- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: U.S. Republican Obamacare repeal would benefit wealthiest: study
Posted on 3/14/17 at 9:11 pm to bonhoeffer45
Posted on 3/14/17 at 9:11 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:Not to answer for NC_Tigah but... this is.. Odd. Haven't you claimed that expanding "risk pools" reduces costs?
quote:
Interstate competition should reduce differentials in both price and product.
--------
How? this is the question no one has managed to answer in detail.
Not that I agree with it--but it's odd that your "answer" works when government does it. And it fails when private industry does it.
This post was edited on 3/14/17 at 9:12 pm
1
Posted on 3/14/17 at 11:00 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
If I were making more of a moral argument
When you wrote:
quote:
Only if they mooch care.
Do you have subsidized employer sponsored healthcare?
And then...
quote:
mooch
mo?oCH/
verb, informal
1.
NORTH AMERICAN
ask for or obtain (something) without paying for it.
What exactly would you call receiving, on average, a 37% subsidy on the cost of your healthcare policy
You made a moral judgement of employer provided health care... namely you equated it to mooching, hence my insistence that we agree it is an earned benefit and therefore not "mooching".
I do find it interesting that you recognize the reduction of taxation as a driver of growth, or at least that is how I interpret this:
quote:
based on a number of studies, estimates that such a discount leads to employer insured healthcare consumers using 27% more healthcare then they would have otherwise if that subsidy was not available to them?
I am curious if you hold that view for the economy as a whole?
Perhaps if the taxes associated with employing people were reduced, more people could be hired and afford to buy their own insurance?
Posted on 3/14/17 at 11:04 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Not to answer for NC_Tigah but... this is.. Odd. Haven't you claimed that expanding "risk pools" reduces costs?
Not that I agree with it--but it's odd that your "answer" works when government does it. And it fails when private industry does it.
I mean at its core health insurance uses the payments of many to cover the losses of the few. With the guarantee when you are subject to losses the coverage will be around for you. But obviously if you expand the risk pool by adding nothing but high risk customers, claims are likely to go up and thus, prices. Or in a worst case scenario, collapse.
I think we all kinda get that dynamic relationship of risk and the benefits of the law of large numbers.
The question I have for NC is why this set of policies is going to produce the outcomes he seems to suggest.
Keeping in mind the way insurance pricing in the market generally operates. The intertwined relationship between insurers/providers/consumers/local market factors. That I layed out earlier in this thread. The context of that relationship makes me suspicious that removing the states ability to regulate will produce much benefit. So I am seeking NC to reconcile why what he says should happen will produce the outcomes he asserts.
This post was edited on 3/14/17 at 11:23 pm
Posted on 3/14/17 at 11:06 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
But obviously if you expand the risk pool by adding nothing but high risk customers,
Like folks with pre existing conditions?
Posted on 3/14/17 at 11:06 pm to CptRusty
.
This post was edited on 3/14/17 at 11:12 pm
Posted on 3/14/17 at 11:08 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
I was pointing to the fact that you are obtaining something without paying the real price for it.
BS. The government failing to steal from me does not constitute me getting things for free.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 11:18 pm to CptRusty
[/quote]
quote:
BS. The government failing to steal from me does not constitute me getting things for free.
You can wax philosophical about how you want to define it morally or ethically, the fact is, economically speaking, this is a tax subsidy. One that confers a selective benefit that is equivalent to several thousands of dollars a year on average to people that have ESI. That is not afforded to those in the market without it.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 11:21 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
One that confers a selective benefit that is equivalent to several thousands of dollars a year on average to people that have ESI.
Right, in the same exact way that my salary provides selective benefit to me because I ...ya know...earned it.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 11:28 pm to CptRusty
quote:
Right, in the same exact way that my salary provides selective benefit to me because I ...ya know...earned it.
It would be similar(though not a perfect comparison) if the government decided that your $15 an hour wage for brick laying deserved an additional $5 in compensation through some subsidization mechanism and the $15 an hour wage for roofing does not.
This post was edited on 3/14/17 at 11:36 pm
Posted on 3/14/17 at 11:38 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
It would be similar if the government decided that your $15 an hour wage for brick laying deserved an additional $5 in compensation through some subsidization mechanism and the $15 an hour wage for roofing does not.
Absolutely not. That is an awful analogy for any purpose other than illustrating your failure to grasp this concept. Not to be rude, but you truly do not get it. It is literally as simple as this:
Govt: you may buy your health insurance, with the money that you have fully 100% earned from your employer, pre-tax.
Me: OK, I will buy health insurance.
...notice at no time did the government artificially inflate my wages or otherwise transfer funds to me. To disagree you would have to assume all income belongs to the government first, and then they let us keep some. That said, you could probably make a convincing argument that reality does operate this way unfortunately...
This post was edited on 3/14/17 at 11:42 pm
Posted on 3/15/17 at 12:23 am to CptRusty
quote:
Absolutely not. That is an awful analogy for any purpose other than illustrating your failure to grasp this concept. Not to be rude, but you truly do not get it. It is literally as simple as this:
Govt: you may buy your health insurance, with the money that you have fully 100% earned from your employer, pre-tax.
Me: OK, I will buy health insurance.
...notice at no time did the government artificially inflate my wages or otherwise transfer funds to me. To disagree you would have to assume all income belongs to the government first, and then they let us keep some. That said, you could probably make a convincing argument that reality does operate this way unfortunately...
It is you who seems to continually fail to grasp the concept of how the economics of subsidies work. There is really only so many ways this can be explained to you.
To deny this mechanism is to deny that targeted tax subsidies do not confer benefits or drive behavior. Which I presume as a conservative would be an odd place to put yourself into when most of your party religiously thinks that cutting taxes on the rich in any capacity, through any means, under any context, will spur investment, make the economy better, and create jobs.
This post was edited on 3/15/17 at 12:27 am
Posted on 3/15/17 at 7:01 am to bonhoeffer45
quote:
To deny this mechanism is to deny that targeted tax subsidies do not confer benefits or drive behavior.
I never denied anything of the sort.
I am taking issue with framing of a tax break as a handout. It is not. The bottom line result may be the same, but there are very important differences, such as the benefit being contingent upon the beneficiary 1) earning it, and 2) being a net payer of taxes.
As for the second point, I already asked you a similar question earlier in the thread, to which you did not respond:
quote:
I do find it interesting that you recognize the reduction of taxation as a driver of growth, or at least that is how I interpret this:
quote: based on a number of studies, estimates that such a discount leads to employer insured healthcare consumers using 27% more healthcare then they would have otherwise if that subsidy was not available to them?
I am curious if you hold that view for the economy as a whole?
Posted on 3/15/17 at 7:36 am to Phat Phil
I guess it is possible? But I can tell you this...I am firmly in the middle class and everything the Dems do seems to hit me in the wallet. ObamaCare hurt me....bad.
Posted on 3/15/17 at 10:10 am to bonhoeffer45
quote:Nope. Once again you've confused collectivism with insurance. They are not equivalents.
I mean at its core health insurance uses the payments of many to cover the losses of the few.
quote:
But obviously if you expand the risk pool by adding nothing but high risk customers, claims are likely to go up and thus, prices. Or in a worst case scenario, collapse.
quite the admission. Posted on 3/15/17 at 10:15 am to bonhoeffer45
quote:This is silly. Comparing a tax deduction on earned income to an outright subsidy for the production of... nothing... is inane. They are not equivalents.
You can wax philosophical about how you want to define it morally or ethically, the fact is, economically speaking, this is a tax subsidy. One that confers a selective benefit that is equivalent to several thousands of dollars a year on average to people that have ESI. That is not afforded to those in the market without it.
I thought you were all about productivity. Why would want non-productivity rewarded and subsidized?
And I say that as someone who thinks the employer deduction should be dropped (or extended to individuals).
This post was edited on 3/15/17 at 10:16 am
Posted on 3/15/17 at 6:06 pm to CptRusty
quote:
I am taking issue with framing of a tax break as a handout. It is not. The bottom line result may be the same, but there are very important differences, such as the benefit being contingent upon the beneficiary 1) earning it, and 2) being a net payer of taxes.
I feel like you are getting too caught up in thinking I am passing a moral judgement here and that is keeping you worked up. E
ven when I was using the term "mooch" it was merely to point out to the person asserting that toward Medicaid recipients that he claimed use too much and don't pay for it, that the employer market exhibits the same patterns of purchasing behavior, driven by a subsidy that confers a benefit that is the equivalent to roughly a 36% increase in their healthcare dollar.
quote:
I do find it interesting that you recognize the reduction of taxation as a driver of growth, or at least that is how I interpret this:
quote: based on a number of studies, estimates that such a discount leads to employer insured healthcare consumers using 27% more healthcare then they would have otherwise if that subsidy was not available to them?
I am curious if you hold that view for the economy as a whole?
It can be. Absolutely. That is just patently obvious. A 100% tax to all profits or income is going to all but extinguish market incentives(or at least shuffle them to a black market or something).
With that said, under the right structure of reform, I would be in favor of abolishing the corporate income tax altogether.
This post was edited on 3/15/17 at 6:09 pm
Posted on 3/15/17 at 6:30 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Nope. Once again you've confused collectivism with insurance. They are not equivalents.
Feel free to explain what is wrong about that simple definition?
quote:
This is silly. Comparing a tax deduction on earned income to an outright subsidy for the production of... nothing... is inane. They are not equivalents.
I thought you were all about productivity. Why would want non-productivity rewarded and subsidized?
Lets be a bit clear here, because it is possible with so many posts last night I wasnt clear.
quote:
Employer-paid premiums for health insurance are exempt from federal income and payroll taxes. Additionally, the portion of premiums paid by employees is typically excluded from taxable income as well. The exclusion of premiums lowers most workers’ tax bills and thus reduces their after-tax cost of coverage.
It is a tax exclusion, not a tax deduction. And by economic definition it is a subsidy. I guess take it up with economists if you have an issue
And not all tax credits improve market functioning and there does exist other, better, more efficient ways of achieving the productivity gains from a healthy population.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News