Well, the fact that they're tax free is why, or a big reason why, employers started funding health insurance and why private insurance became so common.
Not true, actually. We actually have FDR to blame (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=3135), as employers needed to find a new edge to combat the wage and price controls put into place. We have the government to thank for this, and not the tax benefit that comes with it.
This in turn, arguably, resulted in price increases and changes (increases) in usage. So, I wouldn't argue, at all, that "the impact of health insurance on medical costs is low already".
Well, that's not something I'm just pulling out of nowhere - it simply is (http://www.kaiseredu.org/Issue-Modules/US-Health-Care-Costs/Background-Brief.aspx). Program administration, which is what insurance falls under, is a mere 7% of your health care dollar.
Essentially, you're saying that the existence of this small sliver of spending has resulted in massive increases in health care spending here for an otherwise identical product. I'm not sure you can really extrapolate that.
Go to a counterfactual scenario in which health insurance was never made tax free, in that world US health care costs are much much lower.
So you think the fact that benefits are tax free here, and not price controls (http://books.google.com/books?id=7usDUb38wpkC&pg=PA220&lpg=PA220&dq=medical+price+controls+europe&source=bl&ots=xKaFzLadNC&sig=nCr_Og1KsF7OMRhTIrH-gNsgTjQ&hl=en&ei=boDlTN3BNMqr8AaJ9eHsDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q&f=false) or rationing measures (http://books.google.com/books?id=7usDUb38wpkC&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=rationing+measures+europe&source=bl&ots=xKaFzLadQx&sig=z6AIpldgbtqA0XwWUw2f0ed8HMM&hl=en&ei=h4DlTP-9EsGs8AaM6_WIDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=rationing%20measures%20europe&f=false) are a more direct and obvious place to start?
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 19:38 (UTC)Not true, actually. We actually have FDR to blame (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=3135), as employers needed to find a new edge to combat the wage and price controls put into place. We have the government to thank for this, and not the tax benefit that comes with it.
This in turn, arguably, resulted in price increases and changes (increases) in usage. So, I wouldn't argue, at all, that "the impact of health insurance on medical costs is low already".
Well, that's not something I'm just pulling out of nowhere - it simply is (http://www.kaiseredu.org/Issue-Modules/US-Health-Care-Costs/Background-Brief.aspx). Program administration, which is what insurance falls under, is a mere 7% of your health care dollar.
Essentially, you're saying that the existence of this small sliver of spending has resulted in massive increases in health care spending here for an otherwise identical product. I'm not sure you can really extrapolate that.
Go to a counterfactual scenario in which health insurance was never made tax free, in that world US health care costs are much much lower.
So you think the fact that benefits are tax free here, and not price controls (http://books.google.com/books?id=7usDUb38wpkC&pg=PA220&lpg=PA220&dq=medical+price+controls+europe&source=bl&ots=xKaFzLadNC&sig=nCr_Og1KsF7OMRhTIrH-gNsgTjQ&hl=en&ei=boDlTN3BNMqr8AaJ9eHsDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q&f=false) or rationing measures (http://books.google.com/books?id=7usDUb38wpkC&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=rationing+measures+europe&source=bl&ots=xKaFzLadQx&sig=z6AIpldgbtqA0XwWUw2f0ed8HMM&hl=en&ei=h4DlTP-9EsGs8AaM6_WIDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=rationing%20measures%20europe&f=false) are a more direct and obvious place to start?