Ignoring Democratic opposition, ABC's Morrell claimed Bush is "reaching out" with health care tax increase
On the January 21 edition of ABC's World News Sunday, ABC News White House correspondent Geoff Morrell stated that President Bush is "reaching out to Democrats" with a new health care policy he will reportedly announce during his State of the Union address on January 23. In saying that Bush is "reaching out," however, Morrell mischaracterized Bush's plan and ignored the fact that Democrats oppose Bush's proposal specifically because it would raise taxes on certain workers.
The Washington Post explained Bush's plan in a January 21 article:
President Bush will propose a deep tax break for Americans who purchase their own medical insurance and would finance it with an unprecedented tax on a portion of high-priced health-care plans that workers receive from their employers, according to the White House.
The initiative, which the president briefly previewed in his radio address yesterday, has a dual purpose: It would create a financial incentive for the estimated 46 million to 48 million Americans who lack health insurance to buy it. And it would rein in the soaring cost of health insurance by encouraging workers in high-priced plans to seek more modest coverage.
[...]
The proposal, which Bush plans to fully unveil in Tuesday's State of the Union address, marks a sharp departure for a president who has been criticized for advocating tax cuts that disproportionately benefit higher-income Americans.
Administration officials familiar with the plan say it reflects the new political order in Washington, where Democrats now control both chambers of Congress. They refuse to characterize the plan as a tax increase because it raises no new money for the federal government. Instead, it would add a new tax on employer-provided health-care plans worth more than $15,000 to subsidize those who buy modestly priced plans out of their pockets.
On World News, however, Morrell reported that Bush's plan would tax health plans purchased by families and individuals -- not employer-provided health plans:
MORRELL: The president wants to make health insurance taxable income. Any family paying more than $15,000 for health coverage, or individuals paying more than $7,500, would pay tax on the excess. And anyone spending less than that would get a big tax break. The White House hopes this will encourage more of the 47 million uninsured to buy coverage, while also reining in the rising cost of health care.
Morell then claimed that the new plan amounts to "reaching out to Democrats":
MORRELL: Indeed, more and more GOP lawmakers are breaking from the president on Iraq. But rather than come up with proposals that would shore up his base, Mr. Bush is reaching out to Democrats, and he is trying to change the subject from Iraq, which the president will only touch on briefly in Tuesday's speech.
In contrast with Morrell's report, on January 21, The New York Times noted that Bush's "proposed plan is a startling move for a president who has repeatedly vowed not to raise taxes. And it is certain to run into opposition from business groups, labor unions and, most of all, the Democrats who now run Capitol Hill." The article continued:
"It's a bad policy," Representative Charles B. Rangel, the New York Democrat who is chairman of the House committee that writes tax legislation, said in an interview Friday night. "We are trying to bring tax relief to the middle class. The president is trying to increase their tax liability. This proposal is inconsistent with what the majority is seeking in the House and the Senate."
In a January 21 article, the Los Angeles Times quoted Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) also criticizing Bush's proposal:
On Capitol Hill, prominent Democrats issued statements saying they were glad Bush was talking about healthcare but were skeptical about his plan.
"To the extent that the president is now recognizing that all Americans need health coverage, that's positive," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles). "But it clearly cannot come at the cost of undermining comprehensive health coverage for those who do have insurance."
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said he questioned "why the president thinks the way to solve this problem is through the tax code."
Media Matters for America has documented (here and here) other examples of media figures claiming that Bush was "reaching out" to Democrats after the November 2006 elections despite evidence to the contrary.
Reaching out, or into?
Sounds like he's reaching into my pocket. Good ol' burgle hood. Man of the oppressed rich!
Wow, Ted Kennedy thinks its wrong to fix this problem through the tax code!!!! What a change in thought. Almost every Democratic program that is proposed will necessitate a change to the tax code to implement (either that or big budget gaps). Teddy, after all these years, maybe you are starting to come around.
Takes a LOT of guts to charge Dems with "big budget gaps" in the era of Bungle's trillions (over $1trillion additional DEBT before we finish paying for Iraq, and that is if we left last month! Over $4 trillion that Clinton budgets predicted to shore up SocSec, vanished already, and no end in sight, with at least $1 trillion more before a balanced budget can be restored.) Lotta guts, Oscar!
Then we start on tax programs: for 95% of us, net, the Bungle "tax cuts" cost us more out-of-pocket in places such as State taxes (to cover reductions in revenue share) local taxes (to pay for cuts in cops-on-the-street programs) energy costs (to cover the obscene profits of Oil Cos and execs; and of course, All Children Left Behind, to cover the systemic and systematic underfunding of the imposed restrictions and testing). I won't even take on the trillion dollars (thus far) cost of reductions of the estate tax, or the taxes on unearned income by the wealthy, nor the generic reductions of enforcement for all taxpayers over $1million per year income. While I agree with Kennedy as regards the less-than-desirable outcome of addressing the health-care crisis through taxing those who purchase insurance, I admit that I also admire your guts in complaining about the Dems' "tax programs". If there is any capital offence in tax programs, it is entirely on the side of the Repugs!
I am outraged by the current fiscal policy (and have been for the past 6 years), but I'm trying to point out that any plan to insure the whole population of the US will require a change to the tax code. Kennedy is being disengenous to bring up the tax code in this case, when he knows good and well that any plan for universal health care will require changes to the tax code or result in even bigger deficits. Prove that point wrong, Mr. ConleyTGwinn.
So we're solving the problem
of Americans without health car coverage by by taxing those who get it through their employers, who have been complaining that providing health coverage for workers is placing a financial burden on them? And those workers with expensive plans will be encouraged to switch to more modest/less expensive plan (read: less coverage)?
How does workers carrying insurance that covers less help? And how does that help the 47 million Americans who do not have health insurance?
Sounds like more " make an announcement that sounds like we're addressing the problem while proposing a solution that does absolutely nothing to solve the problem, and makes more money for GOP donors " crapola from Bush to me.
I agree that Bush's plan is pretty useless. And yes, I despise the man.
However, his little plan probably would have the effect of prodding people away from "Cadillac Plans" that may drive up healthcare costs. I mean, come on, a single person paying in excess of $7,500 a year for healthcare? there is no reason that a single person can't get decent health coverage for $625 a month ($7,500/12). Likewise a family for $1,250 a month ($15,000/12).
So, it seems to me, all people with "reasonable" plans will receive a tax break (i.e. most middle class folks will receive a tax break).
Now, of course, Bush's plan is fairly useless to those 48 million who don't have health coverage. The bottom line is, sadly, he wants to divert and distract from the real issue, because he hasn't the balls to deal with the real problem.
$15,000 a year is a full year's salary for most workers around here. Where will we be able to get the $650 a month for health care alone while trying to pay our rent and feed ourselves?
The US can blow hundreds of billions annually for war crimes and whimsical programs, but for most Americans, the street is just a few pay checks away and health care a total luxury. We need universal health care desperately. Far more than we need a new weapons system or another corporate subsidy.
The GOP finally finds a tax increase they love, one that is targetted to Union members. Show of hands all those who are suprised. Solving the health care problem isnt even the goal here. Which is why it wont do anything worth mentioning toward THAT goal. No, more Bush attacks on Unions, is the goal. Punish those who went without pay increases to GET these health benifits. I would be willing to have my taxes raise for universal healthcare.
Anybody remember George H. W.'s "Read My Lips - NO NEW TAXES"?Guess its true: the apple never falls far from the tree . . .rofl
Morrell obviously had no clue what the proposal contained, but assumed that it must be favored by democrats since it will raise taxes.
Nice to see Bush being consistent - increase the tax burden for the middle class, while making sure that the top earners aren't affected.
I still see "Bush/Cheney 2004" stickers on some cars. I wonder what kind of brain one must have to still be proud of the fact that one voted for that ticket.
thats exactly what he's doing is building protection for high income earners and ensuring that working class folks pay the lions share.
Repubs never met a regressive tax they didnt like.
Reagan's tax breaks for the wealthy were paid for by the poor...and this is more of the same thinking.
Why not tax ppl who purchase the golden insurance plans instead of ppl who work to get them?
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said he questioned "why the president thinks the way to solve this problem is through the tax code."
This has to be a joke. I don't believe Kennedy said this.
Of course you don't believe it, LH.
You've had it pounded into you that Republicans lower taxes and Dems raise them at every opportunity .
I'm sure you're still shocked every time Repubs take away freedoms and expand government.
Funny when reality slides into conventional wizzdumb, eh?
Huntington, it's about mindless fealty to the proscribed narrative.
As you point out, it is a cast-iron certainty that the GOP are GREAT on national defense, on the economy, and are hell on taxes. That's the narrative, and NO amount of evidence and proof that the OPPOSITE is true will deter these mindless followers of the narrative to reconsider.
So, Kennedy ONLY wants to increase taxes, and leave the nation defenseless. Bush, on the other hand, ONLY wants to ease taxes on everybody, and keep the nation strongly defended. The FACT that Bush's reign has ballooned the Government's size and intrusion into our lives, the FACT that the Middle Class has lost tremendous ground on his watch while the wealthy prosper, the FACT that his bogus war has made every American LESS safe, the FACT that he has mushroomed the DEBT of every American, the FACT that he represents secretive and corrupt government instead of open and accountable government ... all this flies in the face of the proscribed narrative.
Alas, though, there are those who cannot function in the REAL world ... they are mind-controlled into parroting the GOP talking points which paint a rhetorical picture of pure fantasy. Do not attempt to reason or inform these rightwingers ... those who base their every comment NOT on events as they unfold and what those facts show, but instead operate from the fantasy "baseline" that is wired directly to their knees. "Kennedy" automatically jerks those knees to "taxes raised", to "Massachusetts Liberal", and then to "Chappaquiddick". That's the extent of the rightwinger's "debate" ability. FACTS on any issue cannot intrude.
"Funny when reality slides into conventional wizzdumb, eh?"
Reality is such an alien and threatening concept in the GOP that there is a move afoot to ban it along with human cloning and gay marriage.
Well, I never thought I would like anything that man proposed.
But according to USA Today the average cost of insurance premiums for a family in 2004 was $9,086 [link] Now I know what we pay in premiums for a family of 3 and there's no way we could afford to pay 15K per year, so it seems on the face of it to be a generous plan.
But as they say, the devil is in the details, and so I have a few questions.
If I pay x amount, and my employer pays y amount, will they calculate my premiums as x + y? Is he proposing to tax me on the employer (y) portion (if it exceeds 15k?) This is currently a form of unreported income. If we then pay tax on that portion will the employer still be allowed to claim it as a cost of doing business? If so does that mean they'll pay a tax on it too?
If this a a new tax, then how much is it going to cost us to manage it. With the codes as complicated as they already are we the taxpayer will pay for more bookkeeping by the government, and in fees to our tax consultants.
Finally, how does this work to bring down the out-of-control cost of health care we have today? In other words would this plan help? Or would it simply add another layer of smoke to cover the obscene profits and inefficiency?
Oh you can bet your employers contribution will be added. This is directed at Union members who negotiated very good health care plans.
Because I had a triple bypass 7 years ago and then lost my job, I pay about 15,000 per year for single coverage, so Bush is gonna tax me on top of the foolishly high coverage charges.
Dream on.
I wonder what it will take for the politicians of this country to stop paying lip service to REAL health care insurance reform? Maybe if they would have to get private non-group insurance? I imagine a lot of them aren't in the greatest shape, so I think they'd pay quite a bit.
Seriously, this issue is to me the single greatest problem this country is facing. Bigger than Iraq, for sure, even though Iraq is what concerns people the most apparently.
It is a shame and a disgrace that in America today, 40+ million people are without health care insurance, and that those of us who do have it are paying enormous (and yet increasing) amounts for it. It has been shown before that the current private system is extremely inefficient, and has overhead administrative costs that are bigger than virtually any other country, and I think any of the governmental health care plans (like the VA health care). All the politicians of different stripes are complaining about it, but nobody is willing to do anything to the fundamental issue. Even in Massachusetts and now in California, they aren't addressing the real cause of the problem - that the insurance is FOR PROFIT, and is a system that deliberately will benefit those who are healthy, and disadvantage those who need it the most.
I have absolutely no issue with the health CARE in this country. It is very good. But the health care INSURANCE costs are out of control, and without relation to the care - the care could be had at the same quality even with a significant change in the insurance system, and significantly reduced costs for the population.
That the government let private interests be the main provider of health care insurance, and that they are unwilling to let government compete directly with these private interests, is one of the greatest mistakes this country ever made. Few people seem willing to privatize two of the most important functions of government, police and military, but many are willing to keep allowing the privatization of health care insurance, something the government is much more equipped to handle with regards to costs and coverage, and something that, like the police and military, every citizen will use sooner or later, and that every citizen will not be able to fund themselves, and more importantly, that IMO every citizen should be entitled to.
I don't like the "entitlement mentality", but if there is ANYTHING that everyone is entitled to in this day and age, it should be basic care when they are ill or injured. It's a shame that we in our day and age still can't provide this at a reasonable cost to every member of the American society,
And last but not least, I firmly believe that this would SIGNIFICANTLY increase the mobility in the labor market and help relieve stress in our society - losing health coverage is to many one of the worst things that could happen. If people would know that they would have health insurance no matter if they changed jobs, and that their family would still have it, I think this would be a great boon to many corporations.
Phew.
Fawlty -
You just hit the core issue with regards to your comments on this thread.
You mentioned "PROFIT"
Why can't we have a discussion to evaluate whether for-profit healthcare is the best system to ensure that everyone who needs some kind of healthcare coverage gets it?
Is it taboo to even suggest that making money off of people living and dying is bad?
(I for one totally believe it is awful!)
I don't care whether its the democrats or republicans on this issue. As long as they're playing along with the healthcare and pharmaseutical industries to ensure that they keep their fat profits - we all lose as citizens and taxpayers in this country.
Yeah, I know i will be excoriated by those who are all about the business/corporations can do no wrong mindset..
