What does the word reform mean? Why use that empty word instead of a word that refers to the exact nature of the real change sought after that's hidden by the word reform.
"I think Nixon’s plan was a good one and had Watergate not occurred, I think Nixon’s policy would have been passed and we would not be dealing with Obamacare today."
There's no real difference between the 2 plans. They're both socialist redistribution schemes that take other people's money to finance the health care industry for the benefit of the industry itself. There isn't a bit of fundamental difference between the 2 govm't run schemes — hiding the tax elsewhere, notwithstanding.
Nixon's Special Message to the Congress Proposing a Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan February 6, 1974: "Every employer would be required to offer all full-time employees the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan. Additional benefits could then be added by mutual agreement. The insurance plan would be jointly financed, with employers paying 65 percent of the premium for the first three years of the plan, and 75 percent thereafter. Employees would pay the balance of the premiums. Temporary Federal subsidies would be used to ease the initial burden on employers who face significant cost increases.(what about the employees? hmmm...)
Individuals covered by the plan would pay the first $150 in annual medical expenses. A separate $50 deductible provision would apply for out-patient drugs. There would be a maximum of three medical deductibles per family.
After satisfying this deductible limit, an enrollee would then pay for 25 percent of additional bills. However, $1,500 per year would be the absolute dollar limit on any family's medical expenses for covered services in any one year.
As an interim measure, the Medicaid program would be continued to meet certain needs, primarily long-term institutional care..."
spunkets:
They are different plans, Nixon’s would require the Industry to use the private Insurance Market and those Insurance expenses could also be subsidized by allowing them to be deductible against Earnings, so after taxes, the cost would have been lower than what you think.
Obama’s is a totally government run system that in principle, does not like the private insurance industry and in theory, they would want the Federal Government to run the entire Health Insurance System.
They are similar in there goals but they are different in principle. Lets start with some issues, if someone loses a job and has pre-existing medical conditions, it is impossible for those folks to get health insurance, so if you have diabetes, heart issues, high-blood pressure, etc, many Private insurance firms will not even allow those types of folks to buy insurance.
Nixon’s Health Insurance plan if you stop and think about it is not in essence different from how most Retirement plans are used today. Rather than the old Defined benefit plans, which are seriously underfunded regardless if we are talking about Corporations or Government entities, all new Retirement plans that are recognized under the tax laws are more of Defined Contribution Plans such as 401K type plans were the Employer makes a contribution to the employees retirement plan, the employee makes his or her contribution, and those retirement funds are “tax deferred” until the employee reaches retirement age
However, these Defined Contribution plans are run by Private Equity Fund/Mutual Fund Companies who have accountability to their Shareholders rather than the money from these Defined Contribution plans having to be put into a Government run Retirement plan.
So the underlying principles between Nixon’s Health Insurance plan are not different from how the Government allows Defined Contribution Plans to be run and how they are treated under tax law, i.e. COrporations can deduct the their share of the Retirement contribution as an expense and they can deduct their insurance costs as expenses against Corporat earnings.
And again, while I respect your almost pure libertarian views, those are in principle unworkable. Every president has used Tax policy to influence industries and corporate behavior. R&D tax credits have been used by Presidents to stimulate Investments by certain industry sectors [Drugs, Military/Defense, Chemical] so if you are a retail firm, the tax policy is favoring those industries that do R&D vs. those that are retailing or service firms, etc.
The Oil and gas industry has at times had investment tax credits to stimulate new drilling, again the tax policy is favoring those industries vs. others.
And as stated before, every President has used tax policy to not only collect revenues for the Feds, but to help shape both economic and social policy. that is the world we live in. So the issue for me is what is the sensible use of tax policy for economic and social policy.
As I stated before, had Nixon got his plan thru, we would not be dealing with Obamacare in all liklihood today. So step out of your libertarian theoretical worldview and ask yourself this, which would you rather have in place. Nixon’s plan or Obama’s when one relied on the private sector the other was “Government run”