So basically Bush took No Child Left Behind, saw how well that was working, and the Decider decided to fix the insurance problem just like he fixed our educational system.

Fantastic!

The customization, not too sad. Not happy, but not too sad. The joy over it, if meant with neither irony or sarcasm, extremely.

Noting only that health insurance is considered taxable income if you get coverage for your same-sex partner on your health insurance (assuming that you work for an employer that allows you to do so).

If you don't own your own home and you're not a business person, then you're not much of an American.

I do own my home and am, relatively speaking, a business person, but so far the Bush "tax cuts" have all been designed to benefit people who are not me. I'd have to make a good deal more money and have children to benefit.

Taxing health insurance benefits sounds like a good way to convince the American public that government health care might not be such a bad thing.

And a tax-and-spend society too, apparently.

In light of the deficits, I'd call it borrow-and-spend.

Meanwhile in MA, which is trying to do something about health insurance for all its citizens, the first draft of the plan has come back requiring members at three times the poverty rate ($29,600/year, btw) to pay $360 a month.

To their credit, it sounds like everyone involved in putting together the plan is appalled and are studying ways to bring it down more.

24: I was so hoping that

I fell asleep while watching it, so I still haven't seen the whole thing. I saw the reveal of the brother, though. We didn't start until well after 10, and I'd had two glasses of wine by then, because I have some muscles acting up, and no prescription for anything useful (wine application was successful, though).

I want to kill the "Hello [Name]" spammers.

And thwap people who think I should be able to teach them how their software works on their remote systems. Um, that's not something we wrote, installed, support or use. Not even our computer, it's yours! So why in the hell do you expect me to know more about it than you do?

Meanwhile in MA, which is trying to do something about health insurance for all its citizens, the first draft of the plan has come back requiring members at three times the poverty rate ($29,600/year, btw) to pay $360 a month.

What's the correct emoticon for eye's bugging out of your head?

mega

Okay, I've gained a few pounds over the years, but not that many!

Here's the skinny from the Kaiser Family Foundation:

Lawmakers and health policy experts on Monday offered mixed reactions to a Bush administration proposal that would offer federal tax deductions of $7,500 for individuals and $15,000 for families who acquire health insurance on their own or through an employer, the AP/San Jose Mercury News reports (Freking, AP/San Jose Mercury News, 1/22). The proposal, which President Bush announced on Saturday in his weekly radio address, would for the first time levy an income tax on the value of employer-sponsored health insurance in some cases. Currently, employees are not taxed on the value of their employer-sponsored health insurance. Under the proposal, individuals and families with employer-sponsored health insurance plans worth more than the proposed allowable deductions would pay income taxes on the difference. The deduction would be available to all individuals and families who purchase health insurance, regardless of the value of their policies or whether they itemize deductions on their tax returns. For U.S. residents who receive employer-based health insurance, the deduction would be offset by the cost of their coverage (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 1/22). Bush is expected to promote the proposal in his State of the Union address Tuesday evening (AP/San Jose Mercury News, 1/22). The proposal would pose no net cost to the government over 10 years, Katherine Baicker of the White House Council of Economic Advisers said Monday (Pender, San Francisco Chronicle, 1/23).

Lawmaker Reaction

According to the AP/Mercury News, the proposal "appears to be shaping up as a tough sell in the Democratic Congress." House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee Chair Pete Stark (D-Calif.) said, "Under the guise of tax breaks, the president is pursuing a policy designed to destroy the employer-based health care system through which 160 million people receive coverage" (AP/San Jose Mercury News, 1/22). Stark said the proposal "won't help the uninsured, most of whom have limited incomes and are already in low tax brackets. But it will hurt middle-income Americans, whose employers will shift even more cost and risk to their employees" (Pugh, McClatchy/Miami Herald, 1/23). House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair John Dingell (D-Mich.) said, "The administration is attempting to drive people into the unregulated individual insurance market that has been known to deny coverage for common illnesses such as cancer and diabetes" (Johnson/Vaughan, CongressDaily, 1/22). Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said some moderate lawmakers might be willing to consider a variation on the Bush proposal, CQ HealthBeat reports. "I applaud the president for putting health care coverage at the fore of his State of the Union address," Baucus said, adding, "I want to look closely to see whether his proposal will help cover the uninsured and help to meet the needs of those with real medical expenses" (Reichard, CQ HealthBeat, 1/22). Baucus said his top priority is expanding health insurance for children (AP/San Jose Mercury News, 1/22). Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who has proposed legislation that would require individuals to obtain health insurance, said, "I want to make it clear that my door is open to work in a bipartisan way, but it's got to be a comprehensive overhaul," adding, "You can't start by hitting the middle class that way and not take care of the (health insurance) marketplace." Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chair Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) said, "I am concerned that taxing health benefits may undermine the good coverage that many Americans already have, while inadequate credits will do little to make health care more affordable for those who are struggling to pay their premiums now." Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said, "It's a good idea. It's a partial solution." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said, "Too many people today who don't get health insurance through their jobs are unfairly priced out of the (continued...)