The Hypocrisy Of The American Health Care Bill
Citizens supporting Obama’s proposed health care bill might as well be begging for taxes. As debates continue brewing and the health care plan garners more and more congressional relieve, the odds are in favor of its passage.
Under the bill, American citizens will not only be required to purchase health care, but those who remain without coverage risk substantial fines and possible imprisonment. Beginning in 2014, the fines will stand at $95 – as we have witnessed from past promises, however, the Obama administration will likely elevate this fee. In fact, politicians are already anticipating the fines to rise to come between $750 and $2,250. Jim Capretta, a member of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, predicts that uninsured families may be forced to pay as worthy as $14,000 in fines.
Glimpse, though, the $1,500 gap within the expected range of fines for uninsured citizens – this is not a wide estimate, but rather a range of varying fines per individual. In other words, one American citizen may be fined more than another. Determining this difference, however, will not be based off of the risk involved in his or her lifestyle, the family history of illnesses, or even his or her chance of survival. The assigned fee is determined by an individual’s income.
Some may discover this as a slap in the face. Why should the cost of health differ from one person to the next? Does “equal rights for all citizens” not translate into equal access to health?
While, for some, the price of public health care may seem more affordable than private insurance, do not forget that Americans may eventually be placing all of their eggs in one basket. Once this health care bill undercuts the cost of private health insurance companies, it will be difficult for the private sector of health insurance to compete. For instance, the government-funded health care is projected to initially cost around $1 trillion. Once its competitors have filed for bankruptcy, however, the government will face a tempting opportunity to raise its prices. There will be no private companies for citizens to turn to once prices become unaffordable, and the option to forego health insurance will have been made impossible.
Think about it this way: Company A (a private insurance company) currently provides health insurance for 1000 individuals for $30 per month. The health care bill is passed, and 800 of its clients (who decide they would rather pay, let’s prefer, $30 upfront each visit and have insurance cover the rest) switch to public health care instead. The remaining 200 have decided to stay with Company A for a variety of reasons, such as employer benefits. Company A, however, must now compensate for a grand amount of lost profit, while keeping its prices comparably low to public health insurance. The government can fund its health insurance program through taxes and printing more money, but insurance companies must charge for their services to cease in business. As a result, Company A’s finances will likely plummet (raising its prices would further deter clients), and the company will be urge out of business. Its customers will be forced to turn to government health care, or risk being fined for refusing to purchase health insurance at all. Damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.
Perhaps most importantly to further note, the government has now monopolized the insurance industry, and can leverage its prices at its fill discretion.
Some might search for that – by introducing a public option with lower prices – such governmental control over the insurance industry prevents financial exploitation of Americans by private companies. But look again: there is already enough competition to keep prices down among the 1300 private insurance companies in America.
It is American citizens who are going to pay off the (estimated) $1 trillion cost of the health insurance plan. So, while you think you are paying less for public health insurance, taxes also compensate for universal coverage. When the health care bill is enacted in 2014, a 40 percent excise tax will be imposed on plans worth over $23,000 dollars for a family of four. By 2019, approximately one quarter of all health insurance plans will also be subjected to this tax.
Does the government really have the money to fund another socialized government program? Of course not, which is why the government will likely depend on the wealthy to contribute compliantly. Taxing the wealthy would demand a surcharge of 1 to 5.8 percent from individuals who perform over $250,000 per year or families with incomes of more than $350,000. This is, of course, in addition to the mammoth percentage already paid in visible taxes.
The bottom line is that America’s top earners, entrepreneurs, and industrialists will no longer survey any justification in providing for the entire nation’s wellbeing, while receiving nothing in return. Why should citizens be exploited for their own successes? For example, if the government is going to force an entrepreneur to give away a larger proportion of his income than his jobless neighbor, the entrepreneur will be disinclined to continue innovation in his field, contributions to society, and success as an individual – especially if he is able to receive the same benefits at a lower cost by earning less money from cutting abet on production and progress (two factors which help the rest of the nation). The battle between those Americans who feed the government budget (and the economy) versus the government itself will eventually result in a financial stalemate.
Other proposed solutions to financing the health care bill include a “sin” tax of 13 cents per 12-ounce sugar-sweetened beverage and 14 cents per bottle of beer or glass of wine (charging $98.55 annually for a person who consumes one soda and one glass of wine each day). An alternative proposal is for individuals to pay taxes on the value of employee insurance benefits, which, on average, would be around $13,000 – the equivalent to most private health insurance. Another option involves lowering the insurance subsidy threshold would affect anyone making between $32,490 and $42,320 annually, because the government will not be able to financially subsidize those who make more than 300 percent than the poverty level.
On another note, how is it justifiable for those who determine not to participate in the government health insurance plan to still have to finance it?
Regardless of whose shoulders this payment will fall on, forcing people to do so is depraved. American rights are supposed to be irrevocable; citizens hold the right to be self-governed. So, why has the government become an all-powerful entity with the right to dictate the choices of its citizens? Why must Americans pay for health insurance, even against their wills? Surely, not all citizens are/will be sick or require medical attention. The only motivation and interest the government holds behind requiring universal health care is to fund its own agenda and expenses – which may demonstrate timely, for example, now that China has begun questioning its future financing of American treasury bills.
The ultimate ask that should weigh heavily on the minds of Congress as it finishes negotiating the health care bill is: should the American people effect complete trust their government – and those funding it – to outfit the health insurance industry?
It is not the government’s job to provide for its citizens; rather, it is the government’s job to preserve opportunities for the Land of the Free. Economic progress will terminate once there is no longer any incentive to continue prospering. The wealthy should not be entitled to support the rest of America on their backs; people should not be bound by law to purchase health coverage; citizens should not have to turn to public health insurance instead of employing their preferred company; private insurance companies, who realistically cannot support themselves on the same budget as the government, should not be forced to declare bankruptcy at the hands of a monopolistic governmental program.
In a few years, all American citizens will have health insurance. A few years later, all American citizens will depend on public health care for insurance. Yet, the one component that will remain diverse is who pays the costs for the rest of the nation – of course, no health care coverage is free, but the overall trace of the health care plan should be the same for all individuals. You would think that a socialist government would realize that.
Allie MacGillis. Health-care reform bill’s proposed tax on high-cost plans raises questions. The Washington Post.
Bret Baier. Health Care Countdown: Young People Could Bear Brunt of Insurance Mandate. FOXNews.com.
Karl Rove. How to Cessation Socialized Health Care. The Wall Street Journal.
Michelle Andrews. What Will Health Care Reform Cost You? CBC News.
The Washington Times. No Mandate for Government Health Care. The Washington Times.
Related Posts
Filed under Health Insurance Self Employed Taxes by on Dec 2nd, 2011. 