This bill is a regressive tax, and here are the numbers nobody seems to be thinking about

[no limit]

Here is the tax increase that the president just signed in to law for a single 25 year old adult working on an hourly rate 40 hours a week:

$10 /hr - $100 a month or a 6% tax increase
$15 /hr - $219 a month or a 8% tax increase
$20 /hr - $219 a month or a 6% tax increase
$30 /hr - $219 a month or a 4% tax increase
$40 /hr - $219 a month or a 3% tax increase
$60 /hr - $219 a month or a 2% tax increase

Now here is my question, how can any self identified progressive support a regressive tax that will hit single middle class americans the hardest? What do you think would happen if we told the richest 1% to pay an additional 8% in taxes as we are now asking someone making $15 /hr to do? All hell would break lose. But when we shift that tax burden to the middle class suddenly this is a great moment in our history.

Source: http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx (Obama's proposal)

[shraby]

1. Who besides me likes oatmeal raisin cookies?

[stray cat]

4. How about if we skip the raisins and throw in peanut butter?

:hi:

[KittyWampus]

16. The Low-Fat Vegan Recipe website has one for Banana Oatmeal Cookies

[NYC_SKP]

5. No coconut, nothing fancy. Love em. Love em to death.

[Leopolds Ghost]

47. I thought you guys were claiming this wasn't a tax. Macaroons anyone?

[NoPasaran]

9. You know what I really like? Macaroons, that's what

[earth mom]

10. Thread hijack-plain and simple and disgusting. nt

[no limit]

12. Well when you can't argue with the facts post something stupid that is meant to distract

that's what they do.

[Hannah Bell]

48. yep. that's what they do, over & over & over. by their sickly fruits ye shall know them.

[dionysus]

90. something against apple pie, comrade?

:shrug:

[Ikonoklast]

15. So, you're in the 'I Hate Oatmeal Raisin Cookie' camp I take it.

Must be one of them there Chocolate Chip Absolutists.

[Leopolds Ghost]

44. I thought people were insisting this wasn't a mandate but a tax. Now they're claiming it's not a tax

I can't keep up.

[dionysus]

89. but what are your thoughts on eclairs?

:shrug:

[ellie]

20. I'm partial to everything chocolate:

chocolate chip, chocolate-chocolate chip, butterscotch and chocolate chip, peanut butter and chocolate chip, peanut blossoms. Really, anything. Now I am hungry for soup.

[WeekendWarrior]

28. Damn, I LOVE them.

[Subdivisions]

62. What does any of the fucking cookie talk in this sub-thread have to do with the OP? n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

67. No, Shraby brings up a really relevant snack related point

Oatmeal raising clearly have insufficient chocolate chips.

[Dogtown]

87. Dogtown's a brownie sort of guy.

Walnuts, no "icing".

[dionysus]

91. i like the oatmeal cookie sandwiches with the cream in the middle. yum

[Donnachaidh]

2. popcorn anyone?

:popcorn:

[Oregone]

3. A regressive tax can still have an overall aggregate progressive effect

And I sure as fuck am not claiming it to be the case here. Premiums, copays, and deductibles aside, you are STILL going to see lower class people paying (if they can afford it) FAR more for health *care* than upper class as a percentage of income (when it should be the opposite).


That said, the GST in Canada (consumption tax), for example, actually funds an egalitarian health care system. So its not always cut and dry

[Political Heretic]

80. I actually think we should consider a move to a consumption tax

I said consider.... I'd like to think more about its merit.

[ixion]

6. excellent question... k/r

:applause:

[sandnsea]

7. My son pays $25 a week

for his union insurance. He just got a raise over minimum this past year.

[Nikki Stone1]

8. K & R

.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ecstatic]

13. The calculator dated 10/09 has 3 options: Obama's proposal, House's proposal,

and Senate proposal... why did you choose Obama's proposal? And further, you left a lot of info, like age, household info, job insurance info out of your OP. When you can provide more info in your OP that shows who your numbers apply to, etc., then you will probably get more responses.

[instantkarma]

14. single 25 year-old adult

wouldn't that 25 year-old single adult be able to stay on her parent's insurance until she's turned 27?

