At last a fuss about discriminating tax treatment of health coverage

The best outcome from President Bush's State of the Union speech last Tuesday night would be that more people think about having coverage and care about what it cost. There hasn't been a real consumer market for coverage options, since employers receive a tax deduction for the premiums they pay for their employees and dependents. Meanwhile, individuals and families that buy private health insurance outside of an employement situation don't have any tax advantages, like employers do, to buy coverage.

Just having this discussion at the water cooler, where workers congregate, or hearing it on the evening news has put this topic of appropriate level of health insurance coverage on the radar screen of many Americans. It's about time that those who are covered truly understand the costs associated with their coverage, and those not yet covered take the time to review the affordable options that exist in the emerging market.

160 million, or so, Americans have employer sponsored coverage. It is believed that 80% of them fall under the proposed tax deduction cap and the remaining 20% would be required to pay taxes on their more expensive coverage. The irony is that many of those who have the more expensive coverage, who would be subject to increased tax liability, are lower paid workers who may not be able to afford it. All the more reason to shop for the most appropriate coverage that fits the coverage needs of the individual, rather than the Also, the carriers offering insurance products will inevitably find ways to compete with consumer friendly products and policies to underwrite those applying for insurance.

We need all the incentives we can get to create a real market for health insurance and stop hiding the costs of premiums and treatment costs to consumers.