Bush Health Insurance Plan Punishes the American People

© 2007 Betsy L. Angert

I will write more on President Bush’s proposed tax deduction for health insurance later.  I intend to speak in depth and detail soon.  However, in this moment, and since I first became aware of the current proposal, I am steaming.  My mind is racing.  I can barely grab a hold of my own thoughts.  Let alone pen my points.

Having been among the uninsured for decades, while working full time in respectable professional  positions, I cannot imagine a nation more insensitive than this one is!  We, as a nation attend to the health needs of those we intentionally maimed and massacred, the civilians of Iraq [and our own soldiers,] more so than we do to our local citizenry, those suffering or simply surviving in this nation.  With this novel plan, circumstances will worsen.

I thank you Congressman Jim McDermott for pointing this out.

Madam Speaker, I want to reassure my colleague from Massachusetts that there is hope after all.  The Bush administration has endorsed and even funded universal health insurance.  The thing is, the President’s universal health insurance program is for the people of Iraq, not anything for the 44 million Americans.

Madam Speaker, we already pay enough for universal health care in this country, but we are not getting it.  The administration misleads the American people by having the Secretary of Health and Human Services say, and I quote, “You are still taken care of in America.  That certainly could be defined as universal coverage.”  The truth is that every other industrialized nation in the world has a universal health system except the United States.  Half the bankruptcies in this country are due to health care costs.

I discovered long ago that many were as I.  They were embarrassed to admit that they were without medical coverage.  People look down on the uninsured, as though they are uninformed, uneducated, lacking in intelligence rather than struggling to survive.  Funds are few when we live in a society that strokes the needs of the already affluent and disregards the needs of the common folk.  It seems in America, we just do not care.  Creating a community or a country that thrives is not our agenda.  Here it is every man or woman for him or herself.  Businesses no longer promote loyalty.  Profits are there goal.  Margins are steep.  Mister Bush now wants to make these steeper.

What is already scarce, adequate health care, will be made more scarce if President Bush has his way.

The Census Bureau estimates that 175 million Americans obtain private health insurance through employers, while 27 million people are covered by insurance bought outside the workplace.  The rest, with the exception of the 47 million uninsured, are covered through government programs like Medicare and Medicaid and military health care.

Under Mr. Bush’s proposal, people buying health insurance on their own would receive a tax break similar to the one that has historically been available to people who receive coverage through their jobs.  The plan is tied to the average cost of family health coverage, which is currently $11,500 a year.

I must stop here and ask how will those that are already strapped purchase a plan, or pay taxes on policies that already deplete their budgets?  Granted, Mister Bush has never needed to balance a budget.  Congress seems to cater to his whims and allocate funds for what is not placed in the financial plan [consider the Iraqi war] however, most of us do not have infinite resources to turn to.  

More and more in America, people are foregoing health care services because they simply cannot afford them.  Even those that have insurance realize there are and pay handsomely, the deductibles.  More and more, corporations are “asking” employees to pay for their health insurance policies.  Those companies that still supply this necessary benefit require their personnel to pay a large portion of the costs.  Where might workers find the funds to cover the proposed tax?  Nevertheless, here are the details

It [the Bush Health Care Plan] would work like this: The administration would cap the amount of benefits that can remain tax free at $15,000 for a family and $7,500 for an individual.  Anyone whose health insurance cost more than that would pay taxes on the difference.  For example, a family with coverage costing $16,000 a year would pay taxes on $1,000.

The cap would also be used to establish the amount of the new deduction for people who lack coverage.  In this example, a family buying insurance on its own could take a $15,000 deduction — even if the insurance cost less.  The cap would rise with some measure of overall inflation, but would not necessarily keep pace with the costs of medical care and health insurance.

A White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity so as not to upstage the president, said, “The vast majority of people with employer-provided coverage will benefit as well.”

One of the nation’s leading experts on tax policy, C. Eugene Steuerle, a Treasury official in the Reagan administration who is now a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, said the proposal “would probably help increase the number of people with health insurance at no cost to the budget.”

Yes, let us provide a false sense of security while penalizing the people at no cost to the government.  I once believed that the government was of, by, and for the people.  We worked together for the greater good.

United we are strong.  When divided, us and them, management or employee, government or gravelling low-life, we fall.  Nevertheless, the great “uniter” continues to divide us.  Thank fully, even entrepreneur see the flaw in this logic.

The administration official said the White House envisioned health insurance companies offering new plans to meet a growing market.   But employers expressed doubts.

“This is a classic case of robbing Peter to help Paul pay for coverage,” said E. Neil Trautwein, a vice president of the National Retail Federation, which represents retailers of all sizes. “I do not think the president will find many backers in the employer community for this proposal.”

In trying to address the problems of the uninsured, Mr. Trautwein said, “we should not start by endangering coverage for people who already have it.”

Voices of calm, those that care have been speaking of the benefits of a Universal Health care system for decades.  However, their rational falls on deaf ears.  I submit some of the reasoning for your review once again.

Why doesn’t the United States have universal health care as a right of citizenship? The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. 28 industrialized nations have single payer universal health care systems, while 1 (Germany) has a multipayer universal health care system like President Clinton proposed for the United States.?

Myth One: The United States has the best health care system in the world.
Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990?

Fact Two:  The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960?

Fact Three:  The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.?

Fact Four:  The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana?

Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.?

Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation?

Myth Two: Universal Health Care Would Be Too Expensive

Fact One:  The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care?

Fact Two:  Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.?

Fact Three:  State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits?

Fact Four:  The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada’s.?

Conclusion: Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current US system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money?

With a deep sigh of relief, I see that there are those that do represent the people’s interest or try to.

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., said Monday that the tax changes, which Bush will promote in Tuesday night’s State of the Union address, would encourage employers to stop providing health insurance.

”Under the guise of tax breaks, the president is pursuing a policy designed to destroy the employer-based health care system through which 160 million people receive coverage,” the lawmaker said.

Stark, who oversees a key House Ways and Means subcommittee, said he would not consider holding hearings on the proposal, which includes a trade-off. Contributions from employers toward health insurance would begin to be treated as taxable income. At the same time, a standard deduction for taxpayers with health insurance would be set at $15,000 for families and $7,500 for individuals.

The White House says 80 percent of workers with health insurance through their jobs would see a tax cut as a result of the change. But about 20 percent would see a tax increase — those workers whose health insurance cost more than the standard deduction.

The change in tax policy is one of two major health proposals announced by Bush last weekend. The other would take some federal money now going to hospitals and other facilities and give it to states for programs to reduce the number of uninsured.

Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said there are better uses for some of the $30 billion a year the government spends on bills for the uninsured.

”When you subsidize institutions but not people, oftentimes the institutions get taken care of, and the people don’t,” he said.

Leavitt said he can redirect some on the money on his own, but he needs help from Congress for other transfers.

I thank you Secretary Mike Leavitt.  May I reiterate, for emphasis your own words.

”When you subsidize institutions but not people, oftentimes the institutions get taken care of, and the people don’t!”

Please I plead with this administration and all those apathetic souls that allow those in authority to choose for them.  Please may we work towards Universal Health Care.  May we show those in other nations that we are the superpower we claim to be.  Let us be a compassionate as all other industrialized countries are.  Let us care for all our people, impoverished, common, and affluent.

Please peruse the plan and thoughts about the further health care inequity . . .