Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 113

Thread: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

  1. #81
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:07 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,518

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    Health insurance is hardly the only area where state-line insurance rules cause big problems.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  2. #82
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Celticlord,

    I find for perhaps the 2nd time something we both agree upon.

    Good point. It would make sense to simply remove the tax burden from the consumer, but I doubt it would win support because big businesses don't want to lose this exclusive tax deduction. It would be one less tax write-off big corperations couldn't use.

    But here I agree with you 100%. Removing the tax deduction would open the marketplace not only regionally but nationally.
    That's just it. I don't think employers would really mind. Keep in mind that employer-based health insurance became the norm by accident: employers offered it as a way to sidestep wage controls imposed during WWII.
    World War II created health insurance perk | detnews.com | The Detroit News

    All employers would have to do to maintain the tax deduction is cancel the insurance plan and funnel the money into direct payroll expense.

    Hell, most employers would be thrilled because not having to manage insurance plans would streamline their administrative staffs (most of what an HR staff does is manage benefits); convert the benefit to cash, keep the tax deduction at the corporate level, and employees use the additional cash to buy their own insurance (or not, as their circumstances and desires dictate).

    Small businesses--the largest single source of job growth in the United States--would be overjoyed at the change, because benefits are a burden to them because of their small staff size.

    The bottom line is this: there is no economic equity or justice provided by employer-subsidized insurance.

    Which returns to the same question: Why is the majority party ignoring this obvious (and fairly easy) win on health care?

  3. #83
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    Quote Originally Posted by talloulou View Post
    Just read page 65 and fail to see the claim you're asserting for that page too. Taxpayers will subsidize all community organizers and retired union workers.... I don't see that there.
    That's because you're not a lawyer / IRS code expert.

    SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES.
    (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—

    (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish a temporary reinsurance program (in this section referred to as the ‘‘reinsurance program’’) to provide reimbursement to assist participating employment-based plans with the cost of providing health benefits to retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees.

    (2) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section:

    (A) The term ‘‘eligible employment-based plan’’ means a group health benefits plan that—

    (i) is maintained by one or more employers, former employers or employee associations, or a voluntary employees’ beneficiary association, or a committee or board of individuals appointed to administer such plan, and

    (ii) provides health benefits to retir-
    ees.

    <break>

    page 65-66

    Proposed Health Care Bill (2009)
    ---

    Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association- 501(c)(9)

    A voluntary employees' beneficiary association (VEBA) under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(9) is an organization organized to pay life, sick, accident, and similar benefits to members or their dependents, or designated beneficiaries if no part of the net earnings of the association inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. The organization must meet the following requirements:

    1. It must be a voluntary association of employees;
    2. The organization must provide for payment of life, sick, accident, or other similar benefits to members or their dependents or designated beneficiaries and substantially all of its operations are for this purpose; and
    3. Its earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder other than through the payment of benefits described in (2) above.

    Membership of a section 501(c)(9) organization must consist of individuals who are employees who have an employment-related common bond. This common bond may be a common employer (or affiliated employers), coverage under one or more collective bargaining agreements, membership in a labor union, or membership in one or more locals of a national or international labor union. An organization that is part of a plan will not be exempt unless the plan meets certain nondiscrimination requirements. However, if the organization is part of a plan maintained under a collective bargaining agreement between employee representatives and employers, and such plan was the subject of good faith bargaining between such employee representatives and employers, the plan need not meet such nondiscrimination requirements for the organization to qualify as tax exempt.. For more information, see Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Associations.

    An organization will not be treated as exempt under section 501(c)(9) unless it gives timely notice to the IRS that is it applying for recognition of such status. See When to File in the instructions to Form 1024 for more information.

    Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association - 501(c)(9)

  4. #84
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,319

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    If we're going to have health care reform, then let's have health care reform and not just another wasteful entitlement program for the welfare class.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  5. #85
    Sage
    DeeJayH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Scooping Zeus' Poop
    Last Seen
    06-21-15 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    11,728

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I commend you, maddam. You're the first Conservative whose commentary I've read on the matter of health care reform who actually sees what I and other Dems see.
    must be PMS, nuff said

    Human Taxidermist - - now offering his services for all your loved ones
    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    How the hell did you just tie in a retroactive reparative measure with a proactive preventative measure. Not even close to being the same thing.

  6. #86
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    Quote Originally Posted by talloulou View Post
    I think many of the issues are a direct result of having your health insurance tied to your employer.
    People always have the option of refusing their employer's offerings and buying their own -- for the last 9 years, that's exactly what I have done, with the money he pays me in salary instead of benefits.

    And in any case, this doesnt really do anything to address what I said -- that the 'problems' you cite stems from health care being a for-profit business.

    How is government the -only- solution to that 'problem'?

  7. #87
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Not many people are going to be able to afford to do that currently.
    That doesnt change the fact.

  8. #88
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    The program was well concieved, provable by it's success in putting large numbers of people in more efficient vehicles than they already had.
    That's not proof of successful conception of the program itself, that's proof of popularity. As I said before, and as you have ignored, popularity proves nothing regarding efficacy or propriety.

    By the way, your arguing against this program still is amusing.
    Better amusing than pathetic, as was your defense of The Obama's policy that put thousands of vehciles that get 15-18MPG on the road, and your deliberate failure to understand that "better" can still be "piss-poor".

  9. #89
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    However, your experience is by far the exception rather than the rule. For a great many reasons, but most of all because of the tax treatment of health insurance, the vast majority of people with health insurance have health insurance through their employer.

    There is no inherent economic rationale for this, it merely is how the system is today.
    It doesnt -have- to be this way, true -- it is this way because benefits are a means to attract employees. That's the rationale, and as it has to do with th elabor market, it is 'economic' in nature.

    Why should health insurance be tax deductible to employers but not tax deductible to employees? Why should workers be penalized in this fashion?
    They should not be.

    If ever there was a case where a tax benefit should be removed from companies and applied to individuals, it is the tax deductability of health insurance.
    Or, just add the tax benefit to those that do not have it -- no need to remove it from anyone.

  10. #90
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Or, just add the tax benefit to those that do not have it -- no need to remove it from anyone.
    Removing the tax benefit from employers is an equalization measure that benefits small employers--who create the vast majority of new jobs in this country. Small employers with small insured pools have a hard time offering the benefit and thus are in large part excluded from that tax benefit.

    There is a need to remove the tax benefit from employers--to stimulate small-business employment.

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •