I even highlighted one for It's_GO_Time. Individual Mandate Tax (Page 324/Sec. 1501/$8 bil) Employer Mandate Tax (Page 348/Sec. 1513/$28 bil) Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Page 1979/Sec. 9001/$149.1 bil) Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Page 1996/Sec. 9002/Min$) Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 1997/Sec. 9003/$5 bil) HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Page 1998/Sec. 9004/$1.3 bil) FSA Cap (Page 1999/Sec. 9005/$14.6 bil) Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 1999/Sec. 9006/$17.1 bil) Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (page 2001/Sec. 9007/Min$) Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Page 2010/Sec. 9008/ $22.2 bil) Tax of Medical Device Manufacturers (Page 2020/Sec. 9009/$19.3 bil) Tax on Health Insurers (Page 2026/Sec. 9010/$60.4 bil) Eliminate tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Page 2034/Sec. 9012/$5.4 bil) Raise “Haircut” for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI (Page 2034/Sec. 9013/$15.2 bil) $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Page 2035/Sec. 9014/$0.6 bil) Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Page 2040/Sec. 9015/$53.8 bil) Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Page 2044/Sec. 9016/$0.4 bil) Tax on Cosmetic Medical Procedures (Page 2045/Sec. 9017/$5.8 bil)
Ignore this thread. This healthcare bill will make the economy hum again, just like the so-called stimulus bill did. Live the lie.
Typical rightwing lack of comprehension. Healthcare reform is intended to end the mass suffering and dying in our country by reforming our Neanderthalic, antiquated system of only caring for the wealthy. The economy (and wealthy people) will obviously benefit from a much healthier working class, but that's an added benefit, not the goal. It's about basic compassion, not compounded interest.
As to the topic of this thread, I don't quite see the objection. It would be irresponsible not to raise taxes, if government is going to provide additional services. I can understand you might not want the government to provide these healthcare services. But complaining that they are raising taxes to pay for it - when the alternative is borrowing money to pay for it - seems a little odd. barfo
Yes. Bigger boobs will cost you bigger bucks. A smaller schnoz will send simoleans to Uncle Sam. barfo
How about if they just charge the people who get health insurance from the govt. a premium like every other insurance company?
They plan to, as I understand it. The cost comes in covering those that can't afford the premium. barfo
They're obviously not charging enough for the premiums. There's no reason to raise taxes. No insurance company collects taxes because they need the money.
Insurance companies don't cover those too poor to pay their premiums, so the comparison is not a good one. barfo
What's the need for a govt. "option" (it's not optional, really) then? They can mandate the companies take anyone and tax the shit out of us to pay the premiums for the poor.
Of course it would be better. Most people seem to think so, even Democrats. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112002618_pf.html A budget-buster in the making By David S. Broder Sunday, November 22, 2009 It's simply not true that America is ambivalent about everything when it comes to the Obama health plan. The day after the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) gave its qualified blessing to the version of health reform produced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Quinnipiac University poll of a national cross section of voters reported its latest results. This poll may not be as famous as some others, but I know the care and professionalism of the people who run it, and one question was particularly interesting to me. It read: "President Obama has pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our federal budget deficit over the next decade. Do you think that President Obama will be able to keep his promise or do you think that any health care plan that Congress passes and President Obama signs will add to the federal budget deficit?" The answer: Less than one-fifth of the voters -- 19 percent of the sample -- think he will keep his word. Nine of 10 Republicans and eight of 10 independents said that whatever passes will add to the torrent of red ink. By a margin of four to three, even Democrats agreed this is likely. That fear contributed directly to the fact that, by a 16-point margin, the majority in this poll said they oppose the legislation moving through Congress. I have been writing for months that the acid test for this effort lies less in the publicized fight over the public option or the issue of abortion coverage than in the plausibility of its claim to be fiscally responsible. This is obviously turning out to be the case. While the CBO said that both the House-passed bill and the one Reid has drafted meet Obama's test by being budget-neutral, every expert I have talked to says that the public has it right. These bills, as they stand, are budget-busters. Here, for example, is what Robert Bixby, the executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group of budget watchdogs, told me: "The Senate bill is better than the House version, but there's not much reform in this bill. As of now, it's basically a big entitlement expansion, plus tax increases." Here's another expert, Maya MacGuineas, the president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: "While this bill does a better job than the House version at reducing the deficit and controlling costs, it still doesn't do enough. Given the political system's aversion to tax increases and spending cuts, I worry about what the final bill will look like." These are nonpartisan sources, but Republican budget experts such as former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin amplify the point with specific examples and biting language. Holtz-Eakin cites a long list of Democratic-sponsored "budget gimmicks" that made it possible for the CBO to estimate that Reid's bill would reduce federal deficits by $130 billion by 2019. Perhaps the biggest of those maneuvers was Reid's decision to postpone the start of subsidies to help the uninsured buy policies from mid-2013 to January 2014 -- long after taxes and fees levied by the bill would have begun. Even with that change, there is plenty in the CBO report to suggest that the promised budget savings may not materialize. If you read deep enough, you will find that under the Senate bill, "federal outlays for health care would increase during the 2010-2019 period" -- not decline. The gross increase would be almost $1 trillion -- $848 billion, to be exact, mainly to subsidize the uninsured. The net increase would be $160 billion. But this depends on two big gambles. Will future Congresses actually impose the assumed $420 billion in cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health programs? They never have. And will this Congress enact the excise tax on high-premium insurance policies (the so-called Cadillac plans) in Reid's bill? Obama has never endorsed them, and House Democrats -- reacting to union pressure -- turned them down in favor of a surtax on millionaires' income. The challenge to Congress -- and to Obama -- remains the same: Make the promised savings real, and don't pass along unfunded programs to our children and grandchildren. davidbroder@washpost.com
My complaint is they're raising taxes. They should provide whatever coverage they can afford based on the premiums they can convince people to pay. Otherwise there's no govt. "option" at all, nor is such "option" really competing with the insurance companies as it should. And I do support a government option, just not raising taxes to prop it up.
