Taxing Health Care Benefits Will Destroy Democrats In Next Election

[Better Believe It]

Taxing Health Care Will Destroy Democrats
Taxing health care will turn working class people against Obama and ruin the Democratic Party.
By William Greider
The Nation
June 19, 2009.


Vincent Panvini Sr. is one of those Washington insiders whose names seldom appear in the newspapers but can be found in hundreds of Rolodexes on Capitol Hill. He is the guy in charge of political contributions for the Sheet Metal Workers union. In the 2008 election, Panvini handed out almost $2.4 million, 97 percent of which went to Democrats. Panvini's choices will change, he predicts, if the Democratic Party decides to reform healthcare on the backs of union members--taxing the health benefits that working people won in collective bargaining by forgoing wage increases.

"This is a political train wreck waiting to happen," Panvini warns. In recent weeks he has been bluntly informing party leaders that they are flirting with a disaster comparable to the great wipeout Democrats suffered in 1994, when Gingrich Republicans won control of the House.

.... a big switch on taxing benefits would double-cross a major constituency and break some important promises. During the presidential campaign, Obama attacked John McCain for proposing the very same idea. Obama further promised he would not increase taxes on the middle class. "If you tax health benefits, you are taxing the middle class," Panvini explains. The issue was critical, he adds, in persuading many white working-class voters to put aside racial fears and return to the Democratic Party.

If the president embraces the plan, the consequences, Panvini thinks, could be explosive. "If any of these Democratic senators vote for this, they will be voted out in 2010, and this will definitely be used against Obama in 2012. People are already hurting, unemployed--and then you are going to tax them more? That's crazy."

The conventional view of the 1994 election is that voters were reacting to Bill Clinton's failure to reform healthcare. But labor's interpretation, which I share, is that working people felt betrayed and abandoned by Clinton's rightward turn toward NAFTA and Robert Rubin's Wall Street economics. Many working people stayed home in 1994; some even opted for Newt Gingrich's anti-establishment attack line.

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/140777/taxing_health_care_will_destroy_democrats/

[QC]

1. "The Democrats raised your taxes to give free medical care to illegals and deadbeats!"

That will be the GOP's 2010 campaign if health care benefits are taxed.

Sure, it's hateful and stupid and a lie, but hateful, stupid lies are what the Republicans do best.

[AlphaCentauri]

7. I would not be surprised of the GOP lies

but of those who believe them

[QC]

9. People believe anything that gratifies their prejudices.

The GOP knows that and is dirty enough to use it.

[Thothmes]

18. they also win them votes.

[xchrom]

2. seems to me we do best when we own what we are -- the party of the left --

'The conventional view of the 1994 election is that voters were reacting to Bill Clinton's failure to reform healthcare. But labor's interpretation, which I share, is that working people felt betrayed and abandoned by Clinton's rightward turn toward NAFTA and Robert Rubin's Wall Street economics. Many working people stayed home in 1994; some even opted for Newt Gingrich's anti-establishment attack line.'

[kestrel91316]

3. Well, I don't have any "healthcare benefits" to tax, so I guess I will

come out fine. But wait, I don't have ANY health insurance........

And as much as I would like to, I cannot offer healthcare benefits to my employees, either. It's tough enough just to pay their hourly wages and payroll taxes.

Why am I getting the funny feeling that whatever plan passes, I still won't be able to afford insurance for myself, let alone employees??

[w4rma]

5. They're making it mandantory, too. So, blame the Blue Dogs for raising your taxes. (nt)

[Better Believe It]

6. Oh .... but you may be required to buy private health insurance or be fined!

This is change the insurance companies can believe in!

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. single payer would take care of you both.

But of course, that's never going to pass.

[w4rma]

4. The blasted Blue Dogs are taking a vote winning bill and turning it into a horrible mess! (nt)

[rocktivity]

8. Well, duh.

More fear and smear--has Obama said he's going to do anything of the kind? When is the televised town hall he's going to have scheduled?

:headbang:
rocknation

[wroberts189]

10. knr

[lindisfarne]

11. The vast majority of the people don't have benefits at the level to trigger taxes.

Call the Senate HELP and Finance Committee members and tell them you want a NATIONAL PUBLIC OPTION - no Co-ops, no triggers.

Contact info (phones, faxes) at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8473420

[FrenchieCat]

12. The President is against taxing Health Benefits.

Officials: No support for health benefits tax
Obama is pressing for an overhaul that includes a government option

The debate over a government insurance plan has broken mainly along party lines. But Democrats and Republicans appearing on Sunday's TV news programs either rejected or offered no support for raising revenues on some people through a tax on health benefits. Obama has not supported the idea, but has said it should be considered along with other proposals.

Vice President Joe Biden said that administration doesn't want to tax health care benefits even though the proposal should be on the table. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., called taxing health benefits a "bad idea" as well as unnecessary.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31355313/ns/politics-more_politics/


There will be no taxing of Health Benefits, no matter how many opine on this.

Amazing how Obama can get bad press just because.....

but whatever!

[asteroid2003QQ47]

20. Before responding, I'm going to follow your lead and put myself on 'Ignore.'

Not having to suffer the trauma of reading my own words will be quite comforting plus it's neat to be on the cutting edge of what could become a trend.
-----------------------------------------

“It's hard to argue against cynics - they always sound smarter than optimists because they have so much evidence on their side”
--Molly Ivins

[asteroid2003QQ47]

21. That's better. Now- No New Taxes! No New Taxes! I think I've heard that one before...

just before taxes went up.
I should believe it now?
-----------------------------------

“It's hard to argue against cynics - they always sound smarter than optimists because they have so much evidence on their side”
--Molly Ivins

[Why Syzygy]

14. Clinton ran in '92 PRO NAFTA ..

There was no turn. Perot was the lone candidate who opposed it, and managed the largest ever third party vote.

Gerald Celente of Trends Institute predicts a third part in 2012 which "cannot be beat".
Let us pray.

:smoke:

[newspeak]

22. did Clinton run on NAFTA

because NAFTA was poppy's baby--I remember that. I remember praying "don't let Poppy in because of NAFTA (of course BCCI scam also)." After Clinton was elected, I was so relieved and stated "now we'll get those thugs and know the whole truth about BCCI, Iran-Contra." Alas, the investigations went bye-bye and NAFTA was signed. Signed, I might add, where some of those congresscritters hadn't actually read the whole treaty.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

23. Not read the whole treaty!? Aren't you more than a little insensitive!

What is this, pick on the cripple day? You know damn well that, just like some of the crowd here, many congresscritters are functionally illiterate at best!
---------------------------------------

“There is no society known where a more or less developed criminality is not found under different forms. No people exists whose morality is not daily infringed upon. We must therefore call crime necessary and declare that it cannot be non-existent, that the fundamental conditions of social organization, as they are understood, logically imply it.”
--Emile Durkheim

[andym]

15. I agree it is not a good idea to tax health benefits

I agree it is not a good idea to tax health benefits. However, beyond increased taxes for people making > 250K, what other funding options are out there and how much can they bring in?

How do we fund a public option?
How do we fund single payer?


A VAT tax?
Increased cigarette taxes?
Soft drink, junk food taxes?

How?

[Better Believe It]

17. By offering public insurance for sale at less cost and better benefits than private insurance.

With government help to make if affordable for everyone including free coverage for those living in poverty.

[andym]

24. It's the government help that costs money

I think there's little question that a single-payer system (followed by a strong public option) would save the most money. But the government (and the people) would still have to pay for those who could not afford health-care. Although the House Medicare for All bill has not been scored (and it should be to get the most accurate information on the costs), an analysis by single-payer advocates has been made of its benefits and costs (see below)-- the bottom line is that the premiums won't pay for the whole thing, we will need about $63 billion a year (0.63 trillion over 10 years is still much better than the 1.6 trillion for the Senate bill)

From
http://www.calnurses.org/research/pdfs/ihsp_sp_economic_study_2009.pdf :

This study demonstrates that a comprehensive Medicare based Single Payer system can make significant
contributions to access of quality care for all US residents and in the process generate a much needed
and very substantial economic stimulus in the form of jobs, enhanced business and public revenues and
increased wages for the population at large.

