Can Congress mandate that I buy an AIG policy for my health insurance, or for any insurance, for that matter?
I’m afraif that there are not enough smoke and mirros in the whole country to convince me that AIG will pay back the hundreds of billions it owes. Where will the money come from?
A liberal judge backs a Liberal President who pushes a Liberal Congress.
Now…we’ll see what really comes down after the House is swept and the Senate almost swept. Repeal of this idiotic, stupid law is in the making and then we can put this issue in perspective. CHOICE, my friends, CHOICE what we want. The fools in power must now see that you don’t rattle the cage of the beast who will eat you.
I truely don’t understand why so many are upset about a mandate to purchase health insurance. We are required to purchase liability insurance for our autos. I realize this is to protect others from finanacial problems if we are at fault, but if you don’t have insurance and go to the hospital, we’re all paying for that too. What is the difference?
Am I missing something, or did the judge’s ruling – at least as indicated in the article – not mention anything that pertained to any law or any prior case law?
The difference between the govt requiring us to buy auto insurance and making us buy health insurance is simple. YOU CHOOSE TO BUY AND OPERATE A CAR. Therefore it is your decision and your responsibility.
This not the same for health insurance. By mere existance I am forced to buy something where there are other alternatives for me. Some poeple actually are fine not buying a qualified health insurance plan. They will buy a catastrophic plan to protect their assets and then chose to self-fund the maintenance.
It’s a right to use the public roads and, in so doing you have no right to individually imperil others with out being able to compensate them for your negligence in doing so.
If you could go to the hospital to get breast implants and then pick me out of the phone book to pay for it, I guess there would be no difference…..
Jeff, the statement that you don’t understand why people are upset is probably the seminal issue to this entire case. The premise of the law is that We The People simply don’t understand anything and must be shepherded like sheep to the proper watering hole to survive. It’s not about people needing care, which they do indeed, or whether we ultimately pay for some of them, which we also do; it’s about a government, any government, telling free people what they must buy, how much we have to pay for it, etc.
You do not choose to require medical care. Everybody requires medical care. Most people cannot self-fund medical catastrophes and it is delusional to think that most people will buy “catastrophe” medical insurance if they are not forced to buy a qualified plan. I mostly agree with the individual mandate, I just hope we have more options.
The mandate is necessary because it avoids the situation where an uninsured person comes down with a dread disease such as cancer or others which require Hundreds of Thousands of dollars to pay for treatment over an extended period of time. Without the mandate, only 4 options (all of which are completley unacceptable in my opinion) apply. These are:
1. Taxpayers have to pick up the cost of the medical care.
2. The medical care providers do not get paid for providing the services.
3. We let the person opt in to the system after learning they are sick. and
4. We let the person die because they made a bad choice regarding whether or not to purchase insurance.
If you disagree with the mandate, please indicate which of the above 4 choices you feel is correct or, if you know of another option, please indicate what it is.
There is much in the health care act that I feel was handled very badly (lack of tort reform being #1 on the list), but requiring the coverage for all Americans is necessary.
Don’t forget to pay your carbon offset tax and plug in your electric car!
Oh, and get your hands off those cigarettes and that martini!
Have you written that check to China yet?
I do not feel that my tax dollars should go to pay (AND THEY DO) your healthcare costs because you chose not to buy it. As the judge said, you WILL need it and covering you is a burden and a social cost that I and other taxpayers should not have to bear. This is also a NATIONAL and SOCIAL and demographic issue as well as an economic one, ergo, a national solution was found. Is that in your language? You are right, you opt to purchase a car, and the compulsory auto insurance laws are designed so society does not have to bear the financial responsibility of your negligent damage to others which would ultimately affect others and all us taxpayers. Well, sooner or later medical care will be needed (not to mention, maybe preventative care so we AVOID maybe the catastrophic or chronic illnesses in the first place and avoid all those further costs?) and to not recognize this fact is sheer obstinacy. That is CLEARLY the way the judge ruled as he did.
Presumably, you consider yourself a “conservative” since you lambast the liberal judge, etc., ad nauseum. Well, isn’t it conservative to make people pay their own way and not burden the taxpayer? The greater good, after all…..
(Never mind all the other social good, such as preventing cancellations when people get sick, providing a market for those uninsurable in the private system, balancing costs by insuring the healthy as well as the ill, providing a means of access to healthcare for almost all when the private, for profit market cannot or will not provide it, preventing people from losing their assets due to catastrophic illness that could have been prevented if health insurance could have been secured). But Those are in my language….not yours.
There is so much hypocrisy to this issue. Now, we see that unions and large companies can opt out of Obamacare on waivers while small busines and individuals have to have it. This law has to go and be replaced with a more common sense approach. Create a pool for those with pre-existing conditions and leave the rest of the industry alone. In other words to the Feds – “Get out of our lives”. Go live in Cuba or Venezuela if you don’t like it here.
Jeff, we are all going to die too – so do we all have to buy life insurance, how about disability insurance, Long Term Care insurance, dental insurance – we all have teeth. We all have the right to either accept risk and fund for it, or buy insurance to offset it.
Obamacare already requires those who have insurance to increase the coverage so that it covers aspirin and counseling if you are overweight. I don’t need to pay for insurance to buy aspirin. Should I have to pay for someone else’s counseling in my premiums?
Most of the major insurers have pulled out of the market that sold health insurance for children – why, because as of 9/23/10 the act requires them to charge the same for a very sick child that they do for a healthy child. And to make things worse if you are buying for a child, you can wait until they are sick and then buy the insurance and still get it at the same price as a healthy child(not like auto insurance by the way).
This law is an attempt to change the laws of economics – the way it is written, it will either fail, or the insurers will fail. Principal Financial already announced it was exiting the business entirely. Of course, this probably the original intent of the Act anyway.
Pete, you seem pretty upset. Relax just a bit. I see your line of thinking with the driving being a choice, but the problem is that as a society we have decided not to just let people die that don’t have insurance.
Hospitals constantly complain about providing services they will never be compensated for because people don’t have insurance. Everyone has a responsibility to carry insurance so that the rest of us don’t have to pay for them, as I hear all of you on this site complain about daily along with personal responsibility.
Also, with many people that will not require health care until later, they will also be contributing to the program which will increase the revenue generated.
Like it or not, it’s everyone’s responsibility to pick up the cost for everyone. When an uninsured person ends up in the ER (usually after letting a bad situation get worse) we ultimately pick up the cost. That situaion is not funded in advance either. I don’t like it. But that’s the way it is. Making more people pay into the system at least funds the system in advance. It also provides the potential for preventitive care which can reduce costs in the long run. The next step is tort reform. Hopefully the “tea baggers” when elected will tackle that issue. There is too much name calling and finger pointing. The current system stinks and is getting worse. When has anyone’s cost of health insurance ever gone down from one year to the next??
FYI we all pay for social security and medicaire…..
I am so tired of the dimwits who keep harping on mandatory auto liability insurance being required. It is not comparable since the law does not mandate you own a car.
If you ask someone, anyone in fact that knows abything about insurance, they will explain to you why my carrying liability insurance does not protect you.
When does it all end? it all ends when we really look at the problem of healthcare in this country with open minds, and forget labeling people. it all ends when people SERIOUSLY think about the consequences.
I imagine that all of us blogging here have insurance mostly paid for by our employers. Nice perk. Now imagine you are unemployed due to a lay-off and are a diabetic, or have chronic heart disease, or your wife’s mammogram turns out positive, or your son is a victim of a hit and run while walking home from sports practice…NOW WHAT?
As for the carriers dropping kid insurance so they don’t have to insure sick kids, I would not expect them to insure these folks becasue they are about profit. NOW there will be an alternative that is presumably affordable so the parents can purchase insurance for these kids.
What would you have these foks do….cast the sick, injured relative onto a mountainside to die from the elements?
WHAT WOULD YOU DO, PETE, faced with hundreds of thousands of medical bills for one that you loved? If you want to get histrionic, let’s give the lother side equal opportunity to be so.
I think Pete’s remarks mean that after we kick out the Socialist Utopians in November and repeal or defund this monstrocity, we can pursue LIFE,LIBERTY & THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. This is the USA, not Cuba. Get out of our lives Feds.
You, like many, espouse individual responsibility and how imposing that responsibility will save the rest of us money because we won’t end up paying for non-covered care. We WILL pay, via taxes, because we’ll pay those mandated premiums for the less fortunate. I’ll take the current environment and KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE MIDDLE to any extent possible!
As to hospitals and doctors, ask them about their current government reimbursement rates and what they expect in the future.
Read your history books people.
Already the revisionists start working the facts. The selling point was that people with a chronic illness could not find anyone to sell them insurance. The back door was that ‘if everyone buys it, the price will come down’ simply not true.
What happens when Congress decides to protect the US interests in General Motors and mandate that everyone over the age of 18 buy a new GM car in 2011 and every two years afterwards? Where does the mandate authority stop?
Saving Government Motors is all about saving the unions. They still have all their sorry work rules, pensions etc which made GM uncompetitive and we will be forced to bail them out again as long as we have the current administration. We need to shut this Socialist agenda down in November. America will rise up 11-2.
Prediction, a conserv judge will rule the other way and then this will find its way to SCOTUS and with a conserv majority be overruled.
For the umpteenth time, healhchare is being provided for the uninsured through the current system by cost shifting, by the various high risk state Medicaid programs and by Medicare for the elderly, so the arguments about dying due to lack of insurance is a canard.
Some on this thread think insurance is needed but don’t speak to whether they will blindly accept the cost without any subsidies from the government. The current plan provides subsidies up to 400% of the poverty line (the current poverty line for a family of 4 is $22,050, so those making up to $88,200 will benefit from a gov subsidy) , which means it reaches directly into the middle class. The end result is a type of “welfare” for the middle class provided by the government. To some, that might be ok, but to others this is antithetical to the founding principles. If only people knew the true cost and what they will be paying, then the tune might be a little off key for some supporters.
Of course, this program, and all others, will all be paid for by soaking the rich. This also means that the healthcare law was stealthfully designed to fit into the progressive agenda of redistributing the wealth, or as the Big O told Joe the Plumber, “spreading the wealth around”.
And, I am sure that many of you object to the politicization of our healthcare system. A better example of how the system is now being run by the gov and how politics plays into this law is the 1 year waiver granted yesterday to McDonalds and 29 other companies for their “mini-med” plans. Included in the waiver that currently covers 1,000,000 workers is one for the 350,000 members of the Union Federation of Teachers (NY). Two things are obvious. 1st, these entities had to go on bended knee to beg the gov for a waiver- if that isn’t political control, then second, it it obvious that a union got its deal because of contributions to the Dems and for a kicker, all of this was done just before an election.
The politicization of the health system is what driver people to envision bureaucrats making life and death decisions on who gets health care and who is left to fulfill their duty to die and stop costing all of us money. This might even bring back the progressive support for eugenics and even get them thinking about euthanasia.
If the supporters of this program can’t wrap their minds around these conceps, there is very little hope for a rational discussion.
We have taken a private system with heavy gov involement and now tipped the scale to near total gov involvement, and that has never been a recipe for success.
For these, and a host of other reasons, this law needs to be repealed and replaced with one that takes a laser like approach to solving the top issues, including how to control the costs passed onto the insurers. This bill never addressed cost but was designed to cast “insurers” as evil robber barons who need to be put in their place.
I don’t understand….isn’t spread of risk what insurance companies do? How is “it’s cheaper if everybody buys it” not true?
Enlighten me, pray tell.
to those of you who want to leave the current system, a few talking points: that system was complained about bitterly by the small businessmen priced out of the market not only for their employees, who they may or may not care to insure, but also for themselves; the current situation does nothing for those that are uninsured, need insurance, and want to buy it; the current system does nothing to solve the issues of the demographic shift in age or our population, chronic diseases, chronic care, etc. Neither does this bill, but until we stop screaming idiocies at each other, we will never confront those very REAL problems that will have to be addressed very soon.
Youngin, I am curious, at what point or percentage of your income would you stop thinking you wouldn’t mind giving a little? Consider all state, county local, sales, utility taxes, and fees, including tolls, hidden gas taxes etc. 50%, 60%, 80%?
Wake up cassia. Where will it end. Do you know the “health bill” will now tax the sale of your home for 3.8% to pay for those actual 5 million who can not allegedly obtain coverage? So let’s change an entire industry to govt only putting thousands of employees out of work when all private health carriers bail out of a never to be profitable statute.
This is socialism. If u want that, get out of this free country. We will fight and repeal this joke.
I dunno. Never really thought about it. But I wouldn’t be where I am today without social programs (and my own hard work), so it wouldn’t be right to withold my support for them.
The problem isn’t necessarily the AMOUNT or percentage of taxes, but rather the value received (or value perceived) for those taxes. I don’t mind the taxes, but where’s the beef?
Screaming at the “liberals” for making an attempt to deal with a pressing societal issue that will continue to press harder and harder, is a non starter.
Maybe when all the choler dies down, we can achieve some meaningful answers. You can scream and foment all you want, foks, but it isn’t going to go away. And it needed big fixing BEFORE this bill was passed, so don’t do revisionist history about how wonderful the current system of delivering, providing, and pay for healthcare in this coountry was.
Youngin – we don’t have a social responsibility to provide everyone with health insurance either. We DO have a social responsibility to treat true medical emergencies with or without proof of insurance and worry about getting paid afterwards. If I have the financial means to pay for all of my healthcare costs, why should I have to buy insurance? If I choose to buy it, why shouldn’t I be able to decide if a high deductible catastrophic policy is enough or if I really want every basic procedure included? If my unemployed 23 year old daughter can’t afford a $1000 per month policy here in NY, why should she be forced to buy it? We’ll pay for any care she needs until she is working and can afford to buy coverage.
Cass, let me posit a question covering your response to Pete. What if Pete’s medical problem cost more than his insurance plan would pay-who is responsible for the excess?
No country can afford a small co-pay plan that if rife for overuse and fraud. And the government is not capable to stopping fraud, they have proved that all along in every major program, including the Great Society. This is why the “Affordable” part of the Patient Portection and Affordabie Care Act is not only a misnomer, but a ironic joke.
And, please remember that there are a number of not for profit insurers (Blue X etc) out there which derrogates your profit point.
When an insured person receives medical care, there are two things that can happen, they can pay the bill or they can not pay the bill.
If they pay the bill, they are paying a premium for healthcare since the discounts taken by insurance carriers through contract will not apply. If they don’t pay the bill, the facility can absorb the cost, pay it out of trusts and endowments, seek reimbursement for indigent care from the government or get a judgment and seize and sell the assets of the patient for reimbursement.
If insurance is mandated and covered all cases, the payout by insurance companies would increase but revenue from premiums would also increase. Since the law mandates that 80% (in some cases 75%) of premiums collected go to paying claims, there would be an increase in the cost by the administrative constant of 20%.
By adding in the chronically ill at an arbitrarily low rate, premiums must increase for the healthier insured to cover the increased claims and administrative expenses.
The net result will be higher premiums for all and increased copayments for HMOs and increased deductibles and maximum out-of-pocket expenses for traditional plans.
It doesn’t matter whether the taxpayers pay for the care of the uninsured or the insurance carriers do since the pool of people paying the bill is the same. The only difference is that the insurance carriers get at least 20% administrative expenses tacked on to premiums collected. The end result; higher premiums.
The situation I described in my initial post will happen without mandatory coverage. I find it interesting that no one who has stated that they are opposed to the mandate has responded to my rather simple question.
Could it be that, for many of you, the answer is you are willing to just let them die and you are too embarassed to say so?
I whine? All I see is whining and moaning from the conservatives here. You whine about EVERYTHING and make specious arguments (with a few exceptions) to boot. Maybe if you took a chill pill and stopped wrapping yourself in the flag you could see the forest for the trees.
Y’all shouldn’t have stolen the election for “W” in 2000…and then your president could be dealing with these monumental issues today…and I’ll bet all your taxes would be cut and all would be right with the world and the sun never sets…yada, yada, yada…
And yeah, I would be in Norway if the climate didn’t stink so bad.
Just Curious, your question has been answered several times but let me distill it down for you. Healthcare and insurance and not the same. Yes, they are related but people in this country get treated WHETHER OR NOT they have insurance. This has been true since the founding of this country. Now, please turn your attention to how you think this law makes insurance more affordable when it doesn’t address tort reform, or any other cost issue. Remember, insurance costs are mainly a function of what the insurer pays out to providers. If the providers charge more, insurance will cost more. If more services are mandated to be provided, more cost will be involved and more cost mean higher premiums. You need to work both sides of the equation.
Cassie, Why don’t you move to Cuba? I hear the climate is great and they have the kind of healthcare you desire so much. As the Terminator said in the movie to the truck driver – GET OUT!
1) Which program pays more in benefits, medicare or medicaid? (FY 2010 through 11 months)
2) Which program requires virtually no payment from the recipient?
3) Medicare taxes are taken as a seperate line item on my paycheck, why isn’t there one for medicaid? Where does the medicaid funding come from?
4) Besides public employee payrolls and pensions, what program is the largest budget item in state budgets?
Look forward to your answers.
I am OK with the taxpayers footing the bill since the taxpayers and the premium payers under mandated insurance are the same people. The government might even be able to make a better deal to keep the costs down than the insurance carriers (the Government would also get some of their money back through the income tax collection process).
And as Tom has already stated, medical care would not be denied even if there was no ability to pay.
I have no problem with the individual ‘opting’ into the system if a company’s underwriting rules allow it.
And I have no problem with personal responsibility entering into the equation either. Sometimes bad decisions lead to very bad outcomes, even death.
Cass, you might want to take a long hard look at what is happening in Scan land. They found out they are immune to economic law; nor the EUs debt problems.
By the way, you can chalk off Cuba, the Castro boys announced a layoff of 500,000 gov workers citing that they can no longer handle the large number of gov workers. They are now encouraging people to become entrepenuers.
If I were you, I would stick home and work with the conservs to get healthcare right. Like eating an elephant it will take one bite at a time. And you can’t kill an elephant with a shotgun approach, so this bill just even get us to the point where we can put on our napkins and dig in.
You would probably be surprised to learn that I agree with you on many of the cost issues that could have been and should have been included in the bill but were not. But that’s really not what I was asking.
You suggest that my question has been answered many times. Please point out even one post from someone opposed to the mandate which indicates which of the 4 options I outlined (or a different applicable option) that person favors.
