Lower Health Costs through Inflation Reduction Act
Finance: Lower Health Care Costs for Americans: Understanding the Benefits of the Inflation Reduction Act, September 17, 2024
The President proposed further action to Lower Health Care Costs, making permanent the expanded premium tax credits that the Inflation Reduction Act extended, providing Medicaid-like coverage to individuals in States that have not adopted Medicaid expansion, paired with financial incentives to ensure States maintain their existing expansions.
We supported this proposal but noted that the President is forgetting his promise to create a Public Option. We disagreed with the president on how to shore up the HI trust fund and expand the Affordable Care Act. ACA subsidies are too low and are funded by taxing the wrong people (investors). Families in the Silver Plan still have problems meeting copays and paying premiums. The funding is also unfortunate. Rather than expanding Medicaid, replace it for the non-elderly with the Public Option proposed in 2009. Please see the attachment in single-payer healthcare in general.
The public option should be extended to individuals who are denied coverage under pre-existing condition rules. Such rules must be revoked as the price of passing the bill. Such a trade-off is necessary for enactment of such a proposal on a bipartisan basis.
Developing the Public Option needs to be funded in the 2025 budget, or at least for 2026. Particularly, it should explore the impacts on coverage and cost of automatically enrolling individuals who are denied coverage under pre-existing condition rules.
The way to fully fund healthcare is through an employer-paid subtraction value added tax, which is an employer paid Net Business Receipts Tax.
Instead of increasing corporate tax rates, we suggest eliminating Corporate Profits taxes and taxation of business income on Form 1040 with a Subtraction VAT (with limited offsets for employee and and possibly retiree healthcare) and a credit invoice tax on both labor and profit. The combined rates of these taxes will burden both profits and labor costs, raising much more money.
S-VAT is a vehicle for tax benefits, including
Health insurance or direct care, including veterans' health care for non-battlefield injuries and long term care.
Most importantly, a refundable child tax credit at median income levels (with inflation adjustments) distributed with pay.
Subsistence level salaries and benefits force the poor into servile labor. These must be high enough to provide justice and human dignity. This allows the ending of state administered subsidy programs and discourages abortions, and as such enactment must be scored as a must pass in voting rankings by pro-life organizations (and feminist organizations as well). To assure child subsidies are distributed, S-VAT will not be border adjustable.
The President’s Budget cites PhARMA profits as a rationale for increasing business income tax rates. He proposes raising Tax Rates for Large Corporations. PhARMA’s excuse for high prices is for developing orphan drugs. We have a proposal to solve that problem.
PhARMA justifies its profits because it is burdened with high development costs for new and orphan drugs. We renew our call for a more “corporate approach” for government research and testing of new drugs.
Part of ARPA-H is the funding for research on orphan drugs and the lingering problem of their cost once research leads to product development. In comments to Senate Finance on March 16th of this year, we repeated our proposal in this area for NIH to retain ownership in any such drug and contract out its further development and manufacture. Keeping ownership in public hands ends the need for drug companies to charge extreme prices or increase prices for its existing formulary to fund development.
PhARMA would still make reasonable profit, but the government would eat the risk and sometimes reap the rewards. NIH/FDA might even break even in the long term, especially if large volume drugs which were developed with government grants must pay back a share of basic research costs and the attached profits, as well as regulatory cost.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home