Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleSun editorial:
A starting point
Bill unveiled by Montana senator begins the next round of debate on health care reform
Thursday, Sept. 17, 2009 | 2:06 a.m.
The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, D-Mont., spent more than a year working on a bill that would cut federal health care costs and create opportunities for all Americans to have medical insurance.
After the election of President Barack Obama, who is passionate about reforming health care, it fell to Baucus to finalize his bill for the Senate’s consideration.
Raucous Republican opposition, however, seriously threatened the bill’s prospects. This led to the creation this summer of the so-called “Gang of Six” panel, drawn from the Finance Committee.
Baucus and two other Democratic senators began meeting frequently with three Republican senators with the fanciful idea that they could forge the outlines of a bipartisan bill by mid-September.
Well, it was a nice try. The three Republicans, Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa, Mike Enzi of Wyoming and Olympia Snowe of Maine, all withheld their support for Baucus’ proposed bill when it was released Wednesday.
Also Wednesday, before the bill even came out, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., ripped into it, falsely charging that it was just another tax-and-spend Democratic initiative.
This instant and bitter partisan reaction to the Democrats’ bill shows what a hard fight remains if health care is to be reformed any time soon.
Baucus’ bill ignites Republican wrath even though it eliminates their biggest objection — a government-run insurance plan, the so-called public option that would drive down costs by giving private mega-insurance companies competition. The public option, which we support, would be replaced with private health cooperatives.
This bill should not be summarily dismissed. We agree with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who, despite objecting to a provision that would require Nevada to increase its Medicaid spending, said the bill is a good starting point.
Presenting a starting point, from which a better bill can be negotiated, is a lot more than the Republicans have ever done for a health care system whose costs for individuals and businesses are soaring and which has left millions of Americans with no insurance.
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- Photos: Olivia Culpo, 20, of Rhode Island is crowned 2012 Miss USA at Planet Hollywood
- US Navy hopes stealth ship answers a rising China
- Photos: Derek Hough celebrates 27th birthday at Tabu Ultra Lounge
- Learning about Electric Daisy Carnival fans will help Las Vegas court them
- On the horizon: A quick look at projects poised to shape downtown
Everything Under the Sun
Blogs
The Kats Report
Joe Pesci remembers his own honeymoon in Vegas -- meeting the Rat Pack
Las Vegas Philharmonic says search for new music director to begin 'immediately' (1 Comment)
With Shenandoah project stalled, Wayne Newton hits back legally (7 Comments)
Where does a Playmate play when she turns 21? Vegas! (3 Comments)
Ice Ice Billy
The road to six-toed cats and Mayor Bubba
The Kats Report
David Itkin tells L.V. Philharmonic officials he's on his way out (14 Comments)
Diamond Dave sells it well as Van Halen pours out the power at MGM Grand (2 Comments)
- Locally owned and independent since 1950; Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, best news website in the nation & DuPont Award for broadcast journalism
"We agree with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who," said no to the bill. Harry would not go out and support the bills presenation to the public.
Harry said no to healthcare reform
Tne Nevada Democrat Lawmakers could simply raise the room tax again to cover Nevada's share of Medicare.
senator max baucus is a clown...
his senate finance committee bill is a joke...
written by the insurance industry which has given him over $3 million...
will increase insurance companies revenues...
will increase insurance companies profits...
provides no means whatsoever to reduce the cost of health...
none...
zip...
zilch...
and this clown held up the country for 2 months for this piece of crap...
call max the clown at (202) 224-2651...
tell max the clown you are outraged...
tell max the clown he is a disgrace...
tell max the clown you will make a $100 contribution to whomever challenges him in his next election...
ask max the clown what it feels like to be a whore for the insurance industry!!!
birdie, Please go back to Kalifornia. You are somebody that has lived here less than 7 years. you are WEETARD period end of story
How about tort reform: Yea congress must have forgot about that. 535 morons!
It must be a really lousy bill if RINO Olympia Snowe didn't jump the fence and support it. She is usually more than happy to play her role as a disgrace to the Republican Party.
The Good the Bad and the Ugly on Bacaas' health care plan http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_...
The Good: Provides grants to start medical co-ops and takes steps to allow individuals to buy insurance policies across state boundries.
The Bad: Forces states to increase medicaid spending, requires employers to provide health insurance or pay a fine. Cuts payments to Medicare Advantage.
The ugly, requires individual to buy health insurance or pay up to a $3,800 fine for a family of four. Creates a 35% tax on health insurance policies with more than $8000 in benefits - ie half of all Americans would be forced to pay more taxes for having health insurance. Fees on medical drugs will also increase.
"Creates a 35% tax on health insurance policies with more than $8000 in benefits - ie half of all Americans would be forced to pay more taxes for having health insurance."
This is heavily misleading, Patrick.
A 35% tax on health insurance policies with more than $8000 in benefits FOR INDIVIDUALS. The threshold for family insurance plans jumps to $21,000. Further, these thresholds are indexed to the CPI starting in 2014.
"The amount subject to the excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored coverage for each
employee is the sum of the aggregate premiums for health insurance coverage, the amount of any
salary reduction contributions to a Health FSA for the taxable year, and the dollar amount of
employer contributions to an HSA, minus the dollar amount of the threshold."
This also means "a 35% tax on health insurance policies..." isn't accurate, either. For example, say an individual is given a health insurance policy valued at $9000. The excise tax would only be levied on the $1000 difference between the $8000 threshold and the value of the policy. Reading your language, one would be misled into thinking that the 35% would be the entire policy.
Finally, "ie half of all Americans would be forced to pay more taxes for having health insurance." How so? According to the language of Baucus' bill, the excise tax is levied on the insurer, not the individual. So "half of all Americans would be forced to pay more taxes" isn't accurate, either.
According to Cato Institute,
The Baucus plan imposes a 35 percent excise tax on health insurance plans that offer benefits in excess of $8,000. Insurers would almost certainly pass this tax on to consumers in the form of higher premiums. Roughly half of Americans, mostly middle-class, would be impacted. There are also "fees" on prescription drug companies, medical device manufacturers, and clinical laboratories. This is simply a way of hiding taxes, and will result in higher health care costs that will be passed on to consumers.
http://www.cato.org/pressroom.php?displa...
Ksand that would still be a $350 tax for $9,000 policy. Add that on top of the $479 extra Nevadans pay over Californians (owing mostly to our restrictions on insurance competition) and then add in all the current mandates as well and you have MORE EXPENSIVE healthcare.
Yes, I agree your paraphrasing of Cato's findings were grossly misleading. There are different thresholds for the excise tax, depending on the policy the individual has chosen, the excise tax is NOT on the full amount and the excise tax is paid not by the insured, but by the insurer.
A few others things, as well.
"The Baucus plan imposes a 35 percent excise tax on health insurance plans that offer benefits in excess of $8,000. "
Not really. The excise tax is based on the cost of the premiums, not the benefits. Ezra Klein concurs with me about this particular point.
"Beginning in 2013, they would pay a 35% excise tax on any plans they sell that cost more than $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families."
It would be silly to peg the threshold to the value of the benefits offered.
According to Kaiser, the average annual premium for single coverage in 2009 is $4,824 and the average annual premium for family coverage is $13,375.
So, how, exactly, did you get you your "half of all Americans" talking point? Care to show your math?
What would happen if the Federal Government reimbursed hospitals for the unpaid bills of illegal aliens that they are/should be responsible for?
Maybe hospitals and doctors could lower their rates.
Insurance companies would not have to pay for the unpaid costs of illegals and just might lower their rates.
You know 100 million here 100 million there...
Ksand, I emailed Tanner to get his math but here is my estimate.
1. The tax is estimated to generate $210 billion over the next 10 years. That is about $85 per insured person per year - roughly $340 a year extra for a family of four.
2. The tax is indexed to go up with inflation, unfortunately insurance prices increase faster than inflation (sometimes double or triple the rate of inflation), so more and more people will end up paying the tax.
3. Tanner suggested they would be effected by the tax, which could also be assuming downstream effects on people who don't even pay the tax. The tax could still cause prices to increase for them
4. Tanner's article says benefits not premiums. There is a different. If it is premiums then fewer people will be taxed. If it is benefits then a lot of people will face the tax. He could be wrong on that point.
Ksand, I emailed Tanner to get his math but here is my estimate.
1. The tax is estimated to generate $210 billion over the next 10 years. That is about $85 per insured person per year - roughly $340 a year extra for a family of four.
2. The tax is indexed to go up with inflation, unfortunately insurance prices increase faster than inflation (sometimes double or triple the rate of inflation), so more and more people will end up paying the tax.
3. Tanner suggested they would be effected by the tax, which could also be assuming downstream effects on people who don't even pay the tax. The tax could still cause prices to increase for them
4. Tanner's article says benefits not premiums. There is a different. If it is premiums then fewer people will be taxed. If it is benefits then a lot of people will face the tax. He could be wrong on that point.
Ksand,
"the excise tax is NOT on the full amount and the excise tax is paid not by the insured, but by the insurer."
To use your own words, this is grossly misleading. Any tax paid by any company is passed on to consumers, workers, or investors. In this case, the bulk of the tax will likely be passed on to the consumers.
For example, high benefit insurance policies may end up being taxed with a good chunk of the tax paid for by people with policies that are not subject to the tax (ie a price increase for lower priced policies).
PS, even Ezra Klein agrees with me on this http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-kl...
"As I've argued before, the excise tax is a way to seem like you're taxing insurers rather than taxing health-care benefits, even as the practical effect is the same"
"To use your own words, this is grossly misleading. Any tax paid by any company is passed on to consumers, workers, or investors. In this case, the bulk of the tax will likely be passed on to the consumers."
LOL, it's misleading to identify a tax on a business as a tax on an individual.
No its not, pointing this out is honest. Denying this is an effect of a business tax is pure dogmatism.
A tax on a business is, by effect, a tax on the individual. Think about it for a second. Any tax a business is required to pay will be paid by customers in the form of higher prices, workers with lower wages/fewer hours/less job opportunities or by investors before it EVER comes out of profits.
For many companies profits are razor thin to begin with and when you can't make a profit in one business it makes no sense to stay in business when you or someone else could make more profit somewhere else.
Note the link above, ksand's own source admits that the excise tax, while on the insurance company is in effect a tax on the insurance policy...ie the customer. That is the effect of business taxes.
This Frankenstein of a bill needs to be summarily dismissed for the monster it is! Even Prince Harry objects to it! Reform of the existing system should not require massive new spending but instead simplify & streamline what we have, lessening the costs and increasing the availability. Congress needs to go back to square 1 and start over.
"1. The tax is estimated to generate $210 billion over the next 10 years. That is about $85 per insured person per year - roughly $340 a year extra for a family of four."
That's assuming premiums (1) won't decrease due to reforms and/or (2) will increase at a lower rate of inflation than currently projected.
"2. The tax is indexed to go up with inflation, unfortunately insurance prices increase faster than inflation (sometimes double or triple the rate of inflation), so more and more people will end up paying the tax."
Patrick, I'm beginning to believe you don't really have a good grasp of this legislation, or you're just being dishonest. The tax rate is NOT indexed to increase with inflation. The excise tax is declared as 35%. The THRESHOLD of taxation is indexed to inflation. As inflation increases, so do the thresholds.
"The tax is equal to 35 percent of the aggregate value that exceeds a threshold amount. The threshold amount is $8,000 for individual coverage and $21,000 for family coverage for 2013. The threshold amounts are indexed to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers (CPI-U) as determined by the Department of Labor beginning in 2014. "
One of the goals of reform is to reduce the rate of medical cost inflation, and while medical costs are rising at a rate higher than inflation, this rate is predicted to decrease with legislation.
"3. Tanner suggested they would be effected [sic] by the tax, which could also be assuming downstream effects on people who don't even pay the tax. The tax could still cause prices to increase for them"
So you should be careful to discern the difference between saying there is a tax on benefits vs. downstream effects. In fact, you didn't specify that difference, instead you quite clearly stated that "half of all Americans would be forced to pay more taxes for having health insurance. "
It's dishonest to claim that "Americans would be forced to pay more taxes" when you mean they MAY incur an increase in health care premiums. That's a significant difference.
Further, it seems circus-like to have to jump through hoops in order to call it a tax on Americans. If anything, it's an indirect cost to Americans. An indirect cost which will be far less than your unclear and misleading language originally inferred it would be.
"4. Tanner's article says benefits not premiums. There is a different. [sic] If it is premiums then fewer people will be taxed. If it is benefits then a lot of people will face the tax. He could be wrong on that point."
I think if you read the legislation, you'll see that he's wrong on that point.
"A tax on a business is, by effect, a tax on the individual. Think about it for a second. Any tax a business is required to pay will be paid by customers in the form of higher prices, workers with lower wages/fewer hours/less job opportunities or by investors before it EVER comes out of profits."
Maybe in a fantasy world of perfect market conditions, you would be right. You forget about the overall picture, here. The health insurance market has been found to be approaching conditions akin to monopoly.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/study-c...
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/20...
As opposed to a single-payer system, which would be considered a monopsony, as the health insurance market in some cases approaches a monopoly, an increase in taxes doesn't necessarily dictate a rise in price for the consumer.
"With a different tax or a different schedule it is possible that the price might rise because of a tax, but by an amount less than the tax. A tax on the number of units produced, moreover, may not affect, in the least, the supply of goods offered. It is easily possible, if the tax be small, that the point of highest net returns will be at the same point in the supply schedule as before the tax levy. In such a case the tax burden is borne by the monopoly."
Lib/Obama/Democrat statement: "Our bill(s) will bring down the cost of insurance."
The bill(s):
1) Raise taxes on insurance
2) Raise taxes on medical equipment, drug companies, providers of medical services
3) Places a cap on copays and out-of-pocket
4) Takes the cap off on insurance benefits payouts
5) Allows people with pre-existing conditions (my favorite..cause that will be my gameplan..why even have insurance) to get coverage
6) Adds tons of people to the insurance rolls which will greatly increase the demand on medical services...more doctors, more nurses of which are already in short supply
Yep....all that will have a great effect on driving down the cost of the insurance.
Those effects will be sooooooooo great the the cost of insurance will be zero dollars...it will free...free....freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
I am not sure why we are talking about this.
It is pretty obvious that health care "reform" is on life support.
Obama and the Democrat leadership are so incompetent and/or corrupt.
I strongly believe that Obama is corrupt coming from the capital of corruption, Chicago.
Obama and his chief of corruption (he is the Tom Delay of the Democrats) have already cashed in on this bill.
The rest, I let you all decide if they are corrupt or incompetent.