-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
President Obama, who opposed a health insurance mandate during the campaign and has vowed not to support a middle-class tax hike, has come out in favor of a mandate that would raise taxes on those in the middle class who do are uninsured.
During an exchange with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, President Obama tried to deny that a mandate was the same as a tax increase, even when confronted with a dictionary definition:
STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”
OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…
OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…
STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.
OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that.
Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?
OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.
Yet the idea of a mandate as a tax does not merely come from Stephanopoulos, or critics, or Merriam Webster, but from language in the current draft of the Baucus bill itself. In fact, on page 29, the Baucus proposal reads, “The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax….The excise tax would be assessed through the tax code and applied as an additional amount of Federal tax owed.”
Obama argues at another part of the interview that, “right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase.” But there are many reasons why this is a flawed analogy. Most importantly, car insurance mandates, which apply at the state level, only apply to people who drive a car on public roads. If I don’t drive, I don’t have to purchase car insurance. By contrast, the health insurance mandate would apply, with few exceptions, to everybody in the United States. Also, people aren’t forced to report car insurance in their federal tax returns, and fines are not assessed through the federal tax code. And if car insurance mandates are the model, then they certainly aren’t effective, with an estimated 13.8 percent of drivers going without coverage in 2007, according to the Insurance Research Council.
Obama also argued:
You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on.
If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s…
So, Obama is saying that nobody who can’t afford health insurance will be forced to buy it, but he has an odd definition of “affordable.” Under the Baucus plan, individuals would face a tax of at least $750 if they do not purchase health coverage. And while the proposal would provide subsidies to lower-income Americans, those subsidies would stop at 300 percent of the federal poverty level. What that means is that a family of four with a household income above $66,150 would face a tax of $3,800 if it does not obtain health insurance, while an individual with income above $32,490 would face a tax of $950. While the proposal would in fact waive the requirement for individuals who can prove they can’t afford a minimal health insurance policy as defined by the government, to qualify for the exemption, premiums would have to exceed 10 percent of adjusted gross income — or somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,000 for somebody with income of $32,490.
Then there’s this larger idea of uncompensated care. While it is true that some people end up showing up in emergency rooms without paying and that imposes costs on others, there’s two things that Obama isn’t taking into account. First, just because you mandate coverage it doesn’t mean you eliminate the uncompensated care. Second, if you have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on subsidies enabling people to purchase insurance, then that costs far more than whatever would be saved by reducing uncompensated care.
In a prior article for our magazine, I looked at the Massachusetts example — the only state with a health insurance mandate:
In 2006, Massachusetts enacted a landmark health care reform that increased coverage by expanding Medicaid eligibility and providing subsidies for citizens to purchase coverage on a state-run insurance exchange. As more people obtained insurance to comply with a mandate, uncompensated care declined by 38 percent between 2006 and 2009 (projected), saving the state $246 million. However, the Commonwealth Care subsidy program created as a result of the 2006 reform is projected to cost $820 million in 2009 alone, and during the same time period, the state’s expanded Medicaid program saw its price tag swell by $1.1 billion. So in other words, while costs declined by a quarter of a billion dollars in one area, they increased by nearly $2 billion in other areas.
The other thing to keep in mind is that while Obama likes to describe those who are uninsured by choice as freeloaders, there’s a flip side to this. Many of those who are currently uninsured simply have very low health care costs, which they are willing to pay out of pocket when they get sick. The reason why Obama supports a mandate is that he wants to be able to force insurers to cover those with preexisting conditions, and the only way to do that is to bring uninsured healthy people into the system. So really, this isn’t about eliminating freeloaders, it’s about forcing healthy people to pay for more health care than they need to so that they can make premiums more affordable for the sick.
I think candidate Obama had this one right when he talked about mandates last year. “In some cases, there are people who are paying fines and still can’t afford it, so now they’re worse off than they were,” candidate Obama said during a February 2008 debate, referring to conditions under the Massachusetts mandate. “They don’t have health insurance and they’re paying a fine.”
View all comments (42) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/09/21/the-obama-baucus-middle-class
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 9.21.09 @ 12:16PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : The Obama-Baucus Middle links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.21.09 @ 12:17PM
Mr Klein
I am so glad you listen carefully to Obama's slick lies.
I get ACID REFLUX when the guy comes on the air.
He is obviously into "State Truth" (PRAVDA).
...instead of "aw shucks" truth like the rest of us must utilize to make informed decisions.
anonymous| 9.21.09 @ 2:37PM
Sick lies?
Obviously you are not well versed on this Health Care Reform bill. Have you read it? Do you know the in's and outs? I doubt this is true considering it is over 1,000 pages. Your information must be based on a series of replican-biased news sites. If you'd actually like some information about the bill you should follow this link http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/.....071409.pdf
AtheistConservative| 9.21.09 @ 2:50PM
That's hilarious: someone urging us to 'read the bill' when they can't even read the comment. It was 'slick lies', not 'sick lies'. Although Obama's lies will make us all sick.
Don't get mad because we know more about this than you. Just grow up and admit you were wrong. We'll forgive you.
anonymous| 9.22.09 @ 9:26AM
Fortunately, we don't need the Republican vote to get the bill passed.
velcro | 9.21.09 @ 3:52PM
‘‘DIV A, TITLE IV, SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer."
LW| 9.22.09 @ 9:18AM
Subtitle A—Shared Responsibility PART 1—INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY 9
SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE 10
HEALTH CARE COVERAGE. 11 etc..
from: http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/.....071409.pdf
Look who doesn't have the facts straight.
Pingback| 9.21.09 @ 12:40PM
Michelle Malkin » When is a tax not a tax? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 9.21.09 @ 1:06PM
The American Spectator : The Obama-Baucus Middle-Class Tax Hike, on PunditKix, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Anonymous| 9.21.09 @ 1:17PM
Much of the "uncompensated care" at emergency rooms is given to illegal alien work thieves who use the services and then walk away.
But Obama has a cure for that, too -- make 'em all citizens!
Two parts of his agenda accomplished!
Pingback| 9.21.09 @ 1:19PM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : The Obama-Baucus Middle … | Class update today links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
boyydz| 9.21.09 @ 1:23PM
People hate health insurance companies, in part because they won't cover people who are already sick (despite the fact that buying health insurance after you are diagnosed with cancer is analogous to buying fire insurance while the house is burning down). Obama sees that people hate the insurers for this reason (among others) and decides he will end the practice. The problem is that the insurers can't afford to pay for people who buy insurance only when they are already sick without requiring people who carry continuous coverage to pay more (a lot more). Of course, Obama then fans the flames of insurer hatred by claiming that they make excessive profits (despite the fact that (a) their industry profit margin in Aug 2008-Jul 2009 was less than the S&P 500 average and (b) they need the profitable years to offset the years when costs increase more than expected).
The mandate is a bad idea, but it's the only way to issue health insurance to individuals without medical underwriting (that is, to those with pre-existing conditions) without causing enormous increases in premiums. A far better solution is to extend Medicare or Medicaid benefits to those persons who cannot qualify for private insurance. However, that will require a tax increase, and it thus enriches those persons who took the risk of not carrying health insurance and then became sick by placing the costs of those losing gambles on the taxpayers.
While it may seem heartless, the only mandateless and taxless solution to this problem is to force these people into bankruptcy when they can't afford their own medical care. Then they will qualify for Medicaid. Is that the just outcome of taking such a financial risk and losing the gamble?
This is a key question that must be answered to answer the question of mandates: should society subsidize this risk taking, or do we force the unlucky losers to live with the consequences?
ibid| 9.21.09 @ 2:46PM
shuck and jive
Mike M.| 9.21.09 @ 3:13PM
Well, at least those who hoped for a change and put a stinking radical socialist thug into the White House on the basis of what he lied about throughout his campaign - cannot claim they didn't get it. (When, in fact, they didn't 'get it' and likely never will...) ION, Impeach Obama Now!
Pingback| 9.21.09 @ 3:40PM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : The Obama-Baucus Middle … | kozmom news links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Velcro | 9.21.09 @ 3:50PM
Reply to Anonymous #1: ‘‘Div A, TITLE IV, SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer."
