Taxing Those With Insurance to Pay for Those Without

[lostinblue 1,989]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/30641473

It is an alluring way to pay for the ambitious plan to expand health coverage to the nearly 50 million people who are now uninsured. Simply put, the government would tax the people who already have the most expensive health benefits, as provided by their employers.

By one Congressional estimate, taxing this “Cadillac coverage,” as some call it, could yield $100 billion in revenue over five years. No wonder Senator Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who is a leader of the health reform effort, seems keen on the idea. And although the candidate Barack Obama criticized the notion last year when Senator John McCain promoted it, the concept now has some support in his administration as part of an overhaul of the health care system.

[lostinblue 1,989]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/30641473

It is an alluring way to pay for the ambitious plan to expand health coverage to the nearly 50 million people who are now uninsured. Simply put, the government would tax the people who already have the most expensive health benefits, as provided by their employers.

By one Congressional estimate, taxing this “Cadillac coverage,” as some call it, could yield $100 billion in revenue over five years. No wonder Senator Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who is a leader of the health reform effort, seems keen on the idea. And although the candidate Barack Obama criticized the notion last year when Senator John McCain promoted it, the concept now has some support in his administration as part of an overhaul of the health care system.

I see this has been posted earlier sorry

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The cost of health care per person will be significantly lower than what it is now if everyone is insured...that's a fact.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

...some economists and policy analysts say the current system encourages overly generous coverage, which they say helps drive up the cost of medical care by keeping patients insulated from the true costs.

ORLY?

The cost of health care per person will be significantly lower than what it is now if everyone is insured...that's a fact.

insuring everyone would be unamerican.

[Dan J 277]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/30641473

It is an alluring way to pay for the ambitious plan to expand health coverage to the nearly 50 million people who are now uninsured. Simply put, the government would tax the people who already have the most expensive health benefits, as provided by their employers.

By one Congressional estimate, taxing this "Cadillac coverage," as some call it, could yield $100 billion in revenue over five years. No wonder Senator Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who is a leader of the health reform effort, seems keen on the idea. And although the candidate Barack Obama criticized the notion last year when Senator John McCain promoted it, the concept now has some support in his administration as part of an overhaul of the health care system.

Anyone can currently go into an emergency room, and get care. Regardless of ones ability to pay for it. Those that can't either have their care provided for "free" or declare bankruptcy to have the debt absolved.

Of course, the care provider just passes the cost on to those that can pay for it.

This system is not putting the payer responsibility on everyone, instead it just putting more of a burden on those that can.

[GaryC 7]

The cost of health care per person will be significantly lower than what it is now if everyone is insured...that's a fact.

No it isn't. Prove your wild generalizations.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The cost of health care per person will be significantly lower than what it is now if everyone is insured...that's a fact.

No it isn't. Prove your wild generalizations.

Feel free to Google it yourself.

National Health Care Spending

• In 2008, health care spending in the United States reached $2.4 trillion, and was projected to reach $3.1 trillion in 2012.1 Health care spending is projected to reach $4.3 trillion by 2016.¹
• Health care spending is 4.3 times the amount spent on national defense.³
• In 2008, the United States will spend 17 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care. It is projected that the percentage will reach 20 percent by 2017.¹
• Although nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens.³
• Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.⁴

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

[AlHayatZween 2]

Anyone can currently go into an emergency room, and get care. Regardless of ones ability to pay for it.

True, but wouldn't it be more economical to actually treat people for illnesses/conditions before they have to go to the emergency room? The emergency room should be for... emergencies...

Those that can't either have their care provided for "free" or declare bankruptcy to have the debt absolved.

Don't forget those in the middle who don't qualify for "free" aid, but yet the cost of private insurance is exorbitant in comparison to their incomes. Or those, in the middle who have insurance, but whose plan dumps them or gives them the run-around when they need it most? Why should ordinary, hard-working, responsible people have to declare bankruptcy just b/c they get sick?

[mawilson 2,133]

The cost of health care per person will be significantly lower than what it is now if everyone is insured...that's a fact.

No it isn't. Prove your wild generalizations.

Feel free to Google it yourself.

National Health Care Spending

• In 2008, health care spending in the United States reached $2.4 trillion, and was projected to reach $3.1 trillion in 2012.1 Health care spending is projected to reach $4.3 trillion by 2016.¹
• Health care spending is 4.3 times the amount spent on national defense.³
• In 2008, the United States will spend 17 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care. It is projected that the percentage will reach 20 percent by 2017.¹
• Although nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens.³
• Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.⁴

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

Doesn't prove a damn thing, only that Americans spend more money on health care.

And guess what? It costs more because it's better.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

As a percentage of GDP, Americans spend as much public money as many countries with universal healthcare. So basically, we are already taxing those with insurance to pay for those without, it's just incredibly ineffective.

[Pooky 3,365]

The reason the US healthcare system is so damned ineffective is the insurance companies. They exist for one purpose only - to make a profit to be divided amongst their shareholders. Paying (or not) for healthcare of those they insure is the method by which they achieve this.

As long as health insurance is the primary method for the US citizen to obtain healthcare, the system will remain broken.

Any comparison with European or other healthcare costs is meaningless, as it is akin to comparing apples to cabbages. So the French pay a lot less per capita and get a better quality of healthcare. That's because their system is vastly different.

Until the for-profit motive is removed from the US healthcare system, we will remain as the highest average payers, receiving mediocre median-level healthcare.

