View Full Version : US: Obama's New "Doctor" Tax
redsox39
07-15-2009, 04:02 PM
The House version of ObamaCare plans to Tax the shit out of individuals earning the highest incomes in America to defray the costs of “reform”. Who would those people be? After entertainers and athletes, which professions earn the highest mean annual salaries — and will likely have to contribute most to the surtax? Here are the top 15:
Surgeons
Anesthesiologists
Orthodontists
Obstetricians and gynecologists
Oral and maxillofacial surgeons
Internists, general
Prosthodontists
Physicians and surgeons, all other
Family and general practitioners
Chief executives
Dentists, general
Psychiatrists
Pediatricians, general
Dentists, all other specialists
Podiatrists
Notice a pattern here? Fourteen of the top 15 positions (again, after entertainers and athletes, for which the BLS gives no mean annual income) come from the health-care field. Only CEOs break the pattern, coming in at #10, which might surprise some class-warriors. Lawyers come in at #16, by the way.
Now, this data may make some people say, “Well, great! Doctors make too much money anyway!” However, this also shows that we have a system that compensates the actual providers of health care at a rate which keeps supply at a point where we don’t have to worry about waiting a year for a surgery we need or whether a dentist even works anywhere near where we live. Penalizing the actual providers of medical care means less incentive for the straight-A students to enter the field, which will curtail supply at a point where demand will skyrocket, thanks to the suddenly cost-free basis for people to seek it. That’s exactly the trap into which other single-payer systems have fallen.
Have at it, Wiffle.
IdiotBrain
07-15-2009, 04:07 PM
We need a flat 23% tax across the board.
This is some of the stupidest shit I've ever heard.
We need a flat 23% tax across the board.
This is some of the stupidest shit I've ever heard.
You've obviously heard of FlatTax, so you've heard of stupider stuff.
IdiotBrain
07-15-2009, 04:17 PM
Right, because taking 30% of what I make in order to give MY money to programs that I neither want, need, benefit from or believe in [and that don't even fucking work, for that matter] and people who are too unmotivated or lazy to better themselves is FAR superior to taxing everyone equally across the board.
Right, because taking 30% of what I make in order to give MY money to programs that I neither want, need, benefit from or believe in [and that don't even fucking work, for that matter] and people who are too unmotivated or lazy to better themselves is FAR superior to taxing everyone equally across the board.
Yes. Because if you tax people to pay for the program they then use you aren't providing any benefit, they're just sending in a check only to have it mailed back to them throughout the year.
And yes, of course, poverty is purely an issue of the lazy and unmotivated.
IdiotBrain
07-15-2009, 04:23 PM
No, not only, just mostly.
So, not only are "we the people" the proud owners of a failed motor company, and banks that can't keep their shit straight.... soon we will also be the proud owners of second rate medical care!
Wootah! Sign me the fuck up! Thank you Mister President! I don't know what our society would do without your eternal wisdom and near saint-like qualities! But hey, if you get the chance President Obama... if it doesn't take too much time away from the $45,000.00 taxpayer funded dates with your wife.....
http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/for_forums/die_in_a_fire.jpg
No, not only, just mostly.
So, not only are "we the people" the proud owners of a failed motor company, and banks that can't keep their shit straight.... soon we will also be the proud owners of second rate medical care!
Wootah! Sign me the fuck up! Thank you Mister President! I don't know what our society would do without your eternal wisdom and near saint-like qualities! But hey, if you get the chance President Obama... if it doesn't take too much time away from the $45,000.00 taxpayer funded dates with your wife.....
It took you all of one post to stop talking about actual information. Congrats.
The pricing for daycare, healthcare, and numerous other private serices provided to some by your place of work come out of your paycheck whether or not you use them. You pay for roads whether or not you own a car. You pay for the infrastructure that supports the internet, television, and radio whether or not you browse/watch/listen. That's how support systems work. I'd be interested to know why the $1 million+ figure was higher than what was described as the working number, but beyond that how is this news? Obama has said from the start he would pay for healthcare by reversing unpaid for tax cuts by Bush.
redsox39
07-15-2009, 04:28 PM
Yeah! Fuck those Doctors and their fucking surgeries! Fuck em all! People on Welfare have feelings too!!
Yeah! Fuck those Doctors and their fucking surgeries! Fuck em all! People on Welfare have feelings too!!
Yep. That's totally what this does. Anybody want to have a serious discussion about how a society should be structured, or do ya'll want to keep this up?
