It didn't exist in 2008. In 2008, the GOP had nothing. Seems they're trying to do what all those disgraced CEOs did relative to stock options: backdate, and work a ruse. But then, hey! It's directed to Americans, and Americans will swallow most anything. Worked for Iraq, so why not? After all, from Republicans, like from the CIA: nothing but the straight dope. Sort of, you can take it to the bank.
Approximately 90% of Americans are covered by health insurance right now. The premiums are, for most, paid by their employer. They never see any reference to the premiums on their pay stubs; out of sight, out of mind. The coverage is a freebie. So it would seem. So, why should they want to change? Especially if any change might mean higher taxes?
Let's do the math. The "average" health care costs for the average family plan runs $15,000 annually. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/business/economy/22leonhardt.html?_r=1&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print). To simplify things, let's also stipulate the employee is in a 25% tax bracket, and we're not going to itemize, or do any of those real-life CPA adjustments; just a straight-forward calculation. The first step is to eliminate altogether any employer play in this example. The employer is out of it completely. So what had been a tax-free benefit worth $15,000 is going to be transferred into the employee's pockets as net pay increase of $15,000. Who wouldn't like that? "No! Mr. Murdock, just sit down and shut up, please." We're going to assume that everyone would like to have a net $15,000 more income. To do that, however, in a 25% tax bracket, will require a gross income increase of $20,000. ($15,000 / [100% - 25%])
Next, we're also not going to invite health insurance companies to the party. Their 30% admin rates are a total rip-off. And the package that United paid to its CEO of $1.4 BILLION was a royal rip-off. We can do better. No one in the new program is going to be remunerated as if he was a sultan, or an emir. Medicare and VA health care screen no one for physical candidacy, and their admin costs approximate 5-7%; call it 10%, for ease of calculation. So now we have to "tax" the new subscriber, to pay for the new health plan. Saving the money sacrificed on the alter of homage to CEOs and to weeding out the riffraff (you, me, our families, etc.) who might actually need health care some day, the revised average cost is calculated as closer to $10,000, which might have to be paid for with some form or another of a tax increase.
But Americans don't want that. They'd be $10,000, or so, ahead perhaps, but certainly not behind a dime, unless they're in the top 1% of income earners ("earners" used loosely). But the problem here, the one that Obama and those Democrats pushing for genuine reform will have to somehow wrestle to the mat, is that, whereas previously the costs were rather invisible, now they're up front and personal. It doesn't matter that they realize the "socialism" and "rationing" and "waiting lists" are ruses. It doesn't even matter that their overall costs are lower, or that now, perhaps their employer might be really able to give them a raise in pay, or even keep the shop doors open. All that matters is that now the costs to them are highly visible.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
