White House frames health care as economic problem (Baucus wants to tax HC Benefits)

[Kittycat]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — A key Senate chairman says he hopes to convince President Barack Obama that taxing some employer-provided health benefits will help control escalating health care costs.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, faces a hard sell. During his campaign for president, Obama ruled out taxing health benefits provided by employers.

Baucus says the tax-free benefit packages Americans now enjoy are a big factor in the high costs of the country's health care system, because they provide workers free or low-cost access to too many health care services.

Baucus is scheduled to meet with Obama Tuesday afternoon.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gap9wCaolRYguYQesA2i2Yr98yLgD98IKAE00

---

Baucus makes absolutely no sense. Taxing health care benefits will only hurt, and already crumbling middle class.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Taxing HC benefits disproprotionately taxes the North East higher and SW lower. nt

[sandnsea]

2. Democrats in OR want to tax benefits

Left wing Democrats. In fact, the plan they're proposing in Oregon has the public option, insurance exchange, and many other details that the federal plan is considering. I think people need to take a look at the root of some of these ideas and stop assuming it's all Baucus and industry bribes.

I do not support taxing health care benefits by the way, not even if the taxes go to pay my subsidy, which they would.

[nyc 4 Biden]

12. IMHO, if Baucus is pushing it, the root is...

industry bribes.

Money in the bank.

(pun intended)

[sandnsea]

13. So are the Dems in OR being bribed?

Oregon's plan is supposed to be on the forefront of health care reform. What does it say if Oregon's proposal has taxes on health benefits too? It certainly doesn't say this is all Baucus. Any other states proposing taxes on health benefits?

[rocktivity]

3. Well, it IS an economic problem

and the solution is to take the profit motive out of it completely!

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Kittycat]

4. Do you honestly think taxing employer benefit plans, is going to lower...

your premiums? No, on the contrary - it's going to increase it, because that cost will be defered to us. Baucus does not want a public plan, and has refused to allow single payer voices at the table. So his solution is no solution at all, except to make it harder on families that are already struggling.

[WriteDown]

21. I've said it for a long time...

Cap doctors pay at 100K. Give them free schooling if they can get in, but cap their pay. No one should go into medicine to be rich.

[karynnj]

26. There are then areas in the country where no doctor could afford to live

Who else do you want to cap the pay of?

[WriteDown]

28. You can have an adjustment for COL...

but no way should people go into MEDICINE to be wealthy.

[karynnj]

45. I don't think the doctors I know went in to it to be rich

In this area near NYC, they could have majored in Finance and become MUCH richer - with fewer years in school. Under the current system, they do not become anywhere near as rich as the Wall Street guys. As it is, most are constrained by rates negotiated by medicare and insurance companies.

[Pharlo]

41. You go right ahead and cap doctors pay.

Just make sure you proportionately cap the costs of medical school and malpractice insurance at the same time.

[OhioChick]

43. You're absolutely right.

Better yet, instead of capping doctor's pay....how about capping the pay of health care CEO's and hospital admin.?

[DURHAM D]

5. This is just really stupid.

I pay medical insurance costs for my employees. If they do this I will stop picking up the tab.

[Triana]

6. WRONG! WRONG solution. WHY do working people always have to take it..

...in the a$$ for corprat profits?

I DON'T THINK SO!

I am REALLY NOT LIKING this "Baucus" cretin.

THAT is a "Democrat"?

Since WHEN? :mad:

[atreides1]

7. I get the feeling that the Democrats

Want to be the minority party again.

I have a suggestion, make every member of congress give up the health care plan they get and provide them with the same type of health care that regular federal employees receive. Just imagine Senator Baucus having to decide what plan works for him and his family every enrollment period?

Can you imagine Baucus having to wait 2 weeks to get to see his primary care physician, as long as it wasn't an emergency?

And the only members of congress that have access to military medical facilities, like Bethesda, are those that served in the US military, providing they meet the qualification standards that the VA has in place.

[Kittycat]

8. And then make it be subject to lifetime maximums, and...

limitations on services for the elderly and disabled children. Hmm, 2 weeks... Let's also change his health plan a few times, like Employers do - then watch him have to find new doctors and specialists, along with their new waitlists for patient consult.

[dixiegrrrrl]

14. One of Obama's promises was "we" would have the same type of health care that Congress has.

Chains we can bereave in.

[girl gone mad]

34. Between this and their VAT proposal, I concur with you.

This is the kind of garbage that comes out of DLC conferences.

[Imperialism Inc.]

9. So, just like McCain Mr. Baucus thinks the problem with health care

is that we have too much of it! What a joke.

[Old Coot]

10. The theory seems to be to reduce the quality of insurance that people have to reduce costs by making

it less likely that people seek treatment.

Until this year, my employer provided plan had no deductible and low co-pays to encourage people to seek treatment. Starting this year, my plan has a $1,000 deductible making it less likely that I receive treatment unless I expect to have serious problems exceeding the $1,000. In addition, the plan no longer pays for colonoscopies, which my employer says are not necessary. I am paying half of the premiums I was paying last year. Even so, I would prefer to pay double and get insurance which allows me to actually use the benefits.

I am disabled and living on a limited income. In addition, I need to have a colonoscopy, which is no longer covered by insurance. I guess I will have to wait until I get cancer and then seek treatment for it, which the insurance would then cover.

I think taxing health benefits is a very bad idea. Being disabled, I pay no taxes. However, if they start taxing health benefits like they now tax employer paid life insurance, I will have to send checks to cover the taxes to my employer. I receive no payroll check for them to deduct it from.

Incidentally, my employer calls this new plan a consumerist plan in that the consumers will have large up front costs to make a decision about whether to seek treatment. That seems to be the point that Baucus is making: Limit coverage to make it difficult to pay for treatment to limit patients seeking health care. In a sense, this is rationing.

[MessiahRp]

11. Can we run a real Democrat against Baucus PLEASE?

Some of these gutless cowards need to go and fast!

Rp

[madmom]

15. We get health care from my SO's former employer (retired). They

are/were not free. They gave up a lot of things to get this health care including wages. We still have a co-pay that is going up more everyday.

[Lugnut]

16. Baucus is an idiot.

Too many health care services? In whose world? Obviously not in his world. :mad:

[Downwinder]

17. I'm getting tired of all of this. Just send me my euthanasia pill.

After deductibles, copays and donut holes now they want taxes.

[JimWis]

18. Dumbest thing I ever heard. Tax health benefits, so they can get

the money to cover people who aren't covered and who ends up with it all. The insurance company. Single payer would solve all these problems and more.

[FiveGoodMen]

37. "Single payer would solve all these problems and more"

Yeah, but that would involve taxes...oh, wait.

[ArcticFox]

19. F'ing Idiot

Hey, lets just make it prohibitively expensive to go to the doctor!

Single payer is the only viable alternative. It's the only path that does not lead to infectious disease sweeping the continent.

[quidam56]

20. We need a cure for health care in America

As a former health care worker, I was shocked to see what health care has become. Profit Care is more important than Patient Care today. http://www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=62 The "acceptable standards of health care" in East Tennessee is a joke !

[sybylla]

22. WTF?

Is there something in the water in Montana? Since when is free or low cost access to "too many health care services" a problem? And what the hell is taxing it going to do? That's like saying 2+2=37.


Montana, you got some 'splainin' to do.

[RufusH]

23. LOL: people complaining about taxing health benefits, when GAY people are already taxed on them.

Always entertaining to see how up-in-arms people get. Bring it on, I say. I already pay thousands more than my straight counterparts who work for the same company and get the same benefits. And this will be easy. All they have to do is borrow from the current rules for DOMESTIC PARTNER coverage.

:rofl:

[Old Coot]

24. My employer provides health benefits to domestic partners same as to married couples.

To the best of my knowledge, they are NOT taxed for them.

What do you mean?

[FreeState]

27. Here's a good article on it - and yes they are taxed on it - thank you DOMA

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/09/health/09patient.html

For Gay Couples, Obstacles to Health Insurance

PREPARE TO PAY MORE TAXES Unlike married couples, domestic partners must pay federal and sometimes state taxes on health care benefits. That’s because the Internal Revenue Service counts the value of the domestic partner’s benefit as income for the employee. What’s more, pretax dollars from an employee’s flexible spending accounts or health savings accounts cannot be used to cover the domestic partner’s benefits.

Let’s say, hypothetically, that the cost for a partner benefit is $10,000 a year, and the employee is at the 40 percent marginal tax bracket. In addition to the share of premiums the employee pays, he or she would pay about $300 a month in taxes.

“That really adds to the cost of the benefit,” Ms. Hudson said. “It may be why so few couples take advantage of domestic partner benefits when they are available.”

She cited a Williams Institute study that shows unmarried partners are two to three times more likely to be uninsured than married people.
Ms. Hudson says that in rare cases, companies have been willing to increase employees’ paychecks to make up for the extra tax burden. So be sure to ask your human resources department about this.

[Old Coot]

31. I had no idea. There is no mention of it in the "benefits guide".

Thanks for the information.

[RufusH]

32. It's probably an addendum that only gay people would ever read.

I certainly read it when I had to sign up my unemployed partner. I pay more than $200 a month in additional taxes to cover my partner than I would have to pay if I was straight and covering a spouse.

[RufusH]

29. It would be illegal for your employer not to tax them.

[Creideiki]

30. Healthcare benefits to same-sex domestic partners are imputed income

Don't feel bad for not knowing this. Thom Hartmann didn't either when he was discussing healthcare issues and same-sex partners.

[Betty88]

50. they are taxed

I have been paying it for years. They consider it income, you have to pay the tax on the "income/cost of the benefits" Believe me its real. Just relax breath into it and after a while it stops hurting...

[Rage for Order]

25. I must say, this phrase is very telling

"Baucus says the tax-free benefit packages Americans now enjoy are a big factor in the high costs of the country's health care system, because they provide workers free or low-cost access to too many health care services."

Baucus, I can assure you that the problem with the American health care system is not that we have "free or low-cost access to too many health care services." What a moran! :wtf: :banghead:

[NashVegas]

35. I Know What He's Saying ... But

Could be wrong, but I suspect the bulk of people who receive medical benefits, by now, receive an employer contribution, but not the whole ride. ie, 50/50.

Until you get to the top management and administration gigs and union jobs. That's less of the population but more of the wealthy population, and you'd better freaking believe we will finally get some movement on genuine health care reform if people making $60k or more, currently paying $0 per month, suddenly get hit for $800 per month or more. Then you're going to hear some fucking shrieks.

If seems like a tough nut for those of us already paying a partially subsidized insurance fee.

[Kittycat]

39. "Free or low-cost access"

my ass. We pay PREMIUMS to cover those services, and it's cheaper for the insurance companies for us to access preventative care, than reactive or necessary/disabled care. That's why they typically cover the basics, and start cutting off procedures or specialized coverage for more complex health issues.

[Rage for Order]

40. My point exactly

Baucus seemes to think that we run to the doctor for the hell of it, because it only costs us a $20 co-pay rather than a $125 office visit fee. "I'm bored, I think I'll go hang out in the waiting room at my doctor's office for an hour today!"

:eyes:

[high density]

42. I just got a statement from the wonders at UnitedHealthcare

For the first five months of 2009 I used a whopping $180 in services. Less UHC's strongarm discounts of $62, less my copays of $40, leaving $78 actually paid by UHC. For this $78 payout, my employer and I paid about $1700 in premiums. Yes, too much access is definitely the problem! :eyes:

[Igel]

49. There are a few ways to take what he said.

The way I take it is what Mass. found out: If you make health care available to everybody in an area, you find that there aren't enough doctors and facilities. It's a limited commodity, and if you intend to spread the commodity around you have to limit it. "Ration" is the word that nobody likes to say, but rationing can happen in two ways--somebody can regulate how a commodity is handed out or there can simply be shortages, with every man out for himself. Mass. has gone the latter route.


Baucus' in keeping with making sure that health care provided by the government is "cost effective"; there's a committee set up to investigate this. Why pay for health care to people who will die soon, anyway, or who need it less desparately than others? $ is also a limited commodity, and if you want to bring health care into line the easiest way to do so is to stop paying for some aspects of it.

Who's against budgetary discipline?

Now is the tricky part: If you're getting government benefits but the private health insurance that your neighbor gets is so much better, there's a feeling of injustice. Easy: Increase the benefits of the government insurance, i.e., raise additional tax money to pay for it. Even better: Do so in a way that reduces the benefits of the private insurance. It reduces the sense of injustice felt and makes the entire system more equal.

Who's against equality? (At least other tax-private-benefits schemes have usually included some sort of tax credit for a large segment of the population.)

[pleah]

33. Why the hell is this asshole in charge of this bill?

Baucus says the tax-free benefit packages Americans now enjoy are a big factor in the high costs of the country's health care system, because they provide workers free or low-cost access to too many health care services.



He obviously doesn't give a shit about people and health care.

[EndElectoral]

36. Baucus is insane. my God ,this keeps getting worse.

[DCKit]

38. Geez, talk about Government standing between the patient and the Doctor.

Baucus is going to give the (C)orporate party a bad name.

[OhioChick]

44. Well, this is a fucked up idea. n/t

[liberal N proud]

46. Didn't they threaten to tax health care a few years back?

and the firestorm stopped them?

I recall this being a moment of rage several years ago.

[Old Coot]

47. Tax Medicare and Medicaid benefits. If he is going to tax employer provided benefits.

That makes as much sense. Talk about something unpopular.

[underpants]

48. it IS an economic problem

you have to have a healthy workforce- everyone since the first "big guy on the hill" has understood THAT