Posted on 04/12/2006 9:55:58 PM PDT by SheLion
MONTPELIER -- Higher taxes on tobacco products, a tax on soda and an assessment on employers for workers who aren't offered health insurance will be on the table today as the Senate Finance Committee decides how to pay for a health care reform plan.
The plan, which includes a new program called Catamount Health targeted at the state's 61,000 uninsured residents, would require $12.5 million in new money next year as reforms begin. The cumulative revenue requirement reaches $137.9 million over four years.
The Senate's tax-writing committee reviewed several combinations of taxes and assessments Tuesday that would generate the money needed.
Senators are hustling to wrap up work on a health reform package as the session moves into its final weeks, but progress toward an agreement with the Douglas administration hit a snag Tuesday.
In a letter to the Senate's Democratic leadership, Secretary of Administration Michael Smith listed several complaints, including that the bill would increase premiums for Vermonters with private health insurance, while the governor's plan wouldn't.
"That is patently inaccurate," Sen. Jim Leddy, D-Chittenden, said of Smith's assertion. The bill would reduce some of the costs now shifted to private insurance, which cause premiums to increase, Leddy said. "The administration either doesn't understand what we did or is ignoring it."
More disagreements could develop after the Finance Committee settles on a way to pay for the Senate reform package.
Higher tobacco taxes are a certainty, especially because Gov. Jim Douglas said last week that he could accept such a tax increase. The House included a 60-cent per pack increase in the cigarette tax in its health care plan. The Senate Finance Committee looked Tuesday at options to increase the cigarette tax by between 60 and 80 cents per pack and boost taxes on other tobacco products.
Finance Chairwoman Ann Cummings, D-Washington, also suggested a tax on sodas to make up for an expected decline in revenues from tobacco taxes as higher costs discourage new smokers.
The Senate has proposed a new revenue source -- an assessment on employers who don't offer insurance to all or some of their employees.
"We really felt it was important that everyone contribute," Cummings said. Supporters of the business assessment have argued that some employers gain a competitive edge by not offering health insurance. "If everyone is assessed," Cummings said, "then nobody is at a competitive disadvantage."
The committee reviewed four options, all based on $365 a year per full-time equivalent position for workers who weren't offered health insurance by their employers. The assessment would hit employers who don't' offer insurance to any workers and those who offer it only to some workers. The committee also considered assessing employers for workers who are offered insurance, but don't take it.
The committee also weighed granting exemptions from the assessment to tiny businesses with less than 20, 12, eight or five full-time equivalent job slots, but made no decisions. Cummings said, "The intent is not to put anyone under."
David Merrill, owner of Ethan Allen Motel in South Burlington, is one of the employers who could be affected by the new assessment. Merrill and his wife, Kendra, have five, sometimes six part-time employees to help with the operation and upkeep of their 26-room motel. They pay for their own supplementary insurance to Medicare, David Merrill said, but they don't offer any insurance to their workers.
"I don't think there is anybody in a small business who wouldn't want to offer insurance," he said, "but it couldn't be at the rate of insurance now."
Merrill worries about all the increased costs he faces -- fuel, a property reappraisal and now this assessment. He concluded, "If the tax is reasonable enough, it isn't going to kill us."
Richard Huestis owns Huestis Farm Supply in West Bridport and has two employees, his wife who works as bookkeeper and a mechanic. He pays $1,300 a month to provide insurance for himself, his wife and the mechanic.
"I don't think that assessment is going to level the playing field," Huestis said. At $365 a head, he noted, "It would be cheaper for me to stop providing insurance, but we will most likely continue what we are doing."
Contact Nancy Remsen at 229-9141 or nremsen@bfp.burlingtonfreepress.com
SURE! Lay the tax burden on 25-30% of your smoking constituents! They have broad shoulders. THEY are USED to being screwed!!!
Finance Chairwoman Ann Cummings, D-Washington, also suggested a tax on sodas to make up for an expected decline in revenues from tobacco taxes as higher costs discourage new smokers.
LOL! Stupid fools! As if. ROLL YOUR OWN. And stick it to the state with every pack you make. You will feel WONDERFUL!
Thanks for the ping!
There itis folks. Your friendly caring neighbors are going to decide what's best for you to eat and drink. It's for your own good, the common good and the world will be a better place for it. Now everything is covered. There's an expert available and on the ball to direct and control every part of your life, from cradle to grave.
I knew this would happen. Our states get where they are dependent on the tax which was meant to discourage smoking. It worked but they still want the money.
They really don't care if we eat junk food and drink cola. It's a big business. It is PI right now though so they think they can get away with taxing it. JMO.
Not anymore...........they've figured out how to tax the loose tobacco at the same rate as cigarettes.
Thank you Philip Morris ----- AS USUAL.
They will promise us the moon to get our votes, then once in office all they give us is the outhouse.
I'm sick of it!
Is it still legal to grow your own?
Yep.
I wonder what the favorite soft drink the antismoking FR crowd enjoys. Probably none; considering how perfect they are.
Anyone want to start a pool to see what'll be the next target? My money's on coffee/caffeine.
Yep!
We saw this coming, didnt we!
The light of liberty is flickering in America now.. all under the excuse of protecting us from ourselves.
I'm sure New Hampshire hopes that his measure passes.
I'd be placing my convenience store right at the border.
I knew this would happen. Our states get where they are dependent on the tax which was meant to discourage smoking. It worked but they still want the money.
Yes, but this cigarette tax turned them into gluttons. MORE MORE MORE!
They shot the goose that laid the golden eggs. They should have left well enough alone and enjoyed what they had coming in.
How about if this is really about getting healthier that they give us some of our money back if we do so. Let's see what this is really about.
Up to 1/10th of an acre.....about 4,500 square feet.
Merrill worries about all the increased costs he faces -- fuel, a property reappraisal and now this assessment. He concluded, "If the tax is reasonable enough, it isn't going to kill us."
Keep whistling passed the graveyard.
"I don't think that assessment is going to level the playing field," Huestis said. At $365 a head, he noted, "It would be cheaper for me to stop providing insurance, but we will most likely continue what we are doing."
Ding, Ding, We have a winner.
Thank you Philip Morris ----- AS USUAL.
What state? I haven't heard anything about this and it hasn't affected the price of my loose tobacco.
And if Maine slaps $2.00 taxes on a bag of loose tobacco, it still won't average out to what a carton of Doral's cost here: $45 dollars for a carton of the cheapest cigarettes on the market! Dorals.
So we will still be ahead.
Virginia - home of PM..........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.