Democratic Sen. Max Baucus: “Tax healthcare benefits.”
Highmark Blue Cross/Blue Shield has joined with other BC/BS plans to push their own version of health care “reform.” As discussed in the article linked below, Highmark’s plan consists of two key parts. First, the US government would mandate every individual American to buy a health insurance policy. In other words you must buy insurance. Your failure to buy insurance will be a crime and you will be penalized. If you are employed your employer must help you buy this insurance. As anyone who has to buy insurance knows, it is unaffordable. If you can’t afford to buy the policy, you’ll hope you can afford the fines and penalties.
Highmark calls this “universal healthcare.”
The second part of the plan is that Highmark will offer those that can afford it extra insurance to cover all the care that the government mandated policy does not cover. Since the private insurance industry provides these government mandated policies, they will be too expensive to offer more than the minimal care. Highmark will not only profit from the government policy but also by selling additional coverage.
Politicians who support Highmark’s “reform” plans for “universal health care” also advocate taxing the healthcare benefits workers are currently receiving by counting them as regular income. So instead of cutting the waste of the health insurance industry to provide care, they propose raising the income tax on workers to increase insurance company profits. Senator John McCain advocated this during his campaign for president. Current Democratic Senators Max Baucus of Montana and Ron Wyden of Oregon are backing this attack on working people.
Progressive Democrats and Labor must target these Democratic Senators for mass protests at their home offices and in Washington, DC. Winning the Employee Free Choice Act while losing billions of dollars in income taxes to pay off the insurance industry would be a tragic mistake for labor.
What do you think of a government plan that provides full coverage, allows choice of provider, shuts down private companies, yet expects everyone who can to buy into it? I am wondering if this would be progressive, as long as the fee is sliding-scale. I ask because there appears to be various ideas floating around the left-wing blogosphere when it comes to how to “do” a progressive and “universal” health insurance program.
HR 676, the National Health Care Act, provides full coverage. It allows choice of provider. It makes Medicare the single payer.
It does not shut down private companies that deliver health care. The healthcare providers remain private and they bill Medicare for services rendered.
Since it is a public payer, there is no individual buy-in. Its like the post office…you use it when you need it. Its paid for by increasing the Medicare withholding tax to about 5% of income for employees and 6% of payroll for employers.
Single payer, Medicare for All is simple, inexpensive, and makes sense.
Thank you for letting me know. I had heard of Conyer’s bill, but I wondered what everyone thought of it, because different ideas are floating around. People seem to want full government coverage, but have different ideas about details. I too would liek to see full coverage by the government, the private insurers out, and the private healthcare providers remaining private and billing medicare. I think the idea of money coming out of the paycheck is fair, it already comes out anyway, but it would be cheaper. This new system would be less confusing as well. Too many factors to deal with now.
Beaver County Blue: Voice of the 17th CD of Progressive Democrats of America 
These are terrible ideas, they suck and they make matters worse.
You have to buy it? They will then tax it?
Private insurers will provide extra care if you can pay it?
Unreal.
This plan by the insurance companies is loosely based on the Massachusetts ‘universal healthcare’ plan.
What do you think of a government plan that provides full coverage, allows choice of provider, shuts down private companies, yet expects everyone who can to buy into it? I am wondering if this would be progressive, as long as the fee is sliding-scale. I ask because there appears to be various ideas floating around the left-wing blogosphere when it comes to how to “do” a progressive and “universal” health insurance program.
ng
ng,
HR 676, the National Health Care Act, provides full coverage. It allows choice of provider. It makes Medicare the single payer.
It does not shut down private companies that deliver health care. The healthcare providers remain private and they bill Medicare for services rendered.
Since it is a public payer, there is no individual buy-in. Its like the post office…you use it when you need it. Its paid for by increasing the Medicare withholding tax to about 5% of income for employees and 6% of payroll for employers.
Single payer, Medicare for All is simple, inexpensive, and makes sense.
Thank you for letting me know. I had heard of Conyer’s bill, but I wondered what everyone thought of it, because different ideas are floating around. People seem to want full government coverage, but have different ideas about details. I too would liek to see full coverage by the government, the private insurers out, and the private healthcare providers remaining private and billing medicare. I think the idea of money coming out of the paycheck is fair, it already comes out anyway, but it would be cheaper. This new system would be less confusing as well. Too many factors to deal with now.
Thank you and take care
ng