Bush's Tax / Health Insurance Proposals

[Steve]

So Mr. Bush is now proposing to tax employer health care benefits and give tax deductions to individuals for health insurance costs, as an attempt to make health insurance more affordable for the uninsured.

Besides further complicating an already incomprehensible tax code, to me this is just a band-aid approach and treats the symptom, not the real problem.  Why do politicians focus on providing insurance when I think the real problem is skyrocketing health care costs such as doctor fees, lab fees, hospital charges, drug costs, etc.  Of course insurance is going to be more expensive the more expensive the covered charges are.

Ideally, a person should be able to go to the doctor of their choice for basic check-ups, diagnosis, prescription drugs, etc. and be able to pay for it themselves.  Insurance should only be necessary for accidents, surgery and catastrophic long term costs such as cancer or incurable illness treatment.  It used to be that way in this country.  Time was a person could visit the doctor for routine care and afford to pay for it himself.  I would say the turning point was around 1970 when doctor/hospital/drug costs started to spiral out of control.  Why is no one addressing this basic root of the problem?

I think a major flaw in U.S. health care today is that it is mainly employer based.  If you work for an employer that provides great coverage, wonderful for you, but woe to the person that does not.  They are on their own for health care.  I think this is morally wrong and every U.S. citizen should be entitled to good basic health care regardless of their employment.

If costs can not be contained and reduced, seems to me that the only successful answer is going to be some form of national health care ("socialized medicine" if you wish.)  I see no other viable option.  Bush's current tax proposals regarding health insurance will have no significant impact on correcting this country's health care problems.

[tim huntzinger]

We have defacto state-controlled health care now, it is just scattered among teaching hospitals, universities, funding sources, and outlets.

You are right on: cost control is the key.  Some modest malpractice reform, deploying more doctors and health care professionals, selfcare incentives, and government-funded prescription development should all be utilized.

At the very least Bush has at least put something new on the table.  I agree that it will solve little.

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

At the very least Bush has at least put something new on the table.  I agree that it will solve little.

I think that for a small minority of the uninsured that currently make a comfortable salary, this may be an incentive to purchase private health insurance.  The vast majority of uninsured are the working poor or unemployed, and they would have to fork out the money for expensive private insurance up front, and receive the tax credit later, something they can not afford to do.  Many don't have to pay income taxes now so what good is the deduction going to do them?  Will they get a rebate even though they don't pay taxes?  One more inadequate solution to a deeper, ever growing problem.  Some form of Bush's plan will probably pass Congress if it comes to a vote, just for political pandering if nothing else.

One think I think Congress should do is ban the advertising of prescription drugs to the public.  Look at the billions of $ drug companies now spend on TV and print ads.  Every other TV ad you see is for some prescription drug.  (If I see one more TV ad for "woodie pills" I think I will scream!)  That money could go to lowering the price to the consumer.  May require a constitutional ammendment (free speech issues), but so be it.  Health care is too much of a pressing issue to ignore the problems much longer.

[MichaelC]

quote:One think I think Congress should do is ban the advertising of prescription drugs to the public.

Damn straight.  I've been opposed to those commericals for a long time, not on the basis of money spent, but rather that it feels unethical to advertise a prescription drug.  Theoretically, a doctor would prescribe a drug based on what the doctor thinks is best.  Yet the drug companies are trying to make it a popularity contest.  Apparently it works, or they wouldn't advertise at all.  

Those old Zoloft commercials are what turned me against the industry.  They made it sound like everyone whose ever been born needed Zoloft.  "Have you had a bad day in the last six months?  Ever had trouble sleeping?   Zoloft may be right for you."

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:One think I think Congress should do is ban the advertising of prescription drugs to the public.

Damn straight.  I've been opposed to those commericals for a long time, not on the basis of money spent, but rather that it feels unethical to advertise a prescription drug.  Theoretically, a doctor would prescribe a drug based on what the doctor thinks is best.  Yet the drug companies are trying to make it a popularity contest.  Apparently it works, or they wouldn't advertise at all.  

Those old Zoloft commercials are what turned me against the industry.  They made it sound like everyone whose ever been born needed Zoloft.  "Have you had a bad day in the last six months?  Ever had trouble sleeping?   Zoloft may be right for you."

Right.  Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising was banned under old ethics rules and industry standards.  Drugs used to be advertised only to doctors in professional publications.  Then sometime in the 1980s, the rules changed due to court decisions or such, and the media became flooded with drug ads.  The whole point of the ads is to get the patient to see the advert and mention the drug to his doctor, and hopefully "make a sale."  It is unethical and contributes to overprescribing and drug company profits.  The ads you see on TV are for the drugs with the biggest markups and potential profits.  The old ad bans should be reinstated immediately, and Congress should pass legislation or Constitutional changes to enable this.

[guido911]

Attention Merck, Phizer, GSK (et. al.): No Free Speech for You!!!

[NellieBly]

From Stephen Colbert - He hits the nail on the head doesn't he???


It all makes sense now:

Stephen Colbert: What made [Tuesday's State of the Union speech] so groundbreaking, I think, was all the new stuff we've never heard from the president before...like a domestic agenda. Take his proposal to fix the whole health care mess with the only proven cure-all: tax breaks...

Bush clip: And for the millions of Americans with no health insurance at all, this deduction would help put a basic private health insurance plan within reach.

Colbert: It's so simple. Most people who couldn't afford health insurance also are too poor to owe taxes. But...if you give them a deduction from their taxes they don't owe, they can use the money they're not getting back from what they haven't given to buy the health care they can't afford.

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Attention Merck, Phizer, GSK (et. al.): No Free Speech for You!!!

There are logical limits on free speech.  "You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater," for example.  The consumer prescription drug ads harm society to pump up the drug company's profits, directly and indirectly.  They  encourage self-diagnosis, right or wrong, to sell drugs.  The money should be used for research or lower drug prices.  This is all my own personal opinion, of course.

I read on AOL news yesterday that AIDS/HIV organizations are suing Phizer because they claim Viagra ads encourage promiscuity and contribute to the spread of HIV.  Right on.  The old Viagra ads featured people like Bob Dole, and addressed the "issue" in a somewhat dignified manner;  the new ads, and ads for similar drugs, imply recreational use and the party-drug aspects.  Totally irresponsible.  Prescription drug ads (to the consumer) should be banned, IMO.

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by NellieBly

From Stephen Colbert - He hits the nail on the head doesn't he???

Colbert: It's so simple. Most people who couldn't afford health insurance also are too poor to owe taxes. But...if you give them a deduction from their taxes they don't owe, they can use the money they're not getting back from what they haven't given to buy the health care they can't afford.

Exactly.  This is one of the points I have been trying to make.  Current uninsured middle-class persons may benefit and obtain insurance if this plan is implemented, but it will not affect the bigger problem.

[tulsa1603]

quote:Originally posted by Steve

So Mr. Bush is now proposing to tax employer health care benefits and give tax deductions to individuals for health insurance costs, as an attempt to make health insurance more affordable for the uninsured.

Besides further complicating an already incomprehensible tax code, to me this is just a band-aid approach and treats the symptom, not the real problem.  Why do politicians focus on providing insurance when I think the real problem is skyrocketing health care costs such as doctor fees, lab fees, hospital charges, drug costs, etc.  Of course insurance is going to be more expensive the more expensive the covered charges are.

Ideally, a person should be able to go to the doctor of their choice for basic check-ups, diagnosis, prescription drugs, etc. and be able to pay for it themselves.  Insurance should only be necessary for accidents, surgery and catastrophic long term costs such as cancer or incurable illness treatment.  It used to be that way in this country.  Time was a person could visit the doctor for routine care and afford to pay for it himself.  I would say the turning point was around 1970 when doctor/hospital/drug costs started to spiral out of control.  Why is no one addressing this basic root of the problem?

I think a major flaw in U.S. health care today is that it is mainly employer based.  If you work for an employer that provides great coverage, wonderful for you, but woe to the person that does not.  They are on their own for health care.  I think this is morally wrong and every U.S. citizen should be entitled to good basic health care regardless of their employment.

If costs can not be contained and reduced, seems to me that the only successful answer is going to be some form of national health care ("socialized medicine" if you wish.)  I see no other viable option.  Bush's current tax proposals regarding health insurance will have no significant impact on correcting this country's health care problems.

So let me get this straight: he's proposing to tax my employer funded health care, but if my employer DIDN'T provide health care for me, but instead paid me more salary to cover the cost of my premium, I could get a tax deduction on it?  Or is the tax deduction only for people making below a certain amount?

[guido911]

Steve, are you really equating prescription ads to yelling fire in a movie theater? If that analogy is correct, then beer commercials should go because they might lead to drunk driving deaths, fast food restaurant ads should go because they lead to unhealthy eating habits, and ads for the U.S. military should go because they might lead to a recruit being killed in combat.

Drug companies are "companies." They are in the business to make money. You seem to suggest that drug companies should be in the business of saving you money. It takes years to get a drug from an idea through distribution at a cost of millions of dollars in R & D. Couple that fact with the limitations drug companies can have on patents for their product--which ultimately lead to generic replications--a fairly decent argument can be made that government already does pleanty to limit the profitability of drug companies.

Drug companies are convenient targets I think in part because of their profit margins. I think, though, the profit margins of trial lawyers, the absence of any meaningful class action lawsuit and tort/punitive damage reform, should be the focus of health care reform. Targeting drug companies that have unquestionably led to the average life expectancy of persons in this country being near 80 (and not to mention have greatly decreased the mortality rate of HIV/AIDS patients) is reactionary and anti-capitalism.  

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by tulsa1603

quote:Originally posted by Steve

So Mr. Bush is now proposing to tax employer health care benefits and give tax deductions to individuals for health insurance costs, as an attempt to make health insurance more affordable for the uninsured.

Besides further complicating an already incomprehensible tax code, to me this is just a band-aid approach and treats the symptom, not the real problem.  Why do politicians focus on providing insurance when I think the real problem is skyrocketing health care costs such as doctor fees, lab fees, hospital charges, drug costs, etc.  Of course insurance is going to be more expensive the more expensive the covered charges are.

Ideally, a person should be able to go to the doctor of their choice for basic check-ups, diagnosis, prescription drugs, etc. and be able to pay for it themselves.  Insurance should only be necessary for accidents, surgery and catastrophic long term costs such as cancer or incurable illness treatment.  It used to be that way in this country.  Time was a person could visit the doctor for routine care and afford to pay for it himself.  I would say the turning point was around 1970 when doctor/hospital/drug costs started to spiral out of control.  Why is no one addressing this basic root of the problem?

I think a major flaw in U.S. health care today is that it is mainly employer based.  If you work for an employer that provides great coverage, wonderful for you, but woe to the person that does not.  They are on their own for health care.  I think this is morally wrong and every U.S. citizen should be entitled to good basic health care regardless of their employment.

If costs can not be contained and reduced, seems to me that the only successful answer is going to be some form of national health care ("socialized medicine" if you wish.)  I see no other viable option.  Bush's current tax proposals regarding health insurance will have no significant impact on correcting this country's health care problems.

So let me get this straight: he's proposing to tax my employer funded health care, but if my employer DIDN'T provide health care for me, but instead paid me more salary to cover the cost of my premium, I could get a tax deduction on it?  Or is the tax deduction only for people making below a certain amount?

You got it.  The tax deduction would be for all persons.  If you receive employer paid health insurance, the employer paid portion would be taxable income.  On the other hand, the employee paid portion would be subject to a tax deduction, $7500 for individuals, $15000 for families, if I understand correctly.  In most cases, it would likely be a $ wash, but just more tax code nonsense to complicate the system.  If your insurance is very comprehensive and the employer pays the bulk, it could possibly cost you money.

For the single individual with no health plan, it would mean a $7500 annual tax deduction to offset health insurance costs.  Great for those that can afford expensive private insurance on their own, but the basic problem is that most of the uninsured can not afford expensive private insurance in the first place, regardless of tax implications, and wait for tax reimbursement 11 months down the road.

[inteller]

taxes my insurance benefits?  wow, this guy is really trying to rally the rooftop voters.

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Steve, are you really equating prescription ads to yelling fire in a movie theater? If that analogy is correct, then beer commercials should go because they might lead to drunk driving deaths, fast food restaurant ads should go because they lead to unhealthy eating habits, and ads for the U.S. military should go because they might lead to a recruit being killed in combat.

Drug companies are "companies." They are in the business to make money. You seem to suggest that drug companies should be in the business of saving you money. It takes years to get a drug from an idea through distribution at a cost of millions of dollars in R & D. Couple that fact with the limitations drug companies can have on patents for their product--which ultimately lead to generic replications--a fairly decent argument can be made that government already does pleanty to limit the profitability of drug companies.

Drug companies are convenient targets I think in part because of their profit margins. I think, though, the profit margins of trial lawyers, the absence of any meaningful class action lawsuit and tort/punitive damage reform, should be the focus of health care reform. Targeting drug companies that have unquestionably led to the average life expectancy of persons in this country being near 80 (and not to mention have greatly decreased the mortality rate of HIV/AIDS patients) is reactionary and anti-capitalism.  

No, that was merely my way of saying that to prohibit consumer ads for prescription drugs is not a violation of free speech.  I believe that the constitutional guarantee of free speech means political speech and not anything anyone wants to say.  Otherwise, we would not have laws against libel and slander.

When it comes to basic health care, I am anti-capitalism.  If the knowledge and technology exists, no one should be denied service because of ability to pay or because they don't have a generous employer paid health plan.  Just seems like basic human decency and concern for your fellow man to me.  Health care, drug companies and such should be non-profit industries, IMO.  The innovation incentive should not be profits, but the betterment of the human race.  I guess I just live in a dream world, but that won't change my ideals and opinions.

[shadows]

The prez' puts new insurance plan on the table?  Isn't that about the same plan that Clinton's wife spread out on the table when she was prez for those eight years?