And for that matter, which of the options do you favor?
I have looked at the posts and still don’t see any direct responses.
So if Pete’s illness exceeded the cost of what his insurance covers? Doesn’t the healthcare bill adress that (for most) with no lifetime caps? Or, how about handling it like the kidney program is handled…when the cost of dialysis is so excessive that the government supports this for all patients regardless of need after benefits (if there are any privately) are exhausted? We do have a current model there and it is apparently working well because no one seems to complain that much about it…including those stingy conservatives.
As for small co pay policies, I note that you have been against this from prior posts (I DO pay attentions). I agree. I have said this for YEARS when arguing with my co workers when their co pays went up two dollars, or with union workers with Cadillac plans that virtually paid nothing for care or perscriptions…that they had NO CLUE what a benefit company paid health insurance is and to stop complaining if they have to bear some more of the costs. How can you appreciate what the true costs are if you do not bear some of them? The old concept of “skin in the game” also prevents abuses and over doctoring….something I see daily. Frankly, it is ridiculous.
As for the not for profits, wasn’t it the CA Blues that wanted 19% rate increases for no reason? that wanted these increases despite the fact that actuarially they had three to five times projected needed reserves in the bank? I do not have a lot of respect for a lot of so called “not for profits” which are in reality wolves in sheep’s clothing, so forgive my incredulity and distrust…you have touched a real hot button of mine. I would let the Salvation Army be treated as a not for profit if I were dictator, and not too much else.
While you talk about government fraud, what about fraud perpetrated and not discovered by private companies as well? the government does not have a monopoly on being frauded as you must surely read everyday in the articles in this publication…and we read only about the frauds that are foiled…I do believe (I would have to check this out…I recently read this in a respected publication) that Medicare delivers benefits with very small costs, if apples to apples admin costs were looked at vs. private carriers for same services, so it is not all fraud and waste.
But Tom, what is the point of discussing all this? No one wants rational discussion…it is so much more satisfying to drink the political kool aid and rant…don’t you agree?
I couldn’t help myself. The 2000 election, lets see, who was it wanted to cherry pick a dem county in Fl for the hangin chad count? And, which county in Illinois 40 years ealier delivered the Nixon Kennedy election to Kennedy. Hint: is the same one Big O is from. Unclean hands cannot be cleansed by innoucuous material.
This bill is so bad on so many levels, it defies description. No blog I have seen addresses the worst parts of it. It is a fact this bill will cause rationed care since so many more will be using the system with an ever growing shortage of doctors. Many thousands of doctors have stopped seeing Medicare patients already. Do we really want to wait for a year like Canada & UK for an operation or be told by a bureaucrat we can’t have the operation? Older Americans will be told to take a pain pill or face a death panel. Costs will not come down, they are already escalating in anticipation of these wonderful mandates. The whole goal of the Socialists is to drive the private market out of business so they can have their single payer system (Canada & UK on steroids)
The tort reform arugment is BS, and everyone who has looked at it knows it. The total (that’s total) cost for all healthcare / medical legal costs comes to approx 4 billion / year. The amount paid in health premium comes to over 2 trillion / year. That means if health insurance companies paid $0 for lawsuits, defense, etc., that our total saving (at most) would be 4%. The tort reform argument is a talking point to satisfy those that think every single lawsuit is bogus.
Good marketing though from those that want to keep everything the way it is.
Cass, I do think we are having a rational discussion. As for fraud, the profit incentive and program detections employed by the private sector are unmatched in the public sector. Yes, there is fraud but it is the degree and breadth in nearly all Federal programs that is breathtaking in comparison (even in the Defense dept $100 hammers can be found).
As for Pete’s sake (of cost), you are assuming that insurance coverage every cost imaginable with no co pays, or that the policy he chose was a cadillac plan, one like Congress has.
MR is right on. Bottom line is people who think like Cassandra and rest of the let “government run it” crowd will have to back up soon. All that’s happened with Obamacare is MOOT. There will be a repeal of what you see, the issue will be reset, and then we’ll bet back to some degree of CHOICE.
Incumbent’s……those who thought they knew better than most of us….You’re history.
Jeff, do you always look at direct costs and ignore the indirect cost of defensive medicine. Pray tell, what is the cost of a PET scan, an MRI, a CT scan, a body scan, and a bone scan. What is the cost when one may suffice but 5 are ordered to cover your medical backside.
Try talking by using both sides of your intellect and not just using the left side of your mouth.
And, by the way, are we so rich that we don’t need to think about picking up every cent we can. Dismissing any savings with a back of the hand (left handed) comment, destroys your argument.
Yeah, I know. So now I make my point AGAIN…this is a societal problem, and a worldwide one. And yes, the blogger that indicated that health insurance and healthcare are two different things…and “pollyannishly” insists that all those who need healthcare get it. WRONGO. Guess again. Patently not rue.
This healthcare bill has tried to deal with private enterprise to solve a societal issue. While we all know that seniors get medicare and the poor MAY get medicaid (that is, if their state can provide it) where does that leave those that are not old enough to qualify nor poor enough to qualify? Bankrupt? WHY?
I personally would have opted for a single payor system with firm ground rules. I would have made everyone’s (mandatory deductible) a percentage of their income. The payor doesn’t even have to be the government…just cut the crap and deliver the healthcare with equal access and equal care for all and equal ground rules whether in TX or NY…to a NATIONAL standard…If you want cosmetic surgery for non medical reasons…pay for it yourself as we do now. If you want extra care, pay for the additional yourself…but you WILL pay into the Basic plan and the base care will be paid by the single payor…extras optional ans separately paid.
i’ll set the table, you start carving the elephant
The exclusion for pre-existing conditions needed to happen even though insurance is supposed to only cover the unexpected. The concern then was that people would only buy insurance when they got sick, hence the mandate. This is no less unconstitutional then if congress mandated we all buy GM cars to support the economy and the government’s investment. My option (sent to Pelosi and a number of others but ignored) would be to give people a reasonable time period of 3 months to buy insurance of their choice once pre-existing could no longer be excluded. Then implement a 12 month waiting period for any pre-existing conditions if you were uninsured for more than 30 days. This would prevent someone from buying insurance, for example, the day they found out they were pregnant. At the same time, modify the bankruptcy laws so that if you choose to be uninsured and incur medical debt, it could not be wiped out in a bankrupcty (like student loans and taxes). In those situations, allow liens to be placed on any and all assets, including 401k’s and other retirement savings, for life until the debt is repaid. Make it so choosing to be uninsured has no easy out so people are responsible for their own decisions. For any remaining unpaid debt, spread the risk and include a small surcharge on insurance or in a dedicated tax assessment. Subsidize (but not for free) bare bones plans for those who truly can’t afford to buy insurance (but not for those that want to keep their overpriced houses, SUVs and electronic toys and have no money left).
Tom, how the hell is that a ‘left’ thing…it’s called a math thing. The costs of those tests are grossly overbilled, and, don’t try to tell me that they aren’t. I had a brother that had a 2 mile ambulance ride to the hospital that was billed at $ 1,100.
The problem isn’t tort reform, the problem is overbilling and blown up procedure costs.
Jibberish…horse feathers…poppycock…..BS.
Put business back in business, Government…get the —- out of the way and then our “societal issues” will be solved.
Go read Castro’s writings from the 50’s and then recall what the old buzzard said a month ago. IT DON’T WORK WHEN GOVERNMENT RUNS ANYTHING.
(except when you rattle her military cage)
Jeff, I agree. My mother-in-law had a stroke and passed away last year but not until months of back and forth between the hospital and nursing home. I am dealing with all the bills. Not only are the ambulance fees ridiculous, what about getting billed for a hospital day and a nursing home day for the same day? This happened everytime she had to be sent to the hospital from the nursing home and then returned – a total of 6 days. Sounds like double dipping to me. How about getting billed monthly for a podiatrist to cut her toe nails when she was bedridden and an eye doctor to see if her glasses needed replacing when she couldn’t wear the glasses that she had due to the stroke? Then there is the amount Medicare pays, the amount they disallow and that no one can bill for, and the balance that is charged to the patient. Of course the bills are jacked up to compensate for what Medicare disallows and won’t allow the provider to bill. Too many games and too much opportunity for fraud.
Good one No Tolerance. We have let these Progressive Socialists gradually infiltrate the system and now a small % of our population is trying to impose their Utopian dreams on us and ram this down the throat of the people. America is fully awake now as polls show that the majority don’t want this sorry excuse of a bill. Get out of our lives Socialists. I like McDonald’s fries by the way.
Cass, based on your comments, your portion will be very very small so you might want to see if your neighbor has a spare free range chicken or two.
We could have a real debate about what is fair and what is equal, both social justice mantra’s with little or no meaning.
I can agree limiting elective surgeries and recreational drugs, e.g. Viagra, and a host of other items but I am scrathing my head on how we get everyone to pay soemthing when roughtly 50% of the population doesn’t even pay income taxes. Now you have doubled down on the payment side and that is where conservatives will rightly challenge you for a payment scheme that makes sense. As I mentioned in my earlier post, the gov is set to subsidize the insurance cost of a family of 4 making $88,000 a year. Please tell me from whom the payment for that subsidy will be taken. Unless you feel that there is no end to the federal money pot, the issue of cost must be addressed and simply wanting something without that consideration is utopian folley.
We had little or none of the debates we are having here about this program before Congress rammed this down to our gizzards (chicken reference), so I hope you can understand the outrage. And that outrage has delayed the results you and I are hoping for, effective changes in insurance coverages that improve availability, affordability and improved outcomes.
If the business community is so effecient, honest and good, why are we in the midst of this depression? Is that the government’s fault? What do you think happens when you let businesses run free. There’s your distribution of wealth…all at the top. No worker’s rights, no responsibility to pay for faulty products or irresponsible business decisions such as pollution. And don’t say lawsuits will handle it, because I have literally never seen a single story on this sight about a lawsuit where the plantiff wasn’t flamed by 80% of the comments.
Sorry, but letting businesses do whatever they want and put everything in their hands have never been the answer.
Student – if you’re comment is to me, I know. That is why I included the reference in my post. If you can’t get out of your student loans, why should someone get out of medical bills once they are given fair opportunity to purchase insurance that no longer exlcudes pre-existing conditions?
Student – no apology needed. I understand your point as my daughter graduated college last year and hasn’t been able to find a job yet. She’s paying her loans from the small inheritance she got from my mother-in-law who passed away last year. Without it she’d have no way to pay her loans right now.
Hey Let Anything. It is obvious you trust government more than private enterprise. We are in this economic mess precisely because of government. Look at your friends Barney Frank & Chris Dodd and a whole host of their liberal progressive friends who are primarily responsible for the sub prime economic meltdown which has caused the most trouble to our economy. Then we add in “The Chosen One” with his Stimulus that didn’t work and increased the debt and now the Healthcare bill which will bankrupt the country and cause taxes to rise exponentially. We will soon be a banana republic ala Venezuela or Cuba if this isn’t stopped and sanity restored. An oppressive government who tries to control every aspect of our lives is not the answer. The Free Market and limited government will correct a very bad situation. November is a good start.
MR, guess what, Kiddo…I am as American as you are. You may well be surprised at how many people do not feel as you do. So, MR, you gonna vote for the little witch? For the two female execs that are buying their elections with personal fortunes (made off who knows how many backs of laid off workers)? For Rue Paul?….OOOPS sorry, Rand Paul who apparently doesn’t know the North won the Civil War. Gosh, with a plethora of talent like that, I can hardly wait for November.
As for utopian disses and all your other scat…I am sure you will be first in line to take advantage of the benefits that the utopians and the progressives won for all of us AMERICANS…indeed, I am sure you are enjoying some of them now (like WC, 40 hour work week, etc.).
Do not ever presume that the likes of you can ever EVER speak for AMERICAN ME.
@MR Damn you are a angry person. How are the liberals responsible for the subprime meltdown? How are liberals at fault for banks lending unqualified people, way too much money at exorbitant rates they could never pay back?
And what about all these Wall Street scams were people trading irresponsible securities that would never be profitable.
What about the Bernie Madoffs of the world that were allowed to go virtually unchecked?
Don’t tell me businesses didn’t get us into this mess. That’s a joke. And when all this started going awry, exactly who was in charge?
Exactly….What’s more…look at ANY government organization (except the US Armed Forces)….20% of the employees are doing 80%of the work…the rest are retired on active duty. Been outside looking in and know most of government work can be accomplished with far fewer people and less costs. A considerable amount of chiefs and very few indians in the federal employee system. If we allow the government to dictate just this one aspect (health care) of our lives we’ll see thousands of government employees attempting to justify their positions and costs WILL go up considerably. Just the fear is making it happen as we speak.
MR, get some new material, already! If you really think that Barney and Chris caused the financial troubles singlehandedly, you Sir, are delusional. And corporate greed had absolutely nothing to do with anything? What PLANET are you from?
Take heart, MR, when we become a Banana Republic (the name, of which, of course comes from the US companies that exploited the population and contributed to corrupt officials, hence the name) you can run off to Montana (if they will have you) and take up with the Posse Commitatus…which is ehre you really belong.
No Tolerance, the largest increase in the government in terms of personnel and spending came under Bush. Record surplus to record deficit. Where was your talk of fiscal responsibility the government not knowing best then? I’m sure you were quite silent.
…were much too difficult for her.
Can one of you big strong liberals help her?
Its ok Cassandra, as Barbie always says
“Math is Hard!!!”
Posted above so you could see how condescension and stereotyping feels.
I would much rather argue the facts.
Such anger…such frustration….such nonsense. You’re about to loose my liberal friends and shrill venting will, alas, get you nowhere.
Obamacare, and anything remotely close to it, will be dead.
Cass, your dander is up and your slip is showing. I think you should recheck the WC thing and the 40 hour work week was started by Henry Ford for the purpose of giving his employees liesure time to drive the cars he made. Darn that profit. Maybe next, progressive will be credited with inventing the internet, oh wait, Al Gore already took credit for that. My bad.
Casting aspersions is generally not your style especially against people who haven’t yet entered the elite political class of Ivy league educated progressives. You might want to look in your glass house. If you do, you will find Chris Dodd (freinds of angelo mortgage good) Maxine Waters (special TARP loan to a company she and her husband held stock in), Charlie Rangel (too many to note here), Harry Reid (shady land deal in Nevada)
By the by, do you know how much Nancy Pelosi is worth or Jane Harmon (her husband owns Harmon Kardon and now Newsweek).
And please don’t forget the progressive gift of eugenics (negative eugenics that is). I know, I know, it was a good idea until Hilter messed it up.
So please, take a deep breath and count to 24, the number of days until the election. You’ll feel better.
These scary candidates as you put it are what is going to stop the Progressive agenda which is trying to turn this great country into a “nanny” state. The founding fathers did not have this in mind for the country. The Constitution is the greatest document ever written to govern a country. These Progressives want to throw it under the bus. We are determined to restore Constiutional Government which is limited in scope. Just protect us and get out of the way on most other issues. We demand it and will fight to restore it. Be prepared for a Tsunami my liberal friends. It is on the way shortly.
Lose Big, I suspect that your definition of big is similar to “the middle”. For your sake, I hope you think 60 seats isn’t big and your “middle” is somewhere between insanity and mere lunacy as that is the ground occupied by people who think that responsible spending and small government is “scary”.
OOOPS, sorry, Tommy….scratch 40 hour and put in child Labor Laws…or maybe medicaid, that all y’all want to cover the poor with…maybe throw in the end of slavery? how about Social Security…does that qualify? Can we also take credit for the civil rights act?
Oh heavens, do you think I condone the Charlie Rangels? Merely pointing out that God is not riding on any side in this debate. (But I DO like the little witch…great comic relief in a grim election year). And, to be frank, I understand the probable motivations of the Charlie Rangels a heck of a lot better than the Gingrichs and DeLays.
Since you mentioned slavery, do you really want to be a slave to this oppressive government? Do you want to pay the majority of your income to them for all the social programs they are pushing? Do you want the country to go bankrupt? There is not enough money in the till and China will stop funding this country soon and where will we be? If the car has two wheels hanging over the cliff, you want to put it in “D” and we want to put it in “R”. It is called saving the country.
Cass, I will grant you Medicare. Not at bad idea if it had been paid for and the funds not raided for other purposes However, the ponzi scheme has not led to a 53 TRILLION dollar debt, one that cannot be handled. So this program will effectively put an end to further progressive ideas, some of which might have had merit.
As for the civil war, state’s rights played a larger role in it than slavery. A republican did make do the right thing and converted people from chattel to human beings with the same god given rights mentioned in the constitution. As for civil rights law, I invite you to look into who pushed passage and the role Everret Dirksen (Rep Ill) and other Repubs played in its passage. You will find that the southern DEMs where the ones on the wrong side of this issue.
Its late, my fngers are bleeding. Have a good weekend.
Since when does your ilk even presume to believe that they have a monopoly on Constitutional interpretation? Or love of it, for that matter? If you love it (and presumably the Bill of Rights, therefore) where were you when the egregious passages of the Patriot Act were revealed? Or are rights only unalienable when they are YOUR rights as you interpret them?
Yeah, Tom. Abe existed when Republicans were real thinking men(sch)…alas for those days again. He was ultimately (though not heralded as such at the time) a man for all seasons and if it makes you feel good to claim him, be my guest…but he belongs to ALL of us
Dirksen existed in a day when we were fortunate enough to have some STATESMEN and men of good vision who knew they had to work together to get great things done.
Well, your friend Karl Rove sort of screwed that pooch when he decided that the ugly fat boy could get power by getting everyone to believe that winning at all cost and “political party power” was infinitely more rewarding than governing. A game, I must say, better played by the GOP only because that evil rotund dwarf sociopath is pulling the strings…still. He has paralyzed our government singlehandedly. He should be rode out of town on a rail.
Yeah, and Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican too, but today he would definitely be referred to as a RINO. Enviromentalist, trust buster, etc. No way Lincoln or Teddy would be Republicans today.
Your reasons on the reasoning behind the mandate make common sense. This is a common sense that goes back to the law of large numbers. This makes the standard deviation and expected losses much easier to forecast.
This is true with auto insurance. One doesn’t expect that they will have an auto accident but because of an Act of God something does happen. The system is balanced because there are many others who won’t be involved in accidents. Why do you think auto rates show much less rise than health care rates?
The same is true with health care. One might think that they are perfectly healthy (and have the data and history to support it). But it is impossible to estimate when an accident that requires treatment (surgery) or an illness (such as cancer) might occur. The system is in balance because there are others who have paid into the system. There is cost shifting because those that have not paid into the system receive care, and their costs are shifted to other people who have insurance. This drives up the insurance rates for all those with insurers.
The Obama plan failed in that it did not have necessary tort reform in place that would have had significant cost savings. Doctors perform unnnecessary tests because they are worried on being sued by a blood-thirsty trial lawyer. A federal version of the cap on pain and suffering needs to be done (similar to the law passed in California).
Ideally, the mandate should take place and be run by the private market with minimal interference from regulators as possible (with the exception of broad principles such as covering pre-existing conditions). Innovative ideas can come into being include pooling that would allow small businesses and individuals to combine together to negotiate as a group so as to have the same buying power as a large employer. Also, health savings accounts where employees can set aside a certain amount of money (tax deductible) that is used for health care costs. With patients being able to negotiate with doctors, we’ll see the ability of prices to come down versus government mandates. These are just two examples….the government should have a minimal role and should eschew a public option by all measures.
Thank you for being a voice of reason, where most others wish to grind political axes.
It is amazing, the volume of rhetoric, that gets thrown around this site.
I apologize for all those so called insurance “men” who chose to slander instead of engage in “civil” discourse.
You put up a courageous fight today in defense of proper discourse.
Your comparison to state laws requiring auto liability insurance and health care only illustrates your competence in serious debates. 1. In auto insurance you are only penalized as a result of some other incident bringing to light your failure to have insurance. 2. In this particular health issue, the failure to have health insurance is being tied into the IRS system. The penalty or rather the ability of the fed to collect the taxes instantly and punitively. There lies the problem with this universal health care (legislation)LAW. Question: JEFF, do you want the government to see immediately your brand and size of Condums; the types of medications you are taking; the types of medical procedures you or your wife are having? That, MR JEFF, is what freedom is about and the pure difference with socialism.
Cass, I thought the weekend would help end this thread, but alas, it didn’t.
I am always vexed by the Rove issue with Dems. Its like the left has to have a “puppeteer” behind the scenes. A machivelian dark force that hides the real power. I think it is akin to the “black helicopter” crowd on the right. There is no such angst concerning the performance of the Axelrods or Carvilles of the political world. Why is it that the self proclaimed party of moderation and love actually has to have someone, or something to focus hate on? The reason for the intellectual disconnect is something for psyche white paper but I suspect it is the same defense mechanism used in wartime where each side convinces themselves that the other is sub-human and not worthy of being accorded respect. I find it very curious, and dismaying, that you would drift over the line into that twilight zone.
To me, these deflections and dalliances concerning Rove, Bush and Chaney are designed to do one thing, and that is to try to hide the utter incompetence of this President and his Rasputin like, Espiranto speaking, foreign mentor, George S(I can’t bring myself to mention his full name for fear of repercussions. Ooops, I seem to have drifted a moment but I am now back into the light. Thankfully, I got the incomptent part right)
Tom, You are very right. The left engages in personal attacks when they have lost an argument. They also distort the facts and say just the opposite of what the facts are. Example: Now, they are saying the Republicans are outspending them 8-1 in this election. The opposite is the truth. With their massive union money and Soros money, it is no contest who is spending the big bucks on this election. Thank goodness, it appears to not be working out so much for them.
Jeff, overbilling is a problem, one that isn’t solved by O care. OB can be tackled and the first step would be to restore the distance between doctors and diagnostic clinics. The AMA years ago decided that Docs could invest in and own clinics etc which menat that the Docs have a economic interest in ordering up tests etc to help pay for that new MRI. There are plenty of issues that need addressing on the cost side of the hcare system, but these were never addressed which leaves the door open for speculation on whether this law was intended to be a transfer of wealth act, or a serious attempt at meaningful reform. If you think I am off the mark on the transfer of wealth issue, you might want to the background of the current recess appointed director of CMS, Donald Berwick.
This administration and prior ones have not put into place a system which will catch overbilling by doctors, hospitals, vendors on Medicare. I have seen reports that up to $100 Bil per year is pure fraud on payouts and our wonderful bureaucrats continue to pay. In this high tech world we live in, it seems to me that we could avoid paying the same charge 20 times to a vendor or doctor or hospital. It is a joke and politicians have been burying their head in the sand for decades. It doesn’t need to be this way.
Funny how democrats by large numbers do not purchase health insurance. They expect government and or their employer to purchase it for them. Well this benefit is going the way of the pension plans. Soon all they will get is a matching contribution to a defined contribution health insurance plan. You get what you pay for. Just like our new 401K plans.
TOO FUNNY TO WATCH YOU LIBERALS HAVE TO PURCHASE SOMETHING. We will see how they respond when they get the bills and then not be able to show up to the emergency room with their 7 kids and get treated by a free doctor.
It will start out where everyone gets treated then eventually the ones who purchase their good insurance plans will be the only one able to see a specialist, then at some point in the future, any doctor.
I like your comment a lot. The rejection of the Socialist agenda will be a Tsunami of biblical proportions. America will show we are not Europe or Canada. The Socialists thought they had a mandate to do whatever they wanted. The majority of these followers of the Chosen One will be shown the door and we can then work on getting this country back on the right track.
Nancy Pelosi has stated the best way to stimulate the economy is by doling out unemployment checks and food stamps. The Chosen One now wants another spending bill for infrastructure jobs. I believe they said that is what the Stimulus would do (Shovel Ready Jobs). We all know how that worked out. These imbeciles should all be shown the door.
Oh and when you have to buy that electric
car and the impoverished in this country
cannot afford the replacement battery, then I suppose Obama will mandate we, the
taxpayers, buy that for them too! Did they ever stop to think that maybe the taxpayers will someday run out of money to pay for all these entitlements?
Everyone needs to be active this year in getting the silent real majority to get out and vote and be heard. Unfortunately the media is trying to twist the Tea Party people into something that they are not.
Tea Party people are not:
Radicals
Racist’s
Uneducated
Religious fanatics
Homophobic’s
Tea Party people are:
Constitutional Conservatives.
In favor of State Rights
Uposed to a Large Federal Government
High taxes
Freedom to prosper and keep your income.
Favor a flat fair tax
Upose the death tax
Upose to big entitlement spending
Ear marks and government waste.
In favor of a strong military and respect of our veterans.
In favor of personal responsibility without government assistance.
I THINK THAT THE DEMOCRATS AND EVEN SOME REPUBLICANS SHOULD REMEMBER THIS OR HAVE THEIR POLITICAL CAREERS END BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN INABILITY TO LISTEN TO THE VOTERS.
Youngin, 80% of the American people think that this tax is unfair. Why–mainly because a lifetime of hard work should benefit one heirs and not the government. Two, this money has been taxed all along the way and it is not fair or equitable for the government to get a second, third or fourth shot at the revenue. Third, the gov should not be in the business of benefiting from someone’s death.
As for a fair flat tax, I would think that 25% wouuld be fair after elimination of all the tax deductions, including the mortgage interest deduction. The past plans also exempt a certain amount of income before it kicks in, generally around $30,000 so that the working poor aren’t hit. However, EVERYONE should be included in the tax, that way
EVERYONE is a stakeholder in the political process and has paid their share. As it stands now 47% of the country pays no tax, and some even get “refunds” based on the earned income tax credit (really, a wellfare payment).
The problem with our society is that Government at all levels is inefficient and spends too much. The American People are saddled with too much taxation for the services rendered. The Progressives have never seen a tax they didn’t like. This is stifling all innovation, job creation and growth in the economy. Most people don’t realize Obamacare will tax you 3.8% if you sell your house next year. What does that have to do with Healthcare reform? This is why there will be a big turnover in Congress this November and a repeal or defunding of this terrible legislation.
Death Tax = Double taxation.
Taxes were paid on this money throughout the life of the person who obtained this wealth. This allows someone to pass on their money and possessions to their heirs without the government taxing it again just because someone died.
Flat fair tax = a flat percentage that all must pay. It is fair in nature because it is does not punish or over burden those that do well. It stimulates the economy becuase these people who provide jobs and purchase items have more to put back into the economy. If you wanted you could do the same by elimination of the income tax entirely and impose a national consumption tax (BUT NOT BOTH AS OBAMA IS GOING TO SUPPORT VERY SOON) This would be even more fair becuase it will only effect those that have enough money to buy items.
I hope this brings some real clarity to the Tea Party’s position on the issues and not just what MSNBC and or CNN says about this large ground swell of members who really want a Country based on tried and true principals of fiscal responsibility and fair taxation for all who want to succeed in our great nation.
Flat tax percentage too high with a mere 30,000 limit for a family with children (since you also want them to pay for their own healthcare, I presume).
This is why we had a progressive rate to begin with…there needs to be some more equity built in.
How about a flat tax with different levels based on income per capita in the family?
However, regardless of how you set it up, this will never befcome law of the land since the entrenched lobbies of tax lawyers and accountants are way too strong; you will be putting them out of a job.
However, if you continue the “death tax” they will still have employment and still continue to devise ways for the “rich” to avoid these taxes as they do now…and to great effect. It is only the “middle class” schleps (including small businesspeople) who suffer from the death tax since they have not availed themselves of the many loopholes and strategies for avoidance that the “rich” regularly employ.
How about a compromise….the flat tax (equitably arranged) with retention of the “death tax” which can be avoided. thus, the attys and accountants still can have employment….AND an end to this ridiculous “not for profit” status for enterprises that are as profit making as any corporation. (WHAT A FARCE!). We should also tax churches and other religious institiutions as well if there is a hint of any kind of “profit producing” enterprise. All or nothing.
And by the way, I see the tea party blogger is expanding the groups now included for right wing excoriation: from Obama supporters, Democrats, liberals, socialists…we are now adding progressives? What a narrow little social circle you are boxing yourselves in to!
Cassandra, You are unbelievable! You stated “How about a Flat Tax based on different levels of income”. What do you think we have now with the Progressive marginal rates based on income level? We have almost half the country who pay either no tax or very little. It is time we go to the fair or flat tax and eliminate the thousands of pages of the tax code with all the loopholes built into it. This country is rejecting “Redistribution of Wealth” policies of this administration and spending much more than is taken in. If this isn’t changed soon and return the country to responsible government which spends within its means, we are not for long as a country.
No, sir (madam?), YOU are unbelievable. By implication, a flat tax should have no loopholes so we agree 1000%. WE AGREE!!!!!
Right now we have a progressive tax rate with 10,000 loopholes.
I advocate a flat tax with no loopholes that is equitable, in that someone with two kids making 30,000 a year will pay a lower rate than someone making 10,000,000 paying 25% a year. You need to be able to support yourselves and your family after tax time, I assume…and it is not so easy on 22,500 as Tom offered as the threshold rate.
AND…do NOT go into redistribution of wealth….the Bush tax policies (actually, beginning with Reagan) have caused the “rich” to get richer and the “poor” to get poorer, i.e., through eroding the income in income of the middle class. You can check out these statistics and you can try to skew them in any way you like, but the facts remain…you may impute this to other reasons…but it boils down to erosion. Is that what you all intend? Having a middle class with hopes of bettering themselves, or at least the future lives of its children, was the impetus that built this country and made it great…our tax policies in recent decades have eroded this either through taking too much from some and certainly not enough from others to meet our social and national goals, but also by allowing no tax consequences for exporting our jobs, be they blue collar or white collar.
If you all are so pugnacious and spoiling for a fight, go take on the import/export policies of China, the inhumane labor laws or lack thereof in the countries that have taken these jobs, the chemical pollution, the unsafe products delivered to our shores, etc., etc., etc. Go vent your spleen there instead of on your fellow citizens who may have a difference of opinion than you…but are no less concerned, patriotic, or frustrated
Rather than simplistically blame the “liberals” or the “unions” or the “prgressives” or the “socialists”…can’t you see the GLOBAL picture?
You will come to rue the day when GE’s interests are more aligned with Chinese national policy than US national policy, or IBM or Exxon, or BP (which, since BP is British owned, has already happened)…as it is, we have lost a chunk of our strategic manufacturing capability….I would think as a conservative that that “defending our shores” would be important to you. Just THINK a bit past the name calling and labeling…and you are buying the Big Lie still…
If you all REALLY wanted to gang up on something in the tax code, why don’t you gang up on the AMT? THAT hits a lot of the tax paying middle and upper middle classes directly…or haven’t the oligarchs’ mouthpieces stressed that little piece of tax legislation for you all to browbeat someone with….
You are picking on the WRONG targets…and aligning with the wrong class(es).
The only thing we can agree on is the need for a Flat or Fair Tax. The fact is that almost half the population pays little or no tax. Perhaps we should just go to a consumption or sales tax so we can get some revenue from 100 million or so citizens instead of letting them get off scott free on their obligation. I don’t see anything in your treatise that advocates for reducing the size of this gigantic government which is wasting the financial resources in record numbers. How long do you think this country will last at $1.3 Trillion in the hole each year? Completely unsustainable in the short and long term. The answer is go to a more fair tax and to reduce this monolithic juggernaut of a government and stop supporting every social justice issue that comes along. That is not America.
A sales tax is even more regressive as the poorer folks will need to spend all of their income to live, while the “rich”, with extra left over at the end of the month, get off scott free on that tax.
You complain about the govt juggernaut, but you fail to criticize the two wars that cost us a ton over the past ten years and are costing us still. While you may think that the monies spent in Iraq were worth it to protect us from “terrorist” attack on our shores…I well beg to differ. While you think that “liberals” were the only ones that fostered poor mortgages that caused our current recession, I WELL beg to differ since that leaves no blame for sheer corporate greed and malfeasance and outright theft (did you hear the news today? the Wall Street geniuses are on target to pay themselves 144 BILLION in bonuses this year).
I do not hear you crabbing about state govt that continues to raise sales taxes and property taxes until they are squeezing whoever is left paying mortgages out of their homes, not to mention all the nickel and dimers like vehicles stickers, vehicle registration and license fees, traffic tickets, etc., etc., etc. Where is your mouth challenging those taxes…or do you only reserve your choler for the feds? And it isn’t the feds that want to tax soda pop or prevent you from eating foie gras…it is the stae and local govts. TARP was a GOP deal if you remember that was also an inheritance from the prior administration…so let’s be fair
So, if you are going to crab and foment, please give ALL govt entities equal time since they surely deserve it and stop blaming liberals for much of what went on prior to the Obama administration.
I will say this again; in order to counter the power and excesses of the global, multinational corporations we need a strong federal government and the protections it affords. That the feds are being so co opted by the corporate interests in this country dismays me greatly. And our illustrious Supreme Court aided and abetted that with the campaign finance ruling. I view that decision as an abrogation of “one man, one vote” which should be awarded to “natural” citizens, not legal entities. How can you or I ever hope to counter the influence of all those dollars that can be brought to bear? Anonymously (yeah, the “right” blocked that one, didn’t they).
The Rove gnomes get you all riled up about healthcare costs and welfare cheats…and you lose the forests for the trees…
Just be fair and cast blame to all onto whom it should be cast…we are going to be in deep manure if we do not find a common ground, a common respect, and work out some real basic things…like what we owe our fellow citizens…and what our representatives owe to us.
Patronizing me and telling me I don’t understand is not gonna do it…I think I understand better than you, actually.
Cass, I really have a hard time understanding your fixation on “the rich”. Its almost an obsession with rich people who all seem to border on evil. You certainly have a Marxian view of the world. By the way, you really need to look into what sociailism, communism, statism, and progressivism have in common and you will then understand how all these bad apples find their way into one barrell. If you look hard enough, you will see that they are all based on 1) a loathing of business and 2) the siren’s song of equal opportunity. Surprisinly, concervatives also embrace the American ethos of equal opportunity; however, we diverge radically in the fact that all these left leaning idealogies have at their core a belief there should be equal outcome. If that outcome isn’t achieved, then big government MUST step in and try and make the outcome as equal as it can, even if it is does at the expense of others. That philosphy is an anathema to concervatives since it chases a dream that if wholly unattainable.
As for the flat tax, I don’t see any problem with a two tiered rate, but no more. Once more tiers are added, the system will revert to the special requests for exemptions and political considerations. I would not be opposed to a 15% and 25% rate leaving the first $30,000 (or whatever amount) exempt. That seems fair. Let’s test your fairness so here is an example-Income per year $50,000, first 30K exempt, taxable income=$20K x 15%=$3,000. Income $1,000,000-$30,000=$970,000 x 24%=$242,500
The rich person makes 20 times the “poor” person but pays 80 times the tax.
As concerns the eroding middle class, that is a figment of your imagination, a statistical sleight of hand that liberals love to engage in along with the rich pigs are eating too much of the pie. I have addressed this before but you have ignored the reality. By the way, the “rich” class is a fluid class, as are most others, people enter and leave these classes depending on the vagaries of life. Your insistence on towing this line makes me think about the adage that those who try to persuade, are merely trying to convince themselves.
P.S. Please recall that Pres O couldn’t run back fast enough to DC to vote for TARP, so he can’t escape his share of blame for that. By the way, Afghan is O’s “good war”, so he can’t dodge that expense, and stimulus, healthcare etc have led to this year’s 1.3 TRILLION dollar deficit with similar deficits as far as the eye can see. This is far more than Bush’s deficit in eight years but don’t get me wrong, he should be held accountable for that spending as should the current Pres. We are well on our way to spending ourselves into oblivion (37 TRILLION alone in Medicare) and the speed has picked up. The lack of attention to, and increased pace of, spending is the prime reason for Pres O’s poor ratings as it demonstarates a complete inability to stop the madness. Even worse, he seems to be the maddest hatter in DC.
I am using “rich” as a catchphrase for a certain socioeconomic class…
And yes, I do ascribe to that part of Marxian theory that states more or less, that how you earn your bread and shelter is a strong determinant in what your social structure and common myths end up being.
I do not hate business, rather I hate the overweening power advantage that all those concentrated billions bring.
And I have resented for YEARS the myth that we actually have free choices…we may, but these are reduced to whether we buy blue paint or green paint, stainless steel or white appliances…we have all been sucked into the consumer myth which, ultimately, has been financed through debt. I see our true choices narrowing…and not due to the feds, necessarily (although I would agree with you on some limits that should be set) but due to the economic deck stacking that continues to erode the ability to determine our own choices. Money is freedom…in a nuthsell. The more you have, the freer you are to make your own lifestyle choices…and the more predisposed you are to let others do the same.
I do not think that you can deny that the “wealth” is concentrating more and more. You can see the absolute impunity in which many in Wall Street operate; to me it is a slap in the face that the Wall Streeters are paying themselves billions in bonuses while companies sitting on trillions in profits refuse to hire. And don’t give me that line about uncertainty…maybe for the small business, I will buy that, but not for the big boys. they have merely found a way to squeeze more out of fewer workers…workers who will meet all demands made on them so they can keep their jobs.
Wealth is power. The continuing erosion of the “wealth” of the middle classes (how did your 401K fare in these past years? How did your home value fare in these past years?) and the continuing trend of concentration of same is reducing the “power of the people” as it were. The small guy, be he business or individual is being limited in his freedoms by this concentration.
I also DO believe in equal opportunity. I do not expect equal outcomes. I DO expect a baseline of security of food, shelter, good education for ALL, which, I do believe, the words “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” seem to imply. You may split historical hairs with me, as you have, but essentially that was the premise and the promise. Remeber the words “liberty and justice for all?” If you can’t go to a good school, put a roof over your head, and eat, what REALLY do those words mean?
Thanks for the honesty.
It is a small and crass world you live in where money is the arbriter of all freedom and happiness. We couldn’t be more different. You missed the part about the founders vision of “freedom from”, an oppressive government, over regulation of human activities, freedom from a state religion and other “negative” rights You have read into the constitution some “positive” rights that were never intended, e.g. healthcare, freedom from want etc etc. I realize that you think the constituion is a living breathing bend to popular will document but suppose that may also be true for other documents such as the Ten commandments and other bedrock principles. Unfortunately for you, your nuanced version is held by very small minority of psuedo intellectuals who look at the Tea Party people as misguided ill informed rabble. Well, the history books are laced with examples of what happens to people who dispay such hubris.
Thank you Tom for making a valiant attempt to straighten Cassandra out. I think it is up to about 10 times now, but she has her mind made up and is a true believer in Marxism and all it stands for. It is a good thing she is in the minority with these beliefs. She may actually have to consider moving to another country after we vote out her Progressive Marxist leaning representatives in Congress on 11-2.
Like true conservatives we can always hope for those who are lost in the ideological desert. Redemption is possible, especially with the help of a Nov epiphany.
Well, Conservative, that just goes to show you…if one doesn’t believe like you do, one is invited to leave. TYPICAL.
Clearly, you have no conept of the difference between “marxist” and “Marxist” and are to unschooled to realize it.
Sorry, Conservative: If you believe in the Bill of rights, and the Constitution, as you claim to do so VERY, VERY, VERY many times, then I have a right to also say what I think…or would you only reserve that right to you chosen few?
Go back to your insular little world…draw the flag around you, curl up, go to sleep and fool yourself into thinking you have all the answers. ENJOY!
Actually, I did study Marxism in college and quickly realized how very bad the theory was and how opposite it was from Capitalism. It didn’t work out so well for the USSR, did it. Hasn’t worked out for Cuba or Venezuela either. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not what this country is all about although the current President seems determined to take us there. He will find out in November we aren’t ready for that type of society.
You STILL miss the point. A marxian outlook in social science means that you look at the way people have to get their food and shelter…and see the common determinants in their social system, structure, religions, “myths”, etc. In other words, you really are how you get what you eat, so to speak, vs. having no connection of your social organization, social systems, values, etc. to how you get your daily bread. It is considered “marxian” because it stresses the economics of providing your necessities over other factors in determining your social organization, etc….
You are describing communism as a modern political system with your examples, which is another thing entirely and did not work very well, as you point out. Neither did unchecked capitalism, if I may point that out….
When I was getting my degree in Economics, we studied all the economic theories and systems. Marxism was the least desirable because everyone ends up equally poor except for the leadership, ie Dictarorship of the Proletariat. Spreading the wealth or Redistribution of Wealth ends up making everyone poor. I, for one don’t want to stand in line for bread or toilet paper as the poor Russian people did for 70 years. Marxism also does not promote production, innovation or entrepreneurs since everyone is in the same boat. When the USSR collapsed economically, the new leaders started adopting some versions of Capitalism in the country and they have made some gains economically in the past 10 years even though they have a long way to go. The US has been the most prosperous nation on earth for 100 years with some ups and downs, but we certainly don’t want to go to that system.
It seems to me that the entire healthcare discussion can be boiled down to this: are we going to be free citizens or are we going to be subjects? Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution delineates the powers granted to the Congress, among which are: the power to lay and collect taxes (which states that they shall be uniform throughout the United State) and the “commerce clause”, which gives the Congress the power to REGULATE commerce (simply ensuring a level playing field for all who choose to participate – neither success nor failure is guaranteed)…but I can’t seem to find that it grants the power to REQUIRE any citizen to PARTICIPATE in said commerce. It seems pretty clear that if someone chose to move to the woods and live the life of a hermit, shunning the social life and living off tree bark, they are free to do so. No one would force said hermit to choose between a white appliance or a stainless steel one, or between red paint and green paint, or purchase anything at all. Concentration of power in the business world becomes meaningless. So, when we talk about concentration of power, what we really have to address is the the danger of the power being concentrated in the government, which DOES have powers not given any individual or private entity: to fine, punish and imprison… subject to constitutional constraints. Those constraints should not be ignored.
As for a flat income tax, which seems to me would both fair and uniform: An individual would be tax exempt for all income below a certain amount, say $30,000 (amount used in a previous post) and a further exemption for each dependent, say $10,000 for the sake of illustration. Using a flat 20% tax rate:
Individual earns $30,000 = 0 tax
Individual earns $60,000 = $6,000 tax
Couple earns $60,000= 0 tax
Individual w/ 3 dependents earns $60,000 = 0 tax
Couple w/ 4 dependents earns $200,000 = $20,000 tax
Individual earns 1,000,000 = $194,000 tax
No other write-offs. Simple and easy to understand. And the monies collected should be carefully spent – before providing any benefits/safety net to any individual we should have very careful screening process so as not to promote malingering, laziness or apathy. Additionally, the tax code should not be used to reward, punish or steer you toward any particular product or service, as is currently the case. To use the tax code for behavior modification is antithetical to a free society. Just my two cents.
Cass, I think you are trying to draw a distinction without a real difference. The wellspring from which marxism, the antho, is Marx. The world has slowly begun to discard this philosophy as “subsitence economics” recedes. Marxism is the siren’s song of the poor in that it champions the collective idea, which to people who wake up looking for food everyday, is very appealing. It falls apart as a culture comes to a point where they have time to think about this concept and realize that I can do better, work harder, and improve my life.
Marxist anthro has faded to black in the social studies since the fall of Soviet Union, which demonstrated all of the flaws, chief among them the corruption of the elite political class that enforced the rules. Libs dream romantic dreams about marxism with the backdrop being that the concept is not wrong but it was the poor implementation and ignorance of the governed. This new group in DC are devotees with that same mindset-ala-“we won’t know what’s in the law until we pass it”. In political speak that means, the masses are too stupid to get it. Even this week, Joe Biden, parrotted a similar line by stating that this admin’s “accomplishments” are to complicated to explain-translation-we are all a bunch of rubes who should go about our subsistence lives and let the political elite class make our decisions for us. Guess what, the internet has destroyed that myth. Marxist and progressive theory is being stripped to the bone, and, as happened in the early 20th Century, once the veneer is peeled away, an ugly idealogy is revealed. This is truly the season where “the emperor has not clothes”.
To my flat tax friend, I applaud your description and comments; however, I think our progressive friends will think that what is fair for all, is not fair at all. The rich much suffer more under their Orwellian view-always remember that “all animals are equal, except some animals are more equal than others”. No truer statement has ever been made that describes progressive thought.
JB, I liked your treatise a lot. The idea of a flat tax or fair tax has been kicked around for years. There is no doubt this country should reform the IRS and burdensome, complicated tax code. Tax Attorneys and CPA’s make a lot of money figuring out how to circumvent the code for their clients. We also don’t need to hire an additional 17,000 IRS agents to monitor, fine and punish individuals who choose not to purchase Health Insurance.
The biggest problem we have is that government spending is totally out of control and it really doesn’t matter what kind of tax system the country has if the government is going to spend $1.3 Trillion more than it takes in. Progressive Democrats and Progressive Repubicans, many who have been in office far too long think they can do whatever they want. This election will show many of them the door. A smaller more efficient government which balances the budget and eliminates much of the wasteful spending will do much to restore confidence of business to hire and expand. A fair tax for business is 12.5% and then you will see the economy take off again. We can’t do this unless our political leadership is changed out. It also needs to happen at the city, county and state level since they have been overpending as wel.
Tom…nice Treatise on Marxism, but you don’t get it either…
SIMPLY PUT…again…for those blinded by the word Marx and whose brains immediately run to communism…
“how you provide food and shelter and life’s necessities is a major determinant in your social strructure, social mores (including lawas), religious structure.” NO MORE, NO LESS.
Get over the “Marxist regimes”…that is not what I am talking about at all.
JB…I like the plan, actually…no loopholes, no ups, no extras…and sufficient deduction for those with kids…
PS, Tom….think you got the Orwell thing backwards…think he meant that the (piggy) oligarchs were “more equal than others” probably not the folks that would be the focus of “progressives.”
I think you have your books mixed up, the piggies are the progressives thinks in power at this point, so step back through the looking glass.
I am encouraged by your agreement on the flat tax, now if we can just get the message across the Potomac. It will be difficult but sometimes peasants with pitchforks can make a dent. This Nov can be a start.
Marist philosophy without using marxist tenets, seems oxymoronic to me but I guess I slept through that one in my Anthro 101 class, but then again, that was 40 years ago.
Tom, If this election doesn’t do the trick with our reps on the Potomac, I think sales of pitchforks, torches, tar, feathers and rails will skyrocket. Their days are numbered. They have made a huge mess and nothing short of complete change out will get the country back on track.
The snowball is rolling. I have the feeling that this youngest generation will start to learn that past generations have spent them into economic oblivion. Medicare is 37 TRILLION in the hole, not to mention Social Security and all of this is off the books but about to be added to the books because the general fund will be called upon to pay this.
The spending should have been strangled under Bush and Clinton. They missed the opportunity but some people thought that “change” would be an person of substance who could articulate the need to not just keep the car out of the ditch but keep it from going over the cliff by reversing direction. Instead, what we got was a “hang onto your hats” acceleartion of spending toward the ever widening chasm. This is the nexus that brought about the Tea Party. The rise of the Tea Party is a scary proposition for the left, thus the reversion to epithets and sexual perjoratives such a “teabaggers”. When you have lost the debate, all you are left with is a waive of the hand, a F U, and walkaway from the political stage. The ascendancy of conservative thought will eventually overwhelm academia and the media but the Great Awakening has begun.
The American People have awakened from a very deep slumber similar to Rip Van Winkle. Their worst nightmare is the massive, oppressive government who has spent the country onto the verge of bankruptcy and has been stripping away our freedoms for quite a while so they could install their vision of socialist utopia. Thank God for the Tea Party exposing these lying elitist thieves who have been in office for 20-30 years. The Conservative movement will continue to gain momentum and we will hold these politicians “accountable” whether they retain their seats or the new ones coming in. People will be watching how they vote, what is proposed, whether they read the bill before voting etc. We will keep changing them out until we get a group that listens to the will of We the People.
The Euro implosion will hasten the charge to avoid the strikes and violence, mostly lead by public sector unions who can’t, or won’t, understand that the debt (pensions) cannot be paid without taking serious debt reduction and trying to increase expansion of the private sector, otherwise known at the money generator. Yesterday it was France, this morning it is Greece. Great Britian is now devolving its healthcare and entitilements and actually laying off bureaucrats. All this is taking place while we are being treated to TRILLIONS of dollars of new spending, and annual deficts that dwarf all previous deficits. And the President’s introspection dwells on a failure to get the message out. If this introspection isn’t the greatest example on an “empty suit” in this august office, then I don’t know what is. And, to all those that think this is a personal attack, it isn’t, it is an editorial on the competence of the man who currently holds the POTUS title.
Cassandra’s comment that
“how you provide food and shelter and life’s necessities is a major determinant in your social structure, social mores (including laws), religious structure” has, perhaps unwittingly, revealed the fundamental difference of opinions between the left-leaning and the right-leaning: the definition of “you”.
A progressive would probably define “you” in the foregoing statement as society as a whole, whereas a more conservative would define “you” as the individual.
Although the statement may have some validity, a more conservative wording would be: “how I [myself]provide food and shelter and life’s necessities is a major determinant of MY social structure, social mores (etc)
A subtle yet profound difference, as “you” in the collective sense seems to imply that society as a whole should take care of ALL individual’s food, shelter, necessities of life, etc…a position with which most citizens vehemently disagree, and which seems completely contrary to the ideals of individual freedom and liberty on which this nation was founded. Just my take, that’s all.
Tom, you are right as rain. These Progressive Socialists have managed to ruin most of the economies in the world with their schemes for Utopia. The Unions have played a large role in this. In France, they have mass protests because the government wants to raise the retirement age to 62. These people are lazy bums and want cradle to grave support and don’t care if it bankrupts the country.
Reading with interest your dialogue. However, I truly feel the need to point out that you are setting up false premises here. Can you admit that we have not had a decent president that was willing to challenge the Potomac status quo…regardless of party and regardless of “conservative” or “liberal?” Do you REALLY think that those of us that consider ourselves liberals want to spend ourselves into oblivion? COME ON, guys…the cheap shots really are unworthy of all of you, since you have posted some decent blogs here…don’t revert just to get in the lick or the sound byte.
But while you hurl aspersions on Obama and the Dems and the Liberals, note that no one in the GOP had the cojones to do anything either, and in the fairly recent future they have held most of the congressional power. I say this not to dump on the GOP, but to be factual…
I was not a “W” fan, which i am sure comes as no surprise, but the issue is that the pres does not make the laws. The big issue is the congress who refuses to debate in good faith because it is more interesting to rile up the poplulace so they can set up re election and maintain themselves in power. Frankly, I don’t think a whole lot have exercised a lot of “power” recently and certainly NO leadership, so I guess the end game for them is merely to be re elected and pretend that you are doing a job…nice work if you can get it.
However, to throw all of the mess on the backs of the dems, is just not fair, right, or correct. To throw it on the back of the GOP is not fair, right, or correct, either. They are all a bunch of self promoting gutless wonders.
I just want you to be fair in these debates. The Tea party is not the answer really, because, although I can understand the reasonong and the rationale, and do agree with much of “the program” there is too much antipathy, too much liberal bashing (we are not the enemy here), too much undercurrent, too much idealogical hardline…and really, some of the folks that you are putting up for office are just REAL scary….You have not found a voice that speaks to me, although I can approve and understand a lot of the anger and frustration, and some of the remedies proposed.
And yeah, JB, I do look at “society” and “you” in the collective. Because while we all like to consider ourselves as rugged individuals, there are powers and trends that the individual just cannot buck, really. For instance…how do you buck the aging of our society…and that of Europe? Will we throw our old out on an ice foe or what? How do you quantify how much of the excess spending now and projected is due to the actual demographics of the population? I try to look for commonalities among people rather than differences…that is my bent and my training. I am sorry you cannot understand that slant, JB, but the fact that we are all in the same boat, the fact that whatever comes has come before in some form, and the fact that we are more similar than different is very comforting to me.
I would much prefer that the national debate, as it were, not center on division, but rather on cohesion. We really do need to seriously get it together and decide how much power is acceptable for government, corporations, etc., to have. We see what unfettered pow can do, whether it be Wall street that threw ethics out the window or government that weasels its way more and more into our pockets… We need to seriously decide what we owe our fellow citizen in terms of safety nets…and reach some workable common ground…and where we draw the line of social responsibility, whether it be from Goldman Sachs, Barney Frank, or Jim Boehner.
I think that a lot of these blogs are very divisive and in the end, very non productive…The hubris you all have now may or may not come to pass…Frankly, I hope the great mass of moderate folks go out and vote and I hope they have not listened to all the propaganda…I hope the “silent majority” makes its will known…but, the way I see it, there are no real choices for any of us that will draw us together or be in any way effective…just same old, same old…
Oh, I will vote in November, but with ashes in my mouth…I have no good choices, only what I perceive to be the lesser of two evils.
“the Impaler”?
As Michael Scott would say:
“That’s what she said.”
Can Congress mandate that I buy an AIG policy for my health insurance, or for any insurance, for that matter?
I’m afraif that there are not enough smoke and mirros in the whole country to convince me that AIG will pay back the hundreds of billions it owes. Where will the money come from?
A liberal judge backs a Liberal President who pushes a Liberal Congress.
Now…we’ll see what really comes down after the House is swept and the Senate almost swept. Repeal of this idiotic, stupid law is in the making and then we can put this issue in perspective. CHOICE, my friends, CHOICE what we want. The fools in power must now see that you don’t rattle the cage of the beast who will eat you.
I know within the next few hours (let alone years) I will need food.
So judge, where and what would you like to force me to eat?
I truely don’t understand why so many are upset about a mandate to purchase health insurance. We are required to purchase liability insurance for our autos. I realize this is to protect others from finanacial problems if we are at fault, but if you don’t have insurance and go to the hospital, we’re all paying for that too. What is the difference?
Am I missing something, or did the judge’s ruling – at least as indicated in the article – not mention anything that pertained to any law or any prior case law?
Mr. President, I am overweight. I think you need to make me buy a gym membership! I need you to save me from myself!
The difference between the govt requiring us to buy auto insurance and making us buy health insurance is simple. YOU CHOOSE TO BUY AND OPERATE A CAR. Therefore it is your decision and your responsibility.
This not the same for health insurance. By mere existance I am forced to buy something where there are other alternatives for me. Some poeple actually are fine not buying a qualified health insurance plan. They will buy a catastrophic plan to protect their assets and then chose to self-fund the maintenance.
Difference?
There is no difference to a socialist!
It’s a right to use the public roads and, in so doing you have no right to individually imperil others with out being able to compensate them for your negligence in doing so.
If you could go to the hospital to get breast implants and then pick me out of the phone book to pay for it, I guess there would be no difference…..
What a stupid question!
