Last Sunday, Obama took to the campaign trail yet again, stumping for health care reform. In an interview with George Stephanopoulos, President Obama flatly stated he did not agree that Senator Max Baucus’ (D-Mt.) bill markup would increase taxes on the middle class.

Yet clearly, in the markup on page 29, the very first sentence states:

The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.

The markup makes very clear that taxes will be used to force citizens to maintain health care insurance, which is an “individual mandate”. So how can President Obama possibly state it will not increase taxes and it isn’t an individual mandate? How can he argue with Mr. Stephanopoulos about the definition of the word “tax?” (Watch from 3:00 in the video linked below)

Part of the President’s argument is that “you’ve got what is effectively a tax increase taking place on Americans right now.” That point is immaterial to the question originally posed and even then, it doesn’t justify a real tax that President Obama pledged not to support.

And if the direct taxes aren’t enough to give you pause, then consider the hidden taxes. The markup also assesses taxes on plans with values above $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families (page 199). These costs won’t be absorbed, they’ll be passed on to the insured, which as President Obama argues, ‘will effectively increase taxes on Americans.’ Senator Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va. agrees;

[Senator Baucus] should understand that (his proposal) means that virtually every single coal miner is going to have a big, big tax put on them because the tax will be put on the company and the company will immediately pass it down

I also take issue with the President linking this individual mandate for health insurance with auto insurance requirements. “Nobody considers that a tax increase” — because it isn’t, Mr. President:

1. Auto insurance requirements are mandated at the state level, not the federal level.
   
2. If I don’t want to buy the insurance, I can chose not to drive.
   
3. I don’t pay a federal or state tax to cover uninsured motorists.
   
4. Failure to comply with auto insurance requirements is a one-time penalty, not a recurring tax imposed for the rest of my life
   

“I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this any more!”

But universal coverage, or lack thereof isn’t the problem we should be focusing on, nor is it the central thrust of any of the bills coming out of Congress. The central focus of all the bills so far (the actual bills, not just the executive summaries) is directly and indirectly increasing taxes on Americans. Case in point, Senator Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., mentions cost problems with the most recent markup written by Senator Max Baucus, D-Mt.:

The Baucus proposal would impose, starting in 2013, a 35 percent excise tax on insurance companies for “high-cost plans” — defined as those above $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for family plans.

The insurance companies aren’t going to absorb those costs, they’ll be passed on to their customers, making that a hidden tax. Senator Rockefeller get’s it:

[Senator Baucus] should understand that (his proposal) means that virtually every single coal miner is going to have a big, big tax put on them because the tax will be put on the company and the company will immediately pass it down and lower benefits because they are self insured, most of them, because they are larger. They will pass it down, lower benefits, and probably this will mean higher premiums for coal miners who are getting very good health care benefits for a very good reason. That is, like steelworkers and others, they are doing about the most dangerous job that can be done in America.

So that’s not really a smart idea, in fact, it’s a very dangerous idea, and I’m not even sure the coal miners in West Virginia are aware that this is what is waiting if this markup becomes law.

As I’ve said before, the amount of money the government stands to collect through supposed ‘health care reform’ represents quite a motive:

The tax contemplated by Baucus is also a big revenue raiser. It is expected to raise $200 billion, money that Baucus is hoping to use to pay for subsidies for the uninsured.

Senator Rockefeller has gone on record stating he will not support Baucus’ markup unless it receives a major overhaul in the amendment process.

Back to my original statement–this is all cloaked in the intention of covering the uninsured, which isn’t the core problem with health care right now. The core problem is cost, cost, cost. The reason the Democrats are selling these bills as champions of universal coverage is because it’s very difficult, nearly impossible to refute the need for universal coverage. The second one argues against universal coverage, despite the rational, he gets lambasted.

Using universal coverage as the main argument is also inline with Saul Alinsky’s second rule, which states “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” The cost of health care in the U.S. is an extremely complicated subject. Even the experts have difficulty explaining the high cost, its causes, and possible solutions. Therefore it’s much more effective to wrap health care reform in the baby-blanket of universal coverage, since few would argue against something so adorable.

Don’t be fooled. Approach these bills with a healthy skepticism. Read them and seek to understand them. If the bill doesn’t effectively reduce health care costs while remaining budget neutral, encourage your representatives to vote against it. Health care reform is something that will impact generations of Americans.