EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 16, 2009 10:11:22 GMT -5
Here's a summary of the taxes associated with the draft House Health Care "Reform" bill.
Tax Increases in House Dem Health Bill Tuesday, July 14, 2009 3:04 PM A draft of the House Democrat health care bill is out, and it's been leaked to ATR staff. There are several major tax increases in here, most of which violate the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. They include:
a tax on individuals failing to sign up for health care equal to the lesser of 2.5% of adjusted gross income (AGI) or the average individual premium amount
a tax on employers for not providing a health care plan equal to 8% of payroll. This becomes 0, 4, or 6 percent of payroll as payday totals dip below $400,000 annually
a new and undetermined excise tax on health insurance plans codification of the "economic substance doctrine," whereby businesses would not be able to engage in legal tax avoidance techniques without demonstrating a bona fide business purpose
delay of worldwide interest allocation, a baby step toward the full double-taxation of corporate profits earned overseas the big one--a new "surtax" on the AGI of small businesses and other high income earners. Here's the details:
1% on AGI of $350,000 to $500,000 1.5% on AGI of $500,000 to $1,000,000 5.4% on AGI of over $1,000,000
Those brackets are 50% if you're Married Filing Separately, and 80% if you're Single or Head of Household
This will result in a top rate of 45%, and a capital gains rate of over 25%. It's more than that when you factor in that this surtax is not on taxable income, but on adjusted gross income. Factoring that plus state income tax in means that the top rate will exceed 50%, and the capital gains rate will exceed 30%.
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Jul 16, 2009 10:22:20 GMT -5
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jul 16, 2009 12:58:21 GMT -5
Here we go. President Obama and his cronies on the left will hope America stays asleep or afraid enough to turn us into a full-blown European welfare state.
This plan constitutes nothing less than Socialized Medicine. No surprise given it is the bastard child of a disguised socialist.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 16, 2009 13:43:48 GMT -5
I will refrain from any political invective, and simply say that this bill has both the words "boondoggle" and -- more importantly -- "disaster" written all over it.
I do not question the motives of those who feel we need health care reform...and very soon, if not now. I have medical professionals in my family who agree with that wholeheartedly. But this is not the answer.
(And, OK, just a small bit of snark, it is pretty amusing that no one in Congress seems interested in taking the Republicans up on the proposal that if they vote for this bill, then they should be obligated to sign up for the "public" option. Funny that.)
I also have a pretty strong feeling that the 60-seat majority that the Dems now hold is not all that long for this world. If they don't do this now, it won't happen....and I think the administration knows that. Here's me hoping the Senate continues to be as inefficient as ever.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Jul 16, 2009 14:45:50 GMT -5
(And, OK, just a small bit of snark, it is pretty amusing that no one in Congress seems interested in taking the Republicans up on the proposal that if they vote for this bill, then they should be obligated to sign up for the "public" option. Funny that.) Actually, Dodd and Kennedy already called Coburn's bluff on that. www.politico.com/politicopulse/0709/politicopulse39.html
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 16, 2009 15:09:03 GMT -5
Sure, easy for them to say, since neither will be a Senator for all that much longer (for one reason or another).
;D
OK, OK, maybe in poor taste, but in all seriousness good for them. If they believe in this, they should sign on to it. Earlier today, that was not the case.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jul 16, 2009 16:02:23 GMT -5
Here we go. President Obama and his cronies on the left will hope America stays asleep or afraid enough to turn us into a full-blown European welfare state. This plan constitutes nothing less than Socialized Medicine. No surprise given it is the bastard child of a disguised socialist. Ok, can we have more criticism that deals in reality (like Boz's) and less of this hyperbolic nonsense. The Obama plan is nothing like any European plan, and there is no single European plan. The British have socialized medicine, where all doctors work for the government. The Canadians have single-payer, where the government is the sole insurer but doctors don't work for the government. The Obama plan is neither of these things, a fact that single-payer advocates to Obama's left lament. Simply waving the "socialized medicine" flag show that either you have no idea what the current debate is about or you're purposely trying to obfuscate the issue.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 16, 2009 19:17:11 GMT -5
The number one way to cut the costs of health insurance is to close the borders and deport all illegal aliens. It's conservatively estimated there are at least 12 million falling into that category. You say it can't be done? Operation Wetback did just that during the Eisenhower adminstration. All we need is the political courage to enforce the laws.
As for the socialized medicine Bando says we are not heading toward, you define socialized medicine as all doctors working for the government. That's one type of socialized medicine but not the only one. If the government sets the rules and sets how much can be paid to doctors, hospitals, insurers, chiropractors, etc., that's socialized medicine as I choose to define it. My cardiologist says we are already under socialized medicine, particularly for Medicare patients. I have a heart condition and have a pacemaker. The government tells him how often he can schedule pacemaker checks, whether he can bill for an office visit on the same day of a stress test or must they be scheduled on different days, how much Medicare will pay him for doing routine blood tests, how often he can schedule echocardiogram tests, etc. etc. The government is calling the shots on what medical care can be given, when it can be given, and how much the doctor can charge. That may not meet your definition of socialized medicine but it sure as Hell meets mine and the Health Care "Reform" now being proposed will be more of this sort of thing. They have already set up a process of evaluating the effectiveness of different medical approaches. Why do you think they are doing that? So the government can tell the medical practitioners "you can't use that procedure because our all-knowing government has determined there is a more cost-effective way".
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jul 16, 2009 19:23:56 GMT -5
Ed's right, we already have socialized medicine for Medicare. It's the only part of our health care system that works. The US only leads the world in only one positive health category - life expectancy after age 65.
In every other category we're down the order, despite the fact that we spend over twice as much per capita on health than any other country in the world.
My personal feeling is that Obama's plan doesn't go far enough. It'll be an awkward political compromise that will help the situation, but not resolve it.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 16, 2009 20:49:27 GMT -5
Ed, I don't know the last time you dealt with a private insurance company, but it happens the same way. It's not like people with private insurance get (paid for) options.
The government is NOT defining your care in regards to your pacemaker. The government is defining what it will pay for. I'm pretty sure you'd be welcome to schedule other visits if your want to pony up.
It's the same with private insurance. I have a great health plan and get lots of choices, but then I have to battle at times to get things paid for.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Jul 16, 2009 20:57:02 GMT -5
the number one way to cut cost to health care would to ban all fatty food and smoking.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 16, 2009 22:05:21 GMT -5
I think the AMA, which I think we can all agree is the leading industry organization relevant here, endorsed the ambitious House plan today by letter to Chairman Waxman. (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/399/hsr-hr3200-support-letter.pdf) I think they're rightly acknowledging that the current system needs fixing, and costs need to be reduced in a systemic fashion. It marks a significant shift in the healthcare debate, with a leading physicians group now recognizing that the current trajectory is neither healthy nor sustainable. Other measures, such as kicking out illegal immigrants, have their own costs, not the least to our society. I have seen estimates that illegal immigrants account for approximately $1 billion in hospital costs in Texas every year, and I suspect such costs are highest among the 50 states. By comparison, this is roughly 50% more than the annual cost of the Iraq War to the residents of Dallas and 10% of the annual cost of the war statewide. For that money, we could have provided 17 million people with healthcare for a year (Source: CostofWar.com). While we could consider this tradeoff, there are also sunk costs in "securing our borders." How much would it cost to deport all illegal aliens? What would be the slippage rate, and to what extent would this continually impose costs on the healthcare system? I see the debate as between the universal coverage options and lesser scale reforms, such as those offered by the House Republicans (See tinyurl.com/kko4fn). The plan, offered in broad brush strokes, seems to focus on the supplier-side and at income tax issues. It is aimed at changing financial metrics with the idea that it would incentivize consumers throwing more money into the current system. In other parts, it just nibbles at the obligatory hot button issues of tort reform and healthcare fraud, as if creating more regulatory agencies will fix the latter. I don't believe they have yet put a price tag on it. So, my thinking comes down to whether we are content to throw another few hundred million into a failing system or whether we can and should contemplate a comprehensive reform package. Ultimately, I have not decided, but I know that I am flatly against the House Republican strategy of sustaining the status quo. I have some disappointments in the Congressional Dem plans now, particularly on the mandate front, but they are closer to the right track in my mind. For the time being, we do have the best healthcare in the world, but folks can't pay for it (and may not be able to pay to fix it). P.S. I do think this board is intellectually above labeling things as "socialist," which is defined academically by changes in ownership of the means of production. Obama has the AMA on board with this and has facilitated some chip-ins from hospital and pharmaceutical groups. We are not seeing illegal immigrants storm the local Rite Aids, Pfizer's headquarters, and the like and kicking well-compensated executives out of their offices, taking all of their hard-earned money in the process.
|
|
CAHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by CAHoya07 on Jul 16, 2009 22:14:09 GMT -5
You know what else is "socialized" in this country? Education. Do people have a problem with that? Should all schools be private?
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jul 16, 2009 22:33:28 GMT -5
You know what else is "socialized" in this country? Education. Do people have a problem with that? Should all schools be private? Well...I mean, let's be honest here--our public schools are pretty crappy.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Jul 16, 2009 23:11:20 GMT -5
You know what else is "socialized" in this country? Education. Do people have a problem with that? Should all schools be private? Well...I mean, let's be honest here--our public schools are pretty crappy. I don't understand the point you're trying to make here in the context of the discussion. Is it that private insurance is better? I assume that if you didn't have public schools around, private schools would be a monopoly and wouldn't be as incentivized to deliver good value (like our crappy private insurance system today).
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jul 16, 2009 23:16:08 GMT -5
Well...I mean, let's be honest here--our public schools are pretty crappy. I don't understand the point you're trying to make here in the context of the discussion. Is it that private insurance is better? I assume that if you didn't have public schools around, private schools would be a monopoly and wouldn't be as incentivized to deliver good value (like our crappy private insurance system today). I'm saying that if you're going to argue for socialism / a public option, you probably don't want to use our public school system as an example, because our public schools are pretty bad. And why wouldn't the private schools be incentivized to deliver good value? They'd be competing amongst themselves (and there'd be more of them then there are now to handle the increased demand). It seems to me that saying private schools would be a monopoly b/c there wouldn't be a public option is like saying that private coffee shops are a monopoly b/c there isn't a public option.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Jul 16, 2009 23:29:24 GMT -5
I'm saying that if you're going to argue for socialism / a public option, you probably don't want to use our public school system as an example, because our public schools are pretty bad. And our private schools aren't a great comparison either because they for the most part are not for-profit, unlike private insurance. Why wouldn't the private schools be incentivized to deliver good value if they were for-profit and there were no public school? Simple. Their focus would be profit not delivering the best education possible.
|
|
CAHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by CAHoya07 on Jul 17, 2009 1:04:53 GMT -5
You know what else is "socialized" in this country? Education. Do people have a problem with that? Should all schools be private? Well...I mean, let's be honest here--our public schools are pretty crappy. Yes, there are plenty of public schools that are failing, but there are plenty others that are serving the nation's children quite well. But that's not even my point. My point is that there are plenty of things in our society that are "socialist," as in government-funded that I don't think many people would argue against. These include education, national parks, highways, and Medicare as previously mentioned. Simply waving the socialist flag at a public health care option does nothing. I think people need to stop treating socialism as a dirty word in this country. Call me un-American, but it is not always a bad thing.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Jul 17, 2009 6:44:00 GMT -5
You know what else is "socialized" in this country? Education. Do people have a problem with that? Should all schools be private? Well...I mean, let's be honest here--our public schools are pretty crappy. Bulls&$^. Except for Georgetown, my entire education (grammar, high, and law school) consisted of public schools. I think they did a fine job.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jul 17, 2009 7:35:50 GMT -5
And I'm happy with my healthcare. Well...I mean, let's be honest here--our public schools are pretty crappy. Bulls&$^. Except for Georgetown, my entire education (grammar, high, and law school) consisted of public schools. I think they did a fine job.
|
|