Yes, the US has some of the best facilities, healthcare professionals and skillsets in the world, but they are only available to the minority. The average American never sees that. The average American has to fight tooth and nail to get their insurance claim approved when they get the most minor treatment. Is it any wonder that you hear so many radio commercials saying that "Health Claims Specialists" are one of the fastest growing careers out there? They need more people to deal with the mountain of paperwork trying to deny payment for doctor's visits.

Remove the insurance companies from the ground level of healthcare. Take the profit motive out of the equation. Instead of draining money from the system to shareholders, feed it back into the system to invest in medical resources, facilities, personnel, medical supplies. Sure, you can keep private insurance as a secondary line of coverage, much like the UK and Europe, but primary coverage should not be for profit. It should be to provide care.

And that is why even the new administration's healthcare plan will fail. It does not go far enough, is inequitable and still panders to the lobbyists. The new administration will get only one shot at healthcare reform and half measures, such as the ones currently proposed, will doom the system to failure. The part-reforms will cause healtcare costs to spiral out of control, as the insurance companies and drug manufacturers do their best to extract every last dime out of the market before it runs out of money.

Worse still, if this attempt at reform fails, there will not likely be political will to try a second time, so the mess that is left after this mash-up will be what the American people have to live with for the foreseeable future.

Edited May 14, 2009 by Pooky

[HannahP 119]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/30641473

It is an alluring way to pay for the ambitious plan to expand health coverage to the nearly 50 million people who are now uninsured. Simply put, the government would tax the people who already have the most expensive health benefits, as provided by their employers.

By one Congressional estimate, taxing this "Cadillac coverage," as some call it, could yield $100 billion in revenue over five years. No wonder Senator Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who is a leader of the health reform effort, seems keen on the idea. And although the candidate Barack Obama criticized the notion last year when Senator John McCain promoted it, the concept now has some support in his administration as part of an overhaul of the health care system.

Anyone can currently go into an emergency room, and get care. Regardless of ones ability to pay for it. Those that can't either have their care provided for "free" or declare bankruptcy to have the debt absolved.

lulz, you obviously do not work as a first responder or emergency medical provider.

[britty 1]

The cost of health care per person will be significantly lower than what it is now if everyone is insured...that's a fact.

No it isn't. Prove your wild generalizations.

Feel free to Google it yourself.

National Health Care Spending

• In 2008, health care spending in the United States reached $2.4 trillion, and was projected to reach $3.1 trillion in 2012.1 Health care spending is projected to reach $4.3 trillion by 2016.¹
• Health care spending is 4.3 times the amount spent on national defense.³
• In 2008, the United States will spend 17 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care. It is projected that the percentage will reach 20 percent by 2017.¹
• Although nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens.³
• Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.⁴

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

Doesn't prove a damn thing, only that Americans spend more money on health care.

And guess what? It costs more because it's better.

Ding Ding Ding - jackpot !!! Why can't people understand this?

[lostinblue 1,989]

It cost more because our lawyers receive more money in a law suit than the rest of the world.Half of the tests that you get prior to surgery is a doctor covering his or her #### in case they end up in court. Thus driving up the cost of health care. Just like the unions the trial lawyers have a special place in the hearts of many in washington .....in BOTH partys

[AlHayatZween 2]

The reason the US healthcare system is so damned ineffective is the insurance companies. They exist for one purpose only - to make a profit to be divided amongst their shareholders. Paying (or not) for healthcare of those they insure is the method by which they achieve this.

As long as health insurance is the primary method for the US citizen to obtain healthcare, the system will remain broken.

Any comparison with European or other healthcare costs is meaningless, as it is akin to comparing apples to cabbages. So the French pay a lot less per capita and get a better quality of healthcare. That's because their system is vastly different.

Until the for-profit motive is removed from the US healthcare system, we will remain as the highest average payers, receiving mediocre median-level healthcare.

Yes, the US has some of the best facilities, healthcare professionals and skillsets in the world, but they are only available to the minority. The average American never sees that. The average American has to fight tooth and nail to get their insurance claim approved when they get the most minor treatment. Is it any wonder that you hear so many radio commercials saying that "Health Claims Specialists" are one of the fastest growing careers out there? They need more people to deal with the mountain of paperwork trying to deny payment for doctor's visits.

Remove the insurance companies from the ground level of healthcare. Take the profit motive out of the equation. Instead of draining money from the system to shareholders, feed it back into the system to invest in medical resources, facilities, personnel, medical supplies. Sure, you can keep private insurance as a secondary line of coverage, much like the UK and Europe, but primary coverage should not be for profit. It should be to provide care.

And that is why even the new administration's healthcare plan will fail. It does not go far enough, is inequitable and still panders to the lobbyists. The new administration will get only one shot at healthcare reform and half measures, such as the ones currently proposed, will doom the system to failure. The part-reforms will cause healtcare costs to spiral out of control, as the insurance companies and drug manufacturers do their best to extract every last dime out of the market before it runs out of money.

Worse still, if this attempt at reform fails, there will not likely be political will to try a second time, so the mess that is left after this mash-up will be what the American people have to live with for the foreseeable future.

i agree with a lot of what you posted. Insurance should be used only for emergencies and circumstances where there is a risk... for example, if you have cancer in your family, you might look into cancer insurance. If you are obese, you might want to get extra insurance for unforeseen but likely health complications.

that being said, if Obama stood up and said, "We are scrapping the entire insurance industry as we know it today... i think there would be riots.