Would (full-time) employment preclude her from remaining on her parent's insurance plan?

[Hello_Kitty]

18. That's assuming your parents have insurance and want to keep insuring you.

The provision to let people stay on their parents' policy will pretty much only help upper middle class people.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. the 25 year old in the OP is employed

the 'on your parent's plan' is for dependents who do not have the option of insurance through employment. If they have that option, they can not be on Mommy's plan at all.

[Hannah Bell]

49. why would a 27-year-old be on their parents' insurance?

18 + 4 years' college = 22.

age of majority = 21.

[pundaint]

53. Because America has the worst health payment scheme in the world - pay attention.

Other countries don't use that for-profit insurance, so they cannot pay as much. We're number 1, well except for healthcare where we're number 37, and education, and ...

[Hannah Bell]

55. well, why not 30 or 40 year olds, then? i understand it's sometimes the best option,

but a grown person on their parents' insurance except in case of disability shows how sad things are.

[Hello_Kitty]

93. What I don't like about it

If it's treated like (as I suspect will happen) college financial aid, we will see young adults turned down for Medicaid or insurance subsidies because their parents have insurance, regardless of the relationship between parents and children.

[Hello_Kitty]

92. Technically, the age of majority is 18.

Though we do like to treat our young adults like children as long as we can in this country.

[ProSense]

17. Premiums are not a tax and

none of these figures represent an increase in premiums.

The mandate is a tax, which is about .5 percent of income in 2014, climbing to 2 percent of income in 2016. Higher incomes would result in higher tax payments.

Premiums would decrease for everyone up to 60 years old who are in the income brackets mentioned in the OP.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. And people over 60 are SOL

with five years to go before they qualify for Medicare. Whoopee!!!

[ProSense]

21. No, the same thing applies up to 64. n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

22. You WROTE:

Premiums would decrease for everyone up to 60 years old who are in the income brackets mentioned in the OP.

By my math, 64 is older than 60.

Which is it? Sixty or sixty-four?

Or wait a minute, the insurance co's can triple the prices for anyone over 50, right? So if it's that percentage of income that you quoted (and it goes UP over the years), isn't it three times that much for us middle-aged types?

[ProSense]

23. And now I clarified, it's up to 64.

I used a round number. Is that OK?

[truedelphi]

43. I don't think that there is anyone in this Admin. who give's a rat's ass

About those of us who are between 49 and 65? At least not in the way that the current appointees of this Administration are configured.

Does Obama have anyone close to him who advocates for the middle aged? Or who advocates for women? 0r for the elderly? I mean, Rahm's brother was at the WH all summer advocating for the insurance industry, so that pretty much shows you what we can expect.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

63. No, they DO NOT GET IT

nor do those the DLC Fan Club.

Age discrimination is supposed to be illegal, although even now insurance companies raise your premiums as you grow older. It's based on the assumption that all older people are physical wrecks. Hell, before I broke my elbow (from falling on the ice, not from osteoporosis, thank you), I could tread water for an hour, and I was in a class with people in their seventies and eighties who could do the same. (After two months out, I'm working my way back up to their level.)

But this bill allows triple premiums prices on middle-aged people who are more likely to be in the "sandwich" (as my brothers are) of taking care of elderly parents and having children who are in or about to go to college. Then, too, in my church alone, there are so many unemployed people that they've started a weekly support group, and most of them are in the 49 to 64 age range.

Young policy wonks are some of the most oblivious and dismissive people on earth. If real people don't fit their policies, it means there's something wrong with the people, not with the policies.

[truedelphi]

71. Oh but the young policy wonks are very very very needed, and I am not

Being sarcastic. Why would Paulson appoint Kashkari, a bright young man, but certainly not someone of experience? (I think he was still finishing up at university when he got the appointment.)

Those of us who are older KNOW the facts about what makes an economy work. Had Paulson decided on an experienced someone from within the Federal Reserve or Treasury Department, who was in their forties or fifties, they KNEW facts about how to temper terrible recession, as they had heard their parents discuss The Great Depression at the dinner table, and they grew up with History books that expalined various measures like Glass Steagall et al.

