanized system where only certain companies can sell in certain areas.
-
I think that’s an old and disproven claim. If an insurance company has to pay claims in one state that are higher than another state – charging lower premiums from another state to pay the higher claims in another state would be dumb.
This is similar to the similarly rejected canard about torts.
Nether one works and if they did – you just had an All GOP Congress that did nothing about it while they systematically changed immigration and environmental regs….
-
Are you consciously trying not to understand the value of increased competition? Being able to sell across state lines has nothing to do with claims being higher in one state than another. I suggest that you take the time to review literature on improving health insurance. It is rich and goes back a number of decades.
-
-
You’re attempting to converse with someone who thinks single-payer is cheap and quality.
-
-
The PPACA isn’t sustainable without the Government subsidizing the insurance companies.
You’re never going to make anything affordable when the Government is paying the companies a subsidy via a law they helped write.
-
Almost ALL health insurance is subsidized in the US.
The average EP policy is heavily subsidized also but have not seen a comparison with the PPACA.
If people had to pay for employer-provided health insurance sans the tax subsidies, in others words with post-tax money like ACA costs, it would cost 40% more.
Medicare and Medicaid is also heavily subsidized.
-
Through the PPACA the Government pays the insurance companies to keep the premiums “low”. Which is a joke, they are just getting their Government pay day. It’s unsustainable hence why there is a 2 year extension of funds in the $1.9 trillion dollar COVID-19 relief bill.
If you would’ve bothered to read my article, you would’ve seen that the PPACA subsidies have already outpaced Medicaid.
“If people had to pay for employer-provided health insurance sans the tax subsidies, in others words with post-tax money like ACA costs, it would cost 40% more.”
That is utterly false, the prices do not get driven down when the Government enters the market, they inflate because the supply knows the Fed will always have the cash to pay. Price Controls do not do anything but benefit the seller.
-
$6300 per subscriber , about what the Govt pays for Medicare also.
re: ” the prices do not get driven down when the Government enters the market, they inflate because the supply knows the Fed will always have the cash to pay. Price Controls do not do anything but benefit the seller”
and you just described what has happened to employer-provided which is also subsidized.
Single-payer is much cheaper to administer than multi-payer.
If you let people CHOOSE ACA over employer-provided, it would be cheaper to pay the ACA subsidy that not tax the money used to pay for EP health insurance.
Conservative think tanks have advocated doing away with employer-provided for years because of it’s adverse impact on health insurance competition and cost to taxpayers.
The EP subsidy is very real – and documented:
-
Larry,
If you’re not going to read what you’re supplied I find no reason to respond to anything you type.
“The CBO’s latest projections from earlier this year show government paying out an average of $6,300 annually for every subsidized enrollee in fiscal 2018. It estimates that number will rise to nearly $12,500 in 2028. In contrast, Medicaid spends $4,230 per non-disabled adult, set to inflate at 5.2% annually to just over $7,000 per person in 2028.”
Employers do not set “Price Controls”, they are a function of Government.
Single-payer is not cheaper nor is it quality healthcare.
“If you let people CHOOSE ACA over employer-provided, it would be cheaper to pay the ACA subsidy that not tax the money used to pay for EP health insurance.”
No, no it wouldn’t. The prices for premiums will continue to raise and continue to require huge Government subsidies.
-
-
re: ” Employers do not set “Price Controls”, they are a function of Government.”
what? explain what you are claiming here,
“Single-payer is not cheaper nor is it quality healthcare.”
Medicare is not quality health care?
Isn’t single payer why other developed nations are less?
“If you let people CHOOSE ACA over employer-provided, it would be cheaper to pay the ACA subsidy that not tax the money used to pay for EP health insurance.”
No, no it wouldn’t. The prices for premiums will continue to raise and continue to require huge Government subsidies.”
doesn’t happen that way in other countries….
-
1) Learn what Price Controls are.
2) No, no it’s not. It’s the bare minimum standard at a bare minimum rate.
3) No, if you want actual quality in places that have NHS (ie. UK) you pay for additional coverage through your employer.
4) So it’s apparent you aren’t aware of the taxes in other countries.https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full/10.1164/rccm.200906-0882ED
-
But you admit GOvt can affect price and it’s up to the govt what level of care they will pay for.
Works that way for Medicaid, Medicare, the VA and all other developed countries.
Yes – we’re talking a minimum standard with the OPTION of paying more if you want more. Medicare, for instance, pays 80% and if you want them to pay 100% you have to join a Medicare Advantage HMO-type plan.
The lowest health care costs in the US and other developed countries IS Single-Payer – not a claim – a documented fact.
-
No.
“Works that way for Medicaid, Medicare, the VA and all other developed countries.”
No
“Yes – we’re talking a minimum standard with the OPTION of paying more if you want more. Medicare, for instance, pays 80% and if you want them to pay 100% you have to join a Medicare Advantage HMO-type plan.”
Umm that’s not “single-payer”.
“The lowest health care costs in the US and other developed countries IS Single-Payer – not a claim – a documented fact.”
No it’s not.
-
-
re: ” Employers do not set “Price Controls”, they are a function of Government.”
what? explain what you are claiming here,
“Single-payer is not cheaper nor is it quality healthcare.”
Medicare is not quality health care?
Isn’t single payer why other developed nations are less?
“If you let people CHOOSE ACA over employer-provided, it would be cheaper to pay the ACA subsidy that not tax the money used to pay for EP health insurance.”
No, no it wouldn’t. The prices for premiums will continue to raise and continue to require huge Government subsidies.”
doesn’t happen that way in other countries….
-
1) Learn what Price Controls are.
2) No, no it’s not. It’s the bare minimum standard at a bare minimum rate.
3) No, if you want actual quality in places that have NHS (ie. UK) you pay for additional coverage through your employer.
4) So it’s apparent you aren’t aware of the taxes in other countries.https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full/10.1164/rccm.200906-0882ED
-
But you admit GOvt can affect price and it’s up to the govt what level of care they will pay for.
Works that way for Medicaid, Medicare, the VA and all other developed countries.
Yes – we’re talking a minimum standard with the OPTION of paying more if you want more. Medicare, for instance, pays 80% and if you want them to pay 100% you have to join a Medicare Advantage HMO-type plan.
The lowest health care costs in the US and other developed countries IS Single-Payer – not a claim – a documented fact.
-
No.
“Works that way for Medicaid, Medicare, the VA and all other developed countries.”
No
“Yes – we’re talking a minimum standard with the OPTION of paying more if you want more. Medicare, for instance, pays 80% and if you want them to pay 100% you have to join a Medicare Advantage HMO-type plan.”
Umm that’s not “single-payer”.
“The lowest health care costs in the US and other developed countries IS Single-Payer – not a claim – a documented fact.”
No it’s not.
-
-
Matt Adams | February 25, 2021 at 12:22 pm |
You’re attempting to converse with someone who thinks single-payer is cheap and quality.
Didn’t yo just say Medicaid is cheaper? Is it at least party so because of single-payer?
-
“LarrytheG | February 25, 2021 at 12:28 pm | Reply
Matt Adams | February 25, 2021 at 12:22 pm |
You’re attempting to converse with someone who thinks single-payer is cheap and quality.Didn’t yo just say Medicaid is cheaper? Is it at least party so because of single-payer?”
Umm the PPACA uses Government subsides, Medicaid uses Government subsidies. One being cheaper than the other doesn’t make single-payer cheaper.
Beyond that Medicaid uses Price Controls which Doctors can refuse patients as they won’t get paid.
-
So Govt CAN cause lower prices ?
do you think single-payer can reduce administrative costs?
-
I don’t know how you believe Price Controls are
lowering” the price of anything. It means someone isn’t going to get reimbursed for their services and therefore likely to not accept that method.“do you think single-payer can reduce administrative costs?”
No, no it will not.
-
-
Matt Adams | February 25, 2021 at 12:22 pm |
You’re attempting to converse with someone who thinks single-payer is cheap and quality.
Didn’t yo just say Medicaid is cheaper? Is it at least party so because of single-payer?
-
“LarrytheG | February 25, 2021 at 12:28 pm | Reply
Matt Adams | February 25, 2021 at 12:22 pm |
You’re attempting to converse with someone who thinks single-payer is cheap and quality.Didn’t yo just say Medicaid is cheaper? Is it at least party so because of single-payer?”
Umm the PPACA uses Government subsides, Medicaid uses Government subsidies. One being cheaper than the other doesn’t make single-payer cheaper.
Beyond that Medicaid uses Price Controls which Doctors can refuse patients as they won’t get paid.
-
So Govt CAN cause lower prices ?
do you think single-payer can reduce administrative costs?
-
I don’t know how you believe Price Controls are
lowering” the price of anything. It means someone isn’t going to get reimbursed for their services and therefore likely to not accept that method.“do you think single-payer can reduce administrative costs?”
No, no it will not.
-
-
re: ” ill O’Keefe | February 25, 2021 at 1:06 pm |
Are you consciously trying not to understand the value of increased competition? Being able to sell across state lines has nothing to do with claims being higher in one state than another. I suggest that you take the time to review literature on improving health insurance. It is rich and goes back a number of decades.”
Okay, so how about you explain how selling across state lines would lower costs since you’re claiming it will.. What I’ve read, dismisses it because of what I related to you. How about you providing something that explains why you believe it?
-
It is called increased competition. As I suggested read the literature.
re: ” ill O’Keefe | February 25, 2021 at 1:06 pm |
Are you consciously trying not to understand the value of increased competition? Being able to sell across state lines has nothing to do with claims being higher in one state than another. I suggest that you take the time to review literature on improving health insurance. It is rich and goes back a number of decades.”
Okay, so how about you explain how selling across state lines would lower costs since you’re claiming it will.. What I’ve read, dismisses it because of what I related to you. How about you providing something that explains why you believe it?
-
It is called increased competition. As I suggested read the literature.
First, stop calling it insurance. It’s a payment plan.
The greatest accomplishment of the ACA was to eliminate fraudulent insurance companies. “You can have healthcare coverage for as little as $1/day.” And, 60 cents of that dollar went to the CEO, 20 cents went to someone who wrote denial of coverage letters, and 20 cents went to doctors for office visits to keep the suckers on the hook until they really got sick.
The ACA forced 80 cents to go to services. Companies could use no more than 20 cents for overhead and profits. Moreover, any of the 80 cents not used had to be returned to the policy holder.
That’s a start. Chew on it.
-
All of that bureaucracy was needed because the health insurance market, unlike the auto or home insurance markets are not competitive.
-
When, in your best estimation, was it ever competitive?
-
That’s my point but it could be just as other forms of insurance are competitive.
-
Bill – do you mean it could be if health insurance could price insurance like the other kinds and not offer it to those who are sick or old, etc?
In other words, use medical underwriting to decide what to offer and for how much and who to refuse?
-
Please get serious. Such an arrangement is not plausible. Have you ever heard of pooling?
-
-
Yes I’ve heard of pooling but will pooling work if the insurance companies still want to use medical underwriting to set rates?
Why should someone who is young and healthy not be able to buy cheaper insurance than what it would cost in a “pool” that has older and less healthy people in it?
The basic question is – would you support allowing Health Insurance companies to use medical underwriting to set rates for individuals instead of forcing the young and healthy into pools to subsidize the older and sicker?
This question is in response to your stated view that health insurance should be sold like auto and homeowner insurance is. Those insurances use actual individual underwriting. There are no “pools” except for assigned-risk which is a fancy name for all of us paying into that fund to insure others who insurance companies will not insure individually.
-
Cross subsidization happens now. You have to have a complete insurance plan to be able to judge one component. Have you read the literature on health care economics and how to make the health care market more competitive? If not, I am really not interested in your uninformed opinions.
-
-
“The greatest accomplishment of the ACA was to eliminate fraudulent insurance companies”
The greatest accomplishment of the PPACA was to enrich the insurance companies who help write the Law by removing their competition and giving them direct access to Federal Funds.
-
At the cost of giving up cherry-picking.
-
“Nancy_Naive | February 25, 2021 at 3:43 pm | Reply
At the cost of giving up cherry-picking.”No cherry picking required, without the Government subsidies to make the Insurance companies whole (those who crafted the Law) it would go belly up.
-
Yep, and so would Medicare, Medicaid and employer-provided.
-
“LarrytheG | February 25, 2021 at 5:09 pm |
Yep, and so would Medicare, Medicaid and employer-provided.”Umm those are not private companies, they are the Federal Government.
Employer provided insurance would no collapse without subsidies from the Federal Government. The Federal Government has nothing to do with them.
-
-
First, stop calling it insurance. It’s a payment plan.
The greatest accomplishment of the ACA was to eliminate fraudulent insurance companies. “You can have healthcare coverage for as little as $1/day.” And, 60 cents of that dollar went to the CEO, 20 cents went to someone who wrote denial of coverage letters, and 20 cents went to doctors for office visits to keep the suckers on the hook until they really got sick.
The ACA forced 80 cents to go to services. Companies could use no more than 20 cents for overhead and profits. Moreover, any of the 80 cents not used had to be returned to the policy holder.
That’s a start. Chew on it.
-
All of that bureaucracy was needed because the health insurance market, unlike the auto or home insurance markets are not competitive.
-
When, in your best estimation, was it ever competitive?
-
That’s my point but it could be just as other forms of insurance are competitive.
-
Bill – do you mean it could be if health insurance could price insurance like the other kinds and not offer it to those who are sick or old, etc?
In other words, use medical underwriting to decide what to offer and for how much and who to refuse?
-
Please get serious. Such an arrangement is not plausible. Have you ever heard of pooling?
-
-
Yes I’ve heard of pooling but will pooling work if the insurance companies still want to use medical underwriting to set rates?
Why should someone who is young and healthy not be able to buy cheaper insurance than what it would cost in a “pool” that has older and less healthy people in it?
The basic question is – would you support allowing Health Insurance companies to use medical underwriting to set rates for individuals instead of forcing the young and healthy into pools to subsidize the older and sicker?
This question is in response to your stated view that health insurance should be sold like auto and homeowner insurance is. Those insurances use actual individual underwriting. There are no “pools” except for assigned-risk which is a fancy name for all of us paying into that fund to insure others who insurance companies will not insure individually.
-
Cross subsidization happens now. You have to have a complete insurance plan to be able to judge one component. Have you read the literature on health care economics and how to make the health care market more competitive? If not, I am really not interested in your uninformed opinions.
-
-
“The greatest accomplishment of the ACA was to eliminate fraudulent insurance companies”
The greatest accomplishment of the PPACA was to enrich the insurance companies who help write the Law by removing their competition and giving them direct access to Federal Funds.
-
At the cost of giving up cherry-picking.
-
“Nancy_Naive | February 25, 2021 at 3:43 pm | Reply
At the cost of giving up cherry-picking.”No cherry picking required, without the Government subsidies to make the Insurance companies whole (those who crafted the Law) it would go belly up.
-
Yep, and so would Medicare, Medicaid and employer-provided.
-
“LarrytheG | February 25, 2021 at 5:09 pm |
Yep, and so would Medicare, Medicaid and employer-provided.”Umm those are not private companies, they are the Federal Government.
Employer provided insurance would no collapse without subsidies from the Federal Government. The Federal Government has nothing to do with them.
-
-
Matt Adams | February 25, 2021 at 5:35 pm |
“LarrytheG | February 25, 2021 at 5:09 pm |
Yep, and so would Medicare, Medicaid and employer-provided.”
Umm those are not private companies, they are the Federal Government.
Employer provided insurance would no collapse without subsidies from the Federal Government. The Federal Government has nothing to do with them.
Well. If the govt took away the rule that EP insurance must offer everyone the same insurance coverage and for a similar premium – if that rule went away and insurance would use medical underwriting to decide who to cover and for how much – what would happen?
-
Employers offering insurance isn’t subsidization via the Government. Now does it have anything to do with PPACA.
Goal posts have moved.
-
so what is this:
https://budget.house.gov/sites/democrats.budget.house.gov/files/documents/10largest.png
and you did not answer the question about health insurance using medical underwriting. What happens to EP if the insurance companies can use medical underwriting to set the terms for offering insurance and for what premium?
-
That’s because you moved the goal posts, Larry.
-
-
Matt Adams | February 25, 2021 at 5:35 pm |
“LarrytheG | February 25, 2021 at 5:09 pm |
Yep, and so would Medicare, Medicaid and employer-provided.”
Umm those are not private companies, they are the Federal Government.
Employer provided insurance would no collapse without subsidies from the Federal Government. The Federal Government has nothing to do with them.
Well. If the govt took away the rule that EP insurance must offer everyone the same insurance coverage and for a similar premium – if that rule went away and insurance would use medical underwriting to decide who to cover and for how much – what would happen?
-
Employers offering insurance isn’t subsidization via the Government. Now does it have anything to do with PPACA.
Goal posts have moved.
-
so what is this:
https://budget.house.gov/sites/democrats.budget.house.gov/files/documents/10largest.png
and you did not answer the question about health insurance using medical underwriting. What happens to EP if the insurance companies can use medical underwriting to set the terms for offering insurance and for what premium?
-
That’s because you moved the goal posts, Larry.
-
-
Nope… it’s the same ones… all along… you just refused to address it and wanted to talk about the ACA instead.
what’s the answer to medical underwriting – whether it’s ACA or EP ?
what requires health insurance companies to NOT use medical underwriting when deciding who to cover or not according to their health status or age?
and what about the tax expenditures and EP insurance? What is that tax expenditure money for?
Nope… it’s the same ones… all along… you just refused to address it and wanted to talk about the ACA instead.
what’s the answer to medical underwriting – whether it’s ACA or EP ?
what requires health insurance companies to NOT use medical underwriting when deciding who to cover or not according to their health status or age?
and what about the tax expenditures and EP insurance? What is that tax expenditure money for?
Bill O’Keefe | February 26, 2021 at 7:27 am |
Cross subsidization happens now. You have to have a complete insurance plan to be able to judge one component. Have you read the literature on health care economics and how to make the health care market more competitive? If not, I am really not interested in your uninformed opinions.
Not opinions Bill :
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/medical-underwriting.asp
Bill O’Keefe | February 26, 2021 at 7:27 am |
Cross subsidization happens now. You have to have a complete insurance plan to be able to judge one component. Have you read the literature on health care economics and how to make the health care market more competitive? If not, I am really not interested in your uninformed opinions.
Not opinions Bill :
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/medical-underwriting.asp
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.