House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has signaled that House negotiators would be open to a compromise regarding the income tax increase required for the universal health care program. And that's a good sign. Pelosi said a proposed income tax increase on high-income Americans is "at the high end" and the rate could be reduced by "squeezing" more savings out of the health care system, Bloomberg News reported Thursday.
The House bill, which if passed would have to be reconciled with a pending Senate bill, represents the first volley in the revenue negotiations, and it served two purposes: 1) it shored-up the ranks of the House Democrats, who expected the bill to contain a substantive way to pay for health care by increasing taxes on upper-income Americans; and 2) it sent a signal to House Republicans that there will be no dubious revenue streams in the bill: those who benefited the most financially from the U.S. free enterprise system over the past decade will pay the most.
The House bill would be financed by a 5.4% surtax on couples with more than $1 million in income; a 1.5% tax on couples with incomes between $500,000-$1 million, and a 1% percent tax on incomes over $350,000.
Does a compromise loom?
Further, by signaling a possible compromise, Pelosi opens the door to increased support from moderate House Dems, and perhaps even a few House Republicans (But don't hold your breath on that last part of the health care reform coalition). It will also ultimately make reconciliation with a potential Senate universal health care bill that much easier. The Senate bill will likely look more toward cuts in existing government health payments, adding a tax on health care coverage, instituting fees on the health insurance industry, and a lower income tax increase on higher-income Americans, to pay for universal health care.
In sum, Pelosi's stance signals that she's open to compromise, from a funding standpoint, to ensure the broadest coalition possible for universal health care, which is good news for public policy formation.
- -
Financial Editor Joseph Lazzaro is writing a book on the U.S. presidency and the U.S. economy.
Reid Hoffman: LinkedIn will go public (at some point)
Retailers can't wait for Black Friday, open Thursday
Tiffany's serves up solid quarterly earnings
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-16-2009 @ 7:07PM
clikdawg said...
How come is it that, although The Gummint in its entirety is universally conceded to exist within a wide-spread "culture of corruption", and that members of Congress in particular are acknowledged thieves and liars whose souls have been sold long ago to Big Money, Big Pharmaceuticals, Big Business and Big Medicine -- I say, how come is it, then, that each fresh assurance of Plain Dealing by that Gummint is taken at face value as though none of the preceding factors ever existed ... as though this was the very first time we'd had dealings with these scum.
Quite simply put, I will not give Speaker Pelosi, et al, the benefit of a doubt no reasonable person could have: Once a liar and a thief, always a liar and a thief; the leopard does not change his or her spots; etc., etc., etc. --
Believe else-wise at your own peril.
7-16-2009 @ 7:52PM
octingenti said...
America is no longer a Democratic country...
America has now become a (OMMCRWSE)
"Oil-Market Manipulating, Corrupt, Robbing Wall Street Economist."
7-17-2009 @ 12:35AM
dang1067 said...
Pelosi needs to STOP BREATHING to make the Health Care System works... Not only the Health Care System but everything else that was destroyed will be fixed...
So please Pelosi if you're reading this, I urge you to STOP BREATHING!!!! And DIEEEEEE for people's sakes!!!!
7-17-2009 @ 12:37AM
dang1067 said...
Pelosi needs to STOP BREATHING to make the Health Care System works... Not only the Health Care System but everything else that was destroyed will be fixed...
So please Pelosi if you're reading this, I urge you to STOP BREATHING!!!! And DIEEEEEE!!!! For the people's sakes!!!!
7-17-2009 @ 9:08AM
John Schroeder said...
LETS HAVE THE HOUSE AND SENATE MEMBERS ALSO BE COVERED UNDER THIS PLAN AS WELL AS MAKING THEM BE COVERED UNDER SOCIAL SECURITY LIKE THE REST OF US AMERICANS.
7-17-2009 @ 9:30AM
R. C. Jackman said...
What about cost savings resulting from prevention? If we prevent health problems, people will live longer, and there will be a greater number of elderly people to care for. That will increase costs, not decrease costs as some have advocated. I am all in favor of people living longer. But my point is that we cannot "squeeze more savings out of the health care system" through prevention.
7-17-2009 @ 1:25PM
clikdawg said...
'But my point is that we cannot "squeeze more savings out of the health care system" through prevention.'
Indeed, Mr. Jackman -- but that may not stop them from trying to show that they can.
The argument would be similar to the "jobs saved" nonsense: "We spent X dollars on preventative measures. Our studies (!) show that each dollar spent resulted in Y number of diseases that didn't happen, and that the disease that didn't happen would have cost Z dollars more than the X dollars we spent to prevent it."
Voila! Savings have been squeezed out of the health care system!
The problem of increased life-span would simply be put, accountant-style, into another column, off-budget so to speak, requiring additional impact studies.
That's how they think, amigo -- that's how the Modern Shell Game works ...