Hume echoed Bush's reference to "gold-plated" health plans
During Fox News' post-speech coverage of the State of the Union address on January 23, Fox News Washington bureau managing editor Brit Hume used the phrase "gold-plated policies" to refer to those employer-provided health insurance policies that would be taxed under President Bush's new health care proposal, but he did not identify it as the phrase Bush used as well during his weekly radio address to characterize those plans.
In his January 20 radio address, Bush described his new proposal:
BUSH: One of the most promising ways to make private health insurance more affordable is by reforming the Federal tax code. Today, the tax code unfairly penalizes people who do not get health insurance through their job. It unwisely encourages workers to choose overly expensive, gold-plated plans. The result is that insurance premiums rise, and many Americans cannot afford the coverage they need.
We need to fix these problems, and one way to do so is to treat health insurance more like home ownership. The current tax code encourages home ownership by allowing you to deduct the interest on your mortgage from your taxes. We can reform the tax code, so that it provides a similar incentive for you to buy health insurance. So in my State of the Union Address next Tuesday, I will propose a tax reform designed to help make basic private health insurance more affordable -- whether you get it through your job or on your own.
As Media Matters for America noted, Bush's plan has already drawn opposition from congressional Democrats who claim it will raise taxes for middle-class workers. Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-NY), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, called Bush's proposal "a bad policy," adding, "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 his January 22 column (subscription required), New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote that Bush is proposing "a tax increase" on "workers who, he thinks, have too much health insurance" -- those with the so-called "gold-plated policies." According to Krugman, this term is misleading:
While proposing this high-end tax break, Mr. Bush is also proposing a tax increase -- not on the wealthy, but on workers who, he thinks, have too much health insurance. The tax code, he said, ''unwisely encourages workers to choose overly expensive, gold-plated plans. The result is that insurance premiums rise, and many Americans cannot afford the coverage they need.''
Again, wow. No economic analysis I'm aware of says that when Peter chooses a good health plan, he raises Paul's premiums. And look at the condescension. Will all those who think they have ''gold plated'' health coverage please raise their hands?
According to press reports, the actual plan is to penalize workers with relatively generous insurance coverage. Just to be clear, we're not talking about the wealthy; we're talking about ordinary workers who have managed to negotiate better-than-average health plans.
From Fox News' post-speech coverage of the State of the Union address on January 23:
MORTON M. KONDRACKE (Roll Call executive editor): Every Democratic official that I've heard quoted -- or every member of Congress -- has been very negative about this idea. [Rep.] Pete Stark [D-CA], who's the chairman of the House Ways and Means subcommittee that does health care, said that it's DOA -- dead on arrival.
HUME: Yeah. He said that he won't even hold hearings on it.
KONDRACKE: Right.
HUME: And [Sen.] Harry Reid [D-NV], the Senate majority leader, has been critical of it. And practically across the board it's been dismissed as a -- as something that helps people who have insurance, punishes some people who have insurance --
HUME: Who have gold-plated policies.
KONDRACKE: Exactly. And, well, that includes union members, who are a major constituency of the Democrats.
The Republicans have now declared war on the meagre health care coverage of the working class. I really don't think they will be happy until we're reduced to living in cardboard boxes outside the factories, with life expectancies in the low 30's, just so they can drive by in their limousines and laugh at us. These people are evil...pure evil.
Yet one more attack on Unions and middle class workers.
Let's stop and think about this. Will tax breaks for buying your own policy help the poor, who can't afford insurance to begin with? NO. Will it help people who can't buy insurance at all because of pre-existing conditions? NO.
It will help the self-employed who have to buy their own insurance, which is a good thing. Otherwise, I don't see it doing anything to solve this country's healthcare crisis. Somebody needs to sit Puddinhead George down and tell him the awful truth...not every problem can be fixed with TAX CUTS!
Exactly. And, well, that includes union members, who are a major constituency of the Democrats. freakin' commies! how dare they band together to make life better for themselves...they must be 're-educated'.
sad to say...i think i am not smart enough to use this preview feature from MMFA...maybe i am the one who needs to be 're educated'...i hate when that happens!
"not every problem can be fixed with TAX CUTS!"
-----
If the only tool one has is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
Unfortunately, W's policies consist of deciding exactly which wrench is the best one to use to drive in that nail.
Perhaps, but conversely not every problem can be fixed by throwing more money at it. It usually just increases it's ineffectiveness and bureacracy while it decreases it's accountability and efficiency.
we're not even starting down the road to simple solutions...
BILLIONS could be saved every year if we simply mandated a single standard insurance form.
Billions more could be saved annually if we simply opened accessible, affordable health clincs for people that were open during hours they could get to: evenings and weekends. Otherwise, people are forced into emergency rooms, with the concomittant costs for minor ailments.
