Supreme Court Rules 7-2 on Obamacare

[Rigby5]

.

So much for those three trump Justices.....

As with all the Trump judicial appointees who threw his frivolous challenges to a safe and secure democratic election out of court, the law has proven a formidable nemesis for the pandemic's "Bolsonaro of the North"

View attachment 503948
"We're going to win. We're going to win so much. We're going to win at trade, we're going to win at the border.
We're going to win so much, you're going to be so sick and tired of winning, you're going to come to me
and go 'Please, please, we can't win anymore.' You'll say 'Please, Mr. President, we beg you,
sir, we don't want to win anymore. It's too much. It's not fair to everybody else.'" Trump said.
"And I'm going to say 'I'm sorry, but we're going to keep
winning, winning, winning!"​

Trump is still losing, losing, losing.

Some thought the Cry Baby Sore Loser, despite multiple eminent civil and criminal reckonings, was finally finished losing. Not so. Gazing up at his "big, beautiful wall!" that he made "Mexico!" pay for is only one manifestation of his legacy.

The Former Guy promised that his Supreme Court picks would overturn the Affordable Care Act. He met the court's ruling with the deafening silence of defeat.​

​

View attachment 503947
"THE FORMER STAR OF TRUMP®BLOG" ​

Trump promised to repeal Obamacare, the health insurance program that helped fuel the backlash tea party movement and ultimately his own candidacy. If Trump couldn't get Congress to do away with the law — and he couldn't, even with Republicans in control of both chambers — he vowed to choose Supreme Court justices who would declare Obamacare unconstitutional.​

​

"If I win the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing, unlike Bush's appointee John Roberts on Obamacare," Trump tweeted in 2015...​

​

But two of the three jurists Trump picked for the court — Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — voted with Roberts as part of a 7-2 majority... It was a major blow — perhaps a decisive one — against the political right's long fight against Obamacare and a sign of the limit of Trump's influence on the justices he appointed.​

​

In the first hours after the ruling, Trump greeted the news with the deafening silence of defeat… most Republicans followed Trump's lead by refusing to give it any extra attention.​

​

There was no promise to renew the fight to repeal the law or to mount another court battle over its constitutionality.​

​

... Republicans aren't at all interested in fighting to take health insurance benefits away from millions of Americans...​

​

In the end, Trump was wrong about the law, the politics of trying to kill the Affordable Care Act — and the assumption that he could control the votes of his Supreme Court picks.​

​

[Analysis: Trump was wrong about the law, Obamacare politics and his judges]​

​

​

​

​

​

​

There is only one way to end Obamacare and that is for congress to create a replacement. Democrats are not going to do it and neither are republicans. A lot has change in last 10 years since Obamacare was passed. American may not like the high cost of Obamacare but certainly like the preventive care, portability, a policy that can't be cancelled by the company, unlimited coverage, and no healthcare requirements. The only thing they don't like is their cost. The Democrat solution is for the government to reduce the cost of premiums and deducible with the government footing the bill. The Republican solution was to have the court end Obamacare and leave the job of replacing it on the democrats.

The problem is the wealthy are benefiting from the current high medical costs, so won't change it.
And the poor who are subsidizing the wealthy, do not have any representation.

So the solution is to end the IRS tax exemption for employers over employee benefits.
That will get employers out of the health insurance business.
Then the wealthy will no longer have free coverage.
So then they will join the poor in wanting a public option.

 

[Flopper]

I respect you have a different view.

I don't force my views on other people.

But you vote for politicians who pass laws that do.

Let me ask you this, would you be in favor of allowing people to opt out? Both from using it and from paying for it?

Yes but only if they also agree that no one but themselves will pay for any and all health care they received. And they can't opt in once they have a medical situation. They made their choice to not be responsible so they don't get to all of a sudden opt in when they need the help.

That's the problem.

Most don't anticipate for a health problem mostly because they know they could never save enough for a real health problem.

I was a very healthy 48 year old person when the waves pounded me. I never thought that 15 ft waves would pound me over and over nearly killing me thus resulting in tens of thousand of health care bills. Not just the initial accident. I had to have 3 surgeries and 3.5 years of recovery.

It was tens of thousands of dollars that we didn't have. Thank goodness for the insurance.

Even just breaking a bone is expensive. It's not just the initial break and cast, it's the doctor appointments and physical therapy later.

None of that is cheap.

Those who don't have insurance don't pay the bills resulting in those of us who are responsible to pay the unpaid bills by our heath care being more expensive than it should.

We already did that until Obamacare and still do it in many red states.

If a person wants to opt out, go for it but expect to never be able to opt in when they have a medical situation and they better expect to pay every penny of their health care costs. No matter what those costs are.

90% of Americans are insured. Most of the money lost by doctors and hospitals is due high deductibles, not the uninsured. Indigents that end up in the ER or hospital are put on Medicaid. About half of those that are uninsured do not used the healthcare system.

To expect people that can't afford insurance to pay all their bills is a bit naïve. It's easy to say those that opt out will not be allowed back in the system. However, enforcing such a policy would be just about impossible because in America we don't deny life saving medical care for any reason.

I was replying to the person who asked me if I agreed that people could be able to opt out both using it and paying for it.

I would under the conditions I listed above.

I agree. Everyone should have insurance. That is the system we have so we have to work with it.

The problem with opting out and not being able to return, is it would opt out not just the policy holder but all the dependents. It would be an unmanageable situation.

 

[Flopper]

.

So much for those three trump Justices.....

As with all the Trump judicial appointees who threw his frivolous challenges to a safe and secure democratic election out of court, the law has proven a formidable nemesis for the pandemic's "Bolsonaro of the North"

View attachment 503948
"We're going to win. We're going to win so much. We're going to win at trade, we're going to win at the border.
We're going to win so much, you're going to be so sick and tired of winning, you're going to come to me
and go 'Please, please, we can't win anymore.' You'll say 'Please, Mr. President, we beg you,
sir, we don't want to win anymore. It's too much. It's not fair to everybody else.'" Trump said.
"And I'm going to say 'I'm sorry, but we're going to keep
winning, winning, winning!"​

Trump is still losing, losing, losing.

Some thought the Cry Baby Sore Loser, despite multiple eminent civil and criminal reckonings, was finally finished losing. Not so. Gazing up at his "big, beautiful wall!" that he made "Mexico!" pay for is only one manifestation of his legacy.

The Former Guy promised that his Supreme Court picks would overturn the Affordable Care Act. He met the court's ruling with the deafening silence of defeat.​

​

View attachment 503947
"THE FORMER STAR OF TRUMP®BLOG" ​

Trump promised to repeal Obamacare, the health insurance program that helped fuel the backlash tea party movement and ultimately his own candidacy. If Trump couldn't get Congress to do away with the law — and he couldn't, even with Republicans in control of both chambers — he vowed to choose Supreme Court justices who would declare Obamacare unconstitutional.​

​

"If I win the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing, unlike Bush's appointee John Roberts on Obamacare," Trump tweeted in 2015...​

​

But two of the three jurists Trump picked for the court — Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — voted with Roberts as part of a 7-2 majority... It was a major blow — perhaps a decisive one — against the political right's long fight against Obamacare and a sign of the limit of Trump's influence on the justices he appointed.​

​

In the first hours after the ruling, Trump greeted the news with the deafening silence of defeat… most Republicans followed Trump's lead by refusing to give it any extra attention.​

​

There was no promise to renew the fight to repeal the law or to mount another court battle over its constitutionality.​

​

... Republicans aren't at all interested in fighting to take health insurance benefits away from millions of Americans...​

​

In the end, Trump was wrong about the law, the politics of trying to kill the Affordable Care Act — and the assumption that he could control the votes of his Supreme Court picks.​

​

[Analysis: Trump was wrong about the law, Obamacare politics and his judges]​

​

​

​

​

​

​

There is only one way to end Obamacare and that is for congress to create a replacement. Democrats are not going to do it and neither are republicans. A lot has change in last 10 years since Obamacare was passed. American may not like the high cost of Obamacare but certainly like the preventive care, portability, a policy that can't be cancelled by the company, unlimited coverage, and no healthcare requirements. The only thing they don't like is their cost. The Democrat solution is for the government to reduce the cost of premiums and deducible with the government footing the bill. The Republican solution was to have the court end Obamacare and leave the job of replacing it on the democrats.

The problem is the wealthy are benefiting from the current high medical costs, so won't change it.
And the poor who are subsidizing the wealthy, do not have any representation.

So the solution is to end the IRS tax exemption for employers over employee benefits.
That will get employers out of the health insurance business.
Then the wealthy will no longer have free coverage.
So then they will join the poor in wanting a public option.

It's not a tax exemption. The expense of providing health insurance to employees is considered an ordinary business expense like advertising or the cost of goods sold. How much of a tax advantage it is for the employer depends on their their tax bracket and the employer's share of the expense of the insurance premiums. For a low income small single proprietor business it can be a very significant tax break because the person's health insurance becomes a business expense which reduces adjusted gross income which helps in getting addition tax breaks and qualifying for various types of financial aid from both states and the federal government.

 

[dblack]

.

So much for those three trump Justices.....

As with all the Trump judicial appointees who threw his frivolous challenges to a safe and secure democratic election out of court, the law has proven a formidable nemesis for the pandemic's "Bolsonaro of the North"

View attachment 503948
"We're going to win. We're going to win so much. We're going to win at trade, we're going to win at the border.
We're going to win so much, you're going to be so sick and tired of winning, you're going to come to me
and go 'Please, please, we can't win anymore.' You'll say 'Please, Mr. President, we beg you,
sir, we don't want to win anymore. It's too much. It's not fair to everybody else.'" Trump said.
"And I'm going to say 'I'm sorry, but we're going to keep
winning, winning, winning!"​

Trump is still losing, losing, losing.

Some thought the Cry Baby Sore Loser, despite multiple eminent civil and criminal reckonings, was finally finished losing. Not so. Gazing up at his "big, beautiful wall!" that he made "Mexico!" pay for is only one manifestation of his legacy.

The Former Guy promised that his Supreme Court picks would overturn the Affordable Care Act. He met the court's ruling with the deafening silence of defeat.​

​

View attachment 503947
"THE FORMER STAR OF TRUMP®BLOG" ​

Trump promised to repeal Obamacare, the health insurance program that helped fuel the backlash tea party movement and ultimately his own candidacy. If Trump couldn't get Congress to do away with the law — and he couldn't, even with Republicans in control of both chambers — he vowed to choose Supreme Court justices who would declare Obamacare unconstitutional.​

​

"If I win the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing, unlike Bush's appointee John Roberts on Obamacare," Trump tweeted in 2015...​

​

But two of the three jurists Trump picked for the court — Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — voted with Roberts as part of a 7-2 majority... It was a major blow — perhaps a decisive one — against the political right's long fight against Obamacare and a sign of the limit of Trump's influence on the justices he appointed.​

​

In the first hours after the ruling, Trump greeted the news with the deafening silence of defeat… most Republicans followed Trump's lead by refusing to give it any extra attention.​

​

There was no promise to renew the fight to repeal the law or to mount another court battle over its constitutionality.​

​

... Republicans aren't at all interested in fighting to take health insurance benefits away from millions of Americans...​

​

In the end, Trump was wrong about the law, the politics of trying to kill the Affordable Care Act — and the assumption that he could control the votes of his Supreme Court picks.​

​

[Analysis: Trump was wrong about the law, Obamacare politics and his judges]​

​

​

​

​

​

​

There is only one way to end Obamacare and that is for congress to create a replacement. Democrats are not going to do it and neither are republicans. A lot has change in last 10 years since Obamacare was passed. American may not like the high cost of Obamacare but certainly like the preventive care, portability, a policy that can't be cancelled by the company, unlimited coverage, and no healthcare requirements. The only thing they don't like is their cost. The Democrat solution is for the government to reduce the cost of premiums and deducible with the government footing the bill. The Republican solution was to have the court end Obamacare and leave the job of replacing it on the democrats.

The problem is the wealthy are benefiting from the current high medical costs, so won't change it.
And the poor who are subsidizing the wealthy, do not have any representation.

So the solution is to end the IRS tax exemption for employers over employee benefits.
That will get employers out of the health insurance business.
Then the wealthy will no longer have free coverage.
So then they will join the poor in wanting a public option.

It's not a tax exemption. The expense of providing health insurance to employees is considered an ordinary business expense like advertising or the cost of goods sold.

It's not a legitimate business expense. No more so than providing for any other arbitrary needs of the employee would be. Unless we're thinking of employees as company property, that must be maintained and properly "cared for", benefits like health insurance are just different forms of compensation and should be taxed likewise.

 

[Dana7360]

But you vote for politicians who pass laws that do.

Let me ask you this, would you be in favor of allowing people to opt out? Both from using it and from paying for it?

Yes but only if they also agree that no one but themselves will pay for any and all health care they received. And they can't opt in once they have a medical situation.

Of course. Opting out wouldn't make sense otherwise. In fact, I'd even say that they can only opt in before they get sick. That's the way insurance is supposed to work.

They made their choice to not be responsible so they don't get to all of a sudden opt in when they need the help.

They should live with the consequences of their decisions, we all should. But there are plenty of other ways, besides your preferred mode of insurance, to be responsible.

I was a very healthy 48 year old person when the waves pounded me. I never thought that 15 ft waves would pound me over and over nearly killing me thus resulting in tens of thousand of health care bills. Not just the initial accident. I had to have 3 surgeries and 3.5 years of recovery.

It was tens of thousands of dollars that we didn't have. Thank goodness for the insurance.

Sorry you had to deal with that, and glad that the insurance worked out for you.

Those who don't have insurance don't pay the bills resulting in those of us who are responsible to pay the unpaid bills by our heath care being more expensive than it should.

Yes, this is the excuse usually offered by those who oppose any kind of opt-out scheme. Glad to see you're not using it that way.

If a person wants to opt out, go for it but expect to never be able to opt in when they have a medical situation and they better expect to pay every penny of their health care costs. No matter what those costs are.

Again, of course. Most people who'd choose to opt out would be doing so because the don't want to rely on government for their health care, and they don't believe government has any responsibility to provide such care. If they change their minds after the fact, they'll have to deal with the consequences.

I'm glad to see you appreciate some degree of freedom of choice on the matter. But you may have missed one important detail in my original question - which is the right opt out of paying for it if we opt out of using it. That's where any kind of opt-out scheme usually falls out of favor with reformers. The only fair way to do it, would be to figure out what percentage of the federal budget is going to the program, and deduct a similar percentage from the taxes owed by anyone who chooses to opt out.

I have said all along, I don't like insurance and wish it was done away with.

However.

I don't make those decisions. I have to live with the decisions made by politicians who make those decisions. So I work with the system that's available to me. I only have two choices. Insurance or die from no health care.

So I do the mature thing and accept what I can't change and work with what is available.

The problem with your idea of no one having insurance with no replacement, COVID 19. Or any of the many health conditions that people get. Or an accident.

I believe one of the reasons why the virus got so out of control is because of so many in America who don't have insurance and don't see a doctor. So they spread it all over the nation.

People get sick. People get into accidents. A normal person who isn't filthy rich can't afford medical costs. Which I've pointed out many times but you totally ignore it.

Where is a person going to come up with the money to pay for cancer? Or heart disease? Or alzhemiers? Or any one of the many conditions that people have to deal with.

Do you expect them to just die? They can't afford to see a doctor. Much less get any treatment for the condition. So I guess you expect them to die and do it quickly.

That is the problem with your ideas. You only consider young and very health people who never get sick or never are in any sort of accident.

That isn't the reality of life.

 

[Dana7360]

I respect you have a different view.

I don't force my views on other people.

But you vote for politicians who pass laws that do.

Let me ask you this, would you be in favor of allowing people to opt out? Both from using it and from paying for it?

Yes but only if they also agree that no one but themselves will pay for any and all health care they received. And they can't opt in once they have a medical situation. They made their choice to not be responsible so they don't get to all of a sudden opt in when they need the help.

That's the problem.

Most don't anticipate for a health problem mostly because they know they could never save enough for a real health problem.

I was a very healthy 48 year old person when the waves pounded me. I never thought that 15 ft waves would pound me over and over nearly killing me thus resulting in tens of thousand of health care bills. Not just the initial accident. I had to have 3 surgeries and 3.5 years of recovery.

It was tens of thousands of dollars that we didn't have. Thank goodness for the insurance.

Even just breaking a bone is expensive. It's not just the initial break and cast, it's the doctor appointments and physical therapy later.

None of that is cheap.

Those who don't have insurance don't pay the bills resulting in those of us who are responsible to pay the unpaid bills by our heath care being more expensive than it should.

We already did that until Obamacare and still do it in many red states.

If a person wants to opt out, go for it but expect to never be able to opt in when they have a medical situation and they better expect to pay every penny of their health care costs. No matter what those costs are.

90% of Americans are insured. Most of the money lost by doctors and hospitals is due high deductibles, not the uninsured. Indigents that end up in the ER or hospital are put on Medicaid. About half of those that are uninsured do not used the healthcare system.

To expect people that can't afford insurance to pay all their bills is a bit naïve. It's easy to say those that opt out will not be allowed back in the system. However, enforcing such a policy would be just about impossible because in America we don't deny life saving medical care for any reason.

I was replying to the person who asked me if I agreed that people could be able to opt out both using it and paying for it.

I would under the conditions I listed above.

I agree. Everyone should have insurance. That is the system we have so we have to work with it.

The problem with opting out and not being able to return, is it would opt out not just the policy holder but all the dependents. It would be an unmanageable situation.

I can't agree with you more.

Which is another reason why I believe the ideas of the person I was replying to will never work.

We will see a lot of infants and women die.

No one expects to give birth to a child who has health problems that need tens or even hundreds of thousand of dollars in health care to stay alive. Yet that happens every day.

The ideas of the person I replied to would kill that baby.

That baby wouldn't have been born in a hospital so it won't have access to proper medical care that saves it's life. The baby wouldn't have any sort of health care whether it was born in a hospital or not. Same with the mom. If she's also in distress, there is no medical care for her. She would't have had any prenatal care either. The best she could have done is take prenatal vitamins.

 

[Flopper]

.

So much for those three trump Justices.....

As with all the Trump judicial appointees who threw his frivolous challenges to a safe and secure democratic election out of court, the law has proven a formidable nemesis for the pandemic's "Bolsonaro of the North"

View attachment 503948
"We're going to win. We're going to win so much. We're going to win at trade, we're going to win at the border.
We're going to win so much, you're going to be so sick and tired of winning, you're going to come to me
and go 'Please, please, we can't win anymore.' You'll say 'Please, Mr. President, we beg you,
sir, we don't want to win anymore. It's too much. It's not fair to everybody else.'" Trump said.
"And I'm going to say 'I'm sorry, but we're going to keep
winning, winning, winning!"​

Trump is still losing, losing, losing.

Some thought the Cry Baby Sore Loser, despite multiple eminent civil and criminal reckonings, was finally finished losing. Not so. Gazing up at his "big, beautiful wall!" that he made "Mexico!" pay for is only one manifestation of his legacy.

The Former Guy promised that his Supreme Court picks would overturn the Affordable Care Act. He met the court's ruling with the deafening silence of defeat.​

​

View attachment 503947
"THE FORMER STAR OF TRUMP®BLOG" ​

Trump promised to repeal Obamacare, the health insurance program that helped fuel the backlash tea party movement and ultimately his own candidacy. If Trump couldn't get Congress to do away with the law — and he couldn't, even with Republicans in control of both chambers — he vowed to choose Supreme Court justices who would declare Obamacare unconstitutional.​

​

"If I win the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing, unlike Bush's appointee John Roberts on Obamacare," Trump tweeted in 2015...​

​

But two of the three jurists Trump picked for the court — Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — voted with Roberts as part of a 7-2 majority... It was a major blow — perhaps a decisive one — against the political right's long fight against Obamacare and a sign of the limit of Trump's influence on the justices he appointed.​

​

In the first hours after the ruling, Trump greeted the news with the deafening silence of defeat… most Republicans followed Trump's lead by refusing to give it any extra attention.​

​

There was no promise to renew the fight to repeal the law or to mount another court battle over its constitutionality.​

​

... Republicans aren't at all interested in fighting to take health insurance benefits away from millions of Americans...​

​

In the end, Trump was wrong about the law, the politics of trying to kill the Affordable Care Act — and the assumption that he could control the votes of his Supreme Court picks.​

​

[Analysis: Trump was wrong about the law, Obamacare politics and his judges]​

​

​

​

​

​

​

There is only one way to end Obamacare and that is for congress to create a replacement. Democrats are not going to do it and neither are republicans. A lot has change in last 10 years since Obamacare was passed. American may not like the high cost of Obamacare but certainly like the preventive care, portability, a policy that can't be cancelled by the company, unlimited coverage, and no healthcare requirements. The only thing they don't like is their cost. The Democrat solution is for the government to reduce the cost of premiums and deducible with the government footing the bill. The Republican solution was to have the court end Obamacare and leave the job of replacing it on the democrats.

The problem is the wealthy are benefiting from the current high medical costs, so won't change it.
And the poor who are subsidizing the wealthy, do not have any representation.

So the solution is to end the IRS tax exemption for employers over employee benefits.
That will get employers out of the health insurance business.
Then the wealthy will no longer have free coverage.
So then they will join the poor in wanting a public option.

I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:

Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense, just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible. If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.

Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers which is typically 50% and without a negotiated employer contract or group contract would make insurance much more expensive for employees. The only way to lower the premiums would be goverment subsidies. This would in effect transfer the employers cost to the goverment.

The fact is employers would love to get rid the burden of providing health insurance because the heath insurance expense is just a a deduction from revenue for most businesses, not at tax credit. Only very small employers can claim a tax credit which is limited to 50% of the premium. What this means is employers would have greater profits without having to provide health insurance.

 

[dblack]

I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:

Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense, just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible. If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.

And that should be the first step in any reform effort. Making ourselves dependent on "employment" for health care was a mistake.

Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers ...

Would bring health insurance premiums, and health care prices themselves, back down to earth.

The core problem with health care is that prices are inflated beyond all reason. We've reached a point where the average person can't get average health care without begging someone else (an employer, government, charity) to pay for it. There's no (good) reason for things to be that way. We've made them that way with ill-conceived regulation and tax policy. The first thing need to do is eliminate those regulations and tax policies.

 

[schmidlap]

I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:

Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense, just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible. If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.

Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers which is typically 50% and without a negotiated employer contract or group contract would make insurance much more expensive for employees. The only way to lower the premiums would be goverment subsidies. This would in effect transfer the employers cost to the goverment.

The fact is employers would love to get rid the burden of providing health insurance because the heath insurance expense is just a a deduction from revenue for most businesses, not at tax credit. Only very small employers can claim a tax credit which is limited to 50% of the premium. What this means is employers would have greater profits without having to provide health insurance.

During the war [WWII], wages were capped by the federal government, so employers needed another means to entice and keep employees. The incentive they decided on were benefits like health insurance. These health benefits packages were not considered a part of employees’ wages and the employers could deduct what they spent on these benefits packages from their corporate taxes. A win-win situation!​

[When did employer-sponsored health insurance begin? | Health Insurance]​

There are reasons that what had begun as an employment perquisite of little value - an employer picking up the then negligible tab for an employee's medical insurance - has grown to become a monumentally expensive and inefficient method of covering Americans.

There is nothing unique about Americans employed by businesses administering health insurance plans needing health insurance. All Americans are subject to the risk of incurring medical expenses, sometimes ruinously high. There is no rationale for subjecting Americans who are between jobs, for whatever reason, to the potential of devastating loss if a family member should incur substantial medical expenses during such an hiatus.

The need for businesses to divert a portion of their operations to administer such plans is only one unnecessary imposition. The expectancy of an American to have his health insurance provided by an employer is a barrier to enterprise, one more impediment to potential start-ups, and an incentive to remain with a company out of fear of losing coverage rather than progressing in one's career. It was a coercive measure calculated to keep employees in their place during wartime.

Differentiating Americans working for companies who administer healthcare plans from other Americans is counter to the economic advantage of economy of scale, administrative functions assumed by the employer being repeatedly duplicated by every employer rather than all Americans, employed or otherwise, being under a single plan that minimizes the bureaucratic requirements and most efficiently distributes risk as it creates the largest risk pool, an actuarial reality.

The federal and state tax systems provide significant financial benefits for people with private health insurance. The largest group of beneficiaries is people who enroll in coverage through their jobs. There also are tax benefits for people who are self-employed and for people with high medical costs...​

The largest tax subsidy for private health insurance — the exclusion from income and payroll taxes of employer and employee contributions for employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) – was estimated to cost approximately $250 billion in lost federal tax revenue in 2013... the largest tax incentive for private insurance — the exclusion of the cost of ESI — is an indirect subsidy that is never actually reported to the individuals and families who benefit from it. Many people with employer coverage are probably not aware that the federal and state tax exclusions for private health insurance provides them with a subsidy worth several thousands of dollars a year.​

​

Tax Subsidies for Private Health Insurance

This brief describes the different forms of tax assistance for private health insurance, including subsidies offered through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces and benefits for people who…

www.kff.org

​

​

No competent individuals designing a nation's healthcare system would have ever attached coverage to the plethora of private employers. It was an unforeseeable, insidious development.

 

[Flopper]

I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:

Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense, just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible. If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.

And that should be the first step in any reform effort. Making ourselves dependent on "employment" for health care was a mistake.

Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers ...

Would bring health insurance premiums, and health care prices themselves, back down to earth.

The core problem with health care is that prices are inflated beyond all reason. We've reached a point where the average person can't get average health care without begging someone else (an employer, government, charity) to pay for it. There's no (good) reason for things to be that way. We've made them that way with ill-conceived regulation and tax policy. The first thing need to do is eliminate those regulations and tax policies.

I agree that making ourselves dependent on "employment" for healthcare insurance was a mistake. However, the fallout from reversing the course would create a huge mess and could end with far higher premiums for employees. Employers pay on average 70% of employees healthcare benefits and nearly half of all Americans depend on employers for health insurance. If employers were not allowed to deduct their cost of of providing health insurance from their taxable income, they would drop health insurance as fast as the law allowed. Those additional cost would fall on either the employee or the government. The only sure winner would be employers who would save nearly a hundred billion dollars.

 

[dblack]

I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:

Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense, just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible. If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.

And that should be the first step in any reform effort. Making ourselves dependent on "employment" for health care was a mistake.

Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers ...

Would bring health insurance premiums, and health care prices themselves, back down to earth.

The core problem with health care is that prices are inflated beyond all reason. We've reached a point where the average person can't get average health care without begging someone else (an employer, government, charity) to pay for it. There's no (good) reason for things to be that way. We've made them that way with ill-conceived regulation and tax policy. The first thing need to do is eliminate those regulations and tax policies.

I agree that making ourselves dependent on "employment" for healthcare insurance was a mistake. However, the fallout from reversing the course would create a huge mess and could end with far higher premiums for employees. Employers pay on average 70% of employees healthcare benefits and nearly half of all Americans depend on employers for health insurance.

Correcting a mistake can often be painful. But not as damaging as continuing down the wrong path.

If employers were not allowed to deduct their cost of of providing health insurance from their taxable income, they would drop health insurance as fast as the law allowed.

Yes, that's the point. The law should have never pushed them in that direction in the first place.

Those additional cost would fall on either the employee or the government. The only sure winner would be employers who would save nearly a hundred billion dollars.

That's debatable. If they stopped offering healthcare for employees, they would need to compensate them in other ways. Regardless, it's no reason to continue investing in the wrong solution.

 

[Flopper]

I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:

Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense, just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible. If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.

Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers which is typically 50% and without a negotiated employer contract or group contract would make insurance much more expensive for employees. The only way to lower the premiums would be goverment subsidies. This would in effect transfer the employers cost to the goverment.

The fact is employers would love to get rid the burden of providing health insurance because the heath insurance expense is just a a deduction from revenue for most businesses, not at tax credit. Only very small employers can claim a tax credit which is limited to 50% of the premium. What this means is employers would have greater profits without having to provide health insurance.

During the war [WWII], wages were capped by the federal government, so employers needed another means to entice and keep employees. The incentive they decided on were benefits like health insurance. These health benefits packages were not considered a part of employees’ wages and the employers could deduct what they spent on these benefits packages from their corporate taxes. A win-win situation!​

[When did employer-sponsored health insurance begin? | Health Insurance]​

There are reasons that what had begun as an employment perquisite of little value - an employer picking up the then negligible tab for an employee's medical insurance - has grown to become a monumentally expensive and inefficient method of covering Americans.

There is nothing unique about Americans employed by businesses administering health insurance plans needing health insurance. All Americans are subject to the risk of incurring medical expenses, sometimes ruinously high. There is no rationale for subjecting Americans who are between jobs, for whatever reason, to the potential of devastating loss if a family member should incur substantial medical expenses during such an hiatus.

The need for businesses to divert a portion of their operations to administer such plans is only one unnecessary imposition. The expectancy of an American to have his health insurance provided by an employer is a barrier to enterprise, one more impediment to potential start-ups, and an incentive to remain with a company out of fear of losing coverage rather than progressing in one's career. It was a coercive measure calculated to keep employees in their place during wartime.

Differentiating Americans working for companies who administer healthcare plans from other Americans is counter to the economic advantage of economy of scale, administrative functions assumed by the employer being repeatedly duplicated by every employer rather than all Americans, employed or otherwise, being under a single plan that minimizes the bureaucratic requirements and most efficiently distributes risk as it creates the largest risk pool, an actuarial reality.

The federal and state tax systems provide significant financial benefits for people with private health insurance. The largest group of beneficiaries is people who enroll in coverage through their jobs. There also are tax benefits for people who are self-employed and for people with high medical costs...​

The largest tax subsidy for private health insurance — the exclusion from income and payroll taxes of employer and employee contributions for employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) – was estimated to cost approximately $250 billion in lost federal tax revenue in 2013... the largest tax incentive for private insurance — the exclusion of the cost of ESI — is an indirect subsidy that is never actually reported to the individuals and families who benefit from it. Many people with employer coverage are probably not aware that the federal and state tax exclusions for private health insurance provides them with a subsidy worth several thousands of dollars a year.​

​

Tax Subsidies for Private Health Insurance

This brief describes the different forms of tax assistance for private health insurance, including subsidies offered through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces and benefits for people who…

www.kff.org

​

​

No competent individuals designing a nation's healthcare system would have ever attached coverage to the plethora of private employers. It was an unforeseeable, insidious development.

During and before WWII, health insurance was essentially hospitalization and in many cases only paying for the most costly procedures. Everything else was the subscribers responsibility.

The cost of healthcare over the last 75 years has increased as much as 40 times; that is, a $100 procedure then would cost about $4,000 today. When people see figures like this, the usual first question is what is the cause. We have heard the answers many times, goverment, greedy insurance companies, Obamacare, overpaid healthcare workers, big government, drug companies, etc. What you don't hear is people are utilizing healthcare 5 times as much as they did in1950. The number of medical treatments have tripled since 1960. You might like paying $5 to go to the doctor 75 years ago, but you wouldn't like hearing him tell you that there was no cure for your lung cancer or your heart disease, or your son has polio and he will probably spend the rest of his life in an iron lung, etc. etc.

