Should insurance premiums be tax-deductible?

issue prior to revisions:

fine

Proposed revision, up or down:

Should insurance premiums be tax-dedictible?
Yes
No

Yeah, I'd go with "Should insurance premiums be tax deductible?" I know the current version is supposed to clarify the issue, but maybe we should let voters (and public figures) do the "thinking."

I suppose that's true.

i'm not sold.  first, what does "significantly benefit uninsured Americans" mean?  it's so vague.  i think you ask whether it should be done and those that say yes will say premiums should be tax deductible because x or y or z or they should not be tax deductible because of x, y, or z.  one of those reasons might be that making premiums tax deductible will do little to curb the healthcare crisis.

linking them together the way you have here is painfully biased.  why did you choose to link uninsured americans into this issue? why not reference the economy?  because you are leaning toward the "premiums being tax deductible will do little to help the uninsured" position!!

Okay. You've talked me into it.

i agree, esperanto, that jacki's proposed revision is a worthy question but diverts this issue from its current intent.

i think your wording is nearly there...there is your proposal, and then the following:

would making insurance premiums tax-deductible help uninsured americans?

i am fine with either but have a slight preference for "would making insurance premiums..." because i think that gets to what is on the table with bush's proposal and reactions to it. it's a bit more specific.

That's a fair question but it's also a totally different one. I would propose that separately and continue to work with this one.

Would tax-deductible insurance premiums help uninsured Americans?

Agreed.  Take that out and you have my vote. 

can we just ask:

Should insurance premiums be tax-deductible?

i don't think we need to insert the "significantly benefit ..." language.  it frames the issue too much. 

I prefer this issue as is. I envision a scenario where the proposal gets a lot of support, but it doesn't actually help uninsured people at all. In fact, I would guess that's actually the entire point of it. I'm sure it would help middle-class people who already have insurance, and both sides are courting that segment of the population pretty aggressively. The current wording is more to the point.

The issue is certainly timely, a la Bush State of the Union. However, I'm not sure the issue as framed captures the debate. It might very well be that tax-deductibility will benefit many people who are uninsured. But that doesn't mean it's the best program overall. One might argue that what we need is universal, or expanded, health coverage, and that tying it to tax deductibility is absurd. It sort of reminds me of the mentality in New Orleans that everyone who needs to get out can just pack up their stuff in their SUV and go. If you don't have income, tax-deductibility is a joke.

There's also a new wrinkle to Bush's proposal. I'm not sure either I or he understands it, but it seems that, under the plan, people will get a tax deduction whether they get their plan through work or not, and that the deduction will be the same, whether they spend a lot or a little, in order to encourage people to choose cheaper plans (by allowing them to pocket the difference).

Here's a suggestion. "Do you support President Bush's proposal to make health insurance plans tax-deductible?" That way, the scope of the issue automatically expands and contracts as the Bush proposal evolves.

I've found several stands on this one already.  It looks like it will feature prominently in the State of the Union address tonight, so there will presumably be a lot more stands soon.

I suppose if it is an issue that Bush is proposing then it would be a good question/topic to pursue.

This idea comes from today's Paul Krugman column.  Bush is proposing making insurance premiums tax-deductible and couching it in terms of helping those who are uninsured.  (Bush = yes.)  Krugman thinks that's idiotic.  (Krugman = no.)

issue prior to revisions: