The Times on Taxes

The New York Times' Sunday lead editorial (12/30) is simply breathtaking. The title is "Why the economy needs tax reform." It starts well,

Over the next four years, tax reform, done right, could be a cure for much of what ails the economy...

OK, say I, the sun is out, the birds are chirping, my coffee is hot, and for once I'm going to read a sensible editorial from the Times, pointing out what we all agree on, that our tax system is horrendously chaotic, corrupt, and badly in need of reform. Let's go -- lower marginal rates, broaden the base, simplify the code.

That mood lasts all of one sentence.

Higher taxes,...

Words matter. "Reform" twice, followed by paragraphs of "higher taxes," with no actual "reform" in sight. The Times is embarking on an Orwellian mission to appropriate the word "reform" to mean "higher taxes" not "fix the system."

Let's be specific. What is the Times' idea of tax "reform?"

tax capital gains at the same rates as ordinary income.... a restoration of the estate tax, higher tax rates or surcharges on multimillion-dollar incomes, and higher corporate taxes..

That's just to get started. Since, as the Times refreshingly admits,

..the new revenue would only slow the growth of the debt in the near term..

before the health care entitlement deluge hits,

... Mr. Obama would be wise to instruct the Treasury Department to start work on tax reform now, exploring carbon taxes, both to raise revenue and to protect the environment; a value-added tax,... and a financial transactions tax...

That's "reform?"

What will all those taxes do? The Times has a little bit of deficit reduction on its mind,

 More revenue would also reduce budget deficits, helping to put the nation’s finances on a stable path.

But with "reduce," "help," and "stable path," you can tell that eliminating deficits and paying off the debt are not a real high priority here. The Times has bigger fish to fry, starting with a red herring and ending with a red whale.

Higher taxes, raised progressively, could encourage growth by helping to pay for long-neglected public investment in education, infrastructure and basic research...

We've been spending more and more on education for years. While performance steadily declines. The trouble with schools is not lack of money.

Yes, infrastructure is crumbling, as a few New Yorkers may have figured out when their power went off, while their politicians -- and the Times -- instead of talking about burying electric lines and putting in a modern grid, wished instead to stem the rise of oceans and sugar in their soft drinks. But infrastructure spending is a tiny component of the Federal budget; we could support anyone's wish list without a Federal income tax.  Basic research spending could be doubled on about 10 minutes worth of Federal spending. Red herring.

The whale comes last:

Greater progressivity would reduce rising income inequality, and with it, inequality of opportunity that is both an economic and social scourge. 

The Times is arguing forthrightly for confiscatory taxation of income and wealth, in order simply to  reduce post-tax incomes. This isn't "redistribution," it's "off with their heads!"

Inequality of opportunity? No, President Obama's kids should not go to Sidwell Friends, they should go to DC public schools like everyone else?  Mayor Rahm Emanuel's kids shouldn't go to the University of Chicago Lab school (mine go there too, but I don't preach this stuff), they should have to go to Chicago public schools like everyone else? These are "economic and social advantages" arising from unequal income. Big ones, that motivate a lot of parents to work hard so they can afford the tuition.  French President Francois Hollande has a better idea: ban homework, so kids with smart parents can't get an advantage because they get help on homework. Too bad you can't ban homework in China and India. No concierge medicine either. Stand in line for medicaid like the rest of us.

And to accomplish this leveling, we'll just take money from "the rich" until all are equally impoverished.

Am I being alarmist? No. Read the sentence again, carefully. Words matter. What else can it possibly mean?

It's just astounding. When has a society ever grown, become prosperous, and raised opportunities for its citizens--of any background--by confiscatory taxation, transferring wealth to the State, with the deliberate aim of reducing the opportunities of a segment of its population? The examples I can think of -- French and Russian revolutions, the whole communist world -- ended rather badly.  Even more modest attempts, say postwar Britain, do not augur well. The evidence of Europe's current high-tax "austerity" (another word Orwellianly appropriated to mean "high taxes") and the weight of academic research (most recently from the IMF and Alberto Alesina) stand before us: Fiscal retrenchment led by higher marginal tax rates simply does not work.

Moving from outcome to opportunity, as the Times does, when has a society ever accomplished equal and plentiful opportunities by confiscatory taxation and heavy regulation? I can think of lots of societies that by these means became much less equal, with opportunity dependent on political and family connections, and thus out of reach of even the most talented and industrious people without connections. 

What of us naysayers? On taxing "capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income,"  

That is an indefensible giveaway to the richest Americans. Research shows that the tax breaks do not add to economic growth but do contribute to inequality. Currently, the top 1 percent of taxpayers receive more than 70 percent of all capital gains, while the bottom 80 percent receive only 6 percent.

Three more fish and a whopper.

We might start with the interesting assertion that any tax rate is a "giveaway." Who gives what to whom, dear Times?

"Research shows" is another fascinating choice of words.  "Research shows" means "all research shows," or "the consensus of research shows," without actually saying it. The facts are "some research shows," or in this case, really, "two unpublished papers we found on the web claim."

The links point to a report by the Congressional Research service and a one-page screed from the Urban Institute.  Both pieces of "research" simply plot the usual pointless correlations ignoring the hundreds of other causes, effects, and things not held constant. Aspirin causes colds you know: Look, there is a strong correlation between asprin-taking and colds. Neither one is even submitted let alone published in a refereed journal, which is no guarantee of anything but at least it's the minimum standard for "research." If this were indeed what constitutes "research,"  and "science,"  vast new funding for fundamental research in economics might well be warranted.

Fortunately, that is not the case.  What real research concludes, as much as anything in economics concludes, is that capital gains taxes are about the easiest to avoid (see Buffett, Warren).  Real research shows that when capital gains rates were reduced in the 1980s, revenue increased. Real public finance, the rest of the world's tax systems, and the broad conclusion of just about everybody until the world lost its head in 2008, was that capital gains taxation is a bad idea.

And the whale: "Receive" capital gains? Dear Times, capital gains are not a check sent by great-grandma's trust fund. Let me educate you on where capital gains come from: People work, and earn money, and pay taxes on that money.  Rather than blow it all stimulating consumption demand, they save some of it, invest in stocks, or start businesses. When those investments pay off, they sell, and receive capital gains. A vast swath of retirees lives off capital gains, especially from their houses.Small business owners are "high income" in the one year they sell their businesses.

Words matter, again. "Receive" paints capital gains as passive receipts form a mysterious ill-gotten mountain of gold, ripe for plucking with neither tax avoidance, behavioral change, or economic consequence. That's just not how our world works, but very revealing of the Times' zero-sum, class-warfare worldview.

What about 

...higher corporate taxes..

Once again, one of the few things real "research shows," and  economists agree on pretty heartily, is that corporate taxation -- already higher in the US than the rest of the world -- is a silly idea. All corporate taxes are passed on to people, through higher prices, lower wages, or lower returns to investors, primarily the former two. Tax people when they get the money. And corporations are much better at evasion, lobbying, moving abroad, and structuring operation in silly ways to avoid taxes.

The value added tax -- the economist's favorite, if coupled with elimination of other taxes -- is famously "regressive," the modern term (here are those important little words again) for "everybody pays the same rate."  Value added is, in Europe (along with 30-40% payroll taxes) the middle class tax that pays for middle class benefits. What about that, dear Times?

a value-added tax, coupled with provisions to protect lower-income taxpayers from higher prices, to tax consumption and encourage saving;

This is just incoherent. If you're "protected from higher prices," you're not paying the tax. If we couple the VAT with a vast new income transfer program, adieu revenues.

At least we close with some humor. The VAT is there to encourage saving, while heavy taxation of interest, dividends, capital gains and estates, says just the opposite.

What about spending?

The big obstacle to comprehensive tax reform is the persistent Republican myth that spending cuts alone can achieve economic and budget goals. That notion was sounded rejected by voters during the election. Yet it still has adherents among many Republicans, which will make it that much harder for Congress to grapple with the bigger and more complex issue at the heart of tax reform: how to pay for government in the 21st century.

....All that [long list of taxes] would only be a start, because the new revenue would only slow the growth of the debt in the near term. After 10 years, the pressures of an aging population and health care costs would cause the debt to accelerate again.

Oh those evil Republicans, standing against "reform," and reusing to grapple with "how to pay for government." The size and scope of which is not under discussion. No, dear Times, it's not "the pressures of  an aging population and health care costs." It is the Federal Government's promises to pay for it all. Which are, apparently, fixed stars.

Technical regress in any area is sad. Once upon a time, when we talked about taxes, there was a modicum of economics involved. When we thought about raising or lowering a rate, we thought seriously about the inevitable avoidance and distortions.  The first question was, "if we pass this law, will x actually pay more money, or will he simply change behavior to avoid the tax?" The second question was, "will his change in behavior hurt the economy?" Before we talk about what's "fair" we talked about "what works."

And we knew the sign of the answer: distorting taxation raises less revenue than you think, and reduces economic prosperity. The only question is how much. We did not indulge in magical thinking that appropriating anyone's income would actually improve the economy, all on its own. We understood the damage, and tried to carefully balance the benefits of spending against that damage. This is how we got, for a while, to low marginal rates with a broad base (the latter since loopholed away), low capital gains, estate, and corporate taxes, and were headed messily towards a system that taxed consumption more than rates of return. 

As one glorious counterexample of all the Times' monstrous confusions:

a financial transactions tax, to ensure that the financial sector, whose profits have substantially outpaced those of nonfinancial corporations, pay a fair share

A transactions tax is the easiest thing in the world to avoid with financial engineering.  How do you begin to figure out the "fair share" that financial vs nonfinancial corporations should pay? How about mutual funds whose beneficiaries are impoverished union schoolteachers? 

Orwellian language, blatant mistruths, and magical thinking aside, however, I want to applaud this editorial. No, I'm not kidding.

The Times is saying, out loud, that if we are to have the regulatory and welfare state we have enacted, it must be paid for with huge middle class taxes, as well as confiscatory taxes on anyone who dares to save, invest, or start a business. This is refreshing honesty. Up until about November 3, all we heard from them is that reversing the Bush tax cuts on the rich would pay for it all. At least a few of its readers may wake up and say, "wait, we voted for this?"

Really, my main complaint is that they left out the "if," and its logical consequence, and any doubts that raising tax rates so massively might not produce the needed long-run revenue growth they hope for.

It is a mistake to dismiss this clear editorial. This isn't the Village voice, or the Berkeley Free Press. This is the New York Times. This is how a wide swath of our fellow citizens, and majority of our fellow voters, see the world.   This is the agenda. They could not have been clearer if they had said "first we annex Austria and move against Czechoslovakia. Then we invade Poland and swing North and West." Heed them.

Mount Elizabeth Hospital Singapore

Mount Elizabeth Hospital Singapore

This great hospital has got lot of publicity in India in last 3 days (Dec. 27, 2012 to Dec. 29, 2012).

We had high hopes for recovery / treatment of first private citizen of India, who was sent for treatment on Government of India expense.

The Interesting phenomenon I came across in 3 days is that more than 60 crores persons living in India have become aware of this hospital that it is a super specialty hospital of world repute for organ transplant.

We receive many phone calls .You will find interesting case studies, which we came across in last 2 days:

Case Study 1:

Phone call received by us from a prospective client who wishes to buy Overseas Travel Insurance policy for 7days so that he can go and get treated in Mount Elizabeth under this policy.

He was rather disappointed to know that Overseas Travel Insurance policy issued by insurance companies does not cover treatment for disease which is pre-existing.

 

Case Study 2:

 

Phone call received by us from a prospective client who wishes to buy Health Insurance Policy for Rs. 2 Lakhs and wishes to go to Singapore for being treated in Mount Elizabeth.

He was surprised to know that

a)      Rs. 2 Lakhs is too small an amount for being treated in this world class hospital, where room rent for lowest single room is Rs. 30,000 or so.  We are not aware of costs for treatment. Our assumption is that it should be very high.

b)      The policies issued by all but 1 insurance company cover treatment within India. The only exception is Religare Health Insurance product where you can get treatment in an overseas hospital (Mount Elizabeth Hospital also) provided you have sum assured of either Rs. 50 Lakhs or Rs. 60 Lakhs.

We come to conclusion that:

• Those who can afford.
• Those who wish to be treated in reputed hospitals like Mount Elizabeth should go in for Religare Health Insurance policy for sum assured of Rs. 50 Lakhs / Rs. 60 Lakhs.

Otherwise let us be satisfied with our world class hospitals- Medanta, Apollo, Fortis etc.

ria@surekhae.comcan be reached for details / support in this regard.

Intoxicated accidental victims have better recovery in hospitals

According to recent study of University of Illinoisat Chicago School of Public Health – Injured patients were less likely to die in the hospital if they had alcohol in their blood and the more alcohol; the more likely they were to survive.

Dr. Lee Friedman epidemiologist who was the project head said “However, after an injury, if you are intoxicated there seems to be a pretty substantial protective effect,” “The more alcohol you have in your system, the more the protective effect.” Dr. Lee Friedman is Assistant Professor of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences at UIC in Chicago.

The project team headed by learned professor analyzed Illinois Trauma Registry data for 190,612 patients treated at trauma centers between 1995 and 2009 who were tested for blood alcohol content, which ranged from zero to 0.5 percent at the time they were admitted to the trauma unit. It is surprising that only 6,733 died in the hospital.

The study examined the relationship of alcohol dosage to in-hospital mortality following traumatic injuries such as fractures, internal injuries and open wounds. Alcohol benefited patients across the range of injuries, with burns as the only exception.

The benefit extended from the lowest blood alcohol concentration (below 0.1 percent) through the highest levels (up to 0.5 percent).

“At the higher levels of blood alcohol concentration, there was a reduction of almost 50 percent in hospital mortality rates,” Friedman said. “This protective benefit persists even after taking into account injury severity and other factors known to be strongly associated with mortality following an injury.”

The findings of this study point:

1. It’s important for clinicians to recognize intoxicated patients but also to understand how alcohol might affect the course of treatment.

2. This study is not encouraging people to drink, the good thing which we find in this study is that interesting projects are undertaken in USA.

I wonder whether any such study has been undertaken in India.

The implication of such study as for  insurance industry in India is concerned is that if a person was intoxicated and is involved in accident his hospitalization claim, claim far car damage everything may be denied.

Let us welcome Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Limited

Let us welcome

Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Limited

This company is starting operations from Jan 1, 2013.

This company is 25^th insurance company fromGeneral / Non Life / Health Insurance Segment.

Health Insurance products from this company should become available in first quarter of 2013.

Benefits trap art

Two charts from the UK, admittedly sprayed with too much chartjunk, but illustrating the poverty trap in Britain. (A previous post  on high marginal tax rates for low income people has more charts like this.)

Most of UK benefits are not time-limited, so people get stuck for life, and then for generations.

The original article, by Fraser Nelson, "Why the Poles keep coming" in the Spectator, is worth reading.  The article starts with the puzzling fact that

Britain’s employment figures are strong but most of the rise in employment so far under this government is accounted for by foreign-born workers (as was 99pc of the rise in employment under Labour). 

The author had the same epiphany that led me to economics all those years ago. No, it's not culture, or "laziness." Treat poor people as intelligent, responding to incentives, just like you and me, but with a lot bleaker choices. Try to look at the world through their eyes if you want to understand their behavior:

 if I was in a position of a British single mother I have not the slightest doubt that I would choose welfare. Why break your back on the minimum wage for longer than you have to, if it doesn’t pay? Some people do have the resolve to do it. I know I wouldn’t.

...Until our policymakers start to see things through the eyes of those ensnared in welfare traps, nothing will change. 

More great quotes:

If you had designed a system to keep the poor down, in would not look much different to the above.

...the cash-strapped British government is still creating still the most expensive poverty in the world.

Hat tip: Dan Mitchell writing at Cato@Liberty. His post is worth reading, as are the links. (Alas, the Spectator only cites the source of the graphs as " an internal government presentation," so I don't know who to properly credit.)

Fiscal cliff or fiscal molehill?

Four thoughts, reflecting my frustrations with the "fiscal cliff" debate. 

1. Recession

How terrible will it be if we go over the cliff?

Bad, but for all the wrong reasons. If you, like me, didn't think that "stimulus" from government spending raised GDP in the recession, you can't complain that less government spending will cause a new recession now. The CBO's projections of recession are entirely Keynesian. Pay them heed if you still think the key to prosperity is for the government to borrow money and blow it.

There are no "cuts" in sight anyway. "Cut" in Washington means "increase spending less than we previously said we would." At worst a few programs will have to spend the same amount this year as last before spending increases resume.

It's not even obvious that the "cuts" will happen. Will Congress really try to pay doctors 1/3 less? (Will doctors take any medicare patients if they do?) Or will they pass an "emergency" bill, exempting doctors just like Social Security? Sequestration has never actually been used.

To an economist, the main worry is that higher marginal tax rates mean more distortions, which are a drag on the economy.  But distortions take a while to kick in. It takes a while for people to change to easier jobs, not start businesses, move businesses offshore, not go to school, choose easier but less rewarding majors, find more tax shelters, and so on. So the danger is not so much a recession, which comes, and then ends, and we go back to growth. The danger is settling in to a decade of (even more) high-distortion, sclerotic growth.

The headline rate people are fighting about -- 35% vs. 39.5 % federal income tax rate -- is basically irrelevant to the larger issues. If we had a clear, functional, stable tax system, with a total (all taxes) 39.5% top marginal rate, the economy would heave a big sigh of relief and take off like a rocket.

We have instead a horrendously complex, nay corrupt, tax system. It's chaotic, with teams of lobbyists descending now to carve out everyone's exemption, deduction and subsidy. Tax reform is, in my judgment, more important than the headline marginal rate. More generally, I think the lessons of growth economics are pretty clear that over-regulation and the consequent politicization of economic decisions is a larger danger to growth than any stable clear and uniformly administered taxes with faintly reasonable marginal rates. If you can start a business and know for sure you'll keep half the profits, that's more enticing than never knowing what new holdup you will be subject to from 100 overlapping regulatory agencies.

Furthermore, economics cares about the total marginal tax rate -- everything between the extra dollar you earn and the additional goods you receive -- including Federal, state and local income taxes, deduction phaseouts, payroll taxes, taxes on rate of return between earning and spending, sales taxes, estate taxes if you leave it to your kids, property taxes if you buy property, excise taxes, and on and on. Some parts of Washington seems to finally have figured out that reducing deductions raises taxes with less distortionary effects on marginal tax rates.  They have not so successfully figured out that every phaseout or income test adds to marginal tax rates. In any case, it makes no sense at all to talk about the Federal income tax rate in isolation.  

Economics cares equally about taxes and benefits. Whether you send the government a check or they send you a check doesn't matter, what matters is how that check changes based on your behavior. Marginal tax rates are high for lower income people too (earlier post on the subject). Asset tests are just as bad as income tests: If you save, and then an asset test takes away a benefit such as college aid, you might as well not bother saving. It makes no sense to talk about taxes and not benefits at the same time.

Economics cares about the overall impact of the Government on decisions, not just on-budget taxing and spending. If the government says "employers shall provide $15,000 worth of health insurance to every employee," that does not show up on the budget -- but it has exactly the same effect on the economy as a tax and benefit. If the government says "all gasoline shall contain 10% ethanol," that has the same effect on the economy as a tax and subsidy.

2. Distribution

The same points apply even more to distributional questions -- are the "rich" paying "their fair share," should they "pay more," and so on.  The headline Federal income tax rate is the tip of the iceberg. Economics tells us to consider the overall effect of the government at all levels on the distribution of individual consumption. (Not household, not income, not wealth.)

Obviously, we have to talk about taxes and benefits in the same breath here. We also need to talk about who benefits from government spending and intervention. There's a lot of corporate welfare, which ends up in the pockets of some very rich people. If we remove a few hundred billion in green energy subsidies, and the Al Gores of the world can't make another $100 million bucks on it, that ought to count as reducing the transfers to the rich just as much as raising their taxes.

Economics cares about the burden of taxation, not who pays taxes. This is clearest for gas taxes. It's clear to everyone that the government is not socking it to those fat-cat gas station owners with gas taxes, they are simply passed on to you and me.

3. Politics (admittedly dangerous speculation for an economist)

What in the heck is going on? Why is our national discussion paralyzed over the tip of an iceberg?

Only one story makes sense to me. President Obama has been saying for four and a half years that he wants to raise taxes on "the rich," and he means to do it. He wants to raise tax rates on the rich, for symbolic, social, political reasons as much as for anything in an economics textbook. Nothing else explains the Administration's monomania on this point, especially given that it won't make a dent in the deficit, the fact that it makes zero economic sense as a central policy to address our economic problems, and given the Administration's refusal to talk about reform -- which would raise tax revenue and help economic growth -- instead.

"The rich," need to get with the program, like Warren Buffet. It remains open season for deductions, exclusions, special deals and loopholes. Notice Buffet never asks for removal of all the clever dodges he uses to pay less taxes, and nobody has mentioned that he might do so. Tax on unrealized capital gains anyone? Limit the exclusion of charitable donations, even to family foundations that employ family members to run them, from estate taxes? Boy, that would raise a lot of revenue from some truly "rich" people.

Quid pro quo here, though, rich people and the CEOs who recently visited the White House had better line up and support the Administration if they want their special deal, deduction, credit, Obamacare waiver, and no visits from the NLRB, EEOC, EPA, consumer financial protection bureau, and so on.

High statutory rates, a Swiss cheese of loopholes renegotiated in every annual crisis, and an army of regulators on the prowl, are a recipe for permanent Democratic government. The cliff is beautifully structured to make Republicans look bad. Things happen when they make sense. This path makes enormous political sense.

The amount of magical thinking on the economic left doesn't help.  They used to claim that that economies like the US in the 1950s can still grow (for a while) despite high marginal tax rates (which nobody paid because of huge deductions). They used to claim that high tax rates wanted for other reasons don't hurt too much. Now they've talked themselves into arguing that high marginal tax rates are actually good for growth.  Why not just say the obvious, this is a policy desired for political reasons, and the political outcome is more important than the economic damage?

4. The future (admittedly dangerous prognostication for one who says things are hard to predict)

The discussion around the cliff  sounds like we are finally settling some large issue. We are not. This is the fiscal molehill, not the fiscal cliff. This is Harpers Ferry, not Gettysburg. It's the Anschluss, not D-day. It's... Ok, I'm overdoing the military analogies, you get the point. This is the prelude to what looks to me like 10 years of constant crisis.

Here is the big issue. The US has already enacted European welfare and regulatory state with American characterstics -- the bloated inefficiency, legalism, and red tape that is our specialty. We have not enacted the taxes to pay for it. We will either dramatically cut back the former, or rather dramatically raise the latter. On the table now is at most $100 billion out of a $1 trillion deficit, and likely much less. The fiscal molehill.

US Federal, State and Local spending is 40% of GDP. Pay attention to state and local, that's a lot more than the 24% Federal we talk about a lot. Europe is more like 50% of GDP, so it sounds like we're behind. But our government is bigger than it looks.

We have about a trillion dollars of "tax expenditures," including the deduction for employer-provided health insurance, deduction for mortgage interest, and (small but annoying) credits for all sorts of things like checks to silicon valley CEOs too subsidize the electric cars they drive down t their private jets. These are no different than a trillion dollars of tax and another trillion dollars of spending, or another 6% of GDP. We're at 46% right here.

Our government likes mandates and rules, which affect behavior and soak up the economy's taxing capacity just as much as on-budget taxing and spending, but hide the fact. Europeans tax gas and energy, and people choose small cars and turn down the heat. We have mileage standards, energy efficiency standards, carpool lanes, electric-car sales mandates, and so on. Same real size of government. And so on.

Before the ACA, our government was paying for health care for about half the country, in our inimitably inefficient style, including medicare, medicaid, schip, and current and retired government employees. Under the ACA, we're basically all in a European style system, funded by explicit or implicit (mandates) taxes. With those uniquely American characteristics.

The fact that government overall is about half of GDP matters to our tax debate. Properly measured, the average American must then pay about half his or her income in taxes. For every dollar taxed at a lower rate, another dollar has to be taxed at a higher rate. When we tax the average dollar at 50%, any progressivity  has to shift a lot of marginal rates well into the territory that destroys incentives and reduces revenue.

Europe pays for this stuff, and its middle class pays for this stuff. 30- 40% payroll taxes, 20% value added tax, $9 a gallon gas, 50% income taxes extending down to what we would call lower-middle-incomes, property taxes, estate taxes, wealth taxes. Sorry, Europe can't quite pay for this stuff, even with those taxes.

But this is our choice. European taxes to pay for the regulatory and welfare state we've already enacted. With the European growth and eventually southern European corruption they entail. Or a sharp cutback in that state. We can decide before or after we experience the European debt crisis.

So, the fiscal cliff is just the beginning. This will be a long hard road, and my guess is that we will lurch from crisis to crisis, with patchwork last minute deals, for another decade. It doesn't have to be so -- the economic choices are clear. But given the size of the question at hand and how little anyone is talking about the real issues, it's hard to see another way.

I think the deck is stacked towards the large-state camp.  There were two theories: "Starve the beast" said, cut taxes and eventually the size of the state will have to shrink. "Vote the benefits" said, increase spending and regulation, and eventually taxes will have to be raised to try to pay for it all. The latter seems to be winning.

I guess it's appropriate that the Grumpy economist is playing the Grinch for Christmas!

Tips To Get Affordable Group Business Health Insurance

Price of insurance may not be affordable for all. Find affordable health insurance is one of the challenges faced by many small businesses. It is important that you take your health and that of your employees. Good health is an important part of running a business. Not only healthy employees more productive, you can also know the peace of mind that the company is protected against costly medical expenses. Today, health care is very expensive and one way to avoid paying high costs are welcome.

Most companies use insurance as a benefit to attract skilled and highly skilled management and no company can afford to ignore. You can make sure your company is successful with good worker. There are several insurance plans for small businesses are available and you can find the one that best suits your needs.

The best group health insurance

To get the best insurance for your business, you might consider look at the plans. These are health plans that use large numbers, allowing to get lower prices. Purchase individual coverage can be very expensive, but if you go for group rates, you can make sure that all your employees are covered at a lower rate. The concept of group rate is ideal for small businesses and start-ups, since all new employees of the group to be added with ease, making it much more affordable.

Online research

One of the most convenient ways to get quotes from insurance is. By searching online Many online sites offer options for entrepreneurs who are looking for group health insurance and other types of insurance. Whether you're a person who is self-employed, or you are running a business, you can affordable. Different companies offer insurance quotes, and you can choose the best options. One way to reduce your costs by a high deductible plan.

Besides the advantage to win that quality employees, offers health insurance for your employees may have tax advantages. Small businesses pay for health insurance for their employees may be eligible for tax benefits. Before buying insurance, you should consider all available information on new legislation. Stay up to date with new insurance exchange will help you make informed decisions. Discover how to qualify for tax incentives and state tax credits are available.

Filling Gaps in Coverage With Short Term Health Insurance

There are many different reasons why you may have a gap in your health insurance, but it is important to remain covered. Even the smallest gap insurance can leave you vulnerable to cause high bills for an accident or sudden illness. Fortunately, you can cover the gaps in health insurance coverage in order to cover the short-term.

Why you may need short-term coverage

The most common reason why people need short-term coverage is that they change jobs. If you leave a job with a hedge, it often takes a few months before coverage on your new position comes in. In other cases where people have a gap in coverage if the insured spouse could find dies when a couple divorced is, and when a child graduates from college and is not insured by their parents.

COBRA

When you leave a job with group health insurance, you may be entitled to continue your coverage if you meet the requirements of COBRA, or the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985. COBRA requires companies with 20 or more employees to continue to lose access to group insurance plans in the event of an employee or their dependents reporting as of termination of employment shall (for reasons other than gross misconduct), divorce or death. COBRA provides for the possibility of 18 to 36 months of coverage, depending on the circumstances. However, the premiums for COBRA coverage high. Workers may be paid initially up to 102% of their bonus.

State continuation coverage

Under the laws of your state, you may be able to temporarily continue. Your coverage even if you are not entitled to continue coverage through COBRA This is especially true for employees of businesses with fewer than 20 employees who are not covered by COBRA laws. Several states have laws to extend the coverage for 3-6 months, but notes that this offer is limited passed. To find out if you is one of them, you should check with the health department in your state or Insurance Commissioner.

Individual coverage

Short-term individual insurance is also a good temporary solution, if your insurance coverage ends. Plans usually take 30 days to six months. After this period, a person would need to find a long-term plan. Short-term plans are not usually intended for precautionary measures when deductibles and premiums can be high. To take full advantage of the various short-term insurance, you should help an experienced broker you meet the right plan for your needs and nothing more.

California Health Insurance Laws

The cost of medical treatment and is still rising. Competitive lead work culture and demanding schedules to a lot of stress in an individual case? S life. Environmental, genetic diseases and wrong living are some of many factors that lead to diseases and disorders. Some people believe that the medical insurance may be a waste of hard earned money, while others may not realize how important a medical quality assurance. Each state has its own laws to regulate the health insurance practices of the insurance companies in the state. Laws on Health Insurance in California are very strict and it is mandatory for every individual to have some form of insurance coverage.

There are health insurance works on the spot that it is absolutely necessary to make a number of employers and employees provide insurance for workers. However, some employees do not accept the insurance offered by their employer instead of COBRA (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act). An insurance for those who have to lose their plans The COBRA plan is more expensive than a conventional group health insurance, but less expensive than individual health insurance. COBRA was passed by Congress and retirees are also covered by this plan.

By an increase in immigration in California, the number of uninsured people in the state has increased significantly. In 2003, the California Health Insurance Act was passed to provide health insurance to the maximum number of workers and their families.

The California Health Insurance Reliability Act (CHIRA) was adopted in 2005, to provide affordable health insurance coverage for the people in this state. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) was enacted in 1996 to ensure that health insurance for employees and their families remains in the event of termination or change of employment intact.

The Ministry of Health State of California provides all the necessary information for people on Medicare legislation in force in that State.

Health Insurance For Truck Drivers And Other Health Care Options

It is extremely important that commercial truck drivers some type of health plan due to the high rate of diseases and injuries they have suffered. Most commercial truck drivers health is not the best and could be improved by a better selection of food. In general, there are many systems driver too many bad food choices. High blood pressure, diabetes and obesity are some conditions that require regular medical treatment. Accidents, injuries, heart attack and stroke are some of the major diseases that drivers must receive emergency room care. The insurance cover for drivers these conditions and more. Health insurance plans of her usual health insurance or major medical insurance offer differentiated.

Medicare covers procedures for routine regularly. This includes regular checkups and common diseases. It also colds, influenza vaccines, vaccines, ear infections, minor injuries, etc. It includes not include serious health problems.

Major medical insurance is for serious health problems. These include diseases such as cancer, heart disease, strokes, accidents, etc. No one can predict when a medical emergency occurs, it could happen anywhere, anytime n anybody. Serious medical problems such as these are very expensive and could financially those who lay waste not covered by insurance.

Major medical plans are often sold in combination with a comprehensive health care plan that covers preventive. It can be used to the cost of basic medical care, such as visits to the doctor for routine such as infections, colds, flu, minor injuries, etc. The other can be used to cover costly visits to cover emergency and treat serious diseases and long-term conditions.

Many commercial truck drivers have no health insurance, especially for independent operators. Fortunately, a new plan by the independent owner and operator of Drivers Association (OOIDA) proposed by helping a plan of care for primary care. OOIDA is a company that fights for the rights of all professional drivers. OOIDA has developed a plan called "My Community Care". This is not an insurance policy, but a membership program that provides medical care for injuries or illnesses as well as health care and wellness services. This plan does not apply to fatal illnesses or severe injuries. The health plan is for truck drivers and their families.

It is a membership based program that interested riders should join OOIDA and can make for a very small amount. Enroll new members have 60 days from the effective date of their membership in the "My Community Care" program. Registration for "My Community Care" program for current members has until 31 May 2012 extended. The cost for this program is $ 89.00 per month. This is the only cost for most services. All visitors of the Center for you and your family will be provided for free. Infants are eligible if they reach the age of six months. Adults covered children aged of 26. There are no exceptions for pre-existing conditions. There is no deductible or co-pays in the centers of the direct health care costs. This is certainly a very affordable option for many drivers.

The services include illness, injury, prevention, care and emergency care. The range of services include vaccinations, colds, flu, sprains, back pain, urinary tract infections, minor burns, infections of the sinuses, bronchitis and annual work programs, school, sports and DOT physicals. Additional services are offered, are X-ray and imaging services. Limited laboratory is provided free of charge.

OOIDA has contracted with more than 1300 centers direct health care costs by the United States to offer this service. One of the participating centers, Concentra Medical Center. Many truck drivers are already familiar with Concentra because it is a place where to get many of them medical care and get their DOT physical. The services of these health centers are directly, without additional costs. A national network of more than 17,000 suppliers were charged for additional services such as chiropractic and physiotherapy. These services are offered to members at a discount of 25% to 30%. Hotel discounts are available in glasses with contact lenses, medication, dental care and treatment of diabetes care. Discounts are also available for MRI and CT. Other services include a nurse and doctor hotline 24 hours. All services are available at all locations.

All commercial truck drivers who are members of OOIDA are participating to participate in this program. Many insured drivers and their families moved or went without medical care, even if they are sick because. Lack of funds With this plan, could any of them to get medical care when needed. Truck driver health will improve with regular access to health care. Now, this is not an insurance program, it is a program that can access the drivers and have the assurance that they and their families can get basic medical care minimum cost.

Valuable Health Insurance Quotes

Safety and protection are two basic needs that must be seriously considered. Accidents, deaths, injuries and illness are unpredictable events, but we try to avoid them. To accept the fact that life is fragile and facing reality head is equipped on the way to the future, the use of insurance is reliable and profitable.

Health insurance quotes are good sources of information, if you are considering insurance for yourself, your family and / or your business. You can surf the internet and find insurance agencies so that you can personally discuss policy provisions with their insurance agent or customer service representative to talk online or by phone.

Points to consider when selecting a plan

Before buying any insurance, it would be wise to answer the following questions clearly and completely.

· What are your needs?

Choose an insurance plan that best suits you and your family or business needs. Moreover, it must be one that fits your budget may be. In addition, you must determine what type of insurance you need.

There are basically three types of insurance, namely, the individual health insurance, which is designed for one person and often made especially for certain; Family Health Insurance is designed for self-employed or work for a small company that is not offer health insurance and group health insurance entrepreneurs, to help his / her employees to purchase health wants.

· What is your budget?

The second factor is your budget. How much are you willing to pay for a health plan and how much you can afford? Do not be fooled by appearances, remember the lowest price does not always guarantee that the plan offers the best deal. Learn from experts and health insurance quotes to consult in order to go into the details of each plan available. You can contact an insurance agent or broker for prices and services or benefits that allow each plan.

· The insurance reliable?

Since it is your future and your life is at stake, you ensure you buy an insurance company and country to be reliable. You can have enough data to customize your needs health insurance quotes can be found online and ask your trusted friends on these topics.

How To Get The Best Health Insurance Plan For Your Business

Starting a business can be very daunting for most people. There are many details to take care of the company to take to succeed. One of the most difficult but important for running a business is to decide on the ideal health insurance. You must ensure that you get the best insurance for you and your employees. Finding the right insurance can be a challenge because of the options available. You need as much information as possible before buying insurance.

A new law on health care has it easier for those who have small businesses to obtain insurance. It is now more affordable, but get the details of the best insurance plans for small business is always a challenge for most entrepreneurs. Before you buy a decision, you should decide your state laws, what you are required to provide insurance. In most cases, if you have less than 50 employees, you can not be forced by law to provide insurance.

