Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Health & Wellness

Why You May Be Stuck Holding the Bill for the Largest Taxpayer Rip Off

By Dean Baker, AlterNet. Posted June 23, 2009.


The health care industry is getting money out of our pockets because their friends in Congress have made sure the money flows from us to them.
lobbyingreport2
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

This is the time when the excrement starts hitting the fan. The lobbyists are in overdrive, rounding up members of Congress just like the cowboys of the Old West would bring in the herd.

The industry groups will also have their friends in the news media working overtime hyping any possible obstacle to health care reform. And they are filling the airwaves with scary ads, warning that people will never be able to see a doctor again if meaningful health care reform passes.

Since there are trillions of dollars at stake, the effort is understandable. The basic story is simple. The insurance, pharmaceutical and medical supply industries, along with the hospitals and the American Medical Association, have rigged the deck so that they get rich at the public's expense. They have structured our health care system so that we pay more than twice as much per person as people in other wealthy countries, even though we get worse care by many measures.

The bloat in the health care sector is projected to grow rapidly over the next decade as health care consumes an ever larger share of the economy. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reports that just the increase in health care spending share of the economy over the next decade will cost us $4.3 trillion. That is equal to a health care tax of $57,000 for an average family of four.

Who benefits from the taxpayers generosity? CMS projects that $1.4 trillion, or $18,500 per family will go to the hospitals. Doctors and the pharmaceutical companies are each expected to score about $550 billion, costing families $7,300. And the insurance industry's share of GDP is projected to rise by $360 billion, or $4,800 for an average family.

These massive transfers are not the result of the wonders of the free market. These folks are getting money out of our pockets because their friends in Congress have rigged the deck so the money flows from us to them. For example, the government grants the pharmaceutical industry patent monopolies that prevent normal competition in the prescription drug market.

Unlike every other country in the world, the United States lets the drug companies use their government-granted monopolies to charge whatever they want. As a result, we pay nearly twice as much for our prescription drugs as people in countries like Canada and Germany.

Similarly, doctors are able to tightly control the supply of both US trained physicians and the number of doctors that can enter the country from abroad. If custodians had the same control over the labor market for janitors, they would all be making $80,000 a year. We pay close to twice as much for our doctors as people in other wealthy countries. The gap is especially wide for highly paid specialists like neurosurgeons and cardiologists.

Of course, the insurance industry is a total mess. They pocket more than 15 cents for every dollar they pay out to providers. By comparison, the administrative costs of Medicare are less than 2 percent of its revenue. If the insurers ever had to compete with a publicly run insurance plan on a level playing field, they would be blown out of the water.

We know that private insurers can't compete because we already had this experiment with the Medicare program. When private insurers had to compete on a level playing field with the traditional government-run plan they were almost driven from the market. That is why they got their friends in Congress to pass Medicare Advantage. This program spreads the wealth around by giving the private insurers a subsidy of more than 11 percent per patient.

As Congress debates health care reform, we should be very clear what is going on. It is easy to devise reforms that will reduce costs without jeopardizing the quality of care.

That is not the fight. The fight is over whether Congress will leave in place structures that will siphon an ever-larger amount of money out of taxpayers' pockets and put this money in the hands of the insurance industry, the hospitals, the drug companies and the doctors.

Getting a robust public plan, that both individuals and employers can buy into, will be the key indicator of whether Congress is still determined to redistribute income into the hands of the insurers, the drug companies and the rest. A robust Medicare-type plan will not only reduce the insurance industry's tax on our health care, it will also be able to bargain for lower prices from the drug companies, the medical supply companies, and other health care providers.

For this reason, most of the industry is united against any sort of serious public plan. Their latest compromise is a system of small cooperative insurers that will have no bargaining power. That's a cute joke, but it has nothing to do with health care reform.

So, keep hold of your scorecard. Unless Congress creates a serious public plan, you can expect to be hit with the largest tax increase in the history of the world -- all of it going into the pockets of the health care industry.

 


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: democrats, lobbyists, dean baker

Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Bailing Out The Banksters is by Far the Biggest Ripoff ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Jun 25, 2009 12:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But otherwise Mr Baker is correct and Obama, the ex-Community Organizer, is betraying the poor, the working poor and the middle class to line the pockets of the health care companies !

We need real reform. If we can't get reform our Federal Representatives need to VETO THE HEALTH CARE BILL !

Obama Is Making the Wrong Decision on Health Care Reform

"In what seems like a troubling resurrection of the health care status quo, President Barack Obama is indicating that he's willing to part with a public option in order to push through his heath care "overhaul." Obama said Tuesday that the White House has not "drawn lines in the sand" about a government-run plan, though he considers it "an important tool to discipline insurance companies."

Phone, Email, Fax and Write your Federal Representatives NOW!

HAVING NO HEALTH CARE BILL IS BETTER THAN A BETRAYAL !

The White House and Congress by Zip

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

come on kids...
Posted by: ellie on Jun 25, 2009 3:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
let's be realistic... at best, the change to close the 'donut hole' in prescription drugs will be about all we're going to get, maybe... wait for the trimming to medicare just around the corner to pay for this, and more in the future... this is just the beginning...

for those of us lucky enough to still have health insurance, the lobbying groups will bill for "Gucci Gulch" and we'll see our insurance payments skyrocket to 'pay for losses' from paying lobbyists and 'other expenses' plus even less coverage then we have now... do you really think this industry is going to suck up the losses??? hell, this is america, we never have to pay, let the citizens cough up the $$!!!

there's too much money in play right now and do you really expect our elected officials to listen to us??? so far since 2000, we have been ignored, $$ bled dry, become sicker with fewer people having any access to health care and the numbers are growing by the day...

in the US health care is a commodity to be purchased if you can afford it, not a basic right... life is a commodity to be bought and sold...

no, not being a wet blanket, just being realistic and keeping hopes low so the crash isn't so far down this time... please someone, prove me wrong!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Massachusetts plan set stage for national rip-off
Posted by: Moonray on Jun 25, 2009 4:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Massachusetts health insurance plan implemented a few years ago is serving a template for the national debacle in the making. The Mass plan also relies on "the free market," that bizarre euphemism for a handful of insurance companies that gouge the public out of every possible dime. Mass passed a "mandate," requiring everyone to pay hefty premiums to the insurance companies under penalty of law. What happened next was entirely predictable: The insurance companies continued performing like they've always performed, but now are awash in billions more in profits.

Being no dummies, the insurance moguls said,"Hey, why just fleece Massachusetts when we can be fleecing the entire nation?" So they turned to their pals in the Democratic Party, whom they just happen to have on retainer anyway, and made it happen. And that, my friends, is what makes America such a great nation -- if you're a stickup artist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mitt Romney and Ted Kennedy Posted by: DCostello2
"Big Pharma" alone...
Posted by: wagner on Jun 25, 2009 5:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...offered to give the government $80 billion. Can anyone guess where that money is coming from? Does anyone believe that the money will reduce Big Pharma’s profit never mind the personal gain of its executives and managers? I do not know if it’s possible at all, but one option they have for generating that kind of money is to increase the level of corruption, fraud and extortion. Remember, they posture as “scientists” and indeed they are very innovative and creative, especially when it comes to producing personal wealth, never mind at what costs to the public in terms of money, health and even lives. Do not allow this deal to be handled solely by the government and Big Pharma. Some clever investigative journalist should pay close attention. Michael Moore, where are you?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Big Pharma" alone... Posted by: colinmeister
» RE: "Big Pharma" alone... Posted by: MT512
Most of the voters voted for it and put party over principle so no surprise.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Jun 25, 2009 5:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe you people will learn to start voting on the issues and not on party and "personality" next time, won't you? This is the kind of misrepresentation you get when you blindly allow the corporate interests to flash a "personality" trash candidate and fool you people into "red vs blue". Let's see how many of you vote to elect/reelect the same pols in both parties taking bribes from Big Pharma and Big Insurance in 2010 and 2012 and beyond. Please go right ahead and tell me that I'm a "loser" for voting on the issues with my heart and mind and not putting party, "personality", fake "electability" crap, etc ... first.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Pray, tell... Posted by: LeaderofMen
» Take your pick Posted by: Tweck9
» Right on. Posted by: Tweck9
» RE: ight on. Posted by: MT512
how to find
Posted by: richholland on Jun 25, 2009 5:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a balance between public and private.

in countries with a full state health care it is difficult to supply and finance.

in western europe we have a dual system....but all the poor people have acess.

maybe you should think over:
can health be subject to profitmaking???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: how to find Posted by: MT512
Obama has it wrong: we need to revolutionize the whole system
Posted by: cplot on Jun 25, 2009 5:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In back-pedaling on single-payer health care, Obama claimed that if we we're starting from scratch that would be a good idea, but we already have a healthcare system. However, we have such a severely broken healthcare system – so severely broken it threatens to bring down our entire economy if cost projections are correct – that we need to start from scratch. Otherwise the existing medical industrial complex will continue to game the system to rob us all.

In short we need to get profits out of healthcare. The CDC now recommends vaccines for children even if they have not been thoroughly tested or show any benefits simply to lavish profits on the pharmaceutical industry. We order cat scans and x-rays on patients simply to increase profits regardless of whether the examinations are needed and regardless of their damaging health effects.

This all has to be instituted at once; we cannot do it step by step or it will be co-opted by the industry. We need:

• a single-payer national health insurance system for everyone
• universal coverage so that everyone has access to healthcare
• a progressive income or payroll tax based funding so that those who can afford to pay more do so
• an end to the cost-plus accounting schemes that reward hospitals and clinics for expanding investment beyond all possible benefits
• a revitalization of public and not-for-profit healthcare
• if Obama wants to continue faith based initiatives, how about working to see if we can get restore charitable and religious hospitals to their prior role where they do not join in with the for-profit hospitals in killing patients for profit

Every level of our healthcare system needs to be overhauled: funding, insurance, hospitals, clinics, medical education, etc. The AMA is cancer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hospitals, No.
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Jun 25, 2009 7:13 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wrong. Hospitals, as a group, are not able to rig the system. Maybe some of the 'big name' ones can, but hospitals as a group are losing their shirts.

Most of the hospitals in the US operate on a shoestring. The vast majority of them are nearly in the red. If they go too far in the red they close.

When this happens the cascade effect will be catastrophic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 15% Administrative costs Posted by: kettleblack
People's perceptions about Health would change for the better with Single Payer Health Care
Posted by: kettleblack on Jun 25, 2009 7:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People would begin to make more healthy choices and become more pro-active in their own health.
If anything, to avoid going to the horrible, government-run clinics and hospitals.
And, there will be peer pressure to live healthier, as everyone is paying for each other's health care through taxes.
It would usher in a New Age of Health Enlightenment, where doctors are no longer gods and patients learn about all functions of the human body.
We know more about how a car works than how our body works.
The Ones in Control don't want give up another puppet string called Free Market Health Care.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» LOL Posted by: Sgellero
» RE: You point is? Posted by: kettleblack
Non-profit model?
Posted by: dorje on Jun 25, 2009 8:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is there a scenario that could push profit-driven insurance and pharmeceutical companies toward a non-profit model? It sure seems that these companies are beholden to their stockholders (investors and Wall Street) rather than their stakeholders (doctors, patients, hospitals). I get the feeling that a healthcare system run by the governnment, given its size, would be as inefficient as that run by large for-profit corporations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: fficiency Posted by: Tweck9
» RE: fficiency Posted by: MT512
» Non-profit-not hardly Posted by: FoonTheElder
Wassup?
Posted by: willymack on Jun 25, 2009 10:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you're driving down the road, and you see a dark spot where a bridge used to be, you'd probably correctly surmise that the bridge was gone, and stop.
The fierce opposition to ANY health care reform by Big Pharma, Big Insurance, and Big Crooks in congress and the senate is is obvious as the missing bridge.
The reason for the opposition is nothing more or less than the PATHOLOGICAL GREED, of all concerned.
If anything good is to come of this, the corruption in our government must be cleaned up.
The chance of that happening is about as good as the bridge replacing itself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NO, NO, NO, NO. YOU GUYS ARE NOT QUITE GETTING IT. IN THE LAST 90 DAYS
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Jun 25, 2009 2:18 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had major opthalmic surgery. Medicare was billed. I was on the operating table just under an hour. The anethesiologist billed medicare for 960 dollars for his hours work. Medicare said thanks for the offer and sent him 260 dollars. He must accept this. He may not bill more. It is over. It is done.

Do doctors like to accept these reduced rates? What do you think? Many of them will not take medicare patients.

If the whole nation were on medicare, no doctor would get the 960 that guy was asking for. They would all get the 260. The public option will hit them in their only sensitive spot, their pocket books.

Now lets think what would have happened to me if there had been no insurance. The anestheologist would have billed me for the whole 960. When I was unable to pay it would have been sent to collection. Then I would have had a collection agent harrassing me and raising hell. Now, mind you, this would be for something that somebody else was getting for 260 dollars. Does this seem unfair to you? It does to me.

What I see is this. No two people that enter a doctors office ever have to pay the same for the same service. Some insurances have negotiated the price down. You have no way of knowing how much. The doctor doesn't even get paid the same for each office visit. The patients all have differing co-pays. Do you see anything fair about this? The republicans are telling us that this is right and this is the way things ought to be.

Lets extend this. When I go to the pharmacy. I pay cash. Those with insurance all have a different co-pay. Each insurance has cost a differnt price. Rarely do two persons pay the same price for the same thing. Is this fair? Is this right.

When I am admitted to a hospital, it must be one that takes medicare. There are those that take cash only. It is the same thing again. No two persons ever pay the same for the same service. The correct answer is "Why do we put up with this?".

My friends that go to the VA hospitals come home with their prescriptions filled. Since the government won't help me with my prescriptions, I would like to be able to go there and pay cash. I would be willing to pay just what it cost the government. We have to protect big pharma. They put a lot of money in political coffers.

The whole upshot of this is this. Medicare for all is the cheapest solution. The people making the big money don't want it. The republican solution is the expensive one. All of their blather is just blather.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Medicare concept
Posted by: james108 on Jun 25, 2009 4:49 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we expand Medicare, we need to fix it too. There's no reason it needs to be as-is.
Currently Medicare is allowed to pay below market value and providers are able to charge others above market value and make deals with insurance companies to charge a whole different amount.
A regular person has no idea what services are really worth in the market, other than they must sign whatever the hospital gives them to be treated. People without insurance get charged many times what an insurance company would pay, in a very unnatural market.

What single payer would essentially do is allow us to establish a bare minimum of essential care and services. We should figure out what these services actually cost to provide and compensate providers fairly, and eliminate the wild cost shifting where an average person cannot possibly pay the prices they charge. One of the biggest arguments against single payer, by the way, is that "liberals" would want to give everyone everything, and would never agree on a bare minimum of services to control a single payer cost system, and still complain that others could pay for extra services so everything would have to be free for everyone in an unpractical, argumentative, expensive mess...

If enough true progressives negotiated on and promoted a practical health care system that incorporates personal responsibility, such as a balanced tax on things that statistically increase your likelihood of injury, like smoking and snowboarding, and the ability for people to pay for extra services in our capitalist society, I doubt even the democrats and republicans could stop a reasonable health care solution in America.

We should hear more about singlepayeraction.org as they are trying their darnedest to speak for those who want single payer and opening up real discussion of populist desired solutions by the way. It takes more than blogging, email and phone calls to force Congress to take notice.

Obama's doctor that vouched for him during the race wants single payer too, and is not sure Obama understands the affects of what he is proposing :)

To be honest, I'm unsure of all the ways the dems public health plan differs from single payer, but I know it's crafted by large industry insiders who donate millions to these guys, seems hell bent on following the failed Massachusetts model that shovels more money to a broken system, breaking it even more. Also, they want to tax employer benefits and do another national tax, when true single payer would save money, and I can't even begin to understand how they could come up with a plan will cost a trillion more and still not cover everyone's essential services, and those projections are with people still paying for private insurance and on a cut back medicare.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Beyond Single Payer!
Posted by: Jill 2 on Jun 26, 2009 9:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Establishing a mandated Single Payer Health Plan would be just the beginning of true reform. What is often overlooked is the punitive necessity to eliminate the private option in Health care. Public health care must not be 'optional' but must be the ONLY choice available for all, irrespective of one's ability to leverage private wealth to secure a higher quality privatized medicine. The valorization of personal privilege the rich now enjoy with regard to health care choices will be mitigated or eliminated entirely. Let the rich buy their Lexus, Porsches or Prius, but for medical care there will be utter standardization. Here, it goes without saying, that, these standards will be only the most exigent and adhering to the highest quality available.