In large part due to better healthcare, life expectancy has increased from 65 in 1950 to 79 in 2020 and is expected to increase to 89 by 2070. Today 11 times as many people are living to 100 compared to 1950. When looking at the increase in healthcare cost we need to ask our selves how important is living a longer and healthier life.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Over 80 judges considered the evidence, and dismissed the fantasy. That resulted in Trump goons exhibiting their contempt for evidence:

Along with their contempt for the rule of law, the Constitution, and our democratic institutions.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

During and before WWII, health insurance was essentially hospitalization and in many cases only paying for the most costly procedures. Everything else was the subscribers responsibility.

Correct.

At that time health insurance as like automobile insurance and homeowners’ insurance – something you likely weren’t going to use.

Health insurance was never designed or intended for ongoing healthcare/health maintenance.

 

[Flopper]

I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:

Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense, just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible. If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.

And that should be the first step in any reform effort. Making ourselves dependent on "employment" for health care was a mistake.

Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers ...

Would bring health insurance premiums, and health care prices themselves, back down to earth.

The core problem with health care is that prices are inflated beyond all reason. We've reached a point where the average person can't get average health care without begging someone else (an employer, government, charity) to pay for it. There's no (good) reason for things to be that way. We've made them that way with ill-conceived regulation and tax policy. The first thing need to do is eliminate those regulations and tax policies.

I agree that making ourselves dependent on "employment" for healthcare insurance was a mistake. However, the fallout from reversing the course would create a huge mess and could end with far higher premiums for employees. Employers pay on average 70% of employees healthcare benefits and nearly half of all Americans depend on employers for health insurance.

Correcting a mistake can often be painful. But not as damaging as continuing down the wrong path.

If employers were not allowed to deduct their cost of of providing health insurance from their taxable income, they would drop health insurance as fast as the law allowed.

Yes, that's the point. The law should have never pushed them in that direction in the first place.

Those additional cost would fall on either the employee or the government. The only sure winner would be employers who would save nearly a hundred billion dollars.

That's debatable. If they stopped offering healthcare for employees, they would need to compensate them in other ways. Regardless, it's no reason to continue investing in the wrong solution.

You say if companies stopped subsidizing employee healthcare insurance, they should compensate them in some other way. Why? The only reason they offer healthcare insurance to their employees today is they have no choice. Businesses have never wanted to provide health insurance. In WWII, the government forced it on them. Then unions did. Then state governments and finally the federal government did. Healthcare like other necessities of life is an induvial expense or some would argue that it should be an expense to all society, that is, the goverment, but requiring businesses to either supply healthcare insurance or compensate employees to buy it makes no sense at all.

 

[Flopper]

During and before WWII, health insurance was essentially hospitalization and in many cases only paying for the most costly procedures. Everything else was the subscribers responsibility.

Correct.

At that time health insurance as like automobile insurance and homeowners’ insurance – something you likely weren’t going to use.

Health insurance was never designed or intended for ongoing healthcare/health maintenance.

I agree with you. However, what insurance companies sell today is not health insurance. They sell healthcare plans that cover just about every type of healthcare problem which is what the public wants but at a much lower cost.

 

[Rigby5]

.

So much for those three trump Justices.....

As with all the Trump judicial appointees who threw his frivolous challenges to a safe and secure democratic election out of court, the law has proven a formidable nemesis for the pandemic's "Bolsonaro of the North"

View attachment 503948
"We're going to win. We're going to win so much. We're going to win at trade, we're going to win at the border.
We're going to win so much, you're going to be so sick and tired of winning, you're going to come to me
and go 'Please, please, we can't win anymore.' You'll say 'Please, Mr. President, we beg you,
sir, we don't want to win anymore. It's too much. It's not fair to everybody else.'" Trump said.
"And I'm going to say 'I'm sorry, but we're going to keep
winning, winning, winning!"​

Trump is still losing, losing, losing.

Some thought the Cry Baby Sore Loser, despite multiple eminent civil and criminal reckonings, was finally finished losing. Not so. Gazing up at his "big, beautiful wall!" that he made "Mexico!" pay for is only one manifestation of his legacy.

The Former Guy promised that his Supreme Court picks would overturn the Affordable Care Act. He met the court's ruling with the deafening silence of defeat.​

​

View attachment 503947
"THE FORMER STAR OF TRUMP®BLOG" ​

Trump promised to repeal Obamacare, the health insurance program that helped fuel the backlash tea party movement and ultimately his own candidacy. If Trump couldn't get Congress to do away with the law — and he couldn't, even with Republicans in control of both chambers — he vowed to choose Supreme Court justices who would declare Obamacare unconstitutional.​

​

"If I win the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing, unlike Bush's appointee John Roberts on Obamacare," Trump tweeted in 2015...​

​

But two of the three jurists Trump picked for the court — Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — voted with Roberts as part of a 7-2 majority... It was a major blow — perhaps a decisive one — against the political right's long fight against Obamacare and a sign of the limit of Trump's influence on the justices he appointed.​

​

In the first hours after the ruling, Trump greeted the news with the deafening silence of defeat… most Republicans followed Trump's lead by refusing to give it any extra attention.​

​

There was no promise to renew the fight to repeal the law or to mount another court battle over its constitutionality.​

​

... Republicans aren't at all interested in fighting to take health insurance benefits away from millions of Americans...​

​

In the end, Trump was wrong about the law, the politics of trying to kill the Affordable Care Act — and the assumption that he could control the votes of his Supreme Court picks.​

​

[Analysis: Trump was wrong about the law, Obamacare politics and his judges]​

​

​

​

​

​

​

There is only one way to end Obamacare and that is for congress to create a replacement. Democrats are not going to do it and neither are republicans. A lot has change in last 10 years since Obamacare was passed. American may not like the high cost of Obamacare but certainly like the preventive care, portability, a policy that can't be cancelled by the company, unlimited coverage, and no healthcare requirements. The only thing they don't like is their cost. The Democrat solution is for the government to reduce the cost of premiums and deducible with the government footing the bill. The Republican solution was to have the court end Obamacare and leave the job of replacing it on the democrats.

The problem is the wealthy are benefiting from the current high medical costs, so won't change it.
And the poor who are subsidizing the wealthy, do not have any representation.

So the solution is to end the IRS tax exemption for employers over employee benefits.
That will get employers out of the health insurance business.
Then the wealthy will no longer have free coverage.
So then they will join the poor in wanting a public option.

