Posted by Kromey at 11:25am Feb 12 '10There are several problems, however: a) giving individuals the tax credit while removing it from employers creates a powerful incentive for employers to end their health benefits, b) doing this without new regulations on insurance companies only exacerbates the difficulties for those with pre-existing conditions, and c) a generous tax credit sounds good for the individual but creates no downward pressure on premiums--in fact it gives insurers headroom to further inflate rates.
a) Uhm, who said anything about removing it from employers? I don't see Newt proposing that anywhere....
b) Uhm.... wait... Tax credit to individuals who buy health insurance ==> Individuals with pre-existing conditions have even more problems. I don't follow that logic at all...
c) And mandating that everyone carry health insurance won't? Ha!!
d) I find it laughable - and a touch obscene - that you want to force me to buy health insurance and then balk at giving me a tax credit for it.
First part sounds good--portable insurance. How does an employer offer that type of insurance? I'm not clear on that.
Seems pretty simple to me - allow employees to buy the group rate insurance, but give them the option of transitioning the coverage to an individual rate when they leave. Although really, that pressure needs to be applied to both insurers and employers, because I don't think such a thing is readily available right now.
Allowing interstate purchases of insurance is problematic, because insurers could set up shop in the least regulated states and pursue all of the worst excesses seen in the industry.
Inter-state insurance would add more competition to the market - for example, it would mean that I could purchase Esurance auto insurance (yes, I know we're talking health insurance and not auto insurance - the example stands though), which has to date quoted me the lowest rate yet - and would give consumers in those lowly-regulated states the option to purchase insurance from higher-regulated states. If a company chooses to move to a low-regulated state, consumers wouldn't have any incentive to buy such risky insurance, and would favor insurance companies that base themselves where they are more highly-regulated. Independent of regulation, however, it would flatten the marketplace and produce more incentive to companies to be "good" so that they can compete with the reputations of those companies who already are doing "good".
What incentive is there for doctors to control costs? The fee-for-service model will always reward doctors for profiting off sickness and recommending expensive treatments. The Mayo Clinic offers an alternative; why has the Right not seized upon it?
I don't see anything in Newt's statements about the "how" - maybe he has the Mayo Clinic's model in mind? He talks about creating the very incentive you're questioning him on, so I really don't see why you're arguing with him on this point, except to continue your momentum and argue against everything he has to say.
I'm also not understanding how employees would get the option of putting "some or all" of their premium payments into a health savings account.
I actually had this option at my previous job. Essentially, I could choose to put money into that health savings accounts by either electing to increase my premium, or choosing the benefit options I didn't need/want and putting that money into the health savings account. (Contrary to how that's stated, the two options were not, in fact, mutually exclusive; also, not all benefit options were eligible for this election.)
Sounds great, but it also sounds like a trade-off toward more bureaucracy and government oversight.
Hm, this sounds familiar... Oh! Right! The public option! And increased regulation of health insurers! Funny how this kind of thing is acceptable when the left proposes it, but completely objectionable when it comes from the right...
a) Uhm, who said anything about removing it from employers? I don't see Newt proposing that anywhere....
b) Uhm.... wait... Tax credit to individuals who buy health insurance ==> Individuals with pre-existing conditions have even more problems. I don't follow that logic at all...
c) And mandating that everyone carry health insurance won't? Ha!!
d) I find it laughable - and a touch obscene - that you want to force me to buy health insurance and then balk at giving me a tax credit for it.
First part sounds good--portable insurance. How does an employer offer that type of insurance? I'm not clear on that.
Seems pretty simple to me - allow employees to buy the group rate insurance, but give them the option of transitioning the coverage to an individual rate when they leave. Although really, that pressure needs to be applied to both insurers and employers, because I don't think such a thing is readily available right now.
Allowing interstate purchases of insurance is problematic, because insurers could set up shop in the least regulated states and pursue all of the worst excesses seen in the industry.
Inter-state insurance would add more competition to the market - for example, it would mean that I could purchase Esurance auto insurance (yes, I know we're talking health insurance and not auto insurance - the example stands though), which has to date quoted me the lowest rate yet - and would give consumers in those lowly-regulated states the option to purchase insurance from higher-regulated states. If a company chooses to move to a low-regulated state, consumers wouldn't have any incentive to buy such risky insurance, and would favor insurance companies that base themselves where they are more highly-regulated. Independent of regulation, however, it would flatten the marketplace and produce more incentive to companies to be "good" so that they can compete with the reputations of those companies who already are doing "good".
What incentive is there for doctors to control costs? The fee-for-service model will always reward doctors for profiting off sickness and recommending expensive treatments. The Mayo Clinic offers an alternative; why has the Right not seized upon it?
I don't see anything in Newt's statements about the "how" - maybe he has the Mayo Clinic's model in mind? He talks about creating the very incentive you're questioning him on, so I really don't see why you're arguing with him on this point, except to continue your momentum and argue against everything he has to say.
I'm also not understanding how employees would get the option of putting "some or all" of their premium payments into a health savings account.
I actually had this option at my previous job. Essentially, I could choose to put money into that health savings accounts by either electing to increase my premium, or choosing the benefit options I didn't need/want and putting that money into the health savings account. (Contrary to how that's stated, the two options were not, in fact, mutually exclusive; also, not all benefit options were eligible for this election.)
Sounds great, but it also sounds like a trade-off toward more bureaucracy and government oversight.
Hm, this sounds familiar... Oh! Right! The public option! And increased regulation of health insurers! Funny how this kind of thing is acceptable when the left proposes it, but completely objectionable when it comes from the right...
Re: Newt Gringrich's Heath Care Proposals - Kromey