All this comes at a relatively modest increase in net costs of $63 billion. Some may object on principle
that any increase in health care costs is to be avoided, but our analysis empirically demonstrates that
principle to be without merit. This objection is usually takes the form of invoking the notion that US
corporations are at a competitive disadvantage with foreign based business entities and that any increase
in business costs only serves to exacerbate that disadvantage.

Our study has not , however, offered an analysis of the means by which funding would flow to the new
system, the sources of that funding or how the increased Public Benefit share of expenditures shall be
generated. Our research design is limited to determining the costs of such a system and tracking the
resultant capital flows throughout the economy’s various sectors......

Their suggestions for funding:

Funding options include but are not limited to:
* Revision of the US tax code to a Value Added Tax (VAT) similar to that widely found in other industrial nations that have implemented a national health care system. In a VAT, there is a nominal tax applied to each step in the production of goods and services as opposed to, e.g., a sales tax.

* A VAT could be implemented that mirrors the dynamics of a national VAT but is limited to the health care sector.

* As assessment on those economic sectors that economically benefit via induced and indirect health care expenditures could be levied on a pro rata basis, that is, in direct proportion to the level of their benefit. For example, the more than $750 billion that accrues to the Manufacturing sector would be subject to the greatest absolute dollar assessment, but because the assessment is proportional it would not constitute an onerous financial burden. Further, such an assessment could be constructed to be a fraction of what those business entities within the sector have contributed to health care expenditures. Moreover, such an assessment would constitute an investment by the sector which could expect significant returns in terms of reduced worker absenteeism due to illness and increased productivity.

[Better Believe It]

16. And this article is the kind of crap we will read on a massive scale if benefits are taxed

-Just a little sampling here on what to expect should benefits be taxed under a Democratic sponsored healthcare plan.-


Democrats Contemplate Massive Tax Increase to Pay for Obama's Healthcare Plan
June 19, 2009
By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

During his victorious presidential run, Barack Obama promised he would not raise taxes on the middle class. "Under my plan," Obama told a New Hampshire gathering, "no family making less than $250,000.00 a year will see any form of tax increase."

Somebody wasn't paying attention.

Democrats in the House of Representatives are now contemplating massive tax increases in order to raise some of the revenues they need to fund Obama plan's for a government takeover of the U.S. healthcare system.

According to published reports, tax increases under consideration include:

A 10 cents per can tax on soda and other sugary drinks
A 2 percent increase on income taxes for single taxpayers earning more than $200,000 per year
A 2 percent increase on income taxes for households earning more than $250,000 per year
A new employer payroll tax targeting 3 percent of employers' health care expenditures
Taxing certain employer-provided health insurance benefits
Higher taxes on alcohol
An increase in the Medicare payroll tax
A European-style Value Added Tax or VAT of 1.5 percent or more

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2009/06/19/democrats-contemplate-massive-tax-increase-to-pay-for-obamas-healthcare-plan.html

[Better Believe It]

19. For weekend DU'ers

[Better Believe It]

25. Obama's Budget Chief Orszag and Economic Advisor Jason Furman support some health benefits taxes

White House open to new tax on health benefits
By PHILIP ELLIOTT
The Associated Press
Sunday, June 28, 2009

Obama left open the possibility of a tax during interviews last week, insisting he wasn't taking any option off the table despite his personal opposition. But two of his high-profile advisers - budget chief Peter Orszag and economic adviser Jason Furman - both have indicated they support some taxes on health benefits to pay for the overhaul.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/28/AR2009062800634.html