OK, I’m confused…
I was pretty sure that one of the "big" drivers here for health care reform was to reduce costs? That medical care, drugs, and products were getting too expensive, and that less and less people could afford insurance, etc. etc. as a result of that.
Then I come across this earlier today, in that Congress is fighting over what medical supplies and equipment to Tax??? All in the name of paying for the new health care Bill of course, but I don’t get it. Since when did increasing taxes on medical supplies or equipment make them less expensive? Wah...? Isn’t this like shooting yourself in the foot?
Even if those increased costs from this tax would be paid for by insurance claims, wouldn't that just result in higher premiums across the board? Although I seriously doubt the 1% increase mentioned below, I again thought we were trying to lessen the cost of insurance premiums.
I thought the idea of taxing the so-called “Cadillac Plans” of high premium insurance coverage of somewhere in the neighborhood of 35% would just come back in higher coverage expenses for all eventually anyway, but this seems so openly counter-productive.
Can somebody help me out here? How does this help?
You know, without getting into an argument about which current Bill is best (if any), public options or not, there is no way that we are going to get coverage for everybody without having to pay for it in higher taxes, and/or the cost of products and services of some kind. But why medical related taxes?
Call them something else if you want, a tax is a tax, but why doesn’t the Congress and the President just come clean on this? They aren’t going to get enough money from all this in cost cutting measures without reducing services to things like Medicare, or have it be budget neutral, and we "all" are going to pay more for it someplace.
I just find it amazing that taxing health care to pay for health care isn’t some kind of vicious circle or pyramid scheme, and can’t possibly lower costs? Can it?
Does this make sense to anybody, because it doesn’t to me…?
Condoms, contact lenses shielded from tax
WASHINGTON – They were calling it the tax on Q-tips. Amid Republican ridicule, a Democratic chairman backed down Tuesday and exempted consumer items of $100 or less — from condoms to contact lenses — from a proposed tax on medical device manufacturers.
It would help pay for health care coverage for the uninsured in comprehensive legislation.
But Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., left intact a $4 billion-a-year levy on the medical devices industry — keeping the controversy alive. The industry makes some 80,000 different products from heart valves to imaging machines to tongue depressors. The Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday such industry fees could eventually raise insurance premiums by roughly 1 percent.
Baucus' last-minute switch came as his committee considers sweeping legislation to remake the health care system. It means that contact lens solution, scented maxi-pads and home pregnancy tests — among many other items — will not be taxed. (It's not clear if Q-tips were ever on his list.)
But more expensive consumer medical goods, from power wheelchairs to insulin pumps and hearing aids, would still get hit.
Read more here~
(click on blue link)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090922/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_everyday_items
I dunno’ … the more I read, the more flustered I become I guess.
What’s "your 2 cents" on this?
Join the group Plain Politics for more interesting debate. Open to all, why not give your thoughts… your 2 cents!
(click on blue link)
http://plainpolitics.gather.com
Take care.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 34
Take care.
Thanks.
Thanks for stopping by... ;-)
Though, I don't see why taxing "Cadillac plans" would increase costs in other areas. There's also the limiting the amount of health care deductions you can claim on your taxes. There's the tax on sugary drinks. There's the surcharge on those making over $250,000 a year. I think all of those are acceptable.
I think insurance companies will just spread some of those increased costs to consumers around to help keep the more expensive plans attractive to those that buy them. In general I'm against "directed" or "regressive" taxes for anything. It started with cigarettes and the flood gates opened, all in the name of not increasing income taxes come election time. It's a farce... and usually hits lower income people harder.
As for "directed" (targeted, I usually call it) taxes, I tend to prefer these types of taxes even certain ones that might be regressive due to who they tend to hit. They tend to be targeted where they are because it makes up for the unintended consequences (externalities) of that particular behavior and provides a slight discouragement to that activity.
For example, if there were a plastic bag tax/fee at the grocery store, it would be regressive, yet it would cause people to consider the cost of the bags to their wallet and lead some to reuse bags or bring their own cloth bags.
You can make up that regressiveness through other aspects of the tax code, while still have that incentive for the particular item. For the plastic bag example, the proceeds of that fee could go to a slight general price reduction for all the grocery store items. The end result is that people with money to spare will pay for bags cause they don't care that much, and that money will go lower prices for those on a tight budget who find it worthwhile to reuse their own bags, and less bags are needed overall, which is good for the environment. It also means that regressive bag fee turns out to be progressive in the end.
The problem is that those effects are for the most part negative, especially in the use of the Federal tax code versus the local one. The one I most remember was the luxury tax the Feds started on yachts. Even one of its most ardent supporters, Rep Kennedy (D-RI) admitted it also destroyed a US industry in his state which incidentally then was one of the world centers for the trade. It limps on today because of subsidies but most of yacht making is now done elsewhere.
The simple fact that the tax was created to impose on a politically unpopular minority should have been enough for it to get shot down by the SCOTUS. But increasingly since the 1930s, that is the way of our government-hit the "wealthy", use sin taxes, protectionist tariffs, and investment/savings taxes; hit small groups, not the majority at one time. Nibble us all to death it seems.
Looking at how often a simple product like an egg is taxed can make one's head spin
Get a room, Congress.
Thanks.
Well, I finally decided to put some of my "thinking out-loud" thoughts in writing. I question the motives of a lot of things in Washington, and wondered if others did the same, what their opinions were, etc. I like to dabble in politics some, without fighting about it... I find it interesting, but frustrating at the same time, LOL.
Anyway, I look forward to seeing you around! Thanks again.
Now alcohol.... I haven't had a drop in years... so... LOL.
Thanks Heidi.
If everything was to go through, this household will only have 38% of our income to live on. Currently we are fine with 76%.
When all these taxes go through, what things will people be giving up? Remember businesses always include taxes as overhead. So from food, heat, internet services, etc... everything will be going up one way or another.
Now with a Marxist/Socialist leadership in this country that only someone with a warped mind would trust, I don't trust many of them at all, our very sovereignty is at stake in addition to our HC. I quit voting Republican and now I vote for the conservative candidates and financially support conservatives in other states, sent Doug Hoffman some money last night.
Sorry, I might need to stay away from political blogs. I always get on a soapbox my wife says.