Jeff, the statement that you don’t understand why people are upset is probably the seminal issue to this entire case. The premise of the law is that We The People simply don’t understand anything and must be shepherded like sheep to the proper watering hole to survive. It’s not about people needing care, which they do indeed, or whether we ultimately pay for some of them, which we also do; it’s about a government, any government, telling free people what they must buy, how much we have to pay for it, etc.
I agree with Jim, there’s no real meat in this article.
You do not choose to require medical care. Everybody requires medical care. Most people cannot self-fund medical catastrophes and it is delusional to think that most people will buy “catastrophe” medical insurance if they are not forced to buy a qualified plan. I mostly agree with the individual mandate, I just hope we have more options.
Everyone knows that this is unconstitutional. It is just common sense that the government can not make you buy a product that you do not wish to buy.
Hey youngin’ (I mean comrade),
Is it still a ‘MANDATE’ when the government is paying for it, I mean redistributing, I mean…..
Remember when you could say “The only thing I had to do was die and pay taxes”
Now…. “The only thing I have to do is die, pay taxes, and buy Obama Care”
The mandate is necessary because it avoids the situation where an uninsured person comes down with a dread disease such as cancer or others which require Hundreds of Thousands of dollars to pay for treatment over an extended period of time. Without the mandate, only 4 options (all of which are completley unacceptable in my opinion) apply. These are:
1. Taxpayers have to pick up the cost of the medical care.
2. The medical care providers do not get paid for providing the services.
3. We let the person opt in to the system after learning they are sick. and
4. We let the person die because they made a bad choice regarding whether or not to purchase insurance.
If you disagree with the mandate, please indicate which of the above 4 choices you feel is correct or, if you know of another option, please indicate what it is.
There is much in the health care act that I feel was handled very badly (lack of tort reform being #1 on the list), but requiring the coverage for all Americans is necessary.
Don’t forget to pay your carbon offset tax and plug in your electric car!
Oh, and get your hands off those cigarettes and that martini!
Have you written that check to China yet?
Let me put this in terms you understand.
I do not feel that my tax dollars should go to pay (AND THEY DO) your healthcare costs because you chose not to buy it. As the judge said, you WILL need it and covering you is a burden and a social cost that I and other taxpayers should not have to bear. This is also a NATIONAL and SOCIAL and demographic issue as well as an economic one, ergo, a national solution was found. Is that in your language? You are right, you opt to purchase a car, and the compulsory auto insurance laws are designed so society does not have to bear the financial responsibility of your negligent damage to others which would ultimately affect others and all us taxpayers. Well, sooner or later medical care will be needed (not to mention, maybe preventative care so we AVOID maybe the catastrophic or chronic illnesses in the first place and avoid all those further costs?) and to not recognize this fact is sheer obstinacy. That is CLEARLY the way the judge ruled as he did.
Presumably, you consider yourself a “conservative” since you lambast the liberal judge, etc., ad nauseum. Well, isn’t it conservative to make people pay their own way and not burden the taxpayer? The greater good, after all…..
(Never mind all the other social good, such as preventing cancellations when people get sick, providing a market for those uninsurable in the private system, balancing costs by insuring the healthy as well as the ill, providing a means of access to healthcare for almost all when the private, for profit market cannot or will not provide it, preventing people from losing their assets due to catastrophic illness that could have been prevented if health insurance could have been secured). But Those are in my language….not yours.
There is so much hypocrisy to this issue. Now, we see that unions and large companies can opt out of Obamacare on waivers while small busines and individuals have to have it. This law has to go and be replaced with a more common sense approach. Create a pool for those with pre-existing conditions and leave the rest of the industry alone. In other words to the Feds – “Get out of our lives”. Go live in Cuba or Venezuela if you don’t like it here.
@Pete,
No, it is called a subsidy, and we already have those, although it is funded by taxpayers rather than other insureds.
Jeff, we are all going to die too – so do we all have to buy life insurance, how about disability insurance, Long Term Care insurance, dental insurance – we all have teeth. We all have the right to either accept risk and fund for it, or buy insurance to offset it.
Obamacare already requires those who have insurance to increase the coverage so that it covers aspirin and counseling if you are overweight. I don’t need to pay for insurance to buy aspirin. Should I have to pay for someone else’s counseling in my premiums?
Most of the major insurers have pulled out of the market that sold health insurance for children – why, because as of 9/23/10 the act requires them to charge the same for a very sick child that they do for a healthy child. And to make things worse if you are buying for a child, you can wait until they are sick and then buy the insurance and still get it at the same price as a healthy child(not like auto insurance by the way).
This law is an attempt to change the laws of economics – the way it is written, it will either fail, or the insurers will fail. Principal Financial already announced it was exiting the business entirely. Of course, this probably the original intent of the Act anyway.
Here’s an option for ya.
You have to show your health insurance card before you can buy Cable TV or Cell Phone.
Pete, you seem pretty upset. Relax just a bit. I see your line of thinking with the driving being a choice, but the problem is that as a society we have decided not to just let people die that don’t have insurance.
Hospitals constantly complain about providing services they will never be compensated for because people don’t have insurance. Everyone has a responsibility to carry insurance so that the rest of us don’t have to pay for them, as I hear all of you on this site complain about daily along with personal responsibility.
Also, with many people that will not require health care until later, they will also be contributing to the program which will increase the revenue generated.
Like it or not, it’s everyone’s responsibility to pick up the cost for everyone. When an uninsured person ends up in the ER (usually after letting a bad situation get worse) we ultimately pick up the cost. That situaion is not funded in advance either. I don’t like it. But that’s the way it is. Making more people pay into the system at least funds the system in advance. It also provides the potential for preventitive care which can reduce costs in the long run. The next step is tort reform. Hopefully the “tea baggers” when elected will tackle that issue. There is too much name calling and finger pointing. The current system stinks and is getting worse. When has anyone’s cost of health insurance ever gone down from one year to the next??
FYI we all pay for social security and medicaire…..
I have a RIGHT to the same good genes you have! You are now a permanent donor, for the good of the state!
WHERE DOES THIS ALL END?
Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of Happiness!
Pete, what are you talking about?
I didn’t know we were competing to create the most incomprehensible comment.
Pete, I suggest writing the rest of your comments in all caps. That usually gets people’s attention and lets them know you mean business.
I am so tired of the dimwits who keep harping on mandatory auto liability insurance being required. It is not comparable since the law does not mandate you own a car.
The Twilight Zone music started playing after I read PETE’s comment.
If you ask someone, anyone in fact that knows abything about insurance, they will explain to you why my carrying liability insurance does not protect you.
How is that true Wayne?
Pete, stop being so histrionic.
When does it all end? it all ends when we really look at the problem of healthcare in this country with open minds, and forget labeling people. it all ends when people SERIOUSLY think about the consequences.
I imagine that all of us blogging here have insurance mostly paid for by our employers. Nice perk. Now imagine you are unemployed due to a lay-off and are a diabetic, or have chronic heart disease, or your wife’s mammogram turns out positive, or your son is a victim of a hit and run while walking home from sports practice…NOW WHAT?
As for the carriers dropping kid insurance so they don’t have to insure sick kids, I would not expect them to insure these folks becasue they are about profit. NOW there will be an alternative that is presumably affordable so the parents can purchase insurance for these kids.
What would you have these foks do….cast the sick, injured relative onto a mountainside to die from the elements?
WHAT WOULD YOU DO, PETE, faced with hundreds of thousands of medical bills for one that you loved? If you want to get histrionic, let’s give the lother side equal opportunity to be so.
I think Pete’s remarks mean that after we kick out the Socialist Utopians in November and repeal or defund this monstrocity, we can pursue LIFE,LIBERTY & THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. This is the USA, not Cuba. Get out of our lives Feds.
Jeff:
You, like many, espouse individual responsibility and how imposing that responsibility will save the rest of us money because we won’t end up paying for non-covered care. We WILL pay, via taxes, because we’ll pay those mandated premiums for the less fortunate. I’ll take the current environment and KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE MIDDLE to any extent possible!
As to hospitals and doctors, ask them about their current government reimbursement rates and what they expect in the future.
Read your history books people.
Already the revisionists start working the facts. The selling point was that people with a chronic illness could not find anyone to sell them insurance. The back door was that ‘if everyone buys it, the price will come down’ simply not true.
What happens when Congress decides to protect the US interests in General Motors and mandate that everyone over the age of 18 buy a new GM car in 2011 and every two years afterwards? Where does the mandate authority stop?
Saving Government Motors is all about saving the unions. They still have all their sorry work rules, pensions etc which made GM uncompetitive and we will be forced to bail them out again as long as we have the current administration. We need to shut this Socialist agenda down in November. America will rise up 11-2.
In what way is this a response to my earlier post?
Prediction, a conserv judge will rule the other way and then this will find its way to SCOTUS and with a conserv majority be overruled.
For the umpteenth time, healhchare is being provided for the uninsured through the current system by cost shifting, by the various high risk state Medicaid programs and by Medicare for the elderly, so the arguments about dying due to lack of insurance is a canard.
Some on this thread think insurance is needed but don’t speak to whether they will blindly accept the cost without any subsidies from the government. The current plan provides subsidies up to 400% of the poverty line (the current poverty line for a family of 4 is $22,050, so those making up to $88,200 will benefit from a gov subsidy) , which means it reaches directly into the middle class. The end result is a type of “welfare” for the middle class provided by the government. To some, that might be ok, but to others this is antithetical to the founding principles. If only people knew the true cost and what they will be paying, then the tune might be a little off key for some supporters.
Of course, this program, and all others, will all be paid for by soaking the rich. This also means that the healthcare law was stealthfully designed to fit into the progressive agenda of redistributing the wealth, or as the Big O told Joe the Plumber, “spreading the wealth around”.
And, I am sure that many of you object to the politicization of our healthcare system. A better example of how the system is now being run by the gov and how politics plays into this law is the 1 year waiver granted yesterday to McDonalds and 29 other companies for their “mini-med” plans. Included in the waiver that currently covers 1,000,000 workers is one for the 350,000 members of the Union Federation of Teachers (NY). Two things are obvious. 1st, these entities had to go on bended knee to beg the gov for a waiver- if that isn’t political control, then second, it it obvious that a union got its deal because of contributions to the Dems and for a kicker, all of this was done just before an election.
The politicization of the health system is what driver people to envision bureaucrats making life and death decisions on who gets health care and who is left to fulfill their duty to die and stop costing all of us money. This might even bring back the progressive support for eugenics and even get them thinking about euthanasia.
If the supporters of this program can’t wrap their minds around these conceps, there is very little hope for a rational discussion.
We have taken a private system with heavy gov involement and now tipped the scale to near total gov involvement, and that has never been a recipe for success.
For these, and a host of other reasons, this law needs to be repealed and replaced with one that takes a laser like approach to solving the top issues, including how to control the costs passed onto the insurers. This bill never addressed cost but was designed to cast “insurers” as evil robber barons who need to be put in their place.
We do not have a social responsibility to provide everyone with a car. Although I don’t mind subsidizing public transportation a little.
Liability insurance protects the assets of the buyer. If there are no assets, there is no need for liability insurance.
I don’t understand….isn’t spread of risk what insurance companies do? How is “it’s cheaper if everybody buys it” not true?
Enlighten me, pray tell.
to those of you who want to leave the current system, a few talking points: that system was complained about bitterly by the small businessmen priced out of the market not only for their employees, who they may or may not care to insure, but also for themselves; the current situation does nothing for those that are uninsured, need insurance, and want to buy it; the current system does nothing to solve the issues of the demographic shift in age or our population, chronic diseases, chronic care, etc. Neither does this bill, but until we stop screaming idiocies at each other, we will never confront those very REAL problems that will have to be addressed very soon.
Of course this judge was a Clinton appointee. How else would he rule?
Youngin, I am curious, at what point or percentage of your income would you stop thinking you wouldn’t mind giving a little? Consider all state, county local, sales, utility taxes, and fees, including tolls, hidden gas taxes etc. 50%, 60%, 80%?
Wake up cassia. Where will it end. Do you know the “health bill” will now tax the sale of your home for 3.8% to pay for those actual 5 million who can not allegedly obtain coverage? So let’s change an entire industry to govt only putting thousands of employees out of work when all private health carriers bail out of a never to be profitable statute.
This is socialism. If u want that, get out of this free country. We will fight and repeal this joke.
It is not been upheld by a real judge yet…
Liberal idiot.
I dunno. Never really thought about it. But I wouldn’t be where I am today without social programs (and my own hard work), so it wouldn’t be right to withold my support for them.
Tom
The problem isn’t necessarily the AMOUNT or percentage of taxes, but rather the value received (or value perceived) for those taxes. I don’t mind the taxes, but where’s the beef?
Screaming at the “liberals” for making an attempt to deal with a pressing societal issue that will continue to press harder and harder, is a non starter.
Maybe when all the choler dies down, we can achieve some meaningful answers. You can scream and foment all you want, foks, but it isn’t going to go away. And it needed big fixing BEFORE this bill was passed, so don’t do revisionist history about how wonderful the current system of delivering, providing, and pay for healthcare in this coountry was.
Youngin – we don’t have a social responsibility to provide everyone with health insurance either. We DO have a social responsibility to treat true medical emergencies with or without proof of insurance and worry about getting paid afterwards. If I have the financial means to pay for all of my healthcare costs, why should I have to buy insurance? If I choose to buy it, why shouldn’t I be able to decide if a high deductible catastrophic policy is enough or if I really want every basic procedure included? If my unemployed 23 year old daughter can’t afford a $1000 per month policy here in NY, why should she be forced to buy it? We’ll pay for any care she needs until she is working and can afford to buy coverage.
Cass, let me posit a question covering your response to Pete. What if Pete’s medical problem cost more than his insurance plan would pay-who is responsible for the excess?
No country can afford a small co-pay plan that if rife for overuse and fraud. And the government is not capable to stopping fraud, they have proved that all along in every major program, including the Great Society. This is why the “Affordable” part of the Patient Portection and Affordabie Care Act is not only a misnomer, but a ironic joke.
And, please remember that there are a number of not for profit insurers (Blue X etc) out there which derrogates your profit point.
When an insured person receives medical care, there are two things that can happen, they can pay the bill or they can not pay the bill.
If they pay the bill, they are paying a premium for healthcare since the discounts taken by insurance carriers through contract will not apply. If they don’t pay the bill, the facility can absorb the cost, pay it out of trusts and endowments, seek reimbursement for indigent care from the government or get a judgment and seize and sell the assets of the patient for reimbursement.
If insurance is mandated and covered all cases, the payout by insurance companies would increase but revenue from premiums would also increase. Since the law mandates that 80% (in some cases 75%) of premiums collected go to paying claims, there would be an increase in the cost by the administrative constant of 20%.
By adding in the chronically ill at an arbitrarily low rate, premiums must increase for the healthier insured to cover the increased claims and administrative expenses.
The net result will be higher premiums for all and increased copayments for HMOs and increased deductibles and maximum out-of-pocket expenses for traditional plans.
It doesn’t matter whether the taxpayers pay for the care of the uninsured or the insurance carriers do since the pool of people paying the bill is the same. The only difference is that the insurance carriers get at least 20% administrative expenses tacked on to premiums collected. The end result; higher premiums.
The situation I described in my initial post will happen without mandatory coverage. I find it interesting that no one who has stated that they are opposed to the mandate has responded to my rather simple question.
Could it be that, for many of you, the answer is you are willing to just let them die and you are too embarassed to say so?
Just Curious
I whine? All I see is whining and moaning from the conservatives here. You whine about EVERYTHING and make specious arguments (with a few exceptions) to boot. Maybe if you took a chill pill and stopped wrapping yourself in the flag you could see the forest for the trees.
Y’all shouldn’t have stolen the election for “W” in 2000…and then your president could be dealing with these monumental issues today…and I’ll bet all your taxes would be cut and all would be right with the world and the sun never sets…yada, yada, yada…
And yeah, I would be in Norway if the climate didn’t stink so bad.
Just Curious, your question has been answered several times but let me distill it down for you. Healthcare and insurance and not the same. Yes, they are related but people in this country get treated WHETHER OR NOT they have insurance. This has been true since the founding of this country. Now, please turn your attention to how you think this law makes insurance more affordable when it doesn’t address tort reform, or any other cost issue. Remember, insurance costs are mainly a function of what the insurer pays out to providers. If the providers charge more, insurance will cost more. If more services are mandated to be provided, more cost will be involved and more cost mean higher premiums. You need to work both sides of the equation.
Cassie, Why don’t you move to Cuba? I hear the climate is great and they have the kind of healthcare you desire so much. As the Terminator said in the movie to the truck driver – GET OUT!
1) Which program pays more in benefits, medicare or medicaid? (FY 2010 through 11 months)
2) Which program requires virtually no payment from the recipient?
3) Medicare taxes are taken as a seperate line item on my paycheck, why isn’t there one for medicaid? Where does the medicaid funding come from?
4) Besides public employee payrolls and pensions, what program is the largest budget item in state budgets?
Look forward to your answers.
Well Curious, since you asked.
I am OK with the taxpayers footing the bill since the taxpayers and the premium payers under mandated insurance are the same people. The government might even be able to make a better deal to keep the costs down than the insurance carriers (the Government would also get some of their money back through the income tax collection process).
And as Tom has already stated, medical care would not be denied even if there was no ability to pay.
I have no problem with the individual ‘opting’ into the system if a company’s underwriting rules allow it.
And I have no problem with personal responsibility entering into the equation either. Sometimes bad decisions lead to very bad outcomes, even death.
Cass, you might want to take a long hard look at what is happening in Scan land. They found out they are immune to economic law; nor the EUs debt problems.
By the way, you can chalk off Cuba, the Castro boys announced a layoff of 500,000 gov workers citing that they can no longer handle the large number of gov workers. They are now encouraging people to become entrepenuers.
If I were you, I would stick home and work with the conservs to get healthcare right. Like eating an elephant it will take one bite at a time. And you can’t kill an elephant with a shotgun approach, so this bill just even get us to the point where we can put on our napkins and dig in.
Dear Tom:
You would probably be surprised to learn that I agree with you on many of the cost issues that could have been and should have been included in the bill but were not. But that’s really not what I was asking.
You suggest that my question has been answered many times. Please point out even one post from someone opposed to the mandate which indicates which of the 4 options I outlined (or a different applicable option) that person favors.
And for that matter, which of the options do you favor?
I have looked at the posts and still don’t see any direct responses.
JC, you’re just being facetious, aren’t you? Or, maybe obtuse? I sure hope its one, or the other.
Oh, Tom…
So if Pete’s illness exceeded the cost of what his insurance covers? Doesn’t the healthcare bill adress that (for most) with no lifetime caps? Or, how about handling it like the kidney program is handled…when the cost of dialysis is so excessive that the government supports this for all patients regardless of need after benefits (if there are any privately) are exhausted? We do have a current model there and it is apparently working well because no one seems to complain that much about it…including those stingy conservatives.
As for small co pay policies, I note that you have been against this from prior posts (I DO pay attentions). I agree. I have said this for YEARS when arguing with my co workers when their co pays went up two dollars, or with union workers with Cadillac plans that virtually paid nothing for care or perscriptions…that they had NO CLUE what a benefit company paid health insurance is and to stop complaining if they have to bear some more of the costs. How can you appreciate what the true costs are if you do not bear some of them? The old concept of “skin in the game” also prevents abuses and over doctoring….something I see daily. Frankly, it is ridiculous.
As for the not for profits, wasn’t it the CA Blues that wanted 19% rate increases for no reason? that wanted these increases despite the fact that actuarially they had three to five times projected needed reserves in the bank? I do not have a lot of respect for a lot of so called “not for profits” which are in reality wolves in sheep’s clothing, so forgive my incredulity and distrust…you have touched a real hot button of mine. I would let the Salvation Army be treated as a not for profit if I were dictator, and not too much else.
While you talk about government fraud, what about fraud perpetrated and not discovered by private companies as well? the government does not have a monopoly on being frauded as you must surely read everyday in the articles in this publication…and we read only about the frauds that are foiled…I do believe (I would have to check this out…I recently read this in a respected publication) that Medicare delivers benefits with very small costs, if apples to apples admin costs were looked at vs. private carriers for same services, so it is not all fraud and waste.
But Tom, what is the point of discussing all this? No one wants rational discussion…it is so much more satisfying to drink the political kool aid and rant…don’t you agree?
I couldn’t help myself. The 2000 election, lets see, who was it wanted to cherry pick a dem county in Fl for the hangin chad count? And, which county in Illinois 40 years ealier delivered the Nixon Kennedy election to Kennedy. Hint: is the same one Big O is from. Unclean hands cannot be cleansed by innoucuous material.
Thanks Wayne: I appreciate your direct response.
I dont’ necessarily agree with you on everything because if you were correct on this, we wouldn’t have as many deaths because of lack of proper care.
This bill is so bad on so many levels, it defies description. No blog I have seen addresses the worst parts of it. It is a fact this bill will cause rationed care since so many more will be using the system with an ever growing shortage of doctors. Many thousands of doctors have stopped seeing Medicare patients already. Do we really want to wait for a year like Canada & UK for an operation or be told by a bureaucrat we can’t have the operation? Older Americans will be told to take a pain pill or face a death panel. Costs will not come down, they are already escalating in anticipation of these wonderful mandates. The whole goal of the Socialists is to drive the private market out of business so they can have their single payer system (Canada & UK on steroids)
The tort reform arugment is BS, and everyone who has looked at it knows it. The total (that’s total) cost for all healthcare / medical legal costs comes to approx 4 billion / year. The amount paid in health premium comes to over 2 trillion / year. That means if health insurance companies paid $0 for lawsuits, defense, etc., that our total saving (at most) would be 4%. The tort reform argument is a talking point to satisfy those that think every single lawsuit is bogus.
Good marketing though from those that want to keep everything the way it is.
Cass, I do think we are having a rational discussion. As for fraud, the profit incentive and program detections employed by the private sector are unmatched in the public sector. Yes, there is fraud but it is the degree and breadth in nearly all Federal programs that is breathtaking in comparison (even in the Defense dept $100 hammers can be found).
As for Pete’s sake (of cost), you are assuming that insurance coverage every cost imaginable with no co pays, or that the policy he chose was a cadillac plan, one like Congress has.
MR is right on. Bottom line is people who think like Cassandra and rest of the let “government run it” crowd will have to back up soon. All that’s happened with Obamacare is MOOT. There will be a repeal of what you see, the issue will be reset, and then we’ll bet back to some degree of CHOICE.
Incumbent’s……those who thought they knew better than most of us….You’re history.
Jeff, do you always look at direct costs and ignore the indirect cost of defensive medicine. Pray tell, what is the cost of a PET scan, an MRI, a CT scan, a body scan, and a bone scan. What is the cost when one may suffice but 5 are ordered to cover your medical backside.
Try talking by using both sides of your intellect and not just using the left side of your mouth.
And, by the way, are we so rich that we don’t need to think about picking up every cent we can. Dismissing any savings with a back of the hand (left handed) comment, destroys your argument.
Hey, Tommy
Yeah, I know. So now I make my point AGAIN…this is a societal problem, and a worldwide one. And yes, the blogger that indicated that health insurance and healthcare are two different things…and “pollyannishly” insists that all those who need healthcare get it. WRONGO. Guess again. Patently not rue.
This healthcare bill has tried to deal with private enterprise to solve a societal issue. While we all know that seniors get medicare and the poor MAY get medicaid (that is, if their state can provide it) where does that leave those that are not old enough to qualify nor poor enough to qualify? Bankrupt? WHY?
I personally would have opted for a single payor system with firm ground rules. I would have made everyone’s (mandatory deductible) a percentage of their income. The payor doesn’t even have to be the government…just cut the crap and deliver the healthcare with equal access and equal care for all and equal ground rules whether in TX or NY…to a NATIONAL standard…If you want cosmetic surgery for non medical reasons…pay for it yourself as we do now. If you want extra care, pay for the additional yourself…but you WILL pay into the Basic plan and the base care will be paid by the single payor…extras optional ans separately paid.
i’ll set the table, you start carving the elephant
JC – Here is my direct response.
The exclusion for pre-existing conditions needed to happen even though insurance is supposed to only cover the unexpected. The concern then was that people would only buy insurance when they got sick, hence the mandate. This is no less unconstitutional then if congress mandated we all buy GM cars to support the economy and the government’s investment. My option (sent to Pelosi and a number of others but ignored) would be to give people a reasonable time period of 3 months to buy insurance of their choice once pre-existing could no longer be excluded. Then implement a 12 month waiting period for any pre-existing conditions if you were uninsured for more than 30 days. This would prevent someone from buying insurance, for example, the day they found out they were pregnant. At the same time, modify the bankruptcy laws so that if you choose to be uninsured and incur medical debt, it could not be wiped out in a bankrupcty (like student loans and taxes). In those situations, allow liens to be placed on any and all assets, including 401k’s and other retirement savings, for life until the debt is repaid. Make it so choosing to be uninsured has no easy out so people are responsible for their own decisions. For any remaining unpaid debt, spread the risk and include a small surcharge on insurance or in a dedicated tax assessment. Subsidize (but not for free) bare bones plans for those who truly can’t afford to buy insurance (but not for those that want to keep their overpriced houses, SUVs and electronic toys and have no money left).
What do you think?
Tom, how the hell is that a ‘left’ thing…it’s called a math thing. The costs of those tests are grossly overbilled, and, don’t try to tell me that they aren’t. I had a brother that had a 2 mile ambulance ride to the hospital that was billed at $ 1,100.
The problem isn’t tort reform, the problem is overbilling and blown up procedure costs.
You can’t get out of student loans in bankruptcy.
Jibberish…horse feathers…poppycock…..BS.
Put business back in business, Government…get the —- out of the way and then our “societal issues” will be solved.
Go read Castro’s writings from the 50’s and then recall what the old buzzard said a month ago. IT DON’T WORK WHEN GOVERNMENT RUNS ANYTHING.
(except when you rattle her military cage)
Jeff, I agree. My mother-in-law had a stroke and passed away last year but not until months of back and forth between the hospital and nursing home. I am dealing with all the bills. Not only are the ambulance fees ridiculous, what about getting billed for a hospital day and a nursing home day for the same day? This happened everytime she had to be sent to the hospital from the nursing home and then returned – a total of 6 days. Sounds like double dipping to me. How about getting billed monthly for a podiatrist to cut her toe nails when she was bedridden and an eye doctor to see if her glasses needed replacing when she couldn’t wear the glasses that she had due to the stroke? Then there is the amount Medicare pays, the amount they disallow and that no one can bill for, and the balance that is charged to the patient. Of course the bills are jacked up to compensate for what Medicare disallows and won’t allow the provider to bill. Too many games and too much opportunity for fraud.
Good one No Tolerance. We have let these Progressive Socialists gradually infiltrate the system and now a small % of our population is trying to impose their Utopian dreams on us and ram this down the throat of the people. America is fully awake now as polls show that the majority don’t want this sorry excuse of a bill. Get out of our lives Socialists. I like McDonald’s fries by the way.
Cass, based on your comments, your portion will be very very small so you might want to see if your neighbor has a spare free range chicken or two.
We could have a real debate about what is fair and what is equal, both social justice mantra’s with little or no meaning.
I can agree limiting elective surgeries and recreational drugs, e.g. Viagra, and a host of other items but I am scrathing my head on how we get everyone to pay soemthing when roughtly 50% of the population doesn’t even pay income taxes. Now you have doubled down on the payment side and that is where conservatives will rightly challenge you for a payment scheme that makes sense. As I mentioned in my earlier post, the gov is set to subsidize the insurance cost of a family of 4 making $88,000 a year. Please tell me from whom the payment for that subsidy will be taken. Unless you feel that there is no end to the federal money pot, the issue of cost must be addressed and simply wanting something without that consideration is utopian folley.
We had little or none of the debates we are having here about this program before Congress rammed this down to our gizzards (chicken reference), so I hope you can understand the outrage. And that outrage has delayed the results you and I are hoping for, effective changes in insurance coverages that improve availability, affordability and improved outcomes.
If the business community is so effecient, honest and good, why are we in the midst of this depression? Is that the government’s fault? What do you think happens when you let businesses run free. There’s your distribution of wealth…all at the top. No worker’s rights, no responsibility to pay for faulty products or irresponsible business decisions such as pollution. And don’t say lawsuits will handle it, because I have literally never seen a single story on this sight about a lawsuit where the plantiff wasn’t flamed by 80% of the comments.
Sorry, but letting businesses do whatever they want and put everything in their hands have never been the answer.
Student – if you’re comment is to me, I know. That is why I included the reference in my post. If you can’t get out of your student loans, why should someone get out of medical bills once they are given fair opportunity to purchase insurance that no longer exlcudes pre-existing conditions?
Pat, I thought you were saying that people can just declare bankruptcy and get out of student loans. My sincerest apologies!
Student – no apology needed. I understand your point as my daughter graduated college last year and hasn’t been able to find a job yet. She’s paying her loans from the small inheritance she got from my mother-in-law who passed away last year. Without it she’d have no way to pay her loans right now.
Hey Let Anything. It is obvious you trust government more than private enterprise. We are in this economic mess precisely because of government. Look at your friends Barney Frank & Chris Dodd and a whole host of their liberal progressive friends who are primarily responsible for the sub prime economic meltdown which has caused the most trouble to our economy. Then we add in “The Chosen One” with his Stimulus that didn’t work and increased the debt and now the Healthcare bill which will bankrupt the country and cause taxes to rise exponentially. We will soon be a banana republic ala Venezuela or Cuba if this isn’t stopped and sanity restored. An oppressive government who tries to control every aspect of our lives is not the answer. The Free Market and limited government will correct a very bad situation. November is a good start.
MR, guess what, Kiddo…I am as American as you are. You may well be surprised at how many people do not feel as you do. So, MR, you gonna vote for the little witch? For the two female execs that are buying their elections with personal fortunes (made off who knows how many backs of laid off workers)? For Rue Paul?….OOOPS sorry, Rand Paul who apparently doesn’t know the North won the Civil War. Gosh, with a plethora of talent like that, I can hardly wait for November.
As for utopian disses and all your other scat…I am sure you will be first in line to take advantage of the benefits that the utopians and the progressives won for all of us AMERICANS…indeed, I am sure you are enjoying some of them now (like WC, 40 hour work week, etc.).
Do not ever presume that the likes of you can ever EVER speak for AMERICAN ME.
@MR Damn you are a angry person. How are the liberals responsible for the subprime meltdown? How are liberals at fault for banks lending unqualified people, way too much money at exorbitant rates they could never pay back?
And what about all these Wall Street scams were people trading irresponsible securities that would never be profitable.
What about the Bernie Madoffs of the world that were allowed to go virtually unchecked?
Don’t tell me businesses didn’t get us into this mess. That’s a joke. And when all this started going awry, exactly who was in charge?
Exactly….What’s more…look at ANY government organization (except the US Armed Forces)….20% of the employees are doing 80%of the work…the rest are retired on active duty. Been outside looking in and know most of government work can be accomplished with far fewer people and less costs. A considerable amount of chiefs and very few indians in the federal employee system. If we allow the government to dictate just this one aspect (health care) of our lives we’ll see thousands of government employees attempting to justify their positions and costs WILL go up considerably. Just the fear is making it happen as we speak.
MR, get some new material, already! If you really think that Barney and Chris caused the financial troubles singlehandedly, you Sir, are delusional. And corporate greed had absolutely nothing to do with anything? What PLANET are you from?
Take heart, MR, when we become a Banana Republic (the name, of which, of course comes from the US companies that exploited the population and contributed to corrupt officials, hence the name) you can run off to Montana (if they will have you) and take up with the Posse Commitatus…which is ehre you really belong.
No Tolerance, the largest increase in the government in terms of personnel and spending came under Bush. Record surplus to record deficit. Where was your talk of fiscal responsibility the government not knowing best then? I’m sure you were quite silent.
…were much too difficult for her.
Can one of you big strong liberals help her?
Its ok Cassandra, as Barbie always says
“Math is Hard!!!”
Posted above so you could see how condescension and stereotyping feels.
I would much rather argue the facts.
Such anger…such frustration….such nonsense. You’re about to loose my liberal friends and shrill venting will, alas, get you nowhere.
Obamacare, and anything remotely close to it, will be dead.
Jeff….you made my point….get government out of the f—— way. Who said anything about Bush?
Vlad, Baby (by the way, is your last name The Impaler????)…sorry got distracted by mucho static al derecho.
I’ll get back with you. Since your questions (this time) were, in fact, mostly serious ones, I will craft a serious answer when I have time.
But I would MUCH prefer eating elephants with Tom.
Cass, your dander is up and your slip is showing. I think you should recheck the WC thing and the 40 hour work week was started by Henry Ford for the purpose of giving his employees liesure time to drive the cars he made. Darn that profit. Maybe next, progressive will be credited with inventing the internet, oh wait, Al Gore already took credit for that. My bad.
Casting aspersions is generally not your style especially against people who haven’t yet entered the elite political class of Ivy league educated progressives. You might want to look in your glass house. If you do, you will find Chris Dodd (freinds of angelo mortgage good) Maxine Waters (special TARP loan to a company she and her husband held stock in), Charlie Rangel (too many to note here), Harry Reid (shady land deal in Nevada)
By the by, do you know how much Nancy Pelosi is worth or Jane Harmon (her husband owns Harmon Kardon and now Newsweek).
And please don’t forget the progressive gift of eugenics (negative eugenics that is). I know, I know, it was a good idea until Hilter messed it up.
So please, take a deep breath and count to 24, the number of days until the election. You’ll feel better.
until Republicans move closer to the middle on many topics. These candidates that you are putting up are simply scary.
These scary candidates as you put it are what is going to stop the Progressive agenda which is trying to turn this great country into a “nanny” state. The founding fathers did not have this in mind for the country. The Constitution is the greatest document ever written to govern a country. These Progressives want to throw it under the bus. We are determined to restore Constiutional Government which is limited in scope. Just protect us and get out of the way on most other issues. We demand it and will fight to restore it. Be prepared for a Tsunami my liberal friends. It is on the way shortly.
Lose Big, I suspect that your definition of big is similar to “the middle”. For your sake, I hope you think 60 seats isn’t big and your “middle” is somewhere between insanity and mere lunacy as that is the ground occupied by people who think that responsible spending and small government is “scary”.
OOOPS, sorry, Tommy….scratch 40 hour and put in child Labor Laws…or maybe medicaid, that all y’all want to cover the poor with…maybe throw in the end of slavery? how about Social Security…does that qualify? Can we also take credit for the civil rights act?
Oh heavens, do you think I condone the Charlie Rangels? Merely pointing out that God is not riding on any side in this debate. (But I DO like the little witch…great comic relief in a grim election year). And, to be frank, I understand the probable motivations of the Charlie Rangels a heck of a lot better than the Gingrichs and DeLays.
Since you mentioned slavery, do you really want to be a slave to this oppressive government? Do you want to pay the majority of your income to them for all the social programs they are pushing? Do you want the country to go bankrupt? There is not enough money in the till and China will stop funding this country soon and where will we be? If the car has two wheels hanging over the cliff, you want to put it in “D” and we want to put it in “R”. It is called saving the country.
Cass, I will grant you Medicare. Not at bad idea if it had been paid for and the funds not raided for other purposes However, the ponzi scheme has not led to a 53 TRILLION dollar debt, one that cannot be handled. So this program will effectively put an end to further progressive ideas, some of which might have had merit.
As for the civil war, state’s rights played a larger role in it than slavery. A republican did make do the right thing and converted people from chattel to human beings with the same god given rights mentioned in the constitution. As for civil rights law, I invite you to look into who pushed passage and the role Everret Dirksen (Rep Ill) and other Repubs played in its passage. You will find that the southern DEMs where the ones on the wrong side of this issue.
Its late, my fngers are bleeding. Have a good weekend.
MR, oh, from your lips to God’s ears!
Since when does your ilk even presume to believe that they have a monopoly on Constitutional interpretation? Or love of it, for that matter? If you love it (and presumably the Bill of Rights, therefore) where were you when the egregious passages of the Patriot Act were revealed? Or are rights only unalienable when they are YOUR rights as you interpret them?
Go vote for a fascist and leave us alone.
Yeah, Tom. Abe existed when Republicans were real thinking men(sch)…alas for those days again. He was ultimately (though not heralded as such at the time) a man for all seasons and if it makes you feel good to claim him, be my guest…but he belongs to ALL of us
Dirksen existed in a day when we were fortunate enough to have some STATESMEN and men of good vision who knew they had to work together to get great things done.
Well, your friend Karl Rove sort of screwed that pooch when he decided that the ugly fat boy could get power by getting everyone to believe that winning at all cost and “political party power” was infinitely more rewarding than governing. A game, I must say, better played by the GOP only because that evil rotund dwarf sociopath is pulling the strings…still. He has paralyzed our government singlehandedly. He should be rode out of town on a rail.
Yeah, and Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican too, but today he would definitely be referred to as a RINO. Enviromentalist, trust buster, etc. No way Lincoln or Teddy would be Republicans today.
Your reasons on the reasoning behind the mandate make common sense. This is a common sense that goes back to the law of large numbers. This makes the standard deviation and expected losses much easier to forecast.
This is true with auto insurance. One doesn’t expect that they will have an auto accident but because of an Act of God something does happen. The system is balanced because there are many others who won’t be involved in accidents. Why do you think auto rates show much less rise than health care rates?
The same is true with health care. One might think that they are perfectly healthy (and have the data and history to support it). But it is impossible to estimate when an accident that requires treatment (surgery) or an illness (such as cancer) might occur. The system is in balance because there are others who have paid into the system. There is cost shifting because those that have not paid into the system receive care, and their costs are shifted to other people who have insurance. This drives up the insurance rates for all those with insurers.
The Obama plan failed in that it did not have necessary tort reform in place that would have had significant cost savings. Doctors perform unnnecessary tests because they are worried on being sued by a blood-thirsty trial lawyer. A federal version of the cap on pain and suffering needs to be done (similar to the law passed in California).
Ideally, the mandate should take place and be run by the private market with minimal interference from regulators as possible (with the exception of broad principles such as covering pre-existing conditions). Innovative ideas can come into being include pooling that would allow small businesses and individuals to combine together to negotiate as a group so as to have the same buying power as a large employer. Also, health savings accounts where employees can set aside a certain amount of money (tax deductible) that is used for health care costs. With patients being able to negotiate with doctors, we’ll see the ability of prices to come down versus government mandates. These are just two examples….the government should have a minimal role and should eschew a public option by all measures.
Thank you for being a voice of reason, where most others wish to grind political axes.
It is amazing, the volume of rhetoric, that gets thrown around this site.
I apologize for all those so called insurance “men” who chose to slander instead of engage in “civil” discourse.
You put up a courageous fight today in defense of proper discourse.
Your comparison to state laws requiring auto liability insurance and health care only illustrates your competence in serious debates. 1. In auto insurance you are only penalized as a result of some other incident bringing to light your failure to have insurance. 2. In this particular health issue, the failure to have health insurance is being tied into the IRS system. The penalty or rather the ability of the fed to collect the taxes instantly and punitively. There lies the problem with this universal health care (legislation)LAW. Question: JEFF, do you want the government to see immediately your brand and size of Condums; the types of medications you are taking; the types of medical procedures you or your wife are having? That, MR JEFF, is what freedom is about and the pure difference with socialism.
Cass, I thought the weekend would help end this thread, but alas, it didn’t.
I am always vexed by the Rove issue with Dems. Its like the left has to have a “puppeteer” behind the scenes. A machivelian dark force that hides the real power. I think it is akin to the “black helicopter” crowd on the right. There is no such angst concerning the performance of the Axelrods or Carvilles of the political world. Why is it that the self proclaimed party of moderation and love actually has to have someone, or something to focus hate on? The reason for the intellectual disconnect is something for psyche white paper but I suspect it is the same defense mechanism used in wartime where each side convinces themselves that the other is sub-human and not worthy of being accorded respect. I find it very curious, and dismaying, that you would drift over the line into that twilight zone.
To me, these deflections and dalliances concerning Rove, Bush and Chaney are designed to do one thing, and that is to try to hide the utter incompetence of this President and his Rasputin like, Espiranto speaking, foreign mentor, George S(I can’t bring myself to mention his full name for fear of repercussions. Ooops, I seem to have drifted a moment but I am now back into the light. Thankfully, I got the incomptent part right)
Tom, You are very right. The left engages in personal attacks when they have lost an argument. They also distort the facts and say just the opposite of what the facts are. Example: Now, they are saying the Republicans are outspending them 8-1 in this election. The opposite is the truth. With their massive union money and Soros money, it is no contest who is spending the big bucks on this election. Thank goodness, it appears to not be working out so much for them.
Jeff, overbilling is a problem, one that isn’t solved by O care. OB can be tackled and the first step would be to restore the distance between doctors and diagnostic clinics. The AMA years ago decided that Docs could invest in and own clinics etc which menat that the Docs have a economic interest in ordering up tests etc to help pay for that new MRI. There are plenty of issues that need addressing on the cost side of the hcare system, but these were never addressed which leaves the door open for speculation on whether this law was intended to be a transfer of wealth act, or a serious attempt at meaningful reform. If you think I am off the mark on the transfer of wealth issue, you might want to the background of the current recess appointed director of CMS, Donald Berwick.
Then there will be 2012 and the media and all of you brainwashed socialist liberals will see what the majority of us really want.
Repeal and Replace!
This administration and prior ones have not put into place a system which will catch overbilling by doctors, hospitals, vendors on Medicare. I have seen reports that up to $100 Bil per year is pure fraud on payouts and our wonderful bureaucrats continue to pay. In this high tech world we live in, it seems to me that we could avoid paying the same charge 20 times to a vendor or doctor or hospital. It is a joke and politicians have been burying their head in the sand for decades. It doesn’t need to be this way.
Funny how democrats by large numbers do not purchase health insurance. They expect government and or their employer to purchase it for them. Well this benefit is going the way of the pension plans. Soon all they will get is a matching contribution to a defined contribution health insurance plan. You get what you pay for. Just like our new 401K plans.
TOO FUNNY TO WATCH YOU LIBERALS HAVE TO PURCHASE SOMETHING. We will see how they respond when they get the bills and then not be able to show up to the emergency room with their 7 kids and get treated by a free doctor.
It will start out where everyone gets treated then eventually the ones who purchase their good insurance plans will be the only one able to see a specialist, then at some point in the future, any doctor.
Hows that change working out for you?
I like your comment a lot. The rejection of the Socialist agenda will be a Tsunami of biblical proportions. America will show we are not Europe or Canada. The Socialists thought they had a mandate to do whatever they wanted. The majority of these followers of the Chosen One will be shown the door and we can then work on getting this country back on the right track.
VOTE, VOTE, VOTE THEM OUT!
Make sure you get all your friends and family to get out and vote these socialist out of office this next month.
PAYCHECKS OR FOOD STAMPS, YOUR CHOICE.
Nancy Pelosi has stated the best way to stimulate the economy is by doling out unemployment checks and food stamps. The Chosen One now wants another spending bill for infrastructure jobs. I believe they said that is what the Stimulus would do (Shovel Ready Jobs). We all know how that worked out. These imbeciles should all be shown the door.
Oh and when you have to buy that electric
car and the impoverished in this country
cannot afford the replacement battery, then I suppose Obama will mandate we, the
taxpayers, buy that for them too! Did they ever stop to think that maybe the taxpayers will someday run out of money to pay for all these entitlements?
Everyone needs to be active this year in getting the silent real majority to get out and vote and be heard. Unfortunately the media is trying to twist the Tea Party people into something that they are not.
Tea Party people are not:
Radicals
Racist’s
Uneducated
Religious fanatics
Homophobic’s
Tea Party people are:
Constitutional Conservatives.
In favor of State Rights
Uposed to a Large Federal Government
High taxes
Freedom to prosper and keep your income.
Favor a flat fair tax
Upose the death tax
Upose to big entitlement spending
Ear marks and government waste.
In favor of a strong military and respect of our veterans.
In favor of personal responsibility without government assistance.
I THINK THAT THE DEMOCRATS AND EVEN SOME REPUBLICANS SHOULD REMEMBER THIS OR HAVE THEIR POLITICAL CAREERS END BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN INABILITY TO LISTEN TO THE VOTERS.
I upport most of those things. But tell me, why do you upose the death tax? And what’s a “flat fair tax”?
Youngin, 80% of the American people think that this tax is unfair. Why–mainly because a lifetime of hard work should benefit one heirs and not the government. Two, this money has been taxed all along the way and it is not fair or equitable for the government to get a second, third or fourth shot at the revenue. Third, the gov should not be in the business of benefiting from someone’s death.
As for a fair flat tax, I would think that 25% wouuld be fair after elimination of all the tax deductions, including the mortgage interest deduction. The past plans also exempt a certain amount of income before it kicks in, generally around $30,000 so that the working poor aren’t hit. However, EVERYONE should be included in the tax, that way
EVERYONE is a stakeholder in the political process and has paid their share. As it stands now 47% of the country pays no tax, and some even get “refunds” based on the earned income tax credit (really, a wellfare payment).
The problem with our society is that Government at all levels is inefficient and spends too much. The American People are saddled with too much taxation for the services rendered. The Progressives have never seen a tax they didn’t like. This is stifling all innovation, job creation and growth in the economy. Most people don’t realize Obamacare will tax you 3.8% if you sell your house next year. What does that have to do with Healthcare reform? This is why there will be a big turnover in Congress this November and a repeal or defunding of this terrible legislation.
Death Tax = Double taxation.
Taxes were paid on this money throughout the life of the person who obtained this wealth. This allows someone to pass on their money and possessions to their heirs without the government taxing it again just because someone died.
Flat fair tax = a flat percentage that all must pay. It is fair in nature because it is does not punish or over burden those that do well. It stimulates the economy becuase these people who provide jobs and purchase items have more to put back into the economy. If you wanted you could do the same by elimination of the income tax entirely and impose a national consumption tax (BUT NOT BOTH AS OBAMA IS GOING TO SUPPORT VERY SOON) This would be even more fair becuase it will only effect those that have enough money to buy items.
I hope this brings some real clarity to the Tea Party’s position on the issues and not just what MSNBC and or CNN says about this large ground swell of members who really want a Country based on tried and true principals of fiscal responsibility and fair taxation for all who want to succeed in our great nation.
Flat tax percentage too high with a mere 30,000 limit for a family with children (since you also want them to pay for their own healthcare, I presume).
This is why we had a progressive rate to begin with…there needs to be some more equity built in.
How about a flat tax with different levels based on income per capita in the family?
However, regardless of how you set it up, this will never befcome law of the land since the entrenched lobbies of tax lawyers and accountants are way too strong; you will be putting them out of a job.
However, if you continue the “death tax” they will still have employment and still continue to devise ways for the “rich” to avoid these taxes as they do now…and to great effect. It is only the “middle class” schleps (including small businesspeople) who suffer from the death tax since they have not availed themselves of the many loopholes and strategies for avoidance that the “rich” regularly employ.
How about a compromise….the flat tax (equitably arranged) with retention of the “death tax” which can be avoided. thus, the attys and accountants still can have employment….AND an end to this ridiculous “not for profit” status for enterprises that are as profit making as any corporation. (WHAT A FARCE!). We should also tax churches and other religious institiutions as well if there is a hint of any kind of “profit producing” enterprise. All or nothing.
And by the way, I see the tea party blogger is expanding the groups now included for right wing excoriation: from Obama supporters, Democrats, liberals, socialists…we are now adding progressives? What a narrow little social circle you are boxing yourselves in to!
Cassandra, You are unbelievable! You stated “How about a Flat Tax based on different levels of income”. What do you think we have now with the Progressive marginal rates based on income level? We have almost half the country who pay either no tax or very little. It is time we go to the fair or flat tax and eliminate the thousands of pages of the tax code with all the loopholes built into it. This country is rejecting “Redistribution of Wealth” policies of this administration and spending much more than is taken in. If this isn’t changed soon and return the country to responsible government which spends within its means, we are not for long as a country.
No, sir (madam?), YOU are unbelievable. By implication, a flat tax should have no loopholes so we agree 1000%. WE AGREE!!!!!
Right now we have a progressive tax rate with 10,000 loopholes.
I advocate a flat tax with no loopholes that is equitable, in that someone with two kids making 30,000 a year will pay a lower rate than someone making 10,000,000 paying 25% a year. You need to be able to support yourselves and your family after tax time, I assume…and it is not so easy on 22,500 as Tom offered as the threshold rate.
AND…do NOT go into redistribution of wealth….the Bush tax policies (actually, beginning with Reagan) have caused the “rich” to get richer and the “poor” to get poorer, i.e., through eroding the income in income of the middle class. You can check out these statistics and you can try to skew them in any way you like, but the facts remain…you may impute this to other reasons…but it boils down to erosion. Is that what you all intend? Having a middle class with hopes of bettering themselves, or at least the future lives of its children, was the impetus that built this country and made it great…our tax policies in recent decades have eroded this either through taking too much from some and certainly not enough from others to meet our social and national goals, but also by allowing no tax consequences for exporting our jobs, be they blue collar or white collar.
If you all are so pugnacious and spoiling for a fight, go take on the import/export policies of China, the inhumane labor laws or lack thereof in the countries that have taken these jobs, the chemical pollution, the unsafe products delivered to our shores, etc., etc., etc. Go vent your spleen there instead of on your fellow citizens who may have a difference of opinion than you…but are no less concerned, patriotic, or frustrated
Rather than simplistically blame the “liberals” or the “unions” or the “prgressives” or the “socialists”…can’t you see the GLOBAL picture?
You will come to rue the day when GE’s interests are more aligned with Chinese national policy than US national policy, or IBM or Exxon, or BP (which, since BP is British owned, has already happened)…as it is, we have lost a chunk of our strategic manufacturing capability….I would think as a conservative that that “defending our shores” would be important to you. Just THINK a bit past the name calling and labeling…and you are buying the Big Lie still…
If you all REALLY wanted to gang up on something in the tax code, why don’t you gang up on the AMT? THAT hits a lot of the tax paying middle and upper middle classes directly…or haven’t the oligarchs’ mouthpieces stressed that little piece of tax legislation for you all to browbeat someone with….
You are picking on the WRONG targets…and aligning with the wrong class(es).
The only thing we can agree on is the need for a Flat or Fair Tax. The fact is that almost half the population pays little or no tax. Perhaps we should just go to a consumption or sales tax so we can get some revenue from 100 million or so citizens instead of letting them get off scott free on their obligation. I don’t see anything in your treatise that advocates for reducing the size of this gigantic government which is wasting the financial resources in record numbers. How long do you think this country will last at $1.3 Trillion in the hole each year? Completely unsustainable in the short and long term. The answer is go to a more fair tax and to reduce this monolithic juggernaut of a government and stop supporting every social justice issue that comes along. That is not America.
WHOA, Boy.
A sales tax is even more regressive as the poorer folks will need to spend all of their income to live, while the “rich”, with extra left over at the end of the month, get off scott free on that tax.
You complain about the govt juggernaut, but you fail to criticize the two wars that cost us a ton over the past ten years and are costing us still. While you may think that the monies spent in Iraq were worth it to protect us from “terrorist” attack on our shores…I well beg to differ. While you think that “liberals” were the only ones that fostered poor mortgages that caused our current recession, I WELL beg to differ since that leaves no blame for sheer corporate greed and malfeasance and outright theft (did you hear the news today? the Wall Street geniuses are on target to pay themselves 144 BILLION in bonuses this year).
I do not hear you crabbing about state govt that continues to raise sales taxes and property taxes until they are squeezing whoever is left paying mortgages out of their homes, not to mention all the nickel and dimers like vehicles stickers, vehicle registration and license fees, traffic tickets, etc., etc., etc. Where is your mouth challenging those taxes…or do you only reserve your choler for the feds? And it isn’t the feds that want to tax soda pop or prevent you from eating foie gras…it is the stae and local govts. TARP was a GOP deal if you remember that was also an inheritance from the prior administration…so let’s be fair
So, if you are going to crab and foment, please give ALL govt entities equal time since they surely deserve it and stop blaming liberals for much of what went on prior to the Obama administration.
I will say this again; in order to counter the power and excesses of the global, multinational corporations we need a strong federal government and the protections it affords. That the feds are being so co opted by the corporate interests in this country dismays me greatly. And our illustrious Supreme Court aided and abetted that with the campaign finance ruling. I view that decision as an abrogation of “one man, one vote” which should be awarded to “natural” citizens, not legal entities. How can you or I ever hope to counter the influence of all those dollars that can be brought to bear? Anonymously (yeah, the “right” blocked that one, didn’t they).
The Rove gnomes get you all riled up about healthcare costs and welfare cheats…and you lose the forests for the trees…
Just be fair and cast blame to all onto whom it should be cast…we are going to be in deep manure if we do not find a common ground, a common respect, and work out some real basic things…like what we owe our fellow citizens…and what our representatives owe to us.
Patronizing me and telling me I don’t understand is not gonna do it…I think I understand better than you, actually.
Cass, I really have a hard time understanding your fixation on “the rich”. Its almost an obsession with rich people who all seem to border on evil. You certainly have a Marxian view of the world. By the way, you really need to look into what sociailism, communism, statism, and progressivism have in common and you will then understand how all these bad apples find their way into one barrell. If you look hard enough, you will see that they are all based on 1) a loathing of business and 2) the siren’s song of equal opportunity. Surprisinly, concervatives also embrace the American ethos of equal opportunity; however, we diverge radically in the fact that all these left leaning idealogies have at their core a belief there should be equal outcome. If that outcome isn’t achieved, then big government MUST step in and try and make the outcome as equal as it can, even if it is does at the expense of others. That philosphy is an anathema to concervatives since it chases a dream that if wholly unattainable.
As for the flat tax, I don’t see any problem with a two tiered rate, but no more. Once more tiers are added, the system will revert to the special requests for exemptions and political considerations. I would not be opposed to a 15% and 25% rate leaving the first $30,000 (or whatever amount) exempt. That seems fair. Let’s test your fairness so here is an example-Income per year $50,000, first 30K exempt, taxable income=$20K x 15%=$3,000. Income $1,000,000-$30,000=$970,000 x 24%=$242,500
The rich person makes 20 times the “poor” person but pays 80 times the tax.
As concerns the eroding middle class, that is a figment of your imagination, a statistical sleight of hand that liberals love to engage in along with the rich pigs are eating too much of the pie. I have addressed this before but you have ignored the reality. By the way, the “rich” class is a fluid class, as are most others, people enter and leave these classes depending on the vagaries of life. Your insistence on towing this line makes me think about the adage that those who try to persuade, are merely trying to convince themselves.
