SEARCH
Health Care Bill by Senate Finance Committee Should Include House’s Funding Strategy |
|
A health care reform package that includes a public health insurance plan option, shared employer responsibility, cost containment and an end to private insurance company abuses was approved by a key Senate committee this morning.
Says AFL-CIO President John Sweeney:
This legislation demands shared responsibility so families are less burdened. It will make health care more affordable by controlling costs and improving quality. And most importantly, it will provide coverage for all and help reduce the ranks of the uninsured and underinsured. Sen. Chris Dodd and Chairman Kennedy’s hard work and dedication have put forth a bill that moves us one step closer to the finish line.
The action by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee comes one day after the House version of health care legislation was introduced. But unlike the House bill, the HELP committee’s measure does not address financing.
The Senate Finance Committee is reported to be close to finalizing the financing mechanisms for health care reform. Next, the two bills from HELP and Finance will have to be shaped into a single bill before the full Senate votes. After a series of hearings, the House is expected to vote on health care reform before it adjourns for its summer recess July 31.
Under the House version, about half the cost of health reform comes from Medicare modernization, the public health insurance option and the shared responsibility ”pay or play” requirement for employers.
But instead of taxing working families’ health care benefits, as some senators proposed, the House bill lands on the side of fairness. It calls for a small surtax on the nation’s wealthiest 1 percent to help provide health care for all Americans. In most cases, all or a large part of the surcharge is offset by the savings comprehensive health care reform will bring.
The House bill’s small tax surcharge applies to individuals making more than $280,000 a year and married couples with annual incomes over $350,000. A study by the Commonwealth Fund estimates that the House bill would save the average American household more than $1,600,a year in reduced health care costs, with those earning more than $150,000 annually seeing a yearly savings of $1,656 to $2,948.
With the proposed 1 percent surcharge, a single person earning $280,000 might see a savings of $148 a year or pay a health care reform surcharge of a little more than $1,100. A married couple with a $350,000 annual income would see a surcharge of between $552 and $1,884 a year.
The small surcharge doesn’t seem to be much of a burden on someone making $134 an hour ($280,00 a year), $192 an hour ($350,000 a year) or more.
No doubt health care reform opponents like the private health insurance industry, the health care lobby and conservative groups will scream loudly and repeatedly about raising taxes. But put into a common-sense perspective, the health care surcharge makes great sense.
A small surtax on the wealthiest 1 percent buys health care reform for America. That’s not much to finally get a handle on costs that are dragging down the entire economy. Even the wealthy will get a big chunk of their money back in savings. Their premiums won’t go up as fast, and no one will have to pay the hidden $1,000 insurance premium add-on to cover costs for uncompensated care.
The House health care surtax is a fiscally responsible investment. It will pay steady returns every year.
1 Comment
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The United States spends, each year, two trillion dollars on health care. That amounts to twice as much per person as any other developed nation spends, and, the delivered health care is of lesser quality than that in the other developed nations. Almost fifty million Americans have no health care other than hospital emergency rooms. Emergency room care is not free. The rest of us are paying for emergency room care with at least one thousand dollars more per year in private health insurance premiums than would otherwise be the case.
Given the above, one must ask why this discrepancy exists in our country. Why does their system work so well and ours fail so badly? What do the medical establishments in other nations with universal health care know that ours does not? The answer, of course, is that there is nothing their medical establishments know that ours does not. The problem is not in our medical establishment.
The problem is the Washington establishment. Other governments recognized the need and devised a logical system which assured delivery of high quality health care services to all of their people. Our government did not. The politicians’ excuse is that we cannot afford a single payer system. But with two trillion dollars to spend, we can afford a quality health care system for everyone in America. What stands in the way of providing quality health care to all Americans is the Congress of the United States. Political action committees and special interest lobbies dole out millions of dollars to the members of Congress for the sole purpose of influencing their votes on national issues such as health care.
The United States has a cobbled together system of health care delivery which benefits the providers, the insurance companies, and the pharmaceutical companies at the expense of the medical community, the business community, and the people who need care. The situation is well known and thoroughly understood by the politicians. As a result, Congress is struggling to make it look as if they are conducting an ernest search for the “best” solution. But the real search is for a solution that will continue to facilitate, and render no harm to their benefactors in the health care industry.
As the health care “debate” stumbles on, we can only hope for more decisive leadership from President Obama. Certainly there will be little leadership from the politicians in Congress who will devise additional convoluted proposals to go with the already touted “co-ops” and “trip wires” and “keep what works”, and deny any consideration of a single payer option that would work.
Political efforts to cloud the issue will not change the facts pertaining to health care in America. Our present system demands more and more money for less care, more and more money for limited availability of quality of care, and more and more money leaving millions of Americans with no care while the private providers evade coverage and enjoy obscene profits.
Other developed countries do it better at half the cost, and, unless we demand real change from Washington, based on the facts and common sense, our “do nothing for the people” Congress will only continue to go through the motions of change. They will play out their ” wink wink nod” charade, and they will continue to support the existing health care establishment at the expense and well being of the American people.