Here's a novel idea. When we pass a bill, we figure out how taxes can be adjusted to support it, either by being raised or lowered. You can disapprove of the Healthcare bill, you can disapprove of new taxes, but you shouldn't criticize the simple decision to figure out a way to pay for new expenses.
Frankly, I'd like the healthcare bill even less if it included no new taxes because then it would be paid for entirely by borrowing.
This is the thing that kills me about critics of the health care legislation. They continue to put on this face that they're "deficit hawks" yet everytime any new legislation includes a "tax" the first thing you hear the critics do is bitch about it.
Look, I'm all for pressuring Government to be much better stewarts our our tax dollars, but when you come up with new policies geared to help Americans but you don't state how these measures will be paid for all you've done is put the bill on the consumer and force the Government to basically "print" more money or borrow it OR just continue to run up the deficit OR cut programs - some of which may be essential, some not so very much - but in the long run some cuts hurt rather than help.
IMO, our nation's health care system isn't the most cost effective, the most honest nor the most fair. It may be better overall than what most other country's have, but it needed to be changed. People have been getting denied coverage, cheated or "forced" to pay more than they should (double in some cases due to the redundency in many lab tests) and yet we keep hearing words spoken by politicians and lobbyist to the effect that "if it ain't (dreadfully) broke, don't fix it". If you ask me, the people who are making such claims are the people who can afford to pay for their health care virtually out of their own pockets, and that's fine...if you can afford to do so. But what about those who are either struggling to keep up with the rising costs or simply can't afford it?
My co-pay increased $10 (from $25 to $35). Not alot of money, but when everyone in your 6 member household gets sick (i.e., simple cold or flu) and everyone needs to seek medical attention, that's $210 on the spot not to mention the cost of prescription medicines. (Yeah, we could share, but I'm not giving my children meds intended for an adult; sorry...ain't happening. That would be irresponsible.) Now, I've been fortunate that my insurance premiums haven't increased (yet), but the threat of an increase was there long before health care legislation was passed. Unfortunately for some, premiums have already begun to increase but I doubt if all increases were part of health care reform policy. For example, my job recently held a health fair where representatives from the health care industry were present. I spoke to a few reps off the record (because I knew them; they'd been present at these events for years) and asked point blank why the sudden increases (in general throughout the health care industry). Some blamed it on the forthcoming legislation, but most said they were increases cost because the market/economy left them with a decrease in clients. So, they had to make up the difference in the revenue stream but that the increases were also in antipication of what might happen in the coming years. So, it's not just about the new health care policy. It's "business as usually" in most cases.
All I'm saying here, folks, is as much as people are arguing "no new taxes on anybody," the government has to raise the money to pay for this somehow. It just makes sense to apply taxes in ways that make the most sense to pay for it. It's either that or you shut up when your medical bills begin to skyrocket or when the Treasury starts printing money and the deficit continues to spiral out of control. Since the majority of Americans either get their health insurance through their employer I don't think any of us "average working people" can complain all that much. The benefits in health care legislation apply to us far more than they do anyone else. And if you're fortunate enough to be employed, you really don't have anything to worry about. I mean, per the OP, how many of you here own a $400K home anyway? I sure don't! So, why should it bother me that someone who can afford health care will be taxed for it? Granted, maybe the law should have impossed a health care tax on everyone no matter if you receive your health insurance via your employer, Medicaid, Medicare, COBRA, can pay for it on your own or you get it from some other federally sponsored health program. That would have been fair across the board. But as things stand, I really don't see a problem with those who can afford to help those who are struggling financially do more to help lift up their fellow man. I mean, aren't we all taught "charity begins at home?" Don't get me wrong. I know the rich make donations in the millions all the time, but how often do we see things like these medical care tent-cities pop up where everyone who can get to them receive free medical treatment because doctors and nurses volunteered their time and services to help the misfurtunate and the underprivileged? If I could afford to help another who's struggling more than I, I'd do it for sure. Unfortunately, God hasn't blessed me as much as he's done for others. But I'm blessed just the same.
I think we all should take a step back and instead of framing the argument as "redistributing wealth" (even I think it was a poor reference for the President to use), we should be viewing this as "those who can afford to help their fellow man, do so even if it means legislating same to get people to see that this is the right thing to do".