The trillions spent on the technology of American military state terror and on maintaining the archipelago of Pentagon overseas basing, will be, absorbed into building a superstructural apparatus of health delivery. ALL private profit will be excised and eliminated from anything to do with health care.There will be no no Insurance companies, private hospitals or 'Big Pharma entities. The clear, symbiotic linkage between true health care reform on the domestic front and the costly sprawl of military empire overseas, is painfully apparent: You can't have both. Socialized medicine or Empire?

The Utopian 'option' is not as far fetched as it seems, since in all truth, it remains the ONLY truly viable–and hence– eminently practical option. Sadly the entrenched neo fascist mindset–which holds a malefic sway in a dysfunctional American politics–will see blood in the streets before the hegemony of private wealth is even meekly challenged. The Bush regime, in their draconian plans for home front fascism –now followed almost obsequiously by Obama's continuance of the same methodologies–are preparing for that eventuality at the behest of the plutocracy whom they both serve. For the sake of brevity, there is no need to list here the expanding list of depredations now gestating and congealing against the liberties of the American people. You will get the right to be tortured and rendered, before you get socialized medicine. The real dystopian thought here, is that that grim blasphemy is indeed OK, for perhaps even a majority of a throughly de-politicized American citizenry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ms.
Posted by: lazyday433 on Jun 26, 2009 4:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Instead of buying into a plan run by an insurance company, it might be less expense to start a savings account. When you neeed medical care you could travel to another country where medical care is free and also purchase needed medications abroad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Someone Has to Pay, and Now It Will be US!
Posted by: ERG on Jun 29, 2009 6:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are so many distressing things about this development that I hardly know where to begin. First, Republicans and conservatives claim that this tax will target “Cadillac,” plans, “like those evil union members get!” Well, what exactly is a “Cadillac,” health plan? If that little epithet was intended to mean, “a health plan eats up tons of fuel ($$), cannot operate for very long without breaking down catastrophically, and is just generally inefficient,” then this could apply to just about anyone’s health plan right now. If the cap is set so that a family of four would now pay taxes on every dollar over $15,000 paid by the employer for their health plan, a little division shows that this is only $3750 per person. Using the $15,000 figure is just an attempt to fool casual readers/viewers/listeners into thinking, “Oh, I guess I will not be taxed, since I am single and my policy through my employer costs less than that. I guess everything is ok in the health reform department!”

This is absolutely not true; in fact the cap is based on the average value of a policy that federal workers have and which costs approx. $4,000 per year per person. For the rest of us who are not federal employees, take a look at average insurance policies in your state, because they vary WIDELY, and if you live somewhere like California, you can bet your policy costs substantially more than that. How will your policy be valued? Here is how it would work; whatever you would have to pay to continue your coverage through COBRA, is what your policy would be valued at. I can give you a real-life example: last year, when I received my layoff papers from the Univ. of California (I was lucky to find another position quickly, so I was spared the following scenario), I was informed that it would cost me a little over $800 per month to continue coverage. By my calculation, this would have been at least $9,600 per year. Under this proposal to tax our benefits as income, anything over $4,000 WOULD BE ADDED TO THE WAGE BOX on my W-2 and COUNTED AS INCOME RECEIVED; so voila, instead of just paying taxes on my (very) modest ACTUAL income, I would also pay taxes on an additional $5,600 per year, because this would count as income that I received, although it is actually MONEY being paid by my employer to an INSURANCE COMPANY. Yes, under this plan, you are taxed on money paid to somebody else!!! I can assure you that there is no faster way to more completely undermine and utterly dismantle what little security and incentive the middle class has managed to hang on to, than to begin taxing us on income that somebody else, NOT US, is actually receiving. And please look at the scholarly reports, such as the June report for the Economic Policy Institute, that shows how this taxation would have unequal impact on individuals in employer-sponsored plans due to variation in rates across states, as well as disproportionately hitting those workers with very MODEST incomes like mine- NOT THE WEALTHY, as Sen. Bachus and others have falsely claimed. (Here is the url for this study: http://epi.3cdn.net/6ebf892f25e8ff210a_4nm6bnzfd.pdf).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More: Someone Has to Pay, and Now It's US!
Posted by: ERG on Jun 29, 2009 6:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I should also point out that there will clearly be no complementary legislation in the bill requiring employers to increase our salaries by the amount of the additional tax, which would be dumped on us just when many of us still lucky enough to be in a group plan (right now, this is the only kind that will actually pay any claims if you do get sick, and then not rescind your policy retroactively, after major surgery, chemotherapy, transplants etc) are also seeing alarming pay cuts and increases in State and commodity taxes. After all, what incentive will employers have to increase our wages? Right now they can write off the cost of providing coverage to employees as a business expense, so there is incentive for them to purchase good group plans. It is not at all certain that this would continue to be true under any plan to tax our health benefits; additionally, how many of us will be able to go for all those great, disappearing, better-paying jobs when our employers refuse to compensate us appropriately after such a measure passes?

There are several other scholarly articles out there that describe, in chilling detail, the rationale for taxation of health benefits. The best ones also point out that there is really no evidence for any benefit, in terms of cost savings, to using this approach. The reasoning employed to argue for taxation of health benefits goes like this: people with expensive (this does not mean that the plan is necessarily great, but it is a plain fact that INexpensive policies obtained via insurance companies are NEVER comprehensive, so equate “expensive,” with “comprehensive,” here) policies that are more comprehensive, MUST BE OVER-USING the healthcare system. I’ll say it again, just because it is so bizarre- if your policy costs more, then you will just overuse the system! I’ll leave this one to the commentators to follow, but I have pretty good coverage, it is costly, but that does not mean that I am so bored (and/or lonely?!!!) that my idea of a great night out is going to visit the nice people at the Urgent Care… Anyway…since we must be overusing, if we now get taxed on our benefits, we will all decide to move into a CHEAPER PLAN (ie., less comprehensive, with more out-of-pocket costs) that will bring our benefits package BELOW THE TAXATION THRESHOLD, ie $4,000. What would you guess the differences in coverage might be for a $9,600 per year plan and a $4,000 one? A conservative guess might be, probably $ 5,600 in higher deductibles and co-pays, but what if you are hospitalized? Then it will probably mean the difference between 100% of your stay & procedures covered, and you paying at least 20% of the total cost, and it sure adds up fast. So, I suppose there is a net savings to be had in this scenario for someone along the healthcare food chain, but it will most certainly not be you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

more: Someone Has to Pay, and Now It's US!
Posted by: ERG on Jun 29, 2009 6:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However, the most distressing part about this whole thing is that Candidate Obama campaigned on, and earned our votes with, a clear pledge to keep Taxation of Employer-based health care OFF THE LIST of potential cash cows. As one brilliant person remarked in an interview on NPR recently, “President Obama must be REALLY upset with Candidate Obama for going and raising our hopes like that!” Now, the White House press secretary will not even answer the question when asked, is this campaign promise going to be honored, or not? It is certainly not reassuring to hear the repeated mantra from our President that “all ideas are on the table,” or “nothing is set in stone,” or “no lines in the sand,” and “everyone should bring their ideas to the table.” Such failures to address the very real and legitimate concern out there among those of us with current health plans that we like, but who also favor major reform and are actually trying to fight for it, could not have worked out better for the opposition. They are tantamount to an Insider Sabotage of real health care reform. WHY in the WORLD should Congress spend months bringing “every,” (bad) idea to the table, and fashioning a bill, that President Obama would not sign? The answer there, is there is no logic in wasting the effort on something that will not get signed; but he is content to let “Every Idea,” get into the bills that will be considered. In the end, this is sending a message to me, and to lots of other Progressives: “There are no lines, no absolutes, and nothing is non-negotiable, because in the end I am just going to sign whatever Congress puts in front of me.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement