Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I don’t see how this addresses the comment you replied to.


It doesn’t. It’s part of a rosary of things people wield to stave off thinking about the topic. You can do other things besides nationalizing all care or insurance, but when you hear people talk about “open up markets to cross state competition”, or “everyone gets an HSA”, or “make insurance tax deductible/it’s fdr’s fault”, it’s rarely about the specific policy, those are liturgical texts / catechisms designed to give the impression of solutions without substance.

Tax deductibility is only a very minor reason why most private insurance is employer provided; the much larger reason is that employment is a decent way to get a reasonably distributed group (of people generally healthy enough to work) and that’s one way of getting balanced risk pool if you’re not doing community rating or a societ wide pool.


> Tax deductibility is only a very minor reason why most private insurance is employer provided; the much larger reason is that employment is a decent way to get a reasonably distributed group

From what I saw, the combination of "no exclusions for pre-existing coverage" and "penalty for not having health insurance" worked pretty well to balance the risk pools without nationalized healthcare.

I would still like nationalized healthcare, but I think there are other ways to fix the problem at hand of people being dependent on their jobs for healthcare.


Absolutely. I'm a fan of the ACA's patchwork of wonky choices including no pre-existing exclusions and community rating. Additionally the subsidies made it genuinely accessible for most, at least where they made it through attempts to hamstring them. It's been one of the most helpful practically advanced policy achievements of my lifetime, even with all the effort to destroy it (which has recently found new success and may even succeed entirely in the end).

Universal insurance could be better, and perhaps the day will even come when the American electorate recognizes priorities like this and candidates who will advance that kind of policy, contrary habits of the past notwithstanding.


I suggested an alternative solution to the one proposed by the comment I replied to.


I don’t understand how “make it tax-deductible” is an alternative to “nationalize healthcare so it’s not tied to employment.”


Sorry, I don't know how to make it any clearer.


It’s already tax deductible. Just saying “make it tax deductible” doesn’t explain what you mean.


It's complicated. From google:

* You must pay the premiums with after-tax money.

* Your total qualified, unreimbursed medical and dental expenses (including premiums and costs like co-pays, deductibles, prescription medications, etc.) must exceed 7.5% of your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI).

* You can only deduct the amount of expenses that exceeds this 7.5% threshold.

* You must choose to itemize deductions instead of taking the standard deduction.

Most taxpayers use the standard deduction as it is often larger than their total itemized deductions.


Oh, you’re suggesting making health insurance premiums tax deductible for the individual. I agree that’s a step in the right direction.


It would make insurance less tied to employment without nationalizing it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: