Good question. Well, I have not run any numbers, but I have thought about the balances and tradeoffs. So I think we can take a very rough stab at whether it is a large net gain or net loss. Lets' see if I can hit the major points:
Well, a significant number of under 65 *are* currently paying for their health insurance, either privately or in combo with their employer (so that is largely coming out of their salary). So we can very roughly assume that the cost to them in total taxes would be about what they are paying out-of-pocket. That makes the assumption that the govt actually pays for the vouchers out of current taxes rather than pushing the cost forward, but let's do that for now for simple accounting. So, give me a $x,xxx voucher and increase my taxes by $x,xxx - it's all the same on average.
Now, for the poor. Well, we end up paying for them out of our taxes anyhow, right? Or from cost shifting by hospitals (we can't collect from Indigent Joe, so we WILL collect from Insured Joe). So no real change there either. In fact, there is a big opportunity for cost cutting. Eliminate some of those ER visits, because a doctor will see them. Get some proactive health measures in place which could possibly reduce the overall health care cost. Potential Win-Win.
Am I missing any big piles of expenses? If not, then I don't think those vouchers will cost us much if anything net-wise. So no, it shouldn't drag the economy down with extra taxes. Lotsa guess work there, but that's about all we can do. See anything you strongly disagree with?
-ERD50