Just a 1 percent VAT on all goods and services in the economy would raise $63 billion for Congress to spend each year. Some suggest the VAT rate should be set as high as 20 percent. At that rate, a VAT that covers all goods and services in the economy – including food, clothing, housing, and health care – would collect an additional $1,260 billion a year and cost every U.S. household $10,680 annually.
Even if Congress passes a VAT that has a rate of just a few percentage points, it would likely lead to higher rates in the future. Evidence from other countries that already have VATs show once it is on the books the rate tends to rise over time.
Ahem:
Yet another campaign promise broken.
Moving on...remember the Doctors for Obama gathering at the White House we talked about yesterday? Aside from the obvious bias involved, it gets even better:
From Obama’s speech on health care:
Thank you so much. Thank you, guys. Thank you. Please, have a seat on this spectacular day here in the Rose Garden. I want to welcome all the doctors who gave joined us today at the White House. . . . I am thrilled to have all of you here today and you look very spiffy in your coats. (Laughter.)
Indeed, as DRJ noted yesterday: “It was an impressive event, in part because the doctors all wore their white coats.”
Some of which were handed out by the White House.
Don't be fooled by any claim that government control has been taken out of this thing. All you have to do is read between the lines a bit, like with this statement by Nancy Pelosi, and the accompanying explanation by Ace of Spades:
If you understand that ObamaKennedyDeathCare is not at all about providing health care to Americans, but instead is about gaining control over as many Americans as possible, then the ultimate conclusion is not hard to discern: no matter what they do, they will seek to achieve government control. This particular step may just lay the foundation, but the eventual outcome will be government control. There is no alternative.She wants to consider (that means, she wants to impose) a Value Added Tax to every good or service sold in America. However, she claims this will not increase the prices of goods.
How can she make such a claim?
Watch the reasoning:
"I would say, Put everything on the table and subject it to the scrutiny that it deserves," Pelosi told Rose when asked if the VAT has any appeal to her.The VAT is a tax on manufacturers at each stage of production on the amount of value an additional producer adds to a product.
Pelosi argued that the VAT would level the playing field between U.S. and foreign manufacturers, the latter of which do not have pension and healthcare costs included in the price of their goods because their governments provide those services, financed by similar taxes.
"They get a tax off of that and they use that money to pay the healthcare for their own workers," Pelosi said, using the example of auto manufacturers. "So their cars coming into our country don't have a healthcare component cost.
"Somewhere along the way, a value-added tax plays into this. Of course, we want to take down the healthcare cost, that's one part of it," the Speaker added. "But in the scheme of things, I think it's fair look at a value- added tax as well."
Got that? American products currently include in their cost the cost of providing health insurance for the workers making the products.
This puts them at a competitive disadvantage with foreign products, she asserts, where health insurance is provided by the government and thus not included in the price of a product.
So: If we merely impose a Value Added Tax on everything, we can use that money to pay for health insurance for everyone, and companies will not have to pay for health insurance. It will be provided by the government, paid for through the VAT.
Assumption not-well-hidden in that: All US companies will stop paying for employee insurance and instead let the government provide it.
That assumption is needed for her claim. For, if any company continues providing health insurance, their prices will go up -- as they are paying double for health insurance, once directly for their own employees, twice indirectly to cover everyone else through the VAT -- and thus would be a competitive disadvantage against all other US companies (and foreign companies) relying on government-provided insurance, and not paying for insurance out of their own pockets.
Pelosi assumes, then, that all US companies will drop private employee coverage like a bad habit and let everyone go on the government system, rather than bankrupting themselves to pay double health care costs.
And she's right in that assumption.
But then: Whatever shall we make of Barack Obama's oft-repeated claim, "Let me be clear: If you have insurance, you get to keep your insurance"?
But it can't be done outright because the vast majority of the American people don't want it. Furthermore, 59% of the American people say they are concerned about tax increases being used to fund this takeover:
I'll bet you any amount of money that if a Republican brings up an amendment to do precisely this, the Democrat majority will kill it based on some procedural excuse.Fifty-nine percent (59%) of U.S. voters favor putting a provision in the health care reform plan that would prohibit any new taxes, fees or penalties on families who make less than $250,000 a year.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 22% of voters oppose such a provision. Nineteen percent (19%) are not sure.
During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama said, “No family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” But 72% of voters say it is at least somewhat likely that taxes will be increased on those earning less than $250,000 during President Obama’s time in office. Fifty-two percent (52%) say it is very likely.
Only 20% say such a tax increase is not likely.
By the way, Medicare is often used by the Left as a shining example of what government can do for a medical system. They also claim there will be no denials of coverage. The thing is...Medicare is currently the largest denier of claims in the country:
According to AMA’s National Health Insurance Report Card, Medicare denies 6.85 percent of its claims, higher than any private insurer (Aetna was second, denying 6.80 percent of its claims), and more than double any private insurer’s average.Actually, it's not. The AMA is a political body that supposedly represents medical professionals, but actually represents its own political interests instead.The Obama administration repeats ad nauseum that we need a government option to “keep insurance companies honest” and to make sure they don’t deny anyone coverage. Well what does one say about the fact that Medicare denies more claims than private insurers?
President Obama has promised that if we like our health insurance we can keep it. But will those who are forced into the public option–which has been estimated to be minimum of tens of millions of currently insured Americans in addition to those “46 million” currently uninsured–be satisfied with their care given that the government program Medicare’s denial of claims outranks any private insurer’s?
AMA is effectively endorsing a public plan that is the largest denier of claims. How the public option would provide health care to patients is hard to understand.
And what about the costs? We keep coming back to that question, don't we? Well, since they're trying to go the route of the vapor bill, we don't really know for sure. Based on best estimates, though, it could cost the average American family well over $10,000 per year (here, here, here).
No matter how you slice it, the costs of ObamaKennedyDeathCare are far too high.
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment