What's Right About the House Health Care Plan

House leaders have come forth with a health care plan. "Big Business," Republicans and medical providers will attack it. But, based on what I've read so far, there is a lot in here that makes sense. Last month I took my elected representatives to task for their waffling on health care. Now that the House members have proposed legislation, it seems fair that I take a few minutes to talk about what they appear to have gotten right.

First off, insurance companies will be prevented from denying people coverage or charging exorbitant premiums for pre-existing conditions. They should be.

Second, a government plan, modeled after the highly successful health care plan for seniors, Medicare, will be made available to all citizens. It must be.

Finally, the legislation will be paid for by raising taxes on those who can afford it more than others, the very rich. And, the government is finally recognizing the difference between the rich and the really, really rich. Those with income over $280,000 will see a 1% surtax. That's taxable income, adjusted for deductions. That means true income in excess of $300,000. How can anyone making that kind of money cry over an additional $2800 in tax? Those making over $500,000 will see a larger increase and those who make over a million a year will see the largest increase.

This is how it should work. Currently, the top income tax bracket begins at $370,000. That's a lot of money. But it's a long distance from there to a million or more a year. In addition, these million dollar earners pay only 2% more in tax than those in the second highest bracket (over $171,000 a year) and 7% more than those who make $82,000 a year. It's time we recognized the difference between the really rich and those who are merely wealthy. An additional high income tax bracket should be introduced for the multi-millionaires. They won't miss the money.

According to the IRS, one quarter of all income is earned by people in these tax brackets. Not only is it fairer to tax them more, it's an efficient way to raise a lot of money. After all, you are raising taxes on 25% of the U.S. earned income but you only have to raise taxes on 1.2% of the taxpayers to do it!

The attacks to come will tell you that by taxing rich people, they'll stop "driving the economy." Well, rich people never drove the economy and they never will. They take a disproportionate amount of the money but do not create a disproportionate amount of the wealth, except for themselves and their heirs. Think about it. How could 1.2% of the population drive the economy? Even if they spent every cent they earned (not very likely, eh?), they would still be dwarfed in spending by the rest of the population. The middle class drive the economy.

They'll tell you that, if their health care costs rise, corporations will stop hiring. That's bull. Companies hire people when they see an opportunity to increase their business. Though controlling costs is important, the opportunity to increase and expand its business really drives a corporation and that depends on consumerism. If the middle class can afford more because they are no longer over burdened by health care costs, they will consume more and businesses will thrive.

Finally, they will tell you that a government backed health plan or "public option" will put insurance companies out of business. To this I say, so what? Smartly run insurance companies will find a way to compete, probably by offering better service and better prices than they did in the past. The rest can go out of business just as any other poorly run, over priced business can.

With the House on the right track, we now need to be wary of a watered-down version emerging from committee as well as from the Senate. Our politicians may settle for weaker legislation, possibly without a public option or as elegant a taxation plan. Be sure your elected representatives hear from you. Make sure they deliver the health care we need.

Click here to read about the plan.

Related story: Five Legislators I May Not Vote For Again.

Comments

[basementfrog]

What this healthcare debate is proving is 1) many politicians are more interested in keeping a system of kickbacks and payoffs by medical industry lobbyists than they are in the health of the US ecomony and the well-being of its citizens; 2) that the Republican claims of supporting small business are a farse since these businesses are suffering the most from healthcare cost, but even major corporations are suffering and, in fact, a major reason for GM's problems was its massive burden from medical coverage for retired and current employees; and 3) that the system of lobbyist bribary and influence peddling is anti-American, corruptive and destroying the United States from within.

If you want to cover the cost of healthcare, it's easy: close all loopholes in the tax system allowing for offshore accounts that allow tax evaders, mostly the 1.5 percent Obama wants to raise taxes on. This tax evasion tactic of the rich denies the US of $350 billion per year. Over 10 years that's $3.5 trillion, more than the $1 trillion of over 10 years needed for healthcare and enough to provice full coverage for a very reasonable price.

Why is it that every civilized country in the world can do this but the US cannot? Stupidity or corruption?

