Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 1
Did Josh Hawley actually have a good idea? He proposed allowing people to deduct the cost of all healthcare premiums, copays, coinsurance, etc., from their taxes, regardless of whether they itemize or not. With some maximum cap to be determined.
Seems like a decent idea to me. Any problems with it?
No. of Recommendations: 3
It does not eliminate the insurance companies' skim.
Medicare for all would.
No. of Recommendations: 0
It does not eliminate the insurance companies' skim.
Medicare for all would.
Right. Not sure if Hawley was intending it to be the be all and end all of the "healthcare cost crisis", but it seems to me that it would still be a good idea to not tax any healthcare costs regardless of whatever more comprehensive solution there might be. No?
No. of Recommendations: 7
Seems like a decent idea to me. Any problems with it?
A simple problem: it's another government subsidy program, that does nothing about the underlying issue: the US spends twice as much, per capita, on health care, as other first world countries.
The tax deduction for mortgage interest is another government subsidy that does nothing about builder's determination to build nothing but ever bigger, ever more expensive, houses.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm for open discussion on ANY idea in this arena. It affects all of us - Blue Red Green.
"Deduction".
Does that mean a regular tax deduction - like the mortgage interest deduction, etc?
If so I guess i don't see the merit. If a family makes -- $150k a year. They are taking the standard deduction of whatever -- is it 32k now?
So if an ACA plan is $1500 a month for silver AFTER subsidy....
$18,000 spent.
$6,000 for deductibles and copays.
$3,000 for drugs.
27,000
*Using reallly really round numbers for argument sake)
What is their EFFECTIVE tax rate in that bracket? - a whopping 20%?
Ok so they save $5400.
Now they only spend $22,000 a year for health care.
They are fricked.
No. of Recommendations: 4
It does not eliminate the insurance companies' skim.
It’s also incredible regressive. Tax deductions are far more valuable to the wealthy than the poor.
Yet another way to increase the wealth divide.
—Peter
No. of Recommendations: 8
It’s also incredible regressive. Tax deductions are far more valuable to the wealthy than the poor.
Yet another way to increase the wealth divide.
And it skews in favor of older rather than younger folks, in general. Old folks have more health care expenses, so having them be deductible is worth more to them. That exacerbates the regressivity, since older folks are generally wealthier than younger folks.
No. of Recommendations: 3
People who don't pay income taxes, or pay very little in income taxes, shouldn't expect to benefit from tax DEDUCTIONS unless they are "refundable."
