Open Left

agreed, with one caveat: we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that (0.00 / 0)

tens of millions are without healthcare.  if we focus too much on the employer paid benefits, we risk looking out of touch to the millions who would much rather have health benefits that were taxed than what they have now: no health benefits at all (not that this bill will necessarily give them that...).  

---

by: seabrook @ Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 19:02:27 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]

Taxing middleclass (4.00 / 4)

I'm concerned that if we tax the health benefits of people who already have employer paid insurance without making a compelling case for truly universal healthcare that they'll just figure they're being screwed.  Frankly, I think they are.  Why aren't we proposing really progressive taxation to pay for this?  If all we do is add a tax on the middleclass to force them to fund healthcare for people a little less well off than they are, I don't see how we get either the revenue or the support for major change.  What are we actually getting with this?  It's woefully underfunded and isn't truly providing universal coverage.  

This is a big deal.  It needs a vision and a commitment equal to the task.  Instead we're likely to get a Blue Dog shell game that taxes the middleclass to shovel money to corporate lobbies.

---

by: Aliceann @ Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 19:51:51 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]

i agree that we should oppose this taxation scheme... (0.00 / 0)

but i don't think it should be our primary focus.  we should focus above all on the exorbitant profits of the insurance companies, their horrific track record, and their massive donations to conservative dems and republicans.  any bill that the insurance companies like and that is being pushed by the conservadems and republicans would thus be made anathema to the majority of americans.  

---

by: seabrook @ Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 19:58:08 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]