Comments on: The Republican Health Plan

By: tiffany outlet

tiffany outlet — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:48:10 +0000

Oakley Sunglasses Oakley Sunglasses Outlet Cheap Oakley Sunglasses Oakley Sport Sunglasses Oakley Polarized Sunglasses Karen Millen Outlet Karen Millen dresses Karen Millen UK Karen Millen dress Monster Headphones Beats By Dre Monster Beats Beats By Dr.Dre Beats By Dre James NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys NFL Jerseys Wholesale Dallas Cowboys Jerseys New Orleans Saints jerseys Cleveland Browns Jerseys prada outlet prada handbags prada handbags outlet prada shoes prada sunglasses Tiffany Outlet Tiffany and Co Outlet Tiffany Jewelry Outlet Tiffany Co Outlet Tiffany Bangle tiffany outlet shop

By: RG

RG — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 13:28:42 +0000

Sorry Dr. Goodman you are wrong again, like usual. HSA Insurance is available for $2,000 a year for a 30-year-old couple and 2 children in most states. So the $5,700 Federal tax credit would pay 100% of the premiums plus put $3,700 in the families tax-free HSA.

Wither on the vine. That’s a loser mentality.

How can you always be so wrong?

By: John J. Fisher

John J. Fisher — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 04:57:41 +0000

This is great and I really like your suggested changes to the Coburn bill.

Is Coburn receptive to your proposed changes?

How many Republican Senators (and who) and how many Republican Congressmen (and who) have signed on to support such a bill?

Are their any Democrats currently willing to sign on (who) ?

Why is your proposal/Coburn’s not getting more public attention?

There were over a million frustrated and angry Americans in Washington on 9-12 (I was one of them), how do we get this to their attention/support. With a well defined and more importantly well supported alternative such as this, if we can get enough public notice focused on it, it should really help in defeating Obamacare.

What is the RNC’s position on this, why are they not adopting it as the Republican alternative?

By: Michael Major

Michael Major — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:27:01 +0000

Why limit the amount of HSA deposits to the Coburn tax subsidy? Let HSA amounts remain where they currently are, add a provision that when the citizen reaches eligibility for Medicare, the accumulated account balance may be raided tax free for retirement living expenses. Result? Available dough to pay for routine care not covered by catastrophic indemnity coverage PLUS a strong incentive to self-ration.

By: Baucus proposing Hillary-redux only worse; Coburn and others propose Republican plan « AAPS News of the Day

Sun, 31 May 2009 01:14:09 +0000

[...] The bill would provide a refundable, advanceable tax credit to apply to the purchase of health insurance. It is not a net overall tax increase or decrease; it just redistributes the tax break (as to people who don’t pay income or payroll taxes) and puts an upper limit on it. John Goodman writes that the bill would cut the number of uninsured in half while remaining revenue neutral; in contrast, the Obama plan would require an increase of $1.5 trillion in spending over 15 years for the same reduction in the uninsured. http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/the-republican-health-plan. [...]

By: John Goodman

John Goodman — Fri, 29 May 2009 17:17:11 +0000

Response to Bart:

Coburn’s bill does not create true portability, although it is a step in the right direction.

Portable insurance is insurance that is owned by the employee (even if the employer pays some or all of the premium). The insurance, therefore, travels with the employee when he switches jobs or goes in and out of the labor market.

By: John Goodman

John Goodman — Thu, 28 May 2009 20:50:56 +0000

Response to Bob:

See my resonse to David McKalip on HSAs.

The law does not allow employers to charge their employees premiums that reflect their true health status and therefore the true expected cost they add to the employer’s insurance pool when the employees are first hired. Basically everyone is charged the same premium, regardless of expected costs. Obama will impose this same requirement in the exchange.

By: Bart

Bart — Thu, 28 May 2009 18:36:56 +0000

John, could you at some point explain what “Encourage Personal and Portable Insurance” really means? I thought I had a vague idea from reading Coburn’s summary, but then I saw these comments from the CBO counsel on Galen’s site.

What, then, does Coburn do other than give the states permission to do what they could already do? If not mandades, does “encouragement” mean funding?

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 28 May 2009 03:06:00 +0000

John, you say people will buy first dollar (HSA) insurance with after tax dollars–doesn’t make sense, unless your Roth IRA-like insurance idea is put in the bill.

And you say that “In both the exchange and at work, the price system will be completely suppressed. In the market for risk, no one will ever face a real price for anything.” I must be slow or not reading correctly so please explain why we should then be for the Coburn bill, which I thought looked terrific.

By: John Goodman

John Goodman — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:37:40 +0000

[response to David McKalip]

Tax advantaged HSAs would still be available but deposits plus premiums could not exceed the amount of the Coburn tax credit. Therefore, deposits would be rare. People would instead use ordinary savings accounts (not tax advantaged).

Your tax subsidy today doesn’t pay for your entire health insurance cost and that’s a good thing. Coburn concentrates the subsidy so that it covers core (catastrophic) insurance that we want everyone to have and leaves people free to purchase any extra with their own (after tax) dollars.

Yes. Obama wants a health insurance exchange. And other than employer coverage there won’t be any insurance outside of the exchange.