Rep. Waxman - Single-payer would require massive tax increases

because the government would have to make up for the money now being spent by employers to cover their employees.


http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/4/rep_waxman_on_healthcare_reform_the

"AMY GOODMAN: You’ve been a longtime supporter, Congressman Waxman, of HR 676, of the single-payer bill, but you withdrew that support. Why?


REP. HENRY WAXMAN: A single-payer bill does not really have a chance to pass the Congress. It would be a radical transformation of our healthcare system. Some people could say, “That’s fine, we should do it.” But I don’t think the Congress would have any realistic chance of passing a bill like that. You’d have to take all the insurance coverage that’s provided on the private sector and switch it over to the government. There would have to be massive taxes, increases, to make up for the lost money that’s now being spent by employers for their employees. And by the time we would be through trying to accomplish something like that, the Republicans would demonize it. So what President Obama suggested was a practical compromise way to accomplish the goals that we wanted.


There are other ways to get universal coverage, as well. Senator Wyden and Bennett had an approach that would end employer coverage by in effect giving people an opportunity to go buy private insurance. That would work. I have some misgivings about it, but it also is a radical transformation of healthcare.


AMY GOODMAN: So, why did you support it for so long?


REP. HENRY WAXMAN: Well, I wanted to argue that this was a way to cover people, and it’s the way many countries provide health insurance. And if we were starting from scratch in this country, we might well decide that that would be the way for us to go, but we have right now a system that’s been in place since World War II, where most people have their insurance through their jobs. And we thought it would be much too disruptive and people would be much too anxious, if we took things away from them with the promise that they’re going to get something else. And I didn’t think Congress could pass it.


SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Now—oh, go ahead.


AMY GOODMAN: Just a quick question, follow-up on that, and the CBO has scored the current plan—


REP. HENRY WAXMAN: Mm-hmm.


AMY GOODMAN: —and say it’s something like a trillion dollars, for which it’s been criticized by a number of Congress members. Why not score single payer?


REP. HENRY WAXMAN: Single payer would score well, because the government is then paying for the health insurance, but it would be a radical change in healthcare. And some people say that’s fine, except, as a practical matter, it couldn’t pass.

Now, one of the concessions we made to the progressives on our committee when we had to satisfy the Blue Dog demands is I called Speaker Pelosi, and I said, “Let us have a vote on the House floor on the single-payer system, so we’ll see how well the single-payer system does on the House floor.” I don’t expect it would pass. But, on the other hand, it would be the first chance ever for single payer to be brought to a vote on the House floor.


AMY GOODMAN: But that would be after the current vote, right? Isn’t it something like by December?


REP. HENRY WAXMAN: Well, I don’t know what the timing would be, but it would be people in the House would be able to vote for single payer."

paying between $500-$1000 a month for health insurance, how much would they have to raise taxes?

have ever impressed me as being anything approximating intelligent.

...wrote the ACES bill. Biggest piece of environmental legislation in thirty years. So they're obviously a bunch of stupid hacks.

1) on healthcare, I got basically the garbled message quoted above, showing a complete lack of thought.

2) on online poker, I got, "they're concerned about money being transferred to fund terrorism."

As I said, neither response struck me as particularly intelligent.

....on the phones. One of my old students works in Sen. Collins' in-district office, and that's where he wound up for his first six months, as a newly-minted Poli-Sci grad out of Bates. They're reading out of ring-binders, just like the tech-support people in Bangalore. Some operations don't even give the kids a book.

and divert it to single payer, and you can cover everyone, and give refunds.

provide single payer or the public option.

And the money collected would go back into the economy, not in an Insurance CEO's bank account.

...insurees and all the uninsured.

One in seven Americans is presently uninsured. That's 14%. You have to acheive reductions of at least that to break even. Adequately insuring people who are presently under-insured is going to increase that figure further, when you go to community rating, cap deductibles, ban lifetime caps, replace crappy high-deductible and catastrophic-only policies with something better.

I'm guessing you don't do better than break even.

Provider markup = 15% to cover the cost of haggling with multiple insurers (this is from a provider, not made up by me, but I am not going to go track it down to link again).

Add on top of that, less chronic illness because more people are seeing primary care physicians when problems are small and treatable for less.

Add on top of that, any traction we can gain by paying primary care physicians to make their patients healthier (blood pressure, cholesterol, body mass, etc. incentives).

are young and healthy. I actually know of a couple of people who waited to get insurance until they had a health scare.

billions in CEOs bank accounts. Canada spends 10% and England 8% for health care. The savings from a single payer or public option would be enormous.

