Reverse Corporate Taxation, anyone?
Bloviation warning: I’m getting some opinions off my chest below, in the form of a disjointed series of rants. <political bias>
Everywhere in the air today is a swirl of comment about health care reform: insurance, individual mandate, employer mandate, public option, yadda yadda — these buzzwords are all over the airwaves. A couple of nights ago the House passed a bill, and now debate goes back to the Senate. It’s time for this blogger to put in his highly inflatable $.02.
Opponents of comprehensive reform worry about a government takeover: that the “public option” is merely the first step toward a “single payer” plan. Progressives, looking at Canadian and European models, agree, and some are willing to settle for a public option, this year, because it is a first step toward their goal. I lean heavily toward the latter camp. Let me unpack some of the rhetoric I have heard and try to explain why the individual mandate without at least a public option is the worst of all possible worlds.
One complaint is that a public option will have to be paid for with taxes, or, more directly, that the premiums paid toward such a plan amount to a tax. Sure. But at least those tax dollars go to the government, which is ultimately responsible, however unwieldy our system is, to the people. I can vote the decision-makers in and out of office, raise a public outcry to persuade people to join such a cause. Clearly Congress has the power, constitutionally, to raise taxes. But does Congress have the power to require people to put money directly in the pockets of private corporations? Money that is required by law to be paid out of people’s incomes is a tax, any way you cut it. Why should my tax dollars go, not to my government, run (however imperfectly) by people I can vote for or against, but to a company, whose primary motivation is profit, which has every incentive to provide denial of service to its customer (me), and which lives in a culture that thinks it is just fine to pay its executives millions or billions of dollars, and feels it must do so in order to retain such “talent”? Read more…










Your Comments