As anyone who has ever read anything I have written here (or anywhere else for that matter) will attest, I have always been completely against health care reform as envisioned by just about all politicians. As a strong believer in the free market, my position has always been that like any other industry where competition is allowed and fostered, health care insurers and providers would respond to market forces and provide a quality product at a reasonable price. I truly believed that this healthy competition would result in more choice for consumers and a quick reduction in health care costs overall. We actually started to see this happen on a somewhat small scale before we all lost our minds and decided to make this process as painful as we possibly could. Both WalMart and Walgreen’s developed pilot clinics in some of their stores where people could see a licensed nurse practitioner or doctor for a very minimal fee. The idea is that people come in for routine checkups and minor illnesses and then stay to buy toilet paper, milk and other more profitable items. It is doubtful now that we will ever know if that model would have succeeded. I also opposed these reforms because deep down in my obviously cold heart, I knew we could never afford such a system as was being proposed. Well friends, I think I was wrong.
I have considered every aspect of this bill and although I think that right now it will not pay for itself, in the very near future it has a strong chance of paying for itself and even resulting in a surplus to go towards the national debt. The vast majority of provisions in the bill will no doubt be costly, after all the intention is to ensure that everyone has adequate health care. It isn’t cheap to insure 300 million people. In reality, a large chunk of those 300 million will be paying for their own health care plus a little more to help cover the less fortunate, so I think that part will be a wash. The part that really worried me was the administrative costs. Yes, the bill proposes all kinds of things to ensure this program is administered as efficiently as possible. Those of us who actually work in the government sector know better. Few, if any government run programs are run efficiently. I guess much of that is subjective, efficiency can be a fairly elusive concept to nail down. The bill we have made into law recently creates dozens of new federal agencies and will require hiring over 15,000 new IRS employees to manage certain monitoring and collection functions. I have not been able to find an estimate of just how many new federal employees will be hired so I am just going to guess and say its about one cubic butt load. For those readers unfamiliar with that term, I assure it is very large.
Those pesky admin costs really had me not liking this bill until I was reminded today of the Tanning Tax. Wow, this is what really put me over for this bill. I hadn’t thought much of the Tanning Tax recently since I had completely written it off as stupid and inconsequential when it was first proposed. I personally thought that the “Botox” Tax was a much better idea as a revenue generator since it would levy a tax on all elective plastic surgery. Living in Southern California, I can tell that this would result in a ton of annual money. No matter what the rate, these people will not give up their plastic surgery! Unfortunately, the “Botox” Tax was not included in the final bill. Apparently the plastic surgeons have a better lobbying group than the tanning salon owners. No big surprise there really. We still have the Tanning Tax though, and its inclusion is really the key to making this whole thing work. Will a ten percent tax on each and every tanning session pay for all the admin costs in this bill? Oh, hell no! But it doesn’t have to. And that is the real beauty of it all.
The justification for the Tanning Tax is fairly simple. People who use tanning booths are more likely to get skin cancer and thus should have to pay some extra fee in order to help defray the costs of treating those cancers later in life. To be honest, I have no idea how much a typical tanning session costs. I live in Southern California and drive a convertible, so I pretty much get my daily Vitamin D for free. Lets assume for this scenario though that the tax will amount to $2.00 per visit. If a person were to tan once a week for 30 years, that would generate $3,120 (not adjusted for inflation) in taxes. Now I am also not familiar with how much it costs to treat skin cancer after 30 years of UV exposure, but I think its likely more than the tax will generate. However, since these people will now be taking advantage of their brand new super whamodyne health care packages and seeing the doctor much more often, most of these cancers will be detected early enough that they can be excised right there in the doctor’s office for a mere pittance! That leaves the rest of that tax money to go towards paying the admin costs! A recent study shows that as many as 30 million people a year use tanning salons. Even cutting the total in half to account for people who only use them seasonally, this tax provides over $700 million a year! That will pay for a veritable army of admin types.
And it doesn’t end there. Once people realize what great revenue generator the Tanning Tax is, it will be easy to add in new taxes to pay for all those other risky behaviors. Tired of paying for other peoples weight related health problems? There’s a tax for that! Want to make sure Uncle Fred pays his fair share for laying around on the couch eating chips all day and then needing a coronary bypass? There’s a tax for that! How about stupid drivers that cut you off on the freeway? They are most likely going to use up more emergency medical care than you. There’s a tax for that! Studies show that unhappy people get sick more often than happy people. So you better turn that frown upside down buddy because there’s a tax for that to! The amount of money that we can generate using this amazing process is virtually limitless. How about skydivers? They like to claim that compared to the number of jumps per year, their accident rate is actually very low. That may be true, but if that chute doesn’t open and Mr. Jumpoutofaperfectlygoodplane happens to survive, he is going to be in the hospital for a long time. And besides, it just looks dangerous. YOU ARE JUMPING OUT OF A FREAKING PLANE FOR GOD’S SAKE!
Of course we have to work out all the details of exactly how to assess and collect these taxes, how much the rate will be, and a few other minor details but in the end it should be obvious that it is all paid for and we will still have funds left over. By my calculations (which I am performed in my bathroom with the lights off so nobody could see, and no I am not going to share the numbers with you) we will completely erase the national debt within 3 years. Yes, that’s right three short years. Damn I am excited. Being a liberal is so much more rewarding than hanging out with those stupid redneck tea-partiers.
So I am on your side now guys! Just as long as you are going to let me wear my gun to the next coffee party. What’s that? Oh, you’re uncomfortable around armed people… Well never mind then, it was a nice thought though.
7 Comments
Haha, you are a jackass!
I, for once thought you might have actually had an epiphany, or at least one honest clear thought and all I found was this very detailed piece of sarcasm. As funny as it is, you lump the responsibilities for “sin” or excise taxes on Democrats and liberals, but in 1790, Alexander Hamilton proposed the first excise tax on whiskey to pay off debts from the Revolutionary War. He chose this method following Adam Smith’s direction in the Wealth of Nations. These considerations, to tax a luxury item was a belief that Adam Smith held. You can argue that liberals are to blame, but you would be wrong. Both parties use these taxes to try to shape behavior, punish one group for bad behavior, etc. But, as I indicated above, you my friend are a jackass and you just want to poke fun.
I think, Chris, what he wants… is to keep the money he earns and choose how to spend it himself instead of having it removed from his possession at the point of a gun to help get a politician re-elected. That is after all what this bill is about. From now on the Democrats will be able to use the fear that “those nasty Republicans are gonna take away your health care” to gently encourage the dumb masses to vote for them. I do believe that changes are needed in our current system of health care. I would have chosen a more controlled approach. Like maybe… identify a specific problem, come up with a reasonable solution, debate it’s merits and flaws in congressional committee on live TV for all the country to see, Then vote based on the facts and not the way your heart feels after someone has held up a picture of poor Timmy with his hard luck case. I don’t think we are on the right track with this new law. To be fair and pick on Rich a bit… I doubt you would have ever seen cancer cured at Wal-mart. 90% of the issues people go to a Doc in a box for, would most likely self resolve anyway… the Doc in a box just provides drugs to make you feel proactive in getting rid of that sniffle. What really scares me about all of this, besides all the unintended consequences that they didn’t consider, is the idea that once the government, knowing it can save money if the people would take certain prophylactic measures like quitting smoking, losing weight, using condoms, exercising regularly, etc., realizes that the carrot it is offering isn’t changing people’s behavior… what will the stick look like???
Jamie, I really don’t think I need anyone other than Rich to help me figure out what Rich means, aside from the many times, at length, that we have debated these things, he pretty much states it clearly himself. So, no translation is necessary.
Second, I love the derisive way you refer to scare tactics from the Democrats and feel that they think people are dumb, it kind of sums up exactly how the GOP wants you to think, all in one nice little package. I can just see John Boehner patting you on the head for being a good little Republican soldier. Both sides use scare tactics, both sides treat the American public as if they are dumb. And Jamie, you have bought the GOP line hook, line, and sinker if you truly believe that is what this bill is about. I have no doubt that the fight for it was about political power, but that is not what the bill itself is about. You have to be the worst kind of cynical to believe that everyone who participated in this process was only in it for personal gain. It is also the worst kind of lazy to be passing judgment on it without really knowing what is in the bill. And I am betting that you haven’t even made a passing review of it. Prove me wrong Jamie, tell me specific things you have issue with, besides the mandate to participate, we already know how you feel about that.
You guys talk as if the tax burden on you is too much. But by the way you bitch, I am sure any tax would be. Taxes are historically on the low side, and not just as a measure compared to GDP. But why let facts get in the way of the constant bitching…go ahead, bitch away!
(Here’s my reference for where our tax levels are, you know me, always about the facts. And these numbers do hold up, as usual, I follow up with my own calculation, data search etc.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/tea-party-ignorant-taxes-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html)
For the record, I have no problems with taxes. I fully recognoze the necessity of funding both state and federal governments. My gripe is usually in how those taxes are assessed and then spent (or misspent). Income tax – fine, Luxury tax – fine, Whatever the hell we decide to tax next – maybe we should get a cut on that.
Yes, I can easily afford my tax burden. Do I think that maybe its not exactly fair? Yes, but I am not sure you could concievably have a tax system that everyone thinks is fair.
Rich, honestly that was not directed at you, though you may complain, we both know those taxes pay for your salary, so I know you are willing to put up with it, at least to a certain extent.
Chris,
I am all done with you. I thought about writing a long response to explain why… but you would only read it to figure out how to insult me next. So my official response to you sir is sit on it sideways and spin!
lol, obviously I touched a nerve. Jamie, I apologize if I offended your delicate sensibilities. I merely responded out of my frustration at your constant tune. If you believe your tax burden is to great or that this system is inherently too unfair for you, you do have choices. I will continue to comment when people sing a one sided song, and if you don’t like that, then maybe we should be done with these discussions. If you criticize one side for bad behavior, it is only honest and fair that you criticize the other side for the same behavior or you expose yourself to not be a person of principle, but a person that is a servant to their beliefs and ideology. And you know how I feel about that. Your comment above is straight out of the ideological handbook for the GOP, and I called you on it, and I don’t apologize for that.
Chris
Post a Comment