“Tax-exempt hospitals spend an average of 7.5% of their operating expenses on community benefits.”
“$13 billion. Just a drop in the bucket. So why worry about it?”
^^^^This is the logic that is killing us right now. Every little bit helps. Yet another example of how off-kilter our tax system is.
On the “hospital fix”
“Both major parties understand perfectly well the political implications of Obamacare, which makes every American a government dependent — a subject. The Republicans, who know that the law is lethal to the causes of small government and individual freedom — and some of them actually do care about such things — lack the votes to change it. The Democrats, meanwhile, are determined to preserve it, because dependence on government is their ticket to long-term power.”
That reminds me of a few-year-old quip: those who work for a living are being outnumbered by those who vote for a living.
Extending from the quip you cite, the problem is that once the masses are reliant on the government’s benefit tit, it’s hard for them to vote against it. Rationally, who votes against their “best” interests?
“He has tacitly acknowledged that Obamacare will not reduce hospitals’ uncompensated care costs and he has given states that are on the fence about whether to expand eligibility for Medicaid — like Ohio — a clear indication that they will reap no advantages by doing so.”
Isn’t that what Obamacare opponents have said all along. Ah, the sweet look of vindication!
HSA’s, another kickback to upper income earners. Since the contributions are deductible, people paying high marginal rates benefit more than middle/lower income earners. Figure out a way to make in progressive, not regressive.
The sneaky attempt to slash subsidies to safety net hospitals was a terrible idea from day one.
It was caused by the determination to pass the ACA without tax increases. Instead, the bill’s drafters had to dive into the federal budget for phony savings.
It is a good thing that Obama will not enforce the cuts to safety net hospitals.
It also does show the flimsiness of the ACA funding.
The HSA article says: ” maximum HSA deductibles (maximum out-of-pocket costs technically)” the deductible limits on policies (overlapping issues, but different figures), are far lower than that under Obamacare, as links on this page note:
http:/www.politicsdebunked.com/article-list/healthcare
“Tax-exempt hospitals spend an average of 7.5% of their operating expenses on community benefits.”
“$13 billion. Just a drop in the bucket. So why worry about it?”
^^^^This is the logic that is killing us right now. Every little bit helps. Yet another example of how off-kilter our tax system is.
On the “hospital fix”
“Both major parties understand perfectly well the political implications of Obamacare, which makes every American a government dependent — a subject. The Republicans, who know that the law is lethal to the causes of small government and individual freedom — and some of them actually do care about such things — lack the votes to change it. The Democrats, meanwhile, are determined to preserve it, because dependence on government is their ticket to long-term power.”
That reminds me of a few-year-old quip: those who work for a living are being outnumbered by those who vote for a living.
I dont see how HSA’s will be able to survive after Obamacare is implemented. It’s a shame too. Such a good concept and idea!
I agree Sammy. It adds a steep cost which make HSAs less attractive. Definitely unfortunate 🙁
Extending from the quip you cite, the problem is that once the masses are reliant on the government’s benefit tit, it’s hard for them to vote against it. Rationally, who votes against their “best” interests?
Will regulations make HSA plans unattractive under ObamaCare?
Whether they meant to or not, proponents of ObamaCare have done exactly that.
“He has tacitly acknowledged that Obamacare will not reduce hospitals’ uncompensated care costs and he has given states that are on the fence about whether to expand eligibility for Medicaid — like Ohio — a clear indication that they will reap no advantages by doing so.”
Isn’t that what Obamacare opponents have said all along. Ah, the sweet look of vindication!
HSA’s, another kickback to upper income earners. Since the contributions are deductible, people paying high marginal rates benefit more than middle/lower income earners. Figure out a way to make in progressive, not regressive.
The sneaky attempt to slash subsidies to safety net hospitals was a terrible idea from day one.
It was caused by the determination to pass the ACA without tax increases. Instead, the bill’s drafters had to dive into the federal budget for phony savings.
It is a good thing that Obama will not enforce the cuts to safety net hospitals.
It also does show the flimsiness of the ACA funding.
Both of these things can be true.
“Figure out a way to make in progressive, not regressive.”
If you thought about it for even 30 seconds I’m sure you could come up with several ways, but it’s easier the other way.
Hint: What if some of the money in the HSA didn’t come from the owner of the HSA?
The HSA article says: ” maximum HSA deductibles (maximum out-of-pocket costs technically)” the deductible limits on policies (overlapping issues, but different figures), are far lower than that under Obamacare, as links on this page note:
http:/www.politicsdebunked.com/article-list/healthcare