NYT tells President Obama to tax employee-based health insurance

[AlexanderProgressive]

In today's editorial:


Even the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities suggested last week that Congress is unlikely to be able to pay for universal coverage unless it takes the unpopular step of limiting the tax exclusion for the value of the health insurance provided by an employer. It is the nation’s costliest tax subsidy, and some experts believe it encourages overuse of medical services.

Congress has heavy lifting ahead. It must foster reforms that are apt to reduce costs in the long-run (past the 10-year mark) and find a mix of short-term savings and tax increases to put us on course without driving up the deficit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/opinion/07sun1.html?_r=1

[BlooInBloo]

1. They lost me at "it encourages overuse of medical services"....

Nobody WANTS to go to the doctor, you worthless sack of shit fuckwits.


EDIT: Except for a couple of crazy people, which ipso facto demonstrates that they SHOULD be seeing a doctor.

[AtomicKitten]

10. "overuse" ????

I completely agree with you. People use Emergency Departments because they don't have any insurance because it's impossible for them to get or afford!

The Blue Dogs are proposing this BS too.

President Obama is stepping in to preserve the public option. I think he's done letting these idiots bounce their idiotic ideas off the wall.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

14. the experts are not obviously experts! fools!

People should have a right to healthcare. we should get rid of the insurance companies and if they wish they can become trusts run by the government for a while until they become redundant. I think the UK system would work here eventually.

Open up primary care with preventative care units and urgent care centers increase jobs. Take prinary care out of emergency rooms for good.

[AtomicKitten]

15. That kind of piecemeal healthcare is virtually pointless.

That's how mistakes are made. Continuity in care and preventive healthcare is what saves money in the long run.

I completely agree that insurance companies should be taken entirely out of the loop. They are causing incompetent care and too often dangerous repercussions by dictating terms of care.

[uponit7771]

20. LOL, Go to doctor or go play golf, damn such a hard decision....these people think we're all stupid

[high density]

2. Some experts believe the NYT is a bunch of stupid f--king idiots. NM

[democracy1st]

25. i agree they're stupid as f...

[bluestateguy]

3. I'm sure the NY Timers editorial board discussed this at last night's cocktail party

nt

[stray cat]

4. This has been put forth by the dems and Obama as a possiblity

don't blame the NYTimes - coverage for all is going to cost some money and it is likely some of us will pay more possibly for less - but thats what it takes to cover everyone.

[and-justice-for-all]

27. But as ideas get discussed, some take it and run...

when it was just one idea out of several from different discussions.

Yeah, Obama and others brought it up, however its I am sure just one part of the conversation on the matter.

[Raineyb]

5. That makes so much sense

Tax insurance benefits so that in the end even more people end up uninsured.

:sarcasm:

Idiots!

[peacebird]

6. Give us all the single payer option, tax-free, and tax those who choose private coverage?

I believe we could get health coverage for everyone in this country if we took the HMO and insurance companies out of the mix. Too often they spend more money trying to prevent treatment, or refuse coverage of treatment than they spend ON treatment.
Get the "for profit" out of medicine.

[dipsydoodle]

8. Give you all the single payer option - tax-free ?

I can only recommend you look up the cost to employers and employees of our National Health Service here in the UK by way of what are effectively tax payments. Anyone who thinks you'll get single payer for nothing is delusional.

This will get you stared : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Insurance

[and-justice-for-all]

28. I am more then happy to pay more in taxes to have UHC...

what would be taken out? 2% more then what I already pay? Some countries with UHC pay 19% in taxes and have UHC, we pay less and what do we get for it? Not UHC that's for sure.

and they still should raise the taxes on people who make 250K a year to help pay for other things, as well as UHC.

[peacebird]

29. agree 100%!

[Captain Hilts]

7. NO! This makes the NorthEast pay a disporportionately large share of the bill because the South

and SW have fewer people insured. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dipsydoodle]

12. Unless I've misunderstood something here

the whole point of any universal system is the bi-product of the "haves" paying for the "have nots" in some shape or form - that includes children, the unemployed and the those past retirement age. So - you're effectively argung against full blown single payer which would have the same result as above given that the north east probably has a higher level of employment compared with the south.

[Captain Hilts]

16. More blue states require employers to provide healthcare. It's not really 'have's. In the South

and SW, fewer states require employers to provide healthcare.

It's not a 'haves' vs. 'have-nots'.

[dipsydoodle]

19. I didn't realise

you had any mandatory requirements for employers to provide healthcare at all. I also assume from other posts elsewhere that at present these are not taxed as a benefit in kind.

[Captain Hilts]

21. It varies from state to state. Insured rates are much higher in the Northeast. nt

[BlooInBloo]

13. Ah yes - the "fuck you, I got mine" attitude.

[Captain Hilts]

17. Blue states are far more likely to require employers to provide healthcare.

than in the South and Southwest. They pay higher state tax rates for it also.

Therefore, a tax on healthcare would make blue states pay more than red states. Blue states are already subsidizing red states hugely.

[BlooInBloo]

18. Right. You got yours, fuck the south. I understand perfectly.

[Captain Hilts]

22. Um, no. I don't live in the northeast and I have no health insurance.

The people receiving healthcare benefits in the north east are not necessarily wealthy, they just live in states where this is required.

[BlooInBloo]

23. /sighs. Fine - quibble-adjustment: They got theirs, so fuck the south. I get it.

[montanacowboy]

9. If the dems do this they are screwed.

Plain and simple.

[Thrill]

11. Robert Reich thinks he should too

Thats from everyones favorite economic liberal

[4lbs]

24. The reason why French healthcare is so cost-effective is that illnesses are caught early, when they

can be treated relatively cheaply.

How are they caught early? Instead of annual checkups, like most in the U.S. do, French people get seasonal checkups. Three or four times a year, they get a full physical checkup.

That means any illness is rarely more than several months in progression, and less costly treatments are often 90% effective or better in those cases.

It's the difference between discovering a tumor only several months old, and going through a $20,000 operation to remove it, or discovering one that has been growing for a year, because the patient only sees the doctor maybe every 14 months. Then instead of the $20,000 surgery, they have to undergo radiation and chemotherapy along with extended hospital stays. That could cost $200,000 or more.

I hope the public option allows people to see the doctor 3, 4, or more times a year.

I know I will when I go on it.

[madmom]

26. So will all of congress and all of the military be taxed as well?