Kashkari was without any blueprint at hand in terms of how to structure a Bailout, other than doing what Paulson's AIG crowd wanted. He was a blank slate, and yes, he worked tremendously hard hours, and to this day, he claims he did what he was advised and that he thinks he did right by the American people.

[Omaha Steve]

83. Meet Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis

http://www.dol.gov/_sec/welcome.htm

Minority female on the cabinet.



Secretary Hilda L. Solis was confirmed as Secretary of Labor on February 24, 2009. Prior to confirmation as Secretary of Labor, Secretary Solis represented the 32nd Congressional District in California, a position she held from 2001 – 2009.

In the Congress, Solis’ priorities included expanding access to affordable health care, protecting the environment, and improving the lives of working families. A recognized leader on clean energy jobs, she authored the Green Jobs Act which provided funding for “green” collar job training for veterans, displaced workers, at risk youth, and individuals in families under 200 percent of the federal poverty line.

In 2007, Solis was appointed to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (the Helsinki Commission), as well as the Mexico — United States Interparliamentary Group. In June 2007, Solis was elected Vice Chair of the Helsinki Commission's General Committee on Democracy, Human Rights and Humanitarian Questions. She was the only U.S. elected official to serve on this Committee.

A nationally recognized leader on the environment, Solis became the first woman to receive the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award in 2000 for her pioneering work on environmental justice issues. Her California environmental justice legislation, enacted in 1999, was the first of its kind in the nation to become law.

Solis was first elected to public office in 1985 as a member of the Rio Hondo Community College Board of Trustees. She served in the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1994, and in 1994 made history by becoming the first Latina elected to the California State Senate. As the chairwoman of the California Senate Industrial Relations Committee, she led the battle to increase the state's minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.75 an hour in 1996. She also authored a record seventeen state laws aimed at combating domestic violence.

Solis graduated from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, and earned a Master of Public Administration from the University of Southern California. A former federal employee, she worked in the Carter White House Office of Hispanic Affairs and was later appointed as a management analyst with the Office of Management and Budget in the Civil Rights Division.

She was nominated by President Barack Obama to serve as Secretary of Labor on January 20, 2009.

[eridani]

25. Premiums sure the hell are a tax

--given that people in actual civilized countries pay taxes to get health care for ALL, a lot cheaper than we are getting it.

[ProSense]

26. No, they sure as hell are not. n/t

[MajorChode]

88. Your statement doesn't support your assertion

See 'Red herring' for further reading.

[no limit]

29. You are asking people making $15/hr to give up an addition 8% of their income

for a service that in reality the government should provide but instead they want you to pay the private sector for. If you don't want to call this a tax to make you feel better you don't have to, but that's pretty much exactly what it is.

I'm not sure how many people you know that live on $15 an hour (judging by your posts Im assuming not many) but usually they don't have $220 to spare each month.

[ProSense]

30. No one is asking anyone to do anything.

And premiums are still not a tax.

[no limit]

31. What do you mean no one is asking anyone to do anything? Your responses are getting more absurd

and yes, premiums are the exact same things as a tax when the government forces you to pay those premiums. The government is taking your money and providing a service. That's exactly how taxes work. The difference here ofcourse is the money isn't going to the government but to private for profit insurance companies, and thats not really a bright spot for your position, if anything it makes this mandate worse than a tax; certainly not better. So what is your point?

[ProSense]

32. "The government is taking your money and providing a service." What the hell are you talking about?

No wonder you're confused.

[no limit]

36. When you are called out for making stuff up you just move on, never correct yourself

You said no one was asking anyone to do anything. What did you mean by that?

Second the point I am making is that the government here is not the one providing the service as I pointed out after the line you quoted. But my point is that it's the exact same principle. Usually how taxes work is the government takes your money then provides a service. In this case the government is telling you that you have to give your money to the insurance companies and they will instead provide the service. Same exact principle as taxation, the difference is the money goes to private for-profit insurance companies whereas the government's role is to enforce the mandate. This is not an argument for your side, so if you want to argue that this isn't technically taxation you can, because you are right, it's actually worse than taxation.

[onenote]

33. of course when that 25 year old needs to see a doctor and their insurance

provides them with $1000 of coverage, that $1000 is going to represent a much higher share of their income saved than the percentage $1000 represents for a wealthy person.

Not saying that it makes the pay-in progressive, just sayin that there is a pretty big upside for a low income worker if they ever get sick.

[no limit]

37. You are acting as it that 25 year old can make money he/she doesnt have appear out of thin air

Yes, having insurance is great. But there is a reason 40 million amerians aren't insured, and that has to do with affordibility. This bill will help a large chunk of those 40 million, but it will leave a "donut hole" where millions will be forced to buy something that they can not afford.

[Autumn]

65. No, you are not paying the government. They are forcing

you to pay to YOUR choice of the insurance companies. The government is not providing a service. The insurance companies are providing a service, and in my case a piss poor one at that. One that a lot of people can not afford to use as it is. All in all, not a bad job of INSURANCE REFORM. TOO bad we didn't get HEALTH CARE REFORM. To me,it seems this bill touches maybe only one of the main problems of our heath care problems. That one being the pre existing clause. That one I give them kudos for, the rest seems like a shit sandwich to me. But hey I can keep my insurance. Too bad I'm not happy with it but that's all I can afford.

[Selatius]

45. But it's still 8% missing from a paycheck. You can call that whatever you want.

But it's 8% not going to things like food on the table and utility bills.

[depakid]

51. 'premiums are still not a tax."

The effect is the same, except of course that they lack the efficiencies of a tax based system.

And the people who end up benefiting from the skimming aren't exactly popular paragons of virtue.

[truedelphi]

42. Thank you for bringing the discussion down to reality

Many posters on DU are well educated, and they must have decent enough jobs that they don't suffer the confines of a budget as limiting as what someone living on $ 15 an hour (or less) experiences.

When you consider that in ADDITION to this unfair new tax, we already have the least progressive tax code in the world (or at least among civilized nations) there is something seriously wrong with this nation's government. We are required to pay almost 8% (and twice that if deemed as indie contractors) of our income to Social Security funds - and that is before we even have health care. Without health care, that Social Security money is likely not to be used for us, as we are probably going to die before we reach the age of 65. So in effect, we are subsidizing those who are better off, who will get a return on our paid in monies to Social Security.

[no limit]

38. The mandate tax can be much higher than 2%. Where are you getting your numbers?

From what I read the fee will be $750 for an individual. I could be wrong, I am having a hard time finding the latest information on the fine.

[no limit]

39. Unless all those people don't currently have insurance because they can't afford it

if they aren't luck enough to get enough subsidies or any subsidies at all their premiums won't decrease because they have no premiums as they can't afford them. Instead they will not be told they have to buy those premiums that they can not afford or pay a fine.

[deaniac21]

27. Come on,, it's ok when we do it. Don't ruin the party you

Michael Moore imitator.

[branders seine]

34. did you miss the pep rally?

I'm sure everyone was invited!

You were probably in the computer lab with all your nerdy friends, while the cool people were clapping and stomping.

:eyes:

[no limit]

40. Yeah, my nerdy ass was too busy doing simple math on the calculator

My apologies to all the popular kids on DU.

:)

[Bolo Boffin]

35. I wonder how these numbers compare to the amount I'm spending on health insurance now

if the premiums I was paying was suddenly called a "tax."

[truedelphi]

41. Someone on another blog posted these figures:

As Avedon Carol pointed out back in December

"In 2007, public expenditure on health care per person, was around $3,300. That's before you paid your "insurer", before you paid your doctor, before you paid for any form of treatment, you paid $3,300 whether you needed it or not. (As an American, you also had the privilege of paying even more than that for commercial costs, bringing your total to an average of $7290.) In that same year in England, the total expenditure of taxation and private expenditure was $2,992 per person. *

Let me put that another way:

US paid by your taxes: $3,300 (or thereabouts)

UK taxes plus private: $2,992

And the kicker is, even relatively low-income minorities in the UK get better health care than the well-off in America."

http://sideshow.me.uk/sdec09.htm#12231553

Stats on current spending regarding health care



I found the above very illuminating.

[Leopolds Ghost]

46. And the pro-HCR folks desperately want to keep us from moving in that direction.

Since they are adamantly opposed to socializing costs borne by the individual, such as indigent care.

[truedelphi]

72. Plus if you try and debate it, it is just like talking

To loyalists of the Other Party when they are saying that Bush won the war in Iraq.

Often you encounter that same deadness of brain matter.

[MajorChode]

94. I don't believe your statement accurately reflects the opinions of all the "pro-HCR" folks

Many, if not most of us, would very much like to move in that direction. The question is how do we get there. Some of the anti-HCR folks seem to think that congress can simply sign a piece of paper and we'll get there, while I tend to be a bit more pragmatic. The UK has had single-payer healthcare, in one form or another, for almost 70 years. To pretend that the US can get their overnight, is a bit short-sighted, I think, especially when you consider the huge percentage of Americans who are willing to vote against their own interests.

I believe voting on legislation that can be used as a foundation for bigger and better things is an excellent start, especially when compared to doing nothing. We tried the all-or-nothing approach back in the 90's and got nothing and the same approach would have undoubtedly failed 15 years later just as readily.

[Greyhound]

50. K&R.

[Locut0s]

52. The sham isn't that it's a tax or even a regressive tax but that the $ goes to the private sector...

Every country on earth that has universal health care pays for it by taxing their populous. I'm sorry but there is no such this as absolutely FREE health care. It costs money to run universal health care and the money comes from taxes. Now you do have an argument that this is a regressive tax, and that sounds like something that they really need to fucking fix. However the MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger issue is that all this money is going to the private sector and NOT a government run system where they can mandate things like costs and expenditures.

[pundaint]

54. You mean it's even worse than tax! Resistance is futile.

[pampango]

56. The sham is that the private sector insurance isn't strictly regulated as in Switzerland.

"Swiss are required to purchase basic health insurance, which covers a range of treatments detailed in the Federal Act. It is therefore the same throughout the country and avoids double standards in healthcare. Insurers are required to offer this basic insurance to everyone, regardless of age or medical condition. They may not make a profit off this basic insurance, but can on supplemental plans."

"Regulations require "a 26-year-old and an 80-year-old individual pay a given insurer the same premium for the same type of policy. Overall, then, the Swiss health system is a variant of the highly government-regulated social insurance systems of Europe..that rely on ostensibly private, nonprofit health insurers that also are subject to uniform fee schedules and myriad government regulations."

"The insured pays the insurance premium for the basic plan up to 8% of their personal income. If a premium is higher than this, then the government gives the insured a cash subsidy to pay for any additional premium."

"In 2010, the average monthly compulsory basic health insurance premiums (with accident insurance) in Switzerland are:<3>

* CHF 351.05 for an adult (age 26– years)
* CHF 293.85 for a young adult (age 19–25 years)
* CHF 84.03 for a child (age 0–18 years)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland

I would prefer a British-style national health service, but I recognize that a Swiss-style system is not the end of the world. But we need to progressively tighten the regulation of private insurance companies.

[Locut0s]

57. Yes that would also be a good solution. However the way it is now...

Is just insane. Hopefully though it will end up helping more people than it hurts. But I don't have high hopes.

[CTyankee]

59. I'm wondering if the Swiss system is superior to the British system in that it is

less vulnerable to defunding by a conservative parliament. Just a guess on my part...

[fujiyama]

78. What would be the real advantage of the British system over the Swiss?

Most surveys I've seen have the Swiss system beating the British in terms of quality and satisfaction. Same with the German and French systems (the Germans also heavily rely on a sort of hybrid public/private system - I'm not so sure about the French). I've heard quite a few stories about the NHS being mismanaged.

But then again, that may come down to funding and some have claimed that the NHS hasn't been funded properly for many years (I've heard first hand from people that used to live in the UK during the '70s and have been back since and they say quality has drastically fallen).

Either way, I can't really think of a single European country that prohibits private insurers from operating - at least to some degree (whether it's selling supplemental insurance, dental, or whatever else). However, the private insurers in other countries are typically not for profit. Insurers don't make profits by paying out claims. The problem with our system is that health insurance itself is so poorly regulated and there are few uniform standards. And even not for profit insurers can get away with egregious abuses as well as compensating their executives with ridiculous packages in this country.

