Are you willing to pay taxes on your HC benefits for HC reform?

[slipslidingaway]

There are no specifics yet but the idea is being considered, unlike single-payer HC, so are you are in favor or not?


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Upfront-costs-complicate-apf-15193703.html

"...Baucus favors requiring individuals to get health insurance, which will help. But he also supports subsidies for people who can't afford coverage -- a cost to the government.

To help close the money gap, Baucus is open to some limits on the current tax-free treatment of employer-provided health insurance.

Health benefits are considered part of an employee's compensation, but are not taxed. If all health insurance were taxed like regular income, the government could raise an additional $250 billion a year..."

Article originally posted here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5629913&mesg_id=5629913

[EFerrari]

1. I get lost in this discussion. Tax payers pay anyway for people

who don't have health insurance in all kinds of ways. Wouldn't it cost less and with a better outcome if we paid for people to get health care? :crazy:

[slipslidingaway]

3. It might, but I doubt people would see that savings, also why

consider this but not single-payer. The reason is to protect the private insurance companies IMO.

[EFerrari]

10. Yes, our health care reform must protect the industry whose sole purpose

is to deny health care to as many people as possible. See? No wonder I get confused! :)

[slipslidingaway]

14. :))) n/t

[dsc]

2. I wouldn't mind doing this but I think there are fairer ways of doing this

the reducing of charitable deductions for the super wealthy seems much fairer.

[slipslidingaway]

5. Not sure I follow your logic to providing HC? nt

[dsc]

20. that and cap and trade were how Obama intended to pay for it

I think those are both better ways.

[slipslidingaway]

24. Thanks, obviously additional revenue is needed n/t

[lostnotforgotten]

4. Single Payer is The Only Equitable Solution - It Removes The Profit Incentive

eom

[slipslidingaway]

8. I agree with you, unfortunately many do not :( n/t

[Coyote_Bandit]

6. Health insurance

is something that I pay for myself and yet have no opportunity to either deduct or use to take a tax credit against my poverty level income. From my window employer paid health insurance is a benefit that should be taxable. And if not then I should be entitled to some tax relief for the premiums I pay.

[slipslidingaway]

11. A benefit that should or should not be taxable? n/t

[Coyote_Bandit]

22. Either

(1) Not taxable and folks like myself who are forced to purchase our own health coverage should be able to take the amount of our premium as a credit against our tax liability or
(2) Fully taxable.

No more of the current inequitabe crap where some folks get non-taxable benefits while some of us are forced to use fuly taxable dolars to secure the same (often inferior) coverage.

Self employed folks can take some tax credit for their health insurance premiums.

Unemployed folks cannot.

[slipslidingaway]

28. Thanks for the clarification on self-employed status. n/t

[Skink]

7. We pay taxes to start wars so why not healthcare.

[slipslidingaway]

13. Very true! n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

9. The Baucus proposal is corporate welfare for one of the most corrupt industries

in the country. I oppose a Massachusetts-style "solution." I do have health insurance, but the only kind I can afford is so crappy that it doesn't pay for anything other than near-death.

[slipslidingaway]

15. They are trying even angle to keep for profit insurance companies

in the game :(

[sandyd921]

57. You're so right!

Just another scam on behalf of the health insurance syndicate.

[NYC_SKP]

12. This idea makes my brain hurt.

NO. Food shouldn't be taxed and health shouldn't be taxed and all this does is complicate matters.

Tax health benefits to then dole out health benefits, it just makes me dizzy.

Why in California, for example, can I not deduct medical costs unless I file paperwork with an Insurer and collect receipts, and plan for X $$ to be set aside from my paycheck every month.

This was a forced situation when I was in public education, a 504 plan or some such. And if you forgot to save receipts you forfeited the money set aside.

Just make fucking health costs directly deductible and don't fucking tax health plans.

[slipslidingaway]

17. But if we needed to fund a public option would you be willing to

pay taxes on your HC benefits?

[NYC_SKP]

29. I would be willing if it's the only way, but I'd probably also be willing to dress funny to get it.

It wouldn't mean that it makes sense.

It sets an uncomfortable precedent, like taxing basic food, basic needs, so I'd prefer not to.

[slipslidingaway]

Hopefully there is another, not sure how many people could

afford this additional tax.

[SmileyRose]

16. Where is the "FUCKING HELL NO" option.

I don't want the government paying for profit insurance companies to "cover" the poor. We don't need COVERAGE, or INSURANCE - we need ACCESS TO MEDICAL CARE. I know darn well every single solitary congresscritter and senator understands the difference.

The Baucus plan is the same thing as Medicare part D. All it does is move a massive amount of money from the little people straight into the pockets of the largest shareholders of insurance companies and huge hospital corporations. And the poor still won't have access to routine medical care because the copay and deductibles will still make that out of reach.

[slipslidingaway]

18. I missed the articles back in March about how this was being

considered and only saw today's article.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/28/nation/na-health-tax28

"...Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who is drawing up legislation in that chamber, also said there is growing interest in examining whether all health benefits should be tax-free.

"People know we have to fund the system," Baucus said in an interview, noting a change from the fall, when he suggested consideration of the tax break in his health plan. "There are going to be trade-offs, give-and-take among every group." So far, congressional leaders have been very guarded in their comments about taxing benefits and have revealed no details publicly.

But the discussions thus far have focused mainly on taxing high-income workers or those with expensive health packages.

Increasing interest in the idea comes at a time when several senior officials in the Obama administration, including the president's influential budget director, have signaled possible support for the idea.

A number of Republicans also are interested in looking at the tax break. "That's a large pot of money that could be used to create access to healthcare," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said this week. American workers currently pay no taxes on the value of health benefits provided by their employers, an arrangement that is the foundation of the country's employer-based healthcare system..."

[Toucano]

19. No. That's a ridiculous idea. n-t

[slipslidingaway]

21. Guess we'll see where this goes...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/us/politics/15health.html?_r=1&fta=y&pagewanted=print

"...At a recent Congressional hearing, Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat whose own health plan would make benefits taxable, asked Peter R. Orszag, the president’s budget director, about the issue. Mr. Orszag replied that it “most firmly should remain on the table.”

Mr. Orszag, an economist who has served as director of the Congressional Budget Office, has written favorably of taxing some employer-provided health benefits and using the revenue savings for other health-related incentives. So has another Obama adviser, Jason Furman, the deputy director of the White House National Economic Council.

They, like other proponents, cite evidence that tax-free benefits encourage what Mr. McCain called “gold-plated” policies, resulting in inefficient and costly demands for health care and pressure on employers to hold down workers’ pay as insurance expenses rise. And, they say, the policy discriminates against those — many of whom are low-income workers — who do not have employer-provided coverage..."

[Critters2]

23. They need to stop worrying about the well-being of the damned insurance

companies, and start worrying about the well-being of citizens!

[slipslidingaway]

26. True! n/t

[dflprincess]

25. How can anyone - even an insurance company whore like Baucus

call this "reform"?

[slipslidingaway]

27. Well I suppose it will be for those who currently do not have

insurance.

:shrug:

You mentioned another name for this bill in a different thread, forget the exact title, but I do not it bears repeating.

:)

[dflprincess]

30. Do you mean,

"The Health Insurance Company and Campaign Donation Protection Act"?

Feel free to use it whenever you want.

[slipslidingaway]

34. "The Health Insurance Company and Campaign Donation Protection Act"

That's it, thanks!!! We should all include this in a letter to our senators.

[Old Coot]

31. Absolutely NOT!

I am disabled and on both Social Security and my employer's long-term disability. I am also on both Medicare and my employer's Blue Cross plans.

As I have no earned income to deduct taxes from, should the government tax health insurance I would have to mail my employer money for the taxes. This would be a severe hardship for my wife and I.

I currently have to mail money for the taxes on the life insurance premium my employer pays for my benefit since I have no earned income to deduct the taxes from.

[slipslidingaway]

36. Maybe this would be an exception, but I am opposed to the idea

especially when they will not even consider SP.

Welcome to DU.

:hi:

[Sparkly]

32. Convoluted and backwards!

Taxes FOR healthCARE, yes. Taxes ON health INSURANCE, crazy. (Especially with no alternative.)

[slipslidingaway]

37. You nailed it !!! n/t

[rucky]

33. Single payer: Problem solved. n/t

[slipslidingaway]

38. Except, not under consideration :( n/t

[Better Believe It]

35. And I'm against requiring everyone to buy health insurance from the insurance industry.

We need to remove them from health care altogether.

I'm sure that insurance industry would love a federal law forcing everyone to buy health insurance from them.

We don't need and can't afford a "middleman".

Medicare for All is the answer!

[slipslidingaway]

40. I'm with you. :) n/t

[alfredo]

39. If in the end it lowers rates and copays, yes.

[slipslidingaway]

43. Maybe that would happen, but it might just help fund insurance

for those without.

[alfredo]

44. Even if they put all of us on the FEHB plan then subsidize the uninsured

it would be a big improvement. Larger pool, bigger clout with the insurance companies.


http://www.opm.gov/INSURE/HEALTH/INDEX.ASP

[slipslidingaway]

49. Better yes n/t

[alfredo]

58. I've had it since the late 80's and I like it.

Covering my wife and I is about $260 a month and the benefit package is OK. We both have pre existing conditions and I am uninsurable, so it is a great deal.

[slipslidingaway]

60. Thanks...

my parents had Mail Handlers years ago and it was decent, although I still remember arguing with them on certain claims. My Mom had breast cancer and it was a five year battle, one can imagine the amount of claims forms that needed to filed.

$260 a month sounds pretty good.

:)

[alfredo]

62. I have mine through mail carriers union. That's why I can't drop it.

My wife is on the account and would lose her insurance if I dropped my insurance. The VA takes care of my health care.

[Ms. Toad]

41. I am NOT in favor of mandatory health insurance

If that is off the table, however, I am willing to pay taxes on the income I now get tax-free in the form of health insurance if those taxes are used to make sure that my daughter (and others like her) who are uninsurable once she can no longer be carried on my policy, or those who cannot afford health care have access to health care.

I am in favor of severing the link between access to health care and wealth, health, employment, or ability to maintain status as a full time student. I personally believe the best option is single for doing that is single payer - but my daughter doesn't have the luxury of time to wait for the perfect storm that opens the eyes of the lawmakers. She was diagnosed recently with an illness that may prevent her from continuing as a full time student and/or from holding a job with health benefits as early as next fall. Her health insurance (via the high risk pool) will cost us an additional $12,000 a year, if it comes to that.

[slipslidingaway]

45. If we just had some lawsmakers in a leadership position that

would advocate for a SP system the wait time could be reduced.

I hope things work out OK for your daughter.

[Ms. Toad]

48. Yeah, but I haven't even heard back from my senator

who is normally very good on issues I care about.

As to my daughter - we are heading for a trial that we hope will at least provide some symptom control to get her through college. Long haul, the only "cure" is a transplant - hence the relatively new sig line and avatar.

[slipslidingaway]

51. Thanks and....

I hope that she is able to continue with her studies while waiting.

:hug:

[noamnety]

42. We need progressive taxes. This is not a progressive tax.

this is an excuse to shift more tax burden onto the working class. We need a progressive income tax which taxes wealthier individuals at a high enough rate to pay for the poor, since they are the ones getting rich from exploiting the poor/exploiting resources/exploiting the infrastructure the rest of us helped pay for.

[slipslidingaway]

46. True and we should be prepared to speak out...

hence the poll.

[slipslidingaway]

47. Thanks everyone, we should be prepared for this possibility. nt

[Thickasabrick]

52. Then we can kiss the next election goodbye. Very bad move.

[slipslidingaway]

53. Maybe there will be some clues on Tuesday at the Finance Committee

roundtable, but I agree this will not be looked upon favorably.

http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/hearing051209.html

[noamnety]

54. I agree. It's going to raise more anger than they can imagine.

Many of us pay for our health insurance benefits (pay a percentage of the cost) because our employers can't afford it anymore. We see it as an expense more than a benefit, even IF the employer picks up part of it. Taxing it will (rightfully) be perceived as making a crazy overpriced necessity even more unaffordable. I have coworkers seriously stressed already over paying their portion of their insurance.

I'm hearing that phrase in my head that is so often used to describe democrats: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Thickasabrick]

55. Me too. It keeps going up every year and everyone bitches about

it - not matter what party they are affiliated with. This is insane. Good quote - I had forgotten that one - let's hope we are not repeating it in 2010-2012.

[MiniMe]

50. It depends on how HC is taxed

John McCain's plan sucked. So I'll take a pass on the poll, we need more details.

[alarimer]

56. There should be no taxes on premiums you already pay.

Maybe tax the part the employer provides. Or, better yet, have single-payer come out of all our taxes (via withholding) and ditch employer-provided health care altogether. It should cost a lot less than whatever premiums you already pay right now because there is no profit built into the cost.

[eilen]

59. No.

Not so long as the premiums keep going up 10x faster than the rate of inflation. We have no control over it. This is like charging rent at a homeless shelter... Oh wait... they are doing that in NYC now. Or, charging rent in prisons... oh, yeah.... they are doing that too.

Perhaps when states and municipalities stop privatizing prisons, shelters, group homes and basic fucking healthcare....and stop looking for the poor, working and middle classes to subsidize the stockbrokers, hedge funds, banksters, automobile companies, finaniciers, and insurance executives, then I might be amenable to a modest income tax increase.

[MisterP]

61. oh yes, the healthcare debate should focus on feeding the HMOs, not on providing healthcare at 60%

the current cost. There's no legitimate reason to ask the people who caused a problem to "fix" the problem: more boots on the ground can't "pacify" civil wars caused by foreign presences, Yezhov and Beria can't clean up the NKVD, the people who tortured and depersonalized can't clean up the torture and depersonalization, and the HMOs can't fix healthcare!
Remember, Lincoln is lauded for FREEING the slaves, not for dicking around and trying to "compromise" to ensure the slave-catchers are paid by individuals and, failing that, the state! Henry Clay's reputation was TORPEDOED by his compromises: 1820 and '50 soiled the great state-builder (and rightfully so)