Posted on 01/22/2007 9:24:00 PM PST by freedomdefender
About 30 million Americans could face a tax hike under President George W. Bush's plan to expand health insurance coverage and address rising health care costs, the White House said on Monday.
"There are always going to be some winners and some losers, but the people who might initially be losers have options," Kate Baicker, a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, told reporters.
There are about 47 million people with no health insurance in a country of 300 million. Baicker said Bush's tax proposal would result in "upwards of 3 million or more newly insured people."
Bush plans to highlight the plan in Tuesday's State of the Union speech to the U.S. Congress.
Bush is proposing to make health insurance premiums taxable income, with people who get employer-provided plans that cost more than $15,000 a year facing a tax hike if they do not get cheaper insurance, the White House said. Average family coverage offered by employers costs about $11,500 annually.
The president is proposing tax deductions -- $15,000 for a family and $7,500 for an individual whether or not they purchase their own health coverage or get it from their job -- to help buy insurance.
The plan also envisions funneling federal money to states that seek to arrange for uninsured residents to get coverage. But a White House statement said this would involve no new federal spending or entitlements, instead "allocating current federal health care funding more effectively."
Baicker said about 30 million Americans could face higher taxes under the president's plan "if they didn't change their behavior" -- meaning giving up an employer's more generous health plan in favor of a less-costly one. The White House added that "more than 100 million Americans" would save money under Bush's plan.
Baicker described Bush's proposed tax changes as "revenue-neutral," meaning they would neither increase nor decrease the overall income taxes paid to Washington.
DEMOCRATS SKEPTICAL
"The President's so-called health care proposal won't help the uninsured, most of whom have limited incomes and are already in low tax brackets," said California Democratic Rep. Pete Stark, Chairman of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee.
"But it will hurt middle-income Americans, whose employers will shift even more cost and risk to their employees," he added.
Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said Bush will emphasize opposition to proposals favored by some Democrats for universal health coverage run by the government. Without offering many details, Leavitt also said Bush wants to "partner with the states" in developing plans that provide Americans access to basic affordable health coverage.
Under Bush's plan, states could subsidize health insurance premiums directly, they could establish high-risk pools for the sickest people, and could help individuals and small businesses create their own insurance pools.
To get the federal money states would need to make health insurance affordable by such means as "reducing benefit or premium mandates," it said. Currently, each state has its own set of mandated conditions that health insurers must cover.
States already work with the federal government under the Medicare, Medicaid and children's health insurance plans for the elderly, needy and the very young.
Doesn't necessarily sound that bad, but I want to see the details.
Do-Goodery will be the death of us.
This will just drive up the cost of health care even further.
Bush sucks.
And that's been such a huge success, we should try to duplicate it.
Why the hostility to folks with good health plans?
Stand by -- your thread will be pulled too.
Because its tax deductible. If health care is a form of employee compensation, why should it be allowed unlimited taxfree treatment?
Besides, under paygo, the tax cuts for the uninsured have to be offset. A good health plan also gives an incentive to consume excess healthcare.
100 million would save money through the tax CUTS.
Sounds like a good plan to me.
OK Bush Bots are finally getting it that this guy is not the conservative we voted for in 2004 and 2000. What a disappointment is all I can say. The guy is a freaking liberal.
And, as usual, the full burden is placed on the consumer and taxpayer. Not even a tiny effort to go to the real source of the problem, the runaway costs of the medical industry, due to the uncontrolled spending by Medicare and Medicade, etc. The government makes little significant effort to negotiate and control what these programs cost the taxpayer. Thus the medical industry keeps the costs at whatever the governemnt is willing to pay and that, combined with uncontrolled tort cases and frivolous liability law, makes for an out-of-control medical system with obscence costs.
So again the easy path is taken. Just dump it on the taxpayer.
And that's been such a huge success, we should try to duplicate it. Why the hostility to folks with good health plans?
Are you serious????
First off, Medicare and Medicaid payments don't nearly cover the cost of the service provided. Those losses are passed along to us schmoes with private insurance in the form of higher prices.
Second, those "good" health plans that cover everything encourage waste (i.e. running to the M.D. or emergency room for every scratch and sniffle) and discourage patients from seeking ways to keep costs down.
A better idea is to simply abolish Medicaid and lower taxes overall so that people can afford health insurance.
That's what I want to know. I already pay extra to make sure I have a more comprehensive plan that protects us in case of a big medical problem (and it's no better than the state's $50 plan for those with low incomes.)
I am so unimpressed with this idea.
"But it will hurt middle-income Americans, whose employers will shift even more cost and risk to their employees," he added.
I can't believe I am agreeing with a Democrat, but there ya go.
Bush is becoming a Pander Bear. Oh well, we can always look forward to immigration reform./s
Wow, what a coincidence. Just as some conservatives are going insane about possible tax raises that may or may not be in this new plan, Al Rotorooter jumped in with this piece of tripe.
Ain't that the dangedest thing?
The government initially made health insurance contributions by employers tax free to encourage employers to help employees obtain group rated insurance. Now it is percieved as 'taxfree treatment' and emloyers will be expected to cough up even more to the federal government. And if they decide to cancel insurance offerings because they can't bear the costs Ted Kennedy will swoop in and save the 'uninsured' with a new government plan and additional taxes on employers and those who would earn a wage instead of rely on Teddy's handouts.
Step by step the Republicans and the Democrats are forcing us into socialized medicine.
Ron Paul for president. You can be damn sure tax increases and socialized medicine would get his veto.
His daddy broke the "Read My Lips... No NEW taxes"!!!
This IS a NEW tax!!! (none exists there now!)
I understand the logic - become economically responsible for your own health insurance and get a hefty tax deduction.
Most employer-sponsored health plans include the employer paying some % of the premium cost; in the most generous plans they pay all of it. If you go get your own health inusurance is your employer going to pay you in salary what it had been paying-out in health premiums for you? And if not, why not?
The advantage of most employer-sponsored health plans, even when the employee pays the lions-share of the premium cost, is that they usually cost less per-employee than a comparable plan that the employee can get on their own. So, unless the employer is going to replace the health premiums they no longer pay with additional salary, will the April 15th tax dededuction be incentive enough to most people? I am not convinced it is.
Or, conversely, will there be enough people willing to take considerably less actual coverage, for the lesser-price they can afford, again, unless the employer's former health plan contribution adds back into salary, providing $$$ for a personal health savings account to weather major events covered more frugally in the cheaper personal plan.
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.