"The Democrats have been cowed by taunts that single-payer is "socialized medicine"

brentspeak

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jul-17-09 10:15 AM
Original message

"The Democrats have been cowed by taunts that single-payer is "socialized medicine"

The Salt Lake Tribune is only partially correct with that assessment: Democrats like Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, and Blanche Lincoln are simply cowed by the idea their corporate contributions would stop coming in. Democrats like Obama, however, are cowed more at the idea of being perceived as "socialist":

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_12853566

Health reform
Battle will be fought over who pays

Tribune Editorial
Updated: 07/16/2009 05:31:11 PM MDT

Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives have unveiled a health care reform bill that preserves the employer-based health insurance system while extending coverage to the uninsured. It does this by requiring that individuals be insured and that businesses provide insurance. Those who don't would pay penalties. It would expand Medicaid to the poor. It would subsidize premiums and co-pays for many middle-income people. It has a public option. And, oh yes, it would impose an income surtax on the wealthiest Americans.

The bill is more than 1,000 pages long and we have only read summaries, but we can see that the battle over its passage will be fought over its costs to businesses and the wealthy. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce already is screaming that the plan would kill jobs and actually make a bad health care system much worse.

The bill is a Rube Goldberg contraption, the inevitable result of an attempt to build on an employer-based system that is failing. A single-payer system could be simpler and more efficient. But the Democrats have been cowed by taunts that single-payer is "socialized medicine" and, unfortunately, they took that option off the table from the get-go. Because business groups have helped the insurance industry lead the charge against single-payer, perhaps they are about to reap what they have sowed.

The House plan would mandate that all Americans obtain insurance. Those who earn enough to file income-tax returns would pay a
Advertisement
2.5 percent penalty on the difference between their adjusted gross income and the tax filing threshold if they did not get insurance. Likewise, businesses that did not offer a health plan that meets minimum standards would pay a penalty in the form of a payroll tax that would range from 2-8 percent depending upon the size of the payroll.

In addition, individuals with adjusted gross incomes of $280,000 or more ($350,000 for couples) would pay a progressive surtax ranging from 1 percent to 5.4 percent.

One major difference between the House and Senate plans, which are alike in many other respects, is that the Senate is trying to figure out a different way to raise the $1 trillion the plan would cost over the next decade. So far, senators haven't reached a consensus.

The House bill would tap the richest 1.2 percent of Americans, who got the biggest tax cuts under George W. Bush, to subsidize health care for the uninsured. Given the ever widening income disparity in the country, that's a logical place to go.