• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrat looking at taxing health benefit

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Democrat looking at taxing health benefit | Politics | Reuters


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior Senate Democrat said Tuesday he would consider taxing U.S. workers on their employer-sponsored health insurance to help pay for extending coverage to millions of uninsured Americans.


Most U.S. workers with health insurance get it through their employers -- 160 million of them -- although recent surveys have shown that number is declining as businesses try to cope with the rapidly rising cost of insurance.

The employer-provided benefit is not taxed as income and critics say the tax break encourages workers to seek a more generous benefit package than they might want if it was taxed.


In the budget he submitted to Congress last week, Obama proposed setting aside $634 billion for his promised health care overhaul. He proposed raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans to help pay for it.

This is a subversive move to push people on to government health care by making it way more expensive to be privately insured.

The government doesn't want an independent populous.

If you can't take care of yourself don't worry the government will make everyone else pay for it.
 
Its a horrible idea. McCain campaigned on doing the same thing. It was a bad idea then, and a bad idea now.
 
Sorry, but it's not MY job to take care of YOUR health. The fact that individuals in government think that my money should be taken from me and given to someone else is ridiculous.
 
I agree with all the above. This is a terrible idea.
 
I am appalled that I'm the first one to agree with this, as this is a big part of the reason that health care benefits became so expensive and inefficient in the first place. This is NOT a terrible idea. This is an excellent idea, as economists of nearly any political stripe will tell you. Allow me to address these points one at a time:

This is a subversive move to push people on to government health care by making it way more expensive to be privately insured.

The only reason health care wound up being the employer's responsibility in the first place was because no one pays taxes on them. The employer gets to deduct the benefits as payroll expenses, and the employee doesn't have to pay income or payroll taxes on them. Obviously this makes no sense, since paying someone in health benefits is no different than paying someone in cash. SOMEONE needs to pay taxes on those benefits to end this atrocious distortion of the market that basically makes it unaffordable for anyone to buy health insurance on their own, and makes people completely dependent on their employer even if they hate their job and would be much more efficient doing something else.

Harry Guerrilla said:
If you can't take care of yourself don't worry the government will make everyone else pay for it.

This is the essence of government and has been for millennia.

chevydriver1123 said:
My paycheck gets raped enough in taxes as it is, why the **** should I have to pay for someone's elses insurance.

I'm OK with making this "revenue-neutral"...sort of. I would support cutting payroll taxes by an appropriate amount to compensate for the tax increase on health benefits. The important thing in this particular case is to end the market distortion, not to generate more revenue. We certainly need to generate more revenue as well, but that's a different story.
 
I am appalled that I'm the first one to agree with this, as this is a big part of the reason that health care benefits became so expensive and inefficient in the first place. This is NOT a terrible idea. This is an excellent idea, as economists of nearly any political stripe will tell you. Allow me to address these points one at a time:

I am reluctant to accept any plan that will have me paying for the health benefits of someone who chooses not work and earn their own way (welfare).

At the same time I am very much open to anything that can remove the health industry from being dominated by high paying insurance companies focused on keeping health care at a price so outrageous that the average American has no possible chances to have health care without paying an insurance company.

My wife recently had minor knee surgery that lasted 8 minutes. The medical bill if we didn't have insurance would have $23,000. That is freaking ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
We shouldn't have to pay any taxes on healthcare period.

We have an outstanding healthcare system, the best in the world, and it works perfectly fine for those of us who are responsible enough to purchase it.

The increasing healthcare costs that we, the responsible people are being burdened with, is from the irresponsible who sponge off the system, and are coddled by the liberals who dupe them in believing they are entitled to free healthcare, in exchange for their vote.

We already have free healthcare in this country, it's called the County Health Department.

Here's the Dade-Miami County Health Department.

Take a second to look at all the services they offer.

We could easily bring healthcare costs under control, if hospitals were allowed to refer non emergency situations to county health departments.

Emergency treatments could be billed to the county.

Furthermore, the treatment of illegal aliens should be on a cash and carry basis.

We cannot continue to give free healthcare to people who are here illegally.
 
I am appalled that I'm the first one to agree with this, ...
And I am appalled by your following statement.
This is NOT a terrible idea.



... as this is a big part of the reason that health care benefits became so expensive and inefficient in the first place.
I disagree.
The it is a minor problem that could have been solved with a totally free market system.



This is an excellent idea, as economists of nearly any political stripe will tell you.
Yeah ok.
Just as economists of nearly every political stripe will tell you otherwise.




The only reason health care wound up being the employer's responsibility in the first place was because no one pays taxes on them.
Resposibility?
Not a responsibility but what the tax code allowed and therefore implemented by employers to make a business more competitive.



This is the essence of government and has been for millennia.
No it isn't, and hasn't, been.
The essence of Government is to 'govern', not 'take care of', or provide 'support' to it's citizens.
 
We have an outstanding healthcare system, the best in the world, and it works perfectly fine for those of us who are responsible enough to purchase it.
Other the the outrageous healthcare prices driven up by insurance companies to increase their market share, I agree we do have an outstanding quality of health care.

