PUBHLTH 122 Lecture Notes - Lecture 18: High-Deductible Health Plan, Health Savings Account, Preferred Provider Organization

46 views5 pages

lilaccricket217

9 Mar 2017

School

Department

Course

Professor

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

This could be another way to save on medicaid dollars: the proposed tax deduction will not work for low income people. It would be problematic because many have low income or no income at all. You need to have an income in order to get a tax deduction: tax credit, if not refundable will not help low income people. Repealing the aca could result in 2. 6 million jobs lost across all 50 states and the district of. Job losses would affect every state, but these 10 would suffer the biggest hits -> california, texas, michigan, illinois, ohio, pennsylvania, new york, new jersey, north. There are components that everyone wants such as pre-existing conditions as well as things like high costs that things that no one wants. Republicans have to be careful of repeal without replace. Also, replace should preserve the most popular parts of aca: pre-existing conditions and the age 26 provision. This makes the replace option very expensive.

Related Questions

Dems, GOP talk up deficit reduction, but don't act

WASHINGTON (AP) â Liberals' loud objections to White House proposals for slowing the growth of huge social programs make it clear that neither political party puts a high priority on reducing the deficit, despite much talk to the contrary.

For years, House Republicans have adamantly refused to raise income taxes, even though U.S. taxes are historically low, and the Bush-era tax cuts were a major cause of the current deficit.

And now, top Democrats are staunchly opposing changes to Medicare and Social Security benefits, despite studies showing the programs' financial paths are unsustainable.

Unless something gives, it's hard to see what will produce the significant compromises needed to tame the federal debt, which is nearing $17 trillion.

"There's not much of an appetite for deficit reduction," said Bob Bixby of the Concord Coalition, which pushes for "responsible fiscal policy."

There might be a few small steps this year, he said, when the government again needs to raise its borrowing limit. But a "grand bargain" involving significant spending cuts and revenue increases seems unlikely, Bixby said.

He added, "It's a little depressing to hear the reactions to the president's budget, from both sides."

There was nothing surprising about Republican denunciations of Obama's proposed tax increases, which he wants to combine with spending cuts to reduce the deficit.

The newer wrinkle was the left's sharp criticism of his proposals to slow the growth in Medicare and Social Security benefits, provided Republicans agree to new revenues. Obama has offered Republicans such a deal before. But this month's budget proposal gave it a new imprimatur.

The group MoveOn.org said Wednesday that supporters "who are outraged at President Obama's proposal to cut Social Security benefits will protest and deliver petitions" this week.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, a liberal independent from Vermont, is leading a similar petition drive, opposing "any benefit cuts to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid." The deficit, his letter says, "was primarily caused during the Bush years by two unpaid-for wars, huge tax breaks for the rich and a prescription drug program" for Medicare, funded through borrowing. He suggests that higher taxes on the wealthy are the fairest way to tackle the deficit.

Democrats cite several reasons to raise taxes on high-income households. Obama campaigned for such tax increases in 2008 and 2012 but accomplished them only partially with the "fiscal cliff" resolution of Jan. 1.

Major tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 played big roles in turning a federal budget surplus into soaring deficits, according to research by the Congressional Budget Office and others. And by many measures, the U.S. tax burden in near historic lows.

Households earning roughly the national median income paid, on average, 11.1 percent of their income in total federal taxes in 2009, the most recent year for such data. That's the lowest level in more than 30 years, the CBO says.

Nonetheless, House Republicans have placed their highest priority on refusing to raise income tax rates, effectively ranking it above all other goals.

"The president got his tax hikes on Jan. 1," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, is fond of saying. It's a reference to the $620 billion in new revenues, over 10 years, that Republicans were unable to stop because of the "fiscal cliff" law, resolved on New Year's Day.

If it's easy to make a case for higher revenues, the same is true for slowing the growth of Social Security and Medicare benefits. For decades, studies have warned of approaching trouble in these popular but costly programs, as health care costs rise and baby boomers begin to retire.

"Both Medicare and Social Security cannot sustain projected long-run program costs under currently scheduled financing, and legislative modifications are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers," the Social Security Administration says, summarizing findings by the two programs' trustees.

"The early detection light has been going on for a while, and there has been a failure to act," Social Security trustee Charles P. Blahous recently told a House panel. If lawmakers are to preserve the programs for future retirees, he said, they will have to accept much more "political pain" than officials endured during a 1983 overhaul that included "several extremely controversial measures."

Obama has proposed an often-discussed step, which deals with government accounting in general, not just entitlement programs. If Congress agrees to higher tax revenues, the president said, he would back a slower growth calculation for cost-of-living increases for Social Security benefits, plus higher Medicare premiums for higher-income seniors.

Interest groups have criticized both ideas. AARP calls the slower cost-of-living formula a "harmful change," and urges seniors to oppose it.

American voters can largely blame themselves when Congress is more talk than action on deficit reduction. Americans routinely say they want a smaller federal debt, but not at the cost of programs they hold dear â including Social Security and Medicare.

A CBS News poll in March found that most Americans want to cut spending and raise taxes to reduce the deficit. But 4 in 5 oppose cuts to Social Security or Medicare. And two-thirds are unwilling to have their own taxes raised in the name of deficit reduction.

When Pew Research asked which was more important â reducing the national debt or keeping Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are now â the public sided with safeguarding the benefits programs, 53 percent to 36 percent.

The deficit-spending partisanship continued Wednesday. On a party-line vote, House Ways and Means Committee Republicans passed a bill to protect Social Security recipients and investors in Treasury bonds if the government hits its borrowing limit and can't pay all its bills later this year. Democrats say if the federal government starts reneging on any obligations â even if it pays bondholders â financial markets will lose faith and the economy will tank.

Some Democrats fear a lose-lose situation if they support Obama's proposals. First, they could be attacked from the left for tweaking the programs that many Democrats see as their party's greatest legacy. And second, Republicans might accuse them of "raiding Medicare" in next year's congressional elections. That battle cry proved effective in 2010 after Obama's health care overhaul bill was passed.

Democrats call such tactics shamelessly hypocritical. Republicans, they note, have long called for reining in entitlement spending.

Boehner rebuked a top GOP campaign figure for hinting at a renewal of the "raiding Medicare" attacks. But Reince Priebus, the national Republican Party chairman, seemed eager to revive the question of whether Democratic trims to Medicare's costs amount to an unfair cut in benefits.

9. Read the AP article âDems, GOP talk up deficit reduction, but don't act (Links to an external site.)â by C. Babington (Apr25â13).

a. What are the two basic ways of shrinking a budget deficit?

b. Which of your answers above are Republicans vehemently against? What are the potential negative economic effects of implementing this basic policy?

c. Which of your answers above are Democrats strongly opposed to? What are the potential negative economic effects of implementing this basic policy?

lavenderpug75

Argue either in favor or against the estate tax. Then, respond to at least two other students' posts in the following manner:

Support one studentâs argument with additional information or examples.

Counter one studentâs argument with information and/or examples.

Student 1 answer : Samantha

Samantha Caterina 5 posts

Re:Module 7 DQ 2

The estate tax is very tricky, it can be argued both ways, for and against. For arguments sake I would be in favor of the estate tax. Currently for 2017 the federal estate tax threshold is 5.49 million. This is only targeting the wealthiest of people. The estate tax will tax any amount of an estate above this. It makes up for a small portion of the total tax collected by the federal government but it is still a substantial amount. The estate tax can be different in each state therefore being taxed more if the threshold is smaller. It is argued that the successful decedent should not be penalized for being successful I would not agree this is true. They are no longer the owner of the estate and the money would just be passed to a beneficiary. The beneficiary then has the rights to do what they please with the money. This can cause the beneficiaries to become non-productive members of society. If the estate tax was taken out tax would have to be made up somewhere, therefore cause middle class taxpayers to pay more taxes. The estate tax does not target the average person only the wealthiest are affected by it. I do not think the estate tax needs to be taken out of order.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/10/06/guest-post-pros-and-cons-of-the-federal-estate-tax/#6e3c8eb975a6

Student answer Andrea:

Andrea Robinson-Parker 4 posts

Re:Module 7 DQ 2

The estate tax was once known as the death tax, there is a pun in there somewhere. Firstly, it is associated with the inheritance of a dead relative and secondly, it can be the death of small family businesses. I believe that this tax is essential for our country to survive. Bob Rywick, in his article, Pros and Cons of the Federal Estate Tax argues both sides of the coin. I agree with his pro stance and here is why:

Revenue from the estate tax will create around $200 billion revenue in the next several years. There has been a great increase in wealth in the recent past and this number may climb.

The estate tax will help to dilute the concentration of wealth. This concentration can be damaging to our free democratic society.

Many wealthy people donate large sums to charities each year to lower their tax bracket. If there was no estate tax, these donations would most likely drop off significantly.

Small business, (making less than $5,000,000) will not be affected. There are also rules set in place to protect farms regarding the valuation of farm land.

Less than 2/10 of 1% of the descendants dying each year will be affected by this tax, based on the current exemption amount.

Lastly, I personally believe that estate planning can alleviate some of these taxes. Estate taxes should not be confused with gift taxes. This is an option that can protect inheritances.

Student Answer

Lakisha Minniefield 3 posts

Re:Module 7 DQ 2

I am against âestate taxâ and feel that when the property value goes up, it will increase my mortgage payment each year. I agree with Justin Haskins article regarding scrapping property taxes because as a property owner, charging fees for a specific service should be allowable. Also, property owners should be able to choose where the property taxes should be allocated especially when it comes down to our public education. I have two children who are autistic and in the past it was very difficult to find a school who had the staff to supply all of their educational special needs. Even though we live in the best neighbors that were very costly, the schools zone in the area had 2 out of 10 rating so I would have to transfer my children our of the district in order to get better services. Currently, my husband is getting ready for retirement out of the military and we have looked at all 50 states within the United States to see which state would give us the most exemptions when purchasing a home. The state we chose to move back to is Texas because of the no state property taxes. Property tax for the state of Texas brings in the most money of all taxes available to local government to pay for schools, roads, police and firemen, emergency response services, libraries, parks and other services provided by local government. The state also has a variety of partial or total (absolute) exemptions from appraised property values used to determine local property taxes. A partial exemption removes a percentage or a fixed dollar amount of a property's value from taxation. A total (absolute) exemption excludes the entire property from taxation. Since we will be on a fixed income, Texas property tax exemptions for disabled veterans was the best out of all 50 states. However, we will still have to look for a county with low property tax rate. Since I am already a disabled veteran, Texas has a property tax exempt chart for qualifying disabled veterans.

The exemption amount that a qualified disabled veteran receives depends on the veteran's disability rating from the branch of the armed service.

Disability Exemption
Disability Rating	Exemption Amount Up To
10% to 29%	$5,000 from the property's value
30% to 49%	$7,500 from the property's value
50% to 69%	$10,000 from the property's value
70% to 100%	$12,000 from the property's value

*The Texas Comptroller website lists all of the benefits for disabled veterans regarding property tax exemptions.

Even as a disabled veteran, I would still have to pay property tax but the exemption will only exempt the amount of the disability rating off the value of property. Disabled veterans who are 100% total and permanently disable will be exempt from paying all property taxes. Financially, my family will still have to find a home affordable in a safe neighborhood, public education is rated above 7 out of 10 and choose a county that property taxes are low.

Reference:

https://www.comptroller.texas.gov/taxes

PUBHLTH 122 Lecture Notes - Lecture 18: High-Deductible Health Plan, Health Savings Account, Preferred Provider Organization

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

PUBHLTH 122 Lecture 17: 3/3/17 Lecture Notes

PUBHLTH 122 Lecture 15: 2/27/17 Lecture Notes

POL 536 Chapter Notes - Chapter 3: Supplemental Security Income, Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act, Main Source

Related Questions