But many Democrats, particularly in the Senate, have balked at the idea, saying they prefer a tax that has some hope of winning Republican support. In legislation that could be unveiled as early as this week, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) is expected to propose a new tax on the health benefits that millions of Americans currently receive tax-free through employers.

Economists say taxing employer-sponsored benefits would help trim runaway health costs and force society to broadly share the burdens of reform. The idea also has bipartisan appeal. Former president George W. Bush and John Mc Cain (Ariz.), the 2008 GOP presidential candidate, championed a form of the tax; so did Obama advisers Jason Furman and Ezekiel Emanuel before they joined the administration.

The thought of this is an outrage, if the issue is affordable health care and to suggest taxing health care benefits? That is totally unreasonable, shall we be taxed after lung replacement on the air that is newly taken in? How about a tax on free speech, we do not have to pay to have the right of free speech so should that too be taxed? It would appear to be a Bi-partisan idea more though a Washington idea and the thought of someone so in a bubble that reality is created with Crayons and colored paper!

This is a idea of everyone having to share the cost? NO it is punishing those who have what you want everyone to have. I was once told that Colorado has a “View tax” if you own or buy land that has a scenic view you are taxed on the view. Idiotic! The Government does not have a RIGHT to tax everything in the name of the people. Nor is there a duty to do some as a form of punishment or atonement.

A tax should be a fair matter for all not singular for some, it falls into the age old argument of taxing the have because their are the have. In this case those who do already have health care would be taxed for having health care! Costello’s answer “How stupid do you want me to be?”.

Well you know that employers also provide toilet paper for the restroom used by the employees why not tax that too? Then there are the lights and the air conditioning least we forget there is also safety equipment for the safety of the employees. IDIOTIC!!!


Filed under Healthcare, Obama

5 responses to “TAXING HEALTH CARE?

  1. We should settle for nothing less than a single-payer system.
    “Tweeking” the system as is? Not acceptable.

  2. jammer5

    I hate to say it, but I doubt a single payer plan would have any chance of passing. “Tweaking” the system may be the only way to get the ball rolling towards a single payer system. From what I’ve read concerning congresses attitude, a single payer system will not pass. With that in mind, it may only be possible get a government-backed alternative to regular health insurance. That would be a foot in the door, and a start to a single payer plan, and that may be all we can hope to win now.

  3. klaus

    Two things. While I would love to see a single-payer, ain’t gonna happen. However, a public option will be the next best thing. No way the private sector can match gov’t costs–not while paying the CEO salaries and bonuses that they do.

    So, the public option will get us there by eventually driving the private insurers out of the business.

    Second, my first reaction about taxing employer health care benefits was not favorable. However, the thing to realize is that the higher up you go on the corporate food chain, the better your coverage. Those who could afford to pay out of pocket rarely–if ever–have to do so.

    Ergo, taxing plans that cost above a fairly low ceiling–say, $20k–will hit the fatcats and leave those of us who work for a living alone. So, this isn’t the worst idea.

    Of course, the devil is always in the details. But then, if employers start dropping coverage, then we move more quickly to single payer. But, admittedly, with a potentially ugly interim as people get dropped.

    But I would love to hear the screams of the upper crust as they’re confronted with the actual cost of their gold-plated medical coverage.

    And one last thing–we pay for that coverage. You, me, and anyone else who buys anything on the market. The costs are simply passed along to consumers. So the next time you hear someone squawk that they don’t want to pay taxes to cover some prole, the correct response is that we’re all paying for fatcat coverage right now.

  4. We’re probably paying for both ends of the income spectrum.

    I’m beginning to realize the sense of doing this in increments, but I’m not finished being sad about it.

  5. tosmarttobegop

    As I have said already, on this issue I am the closest to a Socialist, to me it is as much a fundamental need as food, clothing and shelter. Absolutely a right in a country that is the likes of the United States.
    My GP who is not a specialist a simply office call is $175.00 with the insurance our part is $45.00
    WE have that $45.00 as of now, sometimes it is not easy to have when needed. But this is a small town so those who can not afford it have little if any choice when the need is as simply as a script for a anti-biotitic.

    I can see the real values of a single payer for the citizens and even for business.
    As it is there is no real completive goal of the insurance companies. They more just take turns handling one company or another. Its a true racket, one year they low bid the others in order to get the business of company (A) then the next year becomes the turn of another insurance company. And each year the coverage goes down for the same price or goes higher to keep the same coverage.

    I am seeing now that the several different groups are focused on only one aspect of the issues.