Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Motown_Johnny

(22,308 posts)
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:39 PM Dec 2012

Did Ezra miss a trick? (on Rachel's show)


He just explained the math behind raising the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67.

A large part of the problem is the money that will be spent on private insurance.

Isn't this money tax deductible? Won't forcing people aged 65 and 66 to spend that money lower revenues brought into the Federal Government and if so shouldn't that be part of the equation?


7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Did Ezra miss a trick? (on Rachel's show) (Original Post) Motown_Johnny Dec 2012 OP
No it isn't dsc Dec 2012 #1
Isn't most insurance purchased though an employer? Motown_Johnny Dec 2012 #2
likely trivially dsc Dec 2012 #3
That assumes people will retire at 65, without Medicare benefits. Motown_Johnny Dec 2012 #5
people who buy insurance for themselves usually do NOT get to use ellenfl Dec 2012 #4
That is only about 9% of us. Motown_Johnny Dec 2012 #6
it's only 9% because it's unaffordable for many. eom ellenfl Dec 2012 #7

dsc

(52,170 posts)
1. No it isn't
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:48 PM
Dec 2012

unless it is over 7% of their total income. The employee provided insurance isn't taxed but privately bought insurance isn't tax exempt.

 

Motown_Johnny

(22,308 posts)
2. Isn't most insurance purchased though an employer?
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:51 PM
Dec 2012

I know mine is and it lowers my taxable income. Even some of my AFLAC comes off my taxable income (but not all).


So if those 65 and 66 year old persons are still receiving insurance though an employer then it is lowering revenue.

dsc

(52,170 posts)
3. likely trivially
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:41 PM
Dec 2012

since if they retire then the would get replaced by someone who has insurance and if they don't then there is no change.

 

Motown_Johnny

(22,308 posts)
5. That assumes people will retire at 65, without Medicare benefits.
Sat Dec 8, 2012, 06:03 PM
Dec 2012

There are some people who work past 65 now. The number of those people will increase if they are dependent on employer based insurance because they can't get Medicare at 65.

ellenfl

(8,660 posts)
4. people who buy insurance for themselves usually do NOT get to use
Sat Dec 8, 2012, 12:42 AM
Dec 2012

pre-tax dollars. i had to buy my own individual policy for several years and did not get any tax break. i haven't had employer-provided health insurance for almost 20 years. when my cobra reached $700/mo., i tried to get another cheaper individual policy but was turned down for pre-existing conditions. the employee portion of an employer-provided insurance premium is paid using pre-tax dollars. my bf's employer now covers me and i contribute to the premium but i still do not get the tax break. my bf does.

i would guess that more women than men are without health insurance because we cannot afford it.

 

Motown_Johnny

(22,308 posts)
6. That is only about 9% of us.
Sat Dec 8, 2012, 06:09 PM
Dec 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_States

^snip^

According to the US Census Bureau, about 9% of Americans are covered under health insurance purchased directly.





And because the Health Care Reform is going to impose a penalty on most employers for not providing coverage there is a very good chance that percentage will drop.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Did Ezra miss a trick? (o...