Mandating individuals' health insurance purchases

[Supposn]

I’m first discussing individuals’ income taxes and then relating it to mandating health insurance purchases.

The income tax considerations per person were originally enacted to provide some tax relief for lower income earners; we can’t get blood from stones.

Unfortunately the consideration is a per capita amount of deduction from taxable income rather than a credit applied to the income tax itself.

Due to income tax’s progressive rates, the current per capita considerations grant exceedingly greater the amounts of benefits to wealthier taxpayers. Middle income earners derive much lesser benefits and the lowest income taxpayers derive little or no benefits from the per-capita tax consideration.

I’m a populist that advocates the deduction should be a tax credit rather than a deduction from taxable income. The amount of per-capita tax credit should be revenue neutral to our current regulations and that amount should be annually cost of living adjusted.

This revenue neutral tax modification grants greater tax relief to lower income tax payers without increasing our tax rates.

Whatever the courts will decide with regard to requiring individuals to purchase government qualified health insurance, I, (a populist) join others across the entire political spectrum who are uncomfortable with this mandate.
Rather than the stick, I prefer the federal government employ the carrot.

The income tax considerations granted per taxpayer and each of their dependents during the tax year should require that those persons be covered by qualifying health insurance during each month of the tax year. [The health insurance requirements for persons should of course be waived for months prior to each person’s birth or after their death].

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[editec]

One market type compromise might be to grant money to every citizen for the purchase of HC.

Sadly that idea would do nothing in the long run but cause the price of HC to rise.

We cannot fix the HC situation with taxes or with giveaways.

The problem isn't on the demand side, it's on the supply side

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Yes, it would be great if some sort of incentive would work, but it wouldn't - there's basically 0% probability that the Healthcare Bill would do anything without the mandate. The mandate was pretty much the only reason that Insurance companies could possibly deal with any of the other provisions, and the only reason they agreed with the bill at all (and in America, big business must veto any legislation, so you know that's important).

The problem here is that it would be a typical "free-rider" scenario. The only way that Insurers can deal with providing coverage to people of pre-existing conditions and meet the other requirements of the health bill is if EVERYBODY buys in. If there is no mandate, then young, healthy people won't be making those payments though the insurers still have to take them in if/when anyone does get sick, and the risk-pooling won't work.

If that is struck down, insurers will either go bankrupt or massively raise premiums. The flip side is that WITH the mandates, Insurance companies are going to be rolling in the dough, if unfairly. Of course all of that could have been avoided with a single-payer, but you know how everyone wants the Gubmint's hands off their Medicare!!!

 

[editec]

Yes, it would be great if some sort of incentive would work, but it wouldn't - there's basically 0% probability that the Healthcare Bill would do anything without the mandate. The mandate was pretty much the only reason that Insurance companies could possibly deal with any of the other provisions, and the only reason they agreed with the bill at all (and in America, big business must veto any legislation, so you know that's important).

The problem here is that it would be a typical "free-rider" scenario. The only way that Insurers can deal with providing coverage to people of pre-existing conditions and meet the other requirements of the health bill is if EVERYBODY buys in. If there is no mandate, then young, healthy people won't be making those payments though the insurers still have to take them in if/when anyone does get sick, and the risk-pooling won't work.

If that is struck down, insurers will either go bankrupt or massively raise premiums. The flip side is that WITH the mandates, Insurance companies are going to be rolling in the dough, if unfairly. Of course all of that could have been avoided with a single-payer, but you know how everyone wants the Gubmint's hands off their Medicare!!!

Let me cut to the chase, Ep.

We really only have two choices: FREE MARKET HC or FULLY SOCIALIZED HC.

Both have the same inherent flaws associated with capitalism and socialism.

All these hybrid systems (what we have now, what O proposed, too) are doing is driving up the price of HC without significantly solving the problem of getting people the HC they need.