Why We Have To Pass The Health Care Bill:

[SallyLightfoot]

[quote][i]Originally posted by zill[/i]
<br>Well, the sheep in our country continue to gush over Obama...[/quote] Not so much down here anymore.

[quote][i]Originally posted by zill[/i]
<br>....but personally, I'd like to extend congratulations from Canuckistan to the Soviet States of America on your first dangerous step to becoming a socialist regime. I really enjoy handing over 44% of my pay to the government...I hope you do too.[/quote]Where would you move then? I don't mind paying taxes on principle, I just don't like it being wasted. What do you get for that 44% -- if the alternative is crappy roads, an unreliable power grid, unsafe food & medicine, faulty consumer goods, pollution and depleted natural resources, corrupt police force & compromised court/justice system, then I think 44% is a reasonable deal. The US [i]lacks[/i] a health care [i]system[/i], so I don't view cleaning up that mess as a waste of tax dollars-- it is projected to reduce our deficit. Taxes are at or near historic lows in the US. If you can point to a modern, industrialized nation with lower taxes (and similar services), I'd love to know about it.
[quote][i]Originally posted by zill[/i]
<br>I can understand the rush to get this done at this time, but from afar it seems like hastily pulled together legislation for an extremely complex issue. I foresee the overhaul of healthcare becoming a national past time in the USA in the years ahead.
[/quote]The US has been trying to do something about healthcare for 4 decades. Waiting any longer would have only squandered the opportunity to get something done. Due to demographics, healthcare will remain an issue in the years ahead, but at least after all this time an administration has finally put legislation in place to rein in the cost curve.

[zill]

Yeah, I take your last point. I guess you have to start somewhere. But I do think it will be another 40 years before it gets the kinks worked out.

On your point about what do I get for 44%...? I get crap healthcare. If I had to I would take my family to Seattle to go private to avoid 6 month waiting times here for routine procedures. My inlaws fly back to Korea for medical procedures. Our system is not great and there is no choice. My tax dollars educate doctors who then leave for the US where they can make more money. I send my kids to private school because the public system is suspect at best. And I also get crappy roads, pollution and depleted natural resources. But I do get methadone clinics and safe injection sites. Hell, if we didn't have the US military to rely on to protect us, I'd probably be paying 60%.

I guess the grass is always greener on the other side. I suppose my point really is that, hey, good for you guys, you got it started. But before everyone jumps for joy and starts dreaming up new social programs, you have to realize that there's a ton of work ahead to implement the heathcare bill and make it practical and workable and likely a thousand revisions to come.

[SallyLightfoot]

[quote][i]Originally posted by zill[/i]
<br>Yeah, I take your last point. I guess you have to start somewhere. But I do think it will be another 40 years before it gets the kinks worked out.

On your point about what do I get for 44%...? I get crap healthcare. If I had to I would take my family to Seattle to go private to avoid 6 month waiting times here for routine procedures. My inlaws fly back to Korea for medical procedures. Our system is not great and there is no choice. My tax dollars educate doctors who then leave for the US where they can make more money. I send my kids to private school because the public system is suspect at best. And I also get crappy roads, pollution and depleted natural resources. But I do get methadone clinics and safe injection sites. Hell, if we didn't have the US military to rely on to protect us, I'd probably be paying 60%.

I guess the grass is always greener on the other side. I suppose my point really is that, hey, good for you guys, you got it started. But before everyone jumps for joy and starts dreaming up new social programs, you have to realize that there's a ton of work ahead to implement the heathcare bill and make it practical and workable and likely a thousand revisions to come.
[/quote]I know that of all of the western systems, Canada is considered one of the least popular. But I guess everyone can breathe a sigh of relief-- the US did not model its reform bill after Canada's system (a single-payer system similar to "Medicare for all"). In fact, we left our current private system entirely in place-- we mainly just extended coverage for the middle class and added insurance regulations. And even that incremental reform almost didn't pass.
Your description of Canada's shortcomings sounds pretty similar to the US (and if you didn't have methadone clinics, your crime rates would probably be a hellova lot worse). We'd probably be paying 60% tax rates also, but we don't have the fiscal discipline to live within our means and prefer deficits instead.

[SallyLightfoot]

Couple of things:<ol><li>The government has done its homework with regard to legality of the health care law (hey, it's no longer a bill!): <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aucqH8ldfd.M&pos=8" target="bwahaha">Health Care Suits by States "Unlikely to Succeed," Scholars Say</a></li><li>One survey does not define a rule, but <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/Slim-Margin-Americans-Support-Healthcare-Bill-Passage.aspx" target="wait-theres-more">Gallup released findings yesterday</a> from a March 22 poll on the HCR law and found support at 49% (versus 40% against).</li></ol>

[KYYX4ever]

This health care [i]law[/i] is not perfect, but it is a very good start. It will be much easier to make other changes now that a framewok is in place. And it does have some wonderful things--no more denying coverage to those with pre-existing illnesses (effective later this year for children, but a few years later for adults.), as well as not allowing ins. cos. to drop you after you get really sick. These are laudable.

Higher taxes ? Whatever ! Everything costs money. The money has to come from somewhere. (Unfortunately, today, there are so many bloated programs that cost money; everywhere you look, something needs more money. But that's a whole other topic.) I don't mind paying more taxes in principle, I just don't like it being wasted or used inefficiently. But our taxes go to: roads, hospitals, schools, infrastructure, highways, bridges, fire dep't, police dep't...you know, all those "socialist" programs. Compared to other modern industrialized countries, our tax rates are quite low. And our taxes will [i]not[/i] get raised that much, if you look into it. The very word "taxes" is too often used as a scary "boogyman" designed to rile up the masses. Well yeah, but how else are they supposed to pay for things ?

[djcraig]

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br><blockquote>[b]DJCraig[/b] wrote: First off, only PARTS of Nancy are 70. Many pieces of her face are just a few months old.</blockquote>LOL, maybe that's true (although I doubt botox counts as plastic surgery), but it wouldn't be the first time you alleged something without proof.[/quote]

I have no concrete proof that Barry Bonds did steroids either but careful observation reveals something quite unnatural about both Barry's late career physical changes and Pelosi's face. No surprise that people with political myopia also fail to see the obvious in the material world as well.

Anyway, after I am elected King, if I become so incompetent that I can no longer lie adequately or convincingly, ala Pelosi, I will retire. And I won't be expecting wannabe message board professors to be my apologists.

[quote][b]DJCraig[/b] wrote: As a result of shoving this unpopular and costly "health reform" down the American people's throats, Obama's approval ratings are down to where George Bush's were when he left office.</blockquote>Where [i]do[/i] you get your polling data? [/quote]

You know, you might have something there. Obama's approval is only as low as where Bush's was after HIS first year but give the boy wonder time. He has three more years to prove he is not Jimmy Carter Jr. Good luck with that. If Obama expects to pass any significant legislation after the upcoming November elections he is drinking the same koolaid you are.

I am interested to see how this whole increasing taxes on dividends, capital gains & earnings while burdening businesses with mandated health care coverage costs creates more jobs. Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.

At least we will no longer have the Canadians crossing the border when they can get just as crappy health care at home. If it takes a Carter to get a Reagan, here's hoping these next three years pass quickly.




<a href="http://www.djcraig.net/los_angeles_dj">DJ Craig</a>

[SallyLightfoot]

[quote][i]Originally posted by DJCraig[/i]<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]<br>Where [i]do[/i] you get your polling data? [/quote]
You know, you might have something there. Obama's approval is only as low as where Bush's was after HIS first year but give the boy wonder time. He has three more years to prove he is not Jimmy Carter Jr. Good luck with that. If Obama expects to pass any significant legislation after the upcoming November elections he is drinking the same koolaid you are. [/quote]Shorter [b]DJCraig[/b]: [i]Sometimes I make shit up.[/i]
[quote][b]DJCraig[/b]<br>
I am interested to see how this whole increasing taxes on dividends, capital gains & earnings while burdening businesses with mandated health care coverage costs creates more jobs.[/quote]Increased taxes on dividends, capital gains, and earnings are in the Health Care Law that was just passed? Maybe you're thinking of another bill. Please provide a link to more details, I'm eager to learn.
[quote][b]DJCraig[/b]<br>
At least we will no longer have the Canadians crossing the border when they can get just as crappy health care at home. [/quote]The US just passed legislation to reform health [i]insurance[/i]. There are no significant changes to the way private doctors, hospitals, health care providers, or pharma co's operate.
[quote][b]DJCraig[/b]<br>
If it takes a Carter to get a Reagan, here's hoping these next three years pass quickly.[/quote]Reagan left office after exploding the deficit. This doesn't seem like an appropriate time to mythologize Reagan.

[zill]

"Shorter DJCraig: Sometimes I make shit up"

I know I shouldn't encourage you guys, but that was funny.

[marie3]

[quote][i]Originally posted by zill[/i]
<br>"Shorter DJCraig: Sometimes I make shit up"

I know I shouldn't encourage you guys, but that was funny.
[/quote]

I thought so too.

[SallyLightfoot]

Just a guess, but probably a lot of the Obama haters and Tea Partiers believe that Obama's approval ratings are at or below George W Bush's levels. Their preferred news/media outlets equate him with Chairman Mao/Adolph Hitler/Satan who has brought about Armageddon/End Times/The End of the Republic, so it's inconceivable to many that Obama's ratings are actually fairly average.

<img src="http://www.gamepolitics.com/images/Vizzini.jpg" height="204" width="203" alt="Inconceivable!">

[ghosty]

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>Just a guess, but probably a lot of the Obama haters and Tea Partiers believe that Obama's approval ratings are at or below George W Bush's levels. Their preferred news/media outlets equate him with Chairman Mao/Adolph Hitler/Satan who has brought about Armageddon/End Times/The End of the Republic, so it's inconceivable to many that Obama's ratings are actually fairly average.

<img src="http://www.gamepolitics.com/images/Vizzini.jpg" height="204" width="203" alt="Inconceivable!">
[/quote]

Yeah but in fairness, hasn't this been the case since for years now? I recall George W. Bush being called every name in the book and a there was even film made about a fantasy scenario where he was assassinated. My inbox was full of e-mails from friends on the left who were either salivating over it or smirking that they wished someone would actually pull the trigger.

This whole extremist right -vs- extremist left comes across like some sort of demented religious war where the other side is ritually demonized and "must be stopped". Frankly I don't think anything good can come from this.

[SallyLightfoot]

[quote][i]Originally posted by ghosty[/i]
<br>Yeah but in fairness, hasn't this been the case since for years now? I recall George W. Bush being called every name in the book and a there was even film made about a fantasy scenario where he was assassinated. My inbox was full of e-mails from friends on the left who were either salivating over it or smirking that they wished someone would actually pull the trigger.

This whole extremist right -vs- extremist left comes across like some sort of demented religious war where the other side is ritually demonized and "must be stopped". Frankly I don't think anything good can come from this.[/quote]You are right about this, to a point. I know I sound biased, but I think you're suggesting a false equivalence. It is absolutely true that a segment of liberals compared Bush/Cheney to Hitler and other dictators, and that kind of hyperbole is misguided and worthless. However the Bush administration [i]did[/i] do some terrible things, though, even when viewed on a historical perspective. Folks on the political right probably have a blind-spot for most of those failures. And as a result I think many on the right suffer from a form of collective amnesia about Bush, as though everything was going more or less fine until Obama arrived in the White House. And then almost from day one, Obama has been demonized as the anti-christ by that segment, and it has been amplified many times by FOX, AM radio and cable news.

With regard to assassination fantasies, I wager that you'd find many times the number of people who would subscribe to it for Obama than for Bush. There are radical nutjobs on both sides of the political spectrum, to be sure. But Clinton was a moderate president, and Obama's record suggests the same governing philosophy (i.e., from the middle), and both of these guys have been demonized by the right. To the extent that Bush was demonized by the left, well, in my opinion, a hefty measure of that was [i]deserved[/i]. Starting wars, torture, suspending habeas corpus, cutting taxes during wartime and creating a monstrous deficit-- those are not moderate policies-- they tend to lead people to hyperbolic language.

Obama, on the other hand, has just passed a health care reform bill similar to the one proposed by the GOP back in the Clinton years, and the one implemented by GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, and one very similar to what John McCain campaigned on in the recent election (see <a href="http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo" target="bah">this</a> opinion piece from GW Bush's former economic speechwriter, David Frum). And for this very moderate, non-radical, incremental reform, Obama is branded the anti-christ....

[ghosty]

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by ghosty[/i]
<br>Yeah but in fairness, hasn't this been the case since for years now? I recall George W. Bush being called every name in the book and a there was even film made about a fantasy scenario where he was assassinated. My inbox was full of e-mails from friends on the left who were either salivating over it or smirking that they wished someone would actually pull the trigger.

This whole extremist right -vs- extremist left comes across like some sort of demented religious war where the other side is ritually demonized and "must be stopped". Frankly I don't think anything good can come from this.[/quote]You are right about this, to a point. I know I sound biased, but I think you're suggesting a false equivalence. It is absolutely true that a segment of liberals compared Bush/Cheney to Hitler and other dictators, and that kind of hyperbole is misguided and worthless. However the Bush administration [i]did[/i] do some terrible things, though, even when viewed on a historical perspective. Folks on the political right probably have a blind-spot for most of those failures. And as a result I think many on the right suffer from a form of collective amnesia about Bush, as though everything was going more or less fine until Obama arrived in the White House. And then almost from day one, Obama has been demonized as the anti-christ by that segment, and it has been amplified many times by FOX, AM radio and cable news.

With regard to assassination fantasies, I wager that you'd find many times the number of people who would subscribe to it for Obama than for Bush. There are radical nutjobs on both sides of the political spectrum, to be sure. But Clinton was a moderate president, and Obama's record suggests the same governing philosophy (i.e., from the middle), and both of these guys have been demonized by the right. To the extent that Bush was demonized by the left, well, in my opinion, a hefty measure of that was [i]deserved[/i]. Starting wars, torture, suspending habeas corpus, cutting taxes during wartime and creating a monstrous deficit-- those are not moderate policies-- they tend to lead people to hyperbolic language.

Obama, on the other hand, has just passed a health care reform bill similar to the one proposed by the GOP back in the Clinton years, and the one implemented by GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, and one very similar to what John McCain campaigned on in the recent election (see <a href="http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo" target="bah">this</a> opinion piece from GW Bush's former economic speechwriter, David Frum). And for this very moderate, non-radical, incremental reform, Obama is branded the anti-christ....
[/quote]


Well, Clinton was demonized but not to the extremes that either Bush Jr. and Obama have been. Not even close. I agree that Obama has been demonized by the right from the get-go (Jeez, at least give him some time to fuck up) but I don't think the anti-Obama fervor or the Obama worship, for that matter, is as prevalent in our society as the media would want us to think.

I think it's more symptomatic of the times we live in, where we're preoccupied by a media that gives us a Michael Bay-sized warped vision of what America's thinking. The world doesn't turn based on what Fox, am radio and cable news networks are spewing out every day no matter how much they insist it is (the ratings speak for themselves) . As far as wagers go, I'd wager that more people follow "Dancing With The Stars" than any of those outlets (and probably take it more seriously!).

I'd also wager that the extreme right and left viewpoints expressed in the media (and the blogosphere) are hardly representative of what the average person thinks.

[SallyLightfoot]

[quote][i]Originally posted by ghosty[/i]
<br>I think it's more symptomatic of the times we live in, where we're preoccupied by a media that gives us a Michael Bay-sized warped vision of what America's thinking. The world doesn't turn based on what Fox, am radio and cable news networks are spewing out every day no matter how much they insist it is (the ratings speak for themselves) . As far as wagers go, I'd wager that more people follow "Dancing With The Stars" than any of those outlets (and probably take it more seriously!).

I'd also wager that the extreme right and left viewpoints expressed in the media (and the blogosphere) are hardly representative of what the average person thinks. [/quote] Agreed, and I think that's a factor in Obama's weak-but-not-awful poll numbers.

[djcraig]

[quote][b]Sappy Lighthead[/b]<br>Increased taxes on dividends, capital gains, and earnings are in the Health Care Law that was just passed? Maybe you're thinking of another bill. Please provide a link to more details, I'm eager to learn.[/quote]

I never referred to the Health Care Bill's taxes.


