« 2,220 Americans Have Died Because of No Health Insurance Since the Obama Administration Took Office | Kali Star's Blog | Congress and Health Insurance? Who Will Stand Up and Make History? »
Taxing the "Rich" for Health Care
Obama's plan to tax people making over $250,000 to help pay for his various programs, including the as yet undefined health care plan, is obviously important.
The Right is going crazy, as predicted, but is missing a crucial point. Someone making $250,000 a year who becomes seriously ill, or has a family member with a serious illness, isn't rich at all. The "rich" sick person or family could be on the path to the poor house and lose that house on the way.
How blind are people? They think it will never happen to them. Many people with health insurance don't deal with the fact that they might lose the policy, or that they will become sick and the part of the medical costs not covered by their policy will take away their savings, their pension and their house.
When you're seriously ill, $250,000 isn't rich. It all goes. Universal health care for all is what I say-comprehensive and with a no pre-existing conditions clause. Including for the "rich."
Advertisement
Good morning Health Care Kali!
What you write is too true. One chest pain and being 'rich' suddenly becomes a pre-existing condition. ;o)
February 26, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi flowerchild.
Just being a human being is turning out to be a pre-existing condition. Even trying to live a life based in natural health in food and in the environment is no protection against the diseases so many of us seem to come down with.
February 26, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really love this, because it is so true:
February 26, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The tax should have started at $400,000.00, so that the Republican argument would be much less sympathetic.
February 26, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't know the numbers but would such a plan provide enough money? Myself, I would like to see higher taxes on cigarettes, gas, alcohol, carbon emissions, luxury cars, plane travel, road tolls and very high payments to log on federal lands.I would add these kinds of taxes to new tax rates for more wealthy people. I don't think the real problem is the money. I know that it is a very important issue but I think that the insurance companies and the drug companies have exploited this issue to stop universal care.
February 26, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
And not hiring Geithner, and making all TARP handouts public, would have saved a couple trillion dollars.
Fortunately Obama and Geithner are disgusted, so we'll always have that...
February 26, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get what you're saying, but I don't think the tax increase at that level is all that much money to start with. At least when it was explained a few days ago.
But I agree; even $350,000 takes it out of the familiar for most people, whereas $250,000 makes the republicans shout about the small-business owners (who they could actually give a rip about.)
February 26, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder what those numbers might be without raising taxes at $250,000 but starting at $350,000. Do you know where one might look? The idea of starting higher sure makes sense.
February 26, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Health care benefits often are illusory. Since they are paid by employers, they only exist while someone is employed by that employer.
But what if someone becomes seriously ill or is injured in an accident and no longer is able to work? Without a job, the employer ceases paying the health care premiums. And while an employee may have COBRA benefits for 18 months, how does he pay the premiums without a job?
Moreover, it is often more difficult to find a job with benefits after one passes age 40. Age discrimination is very real.
The bottom line is, that one's health care is taken care of when one is young and healthy. However, if one should become sick, injured, or just plain old, those health care benefits evaporate. The benefits are provided to those who don't need them, while benefits are denied to those who do need them.
It's a crazy system.
February 26, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely right. One thing that really concerns me is the attention given to these partial solutions. Extending COBRA would be one such example. If we are being asked to accept progress in only a part of the population, and we accept that, we lose the fight right then and there.
A partial solution based on the crazy system that you have described is useless.
February 26, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It never made sense to have your health insurer determined by your employer. People should be choosing their own health insurer. The "tradition" of getting health insurance from employers started when the Roosevelt administration froze wages and prices to control inflation during WWII. At that time, employers used non-wage benefits like health care and pension plans to attract and retain good employees because they couldn't give anyone a raise. Today, corporations can deduct employee health insurance premiums from their corporate income taxes but individuals can only do so in limited circumstances. Something as important and as personal as health care shouldn't be tied to employment at all.
February 26, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the information. There is quite a bit in your comment that I didn't know. How do you see this all coming out? Do you think now that Obama sees the magnitude of the problem he is backing off his campaign promises? I realize that the economy is a problem but does anyone remember a primary in which the two biggest issues were the war and healthcare?
February 26, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has a lot of negotiating to do with Congress, and that will determine where he ends up relative to his promises. I believe a real solution to health care would include separating health care from employment and separating routine preventative care from larger, unexpected expenses. "Insurance" is meant to be a transfer of risk from insured to insurer, and it should cover the larger, unexpected expenses. Using health insurance to cover a check-up is like using your car insurance for an oil change, or using your homeowners insurance to pay window washers. We could make preventative care more affordable by having most people (i.e., the top 80%-90% of income earners) dealing directly with doctors and asking doctors to compete for our business. Having an insurance company paying for preventative care gives doctors no incentive to control their costs.
My understanding of Obama's proposal during the campaign (not sure if that is what he's proposing now) is to maintain an employer-based system but use government to cover those who aren't covered by their employers. Since it doesn't seem to address the issue of intertwining health care and employment, I don't think much of it.
February 27, 2009 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great thanks.
February 27, 2009 6:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the 250K was unfortunate as well.
It's a bit too low. Statistically, it is near the top of the top. But 500K would have been better. I would have increased the top rate more, too. Taking it back up to 39% isn't enough. It could even be on a coupla tiers. Perhaps 500K to 1 million, raise the rate to 43%. From 1 million to 10 million, raise the rate to 45%. 10 million and above, raise it to 49%.
Cut taxes deeper for those making 250K or less.
Wage "class war". This is the PERFECT time for it. No better time in the last one hundred years.
Folks should remember that during Johnson's tenure as prez, the top rate was roughly 71%, and the economy performed at its best clip overall in the last 80 years.
February 26, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would be happy to see a greater distribution of wealth in this country and a complete overhaul of the attitudes that have made us materialistic and poor at the same time. We are unsafe in many ways including lack of dependable healthcare, employment and we live in a poisoned environment that is only getting worse.
February 26, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
In setting the cut-off for tax increases, you also have to consider the need to raise revenue. If you raise the cut-off point to $350,000, you have a lot fewer people whose taxes you can raise and it may become almost impossible to meet revenue goals.
February 27, 2009 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that would be a decent reason not to tax people making less than a million a year then, wouldn't it?
Obama's plan is the worst of both worlds. All the costs of single payer (universality) with none of the benefits (no cost savings from ditching insurance underwriting costs).
February 26, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
What would be the best position to take now in your opinion? I voted for Obama although I thought his plan wasn't the best. I still think he has other qualities that make him the right person for this time but I think on healthcare he is backing off a solution.
February 26, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama will eventually raise taxes on everybody in order to pay for better healthcare. I know this contradicts what he said in his Tuesday night speech but he'll need to raise taxes on everybody in order to pay for all his spending plans. I'm OK with that - but I just wish he was more forthcoming during his speech to Congress.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561551065378405.html?mod=todays_us_opinion
February 26, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the really excellent link. I would be happy to pay more for a healthcare system that would finally end this unbearable situation.
February 26, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too!
February 26, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I just wish Obama was more honest in his speech. Maybe the people making under $250,000 won't pay more in taxes in 2009, but at some point their taxes must go up to pay for all of his increased spending.
February 26, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink