Obama to Tax Employee Health Benefits

[guido911]

Another day, another tax. Another day, another lie. As the article points out, Obama attacked McCain over this tax.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/us/politics/15health.html?_r=1

[RipTout]

Agreed.

BO will no doubt tax the upper tier users of providers they hand pick. The article implies the tax will be across the board.

[Chicken Little]

Actually, Obama is not proposing to tax employee health benefits, he doesn't support it.  According to the article you posted:

Now that Mr. Obama has begun the health debate, several advisers say that while he will not propose changing the tax-free status of employee health benefits, neither will he oppose it if Congress does so.

It's Max Baucus's idea, and in the interest of debate he's not taking it off the table.  Even so, Baucus is being very cautious.  From the same article:

But in a blueprint for health legislation that he issued last November, Mr. Baucus said taking the exclusion on health benefits out of the tax code would go "too far" and "cause widespread disruption in employer-based health benefits." ...Mr. Baucus, in his paper, cited other options, like taxing benefits above some value, taxing only wealthy employees or both.

This article does not "impl(y) the tax will be across the board" as you claim, RipTout; that's dead wrong, try re-reading the above.  Obama isn't "lying" about anything, Guido.  The fact is, we have a President who expects Congress to deliberate and make a recommendation that works for the American people.  He's not an anti-intellectual, conflict-averse, weenie like the last one. 

[we vs us]

Christina Romer says Obama still doesn't like the idea.

"He is still opposed to it," Romer said during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press." "He certainly was very critical and very skeptical of it [during the campaign]. It is certainly not in our [budget] proposal. We have proposed other ways to deal with health care and to fund it. So it is not something he supports."

[USRufnex]

Guido^s blind hatred of Barack Obama has crossed over into pathelogical, Friendly Bear territory... again.

[cannon_fodder]

I don't care who's idea it is, it's a bad one.

Problem:  Health care costs are rising.  An underlying cause is the Federal Government encouraging an employer based system in the 1950-60's which removed many people from understanding or caring what their health care costs were (in addition to tons of other things at this point).  The consequential rise in cost has priced many small employers and even some larger companies out of providing health insurance.

GOAL:  To increase the number of Americans having health insurance.

Solution:  Make health insurance more expensive for employers to provide.
- - -

Am I missing something?

[Cats Cats Cats]

This article lacked enough information to claim that Obama was trying to push through a tax hike on employee health benefits.  I am glad to know that any idea from anybody means that Obama is trying to do it.

That being said, if he allows it to become law.  He will be doing something he campaigned against in the first place.

[Chicken Little]

I don't care who's idea it is, it's a bad one.

Problem:  Health care costs are rising.  An underlying cause is the Federal Government encouraging an employer based system in the 1950-60's which removed many people from understanding or caring what their health care costs were (in addition to tons of other things at this point).  The consequential rise in cost has priced many small employers and even some larger companies out of providing health insurance.

GOAL:  To increase the number of Americans having health insurance.

Solution:  Make health insurance more expensive for employers to provide.
- - -

Am I missing something?

If a lack of "personal accountability" (shorthand for what I think you are saying) was the underlying cause of rising costs, then rapidly rising premiums (four times the rate of wages) and ballooning out-of-pocket costs should be fixing that.  It's not.  Instead of promoting accountability, these costs are throwing more people out of the system, often people with serious but treatable conditions, often folks who end up at the ER.  It's as much the "tons of other things"; the whole system is out of whack.  Insurance profits, pharmco profits, lobbyists fighting "insurance mandates" that show a net public health benefit, excessive administrative costs, protocols that aren't efficacious, failure to provide incentives for healthy lifestyles, atrocious levels of general care and preventive medicine/disproportionate effort on end-of-life care...that's still not close to a ton.

Regardless of how good an idea it is, or is not, to tax some people's benefits, there will be those who will moan about a new system that actually costs a nickel to implement.  Because this move may result in a revenue stream, leaving it in the discussion so that it can be thoroughly sussed out by Congress is a better idea than removing it and having some dill weed toss this revenue source back in your face six months from now.  It's not just good politics, it's good practice if you are seeking a fair and open debate.

[guido911]

That being said, if he allows it to become law.  He will be doing something he campaigned against in the first place.