It also goes to show why the public option was needed. Something like medicare for all would have offered a reasonably priced alternative to for profit insurers.

All said though, the bill just passed does address these issues somewhat. Not enough, but most changes included were badly needed.

[treestar]

84. This one is so frustrating

The money does not disappear. It will still be spent on claims, processing (and some people have jobs as a result of that, please note) - maybe it is not ideal but it is not what people claim it is. It makes advocates for single payer look unreasonable, putting it even further off into the future.

[Locut0s]

58. Right now in Canada I'm unemployed and pay $57/mnth. Although there is help that I haven't taken....

I believe that I can sign up for asistance I'm just too stpuid and lazy to do so lol :). When I was working for 7-11 at about $15 an hours the company deducted these payments from my pay-cheque. Course here we are talking single payer so that money was much more properly spent :)

[Toots]

60. Only for people that do not now have insurance

If your employer provides you insurance you will not be paying any such "regressive tax" 85% of the population already has insurance and in that 85% those that have expensive Insurance plans will pay a tax but no one else will.

[CreekDog]

61. It's not a tax increase, so I don't know whether it's reasonable to argue with you over the details

:shrug:

[no limit]

64. You're right, it's actually worse than a tax increase

[CreekDog]

68. why did you say it was a tax increase when it was not?

and why did you exclude the subsidies as part of your calculation?

i would love to discuss it with you, but only if you are going to do so honestly and so far, i have my doubts about what you will say in order to convince people.

[no limit]

69. I did not exclude subsidies, the figures I posted are after subsidies

you can verify that on the calculator.

By calling this a tax increase I was making a point. This in principle is a tax increase even if it doesn't fit the technical definition. Normally the way taxes work is the government takes money from you and in return offers some kind of service. The exact same thing is happening here, the difference of course being that the government's role here is to enforce the mandate while the money goes to private for profit companies.

The end result is the same, people are forced to give up additional money from each of their paychecks.

And I don't appreciate you suggesting I'm being dishonest, I have always tried to be as fair as possible when representing my position.

[CreekDog]

70. Well I think when you call something a tax increase, it should actually be a tax increase

if you are saying it's effectively the same thing, then you should say that instead.

your intentions notwithstanding, the argument was misleading.

[no limit]

81. Its in principle the exact same thing as a tax increase, actually its worse

so I make no apologies for calling it a tax increase and there is nothing misleading about it especially when I fully spelled out my reasoning in my OP. If you needed me to make it any more clear then you didn't read my OP or didn't bother to pay attention to it.

[whatchamacallit]

66. Wow... what's with all the childish 'cookie' bullshit at the top of the thread???

Does DU have roving gangs of morons now?

[bigtree]

74. I like pie

[johnaries]

76. I think it was a comment on the imaginary tax the OP talked about

who then linked to a subsidy calculator to "prove" their point.

Frankly, the cookie posts made a lot more sense.

[amborin]

73. K&R

[BlueIris]

75. Kick. This is UGLY.

In addition to my outrage that it even happened, I am not looking to the fallout for our Party when it hits.

[johnaries]

77. You might want to Google the definition of "tax".

You appear to be very confused.

[Statistical]

79. I understand your numbers but it isn't a tax. It is FAR WORSE.

It is a direct transfer of wealth from those with least resources to those with the most (insurance company shareholders).

So it isn't a tax per say it is far worse.

Someone making $10 per hour just had 8% of their wealth redistributed to those who already have the most wealth.

[Omaha Steve]

82. So after Americans figure out what they like and don't

Fix it. Something had to be passed to start the ball rolling.

[dionysus]

85. a good imagination is healthy.

[prayin4rain]

86. I agree with you

I was telling my husband that some families CANNOT afford it period. And I hate insurance companies, I do not want to give my money to them. I wish the government had created an insurance company... I would feel better about that. I support healthcare reform but I do not like the way this was done. I guess they couldn't do it any other way?? I don't know...