Spin - I agree with you. Since when should healthcare be a privilege for those that can afford versus a right for all? A country is judged by how it takes care of those that are less fortunate. Under our present system, it costs more to take of our indigent population than it would for them to have basic coverage. We spend a higher percentage of our GDP on healthcare than those country with socialized medicine and they are far more efficient too. Since when should somebody's health be based upon a profit mind-set? There is something fundamentally wrong with that.If somebody with the means wants to purchase "golden" plans, then that should be their perogative. But, everybody else should have access to at least basic care. It'll save everybody money in the long run.
Tap dancing in a conflagration
Before deciding how to apply cost relief for the insured, we must first address the fact that there are tens of millions of Americans without health insurance. Cost relief, to them, is as useless as home owner's insurance for the homeless. Until the US government recognizes that health care is an inalienable right, this entire discussing is just tap dancing in a burning building, a needless distraction from the real problem.
When I heard about Bubble Boys new health care tax plan all I could think was WTF!!! This man & his lackies are so out of touch with reality! People who don't have insurance are in that situation because of 1 of 2 reasons, they can't afford it or they can't get it because no insurer will cover them. It really is that simple. If you can't afford the insurance an extra tax break is not going to help & it does absolutely nothing to address the fact that people who've had any type of health problem (allergies & sinus problems will even disqualify most people for privately purchased insurance). I'm still not clear on how he's wanting to tax people on their employer paid insurance but it sounds pretty shady, it sounds like his social security plan which went over like a lead balloon.
Another area that I doubt will addressed in the health care debate is the under insured. There are lots of people who have insurance but are greatly under insured. Lastly my big pet peev right now is something that my husband & I are going through. We have decent employer paid health insurance through my husbands company. Well the co. switches insurance policies almost every year to get better deals. We've been going through fertility testing and treatment for a few years now. The old insurance which we had up unitl April 2006 covered a lot of these expenses but the current insurance coverage does not. Hey I can understand this, we live in Ohio & it's not required for insurance to cover it. What really infuriates me though is that the treatments & tests that we are going through are charged to us anywhere from 4 to 6 times what our old insurance company had to pay because they were able to negotiate lower prices with the providers (trust me this doesn't work out so well for an individual!). Blood tests that cost our old insurance company around $20 costs us over $100, almost everything is 4 to 5 times more for the same work done before, that's ridiculous!!! I had a major surgery in November 2005 & the bills before the insurance adjustments were over $13,000 (that's what we would have had to pay if we didn't have insurance coverage on it) but the insurance co. only shelled out a little over $3000, not bad since my husbands employer pays over $7000 a year for our coverage & that was the first time that either of us had had any type of surgery or anything after years of coverage! These insurance companies are making a fortune & neither political party will do anything to remedy the health care system because they're both in bed with the industry & that's just not right. I apologize for the long rant but I do feel somewhat better & I'm sure that there's a lot of you out there that can relate to this!!
I understand completely. I had some pains in my side a few years back. I was terrified it might be appendictis. The fear was not from the pain or the possibility of illness, it was that I would have to pay over $5000 for the operation, which would have ruined me financially. Did you know that 50% of the bankruptcies in the US are because of medical bills?
The fact our politicians refuse to give us the same kind of universal health coverage found in Canada or Europe is just proof that they don't give a tinker's damn about the People at all. They would rather we died penniless and in pain than use our taxdollars to alleviate our condition. They're too busy spending all our money on themselves and their cronies.
In 1789, a revolution started when someone said the to starving masses "Let them eat cake." I forsee a new revolution one day when someone says "Let them go see a doctor."
I totally agree with your "let them see a doctor" comment. Congress has an excellent health insurance plan & it seems that they just take for granted that everyone has the equivalent! I don't know anyone who is asking for a free ride when it comes to health insurance but it seems like we should be given a level playing field with the parasitic insurance industry! I don't know how it is in the rest of the country but here in Ohio people stay at jobs that they hate just to keep their insurance & with all of the layoffs that we've seen in the last few years people fear losing their insurance MORE than their jobs! That's another thing that bothers me, employers have way to much pull over their employees with health care, they know that they can treat people like crap because they need the insurance, especially if they have kids. Even under a group plan the coverage for a husband, wife & 2 kids can easily run $1000 a month! Oh, and don't even get me going on Bush's health savings accounts that he was touting awhile ago!!
This is why I vote Green. I watch the Democrats and Republicans raise their salaries and perks time and time again as the working class gets poorer and poorer. All those hundreds of billions just being wasted while we have tens of millions of families that will be destroyed financially if Dad or Mom get sick.
My mom fell and twisted her knee rather badly today. She has no insurance. The emergency room bill will probably be a month's wages. Thank you, corporate America, thank you for leeching off the sick and injured like a monstrous parasite.
MR. MORRELL PLEASE READ THE PROPOSAL AGAIN AND THIS
PAY ATTENTION