Once We Get a Broad-based Set of New Taxes in Place, We Can Reform Health Insurance…
Your tax dollars at work…generating ideas for more tax dollars!
House Democrats have lots of potential targets for higher taxes as they aim to expand health care coverage to reach the roughly 50 million that experts say are uninsured.
Also under consideration are higher alcohol taxes, increases to the Medicare payroll tax and a value-added tax, a sort of national sales tax, of up to 1.5 percent or more….
The final price tag for that effort could top $1 trillion, with cuts to Medicare and Medicaid covering the rest of the cost.
The tax options include:
_ Increasing the price of soda and other sugary drinks by 10 cents a can.
_ Applying a potential 2 percent income tax increase to single taxpayers earning more than $200,000 a year and households earning more than $250,000.
_ A new employer payroll tax could target 3 percent of employers' health care expenditures.
_ Taxing employer-provided health insurance benefits above certain levels—a less likely option but one that still is in the running.
More from USA Today via the Cincinnati Enquirer.
This all sounds great, boys! How's that economic recovery coming? And the promise not to raise taxes on anyone other than Joe the Plumber?
Meanwhile, the Senate is "struggling" to reduce a $1.6 trillion plan into a mere $1 trillion. Which means that when the House and Senate get together, the final bill will be announced as north of a trillion. And the final price in reality? If Medicare is any indication, it will be a gazillion over that:
At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $ 12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was a supposedly "conservative" estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion.
Which is a stat that should be hauled out and put on the table every time someone talks about government intervention in health care as a cost-containment measure. There's little doubt that a government-run system (either directly or indirectly) will be a bureaucratic nightmare; there's also little doubt that any reduction in overall spending will come from denying coverage rather than making it more cost-effective.
Another thing to bring up is the simple fact that, as Reason's Brian Doherty has pointed out, "health care systems don't equal health."
As [author John] Goodman notes, "beyond some basic public health measures, there is not much correlation internationally between health care inputs and the overall health of a population." Our health is far more in our own hands—depending on our own behavior, from exercise to diet to risk taking—than politicians would have us believe. That reality, combined with the fact that we could spend our entire GDP on health care without satisfying all individual demand for it, leads to the conclusion that no policy reforms, even the most market-leaning, will solve all, or even most, of any loosely conceived health care "crisis."
More on that here. It's not a trivial point: The constant equation of being insured with being healthy and with having access to health care is vastly misleading. These are simply not the same things, but their conflation does push the cost of medicine way, way up. What has truly perverted medical care and costs in this country is an insurance system that doesn't simply insure against catastrophic or high-dollar fixes (as is the case with home and auto insurance), but the standard protocol of covering at least part of all routine procedures, checkups, you name it. Why in the world does, say, a cholesterol test cost more than $5 or $10? Because the labs and the doctors and you name it can pass along the costs to third parties (chief among these is the government, which currently picks up 45 percent of all medical spending).
And a final point about the "uninsured." About 45 percent of them could either purchase coverage if they chose to or qualify for existing government programs. Why not push that as a first-step solution rather than taxing Mountain Dew? And as important, what are the deep implications on behavior of the government effectively controlling the health of the state? Does that give crusaders, whether of the right or left, an even more intrusive opening into policing how we live, eat, breathe, love, and recreate? Can we just ban skiing and sailboarding and everything else folks such as John Kerry do with impunity? Papa Bush, no more skydiving! How many Sonny Bono-Michael Kennedy types can we afford clogging the nation's emergency rooms and using up precious health-care resources?
Watch Reason.tv's "Get Some: How to fix America's health insurance crisis." Go here for links, embed code, iPod, HD versions.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Apparently, there are some people in the USA who think they can get Swedish levels of welfare without Swedish levels of taxation.
Then there are those who have no problem with Swedish levels of taxation as long as some other guy is paying them.
Incidentally, even the Swedes are getting tired of Swedish levels of taxation.
The government is making me want to vomit. But I guess that’s ok, because they’ll pay for my zofran.
If so many Americans have now bought the idea that your life belongs to the government, then there should be no complaints from them when government requires them to behave however the electoral majority wishes. So shut up when the piper’s tune tells you to stop rock climbing or skateboarding, stop drinking fermented grapes or grain, stop burning carbon to attend frivolous rock concerts or protests in Washington or visiting some organic produce stand thirty miles out in the country on a beautiful Sunday afternoon.
Mmmmm, the Voracity of Hope:
measure. There’s little doubt that a government-run system (either directly or indirectly) will be a bureaucratic nightmare
I find this comment a bit odd. It is our current system that is the world-champion of bureaucratic nightmares. Single payer systems have far less paperwork, and it is reflected in the price.
No realistic conservative alternative to the single-payer system makes a substantial dent in the bureaucracy.
What has truly perverted medical care and costs in this country is an insurance system that doesn’t simply insure against catastrophic or high-dollar fixes (as is the case with home and auto insurance), but the standard protocol of covering at least part of all routine procedures, checkups, you name it.
Therein lies the problem. If we have anywhere near enough co-pays and deductibles to significantly reduce these moral hazards, serious illnesses end up costing so much that the sick people go bankrupt – defeating the entire point of having insurance in the first place. There is no happy middle ground here, unfortunately.
It’s not a trivial point: The constant equation of being insured with being healthy and with having access to health care is vastly misleading.
Health insurance is a magic talisman which will prevent you from getting sick. That’s why they call it “insurance”.
Single payer systems have far less paperwork, and it is reflected in the price.
Mmmm’kay.
Wow. A small value added tax to fund health care? You mean small like income taxes when they were first introduced?
It is our current system that is the world-champion of bureaucratic nightmares. Single payer systems have far less paperwork, and it is reflected in the price.
Oh, Chad. You were spoofing along so convincingly, and then you had to blow it. I laughed, though.
What do you even say in the face of stuff like this? Once these taxes are put in place, that’s it. They’re there forever.
Excuse me, I need to go scream into a pillow until my voice gives out.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The pundits should debate (at the risk of being labelled “heartless”) why health insurance is considered a right. I dare say some people are more at risk of losing everything through lawsuits than illness. Perhaps all Americans should be guaranteed legal assistance and “umbrella” coverage.
There is only one thing that will significantly reduce health care costs in the U.S. and that’s aggressive competition. It’s that simple. All the government can do is create an illusion that the prices are under control.
And, just like with the auto companies and electronics manufacturers, it’s going to be foreign competition that finally overcomes government and industry beliefs that health care can successfully defy the laws of economics.
In the middle of the worst recession in 50 years lets raise taxes. Great plan. Nothing helps with healthcare like poverty.
What Solana said… And now, I go back to sleep.
Actually, one more…
Nothing helps the poor like an increase in the cost of beer, soda, & food.
Nothing helps the poor like an increase in the cost of beer, soda, & food.
Hark! I hear in the distance the grand liberal refrain: “We’re saving them from themselves…”
Let them eat arugula.
I’m re-writing The Little Red Hen. In this newer, more progressive version, the dog, the duck, and the cat realize the power of democracy. They form their own political party made up of like-minded soulless losers. Their platform is they let the smug little red hen plant her wheat. They let the little workaholic cut the wheat. They watch the hen thresh the wheat and grind it into flour. They smoke crack while she makes the flour into bread. Then they take their fair share. Fuck that greedy selfish bitch.
no comment.
Well put, Dave.
And, just like with the auto companies and electronics manufacturers, it’s going to be foreign competition that finally overcomes government and industry beliefs that health care can successfully defy the laws of economics.
I, for one, am not looking forward to going to Mexico if i need medication or something.
P Brooks | June 19, 2009, 9:45am | #
Single payer systems have far less paperwork, and it is reflected in the price.
Mmmm’kay.
http://cthealth.server101.com/healthcare_bureaucracy_u_s__vs__canada.htm
Apparently you haven’t done a bit of research or thinking on the topic. Please bother to do so before replying. Thanks.
We spend an enormous amount on paperwork and general bureacracy, far more than anyone else. It is a large component of our overall high costs.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/19/sotu.cleveland.clinic/index.html?eref=rss_latest
cognitive dissonance, anyone?
http://www.canada.com/Health+wait+times+require+action+docs/1712025/story.html
Months long wait for treatment for cancer in Canada. The canadian health system is just a killing machine. No wonder leftists like it so much. Chad, why do you hate sick people so much?
I apologize, my html-fu is at the shop for repairs.
My lovely state of Massachusetts is in the 3rd year of mandated health insurance and mandated types of coverage (e.g., we have to buy Rx coverage) made more palatable by huge subsidies to help people buy the insurance. Universal coverage (not), more choice (not), lower costs (definitely not). This is why Obama and others pushing health care reform don’t mention Massachusetts, even tho it’s the only state (so far) with mandated coverage.
But let’s not stop at failing at a state level, let’s go national!
Apparently you haven’t done a bit of research or thinking on the topic. Please bother to do so before replying. Thanks.
*clutches chest, falls to floor*
“in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $ 12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was a supposedly “conservative” estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion.
Which is a stat that should be hauled out and put on the table every time someone talks about government intervention in health care as a cost-containment measure.”
Indeed it should be.
But you can count on every liberal both inside and outside the media to studiously ignore it as if it never actually happened or “doesn’t count” as being relevant to the issue.
kc,
I remember when Dukakus was running for president and he and the media kept saying that MA had this fantastic health care system and that if he were elected president, he would use that model for the entire country.
And I thought, if (and that’s a mighty big if) the MA system is so great, then doesn’t that demonstrate that health care is best handled at the state level not the fed?
If the government was truly interested in lowering the total cost of health care they would encourage smoking, overeating, not exercising and other unhealthy lifestyle choices. It’s been proven time and again that the sooner you die the less you cost the system.
“We spend an enormous amount on paperwork and general bureacracy, far more than anyone else. It is a large component of our overall high costs.”
Apparently, this is more important to Chad than the quality of care.
As a doctor and a patient and a taxpayer, I’ll be triple screwed.
Gimlet,
Wow does that take me back. Remember Dukakis in the tank? Anecdote: years ago, I almost pinned him between my car and his when pulling away from the curb at Logan airport; two apologies: I stopped in time, and this was after he left elected office. Personally, tho, he seemed like a nice guy.
Remember Dukakis in the tank?
How could we forget.
Also under consideration are higher alcohol taxes, increases to the Medicare payroll tax and a value-added tax, a sort of national sales tax, of up to 1.5 percent or more….
I ask our progressive friends again, when exactly did a national sales tax stop being regressive? I want the fucking time and date when this happened. Then I want a 100 word explanation as to why.
We spend an enormous amount on paperwork and general bureacracy
Why is this so?
We spend an enormous amount on paperwork and general bureacracy, far more than anyone else. It is a large component of our overall high costs.
I run into this a lot. We have a lot of paperwork! Conclusion: Single payer healthcare!
That’s a non sequitur. The conclusion is not obviously a single payer system. The conclusion is that there are needs for reform. What exactly that reform is, and what pathway it takes is very much up to argument. Decoupling insurance from employers is one place to start. Regulatory reform is another place to start.
How’s this for an Inconvenient Truth:
http://healthcare-economist.com/2007/10/02/health-care-system-grudge-match-canada-vs-us/
God, fucking assholes! They fucking suck! Arrrrughghgh! I want to hit something! I wish they’d all just drink a taxed up coke and choke on it! Fucking idiots!
“My lovely state of Massachusetts is in the 3rd year of mandated health insurance and mandated types of coverage…”
Wow, I never knew that about Mass. I think it just broke the state’s tie with Illinois in my list as the second worst state. My new standing is as follows:
1. California
2. Mass
3. Illinois
4. Thinking about Mississippi… I haven’t really put much thought beyond those top three.
(2 and 3 previously tied)