Get free daily email updates

Syndicate this site - RSS

Recent Posts

Blogger Menu

Click here to blog

Jon Fleischman

Leg. Counsel: Charges In Gov’s Health Plan Are Taxes NOT Fees!

Republican Assemblyman Rick Keene submitted the healthcare proposal from Governor Schwarzenegger to the independent Legislative Counsel for an opinion on whether the charges proposed by the Governor on employers, hospitals and surgeons are a tax increase as defined by the California Constitution. 
 
Undoubtedly Keene had to submit this question to the Counsel’s office because the Governor, who campaigned with an iron-clad promise that he would never ever raise taxes, has been characterizing these charges as "fees" — arguing that that there is a ‘hidden tax’ on Californians (the ‘cost’ of covering uninsured Californians) and therefore these charges, because they are part of a plan that purports to reduce this ‘burden’ on all of us, is a fee and not a tax. 
 
What are the charges?  Increased payroll taxes, and increased income taxes on hospitals and doctors!
 
Well, it comes as no surprise that the Legislative Counsel has made it very clear that, "…the provider contribution that would be imposed pursuant to the proposal would not constitute a fee and, as a result, would be characterized as a tax…" — but don’t take my word for it, I have reprinted two excerpts from the opinion below, and have attached a .pdf of the full opinion for your personal review.
 
FR readers understand, I am sure, the important distinction here as a tax increase requires a 2/3 vote of both houses of the legislature, where a fee increase does not.
 
What happens now?  I am sure that the debate over how to achieve the goal of more Californians having health care insurance will go on, but perhaps there will be a little more honesty in the debate. 
 
The Governor has made it clear that he wants a ‘bipartisan’ plan implemented.  But this ruling is welcome news because as we saw last year, the Governor is perfectly comfortable defining ‘bipartisan’ as all of the Democrats… and himself.
 
What would be especially meaningful now would be if the Governor were to hold a press conference, and much in the same way that he apologized for the entire 2005 special election (a noble effort for which his apology was misplaced), he should apologize to Californians for proposing a tax increase, in violation of his pledge, and take it off of the table.
 
We’ll let FR readers know if that happens…  But don’t cancel any of your other plans.

In the meantime, a the focus of our debate in California on health care should be centered around identifying the specific group of people without insurance coverage, and then developing market-based solutions on how to lessen that number.  The Governor should remember that Democrats have as a goal to make health-care a ‘right’ in this state, and have it provided by government.  And they will be happy to make any strides in that direction that the Governor is willing to make…
 
FROM THE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL OPINION
 
Quoting the last paragraph starting on page 5 of the opinion:

Applying these principles to the employer contribution under the proposal, it is difficult to identify a regulatory program to which these contributions would apply.  As described, the proposal would impose a mandate on all Californians to secure health care coverage.  In addition, because the employer contribution is to be imposed solely on those employers who elect not to provide health care coverage for their employees, it may be argued, although it is not expressed in the proposal, that the purpose of the employer contribution is to regulate the provision of health care coverage by employers to employees.  By imposing such requirements, the proposal may have certain regulatory aspects.  However, no other aspects of the proposal, in our view, would directly apply to otherwise regulate the employers who are required to pay the contributions to fund the proposal’s provisions.  Thus, we do not believe that a court would find that the proposal would create a regulatory program with respect to these employers who elect not to provide health care coverage to their employees.  We therefore think a court would conclude that the contributions proposed to be paid for employers are to raise revenues for a state program that is not regulatory in nature but is a program for the general benefit of the public.  Consequently, we are of the view that a court would characterize the employer contribution under the proposal as a tax and not a fee to support a regulatory program.

Finally, concluding on page 11 of the opinion, the Legislative Counsel says:

In summary, the physicians and surgeons and hospitals required to pay the provider contribution would, in our view, not be subject to any valid regulatory program, and would realize no special benefit from the proposal nor would a nexus exist between the activities or operations of these providers and the problems addressed by the proposal.  Therefore, it is our opinion that the provider contribution that would be imposed pursuant to the proposal would not constitute a fee and, as a result, would be characterized as a tax for purposes of Section 3.  [emphasis added]

You can download the entire opinion, from which these excerpts were taken, by clicking on it below.

Care to read comments, or make your own about today’s Daily Commentary?

Just click here to go to the FR Weblog, where this Commentary has its own blog post, and where you can read and make comments.