The administration wants to levy the 40% tax on these plans in order to raise funds but that can't (not won't, can't) work. The companies that offer these will simply stop offering them and the money will go away. The only companies that are locked in to these types of benefits are the unions, and they've been exempted. So the desired -- and the government says critical -- fund raising will be completely gone after the first year, if the companies don't proactively stop offering them so that the money doesn't even exist to begin with.
Obama says that these plans don't make people healthier and bend the cost curve up. How exactly, I'm not sure. Is it because the people who have these plans have less financial responsibility for their own care and go to the doctor more often? If so, then what about all of the other contributors to this same situation?
- What about people who have more than one insurance plan and coordinate benefits so that the member has no liability? And that zero liability resulting from the coordination is a state mandate. Are they going to tax families with more than one insurance coverage?
- What about coordination with auto insurance which in some states is prohibited. This means that you can have your bills paid, in full, by both your auto carrier and your medical carrier and not only have no financial responsibility for your bills but actually make money from them. Are they going to tell the states they can't do this or levy taxes upon the auto insurance plans.
- How about AARP and other organizations that offer Medicare supplement plans so that pick up the patient responsibility remaining after Medicare paid? What are they going to do about those?
This is all just another example of the government attempting to legislate an area they know nothing about and a perfect example of the total absence of logic in their decision making processes.
Post a Comment