From "John Fund On The Trail," June 24, 2009 --
...the Senate Finance Committee is contemplating taxing for the first time the health insurance benefits workers get from their employers. One approach would tax the benefits only of workers earning over $100,000. An alternate proposal would tax the value of health care benefits that exceed a cap. But the taxes wouldn't be applied equally. Union members serving under collective bargaining agreements would be exempt, even though they often have the richest and most extensive packages of benefits.
Well, Mr. Fund, as much as I applaud you for highlighting the hypocrisy and favoritism of ongoing Senate Finance Committee "contemplation," bottom line... real conservatives understand that health insurance benefits should be taxed.
My God, man, what percentage of your income goes towards meeting your housing, food, and clothing needs? Perhaps under the "logic" of exempting the health insurance portion of your yearly paid compensation as an employee from the burden of income tax you'd care to advance the suggestion that "fairness" requires that federal, state, and municipal governments also exempt whatever portion of your income goes towards food, clothing and shelter from tax?
If not... if you wouldn't support that concept... why support the continuation of a policy relic of WW-2?
Some argue that taking away the tax subsidy inherent within the present system would mark death knell for employer provided health insurance. GOOD!!! This is what true conservatives favor!
Again... our arguably dysfunctional income tax system based upon a mind-boggling, high-maintenance, prone to political manipulation for corrupt purposes gaggle of exemptions and enticements is one of America's most oft-recognized scandals, not something which We The People should take pride in.
We now have a system where those with the best jobs, the highest paying, most "perk-packed" positions, more often than not boast the most comprehensive, gold-plated insurance money can buy. And the premiums... those that come from "the company" are not viewed as income, not recognized as taxable income.
Yet for those who pay for their own insurance out of pocket - who pay the ever increasing, ever more onerous premiums out of pocket - tough luck... your only respite from the Uncle Sam's tax claim on the percentage of your income steered towards health insurance is that you're "graciously allowed" to pay your insurance provider with "pre tax" dollars.
In plain English... the man (or woman) in the "gray flannel suit" (in addition to all the other advantage enjoyed) gets his insurance subsidized partially through the additional income taxes forked over by those without employer provided health insurance - including those who may have to work two or three jobs in order to provide for food, clothing, shelter... and out of pocket health insurance and other healthcare related expenses.
It doesn't sound fair, does it? Well, that's because it's not. Not only is it unfair, but such a two-tier system is unAmerican in the sense that it's basically a collectivist device antithetical to the American ideal of individual liberty - which includes equal responsibility and treatment under the law and a respect for individual liberty as it applies to freedom of choice.
My fellow Americans... again... are we not responsible for providing ourselves food, shelter, clothing, transportation, the necessities of daily life? The answer is yes. Then this being so, why in God's name should any of us who champion freedom and responsibility in all other areas of daily life consider employee provided, taxpayer subsidized health insurance to be laudable, let alone a societal necessity?
No. I'm not suggesting an "absolutist" laisse faire approach to health insurance and healthcare any more than I would propose or favor that people who can't afford basic food, shelter, and clothing should be left to starve or freeze to death absent basic sustenance.
No. What I'm saying is that we as a society need to recognize that health insurance, that healthcare, is as much an individual responsibility as any other. We're Americans! We don't need nor should we want the government to "provide" for our individual and familial health insurance nor should we expect this of our employers - particularly when employer provided benefits are partially subsidized by the "have nots" on behalf of the "haves."
So Mr. Frum... if you're reading this... while I sincerely thank you for showcasing and illuminating the motivations and machinations of the income redistributionists in Washington and elsewhere, I respectfully urge you not to ignore the forest for the trees. While we're apparently in complete agreement that further class warfare targeted against those making over $100,000 per year is wrong and that the Democrat's proposal of a "cap" (one which would not apply to one of their Party's most powerful political special interests) would make a further mockery of a system already skewed against common sense, personal responsibility, and freedom of individual choice, I respectfully suggest that in future columns you make clear that it's not simply how to tinker with the present employer provided health insurance system which Americans must confront, but rather, that it is the present employer provided health insurance system itself which is a large part of the problem.
2 comments:
Frankly, I support ending ALL government interference in health care. No more deductions, and only a bare minimum of regulation at the state level (the kind of regulation we'd have on any business). Medical malpractice should be capped at only specific damages incurred, and punitive damages should be eliminated.
Once we do these things, the health care costs should drop dramatically, simply because people will have to "shop" health care like they shop for anything else, looking for the best deal or the best quality they can afford.
"Medical malpractice should be capped at only specific damages incurred, and punitive damages should be eliminated."
I'd go even further. I view the whole concept of "punitive damages" as suspect. It seems to me that if an action warrants "punitive damages" that's an admission that the action wasn't "an accident" in the true sense of the word.
Me? Once we're talking "punitive" then I believe we should be talking "criminal;" meaning someone's gonna go to jail.
Yes, Ed, I'm with you on tort reform. We must protect the vast majority of doctors and nurses who every once in awhile are going to make mistakes while performing their duties. By protecting them we're protecting all of us, because as you infer, the present malpractice laws and practices add a huge burden to all of our medical costs (since malpractice insurance and payout costs are ultimately passed on to the general public).
BILL
Post a Comment