Posted by
Civis on Tuesday, September 18, 2007 6:31:57 PM
Let’s take a look at how Senator Clinton will fund her universal health care with a “net tax cut for American taxpayers.” According to Hillary’s plan, half of the funds for her $110 billion plan will be raised by reducing overpayments and inefficiencies and the other half will be raised by cutting back tax breaks for the “wealthy”.
I’ll admit skepticism in the federal government’s ability to reduce waste. However, that does not mean I don’t support innovative ideas. Senator Clinton highlights specific plans to reduce waste, like phasing out excessive Medicare overpayments to HMOs. This would benefit all Americans and would result in billions of dollars in savings, which I think is a great idea. These savings could then be returned to the American people to spend as they see fit. Why can’t Senator Clinton work on reforming something as wasteful as overpayments equaling billions of dollars from her seat in the Senate? Why does that have to be part of a Universal Health Care plan that is dependent on her election to the Presidency?
The other half of the $110 billion would be raised by cutting back President Bush’ tax cuts for the “wealthy”. Why doesn’t she see that these tax cuts for the “wealthy” motivate individuals and businesses to invest in non-tax shelter ventures (like providing jobs)? Hike up the taxes to unforgiving levels and the wealthy put more money where it is sheltered from income taxes. They can actually afford to pay someone to protect their money.
The 2006 individual income tax and corporate income tax revenues jumped above pre-2001 levels as a result of the Bush tax cuts. It is proven that lower taxes stimulate investment while higher taxes stifle it. Just look at what corporate taxes and regulations have done to our manufacturing sector.
I appreciate the need for affordable health insurance, but I disagree with the strategy of the Democratic Party. More of these issues need to be left to the States to decide. We need the federal government to take a step back and concentrate on its core competencies. The Robin Hood candidates could run for State and local offices and create “real” change. The federal government was never meant to have a monopoly on societal solutions. We have diversity training pushed on us, but where is the diversity in that? In the past, States would resist this power grab and centralization. Now they seem resigned to being humble lap dogs of the federal government. (Anyone hear of a thing called checks and balances?)
Why doesn’t the Democratic Party realize that individuals and corporations can effect positive change in our country without government intervention? They should read President Clinton’s new book on how “individual endeavors can save lives and solve problems.” “Through the stories of amazing people and dedicated organizations, President Clinton offers compelling examples of both citizen and corporate activism at work in the world today.” It’s funny how someone’s mindset changes when they are not running for office. I commend the President for this work and bringing his message of empowerment to private citizens. http://giving.clintonfoundation.org/
Selection from Senator Clinton’s Health Care plan:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf
2) Redirecting Tax Breaks
* Redirect Savings from High-Income Tax Cuts for Tax Breaks to Ensure Affordable, Health Care Coverage: The American Health Choices Plan will redirect the revenue gained from not continuing President Bush’s income tax rate cuts and exemption increases (known as PEP and Pease) for households making over $250,000 to help finance health reform. While this small percentage of well-off Americans would see their tax rates returned to pre-Bush levels, the plan would offer tens of millions of Americans a new tax credit to make premiums affordable. Those tax breaks more than offset the increase in revenues derived from not renewing these provisions of the Bush tax cuts and capping the tax exclusion for health care for the highest income Americans (explained below), making the plan a net tax cut for American taxpayers.
* Making the Employer Tax Exclusion Fairer: The fact that health premiums paid by employers are excluded from workers’ taxes (i.e., they are not counted as income) has benefited hundreds of millions of Americans and led to employer pooling of high- and low-risk workers. The American Health Choices Plan rejects calls to limit the tax exclusion for middle-class Americans who have negotiated generous coverage or for those whose premiums are high due to health status, age, or high local health care costs. However, at a time of limited resources, it is neither prudent nor fair to allow the portion of a high-end plan that is in excess of the typical Health Choices Menu plan to be tax subsidized for the highest income Americans. A high-income American would still get a tax break for the employer contribution to the cost of a typical plan, like the congressional plan, and they could still choose to get additional high-end coverage. But given that the highest income American already receives a tax benefit for purchasing a quality plan that is about twice as large as what a typical American taxpayer receives, the choice by such high-income Americans to obtain additional high-end benefits should be at their own — and not the taxpayers’ — expense.