My taxes might rise, but not to the level of my insurance costs.

maybe I'll edit the OP to include a

:wtf:

if we hade medicare for all.

is waxman -- in a 'liberal' vein i have to care more about those who will ALWAYS make much more than me -- whose families will ALWAYS do much better than my family and how much taxes they pay?

because mr waxman -- pay more attention to the extraordinary price hikes for those of us who have health insurance.

"You’d have to take all the insurance coverage that’s provided on the private sector and switch it over to the government."

Ain't gonna happen. That's why it would be so difficult to do. This reform fight would be over right now if that is what was proposed.

Yea, that'd be the right thing to do, but it's not happening.

They got to him. No way in hell he got this stupid all the sudden.

Just in case, I think Henry should use his taxpayer funded health insurance to get checked for stroke.

cut the defense budget. :sarcasm:

They're just playing games with us. Shut down the wars ($154 billion), cut the defense budget to what is essential (save at least another $150 billion), let the Bush tax cut expire ($190 billion) and you have enough money to provide medicare to all the uninsured. Without a tax increase.

But Dems won't talk about it because the defense budget funnels money to their states/districts and they don't want to appear "weak on defense." So they let this outrageous waste of taxpayer dollars continue. This is why I have no faith in any of these politicians, and liberals like Waxman, whining and crying about raising taxes, when they know what the solution is.

talking about the complaints about health insurance reform being too expensive. I give him props for at least mentioning that.

Hmmmm, something about it would pay for itself....

something like that

x(

I have a company with a thousand workers. To insure them I presently pay $1000 per worker per year to a private insurance company. That's $1,000,000 a year.

Single payer passes. Assume I add that $1,000,000 onto my bottom line, all profit. My corporate income tax goes up -- but most companies don't pay any federal corporate income tax -- say I actually do, and it goes up by $300,000 a year.

The federal government, through efficiencies in purchasing, price negotiations with doctors, pharma, etc, can insure my 1000 workers through single payer at $750,000. That's added to federal expenditures.

It looks like the fed's ahead by fifty grand. That's fifty workers' worth of new coverage, of presently unisured workers.

If there's no more than 50/1000, or 5% of the workforce unemployed, the conversion to single payer's a wash. If it's higher, then it costs the government money. You need a new Federal revenue stream, an increase in existing Federal revenues, or corresponding reductions in expenditure.

You could try to recapture the money that now goes from the firm to the insurance company -- but you need to get that through Congress.

You could have a new, hypothecated tax on something -- high fructose corn syrup, or the like -- but you need to get that through Congress.

You could increase existing taxes, on income, or on some commodity like cigarettes, or a Pigoutian tax on stock and bond sales, or something -- but you need to get that through Congress.

It's not as easy as it looks. Waxman's right.

where does the $1,000,000 that you are currently paying for insurance go? Why doesn't it go into the single payer fund instead of being refunded to you?

then I don't see how being +300,000 from your corporate income tax and -750,000 to cover insurance = +50,000 for the government. I am guessing that you are somehow mixing the $250,000 saved in here, but it's not making any more sense than Waxman's office ever did when trying to explain his position to me.

Maybe it's my fault.

....and now stays on MyCo's books -- so how does the government get its hands on it without legislation? The feds will recover some of it if the firm's profits go up, and their taxes with them, but it's simply a reduction in the firm's operating expenses otherwise.

+50K for the government. Looks like they are short $450,000 and your corporation is + a net $700,000.

And again, why shouldn't the employer be charged with paying what is already being paid.

..but it's not automatic, certainly not under the status quo. Go into Congress and pass that law, good luck.

why isn't Waxman arguing for what he believes, or at least what his constituents want, instead of thinking about what will pass?

Why, all of a sudden, on this issue is practicality more important than ideals?

I have my suspicions.

He's a legislator, and he's one of the good ones.And incorruptible. He's not a magician. If he says 'X is impossible', I'm inclined to believe him, before maybe 430 of the 435 Representatives. He's earned his 4% rating from the American Conservative Union.

a co-sponsor of HR676 last year when he was smart.

Then he entered the leadership and got stupid.

I'm in favor of this, but it won't be cheap, meaning it's going to be quite difficult to get legislation passed to raise more taxes, especially since Obama promised taxes would not go up for most Americans. 'Tax the rich' is a possibility, but the fact is that's the solution that's gets offered for every problem on DU, in practice there are limits to how far you can carry that.

How about we call them "premiums"? You pay your premiums to Medicare for All (or whatever the name will be).

Premiums will be mandatory (just like under the current proposal) and coverage will be mandatory.

You know, as a European one of the things that consistently irritates me about the US (it also happens in Europe, but to a lesser extent) is the overuse of political euphemisms to confuse people. If we want universal healthcare here then in the long term everyone is going to have to pay a bit more tax.

