Jump to content

House health care bill adds 600 BILLION in taxes


Recommended Posts

But some of you just wouldn't listen.


Our country is in for big, big trouble:




House Health-Care Proposal Adds $600 Billion in Taxes (Update2)

By Laura Litvan


June 12 (Bloomberg) -- Health-care overhaul legislation being drafted by House Democrats will include $600 billion in tax increases and $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel said.


Democrats will work on the bill's details next week as they struggle through "what kind of heartburn" it will cause to agree on how to pay for revamping the health-care system, Rangel, a New York Democrat, said today. The measure's cost is reaching well beyond the $634 billion President Barack Obama proposed in his budget request to Congress as a 10-year down payment for the policy changes.


Asked whether the cost of a health-care overhaul would be more than $1 trillion over a decade, Rangel said, "the answer is yes." Some Senate Republicans, including Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, say the costs will likely exceed $1.5 trillion.


House Democrats plan to release their legislation next week. Obama is working with Congress to get legislation to his desk by October.


Democrats in the House and Senate are crafting legislation that would require all Americans to have health insurance, prohibit insurers from refusing to cover pre-existing conditions and place other restrictions on the industry.


Online Exchanges


The legislation would establish online exchanges for individuals to purchase insurance and would require employers to provide health benefits to workers or pay a penalty. Some Democrats also are backing creation of a government-run program to expand coverage to the uninsured. The issue is the subject of bipartisan negotiations with Republican who oppose the so-called public option.


Rangel said Democrats are still considering options for tax increases that might be in the bill, including a possible end to the income tax exclusion for employer-paid health benefits.


Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, is considering a proposal to apply income taxes to health-care plans if they are significantly more expensive than the basic health plan for federal employees -- $13,000 for a family of four.


Rangel said House Democrats want to avoid the deeper cuts to projected spending under Medicare and Medicaid that Obama has been putting forth. House Democrats want to achieve cost-savings by cuts in payments to private insurance plans under Medicare.


Covering the Costs


Obama has pledged that health-care changes won't add to the deficit. To accomplish that, he's proposed getting about $600 billion by reducing tax deductions available to the wealthy, and by trimming Medicare payments to insurance companies.


That won't be enough to cover the overhaul costs. Obama said this week he plans in the coming days to disclose more proposals for raising "additional sources of revenue." In a letter last week to Senate Democrats drafting legislation he said he will be proposing between $200 billion and $300 billion in further Medicare and Medicaid cuts.


Obama plans to give a speech Monday in Chicago to the American Medical Association as part of his campaign to build up support for what could be the biggest changes to healthcare policy since Medicare was established in 1965.


Rangel said that while House Democrats will likely release more details about health policy changes in their legislation next week, the package of offsetting tax increases and spending cuts likely will come later. Democrats, he said, want to put forth the more-positive aspects of an overhaul first. Rangel also wants to let lawmakers have time to study and weigh in on proposed offsets.


"We have a problem in not wanting to attract enough negative attention to the bill in terms of the pay-fors," he said. "Let them get a good feel for the coverage."


Last Updated: June 12, 2009 19:05 EDT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, is considering a proposal to apply income taxes to health-care plans if they are significantly more expensive than the basic health plan for federal employees -- $13,000 for a family of four.


Federal employees generally pay 15% less as a co=pay, and they have the largest single block of employees in which to negotiate a better premium.


Naturally Mr. Baucus wants to set the tax rates above what he gets so he won't impose tax on himself.


He deserves a crisp smack in the face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I agree with you about this guy although it seems a little early in the process to pick the whole healthcare package apart but well see how it pans out in the coming weeks.


I am not picking it apart. i haven't seen it, though when people start talking numbers on this or any big project, I think you know you can throw out all the low numbers being presented, find the high number being talked about and use that as the realistic benchmark.


All I am saying at this point is that guy is full of crap. Federal rates are pretty low due to the numbers in the plan.


If you are going to start taxing people, you better tax federal employees or you better not use that as the benchmark because very few others can get rates as favorable.



* Assuming they are not in some bare bones plan part timers can pick up at many jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my understanding of canada is that for normal sickness/presciptions/emergency care, its pretty good.


where they fall short is for serious illness/surguries/cancer treatments......they dont have many skilled doctors, thus the wait times are long if they allow you to get the surgery. they tend to ration the care for those they deem worthy of the investment.....read, if your old, too bad. england is especially bad with this. seniors need the most care, and they have the hardest time getting it from the gov't.


the doctors are scarce because of 2 things: they cannot make enough salary to make the med school investment worth it (salary cap, essentially), and if they do attend school, they work in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really in favor of this, but can we get a cap on what doctors and pharmasutical companies charge for their services?


Sure we can. We can have pharmaceuticals who spend nothing on research and sell aspirin for $20 a pop, and the person who now tunes up your car or answers the phone can now be your Dr.


You seriously want a Dr. who is limited in what they can make??


Maybe we should just tell them that MD's have to work for free and will be provided dorm housing and a meal plan.....just like never leaving college.


I know that is a long stretch from what you were saying my friend, but really, if you limit the best and brightest of our society ....and face it....MDs are those bookworms who screwed up the bell curve for the rest of us but end up solving many of the worlds ills.


To answer your question....Canada does it with a substandard system you usually have to take weeks to access and pay about 60% of your income to pay for...and they have a much smaller population and a smaller portion of the population on the public dole....you figure out what I mean by that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hospitals oppose Obama's Medicare, Medicaid cuts‎


article here




He proposed cutting $313 billion from the programs over 10 years. That's in addition to the $635 billion "down payment" in tax increases and spending cuts in the health care system that he announced earlier.


Has Obama gotten a new debit card?


Together, Obama's plans would provide $948 billion over a decade in savings and/or tax increases to help insure practically everyone and to slow the rate of soaring health care costs.


Savings? :unsure:my take is someone wont get the health care they really need.


The president wants to cut $106 billion over 10 years from payments that help hospitals treat uninsured people. Spending on Medicare prescription drugs would fall by $75 billion over a decade.


Who is going to pick up the tab for this? your local or state government?

And slowing projected increases in Medicare payments to hospitals and other providers — but not doctors — would save $110 billion over 10 years, the president said.


I guess he cant piss them all off!


Obama called them "commonsense changes," although he acknowledged that many details must be resolved.

Some powerful industry groups called the proposals unwise and unfair.


It is unwise and unfair, its called Socialism!



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously I don't have the figures, but 60% of your income? Seriously dude? Even I know that has to be a gross exageration. Otherwise what would be the point of having a gov't healthcare plan if it costs more than what we pay for health care down here


In Ontario. $120,000 puts you in a tax bracket of just under 47%. By the time you pay the 13% sales tax, gas tax, etc....you are easily nearing that 60% figure I mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inspecta Canada benefits from our system in some ways. We basically help subsidize their costs because we pay so much, they have government cost controls where as we do not.


Again its like everyone is asleep at the wheel or even being hypnotized. Our free market based system may just need to be adjusted not torn down.


The problem again are the COSTS which is dictated by for profit Hmo's and other insurance industries along with Pharmaceutical companies. NOTHING can really be objectively


efficient if we dont talk about the insane costs of drugs and the added cost from a paper pushing money management middle industry.


The problem truly does not lie in the "system" rather the two industries who control the purse strings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inspecta Canada benefits from our system in some ways. We basically help subsidize their costs because we pay so much, they have government cost controls where as we do not.


And US hospitals are teeming with Canadiens who prefer not to die.

US emergency rooms are filled with medicaid patients with sneezing kids.

And Canadien docs subsidize income by performing procedures not allowed by the US regulations.


There are benefits and dangers to health care reform.

Individual mandates are necessary IMO.




Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...