THE HILL
 

Health care reform plans funded by new major tax, Medicare spending cuts

By Natasha Altamirano, Manager of Media Relations, The Tax Foundation - 11/02/09 03:47 PM ET

The two major health care reform proposals to emerge from Capitol Hill in recent weeks have similarities and major differences.

Both the House compromise unveiled by Speaker Nancy Pelosi last week and the version recently approved by the Senate Finance Committee rely on Medicare spending cuts, although the House plan would cut nearly $100 billion more, and both plans include one large new tax – a high-income surtax in the House version and a tax on high-value health insurance plans in the Senate version.

The $1.05 trillion House health care reform legislation includes net cuts to Medicare, which would save $472.8 billion, or 39 percent of the bill’s 10-year cost, and a 5.4 percent surtax on high-income individuals, which would generate $460.5 billion, or 38 percent of the bill’s cost, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation’s review of the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) analysis.


By comparison, nearly half of the $829 billion Senate Finance Committee plan is financed through Medicare cuts ($377.8 billion, or 41 percent of the bill’s 10-year cost), and 22 percent would come from an excise tax on so-called “Cadillac” health insurance plans, which would raise an estimated $201.4 billion over 10 years. The House plan would reduce the deficit by $104 billion and the Senate version by $81 billion.

Both the House and Senate proposals would impose a financial penalty on individuals if they do not buy health insurance, and both would force employers to pay a penalty to either the government or new “health exchanges” if they do not provide a government-approved health insurance plan to employees. In both cases, the House penalty is higher.

In the House plan, these “pay or play” provisions for employers make up the next largest percentage ($135 billion, or 11 percent) of the legislation’s financing, followed by a tax on medical devices and other health care revenue increases ($55 billion, or 5 percent), corporate income tax increases and other non-health revenues ($50.4 billion, or 4 percent) and a penalty on uninsured individuals ($33 billion, or 3 percent).

In the Senate Finance Committee plan, a tax on medical devices and other health care revenue increases make up the next largest financing percentage ($179.1 billion, or 20 percent), followed by corporate income tax increases and other non-health revenues ($100.1 billion, or 11 percent), net cuts to other health care spending ($26.3 billion, or 3 percent), “pay or play” provisions for employers ($23 billion, or 3 percent) and a penalty on uninsured individuals ($4 billion, or less than 1 percent).

The Tax Foundation is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that has monitored fiscal policy at the federal, state and local levels since 1937. For more information, please see Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact No. 200, “Comparing Financing of the House and Senate Health Care Reform Plans.”

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/65917-health-care-reform-plans-funded-by-new-major-tax-medicare-spending-cuts

Comments (7)

Based on fiscals alone, the more conservative plan would appear to be the House plan …"The House plan would reduce the deficit by $104 billion and the Senate version by $81 billion."This however brings up a much better question.Why hasn't the CBO scored (or been asked to score) a Medicare for All (single payer) plan?If what the President, the Congress and The People are all looking to get is lower cost and more people able to be seen by a doctor, then shouldn't they score a Single Payer plan - and THEN decide which type of plan does best what we (as a nation) need it to?It makes no sense to ask a customer, "do you like yellow or red" when the item is actually available in Yellow, Red, Blue and Green.BY Angie in WA State on 11/02/2009 at 19:51
The Senate plan fixes the SGR for doctors for one year, then uses the "savings" of $200 plus billion for its big $81 billion deficit reduction. I'll bet the House plan is similiar, meaning it's all smoke and mirrors becuase they have not enforced the SGR for the past 6 years.I am disgusted with the decption used by Congress.BY Mike on 11/03/2009 at 15:22
Just one item is problematic to our existing problem with Social Security, SSI, Medicaid and SCHIPPS. How do you tax or enforce a premium on millions who "dont sign up" or refuse to work above the board and have taxes and deductions taken from trackable income? Illegals are not the only ones, who use the free system of social programs and healthcare, with no responsibility or fear of being forced to contribute!Bill collection for medical services is a almost forgotten or ignored obligation, due to 30 years of government compensation for MEDICAID services. The government and States can't even get people to sign up for Medicaid, State subsidied Insurance plans, Schipps etc, because why buy the cow when the milk is free? If you don't care about credit rating, don't own a house, and work for cash and crime, who is the stupid one here???Non of these bills address the existing problems of enforcement, but count on those accountable to government taxes through their jobs, to pay for everyone regardless of ability to pay. Its all in accountability, and the working class is getting tired of "good intentions" entitlement programs! People on Medicare or who have paid into that insurance program, should not be the ones suffering the cuts, to pay for another single payer system or universal system, based upon the same system of enforcement that has bankrupted Social Security and Medicare. Remember "Trust Fund, Lock Box and other laws meant to reasure' while the foxes in Congress continued to create new programs and entitlements without increased base for support or payment.BY Leslie M on 11/04/2009 at 15:39
I understand the need for this. But not one person is asking here "Just what is Medicare losing now?" Try saying that.BY Earlena L on 11/08/2009 at 07:17
OK. I'm a basic 60 person (64) who will look at Medicare next year for my insurance. What will these cuts mean to me.BY Jana B on 11/09/2009 at 15:52
It really needs to be clearly explained just what the health care plan would do to the benefits of those on Medicare. I believe there isn't a person on Medicare who does truly understand this. Unless it is clarified, it will cause problems with the confusion. I am sure those against a health care plan will play on this to make it fail.BY Ruth A on 11/11/2009 at 23:02
How does this bill affect our Medicare coverage ?BY David Cowley on 11/19/2009 at 11:47

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.