McClatchy (11/25, Lightman) reports, "Americans could pay billions of dollars more in new taxes for a few years before they're likely to see significant change in the nation's healthcare system under legislation that Congress is considering." McClatchy adds that "some analysts said that's not necessarily bad," because the extra years' revenue "would give the government sufficient money and time to get things right," but "critics counter that there's no guarantee that the money will be enough, and in the meantime, higher taxes could stifle an ailing economy." Congressional Democrats "point to another benefit: The revenue would help fund a series of steps that could take effect in 2010. The Senate bill, for instance, includes $5 billion for a new program to help uninsured people with pre-existing conditions afford policies."

        Republicans criticize imposing tax hikes prior to providing credits to aid insurance purchases. The CBS Evening News (11/24, story 5, 4:55, Rodriguez) reported that healthcare reform will not add to the deficit, "according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office," which "found the Senate bill would not only pay for itself through a raft of cuts and taxes, but would actually reduce the deficit by $130 billion over ten years. Likewise, the House bill would put $138 billion back into the budget. ... But, there's a catch say Republicans. They argue Democrats artificially lowered the cost of reform by imposing new taxes years before the tax credits would kick in to help Americans buy insurance." CBS added, "That's true, but Democrats contend the bill's major taxes are aimed at the wealthiest Americans. The Senate bill, for example, boosts the Medicare payroll tax but only for individuals making more than $200,000 a year, while the House bill hits those making more than $500,000, with a 5.4% surtax on income. Republicans argue that many of the other proposed taxes on medical devices and drugmakers or on high cost insurance plans will quickly get passed along to consumers."