P.S. Please recall that Pres O couldn’t run back fast enough to DC to vote for TARP, so he can’t escape his share of blame for that. By the way, Afghan is O’s “good war”, so he can’t dodge that expense, and stimulus, healthcare etc have led to this year’s 1.3 TRILLION dollar deficit with similar deficits as far as the eye can see. This is far more than Bush’s deficit in eight years but don’t get me wrong, he should be held accountable for that spending as should the current Pres. We are well on our way to spending ourselves into oblivion (37 TRILLION alone in Medicare) and the speed has picked up. The lack of attention to, and increased pace of, spending is the prime reason for Pres O’s poor ratings as it demonstarates a complete inability to stop the madness. Even worse, he seems to be the maddest hatter in DC.
Tom, Tom, Tom…
I am using “rich” as a catchphrase for a certain socioeconomic class…
And yes, I do ascribe to that part of Marxian theory that states more or less, that how you earn your bread and shelter is a strong determinant in what your social structure and common myths end up being.
I do not hate business, rather I hate the overweening power advantage that all those concentrated billions bring.
And I have resented for YEARS the myth that we actually have free choices…we may, but these are reduced to whether we buy blue paint or green paint, stainless steel or white appliances…we have all been sucked into the consumer myth which, ultimately, has been financed through debt. I see our true choices narrowing…and not due to the feds, necessarily (although I would agree with you on some limits that should be set) but due to the economic deck stacking that continues to erode the ability to determine our own choices. Money is freedom…in a nuthsell. The more you have, the freer you are to make your own lifestyle choices…and the more predisposed you are to let others do the same.
I do not think that you can deny that the “wealth” is concentrating more and more. You can see the absolute impunity in which many in Wall Street operate; to me it is a slap in the face that the Wall Streeters are paying themselves billions in bonuses while companies sitting on trillions in profits refuse to hire. And don’t give me that line about uncertainty…maybe for the small business, I will buy that, but not for the big boys. they have merely found a way to squeeze more out of fewer workers…workers who will meet all demands made on them so they can keep their jobs.
Wealth is power. The continuing erosion of the “wealth” of the middle classes (how did your 401K fare in these past years? How did your home value fare in these past years?) and the continuing trend of concentration of same is reducing the “power of the people” as it were. The small guy, be he business or individual is being limited in his freedoms by this concentration.
I also DO believe in equal opportunity. I do not expect equal outcomes. I DO expect a baseline of security of food, shelter, good education for ALL, which, I do believe, the words “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” seem to imply. You may split historical hairs with me, as you have, but essentially that was the premise and the promise. Remeber the words “liberty and justice for all?” If you can’t go to a good school, put a roof over your head, and eat, what REALLY do those words mean?
Thanks for the honesty.
It is a small and crass world you live in where money is the arbriter of all freedom and happiness. We couldn’t be more different. You missed the part about the founders vision of “freedom from”, an oppressive government, over regulation of human activities, freedom from a state religion and other “negative” rights You have read into the constitution some “positive” rights that were never intended, e.g. healthcare, freedom from want etc etc. I realize that you think the constituion is a living breathing bend to popular will document but suppose that may also be true for other documents such as the Ten commandments and other bedrock principles. Unfortunately for you, your nuanced version is held by very small minority of psuedo intellectuals who look at the Tea Party people as misguided ill informed rabble. Well, the history books are laced with examples of what happens to people who dispay such hubris.
Thank you Tom for making a valiant attempt to straighten Cassandra out. I think it is up to about 10 times now, but she has her mind made up and is a true believer in Marxism and all it stands for. It is a good thing she is in the minority with these beliefs. She may actually have to consider moving to another country after we vote out her Progressive Marxist leaning representatives in Congress on 11-2.
Like true conservatives we can always hope for those who are lost in the ideological desert. Redemption is possible, especially with the help of a Nov epiphany.
Well, Conservative, that just goes to show you…if one doesn’t believe like you do, one is invited to leave. TYPICAL.
Clearly, you have no conept of the difference between “marxist” and “Marxist” and are to unschooled to realize it.
Sorry, Conservative: If you believe in the Bill of rights, and the Constitution, as you claim to do so VERY, VERY, VERY many times, then I have a right to also say what I think…or would you only reserve that right to you chosen few?
Go back to your insular little world…draw the flag around you, curl up, go to sleep and fool yourself into thinking you have all the answers. ENJOY!
Actually, I did study Marxism in college and quickly realized how very bad the theory was and how opposite it was from Capitalism. It didn’t work out so well for the USSR, did it. Hasn’t worked out for Cuba or Venezuela either. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not what this country is all about although the current President seems determined to take us there. He will find out in November we aren’t ready for that type of society.
You STILL miss the point. A marxian outlook in social science means that you look at the way people have to get their food and shelter…and see the common determinants in their social system, structure, religions, “myths”, etc. In other words, you really are how you get what you eat, so to speak, vs. having no connection of your social organization, social systems, values, etc. to how you get your daily bread. It is considered “marxian” because it stresses the economics of providing your necessities over other factors in determining your social organization, etc….
You are describing communism as a modern political system with your examples, which is another thing entirely and did not work very well, as you point out. Neither did unchecked capitalism, if I may point that out….
When I was getting my degree in Economics, we studied all the economic theories and systems. Marxism was the least desirable because everyone ends up equally poor except for the leadership, ie Dictarorship of the Proletariat. Spreading the wealth or Redistribution of Wealth ends up making everyone poor. I, for one don’t want to stand in line for bread or toilet paper as the poor Russian people did for 70 years. Marxism also does not promote production, innovation or entrepreneurs since everyone is in the same boat. When the USSR collapsed economically, the new leaders started adopting some versions of Capitalism in the country and they have made some gains economically in the past 10 years even though they have a long way to go. The US has been the most prosperous nation on earth for 100 years with some ups and downs, but we certainly don’t want to go to that system.
Well, we are STILL talking about two different things here
Think anthropology, not economics…
It seems to me that the entire healthcare discussion can be boiled down to this: are we going to be free citizens or are we going to be subjects? Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution delineates the powers granted to the Congress, among which are: the power to lay and collect taxes (which states that they shall be uniform throughout the United State) and the “commerce clause”, which gives the Congress the power to REGULATE commerce (simply ensuring a level playing field for all who choose to participate – neither success nor failure is guaranteed)…but I can’t seem to find that it grants the power to REQUIRE any citizen to PARTICIPATE in said commerce. It seems pretty clear that if someone chose to move to the woods and live the life of a hermit, shunning the social life and living off tree bark, they are free to do so. No one would force said hermit to choose between a white appliance or a stainless steel one, or between red paint and green paint, or purchase anything at all. Concentration of power in the business world becomes meaningless. So, when we talk about concentration of power, what we really have to address is the the danger of the power being concentrated in the government, which DOES have powers not given any individual or private entity: to fine, punish and imprison… subject to constitutional constraints. Those constraints should not be ignored.
As for a flat income tax, which seems to me would both fair and uniform: An individual would be tax exempt for all income below a certain amount, say $30,000 (amount used in a previous post) and a further exemption for each dependent, say $10,000 for the sake of illustration. Using a flat 20% tax rate:
Individual earns $30,000 = 0 tax
Individual earns $60,000 = $6,000 tax
Couple earns $60,000= 0 tax
Individual w/ 3 dependents earns $60,000 = 0 tax
Couple w/ 4 dependents earns $200,000 = $20,000 tax
Individual earns 1,000,000 = $194,000 tax
No other write-offs. Simple and easy to understand. And the monies collected should be carefully spent – before providing any benefits/safety net to any individual we should have very careful screening process so as not to promote malingering, laziness or apathy. Additionally, the tax code should not be used to reward, punish or steer you toward any particular product or service, as is currently the case. To use the tax code for behavior modification is antithetical to a free society. Just my two cents.
Cass, I think you are trying to draw a distinction without a real difference. The wellspring from which marxism, the antho, is Marx. The world has slowly begun to discard this philosophy as “subsitence economics” recedes. Marxism is the siren’s song of the poor in that it champions the collective idea, which to people who wake up looking for food everyday, is very appealing. It falls apart as a culture comes to a point where they have time to think about this concept and realize that I can do better, work harder, and improve my life.
Marxist anthro has faded to black in the social studies since the fall of Soviet Union, which demonstrated all of the flaws, chief among them the corruption of the elite political class that enforced the rules. Libs dream romantic dreams about marxism with the backdrop being that the concept is not wrong but it was the poor implementation and ignorance of the governed. This new group in DC are devotees with that same mindset-ala-“we won’t know what’s in the law until we pass it”. In political speak that means, the masses are too stupid to get it. Even this week, Joe Biden, parrotted a similar line by stating that this admin’s “accomplishments” are to complicated to explain-translation-we are all a bunch of rubes who should go about our subsistence lives and let the political elite class make our decisions for us. Guess what, the internet has destroyed that myth. Marxist and progressive theory is being stripped to the bone, and, as happened in the early 20th Century, once the veneer is peeled away, an ugly idealogy is revealed. This is truly the season where “the emperor has not clothes”.
To my flat tax friend, I applaud your description and comments; however, I think our progressive friends will think that what is fair for all, is not fair at all. The rich much suffer more under their Orwellian view-always remember that “all animals are equal, except some animals are more equal than others”. No truer statement has ever been made that describes progressive thought.
JB, I liked your treatise a lot. The idea of a flat tax or fair tax has been kicked around for years. There is no doubt this country should reform the IRS and burdensome, complicated tax code. Tax Attorneys and CPA’s make a lot of money figuring out how to circumvent the code for their clients. We also don’t need to hire an additional 17,000 IRS agents to monitor, fine and punish individuals who choose not to purchase Health Insurance.
The biggest problem we have is that government spending is totally out of control and it really doesn’t matter what kind of tax system the country has if the government is going to spend $1.3 Trillion more than it takes in. Progressive Democrats and Progressive Repubicans, many who have been in office far too long think they can do whatever they want. This election will show many of them the door. A smaller more efficient government which balances the budget and eliminates much of the wasteful spending will do much to restore confidence of business to hire and expand. A fair tax for business is 12.5% and then you will see the economy take off again. We can’t do this unless our political leadership is changed out. It also needs to happen at the city, county and state level since they have been overpending as wel.
Tom…nice Treatise on Marxism, but you don’t get it either…
SIMPLY PUT…again…for those blinded by the word Marx and whose brains immediately run to communism…
“how you provide food and shelter and life’s necessities is a major determinant in your social strructure, social mores (including lawas), religious structure.” NO MORE, NO LESS.
Get over the “Marxist regimes”…that is not what I am talking about at all.
JB…I like the plan, actually…no loopholes, no ups, no extras…and sufficient deduction for those with kids…
PS, Tom….think you got the Orwell thing backwards…think he meant that the (piggy) oligarchs were “more equal than others” probably not the folks that would be the focus of “progressives.”
OH MY…look…we agree on JB’s flat tax plan…liberals and conservatives…how did that happen?
Amazing when you “talk” civilly instead of slinging names at each other…
A lesson worthy to be remembered…
Good try Tom. You did a great job describing Marxism and its failed theories. I thought you were very eloquent, even though Cass will never “get it”.
I think you have your books mixed up, the piggies are the progressives thinks in power at this point, so step back through the looking glass.
I am encouraged by your agreement on the flat tax, now if we can just get the message across the Potomac. It will be difficult but sometimes peasants with pitchforks can make a dent. This Nov can be a start.
Marist philosophy without using marxist tenets, seems oxymoronic to me but I guess I slept through that one in my Anthro 101 class, but then again, that was 40 years ago.
Tom, If this election doesn’t do the trick with our reps on the Potomac, I think sales of pitchforks, torches, tar, feathers and rails will skyrocket. Their days are numbered. They have made a huge mess and nothing short of complete change out will get the country back on track.
The snowball is rolling. I have the feeling that this youngest generation will start to learn that past generations have spent them into economic oblivion. Medicare is 37 TRILLION in the hole, not to mention Social Security and all of this is off the books but about to be added to the books because the general fund will be called upon to pay this.
The spending should have been strangled under Bush and Clinton. They missed the opportunity but some people thought that “change” would be an person of substance who could articulate the need to not just keep the car out of the ditch but keep it from going over the cliff by reversing direction. Instead, what we got was a “hang onto your hats” acceleartion of spending toward the ever widening chasm. This is the nexus that brought about the Tea Party. The rise of the Tea Party is a scary proposition for the left, thus the reversion to epithets and sexual perjoratives such a “teabaggers”. When you have lost the debate, all you are left with is a waive of the hand, a F U, and walkaway from the political stage. The ascendancy of conservative thought will eventually overwhelm academia and the media but the Great Awakening has begun.
The American People have awakened from a very deep slumber similar to Rip Van Winkle. Their worst nightmare is the massive, oppressive government who has spent the country onto the verge of bankruptcy and has been stripping away our freedoms for quite a while so they could install their vision of socialist utopia. Thank God for the Tea Party exposing these lying elitist thieves who have been in office for 20-30 years. The Conservative movement will continue to gain momentum and we will hold these politicians “accountable” whether they retain their seats or the new ones coming in. People will be watching how they vote, what is proposed, whether they read the bill before voting etc. We will keep changing them out until we get a group that listens to the will of We the People.
The Euro implosion will hasten the charge to avoid the strikes and violence, mostly lead by public sector unions who can’t, or won’t, understand that the debt (pensions) cannot be paid without taking serious debt reduction and trying to increase expansion of the private sector, otherwise known at the money generator. Yesterday it was France, this morning it is Greece. Great Britian is now devolving its healthcare and entitilements and actually laying off bureaucrats. All this is taking place while we are being treated to TRILLIONS of dollars of new spending, and annual deficts that dwarf all previous deficits. And the President’s introspection dwells on a failure to get the message out. If this introspection isn’t the greatest example on an “empty suit” in this august office, then I don’t know what is. And, to all those that think this is a personal attack, it isn’t, it is an editorial on the competence of the man who currently holds the POTUS title.
Cassandra’s comment that
“how you provide food and shelter and life’s necessities is a major determinant in your social structure, social mores (including laws), religious structure” has, perhaps unwittingly, revealed the fundamental difference of opinions between the left-leaning and the right-leaning: the definition of “you”.
A progressive would probably define “you” in the foregoing statement as society as a whole, whereas a more conservative would define “you” as the individual.
Although the statement may have some validity, a more conservative wording would be: “how I [myself]provide food and shelter and life’s necessities is a major determinant of MY social structure, social mores (etc)
A subtle yet profound difference, as “you” in the collective sense seems to imply that society as a whole should take care of ALL individual’s food, shelter, necessities of life, etc…a position with which most citizens vehemently disagree, and which seems completely contrary to the ideals of individual freedom and liberty on which this nation was founded. Just my take, that’s all.
Tom, you are right as rain. These Progressive Socialists have managed to ruin most of the economies in the world with their schemes for Utopia. The Unions have played a large role in this. In France, they have mass protests because the government wants to raise the retirement age to 62. These people are lazy bums and want cradle to grave support and don’t care if it bankrupts the country.
Reading with interest your dialogue. However, I truly feel the need to point out that you are setting up false premises here. Can you admit that we have not had a decent president that was willing to challenge the Potomac status quo…regardless of party and regardless of “conservative” or “liberal?” Do you REALLY think that those of us that consider ourselves liberals want to spend ourselves into oblivion? COME ON, guys…the cheap shots really are unworthy of all of you, since you have posted some decent blogs here…don’t revert just to get in the lick or the sound byte.
But while you hurl aspersions on Obama and the Dems and the Liberals, note that no one in the GOP had the cojones to do anything either, and in the fairly recent future they have held most of the congressional power. I say this not to dump on the GOP, but to be factual…
I was not a “W” fan, which i am sure comes as no surprise, but the issue is that the pres does not make the laws. The big issue is the congress who refuses to debate in good faith because it is more interesting to rile up the poplulace so they can set up re election and maintain themselves in power. Frankly, I don’t think a whole lot have exercised a lot of “power” recently and certainly NO leadership, so I guess the end game for them is merely to be re elected and pretend that you are doing a job…nice work if you can get it.
However, to throw all of the mess on the backs of the dems, is just not fair, right, or correct. To throw it on the back of the GOP is not fair, right, or correct, either. They are all a bunch of self promoting gutless wonders.
I just want you to be fair in these debates. The Tea party is not the answer really, because, although I can understand the reasonong and the rationale, and do agree with much of “the program” there is too much antipathy, too much liberal bashing (we are not the enemy here), too much undercurrent, too much idealogical hardline…and really, some of the folks that you are putting up for office are just REAL scary….You have not found a voice that speaks to me, although I can approve and understand a lot of the anger and frustration, and some of the remedies proposed.
And yeah, JB, I do look at “society” and “you” in the collective. Because while we all like to consider ourselves as rugged individuals, there are powers and trends that the individual just cannot buck, really. For instance…how do you buck the aging of our society…and that of Europe? Will we throw our old out on an ice foe or what? How do you quantify how much of the excess spending now and projected is due to the actual demographics of the population? I try to look for commonalities among people rather than differences…that is my bent and my training. I am sorry you cannot understand that slant, JB, but the fact that we are all in the same boat, the fact that whatever comes has come before in some form, and the fact that we are more similar than different is very comforting to me.
I would much prefer that the national debate, as it were, not center on division, but rather on cohesion. We really do need to seriously get it together and decide how much power is acceptable for government, corporations, etc., to have. We see what unfettered pow can do, whether it be Wall street that threw ethics out the window or government that weasels its way more and more into our pockets… We need to seriously decide what we owe our fellow citizen in terms of safety nets…and reach some workable common ground…and where we draw the line of social responsibility, whether it be from Goldman Sachs, Barney Frank, or Jim Boehner.
I think that a lot of these blogs are very divisive and in the end, very non productive…The hubris you all have now may or may not come to pass…Frankly, I hope the great mass of moderate folks go out and vote and I hope they have not listened to all the propaganda…I hope the “silent majority” makes its will known…but, the way I see it, there are no real choices for any of us that will draw us together or be in any way effective…just same old, same old…
Oh, I will vote in November, but with ashes in my mouth…I have no good choices, only what I perceive to be the lesser of two evils.
Good night and good luck…