Comments on: Republican Math Attacks Health Care

By: JWG

JWG — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 03:02:52 +0000

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

By: Semanticleo

Semanticleo — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 03:02:28 +0000

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

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 00:02:32 +0000

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.”

By: Semanticleo

Semanticleo — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:02:51 +0000

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

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:02:47 +0000

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.

By: Semanticleo

Semanticleo — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:02:20 +0000

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."

By: Dugger

Dugger — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:02:43 +0000

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

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:02:30 +0000

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.

By: JWG

JWG — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:02:02 +0000

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.