You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Economy
Sugar Water tax to pay for National Health? $6 billion down $2.394 Trillion to go
2009-05-12
Senate leaders are considering new federal taxes on soda and other sugary drinks to help pay for an overhaul of the nation's health-care system.

The taxes would pay for only a fraction of the cost to expand health-insurance coverage to all Americans and would face strong opposition from the beverage industry. They also could spark a backlash from consumers who would have to pay several cents more for a soft drink.

On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee is set to hear proposals from about a dozen experts about how to pay for the comprehensive health-care overhaul that President Barack Obama wants to enact this year. Early estimates put the cost of the plan at around $1.2 trillion. The administration has so far only earmarked funds for about half of that amount.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based watchdog group that pressures food companies to make healthier products, plans to propose a federal excise tax on soda, certain fruit drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks and ready-to-drink teas. It would not include most diet beverages. Excise taxes are levied on goods and manufacturers typically pass them on to consumers.

Senior staff members for some Democratic senators at the center of the effort to craft health-care legislation are weighing the idea behind closed doors, Senate aides said.

The Congressional Budget Office, which is providing lawmakers with cost estimates for each potential change in the health overhaul, included the option in a broad report on health-system financing in December. The office estimated that adding a tax of three cents per 12-ounce serving to these types of sweetened drinks would generate $24 billion over the next four years.

So far, lawmakers have not indicated how big a tax they are considering.

Proponents of the tax cite research showing that consuming sugar-sweetened drinks can lead to obesity, diabetes and other ailments. They say the tax would lower consumption, reduce health problems and save medical costs. At least a dozen states already have some type of taxes on sugary beverages, said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#11  Yokay, I'll bite, methought the MSM-Net repor this RECESSION + DEPRESSION 2 was going to end by this SUMMER 2009; + the BAMMER = US FDA wants to sink "CHEERIOS"???
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2009-05-12 22:22  

#10  numbers schmumbers. Facts have little or no place in the land of HopenChange. Details to be worked out. In the meantime. Obama saved 2.3 trillion jobs today.... a few ten thousands lost theirs, but the rest were saved...
Posted by: Frank G   2009-05-12 19:26  

#9  Something isn't adding up. $1.5 trillion over 10 years to have National Health?

Health Insurance Costs

By several measures, health care spending continues to rise at a rapid rate and forcing businesses and families to cut back on operations and household expenses respectively.

In 2008, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent -- two times the rate of inflation.1 Total spending was $2.4 TRILLION in 2007, or $7900 per person1. Total health care spending represented 17 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

U.S. health care spending is expected to increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4.3 TRILLION in 2017, or 20 percent of GDP.1

Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2009-05-12 17:06  

#8  But wait! There's more!

WASHINGTON – The Senate's top tax writer said Tuesday he is considering limits on the tax-free status of job-based health insurance to help pay for President Barack Obama's plan to cover all Americans.

Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., described his idea as senators began to grapple with how to pay for the costs of the plan, which independent experts put at about $1.5 trillion over 10 years. There are no easy options.

The final package is likely to include a mix of tax increases and spending cuts. Among the possibilities: tax hikes on alcoholic beverages and sugary soft drinks, and restrictions on other health care related tax breaks, such as flexible spending accounts.

But some taxes don't seem to be on the table, such as a federal sales levy to pay for health care, or a new payroll tax.

On the controversial question of taxing health benefits, Baucus is staking out a position that could put him at odds with Obama.

The president adamantly opposed such taxes during the campaign, arguing they would undermine job-based coverage. Obama's aides now say he's open to considering suggestions from Congress, even if he criticized Republican presidential rival John McCain for proposing a sweeping version of it.

Baucus said he wants to readjust the tax break, not abolish it. "We are not going to repeal it," he said.

But Baucus suggested that the benefit could be limited by taxing health care provided to high-income individuals or by taxing the value of extravagant health insurance plans. Baucus did not specify at what income level the tax would kick in.

Employer-provided health insurance is considered part of workers' compensation, but unlike wages, it is not taxed. The foregone revenue to the federal government amounts to about $250 billion a year.

Proponents of repealing the benefit say it encourages lavish health insurance plans that only add to waste in the health care system. And they argue that the benefit is unfair, since self-employed people don't get as big a tax break for health care.

Many experts say that Congress won't be able to come up with the kind of money needed to provide coverage for all unless limitations on the health care tax break are part of the mix.


So, Senator, when are you going to propose that Congress junks their primo health care program and get's in the same boat with the rest of us?
I'll wait...
Posted by: tu3031   2009-05-12 16:36  

#7  Along the lines of, "Those tea party yahoos are the kind of people who sit in front of the boob tube, gorging on sweet fizzy drinks and potato chips", Wild Indian? As compared to their august selves, who watch Masterpiece Theater (Did you see what they did with Austen's Pride and Prejudice my dear? Finally, someone has done it justice!) and BBC news, while sipping an insouciant little white and nibbling on crudites.

I think the Senate leaders have forgotten what their children and grandchildren consume by preference. This could prove very amusing indeed.
Posted by: trailing wife    2009-05-12 16:04  

#6  Getting ready for heap big tea party.

By the way. Don't be surprised if this was conjured up as a slap at the tea party activities, all be it a indirect slap of the face by the politicians.
Posted by: Wild Indian   2009-05-12 14:20  

#5  I still insist on calling for a windfall profits tax on any politician's book deal. 99.999% seems about right...
Posted by: tu3031   2009-05-12 14:12  

#4  Barry's midget governor buddy was pushing for one up here. Didn't go over too big.
Posted by: tu3031   2009-05-12 14:09  

#3  Ima think that a tax on soda has about the same resonance for today's American as the tea tax had for his Colonial counterpart.
Posted by: Grenter, Protector of the Geats   2009-05-12 14:04  

#2  POT. Need to get a new keyboard.
Posted by: Jonathan   2009-05-12 14:04  

#1  Legalize and tax pt, then slap a huge tax on soda and Doritos. Huge windfall.
Posted by: Jonathan   2009-05-12 14:03  

00:00