Today Former Governor Mitt Romney laid out his proposal to provide health care to all Americans. Gov. Romney has crediability in this department since he provided universal health care to all the residents of his state while Governor of Massachusetts. The plan would be tailored on a state-by-state basis. Gov. Romney said this, "A one-size-fits-all national health care system is bound to fail. It ignores the sharp difference between states and it relies on Washington bureaucracy to manage." The plan would would change the way health care operates today. The government instead of paying hospitals to treat the unisured would help patients afford buying health insurance. "No more free rides," he said. "Everybody pays what they can afford." Romeny wants to make meaningful changes to how much the health care system costs by making common sense changes like reducing regulation on the insurance industry, capping malpractice damages, and helping everyone to be insured.
It is good to see a proposal that makes sense. Romeny's plan makes Constitutional sense. Instead of ingnoring the Constiution to create a massive government takeover of insurance he provides a system that allows the states to control requirements. The ideas of reducing regulation of Insurance Companies goes a long way in reducing the burdens that have been applied by Government that does nothing but drive up cost and reduce service. A common sense approach of limited government can help us to improve the health care system of the United States.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/24/romney.healthcare.ap/index.html
Friday, August 24, 2007
Romney plan provides health care coverage while respecting the Consitution
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Another thing wrong with our Tax Code, the Barry Bonds Ball
What is wrong with our tax code? I have another example today. 21 year old Matt Murphy was on his way to Australia when he stopped in San Francisco and caught the Giants game in which Barry Bonds hit his 756th home run. Matt came away with the ball. He then was faced with a decision keep the ball and face a huge tax bill or sell the ball in order to pay the taxes and come away with some money. Before finding that he would have to pay the tax bill he had planned to loan the ball to several museums including the Basball Hall of fame. It must have been a tough decison but he knew since he didnt have the money to pay the tax bill he would have to sell. He said, "It was simple math. I'm upset by the decision I had to make," Murphy said. "I wanted to keep it. I'm young. I don't have the bank account. ... It would have cost me a lot more to keep it."
This leads me to a greater question. Why should he be taxed because he caught a homerun ball. Sure sales tax or capital "might" be approriate when he sales but tax him because he caught a ball at a ballpark. Whats next is the federal government going to go after $2 for every kid that catches a foul ball. I just thought this was ridiculous and wanted to get thoughts.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-bondsball082207&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Modern Day Publius Letter #1- Reform the tax structure
The current tax system of the United States of America is broken beyond repair. The income tax system our Government uses to collect federal revenue is a complex and confusing proposal. Currently the United States tax code consists of 45,662 pages and its collection makes up for 18% of our GDP. This has come along way since the turn of the 20th century when the tax code consisted of only a couple hundred pages and only comprised 3% of our GDP. Today the Federal Government collects $2 Trillion dollars annually in taxes.
The tax system does not work though. In 1976 Jimmy Carter proposed changing the whole code and of course it went nowhere. The compliance cost of our current system cost our taxpayers $200 Billion dollars just to get the forms filled out and the taxes paid. If we include the lost time people have in order to figure out the complex code the number would be even more incredible. At the end of the day the tax code is not even fair. Congress has loaded exemptions and special cases through out the code that has created an inequitable system. People who can afford the best tax attorneys and advisors are able to pay less in taxes than those who cannot afford such special advisors. This just makes a bad system even more unfair.
As a society we have expressed concern about our ability to save as a whole. Our tax system makes it harder for that to happen. There is no advantage in the tax system to promote savings except for IRAs and Roth IRAs. These saving vehicles have limits though. Under the current law those under 50 can only save 5,000 dollars a year in these vehicles. If they are so good for us why limit the ability we have to contribute to them.
Many experts now believe that the income based system cannot be made simple and equitable. So what must we do to fix our tax system? A consumption based tax seems like the most logical solution. Of course special attention should be given to those who do not make a whole lot of money and could be hurt by this shift. We should make several considerations at this level, possibly exempting food and medicine, or refunding the tax paid on the first 20,000 dollars of goods purchased each year. A consumption based system with such protections would allow Americans to control the amount of tax paid by making decisions based on what they should buy. It would encourage savings because people would not be taxed on the amount of money they saved and would be able to grow their saving quicker without taxing the growth of their savings. This system would also fix problems that are occurring in the present system that are causing real problems today like bracket-creep and the Alternative Minimum Tax. We would also save a lot of money at the Federal Level by eliminating the Internal Revenue System.
A new tax system is a must for the United States of America. We must encourage saving while eliminating the inequities of the current tax plan.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Chipping the S Off SCHIP-Federal Power Grap
Sarah Lueck reports on children’s health care legislation.
Even the name of a popular program to help provide health insurance to kids not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid is becoming a partisan fight on Capitol Hill.
The program has always been called the “State Children’s Health Insurance Program,” but the acronym CHIP was always catchier and most Democrats and Republicans used it initially. Occasionally, there were references to SCHIP or even CHIPS — and there were jokes about making sure Chip Kahn, then a House aide and now the head of a hospital trade association didn’t think the bill was about him.
In 1999, an aide to Republican Rep. Tom Bliley, then chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, slipped a provision in a health bill that required agencies and official documents to call the program SCHIP. Conservatives wanted to underscore states’ role, emphasizing that it wasn’t supposed to be a federally run bureaucracy. Now that Republicans are seeking to put limits on state options for coverage to control costs, Democrats are turning this old argument back on Republicans.
The Wall Street Journal usually used CHIP until the Bush administration took power and began to call the program SCHIP. Now, with Democrats in control of Congress, Senate and House bills would change the name back to CHIP.
“We think the program is for children not states,” says a Democratic aide, explaining the party’s preference for dropping the “S.” A few Republicans are on their side. Says Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch: “I am pleased that this bill changes the name SCHIP back to CHIP, the way it was before the House added the superfluous ‘S’.”
*************************************************************
“We think the program is for children not states,”
Before every term in office our Representatives should have to take a class on the Constitution. It is states that should run these type programs. Our Founders did not give those powers to the Federal government so they should stay with the states. It dosent matter if children health insurance is good or not we have to respect the Constitution. If we dont we might as well give up our freedom because we refuse to hold Government accountable.