The Incidence of the Paul Ryan Health Insurance Tax Credit

[Care4all]

FYI-an individual health insurance plan costs about $13,000 a year per person, in Maine... if the $2300 is the maximum credit, and a real credit not some HSA that is your own money put in the account, the people needing health insurance can still not afford it.

Also, are people who get their insurance through their employer going to get this credit?

or is employer sponsored group insurance going away?

Why would a person who can't afford premiums pick the highest priced insurance your state offers??
I would like to see this plan that cost about $1,083 a month for an INDIVIDUAL.

Or are you just flat out lying?.....cause I just went to Maine's site and for a 35 year old making $50k the monthly cost is $283 or $3396 a year.

sorry, you are wrong....

in Maine, for an individual health care policy for someone in their 50's, covering 70%/30% , FOR the LOWEST PRICED silver plan on the exchange, WITHOUT subsidies costs $1100 a month, $13000 a year....in 2006 when we moved here, for an individual plan for me alone from Blue Cross/ Blue Shield Anthem policy, before the ACA existed, was $1050 a month....$12600 a year.

bronze plans are not insurance at all imo.

 

[kiwiman127]

If people think that will stop the out of control rise in healthcare insurance premiums or increasing deductibles, well I have beach front property for sale in North Dakota!

Is this you?

I figured I should ask because Joe has an active listing for "a beautiful lot located on the south lake of Lake Metigoshe. This lot is #31 and has 103 ft. of shoreline....on this lot [that] has a beautiful sand beach."

Lake Metigoshe has beachside areas for swimming and access to the lake for fishing or boating. The area is surrounded by gorgeous forests and is the perfect outdoor retreat on a hot summer day.

​

My comment, didn't say there weren't any lakes, there just isn't many lakes.
I own a lake home in Minnesota, quite a few of my neighbors are from North Dakota (eastern North Dakota). That's also the case with several of my friends, that also have lake property sprinkled on other lakes in Minnesota, lots of North Dakotans have summer homes in Minnesota.
I have nothing against North Dakota, I have friends of mine who live in North Dakota that were classmates of mine at the University of Minnesota. I have traveled to Bismarck and Fargo quite a few times. They love it there. They just chuckle about the lack of lakes and "beach fronts in ND" is a little joke with us.

 

[usmbguest5318]

If people think that will stop the out of control rise in healthcare insurance premiums or increasing deductibles, well I have beach front property for sale in North Dakota!

Is this you?

I figured I should ask because Joe has an active listing for "a beautiful lot located on the south lake of Lake Metigoshe. This lot is #31 and has 103 ft. of shoreline....on this lot [that] has a beautiful sand beach."

Lake Metigoshe has beachside areas for swimming and access to the lake for fishing or boating. The area is surrounded by gorgeous forests and is the perfect outdoor retreat on a hot summer day.

​

My comment, didn't say there weren't any lakes, there just isn't many lakes.
I own a lake home in Minnesota, quite a few of my neighbors are from North Dakota (eastern North Dakota). That's also the case with several of my friends, that also have lake property sprinkled on other lakes in Minnesota, lots of North Dakotans have summer homes in Minnesota.
I have nothing against North Dakota, I have friends of mine who live in North Dakota that were classmates of mine at the University of Minnesota. I have traveled to Bismarck and Fargo quite a few times. They love it there. They just chuckle about the lack of lakes and "beach fronts in ND" is a little joke with us.

I take it you've not read much that I've posted on USMB, and it's fine that you haven't. I am well aware that your comment about beachfront property for sale was but a rhetorical variation of the hackneyed aphorism about naive gullibility - "if you think that, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you." That statement calls to mind George C. Parker's conning people into paying him tens of thousands of dollars in exchange for the Brooklyn Bridge. (Parker was eventually arrested and jailed for doing that.)

I have myself and on USMB used a variation of the same saying.

Yea, that's what everyone thought "repeal and replace" meant. Yea, sure. Anyone want to buy a bridge? How about ocean front property in Arizona?

My post about Lake Metigoshe had absolutely nothing to do with what I perceived about your impressions of ND or how many bodies of water be found there. The post was nothing more than my punnily taking advantage of the "low hanging fruit" you provided by writing "beach" rather than "ocean" and the fact that there is beachfront property for sale in ND and possibility that you are a realtor/property owner who does indeed have such property on offer.

I take your word for there being a paucity of lakes in ND, thus beachfront property; however, I am certain there is no ocean abutting ND. It is that subtle distinction that enabled the pun that is my post that pictured Lake Metigoshe and the linked content about property on it that is for sale. I regret that I failed to post some sort of overt clue that would have adequately indicated to you that the entire post was a pun.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If people think that will stop the out of control rise in healthcare insurance premiums or increasing deductibles, well I have beach front property for sale in North Dakota!

Is this you?

I figured I should ask because Joe has an active listing for "a beautiful lot located on the south lake of Lake Metigoshe. This lot is #31 and has 103 ft. of shoreline....on this lot [that] has a beautiful sand beach."

Lake Metigoshe has beachside areas for swimming and access to the lake for fishing or boating. The area is surrounded by gorgeous forests and is the perfect outdoor retreat on a hot summer day.

​

My comment, didn't say there weren't any lakes, there just isn't many lakes.
I own a lake home in Minnesota, quite a few of my neighbors are from North Dakota (eastern North Dakota). That's also the case with several of my friends, that also have lake property sprinkled on other lakes in Minnesota, lots of North Dakotans have summer homes in Minnesota.
I have nothing against North Dakota, I have friends of mine who live in North Dakota that were classmates of mine at the University of Minnesota. I have traveled to Bismarck and Fargo quite a few times. They love it there. They just chuckle about the lack of lakes and "beach fronts in ND" is a little joke with us.

The term is ocean-front property. There are beaches everywhere. Oceans? Not so much!

 

[whitehall]

The left always assumes that tax incentives and tax credits are a bad thing. Usually it's a drop in the bucket as far as the federal revenue goes but lefties hate it none the less. If tax credits are enough to keep the American middle class from going broke under the ironically named "ACA" why not.

 

[usmbguest5318]

If people think that will stop the out of control rise in healthcare insurance premiums or increasing deductibles, well I have beach front property for sale in North Dakota!

Is this you?

I figured I should ask because Joe has an active listing for "a beautiful lot located on the south lake of Lake Metigoshe. This lot is #31 and has 103 ft. of shoreline....on this lot [that] has a beautiful sand beach."

Lake Metigoshe has beachside areas for swimming and access to the lake for fishing or boating. The area is surrounded by gorgeous forests and is the perfect outdoor retreat on a hot summer day.

​

My comment, didn't say there weren't any lakes, there just isn't many lakes.
I own a lake home in Minnesota, quite a few of my neighbors are from North Dakota (eastern North Dakota). That's also the case with several of my friends, that also have lake property sprinkled on other lakes in Minnesota, lots of North Dakotans have summer homes in Minnesota.
I have nothing against North Dakota, I have friends of mine who live in North Dakota that were classmates of mine at the University of Minnesota. I have traveled to Bismarck and Fargo quite a few times. They love it there. They just chuckle about the lack of lakes and "beach fronts in ND" is a little joke with us.

The term is ocean-front property. There are beaches everywhere. Oceans? Not so much!

Seeing as I'm in a "punny" mood....Your comment reminds me of what Air Force flyers like to say in response to those in the Navy who remark that oceans cover some 70% of the Earth. "Be that as it may, air covers 100% of the planet." LOL

 

[Lewdog]

What good is a tax credit at the end of the year if you can't afford to pay the premiums during the year to get refunded at the end of it?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Getting back on topic....Is there but one member who's willing to answer the three questions in the opening post?

As a reminder, those questions are:

Assuming Paul Ryan's health insurance tax credit ideas be what Congress implements:

1. Of the following choices, on whom do you prefer to the incidence of the tax credit land? Why?
   • Health Insurance Providers
   • Health Insurance Buyers
2. Do you think the tax credit should be revenue neutral? Why or why not?
   • Yes
   • No -- Discuss what you want instead of revenue neutrality.
3. What will be your opinion of the GOP's replacement for O-care if what you prefer is not how it turns out once O-care's replacement is implemented?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If people think that will stop the out of control rise in healthcare insurance premiums or increasing deductibles, well I have beach front property for sale in North Dakota!

Is this you?

I figured I should ask because Joe has an active listing for "a beautiful lot located on the south lake of Lake Metigoshe. This lot is #31 and has 103 ft. of shoreline....on this lot [that] has a beautiful sand beach."

Lake Metigoshe has beachside areas for swimming and access to the lake for fishing or boating. The area is surrounded by gorgeous forests and is the perfect outdoor retreat on a hot summer day.

​

My comment, didn't say there weren't any lakes, there just isn't many lakes.
I own a lake home in Minnesota, quite a few of my neighbors are from North Dakota (eastern North Dakota). That's also the case with several of my friends, that also have lake property sprinkled on other lakes in Minnesota, lots of North Dakotans have summer homes in Minnesota.
I have nothing against North Dakota, I have friends of mine who live in North Dakota that were classmates of mine at the University of Minnesota. I have traveled to Bismarck and Fargo quite a few times. They love it there. They just chuckle about the lack of lakes and "beach fronts in ND" is a little joke with us.

The term is ocean-front property. There are beaches everywhere. Oceans? Not so much!

Seeing as I'm in a "punny" mood....Your comment reminds me of what Air Force flyers like to say in response to those in the Navy who remark that oceans cover some 70% of the Earth. "Be that as it may, air covers 100% of the planet." LOL

Yeah, thats like the rivalry between ASW aircrews and submariners. Submariners like to point out that there are a lot more airplanes in the ocean than submarines in the air!

 

[Lewdog]

Getting back on topic....Is there but one member who's willing to answer the three questions in the opening post?

As a reminder, those questions are:

Assuming Paul Ryan's health insurance tax credit ideas be what Congress implements:

1. Of the following choices, on whom do you prefer to the incidence of the tax credit land? Why?
   • Health Insurance Providers
   • Health Insurance Buyers
2. Do you think the tax credit should be revenue neutral? Why or why not?
   • Yes
   • No -- Discuss what you want instead of revenue neutrality.
3. What will be your opinion of the GOP's replacement for O-care if what you prefer is not how it turns out once O-care's replacement is implemented?

Sorry but my question is a very pertinent question to ask in order to answer your questions. If a person can not afford to pay the premiums up front to get the tax refund at the end of the year, what good is it? That would mean a person would have to go a year without insurance before they would get the credit, that is unless to qualify for the credit you have to show statements of paid premiums... which you wouldn't be able to do. So assuming they give you the credit anyway, you and your family would have to go a year without insurance, and if they take out the pre-existing condition waiver you would then have a lapse in coverage, which would then mean you could be denied insurance or be forced to pay higher premiums. That is A LOT of problems.

 

[usmbguest5318]

If people think that will stop the out of control rise in healthcare insurance premiums or increasing deductibles, well I have beach front property for sale in North Dakota!

Is this you?

I figured I should ask because Joe has an active listing for "a beautiful lot located on the south lake of Lake Metigoshe. This lot is #31 and has 103 ft. of shoreline....on this lot [that] has a beautiful sand beach."

Lake Metigoshe has beachside areas for swimming and access to the lake for fishing or boating. The area is surrounded by gorgeous forests and is the perfect outdoor retreat on a hot summer day.

​

My comment, didn't say there weren't any lakes, there just isn't many lakes.
I own a lake home in Minnesota, quite a few of my neighbors are from North Dakota (eastern North Dakota). That's also the case with several of my friends, that also have lake property sprinkled on other lakes in Minnesota, lots of North Dakotans have summer homes in Minnesota.
I have nothing against North Dakota, I have friends of mine who live in North Dakota that were classmates of mine at the University of Minnesota. I have traveled to Bismarck and Fargo quite a few times. They love it there. They just chuckle about the lack of lakes and "beach fronts in ND" is a little joke with us.

The term is ocean-front property. There are beaches everywhere. Oceans? Not so much!

Seeing as I'm in a "punny" mood....Your comment reminds me of what Air Force flyers like to say in response to those in the Navy who remark that oceans cover some 70% of the Earth. "Be that as it may, air covers 100% of the planet." LOL

Yeah, thats like the rivalry between ASW aircrews and submariners. Submariners like to point out that there are a lot more airplanes in the ocean than submarines in the air!

Yes...We civilians have similar rivalries in various corners. I don't often miss the opportunity to rib my best friend that the difference between us is that he's been blinded by the light. Lux et veritas. LOL

 

[usmbguest5318]

Getting back on topic....Is there but one member who's willing to answer the three questions in the opening post?

As a reminder, those questions are:

Assuming Paul Ryan's health insurance tax credit ideas be what Congress implements:

1. Of the following choices, on whom do you prefer to the incidence of the tax credit land? Why?
   • Health Insurance Providers
   • Health Insurance Buyers
2. Do you think the tax credit should be revenue neutral? Why or why not?
   • Yes
   • No -- Discuss what you want instead of revenue neutrality.
3. What will be your opinion of the GOP's replacement for O-care if what you prefer is not how it turns out once O-care's replacement is implemented?

Sorry but my question is a very pertinent question to ask in order to answer your questions. If a person can not afford to pay the premiums up front to get the tax refund at the end of the year, what good is it? That would mean a person would have to go a year without insurance before they would get the credit, that is unless to qualify for the credit you have to show statements of paid premiums... which you wouldn't be able to do. So assuming they give you the credit anyway, you and your family would have to go a year without insurance, and if they take out the pre-existing condition waiver you would then have a lapse in coverage, which would then mean you could be denied insurance or be forced to pay higher premiums. That is A LOT of problems.

Your concern is germane, but the answer to the specific question you asked has no bearing on whether you think the incidence of the tax credit should fall on providers or buyers, whether you think the credit should be revenue neutral, or what you'll think if time shows us that the promise and the implemented reality of Ryan's plan are not in actual or near congruence.

The thread questions have nothing to do with whether a person will be able to avail themselves of the proposed tax credit. The possibility that some people may not be able to take advantage of the credit may, however, inform your answers about why you feel as you do about the tax credit itself. Make no mistake, the thread questions are about the the credit and one's anticipated response should there be a dichotomy between intended outcomes and actual outcomes.

 

[Lewdog]

Getting back on topic....Is there but one member who's willing to answer the three questions in the opening post?

As a reminder, those questions are:

Assuming Paul Ryan's health insurance tax credit ideas be what Congress implements:

1. Of the following choices, on whom do you prefer to the incidence of the tax credit land? Why?
   • Health Insurance Providers
   • Health Insurance Buyers
2. Do you think the tax credit should be revenue neutral? Why or why not?
   • Yes
   • No -- Discuss what you want instead of revenue neutrality.
3. What will be your opinion of the GOP's replacement for O-care if what you prefer is not how it turns out once O-care's replacement is implemented?

Sorry but my question is a very pertinent question to ask in order to answer your questions. If a person can not afford to pay the premiums up front to get the tax refund at the end of the year, what good is it? That would mean a person would have to go a year without insurance before they would get the credit, that is unless to qualify for the credit you have to show statements of paid premiums... which you wouldn't be able to do. So assuming they give you the credit anyway, you and your family would have to go a year without insurance, and if they take out the pre-existing condition waiver you would then have a lapse in coverage, which would then mean you could be denied insurance or be forced to pay higher premiums. That is A LOT of problems.

Your concern is germane, but the answer to the specific question you asked has no bearing on whether you think the incidence of the tax credit should fall on providers or buyers, whether you think the credit should be revenue neutral, or what you'll think if time shows us that the promise and the implemented reality of Ryan's plan are not in actual or near congruence.

Well, part of what you are saying depends on if they have a clause of if that tax credit goes to the buyer or directly to the insurance company like the current government funds do.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Getting back on topic....Is there but one member who's willing to answer the three questions in the opening post?

As a reminder, those questions are:

Assuming Paul Ryan's health insurance tax credit ideas be what Congress implements:

1. Of the following choices, on whom do you prefer to the incidence of the tax credit land? Why?
   • Health Insurance Providers
   • Health Insurance Buyers
2. Do you think the tax credit should be revenue neutral? Why or why not?
   • Yes
   • No -- Discuss what you want instead of revenue neutrality.
3. What will be your opinion of the GOP's replacement for O-care if what you prefer is not how it turns out once O-care's replacement is implemented?

Sorry but my question is a very pertinent question to ask in order to answer your questions. If a person can not afford to pay the premiums up front to get the tax refund at the end of the year, what good is it? That would mean a person would have to go a year without insurance before they would get the credit, that is unless to qualify for the credit you have to show statements of paid premiums... which you wouldn't be able to do. So assuming they give you the credit anyway, you and your family would have to go a year without insurance, and if they take out the pre-existing condition waiver you would then have a lapse in coverage, which would then mean you could be denied insurance or be forced to pay higher premiums. That is A LOT of problems.

Your concern is germane, but the answer to the specific question you asked has no bearing on whether you think the incidence of the tax credit should fall on providers or buyers, whether you think the credit should be revenue neutral, or what you'll think if time shows us that the promise and the implemented reality of Ryan's plan are not in actual or near congruence.

Well, part of what you are saying depends on if they have a clause of if that tax credit goes to the buyer or directly to the insurance company like the current government funds do.

No. That's you reading into the questions something that is not part of them.

I edited my prior comment to you by adding the following paragraph. I realize you didn't get a chance to see it before you posted the comment to which I now reply.

The thread questions have nothing to do with whether a person will be able to avail themselves of the proposed tax credit. The possibility that some people may not be able to take advantage of the credit may, however, inform your answers about why you feel as you do about the tax credit itself. Make no mistake, the thread questions are about the the credit and one's anticipated response should there be a dichotomy between intended outcomes and actual outcomes.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

FYI-an individual health insurance plan costs about $13,000 a year per person, in Maine... if the $2300 is the maximum credit, and a real credit not some HSA that is your own money put in the account, the people needing health insurance can still not afford it.

Also, are people who get their insurance through their employer going to get this credit?

or is employer sponsored group insurance going away?

Why would a person who can't afford premiums pick the highest priced insurance your state offers??
I would like to see this plan that cost about $1,083 a month for an INDIVIDUAL.

Or are you just flat out lying?.....cause I just went to Maine's site and for a 35 year old making $50k the monthly cost is $283 or $3396 a year.

sorry, you are wrong....

in Maine, for an individual health care policy for someone in their 50's, covering 70%/30% , FOR the LOWEST PRICED silver plan on the exchange, WITHOUT subsidies costs $1100 a month, $13000 a year....in 2006 when we moved here, for an individual plan for me alone from Blue Cross/ Blue Shield Anthem policy, before the ACA existed, was $1050 a month....$12600 a year.

bronze plans are not insurance at all imo.

No I am not.
Your point is about "people who can't afford..."...but those planes are the best ones - without subsidies. And people who do not qualify for any subsidies most likely have a plan through an employer. And if they do not qualify for subsidies they are not among the people you are referring to.
THOSE PEOPLE...cost are 1/3 of what you claim.
It is typical, people basing an argument on a false premise.

 

[Care4all]

FYI-an individual health insurance plan costs about $13,000 a year per person, in Maine... if the $2300 is the maximum credit, and a real credit not some HSA that is your own money put in the account, the people needing health insurance can still not afford it.

Also, are people who get their insurance through their employer going to get this credit?

or is employer sponsored group insurance going away?

Why would a person who can't afford premiums pick the highest priced insurance your state offers??
I would like to see this plan that cost about $1,083 a month for an INDIVIDUAL.

Or are you just flat out lying?.....cause I just went to Maine's site and for a 35 year old making $50k the monthly cost is $283 or $3396 a year.

sorry, you are wrong....

in Maine, for an individual health care policy for someone in their 50's, covering 70%/30% , FOR the LOWEST PRICED silver plan on the exchange, WITHOUT subsidies costs $1100 a month, $13000 a year....in 2006 when we moved here, for an individual plan for me alone from Blue Cross/ Blue Shield Anthem policy, before the ACA existed, was $1050 a month....$12600 a year.

bronze plans are not insurance at all imo.

No I am not.
Your point is about "people who can't afford..."...but those planes are the best ones - without subsidies. And people who do not qualify for any subsidies most likely have a plan through an employer. And if they do not qualify for subsidies they are not among the people you are referring to.
THOSE PEOPLE...cost are 1/3 of what you claim.
It is typical, people basing an argument on a false premise.

No.

the POINT is that these individual policies, in REAL LIFE, do COST over a thousand dollars a month...

And these people on the exchange DO NOT HAVE an employer or spouse's employer, that offers Health Care Insurance as a benefit.

So the ONLY insurance market, they can get insurance off of, is an INDIVIDUAL plan not a Group Plan... and for them to buy insurance in the individual market, it costs over a thousand dollars a month per person....

which is UNAFFORDABLE....

the ACA subsidies, IS THE ONLY WAY these people can afford insurance....

These are NOT people who do not work or make simply the poverty level of income, who would qualify for Medicaid.

 

[Care4all]

One of the changes the Paul Ryan proposes in his replacement of the ACA is to change the assistance model from direct subsidies to the cost of insurance to refundable tax credits (a receivable) the insured in essence factors to the insurer. What has Ryan outlined in his proposal? Here's what Ryan has said:

• Under the Patients’ Choice Ace, if an individual selects a high‐deductible health insurance plan that is cheaper than the value of the credit, they can keep the difference in their Health Savings Account.
• Under the Patients’ Choice Act, all Americans would receive a tax credit – over $5,700 for families – which can only be used to pay for health insurance or medical expenses. Individuals and families will be able to use any overages to pay for preventive care, which can be rolled over at the end of the year.
• Individuals are able to use their tax credit to purchase insurance that is offered outside [their state's] exchange, so long as the plan is licensed in the state.
• Individuals could choose to select a plan and write the check themselves, or, the tax credit can be “automatically” designated [factored] to a high deductible private plan if the covered individual does not opt out. The tax credits cannot be used to purchase anything other than health insurance, or pay for medical and preventative services. Individuals and the market would quickly catch on.
• The tax credit they will receive will cover the premiums for employer-provided health benefits they currently receive, as well as the marginal tax liability on the cost of health insurance provided by the employers which will be counted as wages.
• Every American will have a tax credit to purchase a health insurance policy which meets their needs. Families will have a tax credit worth over $5,700, and individuals will have a tax credit worth about $2,300.

Thread/discussion questions:

Assuming Paul Ryan's health insurance tax credit ideas be what Congress implements:

1. Of the following choices, on whom do you prefer to the incidence of the tax credit land? Why?
   • Health Insurance Providers
   • Health Insurance Buyers
2. Do you think the tax credit should be revenue neutral? Why or why not?
   • Yes
   • No -- Discuss what you want instead of revenue neutrality.
3. What will be your opinion of the GOP's replacement for O-care if what you prefer is not how it turns out once O-care's replacement is implemented?

Just a few questions and thoughts that come to mind when contemplating about this plan...

Giving 310,000,000 (as in 310 million) Americans $2300 in a tax credit, would cost over $700 BILLION dollars a year....that's our entire Defense Budget!

(Now of course all 310 million wouldn't get the $2300, we've got seniors on Medicare, and poor people on Medicaid, poor children on CHIP so maybe it could be cut in half, but that is still over $350 BILLION a year)

so basically I am wondering how they can afford this and what does O=care cost us now?

-----------------------

I also wonder, how this plan is anything other than one big government interference with the so called free market?

-It just seems to actually make the situation worse, it is our government being involved with a PAYMENT for every single insurance plan or medical expense that just goes in to the insurance provider's pocket, making it easier for the providers and/or care providers like hospitals and doctors, to just keep raising prices...

HOW is this truly better than the government with subsidies only affecting 20 million people in the market place vs. all the people "in the market place"?

----------------

Also, how does this plan truly help the people on the exchange in states with very very very high Insurance costs, the $12.3 k a year policies....? $2300 a year, will still make them have to pay $10k a year per person in healthcare insurance premium costs, let alone deductibles etc added, when they only gross $28k/ net...probably $23k... a year?

This plan seems to be BUYING VOTES, it's not means tested that I noticed? So someone making $200 an HOUR and near all of their health care insurance costs paid for by their employer... would be getting the $2300 a year credit, with the guy who earns $15 an hour also getting only the $2300 to help him pay a portion of his total costs....

just does not help the poorest truly be able to afford health care, while the richest gets to pocket $2300 a year in their HSA's.... am I right on this? IS this simply a gift to those who already can afford health care, for votes or some sort of favoritism payoff?

OR another payoff to insurance companies?


so many more questions come to mind....but this is getting too long already!



--------------------------------------------------