tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post6737483301541640091..comments2024-03-18T17:01:07.165-07:00Comments on The Provocateur: Sizing Up the Day's Activities on Health Care Reformmike volpehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02999118519606254362noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-1986494001944219352009-07-16T22:58:15.398-07:002009-07-16T22:58:15.398-07:00I think you've already left the exact same com...I think you've already left the exact same comment before on another of my pieces.<br /><br />You have a very perverted sense of "fairness". One set of tax payers give fifty percent and more of their income in taxes while another set not only pay no taxes but receive all sorts of benefits. If that's fair, then I would like to know what isn't fair in your mind.mike volpehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02999118519606254362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-46304583283003046282009-07-16T22:44:13.070-07:002009-07-16T22:44:13.070-07:00It's the most blatant form of Robin-Hood econo...It's the most blatant form of Robin-Hood economics ever proposed. The House of Representatives' universal health-care bill, announced yesterday, pays for the health insurance of the poorest 20 percent of Americans who need help affording it with a tax surcharge on the richest 1 percent.<br /><br />I don't remember a redistribution this direct ever coming out of Congress. I mean, occasionally Congress closes a few tax loopholes at the top and offers a refundable tax credit to people near the bottom. Or creates a poor people's program like Medicaid, paid for out of general revenues from a progressive income tax. But to say out loud that those in our society who can most easily afford it should pay for health insurance of those who can not is, well, audacious.<br /><br />There's another word for it: fair. According to the most recent data, the richest 1 percent of American households now take home about 20 percent of total income, the highest percentage since 1928. Now, yes, I know: Critics will charge that these are the very people who invest, innovate, and hire, and thereby keep the economy going. So raising their taxes will burden the economy and thereby hurt everyone, including those who are supposed to be helped.<br /><br />But there's no reason to suppose that taking a tiny sliver of the incomes of the top 1 percent will reduce all that much of their ardor to invest, innovate and hire in the future. Yet if this tiny sliver means affordable health care for a far larger number of Americans, they'll be able to get regular checkups and thereby stay healthy and productive. And a more healthy and productive workforce will do far more to build the American economy.<br /><br />One other virtue of this funding mechanism is its simplicity. A surtax is simple to administer. And the whole idea is easily understood. <br /><br /><em>Tax the very wealthy to keep everyone healthy.</em> <br /><br />Not even a bad bumper sticker.Vigilantehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07640246609540057997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-54730958222284056662009-07-16T19:29:24.711-07:002009-07-16T19:29:24.711-07:00You're right. That wasn't phrased properly...You're right. That wasn't phrased properly. I should have been more clear that it's popular among Democrats. It would, however, be political suicide. I will change the language.mike volpehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02999118519606254362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-60544984574316981812009-07-16T19:03:29.615-07:002009-07-16T19:03:29.615-07:00I think the CBO only wields power to the extent it...I think the CBO only wields power to the extent it is willing to be brutally truthful about the real fiscal impact of the laws Congress proposes and passes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-81568380734022222942009-07-16T19:01:27.453-07:002009-07-16T19:01:27.453-07:00Its Democrat vs. Democrat, and that's what the...Its Democrat vs. Democrat, and that's what they wanted. By going after Blue Dogs rather than the Republicans, supporters of health care reform have effectively de-legitimized the Republicans ideas.<br /><br />Case in point, Max Baucus is complaining that he doesn't have the President's support because, well, he doesn't. In fact, Harry Reid already told Baucus to stop working with the Republicans because he'd lose more Democratic votes than he'd gain Republican votes by incorporating ideas that Republicans would be willing to vote for. Case in point, taxing health benefits. If Baucus is considering it, its because he thinks the Republicans are open to the idea. And that leads me to believe they want it in the bill primarily to force Obama to vote on it. Obama probably knows this. If its off the table, that's probably why.<br /><br />And how exactly do you think taxing health care benefits is popular? Earlier you said it would be political suicide for Obama to do that after criticizing McCain for proposing it and now you think its popular?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com