Politicians are terrified of the T word but the only solution is to do a MUCH better job of educating the public about where their tax monies go (something like this would be a good start: http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/ ...the CBO should hire this guy IMO) and then having a more meaningful political debate. Calling taxes 'premiums' and pretending they're not taxes is BS and only perpetuates this problem, plus it makes the proponents of such terminology look dishonest. If the government is collecting it and it's a mandatory percentage levy on income or profits, it's a tax.

$1,000,000 insurance now goes to your bottom line
$300,000 in new taxes paid by you

$700,000 remains and goes to your shareholders, w00t

Meanwhile
$750,000 to cover these people via single payer
$300,000 of extra taxes from you (without changing the law)

$450,000 net cost to government < this has to be raised with new taxes of some kind

Actually I mean to say your #s are right but I don't see how the govt. ends up '$50,000 ahead'.

paying money directly to private insurance firms.



FUNDING.—
10 (1) IN GENERAL.—There are appropriated to
11 the USNHC Trust Fund amounts sufficient to carry
12 out this Act from the following sources:
13 (A) Existing sources of Federal Govern14
ment revenues for health care.
15 (B) Increasing personal income taxes on
16 the top 5 percent income earners.
17 (C) Instituting a modest and progressive
18 excise tax on payroll and self-employment in19
come.
20 (D) Instituting a small tax on stock and
21 bond transactions.

different entity. It would eliminate the multimillion $$ execs and instead of paying $$$ to ins. co. X, those $$ would simply be paid to a fed fund. Without calculating any numbers, the $$ paid would be significantly lower than they are now.

he was a co-sponsor of HR 676.

This year, he's spouting the official BS.

naturally run away from "massive tax increases" and the idea that employers would no longer contribute money to health care.

:(

system, as far as I know that is incorrect.


http://conyers.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.Home&Issue_id=063b74a4-19b9-b4b1-126b-f67f60e05f8c

Proposed Funding For USNHC Program

· Maintain current federal and state funding for existing health care programs
· Establish employer/employee payroll tax of 4.75% (includes present 1.45% Medicare tax)
· Establish a 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners, 10% tax on top 1% of wage earners
· ¼ of 1% stock transaction tax
· Close corporate tax loopholes
· Repeal the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners


Thanks for the replies and recs.

... and the two the tax increases -- because that's how sun-setting the Bush cuts will be played -- might be difficult to get through Congress. If single-payer is not plausibly revenue-neutral, it's not going anywhere. And if any of those taxes, or tax increases, fails passage, then single-payer's not going to be found revenue neutral -- at which point it's dead.

There are about four reps with legislative chops the equal of Waxman's. He's not just blowing smoke.

To quote Tom Hank's character from A League of Their Own: "Hard? Of course it's hard. If it was easy, everyone would do it. It's the hard that makes it great.

So, fine. They could sextuple the Medicare tax to pay for it, and I'll STILL take home more in my pocket than under the current system.


Americans had 8.7 trillion dollars in taxable income last year. Assuming a similar number for corporate income, then a 5% flat tax would be able to provide about a trillion bucks a year to run a single-payer system, which is on par with Canada and the UK.



:shrug:


I'm sure the rich fuckers would hate a 5% flat tax to pay for USP, but fuck'em... they're rich.

the top 5% was anyone making more than $160,000. Lots of money, but hardly rich.

I figure that at that level of income, they're generally businessman, so the 5% of their multi-hundred-thousand dollar or multi-million-dollar incomes could simply be seen as an employee benefit, but I'm sure they'll squeal like a stuck pig regardless.

---to a $100/month "tax"?

Exactly.

Wasn't it determined that the tax increase necessary would be relatively small, especially if we used a VAT for at least part of it?

But it is considered unprogressive by many. It would also raise taxes on the poor and middle class (indirectly).

When it comes to single payer health insurance, with their fearful obsession with "tax increases".

It's not about taxes. It's about cost. It's about dollars. And it's about how those dollars are collected and given to health care providers to pay for services rendered.

Right now, Americans are paying far too many dollars to administer our health care payment system through private insurance companies. All we have to do is replace that inefficient private insurance payment facilitation system with a more efficient single payer system.

The dollars needed to pay for the new system will be a wash at worst. Businesses and individuals can still contribute the dollars necessary for the system, but pay that to the single payer entity, rather than to private insurance companies. No taxes need to be raised to make this conversion. We don't call insurance premiums taxes now, why would we call them taxes under a single payer system?

