Roskam Misleads About The Health Care Surtax

The big topic in Washington these days is how best to pay for health care reform. Aside from extending health insurance to every American who wants it, the entire point of the Obama administration's reform effort is to make the system more efficient. That way, Americans can get better results for a cheaper price, protecting both our health and the nation's deficit in the long-term. But the government needs to come up with funding for the immediate changes until we can implement incentives to streamline care. And finding consensus on how to raise revenue is never an easy task for Congress.

One option being considered in the House is a surtax on the nation's wealthiest individuals. Beginning in 2011, households earning $350,000 and above would pay an additional 1 percent in taxes. The rate would increase by 1.5 percent for those making more than $500,000 and by 5.4 percent for those making more than $1 million. Combined with immediate spending reductions in Medicare and Medicaid, proponents project the entire $1 trillion price tag would be covered.

GOP Rep. Peter Roskam hates the idea. During an interview on WGN this morning, he went so far as to claim that Americans don't support the idea of a tax on the wealthiest Americans. Watch it:


ROSKAM: I think you hit the nail on the head in terms of the reluctance to put an increased burden on American job creators, right? We’ve lost 2 million jobs since the stimulus package passed. The unemployment rate in Illinois has now eclipsed 10 percent. The administration told us that nationally, we weren’t going to be passed 8 percent if the stimulus package passed, and that has all really underperformed. And there isn’t an interest now in putting more of a burden on Americans who are really struggling in an economy that seems to be slipping away.

Polling suggests otherwise. An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken late last month found that 60 percent support "raising income taxes on Americans with household incomes over 250 thousand dollars to help pay for health care reform?" One has to consider that raising the threshold another $100,000 would only increase that number. Only 37 percent opposed the idea.

And in what universe are families taking in over $350,000 in annual income "really struggling?" I'm not sure if Roskam has looked recently, but the the median annual household income was $50,233 in 2007. One would have to earn roughly seven times that figure to qualify for the tax hike.

Comments

I wonder how many of the number of those polled would be affected by the new taxes vs those that were not? It is always seems ok to take someone else's money....

Why not have everyone contribute equally a flat rate instead of a significant portion of the populace being excused from paying federal income tax?

After almost 30 years of coddling of the rich in this country, to the point even Warren Buffet says he doesn't think it's fair he pays only as much tax as his secretary, and the American people have finally wised up to this scam and elected a Democratic president and congress Ben now wants everybody to pay the same amount of income tax. Uh, no Ben. The wealthy don't get to sit in the damn wagon anymore while the rest of us push it uphill. Start shouldering your fair share of the load.

Last time I checked I pay my share of Fed, State and Local taxes for services used by all. Why is it so incomprehensible that everyone should pay for those services?

Where did I say the same for all? I said a flat tax that everyone pays. Why should lower income people who still use resources be excused from paying for them? If we all pay 10% of our income those at the top still are paying more.

There is no law that says you can't contribute more than your own tax burden. Why doesn't Mr. Buffet liquidate some of his holdings and donate it to the good of the nation? Or give free insurance to all - Berkshire Hathaway does own GEICO.

BTW the Lewin Group Roskam and other Repubs are so fond of quoting as an independent non partisan research firm when denouncing reform? It's owned by United Health Group, one of the nation's largest insurers.

From the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/22/AR200907...

More specifically, the Lewin Group is part of Ingenix, a UnitedHealth subsidiary that was accused by the New York attorney general and the American Medical Association, a physician's group, of helping insurers shift medical expenses to consumers by distributing skewed data. Ingenix supplied its parent company and other insurers with data that allegedly understated the "usual and customary" doctor fees that insurers use to determine how much they will reimburse consumers for out-of-network care.

In January, UnitedHealth agreed to a $50 million settlement with the New York attorney general and a $350 million settlement with the AMA, covering conduct going back as far as 1994.

Ingenix chief executive Andrew Slavitt said the Ingenix data was never biased, but Ingenix nonetheless agreed to exit that particular line of business. "The data didn't have the appearance of independence that's necessary for it to be useful," Slavitt said.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Progress Illinois' intention is to foster community and to maintain a comfortable and constructive blogging environment. While we encourage and appreciates different points of view, we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.

Discussion on this site is moderated. All comments submitted will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.

We will not publish comments that we consider:

  • off-topic
  • long-winded or containing excessive text from another source
  • inflammatory
  • commercial promotion

Please leave a name or nickname when commenting, as it makes it easier for others to respond directly.