Republican Math Attacks Health Care

12:02 am EST February 16th, 2006 | Politics | 9 Comments

You wonder why the Republicans just aren’t trusted on health care

A new analysis by one of the nation s leading health economists finds that the Administration s proposals to expand tax breaks for Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) would cause a net increase in the number of uninsured Americans.

The analysis, conducted by Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T., projects that while 3.8 million previously uninsured people would gain health coverage through HSAs as a result of the President s proposals, 4.4 million people would become uninsured because their employers would respond to the new tax breaks by dropping coverage and they would not secure coverage on their own. The net effect would be to increase the number of uninsured Americans by 600,000.

 The Administration estimates that its HSA-related tax proposals would cost $156 billion over the next ten years, which would worsen the nation s fiscal problems, Robert Greenstein, the Center s executive director, noted.  Professor Gruber s study raises very serious questions about the wisdom of these proposals.

As in, they are not wise at all.

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

9 Responses to “Republican Math Attacks Health Care”

  1. JWG says:
    February 16, 2006 at 7:02 am

    Frank, the article goes on to say:

    These proposals would eliminate all tax advantages for employer-sponsored coverage (as compared to coverage purchased in the individual health insurance market). Those tax advantages were designed to encourage employers to provide insurance to their workers. As a result, some employers  typically, small business owners  would respond to the new HSA tax breaks by dropping coverage for their workers or (in the case of new businesses) electing not to offer coverage in the first place.

  2. Frank_D says:
    February 16, 2006 at 7:02 am

    No info as to why small businessman, having received a tax break, would then proceed to drop coverage they could now more easily afford. I’d love to hear it.

  3. Dugger says:
    February 16, 2006 at 8:02 am

    Scratching my head a little. Not sure Gruber is not right, but I would like to hear the other side of the argument. Employers don’t pay taxes on the money they spend for employee health insurance. This bill will evidently do away with that – I guess for those employees who opt for an HSA (rather than across the board). Or does it do away with it across the board? The latter would make the Admin position weak IMO. Also does the analysis reflect the fact that employers will also not be paying the actual cost of health insurance for those going to HSAs. More info needed. This may be a case of competing computer models (usually, both are wrong). Could be a valid point, though.

    Dugger

  4. Semanticleo says:
    February 16, 2006 at 10:02 am

    The most likely, and most numerous victims of the entire BUDGET proposals
    will be the children of this country.

    Of course it is just BUSH Hatred that is driving all these negative facts
    into the limelight He certainly would never wish any child to be hurt.

    http://www.cbpp.org/12-20-05bud.htm

    This comment was entirely unnecessary and is obviously a gratuitous
    slap at Bush and the Republican Leadership. Tsk Tsk

    “This is due in no small part to action by the conferees to shield certain powerful special interests  principally pharmaceutical companies and the managed care industry  and instead to extract sizable savings from low-income families.”

  5. Frank_D says:
    February 16, 2006 at 12:02 pm

    Ah, the children! As if anyone can be affected, without affecing the children. After all, all children, as I recall, have adult parents.

    JWG: The “analysis”link goes on to say:

    Modeling exercises such as these are fraught with uncertainty, and this is no exception. I have had to make important assumptions as to the attractiveness of HSAs relative to traditional non-group insurance options, and as to the ultimate premiums that will result in a much-broadened high-deductible plan marketplace.

    Any real economist knows better than to predict the behavior of individuals.

  6. Semanticleo says:
    February 16, 2006 at 3:02 pm

    “low-income families. is the operant word, Frank.

  7. Frank_D says:
    February 16, 2006 at 7:02 pm

    There’s a humorous headline right wing columnists and bloggers like to throw around: Comet to hit earth: “Seniors and the poor expected to be hit hardest.”

  8. Semanticleo says:
    February 16, 2006 at 10:02 pm

    Even the right wing can dispense truth, even when they don’t recognize
    it, but through their own brand of sick humor.

  9. JWG says:
    February 16, 2006 at 10:02 pm

    Frank, re-look at your original question. You may not like the assumptions made by this analysis, but your question was clearly answered.