Posted on 01/15/2007 11:16:24 AM PST by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has long promised to oppose any new taxes, but that very vow has become the target of new debate as he pushes a massive plan to provide health care for all Californians.
The governor's proposal unveiled last week would impose billions of dollars in new charges on doctors, hospitals and employers to help expand health coverage to the estimated 6.5 million residents who are uninsured.
But while Schwarzenegger has steadfastly refused to call the new costs "taxes," some of the governor's own allies in the business and fiscal conservative communities say that's exactly what they are.
The tax vs. fee debate is more than just a question of semantics: It could decide the fate of Schwarzenegger's proposal.
Tax increases require a two-thirds vote in the Legislature, while fees need only a simple majority. And the head of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association said he would consider filing a lawsuit if the costs are not treated as "taxes" in the Legislature.
"We would have to see the language, but if there is an attempt to push this as a fee not requiring a two-thirds vote of each house, then litigation is a distinct possibility," said Jarvis president Jon Coupal. "We would look at it."
Among other things, Schwarzenegger's health care proposal calls for requiring all Californians to purchase insurance, requiring insurers to provide insurance and expanding public assistance for those who cannot afford their own insurance.
To pay for it, he has proposed companies with 10 or more employees who do not provide health coverage be required to pay an "in-lieu fee" of 4 percent of their payroll.
Hospitals would contribute a "coverage dividend" of 4 percent of gross revenues, while doctors would pay 2 percent of gross revenues.
Schwarzenegger argues the payments are fees, not taxes, because they are tied to specific programs.
And he says they are aimed at getting rid of the "hidden tax" that insured Californians pay to subsidize the uninsured who obtain free care in emergency rooms, estimated at $1,200 a year per insured family.
He says the requirement to buy coverage and an increase in Medi-Cal rates will provide an additional $10 billion to $15 billion to doctors and hospitals, more than compensating them for the new charges.
"It's not really a tax because in the end they're all going to benefit and they're going to make more money because of it, because hospitals are not going to have all the uninsured people there," Schwarzenegger said.
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nu ez, D-Los Angeles, said he also does not believe the extra costs amount to a tax.
"We really don't think it requires a two-thirds vote," Nu ez said in an interview. "But that doesn't mean the voices of the Republicans are going to be ignored. They have a place at the table. We're going to be inclusive of their concerns and their ideas."
Sabrina Lockhart, a spokeswoman for the Governor's Office, added that the health care proposal does not fit the legal definition of a tax.
"According to California state law, a tax is imposed for revenue purposes, rather than for a specific benefit," Lockhart said. "This is money from the health care system going right back into the health care system."
But Schwarzenegger also is being chided by some allies for what they say is hypocrisy because he is advocating the charges after he relentlessly argued in the 2006 governor's race that challenger Phil Angelides wanted to raise taxes by $18 billion.
The largest share of that total - $7 billion - was an Angelides-backed mandate on medium and large businesses to provide health care for their workers.
Angelides and others complained that the mandate wasn't a tax but the governor's aides insisted it was.
"He excoriated Phil Angelides, rightly, for proposing the same tax increases he has put on the table," said state Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, who had Schwarzenegger's backing in the lieutenant governor race last year.
But Lockhart said one of the key differences between that plan and the governor's proposal is that the governor's plan spreads the costs among doctors, hospitals and employers.
Still, Schwarzenegger's friends in the business community are not happy with the plan. The California Chamber of Commerce, which has been one of Schwarzenegger's staunchest allies, described the charges as taxes.
Chamber President Allan Zaremberg said he is concerned that the cost of health care is expected to rise faster than employer payrolls, meaning the charges may have to be increased even further.
"We are concerned that the new costs mandated by this plan will far outstrip anticipated resources," Zaremberg said in a written statement.
Doctors also consider the charges a tax, and say the costs will be passed along to their patients.
"To no one's surprise, physicians in California will probably not like the physicians' tax," said Dr. Anmol Singh Mahal, president of the California Medical Association.
"A tax on physicians is really a tax on those who are sick because it is the sick who go see their doctor."
Whether the costs will be determined to be taxes or fees also has political ramifications for selling the plan to the public, said Tim Hodson, director of the Center for California Studies at California State University, Sacramento.
"I think fees are generally regarded as more palatable because they're regarded as something you pay for a specific service," Hodson said.
"Now, if the health care fees are genuinely fees, then if people continue to refer to them as taxes, it's a convenient political rhetoric designed to create negative attitudes, rather than inform."
Shame on Tom for ever being taken in by Arnold's lies.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/politics/16459243.htm
During the 2006 governor's race, Schwarzenegger relentlessly accused Democrat Phil Angelides of wanting to raise taxes by $18 billion. The largest share of that total, $7 billion, was an Angelides-backed mandate on medium and large businesses to provide health care for their workers. Angelides and others complained that the mandate wasn't a tax; the governor's aides insisted it was.
"If you ask any business owner if employer-mandated health care is a tax, I would argue that they would say yes," Schwarzenegger's campaign spokesman, Matt David, said in August.
When Angelides was asked in a recent interview about Schwarzenegger's health care proposal, he chuckled.
"The governor ended up dreaming up more taxes than ever popped in my head," Angelides said. "It's unfortunate the governor used that in campaign season to attack me on what he has now admitted is a good idea."
Do you think the tune will change?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1729467/posts?page=57#57
I understand, Tom. But, for me, there never was a first time.
Really, there are no surprises here.
Well, we're lucky that Angelides wasn't successful. $7 billion wouldn't be nearly enough to fund Arnold's socialized medicine scheme.
Yes, we'll get a different excuse.
Kinda like that 2003 borrowing scheme cooked up by Gray Davis. It just wasn't enough!
Now we've got borrowing on steroids.
Massive borrowing (i.e. future TAX obligations) and Fees (i.e. TAXES). We've got it all!
http://www.nysun.com/article/46714?page_no=3
The [MLK] breakfast is organized by African-American community leaders and labor unions. Labor activists gave Ms. Pelosi a raucous ovation ...
Governor Schwarzenegger... delivered a perfunctory, three-minute speech paying tribute to King. ... With some prompting from a former San Francisco mayor and legislative leader, Willie Brown, Mr. Schwarzenegger plugged a plan he recently unveiled to require health insurance for all Californians. "It is inexcusable that this state has not yet managed to insure everybody," he said. "There is, I think, a great vibration in the Capitol, a great feeling that even though it was always 'dead on arrival', any kind of reform on health care, I think that this year there is a feeling that we will get it done."
Mr. Schwarzenegger noted that in the country of his birth, Austria, universal health insurance is taken for granted. "I think it's a cultural thing," he said, calling himself 'a fanatic' on the issue.
"We would have to see the language, but if there is an attempt to push this as a fee not requiring a two-thirds vote of each house, then litigation is a distinct possibility," said Jarvis president Jon Coupal. "We would look at it."
"consider filing a lawsuit"?
"litigation is a distinct possibility"?
Wow. Whatever happened to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association? They used to have guts.
fails to address the question. That doc only provides for systems to enroll people, not what they will do when I refuse to pay 10 cents for it, or even sign on the dotted line.
and yes, I do buy my own insurance, but I would not pay for this under any circumstance.
Sorry, I missed one of your posts.
I see the confiscatory plan regarding wages.
I would be forced to move then, were I a wage earner with no other option, but fortunately, I no longer need to be a wage slave for someone else and I my primary residence in in a state that has no state income tax, so enforcing it through my corporate returns would not be possible.
The people's republic. - I never cease to be amazed at how far they are willing to go to emulate the Gestapo in order to achieve their ends.
Sad that few appreciated either the wisdom of our founding fathers or the warnings from members of this forum. The cautions were wise. The warnings were specific.
Instead, the electorate, for reason to numerous to mention, rushed to the polls to embrace a cinematic hero without a care about governing philosophy or the traditions upon which this nation was founded and prospered.
In nature, consequences are natural and typically limited to those individuals who choose unwisely. In a democracy however, foolishness weights equally on both members of the majority and the minority.
It would be natural to be bitter toward the foolish on this forum, who should have known better, or the general members of the larger electorate, who may have not be wise enough to know better, but the responsibility of a democratic process precludes those feelings.
It is simply my responsibility, within the framework of our system, to work to remove this European liberal from the Republican Party and from public office. Dual citizenship was, and is, an onerous credential for a public official in high office.
Freshman Assemblyman Sandre Swanson, D-Oakland, seated at a front table, praised the governor for putting the issue on a front burner, but said "those of us on the left who believe health care should be a right: It's our responsibility to push our perspective, our agenda. ... The devil's in the details, so let the debate begin." [Source]
LOL ow!
Angelides then launched into a impassioned description of his own plan, which includes expanding health care to all children, cutting the profit margin for HMOs, requiring large companies to provide insurance for employees and then bringing "business leaders, consumers and health experts together to move California toward universal health care." Source
But note the large difference between Arnold and Angelides.
This socialized medicine bill could destroy CA on its own. Source
Oh please FareOpinion, explain for us this "large difference between Arnold and Angelides."
Please? We know you can do it.
Thanks CO!
Damn the archives! Full TWirP Ahead!
Side note, when is a tax neither a tax or a fee? When it's a 'charge'. Saw this term used earlier today.
Some folks in politics love playing fast and loose, as do their operatives here.
You need the code book to see the difference. ;-)
Gray Davis Borrowing ($8B): BAD
Arnold Borrowing ($15B): GOOD
Davis Deficit Spending: BAD
Arnold Deficit Spending: GOOD
Angelides Healthcare mandate on business: TAX
Arnold Healthcare mandate on business: FEE
Angelides Healthcare plan: MARXIST
Arnold Healthcare plan: "Shared Responsibility"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.