Skip to comments.'Reform' no one wants to pay for
Posted on 10/17/2009 3:05:46 AM PDT by Scanian
The legislative process can also be a learning process, and as Congress considers health-care legislation -- the latest act being the Senate Finance Committee's vote in favor of Chairman Max Baucus' bill, or "conceptual language" -- we've been learning something useful. It's that legislators would like to provide generous, even gold-plated health-insurance coverage to almost all Americans, but that no one wants to pay for it.
The learning process should have begun last February, when Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf indicated that the CBO didn't back the administration's assertion that preventive care would save money. But it still came as a shock when the CBO confirmed its preliminary finding in its June assessments of the Senate Democrats' bills' cost.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
This is why I’m beginning to think we may see a repeat of the 1986-1989 Section 89 debacle. I haven’t seen many other folks commenting on the parallels (maybe few remember the details), but as part of the 1986 Tax Reform Act congress engaged in an earlier attempt to expand health coverage and tax cadillac plans for highly compensated employees (at the time those earning $50,000 or more per year). The effort enraged business and taxpayers to the extent that it crashed in flames in 1989, with a still-democratic dominated house voting 390-36 for repeal.
I found a little more information about this debacle at http://blog.angusmcrae.com/taxing-health-benefits-remember-section-89/. Freepers might want to start studying up on section 89 for hints as to what might be forthcoming if some cobbled-together “health care reform” does become law later this year.
I didn't know that.
They are talking about astounding gummit insurance premiums being foisted on everybody. They might as well call that a tax.