Obamacare just ruined my life

[Snookie]

May 22, 2009
Is Employer-Based Health Insurance Worth Saving?
By UWE E. REINHARDT

Uwe E. Reinhardt is an economics professor at Princeton.

Ask any group of health policy experts whether they would have put in place our employment-based health insurance system, had they had the luxury of designing our health system from scratch, the resounding answer most likely would be “No.” In fact, no other industrialized country has quite this arrangement. It is uniquely American in origin and in modus operandi.

Our employment-based system was not the product of a carefully designed health policy. It was a byproduct of evading wage controls during World War II.

At the time it was thought that, as the nation’s drafted military personnel risked their limbs and life on foreign battlefields at low, tightly controlled pay, those who stayed behind should have their wages controlled as well.

But with the wink of the eye with which Congress routinely puts loopholes into the tax laws or regulations it imposes, the wage controls imposed in World War II did not extend to fringe benefits. And thus, employer-paid fringe benefits, including employment-based health insurance, were born.

As was noted in last week’s post, Congress further encouraged the growth of employment-based health insurance by treating the employers’ contribution to their employees’ health insurance as a tax-deductible business expense. On the other hand, it was also not viewed as taxable compensation of the employee.

Remarkably, and quite unfairly, that tax preference was not granted to families forced to purchase health insurance on their own. They had to buy it with after-tax dollars.

From the perspective of health policy experts, however, that approach has serious shortcomings.

First, it keeps opaque who actually pays for the health care used by employees.

Both employers and employees seem to believe that the “company” absorbs the cost of the employer’s contributions to the group health insurance premiums for their employees — typically 80 percent of the premium.

Employers believe that these costs must either be recovered through the prices of the goods or services they sell (i.e., passing along the rising costs of health care to their customers in the form of higher prices), or taken out of the return to the company’s owners. On that belief, American executives now complain pitiably that the high cost of American health care makes their enterprises uncompetitive in the global marketplace.

For their part, employees tend to view employer-paid health insurance as a gift, on top of their pay. Therefore they see little personal gain in attempts to control the cost of their care.

Most economists are persuaded by theory and evidence that, over the longer run, the contributions employers make toward the fringe benefits of their employees come out of the employees’ take-home pay. Economists think of employers as pickpockets, so to speak, who take a chunk of the employee’s total compensation and buy with it whatever fringe benefits they “give” their employees. That process blinds employees to the inroads that their health care makes into their families’ livelihood.

more

The guiding doctrine of business is profit.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Bfgrn,

I couldn't agree more with the notion that the way we've been insuring ourselves, especially the way we've promoted employer-provided group plans, is the root of the problem. I think many Republicans get this a well. This could be used as a starting point for real consensus on a real solution. It's sad and frustrating that the Democrats and the President chose a different course.

Yes. If only they'd been willing to work with the GOP on a solution. Instead, they just went all socialist and passed a law that keeps the profit motive in health care! Bastards!

PPACA isn't socialist. It's pure corporatism. It preserves the profits of the vested interests, but does away with the free market, with the freedom of health care consumers.

It isn't socialist? The hell you say! Did you miss the part where I said it keeps the profit motive in health care! I must REALLY think it is socialist in nature to have said that.

If many Republicans get it......that employer sponsored health care is the root of the problem....then why haven't any of them said so?

Maybe it is because they know that Obama will not listen to them. That must be it.

 

[dblack]

If many Republicans get it......that employer sponsored health care is the root of the problem....then why haven't any of them said so?

They have. Your partisan blinders notwithstanding.

 

[eagle1462010]

Obama Lie

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf-k5li3fW8]Obama promises not to add a dime to the deficit. Now or in the future. Period - YouTube[/ame]

REALITY

CBO: Obamacare costs double to $1.8 trillion in first decade | WashingtonExaminer.com

When President Obama was selling his health care legislation to Congress, he declared that “the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years.” But with the law’s major provisions set to kick in next year, a new analysis by the Congressional Budget Office projects that the law will cost double that, or $1.8 trillion.

 

[Bfgrn]

May 22, 2009
Is Employer-Based Health Insurance Worth Saving?
By UWE E. REINHARDT

Uwe E. Reinhardt is an economics professor at Princeton.

Ask any group of health policy experts whether they would have put in place our employment-based health insurance system, had they had the luxury of designing our health system from scratch, the resounding answer most likely would be “No.” In fact, no other industrialized country has quite this arrangement. It is uniquely American in origin and in modus operandi.

Our employment-based system was not the product of a carefully designed health policy. It was a byproduct of evading wage controls during World War II.

At the time it was thought that, as the nation’s drafted military personnel risked their limbs and life on foreign battlefields at low, tightly controlled pay, those who stayed behind should have their wages controlled as well.

But with the wink of the eye with which Congress routinely puts loopholes into the tax laws or regulations it imposes, the wage controls imposed in World War II did not extend to fringe benefits. And thus, employer-paid fringe benefits, including employment-based health insurance, were born.

As was noted in last week’s post, Congress further encouraged the growth of employment-based health insurance by treating the employers’ contribution to their employees’ health insurance as a tax-deductible business expense. On the other hand, it was also not viewed as taxable compensation of the employee.

Remarkably, and quite unfairly, that tax preference was not granted to families forced to purchase health insurance on their own. They had to buy it with after-tax dollars.

From the perspective of health policy experts, however, that approach has serious shortcomings.

First, it keeps opaque who actually pays for the health care used by employees.

Both employers and employees seem to believe that the “company” absorbs the cost of the employer’s contributions to the group health insurance premiums for their employees — typically 80 percent of the premium.

Employers believe that these costs must either be recovered through the prices of the goods or services they sell (i.e., passing along the rising costs of health care to their customers in the form of higher prices), or taken out of the return to the company’s owners. On that belief, American executives now complain pitiably that the high cost of American health care makes their enterprises uncompetitive in the global marketplace.

For their part, employees tend to view employer-paid health insurance as a gift, on top of their pay. Therefore they see little personal gain in attempts to control the cost of their care.

Most economists are persuaded by theory and evidence that, over the longer run, the contributions employers make toward the fringe benefits of their employees come out of the employees’ take-home pay. Economists think of employers as pickpockets, so to speak, who take a chunk of the employee’s total compensation and buy with it whatever fringe benefits they “give” their employees. That process blinds employees to the inroads that their health care makes into their families’ livelihood.

more

The guiding doctrine of business is profit.

Absolutely...and the guiding doctrine of a health care system must be people. That is why every industrialized nation takes profit out of the equation.

The whole basis of a 'free market' is the buyer has leverage, i.e. he/she can take his/her business elsewhere. That works perfectly fine when the stakes are 'things' (cars or TV sets etc). But a person's health is not a 'thing', and the consumer's stake is their very life. An unhappy consumer can go buys a different car or TV. If a person has a life threatening illness and is denied coverage for treatment, WHAT leverage does that person have...take their business elsewhere IN ANOTHER LIFE?

 

[eagle1462010]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Esb_1OEp4-Q]ObamaCare in 60 Seconds - YouTube[/ame]

 

[LoneLaugher]

If many Republicans get it......that employer sponsored health care is the root of the problem....then why haven't any of them said so?

They have. Your partisan blinders notwithstanding.

Great! What leading Republican has said so? No link needed....just give me the name. I an find it.

Thanks.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Liar N Chief

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg9m1F8B2_c]65 Outrageous Lies by President Obama - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eagle1462010]

Liberal Zombies would follow Obama into a fire screaming "We love you!!" while burning to death.

 

[EriktheRed]

Liberal Zombies would follow Obama into a fire screaming "We love you!!" while burning to death.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Liberal Zombies would follow Obama into a fire screaming "We love you!!" while burning to death.

We need more posts like you have been submitting, eagle. They are really contributing to the discussion. In fact, we need more posters like you. There are not enough USMB members with your unique take on things.

 

[dblack]

If many Republicans get it......that employer sponsored health care is the root of the problem....then why haven't any of them said so?

They have. Your partisan blinders notwithstanding.

Great! What leading Republican has said so? No link needed....just give me the name. I an find it.

Thanks.

I've seen several alternative reforms (proffered by republicans) that included provisions to either get rid of the incentives for employer-provided insurance or to extend the same tax breaks to individual purchasers. Don't get me wrong, the last thing I'm interested in doing is cheerleading for Republicans. But the potential for real consensus is there.

 

[LoneLaugher]

They have. Your partisan blinders notwithstanding.

Great! What leading Republican has said so? No link needed....just give me the name. I an find it.

Thanks.

I've seen several alternative reforms (proffered by republicans) that included provisions to either get rid of the incentives for employer-provided insurance or to extend the same tax breaks to individual purchasers. Don't get me wrong, the last thing I'm interested in doing is cheerleading for Republicans. But the potential for real consensus is there.

I am looking for a GOP proposal....or even a comment....expressing a desire to end the employer based system that we have now. That would be interesting for me and I'd be eager to learn more about that GOP leader.

The opportunity for consensus exists for all issues....but the brokers who come to the table have to do so honestly. Teammates who disagree on tactics are acceptable and can work things out. Coming to the table as though they are not on the same team is not acceptable.

 

[dblack]

Great! What leading Republican has said so? No link needed....just give me the name. I an find it.

Thanks.

I've seen several alternative reforms (proffered by republicans) that included provisions to either get rid of the incentives for employer-provided insurance or to extend the same tax breaks to individual purchasers. Don't get me wrong, the last thing I'm interested in doing is cheerleading for Republicans. But the potential for real consensus is there.

I am looking for a GOP proposal....or even a comment....expressing a desire to end the employer based system that we have now. That would be interesting for me and I'd be eager to learn more about that GOP leader.

The opportunity for consensus exists for all issues....but the brokers who come to the table have to do so honestly. Teammates who disagree on tactics are acceptable and can work things out. Coming to the table as though they are not on the same team is not acceptable.

This was my first hit from a google search on " republicans on employer based health insurance "

http://freebeacon.com/republicans-put-forward-obamacare-replacement/

The bill begins by eliminating the bias in the tax code toward employer-provided health care. Employer-provided insurance will no longer be tax-free, and the RSC plan replaces it with a tax deduction for individuals and families that have health insurance. This shift makes the tax code treat insurance provided through work and bought on the individual market the same.

 

[RKMBrown]

The big fear the republicans have about obama care is that it will be successful.

If it was as screwed up they would let it ride and watch it crash and then cash in on its failure.

You are delusional. Socialism, NEVER works. Never has worked, does not work now, and never will work.

 

[Snookie]

The big fear the republicans have about obama care is that it will be successful.

If it was as screwed up they would let it ride and watch it crash and then cash in on its failure.

You are delusional. Socialism, NEVER works. Never has worked, does not work now, and never will work.

You are confusing communism for socialism. You are anti-social.

It is working fine in a lot of the wealthy more civilized countries in the world. Social security is the most popular social program in this country. They would have a huge surplus if it had not been raped by the politicians.

 

[dblack]

The big fear the republicans have about obama care is that it will be successful.

If it was as screwed up they would let it ride and watch it crash and then cash in on its failure.

You are delusional. Socialism, NEVER works. Never has worked, does not work now, and never will work.

ACA isn't socialism. It's corporatism. And I agree that the biggest threat is that it will 'work' - in the sense that it will successfully bring health care under federal control. I think that would be a really bad development for our nation.

 

[Snookie]

The big fear the republicans have about obama care is that it will be successful.

If it was as screwed up they would let it ride and watch it crash and then cash in on its failure.

You are delusional. Socialism, NEVER works. Never has worked, does not work now, and never will work.

ACA isn't socialism. It's corporatism. And I agree that the biggest threat is that it will 'work' - in the sense that it will successfully bring health care under government control. I think that would be a really bad development for our nation.

Yeah government is bad. We need to get rid f things such as the interstae highway system, the FDA who is always sticking its nose in botulism, national parks, medicare, medicaid, air traffic controllers, fbi, the pentagon, and just too many to mention.

Let's just revert back to the neanderthal era and the survival of the fittest. We too, can be like Somalia.

 

[RKMBrown]

The big fear the republicans have about obama care is that it will be successful.

If it was as screwed up they would let it ride and watch it crash and then cash in on its failure.

You are delusional. Socialism, NEVER works. Never has worked, does not work now, and never will work.

ACA isn't socialism. It's corporatism. And I agree that the biggest threat is that it will 'work' - in the sense that it will successfully bring health care under government control. I think that would be a really bad development for our nation.

That's a lie. Forcing corporations to pay fines and higher rates for insurance for their employees, and/or the employees to foot the bill for the higher rates due to the new federal mandates placed on insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions and also to fund federal subsidies for heath insurance plans for illegals, people who don't want to work, and people who work "part time" and/or for minimum wage are most certainly socialist redistribution policies. So what if the government is outsourcing the insurance management to insurance companies? Corporatism my ass.

If you earn a mid income level amount of money you are going to be punished, unless you had some pre-existing conditions that you want to force others to pay for. That is the very definition of socialism. People who deserved an F are being given a C. People who deserved an A are being dinged for the audacity of living and working in this country and not having given up all of their salary to government to redistribute. Cause evidently, existing federal, state, and local taxes were not enough now our federal government has to screw up our health care. They started screwing it up with the mandated free health care at emergency rooms. Obuma Care is just one more nail in the labor force. This is "why" unions and other democrat institutions are all getting exemptions from this bull carp. If you are not in a government job or union you are an enemy of this administration. It's disgusting. Makes me want to clean my guns some more, get some more ammo. I really don't like this one government policy for the democrats, hand out money hand over fist, and another government policy for the republicans, take their paychecks while you are calling them rich scum that did not earn their money.

 

[dblack]

You are delusional. Socialism, NEVER works. Never has worked, does not work now, and never will work.

ACA isn't socialism. It's corporatism. And I agree that the biggest threat is that it will 'work' - in the sense that it will successfully bring health care under government control. I think that would be a really bad development for our nation.

That's a lie. Forcing corporations to pay fines and higher rates for insurance for their employees, and/or the employees to foot the bill for the higher rates due to the new federal mandates placed on insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions and also to fund federal subsidies for heath insurance plans for illegals, people who don't want to work, and people who work "part time" and/or for minimum wage are most certainly socialist redistribution policies. So what if the government is outsourcing the insurance management to insurance companies? Corporatism my ass.

It doesn't sound like you understand corporatism at all. Or socialism for that matter. Certainly not enough to discern truth from lies.