Health insurance

One of the best ways to attract quality employees for your company is to offer a range of health insurance. Even if you are not required by your state may consider you, offers group health insurance. When considering insurance plans for small businesses, you should remember that you do not pay, the full amount itself. Most businesses have a system of cost sharing, where employees pay a portion of the costs. The employer deducts an agreed amount from the employee's salary and then makes the monthly payment.

Find the right plan

Finding the right group plan is the best way to ensure that the company is getting for their money. It is important to compare the different measures from multiple vendors. There are several ways to obtain health insurance and they buy directly from an insurance company or involve working with a broker. You can also recommendations from various sources such as your company payroll. A number of associations and insurance for the members of an assembly can be useful for entrepreneurs. Join a club can reduce insurance costs that society pays.

Many companies find it more convenient to get a broker who takes care of all details of the insurance. The broker frees entrepreneurs to focus on other areas of the company. The biggest advantage of using agents is that they have access to several health care companies.

Health Insurance - Tips for Choosing The Right Health Insurance Plan

When it comes to health insurance, there is no one-size-fits-all plan that you can rely on. Among the many plans on the market, you will find that each. Somewhat unique with its advantages and limitations This makes the insurance buying a difficult task when careful research is sometimes imagined the right plan for you is necessary.

Before you go to the hunting plan, there are some questions you should ask yourself:

    What is my financial limit?
    What should I cover? I am responsible only for me? Should I ask? I plan to retire yet? I'm already retired?
    How often do I need to consult a doctor?
    How much premium I can afford?
    I already existing medical conditions?
    As a comprehensive plan of what I want?
    I have regular dental and / or vision check-up?
    Should I many prescription drugs?
    Preparedness, as I want?
    I am constantly on risks such as the possibility of an accident, exposure to toxins, weak immune system, exposure etc?
    Am I at risk for a hereditary disease?

Knowing the answers to these questions will help you identify where you are getting and what your insurance needs. It will refine your search and give you an estimate how much you should be spending - and what benefits you should know for your money.Once you need your health, it is to go shopping at the time. Also narrowed the field, it's easy to lose sight of what you need. Here are some tips you should follow to ensure that you do not buy the wrong plan:

    Should be how much the average cost of your health. For example, it is generally accepted that Rs.5 lakh cover is sufficient for an adult.

    Individual items are usually comprehensive plans as a family, and also cheaper in the long term for your wallet. In addition, individual health insurance, most, if not cover all your tests, pre-and post-hospitalization expenses and other costs home which is usually quite limited in the roof cover.

    Check your policy to see whether it provides coverage for atypical costs, such as maternity, vision, dental, etc. If this is not the case if these blankets can be added to your policy, or if they covered last year, after a series be.

    Never choose a policy premium is based only. See what claim the history of your insurer. If they have a good reputation for settling claims faster and better profits have to go ahead. If, however, is the settlement of the claim paperwork and always too much work or other to a different supplier.

    Evaluate your ability risks, before deciding to take the decision for a water line. Although they are relatively cheaper than individual plans, and. Coverage for the whole family, but also mean that you need to take a greater amount of risk in exchange for a small premium

    If you are an employee and your employer pays for your insurance coverage, it is advisable to get a separate private. The main reason is - although insurance coverage at work usually very useful, they can end when you leave your organization. Today, most people are on the move, when it comes to changing jobs, so you do not always cover when other, the transition from one job to.

    You always look extra blankets as critical illness cover, accident insurance, hospital cash, surgical supplies, etc. These can be added to your current policy as a runner, the amount added to your premium.

Keep the list above considerations, and you should be able to find the right health insurance without too much trouble!

Affordable Quality Cheap Health Insurance

For a number of reasons, not the millions of adults and children not obtain sufficient insurance or not. Cheap due to the rising cost of taxes and insurance premiums are rare. Served by the requirements of this sub population to meet, there are several options that bring people the medical care they need.

Affordable packages are available for individuals, families and individuals who are self-employed. Many of these plans can be found through a free, no-obligation online search. By filling out a simple application with basic information, a list of results will be made available to consumers to check.

Every state has compliance policies to each provider, it is not in every state. Consumers should pay attention to the state in which they make sure they get to choose accurate results. Using an online comparison site saves time finding any company individually.

Most people look for the lowest premium when comparing plans. While this is important, people should carefully examine each benefit plan to cover. Some plans have waiting periods for certain procedures or not to treat existing diseases.

Many plans have deductibles that must be met before the company will make payments on claims must be underwriting. For example, if there are a thousand dollar deductible, the insured must pay for all medical services related to that amount. Once the limit is reached, the strategy will then start paying for doctor visits and other expenses.

Some suppliers have prescription coverage, but this is not always the case. Individuals may provide additional measures that provide pay discounts on a variety of drugs. Local government programs also reduce requirements for residents. By contacting the Department of State or county agency to residents free discount cards.

No medical treatment can be painful for families, especially if they pay for care out of pocket. If a family member has a chronic illness, savings and all monies be quickly exhausted. Hundreds of people are forced to declare bankruptcy because they have a large number of medical bills due to lack of medical care.

Affordable health insurance cheap and can help families receive the medical care they need. Get to regular medical visits and corresponding diagnostic save thousands of dollars in hospital costs and future health related. Large well-known companies can determine help consumers. The best plan for their needs