Increasing corporate taxes can indeed prevent jobs as employers have to pay the taxes which could have otherwise gone to hire more employees to fulfill the needs of an expanding business. Yes, I agree with Schiff that this could increase the amount of layoffs, especially for small businesses.

Invalid points by the author:
Claiming “unconsistutionality” is ridicious and the Schiff loses a lot of credibilty with me to suggest “unconstitutionality. If this was the case, then the entire tax code would already be unconsistutional; if specific social, non-economic demographic groups were targeted, then this would be a possible claim. Already there are income tax brackets established and this is already status quo. Has Schieff ever heard of progressive tax policy? “The rich” do not consistitute a suspect class. I am disappointed by Schiff to make such an outlandish assertion completely lacking knowledge in jurispurdence. Redistribution of wealth towards the rich from the poor and vice versa are part of economic policy making and have limited applicablity towards constitutional law.

It is absurd to believe that small business owners will somehow “just lose motivation” to expand their businesses as they reach the $1 million dollar income threshhold. That would be the case if all income over $1 million dollars were taxed at a 100% rate, but I seriously doubt that taxes are going to take the wind out of the sales out of any successful business. Market conditions will dictate what resources that business owners need to ensure the going-conconcern and success of their business, not the IRS tax code. While it could be argued that the tax penalizes businesses who are very successful, nonetheless it is also the playing field itself and the market, not just the innovation of the business owner who is responsible for the success. Part of being able to do business in the public square also means taking care of the public square, such as paying taxes to maintain the roads and in the minds of some, also contributing the health and welfare of the very society that they serve. Essentially someone has to pay the bill, and while it seems counterproductive to “penalize success”, it makes even less sense to penalize and tax business failure, as those business failures have nothing to give anyway.

“Insuring more people will drive demand for healthcare services even higher.” Actually the opposite is true. The greater the demand for any product or service initially can increase the price, but over the long haul the cost decreases. Consider consumer electronics: initial early-adopters pay premium prices, but as demand increases, so does cost too. As the cost goes down, the demand continues to increase even more. The reason why healthcare costs so much is that supply outweighs demand, because those very costs are so high to begin with, that fewer and fewer people can afford to pay the capital overhead costs associated with running the industry. Each incremental year in which fewer are insured, then all of those costs are passed on to the remaining smaller pool of those who remain insured, driving up health care costs. The more people that get insured, the lower the costs are as they are spread out over a larger pool of people to pay the same overhead costs.

Summary:
I think the idea should be to get as many people insured as possible, which is drive down health care costs, allowing even more to be potentially insurable. However I also think that caution needs to be exercised with not placing too much burden on business, especially small businesses which could cause many to fail and also lay off employees. In addition I think that the health care for-profit industry might need to be re-evaluated in terms of their political power (similar to the pharmaceutical industry) as I believe that as a political and lobbying force, that there may have been some price fixing or unfair business practices which are inconsistent with the common good. Just like child labor laws, free enterprise does not extend to monopolies and oligopolies, there are limits to how far that society will allow corporations to make multi-millionaires on the backs of the public square and our citizens without making contributions back to the playing field.

Health care is an-part a public accommidation, and just like transportation districts have an obligation to the areas and demographics that they serve, so might health care as a public accommidation and not only as a pubically-traded commodity.

Yet I also see in-part of going too far with seeing health care as only a public accommidation, and if everyone was insured at the same level, for every socio-economic group, then this would be outrageously expensive or would dumb-down the overall quality to make it affordable for everyone. Those who are not part of the workforce simply, or who are underemployed with transient jobs simply should not be afforded the same level of health care as those who are earned a greater quality of life. On this aspect, health care is also commodity to a degree as well.

I think that the two-tiered system that you stated about Australia is an example of embracing health care as both a public accommidation and also as an economically commodity. The lower tier is the public accommodation, the upper tier is the economic commodity. While liberals could deride this as a “two class system”, in part is is and perhaps should be. Those who work should be rewarded; those who don’t work should be given something out of decency, but not necessarily the same as those are more productive.

Schiff and others should also be stating their own alternative ideas, unless they already believe that no chances need to be made. Anyone can knock someone else’s ideas, but it takes a lot more effort for them to have a constructive plan of their own too.

My .02 cents worth.

Sincerely,
Mark

And I commend JCC for hitting the nail on the head with several of his/her points. Specifically,
5. Pay doctors based upon results as opposed to the number of procedures performed.
6. Emphasize wellness and prevention to avoid future treatments.
11. Modify patent laws to prevent pharmaceutical companies from obtaining extensions.

are absolutely great ideas. Having had shoulder surgery last year not once, but twice to fix the same problem, I feel very strongly that doctors and other health care professionals, just like teachers, should be paid for RESULTS, not just for showing up and claiming to do something useful.

Why would you throw something like that away or even give it a chance?

All I hear up hear is people loosing their homes because they can’t afford to be sick. They ignore their sickness because they can’t afford to be healthy.

That is not a concern up here. Yes there are some lines for some equipment but it’s not a perfect system. But it is far better than the US system. The real problem here is the resistance for private and government funded system. This is where I can pay to have a private doctor where those that can’t afford it will have the public system. Currently, with a few exceptions, there is only the public health system.

With the Obama plan you have the 2 systems. That makes it better than our Canadian system. On the other hand it will be lacking in other areas.

The bottom line is this. If it is better than what you have why not embrace it! You either pay tax dollars or medical coverage dollars. if everyone is covered then the pool of people healthy and not will reduce the overall administrative costs and the fear of claim denials.

In today’s environment insurance companies pay 35% of costs, the government pays 45% of costs, and with our regulatory system and the FDA, we don’t have capitalism. Our system allows the medical practitioner to reap huge profits from a captive customer base with little no competition. Healthcare workers compensation has been growing and is out of line to the rest of the economy. In today’s system, there is virtually no competition and today’s system is not capitalism!

So how do we fix this mess? There are a few choices.

The first is a radical free market approach that has not got a snowballs chance in hell of becoming reality:
1. Get rid of the FDA
2. Modify patent laws to prevent pharmaceutical companies from obtaining extensions.
3. Doctors, Hospitals and Pharmaceutical companies would operate unfettered by regulation, allowing for competition.
4. Implement limits on liability thereby reducing malpractice related costs.
5. If mistakes or problems occur let the buyer beware. Patients should have access to records enabling them to choose based upon quality and price.
6. Quit caring for those who cannot pay.

The second is also radical but it would not provide a free market but would offer significant cost reduction. So here is the second approach:

1. Set up a quasi-socialist system with competion from cooperatives or government insurance plans.
2. Import pharmaceuticals from the lowest cost location or country.
3. Reduce hospital and medical care regulations to the extent that we can agree.
4. Limit payments for services to hospitals and doctors
5. Pay doctors based upon results as opposed to the number of procedures performed.
6. Emphasize wellness and prevention to avoid future treatments.
7. Ration care for best benefit. In many cases expensive care provides little benefit.
8. Expand the VA system or something similar to allow for government treatment.
9. Encourage the use of other countries medical services for expensive procedures.
10. Set up a system that would send patients away from high-cost to lower cost providers.
11. Modify patent laws to prevent pharmaceutical companies from obtaining extensions. .
12. Implement limits on liability for medical to reduce malpractice costs, and the need for defensive medicine.

I realize that there is not a perfect solution, and you can pick and choose from these two lists. If you don’t like the points, make your own suggestions and help solve the problem. With the ~10% per year inflation rate, costs double every 8 years. Our current system causes this inflation and we can’t afford the outcome. We can’t ignore this problem.