Events Calendar

Current Weather

Manatee Road Watch


Eat Here - Gulf Coast Cookery Sean Tampa Bay yacht Management Bills Discount Center - New & used Furnature, Appliances and More!

The Bradenton Times Polls

Poll Question: Who Are You Supporting in the Florida Governor's Race?

 Charlie Crist  Rick Scott  Adrian Wyllie More polls »

Personal Assistant

Home
Change Text Size: Larger  Smaller

News Section: Opinion



Use Tax Code to Solve Employer Health Insurance Battle

Published Thursday, July 3, 2014 12:10 am
Dennis_Maley_Image

This week's SCOTUS decision on whether the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act violated the constitutional rights of two family-owned companies has triggered an even more rabid debate over freedom of as well as from religion. However, what seems like an intractable disagreement could – and perhaps should – move us toward a day when health insurance is no longer associated with employers.

Employer sponsored insurance benefits have always had two advantages that served to make them far superior to individual plans. First, they are a tax deductible expense for the company that essentially allows them to divert some of the employee's compensation toward the cost of premiums, while also deducting their contributions on a pre-tax basis. Second, by making the plans available to all of their employees, employers pool together risk for the insurance companies, which allows them to offer much better benefits.

Individual plans are not tax deductible and the current tax code only allows individuals to deduct health care expenses (including premiums) for any portion that is over 10 percent of their income. That means that a person with an income of $50,000 a year has to go over $5,000 in qualified expenses and then can only deduct that portion which goes over. Making all healthcare costs tax deductible (or eligible for pre-tax health savings accounts) and then offsetting the cost by closing much less reasonable tax loopholes would make the tax advantage of employer-sponsored plans go away.

Of course the other advantage – better risk pooling through larger underwritings – is already being addressed by the exchanges. The individual mandate and state and federal insurance exchanges were created to basically pool all of the individual plans and spread their risk the same way large employers do, making individual plans cheaper, while allowing (and sometimes forcing) insurers to give the same sort of benefits they typically would on a group plan.

Once employee compensation is no longer diverted to health care benefits, wages should rise proportionately (and there may need to be some form of regulation to ensure that happens) giving workers more money to pay for premiums and co-insurance costs. The idea of whether corporations have religious rights or requiring certain health services violates them would be moot.

Otherwise, fixes would involve more complicated legislation at the hands of Congress who are unlikely to tackle such a controversial and emotional issue in earnest. Giving the money directly to employees can work in a way that it would not have before the exchanges, and a simple adjustment of the tax code seems much more doable than a legislative fix. Let's get health care out of the workplace and into the household budget so that it can be a private matter between patient and provider that doesn't have anything to do with your boss's (or your Congressman's) religious beliefs.

 

related:

Hobby Lobby Case Could Open Big Can of Worms

 

 

Dennis Maley's column appears every Thursday and Sunday in The Bradenton Times. He can be reached at dennis.maley@thebradentontimes.com. Click here to visit his column archive. Click here to go to his bio page. You can also follow Dennis on Facebook.

Join the conversation post Facebook comments here or on our site at the bottom of article.

 

  In Addition to Facebook Comments You Can Also Post Comments Below



Non-Facebook Comments:


I disagree with the supreme court ruling for one reason,they went against the rule of separation of church & state by ordaining that religious based organizations are exempt from providing certain health care needs so in effect they have blurred the separation of church & state to favor these religious organizations over other corporations.Oh by the way I am a christian so this opinion is not from some left winger who has a bias against religion.
Posted by William E.Moore on July 3, 2014
 

Insurance is a FINANCIAL PRODUCT, it is NOT health CARE. There is NOTHING in the ACA that forces any employer to give their employees contraceptives or to directly pay for them. The "mandate" simply requires that the employer's financial product that is PART OF THE EMPLOYEE'S EARNED COMPENSATION meet 'MINIMUM STANDARDS'of basic coverage. The part of employee's PAY that is "diverted" to insurance is simply dollars earmarked for the employees to spend on their own private and personal health care needs. Employers have no more right to interfere in how employees 'spend' their earned heath care financial product than they do in what their employees spend any other part of their pay on. The fact that they are now interfering in only their FEMALE employee's private spending decisions is both shockng and disgusting.
Posted by Rose von Perbandt on July 3, 2014
 

Insurance is a FINANCIAL PRODUCT, it is NOT health CARE. There is NOTHING in the ACA that forces any employer to give their employees contraceptives or to directly pay for them. The "mandate" simply requires that the employer's financial product that is PART OF THE EMPLOYEE'S EARNED COMPENSATION meet 'MINIMUM STANDARDS'of basic coverage. The part of employee's PAY that is "diverted" to insurance is simply dollars earmarked for the employees to spend on their own private and personal health care needs. Employers have no more right to interfere in how employees 'spend' their earned heath care financial product than they do in what their employees spend any other part of their pay on. The fact that they are now interfering in only their FEMALE employee's private spending decisions is both shockng and disgusting.
Posted by Rose von Perbandt on July 3, 2014
 

Insurance is a FINANCIAL PRODUCT, it is NOT health CARE. There is NOTHING in the ACA that forces any employer to give their employees contraceptives or to directly pay for them. The "mandate" simply requires that the employer's financial product that is PART OF THE EMPLOYEE'S EARNED COMPENSATION meet 'MINIMUM STANDARDS'of basic coverage. The part of employee's PAY that is "diverted" to insurance is simply dollars earmarked for the employees to spend on their own private and personal health care needs. Employers have no more right to interfere in how employees 'spend' their earned heath care financial product than they do in what their employees spend any other part of their pay on. The fact that they are now interfering in only their FEMALE employee's private spending decisions is both shockng and disgusting.
Posted by Rose von Perbandt on July 3, 2014
 

Click here to add a Non-Facebook comment to this page




 Sign up for our free news subscription - a great way to stay informed!



News World Round UpSports Roundup

Manatee Rural Health Certificate
 

MidTown Manatee - Shop here - Work here - Play Here - Live Here - Worship Here - Dine Here

Obituaries

Name Date
James Powers October 22, 2004
Daniel Siglin October 21, 2014
Judith Snodgrass October 22, 2014
Veleta Spann October 15, 2014
Josephine Lupoli October 18, 2014
Dimitrios Sokos October 19, 2004
Gary Richelieu October 16, 2004
Aline Funk October 17, 2014
Alice Szakacs October 16, 2014
All Obituaries






Copyright © 2009 - 2014 | The Bradenton Times | More than just an Online Newspaper | http://www.thebradentontimes.com/
405 26 Avenue Bradenton, FL 34205
Phone: 941-896-7857 - Privacy Policy - RSS Feed
Template provided by Free CSS Templates