Thursday, August 27, 2009
Congress / Hargrove Here's What We Miss Out On If Jim Cooper Has His Way
Posted by Brantley Hargrove on Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Here's what Cooper is doing his damnedest to deprive us Middle Tennesseans of:
16,000 small businesses that would qualify for tax credits of up to 50 percent of the costs for providing health insurance.
7,800 seniors in Coop's district, despite being covered under Medicare Part D, hit a "donut hole" and are forced to pay the full costs for their drugs. Under the legislation Cooper opposes, the donut-hole drug costs would be reduced by 50 percent, and ultimately eliminated.
2,060 bankruptcies in Middle Tennessee were caused by medical crises the insurance companies, in their benevolence, declined to pay for in 2008. Nearly everyone would be covered by this reform and out-of-pocket costs for medical bills would be capped at $10,000 a year.
97,000 uninsured Tennesseans in Coops district. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 97 percent of Americans would have health insurance when the bill takes effect. That's 76,000 previously uninsured Middle Tennesseans now insured.
Thanks Coop!
H/T Kos
Comments (12)
Showing 1-12 of 12
16,000 small businesses that would qualify for tax credits of up to 50 percent of the costs for providing health insurance.
This sort of reminds me of a question an advertising major asked me in school upon watching a Little Caesars ad on TV. Upon noting that the ad claimed a second pizza at half off, I was asked if I had remembered that Little Caesars was for years claiming two pizzas for the price of one (or second pizza free).
Right now these small businesses get to write off 100% of health insurance premiums as a cost of doing business (schedule c). A 50% credit in almost all cases is a step back.
like
dislike
Moost that's not the point. The point is that many of these 16,000 small businesses offer no health insurance at all because they can't afford it. Their employees either get insurance through their spouses, do without or are on Tenncare. Also, perhaps the small businesses that do offer insurance could offer higher quality insurance if there were even better tax incentives. A tax credit is far superior to a tax deduction.
No the point is they are not offering it now even with a 100 percent write off as a business expense. We are all well aware that the trial balloons have suggested taking away the 100 to pay for the programs. This "up to 50" distracts from the loss of 100. A tax credit will not encourage any business owner since they will be paying more taxes either way. That point is a smokescreen for having to now pay for the second pizza. Coupons suck when you are paying more than you were before. This is like getting excited over your purchase of a gallon of ice cream only to discover you are well short of that amount (check out the freezer section at the grocery).
I am a part owner of a small business where we would love to have group health coverage. Unfortunately, we have some members who have less than fully fortunate health histories. The last few times we looked into group coverage, the answer was not just no, but manic laughter accompanying the "No."
We live in a country that figures it can afford to tromp around in other countries to . . . whatever we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. We live in a country that figures it can afford to pay a billion dollars in subsidies to tobacco farmers. We live in a country that can afford to bail out banks and insurance companies without making sure they don't use the money to take a vacation in Scotland . . .
And somehow we do not live in a nation that is capable of making sure people receive health care?
Here's a point in this debate that I think has been sorely overlooked:
Can you imagine the kind of entrepreneurial energy that would flow into the economy if people knew they could start their own businesses and get healthcare? I know many, many people who would love to venture out on their own, but cannot because they won't risk leaving their families uncovered.
Our current health system DISCOURAGES economic mobility and entrepreneurship. A system that includes a non-profit, community-rated source of affordable individual and small group coverage is essential for this country's economic CAPITALIST vitality.
Yes we do need to encourage, but a path that takes away a bigger encouragement and substitutes a smaller one is just not smart. Don't fall for the label and the marketing. Just because it says reform does not mean it will reform anything. Just because someone mentions a new credit doesn't mean those receiving it will come out ahead.
Moost, can you please link to the exact part of the plan you're concerned about so the rest of us can look at it ourselves? Because I am not familiar with that passage and I'd like to read the actual language. Your assertions may be entirely accurate but I can't be sure until I read it myself.
Our current health system DISCOURAGES economic mobility and entrepreneurship. A system that includes a non-profit, community-rated source of affordable individual and small group coverage is essential for this country's economic CAPITALIST vitality.
Yep. And we are holding ourselves to a distinct economic disadvantage.
Buddy of mine was talking to some EU parliamentarians about this very thing. The prevailing thought in the EU is that if you combined American productivity with single-payer/national health insurance, it would be terrible for the EU's competitive position.
As it stands, we do nothing but hold ourselves back by continuing to hamper progress on universal health care.
No plan, just responding to this statement in the posting:
6,000 small businesses that would qualify for tax credits of up to 50 percent of the costs for providing health insurance.
Tax law does not allow credits and deductions for the same thing for any other economic policy. It is one or the other. Currently businesses get to write off 100% against their profits for tax purposes. A credit of "up to 50%" is far less than a 100% write off.
I will point out I know what the spirit of the question you asked was, trying to make me look like just another kook rallying against a bill not yet written. But if I were then I can argue that the blog post was quoting figures from a bill just as unwritten.
Well I'm glad you know the spirit of my question when I was not infering what you state at all. What I was saying was - I need to see what you are basing your statement on. I was looking to evaluate your 'evidence'. If only a lot more people on both sides would do that then the conversation might be a little more civil and lot more relevant. And I might learn something.
But you're right, there's no bill. So we really have no idea what will be a tax deduction and what will be a tax credit and how any of it will affect small business at all at this point. And is Little Caeser's still around?