Making health insurance universal is what might risk additional taxes, as not everyone can afford to pay an appropriate premium for their coverage. This is why single payer should be scored by the CBO. Because the efficiencies of scale that single payer provides, can likely broaden insurance coverage to many people at no additional cost...

And again with no new taxes.

The tax argument against single payer is a logical fallacy.

and close a few international bases.

The one thing that we do that other countries do not do, is spend shit loads of money on war mongering and imperialism.

second only to the US at $630 billion (the $630 billion does not include money spent on intelligence, Veterans affairs, military pensions, atomic energy, or interest on the debt run up to support growth in the military beginning with Reagan). Is China being attacked, or subject to attack, because it only spends $70 billion on defense? Or France at $68 billion, or the UK at $65 billion? Would the US be adequately defended if it spent the same amount of money on defense as France or the UK? What about spending $70 billion on defense, and the other $560 billion on healthcare?

People in the US have been brainwashed to accept being raped by the military industrial complex. About two-thirds of the personal income taxes they pay goes to support the military. They can't make the connection between excessive military spending and lack of affordable healthcare for all. The politicians see to it that the subject of excessive military spending doesn't come up in the discussion. Notice that Waxman didn't mention it. Even though he knows full well what the problem is.

Under the mandatory insurance scheme being floated in the current healthcare discussion, the cost of premiums for the individual was put at $4800 per year, and a family of four at about $10,000 per year ($2500 per individual). Let's use the $4800 figure (Massachusetts spends about $4650 per person in their expensive system), multiply it by 300 million people, and we get a total cost for healthcare in the US of $1.44 trillion. If we cut $500 billion from defense spending (includes ending the wars) and let Bush's tax cut expire for $190 billion, we'd have $690 billion of saving or almost half of what it would take to pay for healthcare for all. And this assumes a private insurance system. The cost presumably would be less with a government run single payer system. So it's easy to see the possibilities here.

I will make it short this time.

the US needs to cut funding for the war machine and we would have more funds for the things we really need.

inflated drug prices.

You would have to quit wasting money on private insurance and over paying for drugs.

We could keep every single base open and be imperialists, if that's what we wanted to do.


We spend enough right now on health care to cover everyone, it's just that a huge chunk goes to making a few people very rich instead of paying for health care.

costs . . . if I could afford one.

He's one of those guys who is a good guy, but who has been in Congress so long that his entire universe is described by the Beltway. He has no concerns for right nor for wrong remaining, only for what will pass, as predicted by Waxman. Henry tried to look very busy and stern all through the Bush years, but he never really did anything. Used to be fine, now he's just a hack after a paycheck. But he does not know better, he's fearful and tired.

Waxman...

"There would have to be massive taxes, increases, to make up for the lost money that’s now being spent by employers for their employees."

Employers would contribute to the National Health System through a tax instead paying money to private insurance companies. To me his statement could be interpreted by people to mean that employers would no longer contribute to the cost of health care.


30 page pdf
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/HR_676_111th.pdf

FUNDING.—
10 (1) IN GENERAL.—There are appropriated to
11 the USNHC Trust Fund amounts sufficient to carry
12 out this Act from the following sources:
13 (A) Existing sources of Federal Govern14
ment revenues for health care.
15 (B) Increasing personal income taxes on
16 the top 5 percent income earners.

17 (C) Instituting a modest and progressive
excise tax on payroll and self-employment in
come.

20 (D) Instituting a small tax on stock and
21 bond transactions.
22 (2) SYSTEM SAVINGS

Ronald Reagan's revolution revolved around tax cuts-- and this policy has been emulated by every President since then (even Clinton to some extent).

Now, tax cuts stimulate economic activity to some extent, and increases are unwise in a deep recession, so no one will advocate tax increases now, except perhaps on the rich.

This underlies what Waxman is saying. This has to change is we ever want to have single-payer. Although single-payer may cost the public less than anything else overall, shifting to government management requiries increased revenue, i.e. increased taxes.

by most people towards their healthcare.

They could have the employers pay a payroll tax and it could still never be as high as what they currently pay to the insurers.

So Waxman is being deliberately obtuse. I go with whoever thought he got a horsehead in his bed. He is a bright guy and he's studied this stuff for a long time. No way he suddenly got stupid.

We would have to convince the unthinking public of this, and it is a hard sell. Even with economists and accountants providing evidence.

That's because of an inability to raise taxes in American political culture. Thanks to Reagan's legacy. I think we can count the number of new federal taxes passed since 1981 on our hands. Reagan also helped reinforce a distrust of government that is also impeding progress.

It appears there is no political will to raise taxes. Well, that's not quite true, there is some to raise taxes on the wealthy-- it was part of Gore's, Kerry's and Obama's platforms. But that's about it.

Things will have to change if we want single-payer. That's one reason to propose legislating the insurance companies into a corner with tight CAPS on premiums/co-pays for basic quality insurance. Too bad no one is proposing that, because it will make everyone recognize the need for single-payer. The moderates at least must recognize the NEED for single payer. If they do, then they will authorize spending money (like they do for war and the stimulus). In the end each of these eventually will require more revenue-- unlike the others at least single-payer will have a lasting beneficial effect.

the most expensive and unresponsive system on planet earth.

<snip>

Proposed Funding For HR 676 Program

Maintain current federal and state funding for existing healthcare programs; employer payroll tax of 4.5%, an employee payroll tax of 3.3%, in addition to the already existing 1.45% for Medicare; establish a 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners; 10% tax on top 1% of wage earners, 1/3rd of 1% stock transaction tax, closing corporate tax loop-holes; repeal the Bush tax cut for the highest income earners.

I can't speak to the taxes on the top wage earners, stock transitions, etc., except to say that I don't mind taxing the wealthy to provide necessary services for all.

I can say that the 4.5% payroll tax is significantly lower than what my employer currently pays for my health care plan. The 3.3% that would fall to me is a little more than I currently pay, but quite a bit less than the most expensive option I could get from my employer, that requires less in copays and deductibles.

And, of course, there would be no copays or deductibles, which would result in a net savings for me.

<snip>

Families Pay Less

A study by nationally recognized economist, Dean Baker, of the Center for Economic Research and Policy concluded that under H.R. 676, a family of three making $40,000 per year would spend approximately $1900 per year for healthcare coverage. Currently, (in 2007) the average annual premium for families covered under an employee health plan is $11,000. (National Coalition on Health Care.)
Businesses Pays Less

In 2005, without reform, the average employer that offers coverage was contributing $2,600 to healthcare per employee (for much skimpier benefits), or 217.00 per month. Under HR 676, the average costs to employers for an employee making $30,000 per year will be reduced to $1,425 per year; or about $119.00 per month.

Baker’s study reported that HR 676 would reduce health spending in 2005 from $1 trillion, 918 billion dollars to 1 trillion, 861.3 billion dollars, which translates into a saving of $56 billion in overall healthcare spending while covering all of the uninsured. This is a 3% reduction in over-all healthcare spending.

The single-payer bill that's been on the table for some years now reduces overall spending AND costs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6351061&mesg_id=6352779

Here is why I find Waxman's statement to be misleading....

Waxman...

"There would have to be massive taxes, increases, to make up for the lost money that’s now being spent by employers for their employees."

Employers would contribute to the National Health System through a tax instead paying money to private insurance companies. To me his statement could be interpreted by people to mean that employers would no longer contribute to the cost of health care.


30 page pdf
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/HR_676_111th.pdf

FUNDING.—
10 (1) IN GENERAL.—There are appropriated to
11 the USNHC Trust Fund amounts sufficient to carry
12 out this Act from the following sources:
13 (A) Existing sources of Federal Govern14
ment revenues for health care.
15 (B) Increasing personal income taxes on
16 the top 5 percent income earners.

17 (C) Instituting a modest and progressive
excise tax on payroll and self-employment in
come.

20 (D) Instituting a small tax on stock and
21 bond transactions.
22 (2) SYSTEM SAVINGS


Thanks, I've already contacted Waxman's office about his statement.

There is no legitimate justification for NOT implementing single-payer.

quite another to hear Waxman say the same thing.

When I spoke to a staff member in Rep. Weiner's office today about the CBO scoring a single-payer bill, he said that have not even sent anything over yet to score.

:(

It also says to me that we haven't done a very good job of getting our point across.

We need to spend less time talking to each other and more time reaching out.

A single payer system would be like tax relief for business. Any tax needed to raise the revenue for a single payer system would not only be off set by lower costs for businesses but the economic growth that would come from making them more competitive in world markets.

insurance now. And they'd get to keep the difference for themselves. Where's the downside?

Nations, huh Max? Why are we already paying twice what they do for health care ranked 37th in the world?

:puke:

Taxpayer money only needs to be conserved when it might help people. If it is used for killing people, the sky is the limit.

The US government - not the US as a whole, just the government - already spends more per capita on health care than most 'single-payer' countries and they manage to cover everybody. Look it up.

Single-payer would actually be CHEAPER in the long run.

please contact his office.

Thanks

:)

http://waxman.house.gov/

Single Payer Action Confronts Henry Waxman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7bTC9lKcv4

Congressman Waxman says that he is now working on the President's plan to build on employers based insurance.

:(