Except that it's not the full truth.

The healthcare plan will be paid for by a combination of new taxes AND a reduction in Medicare spending, as metioned by the CBO in its letter to Rangel.

It breaks down to this:
- anyone with income under 400% poverty gets subsidized (~$44,000 or so?)
- anyone else gets a mandate to buy insurance under threat of penalty. But no subsidy

To pay for this, only half of the money will come from the rich.

Here's how to sell it to the über-rich: Tell them it's preferable to the govt. going after their offshore tax havens and Swiss bank accts.

But we should do that anyway.

I 'get' tax policy (s) by way of numbers like the Bush tax cuts are worth $1000/week to the top 1% of us and about $1.50/week to the rest of us.

$52,000/year to the likes of a hedge-funder making $2 billion/year or even someone earning a lousy $100 million/year is as useless to either one of them as is $78 dollars/year to me.

There must be such a thing as utopian greed afterall.

"I don't recall the last time Congress came up with such a direct redistribution".
REALLY?
I tell you when...When Congress changed the tax code and made the wealthy, WEALTHY, to the detriment of all the rest of us, who now cannot afford HEALTHCARE!

Why does everyone believe that they have a right to the money of the rich.........the rich made themselves rich and already pay the overwhelming majority of the taxes in the country........why should somebody making 350k have to pay for health insurance for somebody that is unwilling to buy it himself. Most of the folks without health insurance are rolling around with cell phones and cable TV............so really, this great idea from congress says that we are going to let the poor buy healthcare now and the rich will pick up the cable bill...............Reich has the biggest Napoleon complex I have ever seen..........somebody please get the man some lifts

The growing inequality between the very wealthy and everyone else is a monster gnawing at the fabric of our society, or any society based on the notion of community and shared sacrifice. In that sense, the proposed surtax is a very small step in the right direction. Whether the Senate will go along remains to be seen.

When topics like these arise, one can expect some fanciful arguments suggesting that high income individuals earn more than low income individuals - e.g., that a CEO taking home $40 million has earned more than a coal miner bringing home $40,000. The CEO has indeed made more money, but one could argue that the miner actually earned more, in the core sense of the word "earned". In any case, almost every person with a sense of fairness instinctively understands the need for progressive taxation, even if not always able to articulate his or her thinking. It takes more in the way of philosophical contortions to rationalize the notion that high earners owe nothing to the remainder of the community they inhabit.

damn the lies.

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff07142009.html

Hello, Goodbye

The End of "Nice" Health Care Reform

By DAVE LINDORFF

Of course I could be wrong. Congress could turn around and pass some cockamamie scheme to kick the issue of health care reform down the road, offering some kind of minimal insurance coverage to a few million more people, and cracking down on this or that particularly egregious health provider rip-off, and then staging a “mission accomplished” photo op.

But real health care reform of the kind that Democratic candidates were promising during last year’s presidential campaign is dead, killed by the timidity of the promiser-in-chief, President Barack Obama (and by the massive corruption of the Democrats in Congress, who hav e accepted the tainted coin of the health care industry).

Obama could have come to the American people as a newly elected leader and addressed us as adults, saying: “Look, we know what needs to be done. Plenty of countries in Canada, Europe and elsewhere have figured it out already. They set up the government as the single payer to health providers—doctors and hospitals, etc.—and the government bargains and sets the prices those private providers of health care can charge. Of course that means you’ll all pay higher taxes to finance such a plan, but the record of all those countries shows that you’ll be saving money over all, because you won’t be paying for health insurance, your employer won’t be paying for health insurance, you won’t be paying co-pays and deductibles, and you won’t be getting gouged for drugs or hospital stays or doctors’ bills. You won’t be paying state taxes for Medicaid either, nor will your insurance and local property taxes have to subsidize the hospital care of indigents. On balance, you’ll all be saving money, and you’ll never have to worry about disease or injury bankrupting you. Nor will employers be able to hold you hostage any longer. The reality is that the countries that have a single-payer plan are spending half of what we spend per capita for health care, they have no uninsured citizens, and their health overall, as measured by such things as longevity, infant mortality, etc., is better than ours.”

The president could have said all this and rallied the tens of millions of Americans who desperately want a health care system modeled on the single-payer idea to his side, forcing Congress to go along or pay the price in 2010.

Instead, this president who, in years past as a senator, as a state representative and as an activist had praised the idea of single-payer, has taken to saying it’s important do keep the private health insurance industry in business. Instead of inviting Canadian administrators of that country’s successful system down to talk about how it works up there, he barred even American advocates of single payer from speaking at his talk-fests on health care reform at the White House. Instead of taking an axe to the US Medical-Industrial Complex, he has pretended he could reform the current profit-crazed system we have in the US without raising taxes. Instead of pointing out that we already have a well-functioning single-payer system for our elderly and disabled in the form of Medicare, he has spent his time badmouthing the single-payer idea, even claiming that it’s not part of our “American” tradition.

But let’s note that Obama’s sell-out on health care reform was aided and abetted by the progressives, the left groups and political organizations and the unions that failed to hold him to his earlier espousal of single-payer, that instead of calling him out on his cave-in, bought into his initial compromise of a so-called “public option” insurance alternative, and even into his subsequent backdown to an even more watered-down version of possibly state-run or “cooperative” plans.

Now his political cowardice and mendacity have caught up with him. His “plan,” if it can even be called that, of mandating employer health coverage and then adding a government-run alternative “public option” to existing private insurance, has understandably failed to excite the public, while still arousing the passionate opposition of conservative Republicans and conservative members of his own party, and meanwhile does nothing to limit soaring health costs, which already eat up a fifth of the entire gross domestic product of the nation, requires an increase in taxes and reductions in Medicare, will probably, if established, lead to more companies actually dropping their current benefit programs in favor of a cheaper, stripped-down government plan, and yet will still leave millions of people unable to get access to timely, quality, affordable medical care.

Furthermore, his apparent failure to deliver on this key initiative will deal a body blow to his political clout on other initiatives, such as tackling climate change and dealing with an acute economic crisis.

If I’m right that health reform is dead, so is Barack Obama’s presidency. President Bill Clinton’s new administration foundered early on following his shameless backdown on a pledge to guarantee the right of gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. It never recovered. President Obama’s new administration is foundering on his equally shameless backdown on a promise to establish a system of quality affordable health care for all.

Dave Lindorff is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now available in paperback). He can be reached at dlindorff@mindspring.com

"....who will be able to get regular checkups and thereby stay healthy and productive, the positive effect on the American economy is likely to be far greater."

For all you oompa loompa's that believe this fairy tale there's always the spectre of government mandated "vertical disenrollment" to ponder between periods of egg sucking on demand from Jefe Obama.

The most recent example of a broadly-levied surtax in the United States was one imposed to help finance the Vietnam War during the Lyndon B. Johnson administration. It essentially consisted of calculating one's ordinary federal income tax liability and then adding another 10% to it -- the amount of the surtax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surtax

I would respectfully ask one thing: what is the definition of "rich?"
While lots of people see Paris Hilton and celebrities as the targets, the truth is farther down the food chain. I am a teacher. I make around 47K a year. I have nearly 30% of my income already taken out of my check for taxes. You can add the sales taxes, license tag taxes, gas taxes and every other piddling tax that is laid on us to where it's just about 40% of my income. If by definition, my husband and I have a combined income that is more than twice the poverty level, then by some definitions we would be considered "rich" even when we cannot afford a new car, repair our small home or heaven forbid, take a vacation-something we haven't been able to afford in years. Yet down the line when this bill puffs up like the toad that it is, I see more taxes trickling down to people like me. And this will benefit me precious little, but give services to people who are not legal residents, who do not pay into the system and who in fact make payroll deductions weaker because they take wages out of the system for which taxes are not paid. How in any scenario is this a win-win situation?

Face it, this is political payback to buy votes.

There's extraordinary sense of deja vu about some of the arguments advanced here. The latest one is that individuals making more than $350,000 per year will be discouraged from entrepreneurship if a small additional tax is added to what they already pay, while still leaving them far wealthier than almost everyone else.

That argument is selfish in a nation that requires a sense of community and shared sacrifice, but equally important, it's contradicted by history. We've had much higher taxes in the past, before the Bush tax cuts, and the economy thrived far more then than in the past eight years. Even more important, every other industrialized nation has done better than we have in providing health care for more people, less expensively, and with better results. Given that growing health care costs are devouring our economy, the one thing we can't afford is to refrain from the proposed reforms that include a public option to reduce costs.

The threat of "don't tax us rich folks or we'll stop being productive" has been issued many times in the past, and probably will be in the future, but in a nation where the gap between the rich and everyone else has grown unconscionably, I believe the public is prepared to ignore it in favor of a reform package that will improve the lot of almost every American - even the rich ones.

Most people have an instinctive sense of how much each member of society owes to society as a whole. That sense has been violated in recent years, but I'm hopeful it will be vindicated in the near future.

Let me add a personal note in response to what John wrote. I too am well-educated, with I'm guessing more years of education, more years of study, and perhaps more educational expenses than John. I too have tried to apply my native talents and learned skills toward success. The main difference is that my version of success did not involve making large sums of money, but rather helping make this world a better place while earning myself a sense of accomplishment and some recognition by my peers. As a result, my income is nowhere near the surtax level. I'm truly glad I can say that, because talent devoted primarily to making money beyond merely a comfortable living is talent that is partially wasted. Even at my lower income level, however, I would be willing and able to afford the proposed surtax.

I am not opposed to capitalism as a component of a society that balances individual entrepreneurship with societal obligations. I certainly don't begrudge Bill Gates his billions, but he illustrates a principle I endorse. Dedicating one's skills to a valuable and productive purpose, and becoming wealthy in the process is to be congratulated. Devoting one's life to wealth is not. Some who do may incidentally perform a public good, but a society that emphasizes that motivation is destined to be cruel and selfish. In a previous century, American capitalism epitomized that selfishness, but it has mellowed since, although perhaps not enough to satisfy our nation's needs.

The surtax would be fair. Even greater sharing would be even fairer, but we must start with the present.

I'm with Robert Reich on this one. As a matter of fact he doesn't go far enough. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Barabara Streisand, Oprah Winnfrey, Michael Dell, The Walton family, the Kennedy's, Gov Corzine, Al Gore, Ariana Huffington, these fat cats are worth multi-millions, hundreds of million, or tens of billions. And most if not all of them supported Obama and his promise to share the wealth. So Congress should just pass a law confiscating everything over $1 million. That money can be used to pay for Obama growing unemployment problem..9.5% and still shooting up, the trillions in debt he's created, his health care program, the money needed to pay off Democratic special interests. Take it all and share it. They've fattened themselves on the country for long enough! They'll still have $1 million and be richer than 99% of us. Fair is fair...they need to share!!!!

My goodness, if average people -who are in no danger of paying this surtax- are this upset NOW, after the failed stimulus, the earmarks, the massive budget, the Waxman-Markey electricity tax, can you imagine the rage AFTER this nonsense passes?

The 2010 elections will be studied for decades afterward, as a prime example of voter repudiation.

Well the taxpayers just bailed them out to the tune of about $1T so I think it is about time time* they start paying us back our money...maybe with a bit of interest added on.

* please see: Goldman Sachs 2nd quarter profits.

Was anyone else surprised by some of the numbers coming out about this funding?

I really thought more Americans made high wages. Apparently, just a tad over 2 million make 280K or better. That puts a person just this side of the top 1%.

Wealth concentration has gotten far worse, as everyone knows. Wealth is more and more consolidated in the hands of a few multi-billionaires and multi-nationals, and the middle class is shrinking. Even the upper middle class is shrinking.

It's no coincidence that this has happened under a decades' old conservative economic regime, that saw taxes slashed for the rich and for corporations. It also comes at the same time that deregulation has taken hold like wildfire.

Wages used to rise year after year for the middle class. But that hasn't happened since 1973, roughly. We've had nearly 40 years of stagnant or falling wages for more than 90% of Americans, while the wages for the top 1% have skyrocketed.

And what else do we have to show for voodoo economics? An eleven trillion dollar debt, record trade debt, crumbling infrastructure, a collapsing health care system and a collapsing economy overall.

Reaganomics. The biggest economic con-game in our history. It's time to reverse course.

"Tax the Wealthy to Keep Us Healthy" has a better rhythm.

Otherwise, quite good.

Good debate here. The sad thing is single payer would eliminate most of the problems defined in the debate. Both John and Fred make valid points. I can understand Johns reticence in having to pay more taxes since he personally will not benefit from it and Fred is correct that we are a community of citizens and should all pitch in for the common good. A decent single payer system such as Medicare paid for not just with employee/employer taxes, but with a value added tax (VAT) would go a long way to restore some semblance of equilibrium in regards to everyone's responsibility for paying for health care. In fact everyone who spends a dollar in this country would be contributing towards the cause.

But, unfortunately, single payer was not part of the national debate and we will be forced to decide which group will pay more and which groups get more or less health care. And the inequalities will remain.

Americans are all on the same lifeboat. So, let's say that there is a doctor on this lifeboat, and he won't provide medical treatment unless he is paid. And let's say that there is another guy on the lifeboat who has flu-like symptoms that turn out to be swine flu, then the choice is this: does everyone on the lifeboat chip in as much money as they can afford to pay the doctor, or does everyone on the lifeboat get swine flu?

Taxes. In reality, contrary to the propaganda put out by the rich, and given to useful idiots on the right for repeated dissemination, we are near historic lows as far as tax burdens go. Compared with our own past, and definitely compared with most of the rest of the world, we have very low taxes.

The percent of GDP going toward taxes in roughly 25%. I've seen conservative economists who say it's lower than that. Under 20%. They cite that number, ironically, in defense of their scare tactics about Obama's future taxation potential.

Sweden's is roughly 50% of its GDP, as a point of contrast.

America, from 1947-1964 had a top rate of 91%. From 1964 to 1973 it was 70%. There is a direct parallel, historically, between high taxes for individuals and corporations, and high economic performance, job growth and wage growth.

After 1973, wages for roughly 93% of Americans stagnated or fell, with only a brief blip during the Clinton years, when he raised taxes.

There is a direct parallel, historically, between low taxes for the rich and corporate America and poor job growth, poor wage growth, and a rapidly increasing gap between rich and poor, rich and the middle, and even rich and richer.

Some posters here have tried to say that low taxes are needed for a healthy economy. The facts, the evidence, the historical record says otherwise.

The most recent example is obvious. Under Bush, just 1.45 million new jobs were created, net. Tax receipts to the Treasury declined his first three years and his last. He doubled the debt. He set records for domestic and trade deficits. Wage growth for roughly 95% of the American workforce were flat or declined. Wage growth for the top 1% skyrocketed. It was even higher for the top .01%.

History tells us that lower taxes for the rich and for corporations do NOT help the vast majority of Americans. They help the rich. Period. And, since they have seen the vast majority of tax CUTS in the last few decades, it is only fair that they pay for health care reform. They can afford it. No one else can. It needs to be done.

That said, the two best health care bills are the ones being ignored. Conyers' and Sanders'. Both Single Payer. Single Payer would immediately save us at least 30% in overhead costs . . . which would translate into several hundreds of billions each year. It has the potential to save much more, as prices could be forced down with a Medicare for All system.

It's the cheapest, most efficient, best answer to our health care problems. And it would save the vast majority of Americans a fortune. No more out of pocket costs or premiums would help any family. It would also help businesses, for obvious reasons.

If not for the power of private insurance company lobbyists, we'd do the right thing, the smart thing, the least costly thing and go Single Payer.