We have gone over this (exceptionally weak) point again and again; I wonder why you insist on rehashing it. Sales tax reimbursement is a) a universal norm in American life in the year 2013; b), the sole, weird exception to not itemizing one's costs of doing business; c) is always the fixed percentage of whatever the region's actual sales tax rate is, allowing the consumer to be confident that every single dollar collected is actually used for its mandated purpose: going to the state's department of revenue rather than, say, getting spent on a new golf cart for the business owner.
A healthcare surcharge miserably fails all three criteria. By definition, it fails a) and b): while consumers have learned to tolerate the one exception of sales tax reimbursement in this one specific part of the world, they certainly do not want to deal with additional itemization, which needlessly complicates the bill.* And the variability of health care surcharges means that it also fails c): the fact that every surcharge is a different amount gives consumers no confidence that their money is truly being spent in a standardized, mandated manner, rather than the restaurant simply making up a BS number to charge and hoping the amount collected exactly matches the amount mandated.
*And no, there's nothing special about government versus non-government-cost related surcharges in this regard, so stop pretending as if there is. Try surveying non-New Yorkers who've been confronted with a line item for the "captain's tip" on the check when dining at NYC restaurants. I guarantee you that many more of them will, after you explain what a captain's tip is, respond "that sounds like a scam and they should stop adding that on, especially at a typical mid-range joint where the "captain" is just a plain old regular hostess" than "oh, that surely makes sense to break out an extra line for tipping the hostess."
↧