NYT
For people with incomes just above that level, insurance would be considered affordable if they could find a policy with premiums equal to no more than, say, 3 percent or 4 percent of their income. For people with incomes exceeding three times the poverty level ($66,150 for a family of four), insurance might be deemed unaffordable if the premiums were more than, say, 12.5 percent to 15 percent of their income.
If this really is the state of current negotiations over the heathcare bill then one thing is perfectly clear:
The Trigger is a 12.5-15% tax on the middle class
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not against taxing people for providing healthcare. But our politicians and leaders should be honest about what it is. This is nothing more than a tax on the people that is then turned directly over to for profit corporations. If congress mandates that the plans can't be more that %15 of your income, then you can bet it will be exactly %15 of your income.
There are several reasons that we can't allow this to pass:
- If there is no tough regulation of insurance companies in the bill (and trust me, the fact that the insurance companies are silent on it means there isn't) the poor and uninsured middle class will be pushed into junk health insurance policies. The deductibles on these policies will be so high that the policy holders will still avoid going to the doctor and buying medication, and will still face bankruptcy in case of an illness or accident. Hospitals and doctors will still be forced to charge the rest of the population more to make up for non paid service. The moderately poor and lower middle class will be forced to use money they already don't have to buy a product that is of functionally no benefit to them. But hey, congress and the WH will still get to say that everyone is "covered".
- Even though we are being taxed there is no public input or influence on the details of coverage. The congress may end rescission and preexisting conditions, but by and large these companies get to decide what treatments are appropriate for you. You could almost say this is taxation without representation.
- Electorally the Democrats are shooting themselves in the face if they do this. Young and middle class people will turn away from this party for a generation when they discover that they are getting a heavy extra bill (%15 tax) with no apparent benefit (junk insurance). This is basically the Massachusetts plan, and that state currently has the highest health insurance premiums in the nation. The worst part is that the Republicans get the best of both worlds. They get a huge giveaway to their corporate friends and when the public turns against the plan they get to say "don't blame me, I didn't vote for it". You can bet they will do their damndest to dismantle any good part of the plan once they are back in control.
- This plan makes insurance companies even more rich and powerful. That will make even harder to achieve true reform. Healthcare companies are currently spending $1.4 million a day on lobbying. How much do you think they will be able to spend when everyone is forced to buy their product? If this bill passes it is a death sentence for real reform.
I'm sure there are many more reasons to oppose what I call the Steve Forbes Health Act of 2009 (flat tax on the middle class yaaay!). You can list them in the comments if you want.
Like I said above I am not opposed to taxing people for healthcare. In fact I am ok with this plan if they make one modification with it:
Allow me to use my %12.5 - %15 tax to buy into Medicare or a Medicare like Public Option!
Anything else is unjust. If corporations can offer a better plan and people want it, then they can have at it. But forcing me to pay a tax, and it is a tax, to unaccountable private corporations is wrong and unfair.
I believe framing this as a tax could turn this thing around. If americans can understand that they are going to forced to pay for healthcare (taxation), then they will be much more open to a Public Option. Let's just call it what it is, a tax.