Coffee Brown, University of New Mexico, Talk Radio News
In what Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee Max Baucus (D-Mont.) called “an historic moment,” the full Committee hearing on Comprehensive Health Care Reform held the first of several planned meetings Tuesday. Their task will be to figure out how to pay for universal access.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) wanted the Employer Exclusion of Contributions for Medical Insurance Premiums and Medical Care from employee income taxes on the table.
James Klein, president of the American Benefits Council, described it the Exclusion as progressive and too complex to tamper with.
Jonathan Gruber, professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., described the Exclusion as unequivocally regressive, amenable to modification, and a key revenue point.
John Sheils, senior vice president of the The Lewin Group, Falls Church, Va., believes that the Exclusion should be modified, but only after protections are put into place to prevent discrimination against the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions.
All of the panelists agreed that there was an enormous amount of potential revenue there. The Urban Institute calls it “the single largest tax expenditure in the federal budget … worth $112 Billion.”
Gerald Shea, assistant to the president for governmental affairs at the AFL-CIO said, “That would be a radical change. If you’re going to go that far, you might as well go to a single payer system. I’m flabbergasted that you would even consider it.”
Baucus was clear that “We’re not going to repeal the Employer Exclusion or go to universal single payer healthcare. We have to work with what we have. We can’t turn on a dime. It’s the devil you know vs the devil you don’t know.”
After Baucus finished speaking, protesters stood up and recited in favor of the single payer system. As each protestor was escorted out by Capitol Police,another stood including at least one physician.
Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) was concerned about a proposal to partially fund healthcare reform by raising taxes on alcohol. He said that thousands of jobs had been lost in the hospitality industry already, and that the last such hike had been followed by a drop in revenue. He asked whether lifestyle taxes couldn’t be considered regressive.
Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities responded that all industries have lost jobs, losses in the hospitality industry are not attributable to alcohol taxes, and
whether the tax put more money into healthcare, or resulted in diminished alcohol consumption, it would be a win-win strategy.
Other lifestyle taxes discussed included sugary soft drinks, tobacco and trans-fats.
Stuart Altman, professor of national health policy at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass., held that end-of-life care was a significant driver of cost in America vs. peer nations.
Gail Wilensky, Senior Fellow for Project HOPE, Bethesda, said that such costs have held at about 28 percent of lifetime healthcare expenses for 30 years.
Altman said, yes, but that’s 28 percent for a growing demographic, as Americans age, and of a much larger absolute cost, as Healthcare costs have inflated much faster than the general economy.
Baucus concluded by saying, “I have a feeling this is not the last discussion on this we’re all going to have on this.”
