We're already redistributing the taxes here because those BENEFITS are tax-free. Both employer and individual markets are subsidized today.
Health insurance is hardly a cornered market.
Well that is DOA then. What good is insurance availability if the premium is $200,000 a year?
You're being silly... even if there was no cap supply and demand and competition will force a cap at essentially cost + overhead and profit... if a carrier tries to get pig-headed then it will be attractive for other carriers to step in and compete.... also, there is that pesky MLR rule.
Because we have never seen an entity try and make a gross profit in a cornered market, right? Right Mr. Shkreli?
Health insurance is hardly a cornered market.
Tell that to people in AK, AL, KS, NC, OK, SC, WY who generally only have one carrier providing coverage on the exchanges.
For more see:
2017 exchange market: Carrier participation trends | McKinsey on Healthcare
Sharp Decline in Competition Across ACA Exchanges, Experts Predict | Avalere Health
So, based on your statement, ALL INCOME or COMP that is not taxed is a redistribution, it's just that SOME of it gets redistributed to the person that earns it? Good grief. You may dispute that as your statement, but it is 100% accurate.
All this uncertainty and I and seriously thinking about getting a Thai retirement visa and blowing out of here with a travel policy.
For one there is the MLR rule
Once a company achieves the status of being the ONLY company writing insurance in an area, the implied threat of leaving is likely to limit any problematic regulation from that area's government.also state regulation (the robustness of which varies from state to state)
and third, if premiums were excessive and excessive profits were made then other carriers would enter to try to capture some of that more profitable share.
So other companies will be reluctant to invest in such markets. Smaller companies should realistically expect to be swatted if they mess up a good thing for one of the big five. Especially knowing the incumbent will have inherent cost advantages from market share and sunk costs if real competition breaks out.The five biggest health insurance companies insure approximately half of the insured population, or well over 100 million people.
Actually, I read an article a few months back indicating that insurance companies with a Medicaid background generally did well in the exchanges being familiar with the actuarial traits of the exchange population. It was insurers coming from the employment based insurance background who didn't understand how sick the market was and thus didn't make money.The reason for lack of competition is the exact opposite... because individual health insurance is not very profitable despite what at times seem to be excessive premium.
A lot of companies are self insured, and only have "companies" to administer there claims, etc. How they choose to manage their company and business, is their business, no?
And HI from your company is a BENEFIT, not compensation. Why all the trying to tax and redistribute so that ANOTHER person can benefit with lower HI premium and RE? Just plan accordingly, it doesn't have to be someone else's job to help with another ability to ER.
I know these won't be welcome thoughts on an ER board. And I am also looking to ER and not work until I am nearly dead, but I guess just like being the first to get through college, the first to.... well, you get the picture, even though my family is not wealthy and I was born with a PLASTIC spoon. I don't want everyone else helping me to ER against their will.
To clarify, states could have tighter ratios but can not exceed the proposed federal maximum. NY and VT are 1:1. MA is 2:1. The language in the bill summaries about allowing states to set their own ratios is not clear enough for the general public.Lets actually be more precise and accurate - the new 5:1 ratio is ONLY if states don't do their own regulations that make it whatever they want. And so there could very well be no cap in some states.
HI got an exemption and it 'costs' the gvmt $250 billion per year... that is why people talk about taxing it...
............The thought that one is NOT being taxed on something (Comp, or Benefit) is a COST to the government implies that EVERYTHING is the Governments and that, out of the kindness of their heart, they ALLOW us to have some of it after THEY decide who should get what amount of THEIR (the governments) INCOME...........
It is really an issue of fairness. Why should Joe get health care tax free while his brother Jim, has to pay for his own health care with after tax dollars?
Exactly. Compensation is compensation.It's a form of compensation.
Period.
And here is where the ideology difference comes in...
The thought that one is NOT being taxed on something (Comp, or Benefit) is a COST to the government implies that EVERYTHING is the Governments and that, out of the kindness of their heart, they ALLOW us to have some of it after THEY decide who should get what amount of THEIR (the governments) INCOME.
I have a fundamental, or rather, ideological problem with that thought process.
What amazes me is that someone thinks a person working, should now be taxed on something NEVER PREVIOUSLY taxed, in hopes that that someone can continue their wish of retiring at 45, 50, whatever based on their "fair share" of the working persons earnings helping to subsidize (pay) for their healthcare during their ER time.