• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Reid 2.0: Even Higher Premium Taxes

    As part of Senator Harry Reid’s indefatigable effort to make each new version of the Senate health care legislation worse than the previous one, his Manager’s Amendment restructures and expands the health insurance premium tax included in the earlier versions of the Senate bill.

    The earlier versions would have imposed a flat, $6.7 billion per year, health insurance premium tax (disguised as a “fee” imposed on private health insurers), starting in 2010.

    The new version uses the same mechanism, but the tax doesn’t start until 2011 and is only $2 billion that first year — but then it increases to $4 billion in 2012, $7 billion in 2013, $9 billion in the years 2014, 2015 and 2016, and eventually $10 billion for 2017 and every year thereafter.
    healthpremium

    Perhaps, Sen. Reid is trying to diffuse the negative political impact of this new tax by delaying it a year and starting off smaller.

    But by the third year, the tax is bigger than the original version ($7 billion vs. $6.7 billion) and by 2017 it reaches a permanent level of $10 billion a year. As previously noted:

    This insurance premium tax would create a new, permanent federal tax that could, and likely would, be increased by Congress in future years as the growth in new government spending in the legislation outstrips the growth of revenues to fund that spending.

    Turns out, it actually took exactly one month for Sen. Reid to do just that. The November 18 version of the premium tax (Reid bill 1.0 or H.R. 3950) would have raised $67 billion over the 2010-2019 ten-year budget period. The December 19 version of the tax (Reid bill 2.0, the Manager’s Amendment) will now raise $70 billion dollars over the same time period and collects that amount just nine of the ten years.

    When fully implemented, a family of four can expect to pay $281 a year in additional taxes on their employer group health insurance and an elderly couple enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan can expect to pay $407 per year in insurance premium taxes.

    Just think of it as another one of the Senate’s little Christmas gifts to middle class taxpayers.

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    7 Responses to Reid 2.0: Even Higher Premium Taxes

    1. Freedom of Speech, T says:

      YOU WILL NOT PAY ONE DIME…..

      Entirely correct. It will be trillions and will eventually implode. It cannot sustain itself without taxing everyone 90% and then who will want to work – or will you be forced to?

      There is historical precedent for this.

      If they can jail or fine you what is next?

      These cowards always attack with legislation that is ever-tightening – like a noose around the neck. It is in fact a noose squeezing out individual liberty. Make sure you don't say a prayer on school property – that might offend someone. Well, these scheming politicians offend me at every turn.

    2. Bobbie Jay says:

      Plenty of ideas, American congress, to get uninsured people to do for themselves at their own expense! WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE, WHICH KEEPS US FREE!!

      It's funny how government sets the rules, mandates needless higher premiums, further burdening the ability to own private insurance, let alone run it and call it competition? Dishonesty, corruption, thievery, isn't fair game with honesty. It is force beyond will… Stand Strong!

      psst… Unless congress is being threatened, have a change of vote in the name of freedom! Protecting THE PEOPLES FREEDOM is your job…hmm?

      THIS IS NOT A CRISIS!

    3. VIctor Gonzales, Ari says:

      i am going Galt on insurance if this is signed by the president.

      Thanks to these idiots forcing insurers to accept me with pre existing conditions I no longer have a reason to buy insurance and a fine of2-2.5 percent of my families income is less than half of what the cheapest plan costs.

      I refuse to take a subsidy for my care from someone elses hard earned wages and I vow to continue paying my own medical bills but if something serious happens I will buy insurance long enough to pay for it and then drop it again.

      Even if this could work as the democrat's plan (it can't) I refuse to take part in such an unconstitutional mandate that I buy anything. You want to tax me go ahead but I will not be a part of buying into socialized medicine.

      The idea that my body is the property of society and I am limited by government on how I can take care of my own body incites me to a rage that i cannot explain.

      Our founders would be as baffled as I am that any person would allow the government this kind of control in their lives.

      I will do my best to break this system by not taking part in it because apparently the goal is to take our freedom one piece at a time until there is none left. I would rather break it big enough that people realize what is going on and we toss all these socialist bums out of this country much less out of their positions.

      Go Galt with me people. It is cheaper and will force their hand as their design of control collapses on itself and their only option will be to incite a revolution by FORCING the people to comply by more than just a tax or to admit their policy never was about growing the economy or promoting wealth and freedom in the first place.

      Go Galt.

    4. Pingback: Reid 2.0: Even Higher Premium Taxes : Discount Health

    5. Sam, CA says:

      Victor Gonzales writes:

      "I refuse to take a subsidy for my care from someone elses hard earned wages and I vow to continue paying my own medical bills but if something serious happens I will buy insurance long enough to pay for it and then drop it again."

      Victor – you do see the absurd contradiction in this statement, right?

    6. Pingback: Rep Griffith flips Obama and Pelosi ‘the bird’; will announce his switch from DEM to Republican today « VotingFemale Speaks!

    7. Pingback: Merry Christmas Obama; hope you like your new record low of MINUS 21 Aproval Index, so says Rasmussen « VotingFemale Speaks!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×