It's not a tax exemption. The expense of providing health insurance to employees is considered an ordinary business expense like advertising or the cost of goods sold. How much of a tax advantage it is for the employer depends on their their tax bracket and the employer's share of the expense of the insurance premiums. For a low income small single proprietor business it can be a very significant tax break because the person's health insurance becomes a business expense which reduces adjusted gross income which helps in getting addition tax breaks and qualifying for various types of financial aid from both states and the federal government.

You are misunderstanding.
Employee health insurance is NOT at all a valid business expense, in any way.
It is entirely an employee benefit, and as such, should be taxable to the employee.
The IRS exemption for employee health insurance benefits has never been fair or along any legal principle.
It is totally contrary all tax laws and should never have been allowed.
What makes it so corrupt is that poor people do not get to take advantage of it, so then when everyone has to have their taxes increased to pay for the shortfall this insurance exemption causes, then effectively poor people end up subsidizing the health care of the wealthy.

 

[Rigby5]

.

So much for those three trump Justices.....

As with all the Trump judicial appointees who threw his frivolous challenges to a safe and secure democratic election out of court, the law has proven a formidable nemesis for the pandemic's "Bolsonaro of the North"

View attachment 503948
"We're going to win. We're going to win so much. We're going to win at trade, we're going to win at the border.
We're going to win so much, you're going to be so sick and tired of winning, you're going to come to me
and go 'Please, please, we can't win anymore.' You'll say 'Please, Mr. President, we beg you,
sir, we don't want to win anymore. It's too much. It's not fair to everybody else.'" Trump said.
"And I'm going to say 'I'm sorry, but we're going to keep
winning, winning, winning!"​

Trump is still losing, losing, losing.

Some thought the Cry Baby Sore Loser, despite multiple eminent civil and criminal reckonings, was finally finished losing. Not so. Gazing up at his "big, beautiful wall!" that he made "Mexico!" pay for is only one manifestation of his legacy.

The Former Guy promised that his Supreme Court picks would overturn the Affordable Care Act. He met the court's ruling with the deafening silence of defeat.​

​

View attachment 503947
"THE FORMER STAR OF TRUMP®BLOG" ​

Trump promised to repeal Obamacare, the health insurance program that helped fuel the backlash tea party movement and ultimately his own candidacy. If Trump couldn't get Congress to do away with the law — and he couldn't, even with Republicans in control of both chambers — he vowed to choose Supreme Court justices who would declare Obamacare unconstitutional.​

​

"If I win the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing, unlike Bush's appointee John Roberts on Obamacare," Trump tweeted in 2015...​

​

But two of the three jurists Trump picked for the court — Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — voted with Roberts as part of a 7-2 majority... It was a major blow — perhaps a decisive one — against the political right's long fight against Obamacare and a sign of the limit of Trump's influence on the justices he appointed.​

​

In the first hours after the ruling, Trump greeted the news with the deafening silence of defeat… most Republicans followed Trump's lead by refusing to give it any extra attention.​

​

There was no promise to renew the fight to repeal the law or to mount another court battle over its constitutionality.​

​

... Republicans aren't at all interested in fighting to take health insurance benefits away from millions of Americans...​

​

In the end, Trump was wrong about the law, the politics of trying to kill the Affordable Care Act — and the assumption that he could control the votes of his Supreme Court picks.​

​

[Analysis: Trump was wrong about the law, Obamacare politics and his judges]​

​

​

​

​

​

​

There is only one way to end Obamacare and that is for congress to create a replacement. Democrats are not going to do it and neither are republicans. A lot has change in last 10 years since Obamacare was passed. American may not like the high cost of Obamacare but certainly like the preventive care, portability, a policy that can't be cancelled by the company, unlimited coverage, and no healthcare requirements. The only thing they don't like is their cost. The Democrat solution is for the government to reduce the cost of premiums and deducible with the government footing the bill. The Republican solution was to have the court end Obamacare and leave the job of replacing it on the democrats.

The problem is the wealthy are benefiting from the current high medical costs, so won't change it.
And the poor who are subsidizing the wealthy, do not have any representation.

So the solution is to end the IRS tax exemption for employers over employee benefits.
That will get employers out of the health insurance business.
Then the wealthy will no longer have free coverage.
So then they will join the poor in wanting a public option.

I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:

Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense, just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible. If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.

Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers which is typically 50% and without a negotiated employer contract or group contract would make insurance much more expensive for employees. The only way to lower the premiums would be goverment subsidies. This would in effect transfer the employers cost to the goverment.

The fact is employers would love to get rid the burden of providing health insurance because the heath insurance expense is just a a deduction from revenue for most businesses, not at tax credit. Only very small employers can claim a tax credit which is limited to 50% of the premium. What this means is employers would have greater profits without having to provide health insurance.

But you again are ignoring the fact employer paid health insurance is a benefit and therefore should not only be taxable, but it is very unfair to poor people who do not get employer health insurance and have to pay much more in order to get any health care access, due to the unfair tax exempt health insurance of the wealthy.

And you are also forgetting that NO ONE should be using insurance to finance health care.
Insurance is prepaid, so then prevent you from having any control over costs or quality.
Third party payer simply does not and can not work.

Forcing millions of people out of their cushy prepaid employer health care would not at all increase the cost of health care, but would greatly decrease it. That is because we would go back to the way it was before 1957, where you did not prepay your health care.
You paid after the fact, and hospitals would make arrangements for long term financing as necessary.

Forget about insurance.
That has never been a reasonable way to pay for anything, and should never have been allowed to take over our health care system.
Insurance companies only add cost, not quality or service. In fact, they greatly reduce quality and service.

 

[Rigby5]

I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:

Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense, just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible. If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.

Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers which is typically 50% and without a negotiated employer contract or group contract would make insurance much more expensive for employees. The only way to lower the premiums would be goverment subsidies. This would in effect transfer the employers cost to the goverment.

The fact is employers would love to get rid the burden of providing health insurance because the heath insurance expense is just a a deduction from revenue for most businesses, not at tax credit. Only very small employers can claim a tax credit which is limited to 50% of the premium. What this means is employers would have greater profits without having to provide health insurance.

During the war [WWII], wages were capped by the federal government, so employers needed another means to entice and keep employees. The incentive they decided on were benefits like health insurance. These health benefits packages were not considered a part of employees’ wages and the employers could deduct what they spent on these benefits packages from their corporate taxes. A win-win situation!​

[When did employer-sponsored health insurance begin? | Health Insurance]​

There are reasons that what had begun as an employment perquisite of little value - an employer picking up the then negligible tab for an employee's medical insurance - has grown to become a monumentally expensive and inefficient method of covering Americans.