Shorter [b]Sappy Lighthead[/b]: [i]Sometimes I infer what I want and jump to conclusions, including prematurely judging people as racists. But that's where revisionist editing comes in handy.[/i]


But since you brought it up, the 940 Billion dollar bill ain't going to pay for itself:

[b]Originally proposed taxes in the bill:

The Joint Committee on Taxation has published a list of the 17 tax increases in the Senate health care bill...
40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of $8,500/$23,000 ($149.1 billion)
Employer W-2 reporting of value of health (negligible revenue effect)
Conform definition of medical expenses ($5.0 billion)
Increase penalty for nonqualified health savings account distributions to 20% ($1.3 billion)
Limit health flexible spending arrangements in cafeteria plans to $2,500 ($14.6 billion)
Require information reporting on payments to corporations ($17.1 billion)
Additional requirements for section 501(c)(3) hospitals (negligible revenue effects)
Impose annual fee on manufacturers & importers of branded drugs ($22.2 billion)
Impose annual fee on manufacturers & importers of medical devices ($19.3 billion)
Impose annual fee on health insurance providers ($60.4 billion)
Study and report of effect on veterans health care (no revenue effect)
Eliminate deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare Part D subsidy ($5.4 billion)
Raise 7.5% AGI floor on medical expenses deduction to 10% ($15.2 billion)
$500,000 deduction limitation on taxable year remuneration to health insurance officials ($0.6 billion)
Additional 0.5% hospital insurance tax on wages > $200,000 ($250,000 joint) ($53.8 billion)
Modification of section 833 treatment of certain health organizations ($0.4 billion)
Impose 5% excise tax on cosmetic surgery ($5.8 billion)[/b]

Certainly not all of these those made to the final draft, not for lack of trying. But these did:

[b]Those who earn 150 percent or less of the poverty line (around, say, $30,000 for a family of four) would get a subsidy equal to about 95 percent of their premium. To pay for a large chunk of those subsidies, the bill taxes the rich in various ways.[/b]
http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/new-econ ... th-a-twist

[b]Obama would boost the Medicare tax by 0.9 percentage points for households with incomes over $200,000 for singles and $250,000 for joint filers. In addition, he’d impose a 2.9 percent tax on these same people on interest, dividends, annuities, and most other investment income. While the official Obama summary does not say so, the new tax would apply to capital gains as well. Add it up, and the 1.2 million taxpayers making $624,000 or more (their average income is about $2 million) would pay nearly 86 percent of this tax once it is fully effective in 2013.

On average, the Obama proposal would raise their taxes by more than $20,000. The top 0.1 percent of earners--those making more than $2.8 million-- would get hit with a tax increase of more than $120,000. By contrast, nearly everyone else would get no tax hike at all under this proposal.[/b]
http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/Tax-VOX/ ... x-the-rich

[b]The package of fixes to the health care bill passed by the House on Sunday includes a tax on “unearned” income... the package of fixes House members require to make the Senate health care bill acceptable—includes a chapter titled “Medicare Tax.” That chapter provides for the government to level a 3.8 percent surtax on any “unearned” income for individuals making over $200,000 and couples making over $250,000... taxing unearned income will further discourage investment during an economic slump and that the money, originally called a “Medicare tax” may not necessarily go to shoring up Medicare...

“You cannot think that taxing capital gains and dividends will not affect the middle class,” he (Ryan Ellis, tax policy director at Americans for Tax Reform) said, “unless you don’t believe the middle class owns stocks or has an IRA... You cannot increase taxes on capital gains and dividends without hurting the whole stock market. “The day after (the law) is signed, the value of your portfolio or IRA goes down,” Ellis added.

The $132 billion would also not go directly into Medicare, as (Alan) Reynolds pointed out. “The 3.8% tax on both labor and investment income is not a ‘Medicare tax,’ he wrote. “It’s surtax on income that goes into the slush fund, not the Medicare trust.” [/b]
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/63298

[b]Medicare Payroll tax on investment income- Starting in 2012, the Medicare Payroll Tax will be expanded to include unearned income. That will be a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for families making more than $250,000 per year ($200,000 for individuals).

Excise Tax- Beginning in 2018, insurance companies will pay a 40 percent excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" high-end insurance plans worth over $27,500 for families ($10,200 for individuals).[/b]
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

[b]To help fund the $940 billion health care overhaul, a 10% tax on individuals receiving indoor tanning services was tacked on, and the initiative is expected to generate $2.7 billion over ten years. The 10% tanning tax has replaced the 5% tax on cosmetic surgery that was originally included in the bill.[/b]
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/24/news/ec ... /index.htm


[quote]Reagan left office after exploding the deficit. This doesn't seem like an appropriate time to mythologize Reagan.[/quote]

This doesn't seem like an appropriate time to bring up exploding deficits. As for not mythologizing Reagan, tell me that in three more years.


<a href="http://www.djcraig.net/los_angeles_dj">DJ Craig</a>