That’s the recommendation from the Institute of Medicine, an “influential federal advisory body” that “played a key role” in Obamacare. According to the Institute, the money raised from this tax would be used to fund public health services concentrating on “preventive care”.
The levy could be imposed on doctor’s visits and prescription drugs and would apply to consumers with private insurance plans as well as those who use Medicare.
Did I miss something? I have been told by my President that medical care is so expensive in this country that many can’t afford it, so, we need Obamacare. But, according to the Institute of Medicine, who helped create Obamacare, it is not so expensive that we can’t place a tax on anyone who uses medical care.
According to the Institute,
[a]lthough it imposes a small financial burden on the clinical encounter [medical speak, for example, for setting your broken leg] a tax on medical-care transactions is unlikely to have a substantial deleterious economic effect.
This “small financial burden” is initially proposed to be 2% on every doctor’s visit, every emergency room visit, every clinical test, and every drug that you need. I can’t determine whether it also applies to eye glasses and hearing aids, but I am confident that if it doesn’t initially, it will in the future.
Of course, this “‘small financial burden” is in addition to the “small financial burden” you will pay in the form of higher insurance premiums to cover the $6.7 billion per year in increased taxes on insurance companies, the $2.3 billion per year in increased taxes on pharmaceutical companies, and the $2 billion per year in increased taxes on medical device manufacturers under Obamacare.
How many “small financial burdens” does it take before our government realizes that, put together, these “small financial burdens” do have a “substantial deleterious economic effect”?
There is good news, though.
The Institute originally thought about taxing sugary drinks, estates or life insurance.