7 Potential Ways to Fund Health Care Reform
1. Limit Income-Tax Deductions
By only allowing taxpayers in the top two income tax brackets (33% and 35%) to deduct their mortgage interest, charitable contributions, and local taxes at the 28% rate it is suggested that the Federal government could collect $267 billion over the next 10 years. This is supposedly one of the Obama administrations main tactics for raising revenue. However, numerous Democratic leaders have already spoken out against it claiming it would hurt charities and residents of highly taxed areas such as New York City. Although experts predict that the original proposal will likely not pass into law, they are suggesting that some type of watered down version will.
2. Taxing Employer Provided Benefits
With the support of both Republicans and moderate Democrats in Congress—and even the most influential members of the Senate Finance Committee—the concept of taxing employer provided health benefits is something that has been getting a lot of attention lately. Although House Speaker Nancy Pelosi adamantly opposed any legislation regarding the issue, there are number of recent compromises that have made the new tax more likely to become law. The compromises include capping the value of benefits that go untaxed (for example if the tax-free limit is $13,000, an employee with a policy worth $15,000 would pay income taxes on $2,000), and imposing an income tax surcharge on the wealthiest taxpayers.
3. Tax Surcharge on the Wealthy
Speaking of tax surcharges on the wealthy, increasing the tax rate on taxpayers with incomes of over $200,000 or couples earning over $250,000 has also been discussed as a way to help pay for health care reform. This is the hot proposal in the House. Current proposals would levy an additional 3-4%, with the possibility of an additional 0.6% tax on those making more than $500,000. It is projected that if passed these tax increases would generate an estimated $832 billion in Federal revenue over the next decade.
4. Increased “Sin Taxesâ€
Increased taxes on sugar heavy soft drinks, tobacco products, and alcoholic beverages (also known as sin taxes) could provide up to $200 billion in additional tax revenue over the next 10 years. According to reports taxes on alcohol were last raised in 1991, and adjusted for inflation they are actually 37% lower today. However, with little support and opposition for dozens of industries, any such increases are very likely to ever see the light of day.
5. Repeal of Tax Saving Accounts and Deductions
Although not a direct tax increase, by repealing tax-advantaged savings accounts for health expenses, and repealing the medical expense deduction the Federal government could save over $250 billion. However, these taxes would mostly affect senior citizens already struggling with huge medical bills, and would directly break Obama’s pledge to not increase taxes on families making under $250,000.
6. Shared Responsibility Payments
Although it may sound confusing, shared responsibility payments are basically fines for not having insurance. By requiring Americans to have some sort of coverage—similar to how motorists must get auto insurance—and enforcing a $1,000 per year fine, the Federal government could collect over $36 billion over the next decade. It would likely include subsidies for lower income Americans, and the concept has gotten support from a number of key Senate Democrats.
7. Expanded Medicare Taxes
One of the final taxes being considered to help pay for health care reform is an expansion of the Medicare tax. Currently the tax is only levied on earned income (wages from your employer, etc.). By levying the tax on capital gains, dividends and other unearned income, and increasing the rate for high-income earners, the government could collect over $500 billion over the next year. However, raising taxes on unearned income is highly unpopular among the American public, and under the current proposal 80% of the tax increase would be paid for by the top 5% of taxpayers.
Watch the video related to health care reform bill
June 22, 2009 3:12 am 
By Tracy Turnblad, June 22, 2009 @ 3:24 am
First of all, Obama wants to make insurance more available to all and change the system so that it is cheaper. He also wants change so that the insurance companies find it harder to get out of paying for treatment. The system he is proposing looks similar to that which works in Holland and Switzerland where private companies are involved in providing insurance.
Second, of course universal health-cover sucks. That is why we in Western Europe have it. We think, hmm, our healthcare system sucks. I know, lets keep it. I guess that is the same with Japan and Canada as well.
Third, Obama campaigned on reforming the healthcare system. He said he wanted to make insurance more available and he was elected by the American people to do this.
FACT – the US has higher death rates for kids both for kids aged under one and those under five than western European countries with universal health coverage.
FACT – American insurance companies push up prices and work to stop paying out claims on those they cover.
FACT – the USA spends more on healthcare PER PERSON than any other nation on the planet.
That means that a dead American four year old would have had a better chance of life if they were born in Canada, France, Cuba, Germany, Japan etc, all of which have universal health coverage.
Last of all if you do not like the policies that Obama was elected to bring in, he can always be voted out of office in 2012.
By TomStar81, June 22, 2009 @ 4:34 am
Yes you are talking about TORT reform. the Democrats do not want to touch the Lawyers. it seems the Lawyers are in the democrats pocket.*
By Short, Fast, and Loud, June 22, 2009 @ 9:26 pm
Obama does not have a bill. He has only given guidelines to what he wants. His last address made it more specific.
The bills in congress are not healthcare bills. They are health coverage bills. The government is trying to take control of a large portion of our economy. They are trying to make it so the government is a single payer source (I know i will get thumbs down for this, but follow hr3200 to its logical conclusion).
The current bills want to cover everybody in the US (Illegals too, there is nothing in these bills to prevent illegals from being covered. Amendments to ensure citizenship were tabled)
The federal government wants to punish you for not having insurance (they will get your money one way or another)
The government wants to regulate what care you will get. (When the system becomes overblaoted as any government system does, they will have 2 options increase taxes or ration care)
I know that there are a lot of people that will disagree with this. If they actually read the bills, and follow to there logical conclusions, in 10 years we will be a whole lot worse of than we are now. So doing nothing would actually be cheaper.
Reform must actually deal with the underlaying problems. HR 320o does not. Obama gave lip service to 1 of them.
By skinnyblink7, June 24, 2009 @ 8:48 am
the new york times has an interactive feature which is actually very clear to understand. check it out.
By The Conservative Resistance, June 24, 2009 @ 3:14 pm
Under any Democrat President in history, the same M.O. emerges.
The Democrats "identify" a "crisis" and whip the people up into a frenzy about it. They proclaim themselves the carriers of the elixir that will heroically save all mankind from this "crisis.'' When Republicans seek to oppose the spending it will take for this elixir, they are automatically called hate mongers and obstructionists.
Clinton tried it with school lunch menus. He whipped that whole thing into some kind of "crisis." The Democrats wanted to raise the program by 10% and the Republicans wanted to raise it by 7%. That got reported in the media as a 3% CUT by Republicans. Only when a Democrat is President could an INCREASE be reported as a CUT. Just to make Republicans look bad, but too many people buy into the bullshit.
Al Gore, who wasn't even President, tried it with global warming and it didn't work. Today, it's health care. What'll it be tomorrow? The whole "world is ending in 2012" thing, or what?