Home - Rethink Reform

Current legislation means tax hikes on the poor and middle class, not just high-income taxpayers.

Under proposed legislation, “the largest increases in marginal tax rates may well apply not to the rich but to millions of middle-class families. These increases would not show up explicitly in the tax code but, rather, implicitly as part of health care reform.”
—Gregory Mankiw, professor of economics at Harvard, in The New York Times, October 31, 2009.

More and more Americans will be affected by the income-tax surcharge

“Passed to hit only 1% of all Americans in 1969, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) wasn't indexed for inflation […] Today, families with incomes as low as $75,000 a year can be hit by the AMT unless Congress passes an annual ‘patch.’ The Pelosi-Obama health tax surcharge will have a similar effect. […] After 20 years without indexing, the surcharge threshold would be roughly $250,000.”
—Wall Street Journal, “Return of the Inflation Tax,” November 6, 2009

Health care subsidies take money from the very people they are trying to help— the poor.

“A subtler problem is what economists call “implicit marginal tax rates.” The fiscal reality is that not all income groups can receive equal subsidies; as a family earns more, its subsidy would probably decrease, eventually falling to zero. But then we are taking money away from the poor as they climb into higher income categories.[…] This structure of incentives would likely discourage many parents from earning a better life for their children.”
—Tyler Cowen, professor of economics at George Mason University, The New York Times, Oct. 24, 2009

The cost of health insurance may be shifted to the middle class over time

“Most astounding of all is what this Congress is willing to do to struggling middle-class families. The bill would impose nearly $400 billion in new taxes and fees. Nearly 90% of that burden will be shouldered by those making $200,000 or less. It might not appear that way at first, because the dollars are collected via a 40% tax on sales by insurers of "Cadillac" policies, fees on health insurers, drug companies and device manufacturers, and an assortment of odds and ends. But the economics are clear. These costs will be passed on to consumers by either directly raising insurance premiums, or by fueling higher health-care costs that inevitably lead to higher premiums.”
—Former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Wall Street Journal, October 13, 2009

Taxpayers would be on the hook for the health care of millions of Americans

“If this plan were to morph into something like Medicare, as many as 119 million of the 172 million Americans who are privately insured would switch from private to public coverage, according to an analysis by The Lewin Group, a health care consulting firm. […] Creating another federal health care program is a huge and expensive step toward handing the government complete control of Americans' health care.”
—Chicago Tribune, “No Option”, October 30, 2009

The cost of insurance premiums will be higher

“…the bill will levy taxes and fees that simply cannot improve a precarious economic situation. It will undertake insurance market reforms that will raise the premiums of those that already have insurance, especially small businesses.”
—Former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Kaiser Health News, November 8th, 2009

Insurance mandates could force millions into more expensive plans

“…Obama’s definition of ‘meaningful’ coverage could eliminate the health plans that now cover as many as half of the 163 million Americans with employer-sponsored insurance as well as more than half the roughly 18 million Americans who obtain health insurance on the individual market…any politically plausible mandate could therefore compel close to 100 million Americans to switch to a more comprehensive health plan with higher premiums…”
—Michael F. Cannon, an economist at the Cato Institute, All the President’s Mandates, September 23, 2009

Regulations mean fewer insured, higher costs

”[Inability to deny coverage] would provide a strong incentive for someone who is healthy to drop his or her health insurance.[…] After all, if serious illness hit this person or a family member, he could immediately obtain coverage.[…] As healthy individuals decline coverage in this way, insurance companies would come to have a sicker population. The higher cost of insuring that group would force insurers to raise premiums.”
—Martin Feldstein, professor of economics at Harvard University, Washington Post, November 6, 2009

Under current legislation, health insurers, government, and employers would need to have access to your family’s personal financial data, including income.

“Taxing employers based on employees' family income would require informing companies of their employees' family incomes from other sources.[…] To enforce these provisions, the bill would therefore require individuals, health insurers, employers, and government health agencies to report detailed health insurance information on all Americans to the IRS.”
—Robert A. Book, Ph.D., Guinevere Nell and Paul L. Winfree, “The Baucus Individual Health Insurance Mandate: Taxing Low-Income and Moderate-Income Workers,” The Heritage Foundation, September 25, 2009