I have to mention the astounding arrogance of a man who will oin one breath tout the US healthcare system as the worlds best then exocoriate workers who actually dare to take advantage of this system as wanting "gold-plated coverage".
Finally, what the heck does he think will happen if this shell game actually causes more people to get cheaper health-care plans?
Insurance company profits go down, rates go up to compensate.
What about the various costs from different Dr. for the same or similar treatment in a particular city or zip code?
Dr A. charges $1000 dollars for procedure X
Dr. B charges $5000 dollars for the same procedure.
Market forces cannot control the cost of health care as the knowledge needed to make a choice by cost is limited to non-existent upfront. Providers have the upper hand in this situation and its counter to the standard "free" market idea.
Deny that SOB, and any relatives, any coverage or treatment, ever (I mean both Hume and Bungle).
The unions are not the cause of the problems with health coverage - they are the response of the working class to truly "gold-plated" coverages of wealth and government positions - both now allied to reduce the liveability of working, and punish those unfortunate enough to be unable to find work.
I give Fox a lot of credit,
They seem to be covering the President's a$$ on the fly these days. I can't imagine how tough that must be.
As far as I have heard this Healthcare proposal is DOA.
"They seem to be covering the President's a$$ on the fly these days.
-----
That says to me that W has his pants on backwards.
I'm in a union with a gold plated plan (whatever that is) and my wife works somewhere else (non-union). Guess what? Both our plans are very much alike and we have health insurance, that's the important part that seems to be lost on this President.
I'm not in a union, but I do have healthcare. Gold Plated? I think not. My wife had a baby this year and somehow we didn't hit the deductable. What's more, our health plan is no longer used by the major hospital in our community - and I work for the largest employeer in the county. Someone tell me again how great employer based insurance is??
I am thinking that the President has a pretty gold plated policy himself. I bet his kids are covered as well and I am also thinking the word 'Kaiser' never appears on any of his policies.
Bush gets his health care for FREE....guess who pays for it? Yep, you and I.
What do we do about Fox News hiring commentators with "lead-plated" skulls, which has the net effect of lowering the level of discourse about important policy issues?
Gold Plated. Show of hands everyone that thinks their health care is just too much, more than they will ever need. Even if it were true, even if I were paying too much for my health care, what is the evidence this is causing the price to rise for someone else? Of course he means it is too good for us mere workers. I bet he doesnt think any healthcare plan is too much for His family. The man is without decency
An example.
Coverage on my health care plan this year went up. Way up. Now last year (2006) I was paying a pretty low premium for health care insurance. It was about $45/month. Not too shabby. This year, my costs have gone way up, I now pay $150/month. From December of 2006 to January 2007 by costs went up 3 times what I was paying before, single coverage. Oh, and I went to see a doc once last year. One time. Didn't get any prescriptions. Yet, my costs increased 3 fold. Yep, I'm so happy with my "gold plated" coverage and all.
I feel your pain, Mag. I'm self-employed and pay $1,054 / month for a family of 3. I also get to pay Socialist Security twice (12.5%) because I have the audacity to be self-employed. I posted this earlier but I guess the folks at MM thought it unworthy of discussion and deleated it.
So... you want to pay more taxes in ADDITION to that? Or what's your point, I don't get it.
Bah, the post I replied to was deleted.
What is the President's plan?
After listening to the State of the Union, I'm not sure anyone really understands what the President has in mind. For example, I heard NPR repeating the same bit about increasing taxes on those with the best coverage in order to pay for the tax cuts on lower paid workers. However, since some "excess" benefits are already included in income, it's actually possible some highly compensated employees would receive a tax cut.
Another concern I have is that, in the State of the Union, Bush mentioned making the $15,000 tax deduction exempt from payroll taxes. If you look at the math on the example he provided - $4500 savings for a family earning $60,000 - it's clear that a portion of that savings comes from FICA and Medicare. (I thought we had a crisis with those...but that's another topic.) My question here is would the payroll tax exemption apply to self-employed or for all workers? If the latter, then a portion of that $4500 in tax savings will actually go to the employer, not the employee.
My bottom line...watch the details carefully on this plan. The reality and the rhetoric may be little related.
I've read quite a bit about it this morning and the consensus seems to be that... everything's really unclear, except that 1) those who are in a low-paying job without health care benefits will not get much of a tax credit, and 2) those who have good coverage right now but earn a "middle class" income might either get taxed more or don't get any benefits from this at all.
I don't know the details of the President's example above, and it seems like there are many factors that would have to be considered.
Bottom line: it seems to be creating an enormous bureaucracy to shuffle money around, increasing the cost of the system even more, while doing very little about helping the uninsured. Big Government Bush style as usual, in other words.
CD is correct, watch the details closely as this moves through the legislative process (if it even sees the light of day). When bills are passed, rules are written and bureacracies are formed, the end result very seldom resembles the inital thought. I heard Mark Hatfield (author of the ESA) several years ago comment that the final result of that Act did not resemble his original intent. This one needs to be watched closely.
People on the working end of the economic spectrum can't afford health care not only because premiums are too high... they barely make enough money to get by to begin with. Even assuming that Bush's plan MIGHT reduce health care premiums where does it prove that the people who are presently deprived of health care coverage will then be able to afford it? Bush apparently takes the Rush Limbaugh approach that health care is a luxury... and if you can't afford it, too bad. Because, obviously, affordable health care has NOT been a great priority with this president... other than in campaign-style rhetoric, that is. Pardon my "liberal" pontification but in the richest nation on the planet that holds itself out as the most humane of civilizations we still can't make health care affordable for everyone? A sad commentary on lack of leadership...
It just shows we're in the same situation the French peasantry found themselves in in 1789. The king and his court were busy wasting all the taxes on wars and court extravagances and handouts to lazy aristocrats while demanding the peasants pay more and more to fund it all. It's 2007 and the Class War continues.
It's clear to me now..
Bush & Co. won't be happy until all "gold plated" plans have been replaced by "Gold Bond Medicated Powder and Lotion" plans.
I can now sleep at night
You lefty's won't be happy until we have gold plated universal health care. GW proposes a plan to get more people insured, but that's not good enough for you guys. Until every last dime is covered by the Govt., you continue to whine.
Thank you all very much for continuing to raise my taxes.
No wonder I vote R.
Our pleasure. After all, the Dems will be forced again to raise taxes to pay for Bush II's folly in Iraq. Who is supposed to pay for that war?
Yes, let's see a comparison of the costs of the Iraq war vs. the costs of providing better health care coverage for Americans. I wonder which is cheaper? I wonder which would be supported by more Americans?
I bet Bill Frist and all of his HMO cronies were eatin' that up.
Marie Antionette lost her head for suggesting starving folks eat cake. Now W's suggesting that we give-up our gold-plated healthcare. Who is he fooling, other than the FOX News crowd?
By Georgie Boy's logic, the problem with the healthcare crisis in this country is that too many hard-working folks have too much healthcare.
Finally, so George will throw a tax-cut at the problem. Problem here is next time you go to get a basic healthcare insurance, guess what it's going to cost? Wanna bet the price jumps by $4500? Any takers?
"By Georgie Boy's logic, the problem with the healthcare crisis in this country is that too many hard-working folks have too much healthcare."
Wait... I'm confused. I thought health care was not affordable for everyone because of frivilous medical malpractice lawsuits driving up the costs of premiums. Aren't medical malpractice awards now subject to a cap on damages thanks to Bush? I thought that was going to solve the problem. Now it's the tax code? What's next, Georgie Boy, oppsition to the Patriot Act is driving up health care costs?
The problem is that there are too many sick people. Maybe we can come up with some sort of final solution....
Leave it to a Faulty Leftist to come up with that. Haven't you killed enough "undesirables" in the womb?
Apparently not - you made it out alive.
OK, that was mean, but with a response like that you deserve it.
Mean? maybe. Funny? Yes.
Yeah, Left. Murdering the unborn is "funny"...
This whole thing is nonsense from top to bottom: there is fundamentally *no* legitimate insurance function where health care is concerned. The very concept of insurance only applies where there is some doubt as to whether something might occur. Where health care is concerned this does not apply: nine people out of nine have physical bodies. 100% of everybody need health care all, not some random chance part, of our lives.
The crew on an aircraft carrier don't have to present an insurance policy when they turn up at the ship's doctor. Insurance companies don't get cut in for 5% of the defence department's budget so that soldiers, airmen and Marines can get medical care. The whole thing has just nuthin' to do with insurance.
Exactly the same thing applies to the rest of us, crew on Spaceship Earth if you like. America's health care system is pretty good. The only problem is that insurance companies skim off about a third of every dollar pent on health care, and for what? For denying, not for supplying, health care to the rest of the people.
This would seem nonsensical, were it not that it is a cruel, vicious, and very very expensive hoax on the American people.
The answer is exactly as simple as it looks: a Canadian-style Single Payer health care payment system.
You got it exactly right. "Insurance" implies that most likely, you will not need that service, and only in rare cases will you need it.
Health care will be used by everyone, whether they are sick or healthy. It's a fundamentally flawed concept that basic general care needs insurance.
How dare people choose their own insurance plan!
Gold PLated Health plans? As if we are out there just picking the most expensive plan just to stick it to our employers. Like we just wanna have the Ferrari of health plans just because we can. People choose the best plan they can (which may be the most expensive) because it provdes the best coverage and costs less all around. Better coverage means lower out of pocket costs for co-pays and/or deductibles, lower charges for hospital stays. Better coverage also means we can choose a doctor who is close to our home who is competent...things like that...things that I'm sure the President and everyone at Faux News has. How arrogant is he to say we just pick some unnecessary expensive plans for the fun of it?