Method in the Madness?

I've been thinking a bit about the Bush Campaignistration's notion of stripping the tax-deductibility of health insurance costs, and it's led to an interesting thought experiment.  I'll just trot out this multi-year possibility.

1. Float notion of removing income tax deduction for health insurance.  Use liberal reaction to underscore problem of employment-based health insurance.
2. Suggest enhancing associational health plans tied to longer-term community institutions, like, say,  oh I don't know, churches. Pass law making same easier to set up.
3. Notice that there is now unequal treatment of premiums paid by employee-insureds versus parishioner-insured, and since we want to be fiscally responsible and fair, now strip deductibility from employer-paid premiums.
4. Employees lose health insurance because of increased costs, turn to associational health plans.  Churches, especially FCR megachurches, are ready for them.  Of course, you have to continue to be actively associated with a church in order to qualify for the plans, but that's not a hardship, now is it?
5. FCR megachurches now have larger captive congregations to spam with pro-Republican propaganda.
6. Repeat, either serially or in parallel, with all social programs.

It's just a thought experiment, but I think it's plausible.  Remember, it's all about the larger project, always.  I note that items 2 and 3 may not be separated in time.  One could see the Bush Campaignistration ramming those two measures through at the same time, rather than staging them. 

This thought experiment brought to you in honor of Alan Greenspan, author of:

1. Claim SSI will die, raise payroll taxes on workers, put into general fund.
2. Payroll taxes create general fund surplus, so lower income taxes on wealthy.
3. Lower income taxes on wealthy create huge general fund deficit, SSI deficit remains, therefore must cut spending, especially SSI benefits.

I can only hope to emulate Greenspan, the true master of the bait and switch.

Comments

[wunderdog]

Continuing this line of reasoning, I'd have to wonder whether the stipulations put into the medicare bill that prevent large associations of consumers from bargaining on prescription drug prices (ala the VA)could enhance a rift within the Republican party should different parts of the base be put at odds with one another. Big Pharma protecting its position vs. Big Religion capitalizing on its role in election 2004. Whatever the case, I don't like the idea of rewarding churches with what amounts to a quid pro quo, and think such a scenario as you laid out is troubling/worth keeping an eye on.

[Hal]

He is the master-baiter

[coturnix]

WARNING!!! Shameless self-promotion. Please post comment here:

http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/2004/11/two-americas-past-present-and-future.html

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Paperwight, you make a compelling case. I've been wracking my brain trying to figure out any possible motive for the Bush administration to destroy that tax break. The official story is that they're slashing this exemption to offset their other tax cuts. But it's not as if this administration cares about fiscal discipline, so there's no particular reason to think that they felt obliged any sacrifice at all to offset the new tax breaks. There's no way they'd float a politically inflammatory suggestion like this without a concrete ulterior motive.

[paperwight]

Wunderdog - IIRC, the medicare bill only prevented the US government from negotiating the cost of pharmaceuticals. I don't think it included any restriction on private entities doing the same. I am certainly open to hearing otherwise.

Lindsay - I could be wrong about this. It's possible. They may have something entirely different in mind. But the bottom line is that the people running the Republican party do *nothing* simply for good public policy reasons as most people would understand them. They do everything for political power; the end goal is the destruction of roughly the last 100 years of the social contract and the permanent installation in power of a weak government which serves and empowers a reactionary corporate and fundamentalist Christian oligarchy.

That's not my opinion, BTW; it's really quite clear from the published statements of their think tanks, lobbyists, funders, and many of the political leaders. So when I'm in doubt about something they're doing, I just think about it from that perspective.

[wunderdog]

You're right about the cost negotiation. For some reason (short attention span, inability to read things closely) I had the mistaken impression that groups such as the AARP would find drug price negotiations more difficult under this bill.

[Charles2]

No fair, paperwight... I come back from a long, relaxing, relatively news-free weekend and you go and scare the hell out of me.

Thanks.

Damn.

[eRobin]

It answers another question that's been driving me crazy, which is what the Norquista's envision the result of all their tax cutting and slashing of gov't will look like. The poor aren't going away despite what BushCo yammers about when he's on the campaign trail. So who's going to take care of them? I've been thinking that they want that job to fall to the church - your idea makes a lot of sense in that direction.

[Mick]

Could you, like, refrain from giving them any more bad ideas? It's not like they need help doing that, and I don't think they'd thought of this much before you mentioned it.

Sssh! Quiet as a mouse. Maybe they didn't hear you....

[Kathy]

I think what you suggested here is a very real possibility. Certainly they're already funneling millions upon millions of dollars to churches under the faith-based intiative (money that used to go to non-religious charities). It makes sense that they'd take the next step and I can already hear the arguments

"If individuals get their health benefits through their church, they don't have to worry about losing benefits when they change jobs."

"By moving health insurance benefits out of the corporate world, we reduce the costs to businesses. Money currently spent on managing benefits can be invested in businesses to create jobs."

Oh boy.

I also believe that the motive is to increase the privatization of services provided at the state and local level, that the Bush administration wants a strange combination of theocracy and corporatism and eliminating this deduction moves him forward on both fronts.

Perhaps we need to create a church now so that we can join it and get coverage down the road without having to join a religious community.

[Edward James]

You are a sadly scared bunch of folks. Nothing is ever good is it? Unless of course it comes from someone like Bill Clinton. Rest assured though, the last community you join when your body dies will be religious; let's just hope they accept you.