That's the damned point. And I also never claimed Obama proposed the concept.  Obama's history of lies is growing larger earch passing day. Just this weekend he and his administration were talking about the fundamentals of the ecomony being strong.  Amazing since he blasted McCain for that assessment when the DIA was near 11000 back in September.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_090316.htm

Jeez, to take a page from soccerpunk, there are so many with blind love of Obama it's bordering on the homoerotic.

[cannon_fodder]

CL:

I didn't mean to pawn it off on personal responsibility.  It is just human nature - if our employers took the money directly out of our checks or flat out pay it, we lose track of the costs.  When we are then asked to pay for it out of pocket we are shocked to learn how expensive it is and often do without.

I wholeheartedly agree that there is a litany of problems (including no incentive for lifestyle changes for our amazingly out of shape asses, literally).   But if we were forced to deal with it as an incremental increase in cost something might have been done about it.  Under the old/current system medical facilities do not compete on cost or efficiency - they have no incentive to save consumers money because for decades we didn't really care what it cost.   The system just isn't set up to take that into consideration, but I'm not sure how to effectuate that change.

[Hoss]

That's the damned point. And I also never claimed Obama proposed the concept.  Obama's history of lies is growing larger earch passing day. Just this weekend he and his administration were talking about the fundamentals of the ecomony being strong.  Amazing since he blasted McCain for that assessment when the DIA was near 11000 back in September.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_090316.htm

Jeez, to take a page from soccerpunk, there are so many with blind love of Obama it's bordering on the homoerotic.

And in the inverse, there are so many with blind raging hatred of him it borders on OCD....

[Cats Cats Cats]

And in the inverse, there are so many with blind raging hatred of him it borders on OCD....

Hoss, I would have gone with homoerotic again.

First I would like to note that nothing has been done and until there is an actual choice to be made then I could say you could spout off calling him a liar.  I so far have only seen one comment by somebody in his administration (not Obama) on a show saying that he wouldn't stop it.  I haven't heard anybody say otherwise, but I will give it a few days to see what else is said.


Guido, now you know what all the Republicans sounded like for 8 years.  Oh wait, it is still going on!  Sounded like for 8+ years

[Chicken Little]

And I also never claimed Obama proposed the concept.  Obama's history of lies is growing larger earch passing day.

Phooey.  You named the thread, "Obama to Tax Employee Health Benefits".  That's a wildly false accusation and it's been demonstrated over and over in this thread...heck, even in your own article.  Who's promoting falsehoods, Guido?  

[guido911]

Phooey.  You named the thread, "Obama to Tax Employee Health Benefits".  That's a wildly false accusation and it's been demonstrated over and over in this thread...heck, even in your own article.  Who's promoting falsehoods, Guido?  

Phooey? What is this, kindergarten?

More to the point. Instead of Obama being true to his campaign rhetoric, whereby he should have flat rejected this tax, railed against those who propose/support it (like he did with McCain) and threated to veto it, his administration (meaning him) have announced they would not oppose it if it came to his desk. In other words, he will tax employee health benefits if given the opportunity. Now, how are those in this thread responding to this contradiction? Let's attack the title of the thread or reframe the issue to Obama not proposing the tax. Typical spin.

While it's no secret I oppose just about every Obama policy (I do agree with him on AIG), I see this as just another lobbyists "won't find work" in my administration moment. Just like FISA, just like public campaign finance, just like no pork in the stimulus bill, just like earmark reform...

[nathanm]

Phooey? What is this, kindergarten?

More to the point. Instead of Obama being true to his campaign rhetoric, whereby he should have flat rejected this tax, railed against those who propose/support it (like he did with McCain) and threated to veto it, his administration (meaning him) have announced they would not oppose it if it came to his desk. In other words, he will tax employee health benefits if given the opportunity. Now, how are those in this thread responding to this contradiction? Let's attack the title of the thread or reframe the issue to Obama not proposing the tax. Typical spin.

While it's no secret I oppose just about every Obama policy (I do agree with him on AIG), I see this as just another lobbyists "won't find work" in my administration moment. Just like FISA, just like public campaign finance, just like no pork in the stimulus bill, just like earmark reform...

So you're saying that working with Congress is a bad thing, while being an obstructionist is something to be desired?