Couric repeated administration spin on health care plan: Uninsured will be able to buy coverage
On the January 25 edition of the CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric echoed the Bush administration claim that its proposed "tax break" would "help" the uninsured "buy" health insurance, without noting that the plan would reportedly do little to help many of those who currently lack health insurance. In fact, even the Bush administration has reportedly stated that the tax deduction would help only an estimated 3 million to 5 million of those currently uninsured to be able to purchase health insurance, likely leaving more than 40 million people without insurance.
According to the White House's fact sheet on the proposal: "Under The President's Proposal, Families With Health Insurance Will Not Pay Income Or Payroll Taxes On The First $15,000 In Compensation And Singles Will Not Pay Income Or Payroll Taxes On The First $7,500." Along with the creation of this tax deduction, employer provided health insurance would then be taxed as income.
Couric stated that "those without health coverage would get a tax break to help them buy it." But, according to the administration's own estimates, the income and payroll tax deductions would appear to cause only a small fraction of the uninsured to obtain health insurance. The Bush administration estimates that the tax deduction would help "upwards of 3 million or more" of those currently uninsured to obtain insurance. According to the most recent Census Bureau statistics, approximately 46.5 million people are uninsured. In addition, the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund, which describes itself as a private research "foundation that aims to promote a high performing health care system," reported that "[a]bout 95 percent of the uninsured would not benefit substantially from the tax deductions" because "more than 55 percent of the uninsured have such low incomes that they pay no taxes, while another 40 percent are in the 10 to 15 percent tax bracket."
As Media Matters for America has noted, The Washington Post pointed out on January 25 that tax deductions are worth more to the affluent: "Wealthier families who benefit from the deduction would get a much greater value than less-affluent families. The $15,000 deduction would be worth $5,250 to a family taxed at 35 percent but only $1,500 to one taxed in the 10 percent bracket."
From the January 25 edition of the CBS Evening News:
COURIC: President Bush was in Missouri today, talking up the health insurance plan he laid out in his State of the Union speech. The president wants to even the playing field for those who get insurance through work and those who don't. Under his plan, people with generous health coverage provided by their employers would be taxed on some of those benefits, while those without health coverage would get a tax break to help them buy it.
While his plan is debated in Washington, many states are trying their own approach, and Massachusetts is leading the pack.
Couric doesn't know what she's reading. She's purely ornamental.
Ding ding ding
We have a winner.
Sadly I get the same feeling when I watch her, she is not an intellectual.
You watch Couric and SHE is the one who's not an intellectual? I'm sorry but I almost fell out of my chair laughing. You MUST have better things to do with your time. Please tell me you do....please?
If so, aren't there some shinier ornaments? (Not that I particularly care...as female anchors go, I'm more the Lynne Russell type.)
Personally, I would agree. But, as they say... she has that 'girl next door' appeal.
I always thought Ann Curry was extremely hot.
She just reads what her corporate masters put in front of her face.
She hasn't got near enough knowledge to do anything else.
If she objects, she won't be able to get a job selling breakfast cereal.
How does this plan address healthcare costs and the fact that they keep rising at such a rapid pace?
I think that the Bush 'plan' is D.O.A. Did the administration pull this idea out of their butts the day before the SOTU?
I get the feeling their crimes against humanity take more than a day or so to concoct.
The chief benefit for Bushs proposed tax on HMOs is to alternatively give tax cuts to wealthy americans who purchase their own truly cadillac plans.
It penalizes working americans who enjoy an employer-provided HMO/PPO but don't pay taxes on that benefit.
Very simply put...it is a tax hike on middle class americans to pay for a tax cut for the wealthy elite. Reagan financed tax cuts on the poor, too. Typical GOP politics. And it can't pass Congress.
The major problem with the Bush plan is that he penalizes people with good company paid health insurance by taxing them. Drop the silly taxing idea and you have a starting point to begin addressing the issue. Personally I believe that a voucher plan coupled with a fail safe system for the uninsurable is the way to go. Not only would it cover all people, but it would do so in a market efficient way.
She challenges white house propaganda like a net challenges the rain and no details are too important to leave out. A 7000 "tax break" won't effect the poor or middle class, HELLO. You have to be in that TAX BRACKET, to pay that FK'N much in the first place. cerick.
The problem is her "newscast" is too scripted and predictable.
Always a drug story, always a "soccer mom" story, and then the obligatory "HERO" story. No wonder she doesn't have time for the FACTS and if the U.S. military wants Logan the embed to spread some "giving Iraq kids soccer balls" story to advance this "winning the hearts and minds" propaganda, CBS is very willing to participate .
The amazing part is that the media will be able to convince so many people that they wont be affected by that break at $7,500. And I mean people who WOULD be affected.
Several years ago when the subject of National health care was in the news , I was working (completely uninsured) sort of as an independent contractor, as were my co-workers.
Like me, these people had not gone to the doctor or dentist in years except in emergency situations. And most were opposed to a national system. Why? Because "you wouldn't even get to pick your doctor"
Me: "But you can't go to any doctor now. You have no insurance, and can't afford to pay medical bills.That's better than being offered a list or pool of doctors?"
them:"...you wouldn't even get to pick your doctor"
Sadly, such irony seems to be lost on most Conservatives, given their tendency toward black and white thinking. The frantic charge that government healthcare would leave medical decisions in the hands of bureaucrats is hilarious, yet it was sufficient to kill Hillary's healthcare before the public even got a look at it. For those conservatives who have health insurance, who do you think decides what is and isn't paid for? CORPORATE BUREAUCRATS!
Why not try a single payer national health plan? People who could afford it could choose to pay into the government insurance pool or choose their own private plan. Those who couldn't afford it or were rejected by insurance companies could receive basic coverage from the national plan. Doctors would still make all medical decisions, but the government would just have its own insurance policy for those who need it or want it. Seems simple enough to me, but we'll never see it; too many people are getting too rich on the present system.
HERE'S A SUGGESTION FOR THE CORPORATE MEDIA: let's compare the Bush, Romney and Schwarzeneggar healthcare plans with Hilary Clinton's or Howard Dean's or with that universal healthcare plan which has been in place in Israel sine 1995?
Just another ploy by this administration - a way to eventually do away with employer funded health insurance. What good is a $15,000 tax deduction if you're not making enough money to pay taxes? Those who can't afford insurance now still won't be able to afford health insurance, and those with employer funded insurance will end up getting screwed. Everything this administration does is aimed at helping big business. If they spend enough money on the never ending war they can probably do away with all social programs. This country needs universal health care for everyone!
seems like there is a similar theme in all the posts ... KC does what she has been told, 'company lines' don't vary over time.... Moyers is making his return to TV, there's LINK and Free Speech networks, this may mean a chnage from cable to dish.... so what might you folks think if all who read this made the switch ????? well when they called me I told them, "I gave up propagada when TASS and PRAVDA went private..." seems the young lady thought I was speaking about a Meryl Streep movie ..... DOING things (differently) is the ONLY way change 'happens' ---- PUT UP, DO IT and let's regain our DEMOCRACY and in doing put an end to this DEMONocracy ..... can I hear it from the bobble heads ??? PEACE
In 2002, the US Census Bureau had reported that 15.2% of 43.6 million Americans in the US do not have health insurance. Many of these uninsured unpaid claims are absorbed by our healthcare system that is passed on to us in part due to rising costs.
We believe that healthcare is not a right of citizenship but it should be a social requirement much like homeowner and auto insurance plans are today. Granted, not all Americans can afford to purchase fully insured health plans, but we can make our healthcare system more affordable. Requiring employers to offer a substandard insurance product could help bridge this gap for the uninsured either by way of an employment tax or thru a tax savings program.
Maryland legistators have come up with an idea that says if you do not offer a group medical plan to your employees (of over 11,000 in group size) then a tax of 15% of employer gross wages would go to help each state to pay for basic services to those who are without.
For example; presently for one employee whose group's average age is 42, the cost for an individual is now about $274.00 and about $900 for a family policy. These plans pay about 80-100% of all medical claims. These plans cover your costs up to two million dollars should you ever need it. The cost for this type of standard coverage comes out to about 30% of gross minimum wages. It is no wonder why a young healthy person would choose not to incur this additional expense.
By offering the employer and the employee an additional tax incentive, an employee could elect to purchase one of the newer Mini Medical plans from his employer for less than 9% of their gross earnings. With the tax saving offset, the employee would not notice a net cost difference in their pay unless they are paid by 1099. This plan would offer an affordable insurance plan for all income levels. These plans start from $49 to $84 per person per month. Employers could continue to offer employer contributions to one of three plans, Mini Med, HMO/PPO, or the new and improved H.S.A plans.
This would provide minimum wage workers another choice to pay into a system that they could utilize in the future.
For more information on Mini Medical plans visit our website at: www.keybenefits.us
Kenneth Richter
Key Benefit Services
This is just another bulls##t bush (lowercase intentional) giveaway to the rich. Nobody mentions that this plan calls for a tax DEDUCTION, not a tax CREDIT. The poor who currently have NO insurance would FIRST have to BUY insurance (which they obviously CANNOT afford) in order to claim tha tax DECUCTION which would only a small percentage of what they paid for their premiums. If they don't even pay enough taxes to claim this deduction, what the hell good is it anyway? This is simply another CON JOB designed to give a tax break to the wealthiest people, the ones who need it the least.