<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What’s Wrong with this Picture?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://healthblog.ncpa.org/whats-wrong-with-this-picture/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://healthblog.ncpa.org/whats-wrong-with-this-picture/</link>
	<description>Health Care Policy and Reform Insights &#124; NCPA</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 16:47:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: John R. Graham</title>
		<link>http://healthblog.ncpa.org/whats-wrong-with-this-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-42437</link>
		<dc:creator>John R. Graham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2009 20:44:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=3259#comment-42437</guid>
		<description>Joe S.: I&#039;m not sure I follow you.  The McCain tax reform was exactly this - to the penny.  Most &quot;conservative&quot; reforms are versions of this.  What &quot;conservative&quot; reforms do you see that don&#039;t encompass tax reform like this?

I borrowed the argument a couple of years ago, when I essayed to debunk the idea that the uninsured were a burden health care, due to overcrowding emergency rooms (http://tinyurl.com/5h4yvc).  As a class, the uninsured pay extra income taxes that are voluntary (although they would likely not define them as such).  I figured that the extra federal income tax was about $60 billion (but I&#039;d use a more sophisticated model if I did it again).  I proposed that the government should use that estimate as a basis for deciding saftey-net funding.  If Government enacted the tax reform as recommended by Drs. Goodman &amp; Musgrave we wouldn&#039;t have to rely on an estimate but have the exact figure.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Joe S.: I&#8217;m not sure I follow you.  The McCain tax reform was exactly this &#8211; to the penny.  Most &#8220;conservative&#8221; reforms are versions of this.  What &#8220;conservative&#8221; reforms do you see that don&#8217;t encompass tax reform like this?</p>
<p>I borrowed the argument a couple of years ago, when I essayed to debunk the idea that the uninsured were a burden health care, due to overcrowding emergency rooms (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/5h4yvc" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/5h4yvc</a>).  As a class, the uninsured pay extra income taxes that are voluntary (although they would likely not define them as such).  I figured that the extra federal income tax was about $60 billion (but I&#8217;d use a more sophisticated model if I did it again).  I proposed that the government should use that estimate as a basis for deciding saftey-net funding.  If Government enacted the tax reform as recommended by Drs. Goodman &amp; Musgrave we wouldn&#8217;t have to rely on an estimate but have the exact figure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bart</title>
		<link>http://healthblog.ncpa.org/whats-wrong-with-this-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-42408</link>
		<dc:creator>Bart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 22:04:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=3259#comment-42408</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve long been in favor of reforming the tax treatment of health insurance, but have more recently become concerned about a fallacy of equivocation often see regarding different meanings for the term &quot;health insurance&quot;.  Unfair discrimination between employee-sponsored and individually-purchased coverage is often used to argue in favor of equal tax treatment between group and non-group insurance, glossing over the fundamental differences in the actual product being purchased.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve long been in favor of reforming the tax treatment of health insurance, but have more recently become concerned about a fallacy of equivocation often see regarding different meanings for the term &#8220;health insurance&#8221;.  Unfair discrimination between employee-sponsored and individually-purchased coverage is often used to argue in favor of equal tax treatment between group and non-group insurance, glossing over the fundamental differences in the actual product being purchased.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken</title>
		<link>http://healthblog.ncpa.org/whats-wrong-with-this-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-42401</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 11:20:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=3259#comment-42401</guid>
		<description>Your proposal is too rational, John. Remember, the field we are in is health policy -- where (as you have pointed out before) most people have not mastered the syllogism.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your proposal is too rational, John. Remember, the field we are in is health policy &#8212; where (as you have pointed out before) most people have not mastered the syllogism.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe S.</title>
		<link>http://healthblog.ncpa.org/whats-wrong-with-this-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-42396</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe S.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 22:27:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=3259#comment-42396</guid>
		<description>Agree with Greg. This is the missing item in the McCain health plan, the Coburn bill and many other conservative health proposals.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agree with Greg. This is the missing item in the McCain health plan, the Coburn bill and many other conservative health proposals.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg</title>
		<link>http://healthblog.ncpa.org/whats-wrong-with-this-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-42395</link>
		<dc:creator>Greg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 22:17:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=3259#comment-42395</guid>
		<description>Great idea and the only place I ever see it discussed is in NCPA publications. I wish you could convince others -- at least the conservative think tanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great idea and the only place I ever see it discussed is in NCPA publications. I wish you could convince others &#8212; at least the conservative think tanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