There is nothing unique about Americans employed by businesses administering health insurance plans needing health insurance. All Americans are subject to the risk of incurring medical expenses, sometimes ruinously high. There is no rationale for subjecting Americans who are between jobs, for whatever reason, to the potential of devastating loss if a family member should incur substantial medical expenses during such an hiatus.

The need for businesses to divert a portion of their operations to administer such plans is only one unnecessary imposition. The expectancy of an American to have his health insurance provided by an employer is a barrier to enterprise, one more impediment to potential start-ups, and an incentive to remain with a company out of fear of losing coverage rather than progressing in one's career. It was a coercive measure calculated to keep employees in their place during wartime.

Differentiating Americans working for companies who administer healthcare plans from other Americans is counter to the economic advantage of economy of scale, administrative functions assumed by the employer being repeatedly duplicated by every employer rather than all Americans, employed or otherwise, being under a single plan that minimizes the bureaucratic requirements and most efficiently distributes risk as it creates the largest risk pool, an actuarial reality.

The federal and state tax systems provide significant financial benefits for people with private health insurance. The largest group of beneficiaries is people who enroll in coverage through their jobs. There also are tax benefits for people who are self-employed and for people with high medical costs...​

The largest tax subsidy for private health insurance — the exclusion from income and payroll taxes of employer and employee contributions for employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) – was estimated to cost approximately $250 billion in lost federal tax revenue in 2013... the largest tax incentive for private insurance — the exclusion of the cost of ESI — is an indirect subsidy that is never actually reported to the individuals and families who benefit from it. Many people with employer coverage are probably not aware that the federal and state tax exclusions for private health insurance provides them with a subsidy worth several thousands of dollars a year.​

​

Tax Subsidies for Private Health Insurance

This brief describes the different forms of tax assistance for private health insurance, including subsidies offered through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces and benefits for people who…

www.kff.org

​

​

No competent individuals designing a nation's healthcare system would have ever attached coverage to the plethora of private employers. It was an unforeseeable, insidious development.

During and before WWII, health insurance was essentially hospitalization and in many cases only paying for the most costly procedures. Everything else was the subscribers responsibility.

The cost of healthcare over the last 75 years has increased as much as 40 times; that is, a $100 procedure then would cost about $4,000 today. When people see figures like this, the usual first question is what is the cause. We have heard the answers many times, goverment, greedy insurance companies, Obamacare, overpaid healthcare workers, big government, drug companies, etc. What you don't hear is people are utilizing healthcare 5 times as much as they did in1950. The number of medical treatments have tripled since 1960. You might like paying $5 to go to the doctor 75 years ago, but you wouldn't like hearing him tell you that there was no cure for your lung cancer or your heart disease, or your son has polio and he will probably spend the rest of his life in an iron lung, etc. etc.

In large part due to better healthcare, life expectancy has increased from 65 in 1950 to 79 in 2020 and is expected to increase to 89 by 2070. Today 11 times as many people are living to 100 compared to 1950. When looking at the increase in healthcare cost we need to ask our selves how important is living a longer and healthier life.

You again are looking at this backwards.
My brother recently had a heart valve replacement, and the surgeon had 6 of the exact same procedure lined up back to back for the day. Took less than an hour. They were only 4 staff involved. So then actually health care now should cost only a tiny fraction of what it used to cost, when you consider all the experience and useful equipment we have now that we did not have then. Just one heart valve procedure used to take several days, when you count the prep to get the valve.
So then no, utilization is not 5 times higher.

The real reason health care costs have risen so high is entirely due to insurance companies.
We can tell because we can compare with the rest of the world, and they have health care quality higher than ours, but less than half the cost.
Third party payer not only never works, but actually encourages providers to over charge, because then customers need insurance all the more. It essentially then is a monopoly, where the insurance companies try to make themselves indispensable.
But the insurance companies add nothing at all to the service, except to cause the price to double.

Sure we are living longer, but that is because health care is so much easier to provide and is so much more reliable.
The health care profession is not working harder, but much less hard compared to what they used to have to do.
For example, a pacemaker was rare because it meant cracking the chest for a full day of surgery, but now is a 1 hour angioscope procedure.

Actual health care should not cost more now, but MUCH MUCH less.

 

[dblack]

I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:

Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense, just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible. If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.

And that should be the first step in any reform effort. Making ourselves dependent on "employment" for health care was a mistake.

Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers ...

Would bring health insurance premiums, and health care prices themselves, back down to earth.

The core problem with health care is that prices are inflated beyond all reason. We've reached a point where the average person can't get average health care without begging someone else (an employer, government, charity) to pay for it. There's no (good) reason for things to be that way. We've made them that way with ill-conceived regulation and tax policy. The first thing need to do is eliminate those regulations and tax policies.

I agree that making ourselves dependent on "employment" for healthcare insurance was a mistake. However, the fallout from reversing the course would create a huge mess and could end with far higher premiums for employees. Employers pay on average 70% of employees healthcare benefits and nearly half of all Americans depend on employers for health insurance.

Correcting a mistake can often be painful. But not as damaging as continuing down the wrong path.

If employers were not allowed to deduct their cost of of providing health insurance from their taxable income, they would drop health insurance as fast as the law allowed.

Yes, that's the point. The law should have never pushed them in that direction in the first place.

Those additional cost would fall on either the employee or the government. The only sure winner would be employers who would save nearly a hundred billion dollars.

That's debatable. If they stopped offering healthcare for employees, they would need to compensate them in other ways. Regardless, it's no reason to continue investing in the wrong solution.

You say if companies stopped subsidizing employee healthcare insurance, they should compensate them in some other way. Why?

Because that's how they compete for quality employees. If you had a choice between two jobs, one that offered healthcare and one that didn't, and the salary was the same, which would you choose? The only way the employer not offering healthcare could compete would be increase their offer to compensate.

The only reason they offer healthcare insurance to their employees today is they have no choice.

Traditionally, they have had that choice, and many made it. I've worked for several companies that didn't offer health care. More recently, asinine regulations have tried force them into it. Another part of the problem, certainly not a solution.

Businesses have never wanted to provide health insurance. In WWII, the government forced it on them. Then unions did. Then state governments and finally the federal government did.

Yep. That's the problem alright. The first thing we need to do is get rid of that kind of legislation.