|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Republican Healthcare Plan | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If you repeal the ACA, you are also repealing the requirement that insurance companies insure everyone. That's only half of it, though. Just because an insurance company is required to insure you doesn't mean that a healthcare provider is required to accept it. And that's exactly the problem that friends of mine who utilized Obamacare are complaining about: They have insurance now but they're having problems finding people who take it.
Paying for unaffordable insurance and then also saving money on the side for an HSA is simply not a viable plan. The plan is to have the insurance premiums be deducted from your taxes and the contributions to the HSA be tax-free. That should alleviate some of the cost burden. The HSAs would be allowed to accumulate, so people could start building up tax free savings for when they need to spend money on healthcare.
Many state governments have already refused to increase Medicaid coverage for lower income people when it was a part of Obamacare. The plan is to block-grant Medicaid to the states. Then they can utilize the money however it best fits their citizens. Also, the plan for price transparency of procedures and the cross-state insurance options would allow individuals to shop around for the best prices for both insurance and procedures. All in all, it doesn't sound like a bad plan for allowing individuals to have more control over what they're spending on healthcare, by having the power to decide what they spend on coverage and procedures. On the other hand, people are going to have to start taking responsibility for themselves rather than relying on big brother to take care of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Cat Sci writes: That's only half of it, though. Just because an insurance company is required to insure you doesn't mean that a healthcare provider is required to accept it. And that's exactly the problem that friends of mine who utilized Obamacare are complaining about: They have insurance now but they're having problems finding people who take it. Half is better than none. Is it, though? Being forced to pay for insurance that your provider won't take and then paying out of pocket for a procedure anyways is not better than just paying out of pocket in the first place.
Many (most?) lower income families are already taking the standard deduction, so I don't know if they could even take advantage of an itemized deduction. I guess it depends on how they write it into the tax code. Will it be in addition to the standard deduction, or would you have to qualify for an itemized deduction? I don't know what the standard deduction is, but the way I read it we all get to deduct our insurance premiums from our taxes. If your insurance isn't great, then you should put that money into a tax free HSA.
Even with the deduction, how much will that actually save the consumer? Let's say that premiums are $500/month (6k/year) and their taxable income is 25k a year with a 15% tax rate. 25k would be 3.7k in taxes while taxes on 19k would be 2.85. How much of a difference would an HSA with $800-$900 in it make? Probably not much. In fact, if the deductible is 2.5k they probably can't even afford to save that 1k with the tax deduction if they had any doctor visits during that year. I don't doubt that any plan will have cases that can be made that won't work well, but that's still better than being forced to pay for insurance that your provider doesn't accept.
Does anyone expect someone making 25k a year to put their tax refund check into an HSA? If they care about being prepared for healthcare costs... what, am I to assume that people in general are idiots?
I really don't see how HSAs can solve anything. It certainly doesn't address the reason healthcare costs are so high to begin with. Obamacare was suppposed to reduce the costs, except that it didn't. Let's try something else.
The plan is to block-grant Medicaid to the states. Then they can utilize the money however it best fits their citizens. We have already seen what Republicans think will best fit their citizens. That would be no social programs whatsoever. Doesn't that depend on the state? And is there really a correlation between red states and no social programs?
It allows companies to use the worst regulations from the worst state across the entire country, Does it? If state X has more regulations than state Y, then does state Y really have to accept State X's stuff? Shit, I gotta run.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Going to a provider that does take your insurance is obviously better. Maybe...
The next obvious step is to pass regulations that force all providers to accept all insurance. Fuck that. Neither all providers, nor all insurances, are equal. There's good and bad doctors/hospitals just like there's good and bad insurances, and they all shouldn't be forced to co-mingle.
The standard deduction for a single person is currently $6,300, so if their insurance premiums are less than 6,300 per year then it might not make a difference in the taxes they pay. However, they could allow tax payers to use the standard deduction and also deduct the cost of their premiums. Again, it depends on how they write the tax code. Ah, I see. That didn't click the first time. But yeah, I read that as premiums being a deduction in addition to the standard one, but I could be wrong.
Then find a provider who does take it. Simple fix. It isn't necessarily that simple, like if the closest provider is pretty far away. Or if you're in an emergency situation. But generally, sure.
They probably also care about paying rent, power bills, and car payments. With their tax returns? Maybe they should care more about getting their shit together.
Under Trumpcare, yes it does have to accept the crappier regulations from another state. How so? Got a link?
It takes control out of the hands of the people in that state and gives that power to the legislatures of other states. Not if the state doesn't have to accept the crappier regulations from another state.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Likely there would be a "race to the bottom" as with credit cards. Insurers will find the state with the most flexible and limited regulation and move there. I read it as other states having an option, rather than a requirement, to accept out of state insurance.
quote: As long as State X's plan complies with State Y's requirements, then don't inhibit the sale of State X's plan into State Y. That wouldn't cause a race to the bottom.
Yes, and since health care isn't amenable to a free-market solution, I'm not convinced of that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You are satisfied with... Stop it. I'll do me. You do you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I'm not sure I recognise the big brother reference. Rather than having the Feds run it, cut the peoples' taxes and give them the money and let them come up with their own solutions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Sigh, "The plan is to have the insurance premiums be deducted from your taxes and the contributions to the HSA be tax-free."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I don't think that the government being in charge of running something, in and of itself, makes it undesirable. Having the government in charge of something makes it cost more money and take longer. Plus they're notoriously incompetent and careless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Does it? If state X has more regulations than state Y, then does state Y really have to accept State X's stuff? Yes. What legislation forces them to accept it?
It's now legal for states to allow out-of-state insurance. Some do. It's not saying that it's illegal, just that it's inhibited. And how many do? 10%?
The only way to change the situation Federally is to make it mandatory on all states. Or, as the plan says, modify existing laws that inhibit the sale of health insurance across state lines.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Medicare is much more efficient than many duplicated bureaucracies in private hands. I suppose I'll have to take your word for it.
And it has purchasing leverage no private company has. And still, it requires supplemental insurance...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Is the plan to allow deducting insurance premiums from income tax? If so that is an annual event. You do not get the money before the fact, the government gets to hold your money for a year. Change your W-4 so they don't get the money first.
Second, to contribute to any HSA you must first have disposable income that can be allocated to that instead of rent or food or clothes for the kids or all of the other expenses real people face. Use that money that you're not giving to Feds up front for taxes.
What if the insurance premiums are due monthly while any tax refund comes in annually? Reduce what you pay up front so you don't have to wait to get a return.
What if there is no disposable income to set aside for an HSA? The tax deduction will provide some additional income, but you may want to change your spending habits. Or if you have to, get on Medicaid.
How should the government make up for lost revenues created by additional deductions? Spend less.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
How on earth is that possible? No provider should be allowed to refuse valid insurance. Some insurance companies simply don't pay their bills. Doctors/Hospitals then stop accepting that insurance. Perhaps no insurers should be allowed to refuse to pay their bills.
Stop and think for a minute before spouting obviously false ideological slogans. We're discussing the US healthcare system, where everything costs a lot more than the UK's state run healthcare system. I dunno, maybe the UK government is better than ours. Have you ever worked with the US government?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Do you have data to back up your assertion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Are there not legal requirements in order to be a provider of government-mandated health insurance? There are, but I don't see that any of them mention paying your bills. It's all about what you have to provide to the consumer rather than what you have to do for the provider.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Other countries have government run healthcare that people really, really like. On top of that, they pay half of what we do in the US. How do you explain that? The NHS is a government agency that runs the healthcare system in the UK. They pay less than half of what we do for healthcare. How do you explain that? A damn 40% tax rate. Fuck that.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024