Talking with Price & Hensarling: SCHIP and AMT
By Erick Posted in Congress — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Unfortunately, due to a technical difficulty, I can't bring you the audio, but yesterday I spoke with Congressman Tom Price (R-GA) and Congressman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) about SCHIP and the AMT.
First, let me say they feel pretty good that the President's veto is going to be sustained.
Second, let me review their objections. A lot of us, or at least me, have paid attention to the issue, without really knowing all the nuances of it. So, here now, from Congressmen Price and Hensarling, a look at the path toward universal healthcare, incremental Democrat style:
The original bill (a Republican effort) ensured children of the working poor. In other words, it offset or defrayed the costs of healthcare on poor families.
The Democrats, unwilling to keep politics out of the lives of children, decided to move toward universal healthcare. Their bill would ensure children of parents whose household incomes go up to about $62,000.00. Keep in mind that the median household income in this country is $42,000.00.
The bill would start covering adults up to the age of 25 in general.
Likewise, the bill would allow the parents of these kids and adults up to 25 to be covered under SCHIP too. Yeah, you read that right -- the State CHILDREN'S Health Insurance Plan would cover adults.
In New York State, the cap would be boosted to upwards of $85,000.00.
States could also expand the cap above the 300% of poverty level.
Both Congressman Price, who is a doctor, and Congressman Hensarling are adamant that this is a bad bill and a better alternative could be offered.
Additionally, the Congressmen discussed the Republican Study Committee's Alternative Minimum Tax reform proposal. As Congressman Hensarling said, the AMT, which originally only covered a few hundred Americans, now covers hundreds of thousands because the AMT is not indexed for inflation.
The RSC proposal, which unfortunately is not *the* Republican proposal (yet) would restructure the AMT to make sure it stops affecting middle class Americans. Keep your eye out for the proposal and urge your member of Congress to support the RSC plan.
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | Republicans Rally Around SCHIP Alternative — Comments (0) »
Talking with Price & Hensarling: SCHIP and AMT 9 Comments (0 topical, 9 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...but there were no details whatsoever about the legislative content. Supposedly Rangel wants to move some one-year temporary legislation to do I don't know what with the AMT, and then introduce the mother of all tax reforms next year to coincide with the elections.
It would be great if someone familiar with the Chairman's thinking could post some details.
I've never been anywhere a Democratic tax-strategy session, but if I were them, I'd be looking to make sure that as few middle-class people paid any Federal income taxes at all, much less a high-rate flat tax like the AMT.
If I were them (and I'm not), I'd be trying to convert nearly all earners above a certain level (maybe $150,000?) to a higher-rate AMT, and cut rates to near zero for everyone below that. Leave FICA/FUTA untouched, and you have a two-tier flat tax that electorally benefits the Dems.
Don't restructure it, repeal it. If even the RSC isn't brave enough to propose this, what hope is there for the R leadership?
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
I too have been watching the debate without completely knowing the details of the various plans. I tentatively supported the veto based on what I knew, and the more I know the more I like it. Especially if the alternative bill that is starting to form, and get some attention, turns out to be much better, and not, as you called it, an incremental step towards universal health care.
A few outakes from the CBO (yes, folks this is Congress' own office)which make me curious if we actually need more funding or complete revision;
- According to one study, 60 percent of the children who became eligible for SCHIP had private coverage in the year before the program was established.
- CBO concludes that the reduction in private coverage among children is most probably between a quarter and a half of the increase in public coverage resulting from SCHIP.That is, for every 100 children who gain coverage as a result of SCHIP, there is a corresponding reduction in private coverage of between 25 and 50 children.
They also go on to surmise that between 25-50 percent can afford private coverage but refuse to do so.
So here is my question; why am I subsidizing some other persons healthcare because they elect not to make caring for their children a priority?
Sounds like a boondoggle; Orrin Hatch, et al supporters should really be ashamed. Are they not adept enought to figure this out or are they just bowing to the emotional appeal?
Read the rest here
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
>>The bill would start covering adults up to the age of 25 in general.
Could someone post where it states adults up to 25 are covered. I've search through the bill and can't find it.
`(G) CHILD DEFINED- For purposes of this paragraph, the term `child' means an individual under 19 years of age, or, at the option of a State, such higher age, not to exceed 21 years of age, as the State may elect.
Not age specific, but it tells you which states would cover adults under the vetoed proposal.
“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."
It gives actual numbers of adults covered by state.
“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."
I think you mean "insure" rather than "ensure".
Interesting ideas, though.
--Atomopawn
Forty isn't old -- if you're a tree!