House May Tax Payrolls, Drop Wealth Levy to Finance Health Plan

[girl gone mad]

Source: Bloomberg

Jan. 8 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. House lawmakers may agree to pay for the nation’s health-care overhaul by adopting versions of Senate proposals to raise Medicare payroll taxes and tax health benefits for the first time, Democratic aides said.

House leaders may also discard a plan to impose a surtax on the wealthiest Americans, which has come under fire from some Senate Democrats, aides said.

Financing the expansion of insurance coverage to more than 90 percent of Americans looms as the largest issue facing Congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, seeking to merge her bill with Senate legislation, yesterday briefed the Democratic caucus on party leaders’ discussions during a conference call.

The talks are at a preliminary stage until the Senate returns later this month, and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel predicted “tough” negotiations. Some House members are vowing to put up a fight over the legislation, which is estimated to cost about $1 trillion over 10 years.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ahxbGWxdoqbQ&pos=9

[regnaD kciN]

1. Hmmm...if only three House Dems bail over this...

...they could, in effect, "pull a Lieberman" and kill the whole thing unless they get their way.

[rgbecker]

3. Or kill the whole thing in favor of the GOP's Status Quo...Die fast!

[laughingliberal]

15. Here's the thing on that. The assumption that killing this bill would result in another decade of

health care sitting on the shelf is false. This is not 1993 when the insurance industry had another generation to gouge customers and steal all they could get their hands on. They are losing customers in droves and propping up their profits with skyrocketing premium costs. They are very close to pricing themselves out of the market. This business model will not work much longer because there is a price at which they will just lose customers. They are already on track to lose several million per year for the next 2 decades cause we have reached the point where the baby boomers are escaping in large numbers to Medicare. If this bill dies the insurance industry will not be able to sit idly by and let the chips fall where they may. They are looking at extinction, over time, if nothing is done. The nation as a whole will not be able to survive if nothing is done. Even Republicans know we're on a path to destruction if we let health care costs continue to gobble up more of GDP every year.

The whole damned thing has been, more or less, a charade for our benefit. The insurance company boogie man who wants to kill it and keep the status quo is horse manure. What they fought for was to make sure it was as profitable for them and as unfair to their customers as possible. And that is what they have in this bill. The Republicans know the system can't survive but they are obstructing for exactly the reasons Jim DeMint said. They believe it will bring the President down if they defeat him on this and they can replay 1994 all over again. Not going to happen. They have not anywhere near the base of voters they did in '94 but that's the fantasy they are playing out. If someone had the courage to stand firm on the more progressive measures in the House bill it would either pass or be killed. If killed we would see this revisited very quickly. The crisis is real and it is a crisis for the industry as well as the people. If we ignored it the industry would be at our door at a maximum of 4-5 years demanding a reform of the system. I suspect it would be more like 2 years but they could shuffle the money a little longer, perhaps, to keep up the illusion that they are holding all the cards.

[nightrain]

19. yes, the insurance greedy people would be at our door looking for their own bailout

at some point in the future due to the loss of baby boomer clients to Medicare. I agree. Thanks for that perspective. So, of course we'll have more opportunity to re-visit this healthcare issue down the road if this mess in Congress doesn't make it to Obama. And even if it does, I imagine that we'll see a slew of challenges (rightly so) to any mandate to purchase some private corporation's product.

[laughingliberal]

20. Correct. The fact that health care came up at this point in time was not a happy coincidence

All the show of the insurance industry 'voluntarily' coming to the table this time as if to imply they know they've been bad and need to change their ways was just horse hockey. Their asses are in sling and more so with every year that passes. This bill is their bailout. The trick has been to hide that from us so we don't realize we should get a lot more concessions in return for giving our citizens over to them. How much would we rise up and demand if we really got it that it is their asses that are being saved, here?

[janet118]

26. It's the boomers going on Medicare . . .

no more premiums for private insurance. They have to make it up somehow. So now we have mandates for everyone to buy from them and subsidies that our taxes will pay for. Nice deal for them. Raw deal for us. It is the death of the middle class that right wingers have been working on since the New Deal created it.

[laughingliberal]

28. Precisely and some are sounding the alarm but few are listening

For years I have told Republicans, "This is not your father's Republican party." Now I must admit, this is not my father's Democratic party, either. We have one party working for wealthy corporate interests and playing out a pro wrestling scenario for our entertainment.

[BadgerKid]

31. The boomers are a cash cow, favoring the rulemakers.

First the retirement funds, now the health care they will need for the next 10/15/20+ years.

[No Elephants]

32. So, they got govt. to give them the young uns. Brilliant.

[nightrain]

2. horrid, and being done by Dems. If this were being done by Repubs, we'd expect it.

[change_notfinetuning]

8. and we'd be screaming as one voice to kill this disaster of a bill. n/t

[w4rma]

4. Are the Blue Dogs trying to commit political suicide? (nt)

[FiveGoodMen]

5. No, they're trying to kill US!

[mbperrin]

6. This whole bill is a betrayal. Single payer is the only plan that actually

gets health care to everyone AND saves money.

Kill this harmful bill now.

[glitch]

13. AND would have provided an immediate and genuine boost to the economy.

Unfortunately that would have provided a "progressive" win which could not be allowed.

[AndrewJacksonFaction]

7. This is just dumb.

They will make alot of the US citizens pissed, which will amount to political suicide. Also, it will constitute raising taxes on "95% of working Americans", a vow Obama made. I am wondering if a bill does reach Obama's desk, if he would veto it for raising taxes on hte middle class.

This idea being bantered in this article is horseshit.

[laughingliberal]

11. Obama is pushing the version that taxes working and middle class Americans over the wealthy

Why would anyone think he would veto it? He'd come closer to vetoing a bill that taxed the wealthy.

[girl gone mad]

17. Agreed.

I received a link to this article in an e-mail from a friend who was absolutely shocked by the news. People are just now starting to learn the details of the senate bill. It's not going to be pretty.

[shopgreen]

21. The taxing of the middle class is the version he-Obama WANTS.

[ixion]

9. how very lame of them

a bad bill that just keeps getting worse.

[katkat]

10. how to pay for healthcare

Here's a clue, stop pissing away $500 billion a year on wars no one but the Military-Industrial Complex wants.

[grahamhgreen]

12. We need to kill the senate bill, and/or the mandate. Nothing wrong with taxing the uber-rich.

[librechik]

16. There is one thing--almost all our congresscritters are in the rich column

and will never vote to tax themselves or their barbecue buddies.

[Zorra]

14. Breaking: Corporatist Blue Cross Dog Bullies Dunk Dems Heads In Toilet.

Again.

[groundloop]

18. If I called my Senators, Chambliss and Isaakson, to tell them to vote against this bill....

Do you think it would do any good? :sarcasm:

[innovative1993]

22. Timeline

Unfortunately the word has been put down from the top that it has to be done by the first state of the union speech. So, we are toast. Infact, the politicians are smart as well because they wont start this thing till after all of their elections are over. Unreal.

[nightrain]

24. that's probably so--about the State of the Union address timing... even so, I expect

there will be massive legal challenges if there's an individual mandate to purchase a private corporation's product, so the thrill will be short-lived. I can appreciate that Obama would want to brag about achievements, and there are some, a few. This isn't one of them!

There's an excellent interview with Drew Westin on FDL in which he describes Obama's governing style and bemoans Obama's unclear values and tendency to avoid conflict. I've been saying that for months now....

http://firedoglake.com/2010/01/06/fdl-welcomes-drew-westen-leadership-obama-style-and-the-looming-losses-in-2010/#comments

[Zhade]

34. It's likely that orahma's cowardice is why he lied about "not" campaigning on the PO.

He's such a wimp. Handed all the power possible to help the people, and he fucks them over instead.

Either he's a coward, or he's a corporatist. Maybe both.

[SandWalker1984]

23. No excuses for Democrats' super majority

Who would have ever believed, in their worst nightmare, that a group of politicians that call themselves Progressives, would end up being the mandate henchmen for the rich, corporate fascist Republicans, aka follow the money?

The biggest problem we now have with health care in America is because we have a captive consumer driven, for profit ...and now thanks to the Democrats... monopolistic, capitalistic MANDATED system.

The main reason our system has evolved to this point is because of the many years of bribes of BOTH parties in Congress and a collective, somewhat selfish, I got mine culture of the citizens, fostered and encouraged by the very mainstream corporate media that substantially benefits economically from our collective division and confusion.

Jessie Ventura is right. Follow the money.

[nightrain]

25. absolutely. Loss of traditional Dem values due to corruption.

[snappyturtle]

27. This is horrid! I have posted very little since the middle of July

because I'm in a domestic battle, however, this one I HAVE to post my reaction. Hey, Charlie (Rangel) how can you predict tough negoiations when all that we have seen is capitulation to the corporations and their rich citizen counterparts?

Personally, I am 62 and would just rather wait for Medicare....which, effectively, I will be since none of this is going to happen quickly anyway. Just heard on Ed Schultz that in the behind the doors meetings, big insurance has been protected from anti-trust provisions to boot. That's just great. :sarcasm:

Well, if I were young, I would move to France. I am pissed, hurt and angry.

edit: punctuation

[rantormusing]

29. Get your guns now IRS

I expect a lot of people struggling to make ends meet as it is, will only be further impoverished by these actions. At least they have the option of canceling their insurance, what a load of evil garbage. We need real tax protesters if this passes.

[divideetimpera]

30. The federal govt is inherently undemocratic by design. You want healthcare reform?

give power back to the states. The federalist, strong checks and balances, enlarged voting districts and seperation of powers structure of the federal govt was specifically designed to thwart the will of the people and to implement the will of the rich. It's all right there in the writings of the designer of the federal constitution...

You want HCR? Take the GOP up on its ideas about states rights and doing away with the IRS. If the fed govt has no money, it has no power. If the states have the tax dollars back from the fed govt, they can provide healthcare.

[classysassy]

33. Wealth protection

keeping the serfs outside the castle.

[Luciferous]

35. It just keeps getting better and better

:eyes: