Skip to main content

The first step: the Federal government decides how much health care you are entitled to have

Paying for universal health care was always the (ahem, with apologies to the GOP) the elephant in the room.

Here are the three options thus far on the table, according to the SF Chronicle:

Rep. Pete Stark, a leading congressional author of health reform legislation, called Thursday for a 2 percent income tax surcharge to pay for the health insurance program he predicted Congress and President Obama would enact later this year....

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee that also is drafting health reform legislation, has endorsed a new tax on employees for some health insurance benefits that exceed the value of the basic plan offered to federal employees, currently about $13,000 a year for a family of four.

Obama has proposed paying for universal health care coverage by reducing tax deductions for upper-income taxpayers.


The one that catches my eye here--and which has been getting pimped in the press with sufficient regularity over the past few days to suggest it is the front runner--is the Baucus plan for taxing your existing health care benefits.

Notice what Senator Baucus is proposing: the new tax will kick in for employees at the point at which their benefits exceed about $13,000 annually, which is described as the value of the basic plan offered to federal employees.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the basic plan in this context generally means the cheapest plan, the one with the fewest actual benefits, and usually the highest co-pays.

So what Senator Baucus is suggesting is that the baseline for universal health care will be the cost of the worst plan that the Feds offer their own employees, and that everything above that will be essentially considered a taxable luxury.

This also means, to take the example of Delaware state employees, that every employee with a family health plan will come under this tax.

The worst Delaware state employee family options are First State Basic ($14,360.16) AETNA HMO ($15,539.44/year) and BlueCare HMO ($15,401.28). The best plan is the Comprehensive PPO plan ($16,677.60).

I need to say this again: the proposed standard is that you are only entitled to health care worth the worst Federal plan, and anything better will be considered a taxable luxury.

The other irony about the Baucus plan, coming from the Democrats--the party of the progressives--is that this is a profoundly regressive tax. Again, consider Delaware's state employees and realize that Senator Baucus plans to tax a school cafeteria worker with a $20K income and a DE family health plan exactly the same amount as he plans to tax dear old Lonnie George.

And, as has been noted repeatedly throughout the media for the past several days, President Obama is ready to reverse his own campaign promises of no tax increases for families making less than $250K and no taxing of health care benefits in order to accommodate the idea of taxing the poorest people now receiving health insurance to pay for the uninsured.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Also remember, the smaller the group (company) the higher the premiums. Also, the older and sicker the employees (claims experiance) the higher the premiums.

I worked for a small company where the owners (both in their 60's) took themselves out of the company insurance pool because their presence skewed the formula and drove the insurance rates through the roof.
Brad said…
A completely predictable process..in order to guarantee government-subsidized healthcare for everyone, the government taxes the current benefits that people are on. This is really going to hurt small business, which will lead to more unemployment. This is the true cost of socialism..all the indirect effects of these taxes.

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?