[Coinyer101]

Hr 676 or ferget it! this current house bill does nothing but shovel more money to insurance companies by mandating everyone buy it. Even the public option funds generated by taxes and savings will still have to be paid to insurance companies out of that fund. Why should people have to pay higher taxes just to give it to insurance? Give it to the Drs. and hospitals direct. Insurance profits are where the savings to pay for this should come from,[sing­le-payer]. As long as they are in the mix there will not be enough saved to pay for it, without raising taxes too high. The current bill is malarkey, imo.

[thehoopoe]

"Even the public option funds generated by taxes and savings will still have to be paid to insurance companies out of that fund. "

the government will be running the plan, like with medicare. The government is your insurance company.

The current bill is not single payer, fine, France, Germany, Holland, Suisse also don't use a single payer system. The bill goes a long way to addressing the biggest problems now. If it doesn't get watered down it's a good start.

[CreekCM]

Thanks for breaking that down. I hope that it passes. We have to start somewhere, and even if the bill is not exactly ideal, it is better than the nothingness we have now. I have known people who have preexisting conditions, and thus, get rejected by almost every insurance company they apply for. It's heartbreaking, to say the least. They just live with their condition, and visit the doctor only when it gets truly bad. It's inexcusable that a country such as ours would fail to ensure the health of its citizens.

Money spent on this is money well spent.

[LinkSync]

I remember when O'Rielly and Hannity were going on about how it was "unfair" that 4% of the people were paying 40% of the taxes.
Well how "fair" is it that 4% of the people controll 85% of the wealth?

So Bruce's contentions as to tax law is well taken.

I would point out though that even as he compliments the efforts at Health Care Reform he is doing a disservice in that he is NOT SUPPORTING A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM with any energy.

So to you personally Bruce, I dub thee (reluctantly 'cause you're all right really) a TRAITOR.

[Coinyer101]

I am going to urge my Senators ( Lincoln and Pryor) ,of Arkansas, who are both Bluedogg dems, NOT to pass this bill. As much as I would like serious healthcare reform ,( like a single-payer system), i cannot and will not support this bill, because of the 'exchange', and because of the mandate and penalties on those who don't want to buy 'coverage', instead of actual healthcare. I'm as liberal as they come, but, to invade my privacy rights and force me to buy insurance instead of healthcare is enough to make me spitting mad. If this bill passes and is signed into law by this President, those responsible will not get my vote in 2010 and 2012.

[Camplady]

I am glad you recognize this as health insurance reform, not health care reform.
It reminds me of car insurance reform - it just required everyone to have car
insurance. People pay much money for it and get nothing in return (unless you
have an accident - then your insurance rates go up)

[Thorstein]

After Medicare passed in 1965, it took only 1 year to enroll 19 million seniors. Without computers. Why does it now take until 2013 to implement this "reform." According to the Institute of Medicine, during these four years 72,000 Americans will die from lack of insurance. What's "right" about this?

[LinkSync]

The reason for all the "inefficiencies" is quite simply put, Capitalism.

In any system there are potential and real "choke" points or regulatory bottlenecks.

In a for profit system those points become "exploited" and then have to be "regulated" adding another layer to be "exploited".

As time passes the simplest law or regulation becomes a lawyers playground (remember the incentives in a for profit system) and also a leverage point for law makers to use to extort more money form interested parties.

Every thing that is wrong in the world can be connected to Capitalism by the thoughtful and caring.

[Thorstein]

In 1965, after Medicare was passed, it took 1 year to enroll 19 million seniors. Without computers. Why will this non-reform not take effect until 2013?

[Janet A]

Nice article.

1. I approve of your tax propositions... we need that here too. Very disproportionate division/bands and seems to stop once it gets to a certain level and therefore the amount contribution is actually unfair in relation to the amount of service possibly used.

2. We have the public option, and believe me, the Insurance Companies are still doing fine! People will still opt for private when they can chose. Often the service may give a more pleasant experience/surgical outcome - take dental care for instance. Or, private medical attention can often be a shorter wait and less public environment. What troubles the stability of the insurance companies at present is the low interest rate return levels due to recession.

What is most important about installing a public option is the fact that all - regardless of income/age will receive much needed treatment regardless of income. It is sad in this day and age to think this is not available.