Pingback| 9.21.09 @ 4:08PM
Barely A Blog » Updated: Big Daddy Dodges Questions About Healthcare Diktat links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Chuck| 9.21.09 @ 4:18PM
Who said there are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics? The president's spin goes on and on.
2Anglico| 9.21.09 @ 4:21PM
Re: "Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage"
What do we do since we "Don't Have Acceptable Representation in Washington, D.C."?????
edward del colle| 9.21.09 @ 4:32PM
the bamster is awfully whimisical and frivolous throwing a figure aroundthat our premiums are $900 higher because of uncompensated care. there is no way to know that. we should call him out on that tidbit. peter ferrara of this website has some of the best ideas in his piece this month in the magazine!
Pingback| 9.21.09 @ 4:34PM
Obama Snafu on Stephanopoulos | Axis of Right links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 9.21.09 @ 4:49PM
The Enlightened Redneck » The Obama Dictionary links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Liberal Reader| 9.21.09 @ 7:07PM
Folks, the Baucus bill will pass this Congress IF pigs fly, the ocean turns to yogurt, and the Virgin Mary herself appears above the Capitol Dome and commands that it be done.
Short of this, Baucus's completely silly sell out doesn't stand a chance.
We had an ELECTION last November. Democrats won. Now Democrats have to remember what it's like to GOVERN and pass the bill they were sent to Washington to pass.
Stop all this nonsense about consensus and bi-partisanship.
Nick| 9.21.09 @ 9:35PM
Marxist Reader,
Lame attempt at democrat spin. Did you forget that we here at AS are actually INFORMED?
This has nothing to do with bi-partisanship. B.O. doesn't have enough DEMOCRAT votes, capisci?
The house bills don't have a chance to pass either. Lincoln, Bayh, Dorgan, and Dusty Reid aren't going to vote for any of them. Even Feingold might not vote for it. They are all up for re-election next year.
It must drive you batty to have this many votes and not get a public option, huh? And"single-payer" wasn't even on the table, ha-ha!
I shouldn't do this, but I will try to alleviate your pain. Some of the marxists in the house think they can get to "single-payer"stealthily through the public option. You know how much liberals lie, don't cha?
Nobama| 9.21.09 @ 7:21PM
How can democrats remember how to do something they've never done? ObamaCare is dead and so is Zero's presidency. lol
We will own you losers in 2010.
anonymous| 9.22.09 @ 1:55PM
We shall see.
Pingback| 9.21.09 @ 8:45PM
Health Care BS - OBAMA’S FLIP FLOP ON INSURANCE MANDATES links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jenah| 9.22.09 @ 5:52AM
Those of us on the far left couldn't agree more with you on the right on this issue--one reason why we hate the Baucus plan.
Pingback| 9.22.09 @ 7:51AM
UK Baby Parenting Directory Listings links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Dogbadger| 9.22.09 @ 11:38AM
So Jenah, you agree that Pres. Obama lied misspoke or whatever other flower you want to call a rose (other than a rose of-course)?
Pingback| 9.22.09 @ 4:29PM
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just wh links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 9.22.09 @ 11:08PM
Baby name meaning and origin for Azad links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
philfl63| 9.23.09 @ 3:47PM
This guy just wants another means/method/program to extort the hard-earned money of us evil white people to pay for all of the welfare-collecting lay-about minority (black, Hispanic) trash.
Trackback| 9.27.09 @ 12:28PM
Best Homeowners Insurance, on Best Homeowners Insurance, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 9.27.09 @ 9:28PM
Healthcare Summary « Tai-Chi Policy links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 9.28.09 @ 1:04AM
Homeowners Liability Insurance, on Homeowners Liability Insurance, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 12.21.09 @ 3:24AM
massachusetts credit repair, on massachusetts credit repair, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 12.27.09 @ 5:55PM
massachusetts credit repair, on massachusetts credit repair, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.23.10 @ 6:28PM
CBO: 3 Mil Middle Class Americans will suffer Tax Penalty due to Obamacare links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: