A few of us discussed healthcare here and predicted the same thing:
The escalating battle over Gov. Ed Rendell’s plan to extend health insurance to 767,000 uninsured Pennsylvanians carries political dangers for both Democrats and Republicans in the Legislature.For Democrats, there is the risk of voting for higher taxes in a year when they’re running for re-election. Mr. Rendell’s health insurance plan, called Cover All Pennsylvanians, or CAP, would be funded in three ways, and two of them are tax increases.
save here, spend there
Both sides are making sense on this issue, but both sides seem far away from compromise. There is a need to increase access to health coverage, but we can’t end up in a debacle similar to what we face with social security.
How about this proposal: cut the size and expense of our large government, and use the millions saved to increase healthcare coverage.
-Michael Granat
Comprise is meaningless in Harrisburg
The concept of compromise is steadily deteriorating in Harrisburg, much in the way it has in Washington. The ideological battles that are always present in Harrisburg are being amplified by the slim majority in the House, a Republican Senate, and Democratic Governor.
All that aside, considering that 71 percent of the uninsured in this state are employed, 44 percent of them full time, the time for a change in policy is now. The days when access to quality, affordable health care was solely an issue facing the poorest of Americans are gone. Nowadays, nearly everyone is experiencing benefit cuts, premium hikes, or loss of coverage. Any attempted to spin this proposal as an entitlement for undeserving individuals is shameful. I do not believe a 10 cent increase in the cigarette tax, adding a sales tax to cigars and smokeless tabacco, and using money from the overstuffed MCARE fund is asking too much to provide care for those who have been left out in the cold by employers and escalating healthcare costs. (Mr. Granat you should notice that nowhere in this proposal does a pay as you go approached, which is used to finance Social Security, appear.)
Further, when affordability is discussed it goes well beyond dollars and cents. Can we, as a society, afford to allow individuals to go without the care they so desperately need? Is it ok that people are taking on thousands in debt in order to receive treatment?
JM
JM - healthcare
Perhaps you are trying to stir debate? I never denied a belief in what you passionately wrote about. I put forth that we already pay enough in taxes to solve the healthcare problem of today (assuming this is a state issue, and not one of national proportions). We must look at where out current tax dollars are spent, before putting more into a system that is obviously inefficient.
I point of social security not because of the pay as you go approach, but I bring it up to highlight the escalating costs associated with both concepts. The current proposed taxes may be enough to finance healthcare NOW, but in 10 years when it is more expensive… where do we find the money then? What do we tax next?
So please JM, do not lecture us on the need to take care of our fellow man. I would rather much hear your thoughts on how we continue to finance the proposal, because healthcare is not getting cheaper. Do not be drawn into the mistakes our legislators make by only planning for today, and not for tomorrow.
Michael Grant
You are correct
I am certainly attempting to stir debate, which I hope others will enthusiastically join. I am pleased that you share my concern over this issue. Further, I agree with your assertion that healthcare is an issue of national proportions.
I understand that a 10 cent increase on the cigarette tax, a tax on cigars and smokeless tabacco, and the MCARE fund may not be a sustainable funding source for Cover All Pennsylvanians. I am mindful of the problems associated with a cigarette excise tax increase, including the effect on revenue stability and adequacy over time and the impact of higher taxes on lower-income
residents. State financial problems develop when cigarette taxes are used — and particularly if they are earmarked — to fund education, health services, or other programs that inevitably grow in cost over time as a result of inflation, population growth, and other factors. A revenue source that declines over time cannot support a program that naturally increases in cost over time. However, the point of my post, and yes I appoligize for any grandstanding or lecturing, was that affordability is not just a question of dollars and cents. I am placing the healthcare problem over the potential state financial problem, which is cleary in contrast to the ideology you subscribe to.
I agree with you to an extent that the Legislative funds could be put to better use here, especially the nonsense of political polling, calandars, etc. But, I will also note that most of that money is distributed in the form of grants to worthy projects. As far as the MCARE fund goes I believe that it could be used more efficiently in this situation by tapping $267 million of the nearly $500 million surplus. Apart from that I am not currently aware of any other funding mechanisms. I welcome any additonal input you have in regards to financing Cover All Pennsylvanians.
JM
mcare funding
Why assume that the proposed funding mechanism wouldn’t be sufficient? The $500 million surplus from MCARE is from a previous tobacco tax. Health care cost do seem to be out of control. I agree combating that trend needs to be addressed as well. For the next few years, it appears we do have the money to cover this program, and it’s definitely something that Pennsylvanians support. Let’s get this done.
Post new comment