Furthermore, the treatment of illegal aliens should be on a cash and carry basis.

We cannot continue to give free healthcare to people who are here illegally.

So do you deny someone health care until they can be proven to be a citizen of the United States and/or have health care coverage? What about in an emergency life/death situation (ex: person brought in from an accident)?
 
Last edited:
So do you deny someone health care until they can be proven to be a citizen of the United States and/or have health care coverage? What about in an emergency life/death situation (ex: person brought in from an accident)?

Had you read and comprehended my post, you would have understood the following points I made:

We could easily bring healthcare costs under control, if hospitals were allowed to refer non emergency situations to county health departments.

Emergency treatments could be billed to the county.
 
We shouldn't have to pay any taxes on healthcare period.

This I agree with. All out-of-pocket health care expenditures should be tax deductible. However, that's a completely different subject than whether or not health benefits should be treated as regular income.

GottaHurt said:
We have an outstanding healthcare system, the best in the world, and it works perfectly fine for those of us who are responsible enough to purchase it.

Not everyone has a job that provides health benefits. But again, that's a different subject.

GottaHurt said:
The increasing healthcare costs that we, the responsible people are being burdened with, is from the irresponsible who sponge off the system, and are coddled by the liberals who dupe them in believing they are entitled to free healthcare, in exchange for their vote.

People wouldn't need to "sponge off the system" as much if they had access to preventative care instead of emergency care only. The overall share of the GDP spent on health care would almost certainly decline if we had universal health care.

GottaHurt said:
We already have free healthcare in this country, it's called the County Health Department.

Here's the Dade-Miami County Health Department.

Take a second to look at all the services they offer.

We could easily bring healthcare costs under control, if hospitals were allowed to refer non emergency situations to county health departments.

If these things are county-run, that's great and I'm all for them. But obviously there are going to be huge differences in quality, as not every county has the money to offer quality health services to its residents.

GottaHurt said:
Emergency treatments could be billed to the county.

Meh, I'm hesitant to trust that to the counties. At the very least, it should be the state's responsibility. Otherwise we'd have an enormous system of patchwork laws and no coordination between locales (which, actually, is what we have now).

GottaHurt said:
Furthermore, the treatment of illegal aliens should be on a cash and carry basis.

We cannot continue to give free healthcare to people who are here illegally.

It doesn't matter what the topic is. It always comes back to The Brown Man, doesn't it. :roll:
 
I am reluctant to accept any plan that will have me paying for the health benefits of someone who chooses not work and earn their own way (welfare).

Yes, some people choose not to work and earn their own way. What about the other 90% of people without health insurance or with crappy health insurance?

Gibberish said:
At the same time I am very much open to anything that can remove the health industry from being dominated by high paying insurance companies focused on keeping health care at a price so outrageous that the average American has no possible chances to have health care without paying an insurance company.

This would definitely be a step in the right direction. It obviously wouldn't get rid of the insurance companies, but it would at least take employers out of the equation. Most employers would stop offering health insurance benefits entirely if the government didn't distort the market in this way. This would mean that there would suddenly be a big market for individual insurance rather than group plans, which would drive the cost down.
 
Had you read and comprehended my post, you would have understood the following points I made:

I fully comprehended your post.

How does billing the county affect your statement of "We cannot continue to give free health care to people who are here illegally."? Which was what my post was obviously addressed towards.
 
Last edited:
I disagree.
The it is a minor problem that could have been solved with a totally free market system.

This is a step TOWARD a free market system, as it is eliminating a government-created market distortion. Both employers and employees have an artificial incentive for the employer to provide health insurance rather than the employee buying individual coverage.

Coolguy said:
Yeah ok.
Just as economists of nearly every political stripe will tell you otherwise.

No they won't. Please name one serious economist who opposes this. Actually, I'll give you an easier question: Please name one serious economist. :roll:

Coolguy said:
Resposibility?
Not a responsibility but what the tax code allowed and therefore implemented by employers to make a business more competitive.

Employers would have no incentive to provide health care in the first place if not for the tax code. That is NOT a free market, and the fact that you support this (most likely without understanding what you're supporting) undercuts your claim to favor a free market.

Coolguy said:
No it isn't, and hasn't, been.
The essence of Government is to 'govern', not 'take care of', or provide 'support' to it's citizens.

Militaries and police have existed for millennia. The idea of what "taking care of the people" entails has simply evolved.
 
Yes, some people choose not to work and earn their own way. What about the other 90% of people without health insurance or with crappy health insurance?

This would definitely be a step in the right direction. It obviously wouldn't get rid of the insurance companies, but it would at least take employers out of the equation. Most employers would stop offering health insurance benefits entirely if the government didn't distort the market in this way. This would mean that there would suddenly be a big market for individual insurance rather than group plans, which would drive the cost down.
I agree they need to be helped. I do not agree with taxing me to do it. The price of insurance and/or health care directly needs to be lowered to manageable levels so that an employer isn't required for someone to have health care.

When I worked for a large company I paid roughly $500 a year for my entire family to have great PPO insurance. I know pay more then that a month to have the same level of insurance working for myself.
 
People without health insurance pay nothing every month for health care even though they could afford to pay some amount of money. It seems the government would rather have no money from them than some money.

Hospitals and clinics should either be completely private or they should be completely public. They shouldn't be both.

People with insurance would see their premiums reduced and the government would be out of the private health care business.

Same with colleges. Either they are private and accept no government money or federal student loans or they are public. We'd see the cost of university go down too.
 
Hospitals and clinics should either be completely private or they should be completely public. They shouldn't be both.

What about private practices that use public facilities? I have a doctor who has a private practice but uses the public hospital if she needs to do an MRI or some other procedure she doesn't have the resources to do at her small office.
 
I agree they need to be helped. I do not agree with taxing me to do it. The price of insurance and/or health care directly needs to be lowered to manageable levels so that an employer isn't required for someone to have health care.

When I worked for a large company I paid roughly $500 a year for my entire family to have great PPO insurance. I know pay more then that a month to have the same level of insurance working for myself.
You actually paid much more than $500 / year, it was just hidden. Employer paid healthcare is part of the cost of employement so you are being paid less to cover it. The only real advantage is group rates.

If it were not employer based, there would be many buying groups like AARP or Farm Bureau. Private insurance does not have all the mandates so people could shop for the health insurance tailored to what they wanted and not have to pay for the coverage they did not want.

This is all a moot point though, since when the US government takes over the healthcare system, the real cost to you will be hidden again and you will get a one-size-fits-all where the coverage will have to be continually scaled back to contain costs.
 
What about private practices that use public facilities? I have a doctor who has a private practice but uses the public hospital if she needs to do an MRI or some other procedure she doesn't have the resources to do at her small office.

Send the patient to a private MRI because it's an open MRI and better than the public MRI. The patient's insurance will pay for it. There are all sorts of private diagnostic labs nowadays.

If the patient does go to the public hospital are they billed? I guess it would all be no different than pounds pence or shillings to use the public facility if they did pay for services.

I think the biggest problem is when the government pays for private facilities and the prices start going all crazy because there is more money running around available to charge. If the money isn't there from the government the hospitals have to keep fees lower.
 
What about private practices that use public facilities? I have a doctor who has a private practice but uses the public hospital if she needs to do an MRI or some other procedure she doesn't have the resources to do at her small office.
Doesn't the hospital charge for the MRI, etc?

Hospitals, both private and public, work very hard to get doctors to refer patients to them. Most patients don't pick the hospital, their doctor does. It the doctors are not referring patients to a hostpial it will not be in business very long.
 
This is a step TOWARD a free market system, as it is eliminating a government-created market distortion. Both employers and employees have an artificial incentive for the employer to provide health insurance rather than the employee buying individual coverage.
No.
Eliminating the government created market distortion is eliminating the incentive for employers to provide it.
Which has nothing to do with a totally free market where health care is concerned.





Actually, I'll give you an easier question: Please name one serious economist.
Which of course makes your original statement as significant as mine.
Which was my point.



Employers would have no incentive to provide health care in the first place if not for the tax code. That is NOT a free market, and the fact that you support this (most likely without understanding what you're supporting) undercuts your claim to favor a free market.
Don't confuse opposition in regards to one issue as support for another.
My "totally free market" comment was made in reference to 'Health Care', not the market as a whole.



Militaries and police have existed for millennia. The idea of what "taking care of the people" entails has simply evolved.
Wow!
The Military is there to prevent hostile actions against the Country as a whole.
Police are there to keep the internal peace.
That is governance.
These haven't change in any significant way.

You are arguing 'General Welfare' and that meaning really hasn't 'evolved', but is in flux, between those who wish to change it's original intent, versus those who wish it to remain what it means.
Some well intentioned people (seeking to reinterpret the wording to fit their cause) have been able to implement changes and others support going further, while other well intentioned people seek to undue and stop any further movement in that direction.

Regardless. None of what you say here changes the fact that the essence of Government is to 'govern', not 'take care of', or provide 'support' to it's citizens.
 
Not everyone has a job that provides health benefits.

You don't need a job that offers health insurance. The county health department has services available. You pay/don't pay for the services based on your income.

People wouldn't need to "sponge off the system" as much if they had access to preventative care instead of emergency care only. The overall share of the GDP spent on health care would almost certainly decline if we had universal health care.

We already have universal healthcare, it's called the county health department.

If these things are county-run, that's great and I'm all for them. But obviously there are going to be huge differences in quality, as not every county has the money to offer quality health services to its residents.

Then that's a matter that needs to be addressed by the residents of that county.

Meh, I'm hesitant to trust that to the counties. At the very least, it should be the state's responsibility. Otherwise we'd have an enormous system of patchwork laws and no coordination between locales (which, actually, is what we have now).

You're hesitant to trust your local rep, one that you can easily contact, but you'll trust a unseen bureaucrat in Washington? :doh

It doesn't matter what the topic is. It always comes back to The Brown Man, doesn't it. :roll:

You're the only one bringing race into this. I said illegal alien, you know, anyone who is in our country illegally.
 
Back
Top Bottom