IdiotBrain
07-15-2009, 04:33 PM
I pay for roads through state taxes. I gladly pay state taxes. I also pay for a failing ponzi scheme called Medicare, and another one called Social Security. I pay for food stamps, I will soon be paying for socialized medicine, I pay so that the government can bail out failed corporations. I pay for a failed "war on drugs" that I do not believe in. I pay to keep inmates in jail for years at a time who were caught with marijuana.
Fuck me, doesn't none of this spark some sort of inner anger in you? I can hardly sit still as I type all of this.
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is no longer a free market. This is no longer a capitalistic society. Need proof? Look no further than your local Chevy dealership.
Now don't get me wrong, I am by no means under the impression that it started by this administration. This all started with LBJ and Hoover. But some time this January, the train sped up about 25mph.
Fuck me, doesn't none of this spark some sort of inner anger in you? I can hardly sit still as I type all of this.
The French Revolution sparks larger anger in me. Working Hartford sparks anger in me where even with work you can see the disparity of society less than a mile from the damn state capital.
Everyone protecting themselves and their own personal interests is what a pure, unregulated free market is and is what you are proposing. And all that gets you is a society exactly like immediately pre-Revolution France, a plutocracy of the minority of wealth walling themselves off from society as the world crumbles around them.
And that's before you even get into the actual economics of it and point out that the pressure the uninsured and poor put on the healthcare system ends up costing the rich and insured anyways.
Morfin
07-15-2009, 04:44 PM
The issue is not the gap between the haves and have-nots, it is whether the progressive tax system is fair, whether Obama is making it fairer by raising the highest tax bracket or demonizing the rich, and whether a flat tax would be more equitable.
The issue is not the gap between the haves and have-nots, it is whether the progressive tax system is fair, whether Obama is making it fairer by raising the highest tax bracket or demonizing the rich, and whether a flat tax would be more equitable.
FairTax, as proposed, is one of the worst ideas ever thought up (as a sales tax it not only taxes the poor to pay for their own services but taxes them ESPECIALLY).
A simple flat income tax isn't as bad, but still makes no sense. If you are so poor you can't afford bread, how does taxing you to pay for that bread make any sense?
BIG PIZZLE
07-15-2009, 04:51 PM
FUCK!
Infotainment
07-15-2009, 06:55 PM
We need a flat 23% tax across the board.
This is some of the stupidest shit I've ever heard.
Flat tax doesn't work when the majority of all paid income tax come from people who pay 35% right now. Since when does lowering the the tax burden on the group of people who are contributing the most towards income tax help get income tax? Remember the top 8% of all taxpayers pay 90% of all the taxes (and that excludes corporations that is purely personal income taxes).
mdaddyrabbit
07-15-2009, 08:57 PM
I see this shit every day where I work, sorry ass people that have reduced their lives to a government check, govenment assistance, and government food. The local health dept, the department of social services has a room full everyday, with 90% of the clients free loaders, who have no desire to work nor better themselves. Its sickening to see the free services go out and then look at my check, I loose 33 cent of every dollar to taxes and other items that claim to go for good causes.
Obama is screwing us in the ass at every turn, some cannot not see that because they care more about a black man being in office than they care about how the US will survive. We the american people are allowing the government to take everyone out of office on election day and replace them with minoritys because it is politically correct. There comes a time when we have to pay the piper, what will we do then.
My wife works in the medical field and her company is solely supported by the federal government. If you come into her office without insurance or cash they put you on a sliding scale and for the most part it cost a total of $3.00 to see the doctor. I have BC&BS insurance on my wife, she has hospital insurance through work on her also. She had a recent procedure done that cost a total of $5800.00, after her insurance payed and my insurance kicked there part in, and my deductable had been covered for the year I still have to pay $727.00 of the bill. My point is I pay for everything and some pay for nothing.
This tax Obama is pushing is totally unfair, it will go to the ones unwilling to work and like living off the taxpayers and those who have no desire to make a better life for themselves.
My biggest worry is when and mainly "if" the American people will wake up in time to stop the nonsense.
Yes. Because if you tax people to pay for the program they then use you aren't providing any benefit, they're just sending in a check only to have it mailed back to them throughout the year.
And yes, of course, poverty is purely an issue of the lazy and unmotivated.
Come one. People are forced by law to pay taxes. You can't force someone to pay you money, use it to fund a government program, eliminate the private option and then say "Hey, they are using it too so they should pay for it".
Poverty is caused by a number of variables. Laziness, ignorance, substance abuse, etc. all contribute to the problem. Shouldn't we try to solve poverty instead of perpetuating the cycle?
Okie Medicvet
07-15-2009, 10:19 PM
What we really need to do is sell pay per view for HMO executive killings. That would help right there.
The problem is not that people are getting paid too much, the problem is the fucking beaurocrats who get paid to deny people health care, be they private or govt workers.
That is where we need to start..fire those fuckers and do away with those jobs and let the fucking doctors decide what health care patients get, not the paper pushers.
The French Revolution sparks larger anger in me. Working Hartford sparks anger in me where even with work you can see the disparity of society less than a mile from the damn state capital.
Everyone protecting themselves and their own personal interests is what a pure, unregulated free market is and is what you are proposing. And all that gets you is a society exactly like immediately pre-Revolution France, a plutocracy of the minority of wealth walling themselves off from society as the world crumbles around them.
And that's before you even get into the actual economics of it and point out that the pressure the uninsured and poor put on the healthcare system ends up costing the rich and insured anyways.
Too bad champions of the free market like Friedman and Hayek clearly state the government has an important role in society. What they do not believe in is excessive regulation that creates unintended consequences or gives certain players an unfair advantage in the marketplace.
Watch Friedman on the Phil Donahue show. You might learn something about how the free market works.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=milton+friedman+donahue&search_type=&aq=0&oq=milton+friedman+don
Edit: And Hartford is a dump. Everyone knows that.
Das Kahlua
07-15-2009, 10:28 PM
What we really need to do is sell pay per view for HMO executive killings. That would help right there.
The problem is not that people are getting paid too much, the problem is the fucking beaurocrats who get paid to deny people health care, be they private or govt workers.
That is where we need to start..fire those fuckers and do away with those jobs and let the fucking doctors decide what health care patients get, not the paper pushers.
Do you support individuals pulling out of the insurance industry through choice and investing in alternatives such as health savings accounts, with only catastrophic care insurance?
What we really need to do is sell pay per view for HMO executive killings. That would help right there.
The problem is not that people are getting paid too much, the problem is the fucking beaurocrats who get paid to deny people health care, be they private or govt workers.
That is where we need to start..fire those fuckers and do away with those jobs and let the fucking doctors decide what health care patients get, not the paper pushers.
Fail.
Please explain how an increase in government involvement in health care is going to remove X number of bureaucrats from the system.
Obama has already said that he is looking to lower medical costs. Do you know how he is planning on doing this? He is going to accomplish this by reducing access to medical care.
Perhaps we should start killing our politicians on PPV once we run out of HMO execs.
iolas
07-16-2009, 12:02 AM
FairTax, as proposed, is one of the worst ideas ever thought up (as a sales tax it not only taxes the poor to pay for their own services but taxes them ESPECIALLY).
A simple flat income tax isn't as bad, but still makes no sense. If you are so poor you can't afford bread, how does taxing you to pay for that bread make any sense?
Have you even read anything on the FairTax?
http://www.amazon.com/FairTax-Book-Neal-Boortz/dp/0060875410
It's dirt cheap used...buy it and educate yourself.
Claydon
07-16-2009, 12:06 AM
In regards to debo's post...
what do they mean by 'reducing health care costs'
are we talking out right price controls? because they only thing that would do it is rationing... private sector rationing.
ie get rid of mexican anchor babies.
IdiotBrain
07-16-2009, 03:22 AM
Flat tax doesn't work when the majority of all paid income tax come from people who pay 35% right now. Since when does lowering the the tax burden on the group of people who are contributing the most towards income tax help get income tax? Remember the top 8% of all taxpayers pay 90% of all the taxes (and that excludes corporations that is purely personal income taxes).
Part of the idea being that the government spends less money on stupid fucking pork.
My state is one of... two in the nation I believe who are not in the red fiscally.
Texas and Alaska... both red states who practice conservative fiscal policy.
Does that tell you anything?
The federal government is spending money like California did, and look how fucking rich California is right now!
By no means am I advocating conservatives over liberals... they're all worthless fuckwits, what we need to do is find a healthy medium. Maybe something other than this bullshit 2 party system.
Vive la revolucion!
Infotainment
07-16-2009, 06:48 AM
Part of the idea being that the government spends less money on stupid fucking pork.
My state is one of... two in the nation I believe who are not in the red fiscally.
Texas and Alaska... both red states who practice conservative fiscal policy.
Does that tell you anything?
The federal government is spending money like California did, and look how fucking rich California is right now!
By no means am I advocating conservatives over liberals... they're all worthless fuckwits, what we need to do is find a healthy medium. Maybe something other than this bullshit 2 party system.
Vive la revolucion!
Did you notice something about those two states? First each one doesn't have income taxes, and second they are both flush with natural resources. I'm sure the majority of the reason why they both aren't in the red is because they charge an arm and a leg for oil companies to be there.
To be clear on my point I was just saying as an OVERALL nation if you charge a flat rate income tax with no deductions you are going to lower the income tax level for the majority of all tax PAYING citizens (i.e the people who pay and don't get a gigantic refund at the end of the year).
I also want to be clear that I, like you, agree that government is far larger than it should be right now. The thing that gets me is, if you spent like they do in personal life or even in business, you would go bankrupt in the first year. There needs to be more fiscal conservatives who have real life work experience in finance or accounting that can create a budget that balances the inflows with the outflows. Hell it doesn't even have to balance exactly (it's always good to pump out some extra money to fight off deflation) but I personally have had enough of the shitty fiscal policy in Washington. /end rant.
Another quick thing to mention which is probably going to set off a firebomb in here. I've always thought that the best thing to do was suggested by Henry George in Progress and Poverty, he had this idea that we all should be paying for the government through land tax (much like renting land from the government). It's hard to explain but if you google "Henry George Single Tax" there's probably a couple of good websites out there with an explanation.
redsox39
07-16-2009, 11:43 AM
The issue is not the gap between the haves and have-nots, it is whether the progressive tax system is fair, whether Obama is making it fairer by raising the highest tax bracket or demonizing the rich, and whether a flat tax would be more equitable.
How does Morphin feel about this?
I have discovered an unfair disparity in access to a vital resource based on the economic condition of the consumer. This disparity is not just egregious, but it threatens the very core of our American way of life. People routinely get denied adequate and competent service on the basis of their ability to pay, even though they have a right to it, while the rich eat up all the resources with their ability to access the best and brightest in the field. And in the interest of fairness, the federal government needs to find a solution and impose it on the industry as a whole.
I refer, of course, to legal representation.
Oh, sure, in an emergency, the government will foot the bill for a public defender to represent the poor and indigent, but that’s hardly a comfort to those who needed a lawyer before getting into the emergency condition in the first place. Besides, while we have many dedicated public defenders, it’s hardly a news flash that the wealthy can afford much better representation and have a much better chance of prevailing in court in criminal cases. When the poor, working class, and middle class end up in that emergency situation, they can lose their homes and property to pay for decent legal care — and that shouldn’t happen in America, should it?
After all, unlike health care, Americans actually do have a Constitutional right to legal representation in court. Some will scoff and say the lack of a lawyer, or a bad lawyer, can’t cause your death. Those critics may want to talk with the inmates who got freed from Death Row and lifetime prison sentences after having mediocre attorneys lose cases when the defendant was really innocent. Bad or nonexistent legal representation can take years off of your life, and can definitely get you killed.
Even beyond that, though, the wealthy and connected have access to a much wider range of legal services than even the middle class can afford. Estate planning, trust funds, tax shelters — all of these can be expertly provided to those with the resources to afford them, while other Americans get second-class status in our legal system. For those who aspire to egalitarianism of result, this arrangement should be such an affront that it demands real action — now.
I propose that the government impose a single-payer system on the legal profession. Instead of charging private fees, all attorneys would have to send their bills to LegalCare, a new agency in the federal government. Because the government can bargain collectively, they can impose rational fees for legal services instead of the exorbitant billing fees attorneys now charge. Three hundred dollars an hour? Thing of the past. Everyone knows that the government can control costs through price-setting; now we can see this process applied to the legal system, where the government has a large interest in seeing cost savings.
How will we pay for LawyerCare? I take a page from the House surtax method here, which will disproportionately hit doctors in a wide variety of disciplines. In this case, I propose a 5.4% surtax on lawyers, judges, lobbyists, and political officeholders at the state and federal level. They’re the ones who have enriched themselves through this inequity in the legal system. After all, why should we all have to pay for the single-payer legal system when we can penalize lawyers instead?
Now, this will have some impact on the legal-services market. On the downside, we’ll have fewer attorneys. Law schools will get a lot less competitive as students avoid the law and the limited amount of money available through LawyerCare, and existing attorneys may leave the profession as well as they fail to make enough money from the price-controlled compensation they get from the government. All this will mean longer wait times and rationing of services as people flood attorneys’ offices to demand services disconnected from the actual cost to provide them. It may take a couple of years to get a will done, so start when you’re young.
On the plus side … we’ll have fewer attorneys. And politicians! Best of all, everyone will get the same level of legal care regardless of their ability to pay, thanks to LawyerCare and the government-imposed rationing of a resource to which we have a right to access at any time we want, for any reason we want.
Addendum: In case anyone misses the point, this is a satire. However, I wouldn’t put it past certain statists to consider this a pretty good idea…
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/16/a-modest-proposal-2009-edition/
redsox39
07-16-2009, 11:45 AM
Part of the idea being that the government spends less money on stupid fucking pork.
My state is one of... two in the nation I believe who are not in the red fiscally.
Texas and Alaska... both red states who practice conservative fiscal policy.
Does that tell you anything?
The federal government is spending money like California did, and look how fucking rich California is right now!
By no means am I advocating conservatives over liberals... they're all worthless fuckwits, what we need to do is find a healthy medium. Maybe something other than this bullshit 2 party system.
Vive la revolucion!
California, if it was a country, would be the 9th richest country in the world.
How do you fuck that up? Oh...the same way our Feds did...
fuldstændigamok
07-16-2009, 11:51 AM
How does Morphin feel about this?
blablabla
Not yours. Not funny.
I mean, whenever you tried to make a funny by yourself, it never works already, but you even failed while copy/pasta.
Just stop posting, you're too stupid.
Morfin
07-16-2009, 12:07 PM
How do I feel about it? The same way I feel about the gov't telling anyone how much it should earn. But my issue is with the tax system and if there is a surcharge on the rich or certain professions, I have a huge problem with that -- regardless of whether attorneys are included or not -- as it is penalizing those who have, through effort and sacrifice, gotten the education to excel in higher-paying professions.
More importantly, I feel animosity when my name is misspelled.
redsox39
07-16-2009, 12:18 PM
How do I feel about it? The same way I feel about the gov't telling anyone how much it should earn. But my issue is with the tax system and if there is a surcharge on the rich or certain professions, I have a huge problem with that -- regardless of whether attorneys are included or not -- as it is penalizing those who have, through effort and sacrifice, gotten the education to excel in higher-paying professions.
More importantly, I feel animosity when my name is misspelled.
I just can't see you name with think MMPR!!!
Morfin
07-16-2009, 12:21 PM
It's from Dickens; your reference point is a cheesy kids TV program. 'Nuff said.
redsox39
07-16-2009, 12:24 PM
It's from Dickens; your reference point is a cheesy kids TV program. 'Nuff said.
I grew up in house that my mom was running a daycare in...there are very few "cheesy kids TV programs" that I can forget...
It's from Dickens; your reference point is a cheesy kids TV program. 'Nuff said.
You should see the new Harry Potter, you might change your mind about this.
redsox39
07-16-2009, 01:36 PM
You should see the new Harry Potter, you might change your mind about this.
I saw it last night, eh....
I'm lying I only read the book
Poverty is caused by a number of variables. Laziness, ignorance, substance abuse, etc. all contribute to the problem. Shouldn't we try to solve poverty instead of perpetuating the cycle?
Yes, and we do. The welfare reforms conservatives pushed on Clinton in the 90s were a good thing, the system can't be a blank check. I agree with that. But you also can't have people starving in the streets.
Edit: And Hartford is a dump. Everyone knows that.
It wasn't always. As we're talking about California and how could they screw up that kind of GDP, Hartford works as well. Hartford has a government center AND is the insurance capital of the nation, that's a lot of income centers. Yet you still see massive societal gaps.
Claydon
07-16-2009, 03:51 PM
why was my last post in here erased?
redsox39
07-16-2009, 04:25 PM
why was my last post in here erased?
Obama's watching you, Punk
And yes, of course, poverty is purely an issue of the lazy and unmotivated.
Really?
Really?
http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/wp-content/unusual_sarcasm_notice.jpg
Yes, and we do. The welfare reforms conservatives pushed on Clinton in the 90s were a good thing, the system can't be a blank check. I agree with that. But you also can't have people starving in the streets.
It wasn't always. As we're talking about California and how could they screw up that kind of GDP, Hartford works as well. Hartford has a government center AND is the insurance capital of the nation, that's a lot of income centers. Yet you still see massive societal gaps.
We aren't talking about providing for people starving in the streets. We are talking about nationalizing an industry. But we already have mcare and mcaid to provide help to them. In addition, NFP hospitals give away millions (Billions?) of dollars of free health care to those that cannot afford it. Medical Foundations pay people's medical bills routinely. Charities help provide payment assistance. And free government health clinics already exist.
This is not a debate about whether or not the government should provide free health care to the poorest of the poor. It is a debate about whether or not the government should control the health insurance market. My vote is no.
I have posted this (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11326407) before, but it needs to be read again. Until Black America changes its culture and its priorities, no amount of money is going to solve their problems. It all starts at home. No more baby mamas and bastard kids. The path out of the ghetto needs to be something other than a wicked jump shot or slangin' crack rocks.
RE: California, The Economist has run a couple of good articles discussing their problems:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13990207
This one is the better of the two:
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13649050
We aren't talking about providing for people starving in the streets. We are talking about nationalizing an industry. But we already have mcare and mcaid to provide help to them. In addition, NFP hospitals give away millions (Billions?) of dollars of free health care to those that cannot afford it. Medical Foundations pay people's medical bills routinely. Charities help provide payment assistance. And free government health clinics already exist.
This is not a debate about whether or not the government should provide free health care to the poorest of the poor. It is a debate about whether or not the government should control the health insurance market. My vote is no.
So tens of millions of people without coverage plus all those people we see in the Bankruptcy thread who have coverage but aren't really protected, they're imaginary?
So tens of millions of people without coverage plus all those people we see in the Bankruptcy thread who have coverage but aren't really protected, they're imaginary?
They are real. But stats can be fudged. Everyone knows this.
As I asked in the other thread: How many can afford insurance but chose not to purchase it? How many are here illegally? How many abuse drugs and/or alcohol? How many of them are eligible for mcare or mcaid, but haven't signed up?
And the BK laws changed in 2005. So a comparison of 2001 and 2007 is an apples to my nut sack comparison.
Now tell me how expanding the government's role in health care is going to solve the problem. We already can't afford what we have now. How can we afford an expansion? There aren't enough rich people left to pay for our current system so don't tell me that raising taxes is the answer.
Genius
07-16-2009, 08:37 PM
Rich Republicans' war disproportionately KILLS the poor, rich Republicans do not bat an eye.
Rich Democrats' Health Care Plan disproportionately TAXES the rich, rich Republicans raise motherfucking Hell.
Rich Republicans' war disproportionately KILLS the poor, rich Republicans do not bat an eye.
Rich Democrats' Health Care Plan disproportionately TAXES the rich, rich Repubublicans raise motherfucking Hell.
Thanks for the nursery rhyme. Now tell me, who do you think pays the vast majority of the taxes in this country? The top 1%, top 5%, top 25%, top 50%? How much should each quintile pay?
The answer to my question is here (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/03/tax_foundation__4.html).
I am far from rich and I am a Libertarian. So lets stop with the childish stereotypes. Mmmmm'Kay?
tockit
07-16-2009, 09:11 PM
Right, because taking 30% of what I make in order to give MY money to programs that I neither want, need, benefit from or believe in [and that don't even fucking work, for that matter] and people who are too unmotivated or lazy to better themselves is FAR superior to taxing everyone equally across the board.
Some pundits are saying if BHO gets all the programs passed that he's pushing, health care, stimulus package/s?, bailouts, TARP, etc, etc, states like NY might be looking at 60% tax rates in some instances.
Insanity...
What is it so hard to understand that raising taxes ON ANYONE during the worst economic downturn since the great depression, is a bad idea?
Some pundits are saying if BHO gets all the programs passed that he's pushing, health care, stimulus package/s?, bailouts, TARP, etc, etc, states like NY might be looking at 60% tax rates in some instances.
Insanity...
What is it so hard to understand that raising taxes ON ANYONE during the worst economic downturn since the great depression, is a bad idea?
And some pundits say he's a non-citizen terrorist plant trained in a madrassa.
And some pundits say he's a non-citizen terrorist plant trained in a madrassa.
Some people avoid real arguments and focus on nonsense instead.
Das Kahlua
07-16-2009, 11:05 PM
So tens of millions of people without coverage plus all those people we see in the Bankruptcy thread who have coverage but aren't really protected, they're imaginary?
It's Not An Option
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.
IBD Exclusive Series: Government-Run Healthcare: A Prescription For Failure (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/series26.aspx)
When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.
It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
From the beginning, opponents of the public option plan have warned that if the government gets into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither. Drawn by a public option that will be 30% to 40% cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington's coverage.
The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program. That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers. This could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, "fizzle out altogether."
What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.
The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.
With HSAs out of the way, a key obstacle to the left's expansion of the welfare state will be removed.
The public option won't be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.
Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn't be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans' lives.
It took just 16 pages of reading to find this naked attempt by the political powers to increase their reach. It's scary to think how many more breaches of liberty we'll come across in the final 1,002.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854
This is such a good deal, how could we all not be on board?
Rover
07-16-2009, 11:21 PM
How many hundreds of thousands of people are employed by the (soon to be nonexistent) insurance business? I wonder if Obama has economic stimulus funds set aside for their job retraining courses.
Das Kahlua
07-16-2009, 11:26 PM
How many hundreds of thousands of people are employed by the (soon to be nonexistent) insurance business? I wonder if Obama has economic stimulus funds set aside for their job retraining courses.
So much for his campaign promise that we can 'keep our existing health care,' kind of hard to do that if the companies are out of business, or I can't afford it because I'm already paying for the public option through my taxes.
Speaking of which, where is the liberal ideal of 'choice' now?
satandole666
07-17-2009, 02:59 AM
They chose Obama.
Game over.
Wasn't his redistribution of wealth rant posted on here a while back? This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
It might be the subject for a new thread, but I always see things like this:
Yes, and we do. The welfare reforms conservatives pushed on Clinton in the 90s were a good thing, the system can't be a blank check. I agree with that. But you also can't have people starving in the streets.
And wonder, why not? Maybe I'm a bit callous, but we're all just animals. Its part of life, survival of the fittest and all that jazz. Wouldn't we all (except the poor people, that is) be better off if they just wasted away into oblivion? This is a pretty basic biological concept, why doesn't it apply to people?
Poverty is an incurable disease on civilization. You might be able to offset the level of poverty or reduce the number of poor...but at what cost?
While I agree to a point, the effect on society would be greater than you think.
If one were to truly abandon the poor, homelessness would rise exponentially resulting in, literally, the dead rotting in the streets, crime would go through the roof, riots would start without end, etc. I'm not saying that the welfare system is the answer today...but we can't pull out 100%.
Das Kahlua
07-17-2009, 11:33 AM
They chose Obama.
Game over.
Not quite yet. The people are starting to wake up to his policies, I only hope they make their voices heard loud and clear before it's too late.
While I agree to a point, the effect on society would be greater than you think.
If one were to truly abandon the poor, homelessness would rise exponentially resulting in, literally, the dead rotting in the streets, crime would go through the roof, riots would start without end, etc. I'm not saying that the welfare system is the answer today...but we can't pull out 100%.
Yet nobody is talking about abandoning the welfare system 100%, that hasn't even remotely come up as an option. The most 'radical' thing that conservatives have suggested on this matter is that a) illegal immigrants shouldn't be considered part of our population for matters of public, tax payer funded health care, and b) people need to start taking some personal responsibility and provide for themselves instead of expecting the government to just 'give' them everything.
Of the numbers of the 'uninsured,' millions of those people are making well over $75,000 a year, certainly capable of providing for their own health insurance, or the youth who don't feel as if they need insurance. And yet, those two groups, along with illegal immigrants and people currently eligible for government insurance programs, make up the vast majority of the '47 million people uninsured' bullshit number touted by the left.
There certainly are people who either can't help themselves due to mental illness or age, or need a helping hand getting back on their feet, but we need to be willing and able to separate those people from the people who want free handouts.
While I agree to a point, the effect on society would be greater than you think.
If one were to truly abandon the poor, homelessness would rise exponentially resulting in, literally, the dead rotting in the streets, crime would go through the roof, riots would start without end, etc. I'm not saying that the welfare system is the answer today...but we can't pull out 100%.
What constitutes abandoning the poor?
We already have a basic social safety net in place. Granted, it isn't as generous as the ones in Europe, but that isn't a bad thing.
What constitutes abandoning the poor?
I'll put it like this... I really believe that some in this country believe that we should literally turn off all government assistance all kind. And while welfare and like programs tend to receive all the blame, we seem to have completely forgotten the $100 trillion of unfunded combined debt that is SS, MediCaid & MediCare Part A, B & D (D=the Republican backed bastard child that took effect in 2006).
How many here are actually aware of the complexities of the current SS, Medicaid, and Medicare and how their burden is breaking our country's back? We've been convinced by the media that the unemployed poor are our only problem...that's just not true. These old geezers are as to blame as the unemployed freeloaders we like to pretend are the only one's getting free money.
Genius
07-17-2009, 07:06 PM
I'm just sick of this "end of humanity as we know it, the US is going to die" bullshit coming from the Right. The system is fucked, and left as-is, will continue to be a gigantic economic drain. And really, the Republicans knew, someday, that the Democrats would retake the White House and Congress. So they totally fucking blew the six years they had of unchecked power, where they could have made calculated reforms to not only take the wind out of the Democrats' Health Care sails, but they could have totally eliminated this as a potential issue. But no, they completely avoided the problem, pretended everything was a-o-fucking-k and now they're raising holy fucking hell, and can't do a damn thing. Tough fucking titties.
I'll put it like this... I really believe that some in this country believe that we should literally turn off all government assistance all kind. And while welfare and like programs tend to receive all the blame, we seem to have completely forgotten the $100 trillion of unfunded combined debt that is SS, MediCaid & MediCare Part A, B & D (D=the Republican backed bastard child that took effect in 2006).
How many here are actually aware of the complexities of the current SS, Medicaid, and Medicare and how their burden is breaking our country's back? We've been convinced by the media that the unemployed poor are our only problem...that's just not true. These old geezers are as to blame as the unemployed freeloaders we like to pretend are the only one's getting free money.
I agree with your statements that SS, Mcare and Mcaid are a fiscal train wreck waiting to happen. We have promised too much and we cannot deliver the goods. But I am not seeing the connection between our underfunded liabilities and leaving people out in the street to starve.
I don't agree with your statement that people want to remove all of our social safety nets. Perhaps the fringe of the libertarian crowd says such things, but the LP isn't that big to begin with. I doubt that anybody listens to the fringe. I have never heard anyone call for zero social programs. What I have heard is people call for a halt in the expansion of such programs. There is a big difference between the two.
What it boils down to is that old people vote. Wait, lots of old people vote. And they want free shit. If the youth of this country voted as often as the geezers in this country voted, maybe we could elect a group of pols that could finally change the system. But young people have more important things to do, like playing Xbox.
Okie Medicvet
07-17-2009, 11:44 PM
I got news for you. Old people aren't the only ones who vote. Middle aged moms vote, first time ever people vote, and a lot of people in between, and people heard what Obama wanted to do with health care, and I know it's still hard for some to swallow, but OBAMA WON. He has the closest thing to a mandate there is in this country, because we voted for him hoping he would do exactly what he said and one of them was deal with healthcare. Yah, a new system would suck, but shouldn't we at least try to make a health care system that doesn't suck as hard as this one does?
Das Kahlua
07-18-2009, 10:36 AM
I'm just sick of this "end of humanity as we know it, the US is going to die" bullshit coming from the Right. The system is fucked, and left as-is, will continue to be a gigantic economic drain. And really, the Republicans knew, someday, that the Democrats would retake the White House and Congress. So they totally fucking blew the six years they had of unchecked power, where they could have made calculated reforms to not only take the wind out of the Democrats' Health Care sails, but they could have totally eliminated this as a potential issue. But no, they completely avoided the problem, pretended everything was a-o-fucking-k and now they're raising holy fucking hell, and can't do a damn thing. Tough fucking titties.
I got news for you. Old people aren't the only ones who vote. Middle aged moms vote, first time ever people vote, and a lot of people in between, and people heard what Obama wanted to do with health care, and I know it's still hard for some to swallow, but OBAMA WON. He has the closest thing to a mandate there is in this country, because we voted for him hoping he would do exactly what he said and one of them was deal with healthcare. Yah, a new system would suck, but shouldn't we at least try to make a health care system that doesn't suck as hard as this one does?
The two of you, Genius and Okie, are giant fucking hypocrites. I seem to remember quite a few times where both of you referenced the public opinion polls on a variety of issues as proof why we shouldn't do them, and yet now, when the public is becoming increasingly wary of all of Obama's policies, especially this one, you believe he should have carte blanche.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/july_2009/50_oppose_government_health_insurance_company
Jesus, Okie, are you really so naive that you think that having a bureaucrat in Washington decide your treatment plan, a system where you are prohibited from even signing up for a private health insurance plan if you want, that that is somehow surperior to what we currently have? Yes, "OBAMA WON," as you pointed out, but so did Bush, twice, and yet you couldn't criticize his policies fast enough. I know that you're a big lib, and that's fine, but at least be consistent about your views.