Buy insurance or face the IRS and or jail.

[tkhayes 348]

It is not just corporations paying for health care- obviously if that were the case, then yes, their products and services would simply go up in cost. TAXPAYERS pay for health care.

No one is disputing that Health Care costs money. The argument is that if EVERYONE pays for it through income tax, and EVERYONE gets their health care covered, then the AVERAGE cost per person goes down.

If all the government is going to offer is 'more insurance', then people will obviously choose (some of them) to NOT participate if they can. The key is to make it mandatory through universal delivery and single payer - you don't have a choice.

Just like I do not have a choice in paying for the military or education. It comes out of my income taxes and state taxes at some level. I cannot say "I do not want to contribute to that military budget" without eventually facing the IRS penalties for my decision.

Military is in the Constitution. It is long overdue that Health Care goes here too.

Health is not a 'right' people say?

If you are 65, it is a right.
If you are a veteran (for most), it is a right
If you are too poor, it is a right
If you are on kidney dialysis, it is a right
And through dozens of other programs scattered across the country, it is a right.

So I get tired of hearing the argument that healthcare is not a right.

I am one of those left-wing liberal nuts that actually thinks it is OK to pay taxes if I am getting something for it.

I am more than willing to pay my share of income tax so that my fellow employees, workers, friends, etc can have access to health care without going bankrupt.

I am more than willing to pay more taxes if we can get solar programs in place to reduce dependance on oil.
I am more than willing to pay more taxes if we can recycle more and put less trash in incinerators and landfill sites.
I am more than willing to pay more taxes if we can offer cheap (or free) education to our next generation of people, after-all, they have to inherit the crap we leave them - so they may as well be smart enough to manage it.

I am NOT willing to pay more taxes so I can bail out GM so they can continue to build gas-guzzling vehicles that do not serve the greater good of the country and the environment, but only serve to feed American vanity.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Poll: Support for Obamacare at New Low

Monday, September 28, 2009 12:20 PM

By: Jim Meyers

Only 41 percent of voters now support President Barack Obama and the Democrats' healthcare reform proposal — down from 44 percent two weeks ago and the lowest level of support yet measured by Rasmussen Reports.

Rasmussen's nationwide telephone survey also found that 56 percent of voters are now opposed to the plan.

Just 33 percent of senior citizens favor the plan, while 59 percent are opposed.

Other findings of the poll:


46 percent of respondents believe the reform plan will likely pass and become law this year, but 47 percent think it will likely not pass, including 15 percent who say it is not at all likely to pass.


While 23 percent of voters "strongly favor" the legislative effort to reform healthcare, 43 percent are "strongly opposed."


24 percent of respondents say the quality of healthcare will improve if the plan passes, and 55 percent say it will get worse.


54 percent say passage of the plan will increase the cost of healthcare, and 23 percent say it will lower the cost.


The overwhelming majority of voters — 78 percent — believe that every American should be able to buy the same health insurance plan that Congress has.


53 percent think tort reform will significantly lower the cost of healthcare.


48 percent of respondents want a prohibition on abortion in any government subsidized program, and 13 percent want a mandate requiring abortion coverage.

"The most important fundamental is that 68 percent of American voters have health insurance coverage they rate as good or excellent," Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal.

"Most of these voters approach the healthcare reform debate fearing that they have more to lose than to gain."

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Channman 2]

Quote

The only way they can force people to ger insurance is to threaten them with jail, prison, etc. That and larger fines.

This means a couple of things. The first is to jail the poor. Some posters here bleed for those who simply have no money for insurance. Of course if they buy it then they could have afforded it all along. If they can't they will be jailed - the ultimate in socialist utopia!

The other option is that they get heavily subsidized such that it is free for them. And costing multiple trillions ove the next decade.

Either way, it's what the Great Society demands. Amen!

I was thinking about this crap of the big “O” making it mandatory for Insurers to cover preexisting conditions. Kind of like forcing an insurer to provide full coverage for a home owner only after his house is on fire.

Homeowner, "Hello, I need to purchase some fire insurance."

Insurer, "OK, is your house currently in flames? "Yes, but your still required to provide coverage under the law, aren't ya"

Insurer, "That Son of a Bitch".

[Channman 2]

Givin the bastards, ah, roughly 84K and fuck me since Im outta work. Damned if ya do and damned if ya don't I guess. Guess I should be happy I didn't need it.

Kind of like Life Insurance

[labrys 0]

Polls are useless in most cases.

Ask the average whuffo how most skydivers die and they'll respond "Chute failed to open" because that's what the media tells them to say.

Ask the average American how they feel about health care reform and they'll tell you what their favorite talk show host told them to say without bothering to think it through.

Owned by Remi #?

[tkhayes 348]

it will probably fail because all they are talking about is INSURANCE, not health care delivery.

And even if it passes, the new system will likely fail in practice - which is what the insurance industry is hoping for "See we told you it would not work..."

Sadly the polls are correct about the current plan, but the polls to do not show a MAJORITY support for Single-Payer health care for all Americans. http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html

I still cannot believe after all the debate that no one has put up a bill for single payer yet. I am still writing letters every day - and still getting rhetorical responses from my representatives.......

[rushmc 23]

Quote

it will probably fail because all they are talking about is INSURANCE, not health care delivery.

And even if it passes, the new system will likely fail in practice - which is what the insurance industry is hoping for "See we told you it would not work..."

Sadly the polls are correct about the current plan, but the polls to do not show a MAJORITY support for Single-Payer health care for all Americans. http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html

I still cannot believe after all the debate that no one has put up a bill for single payer yet. I am still writing letters every day - and still getting rhetorical responses from my representatives.......

I hope they dont and if they do I hope it fails. the last thing we need is a gov run single payer system if we want to keep good health care

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[cliffwhite 0]

Quote

[reply
the last thing we need is a gov run single payer system if we want to keep good health care

"Good health care", rushmc?
Even the French have better healthcare than Americans!

Blues,
Cliff

2muchTruth

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

[reply
the last thing we need is a gov run single payer system if we want to keep good health care

"Good health care", rushmc?
Even the French have better healthcare than Americans!

Blues,
Cliff

That is bs

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[cliffwhite 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

[reply
Even the French have better healthcare than Americans!

Blues,
Cliff

That is bs

Really? Seems that a recent survey reported the French had the number 1 healthcare system in the world.

What do you have to support your claim of BS?

I hate to tell you rushmc, but we are also far behind in education and freedom.

Blues,
Cliff

2muchTruth

[tkhayes 348]

Actually it is NOT 'bs'. (almost) all the single payer health care systems in the world, certainly the majority of them, provide better health care at lower costs that the USA.

It is has been stated before, and it continues to be stated as fact, by organizations outside your apparent ability to read and understand those stats.

Just as good, or better, lower costs, health care for all.

Disagree you may, but to deny those facts is plain silly.

And just like you and I disagreed over Obama for President - there ain't nothing you can do about it. It will happen, and probably now sooner than later.

Sadly we will waste years, lives, money and time trying to put some half-assed system into place before the most obvious solution slaps American right up the side of the head.....

[rushmc 23]

lower cost maybe, better? no way

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,588]

Define "better." Right now our top end is very, very good. Do you think that will change?

But our bottom end is worse than most countries with single-payer. There is the ER, and if you're lucky there are free or low-cost clinics. I'm not counting Medicaid in there because it's not at the bottom end.

The system we have is fucked up. Calling it the best in the world is bullshit. Saying that single-payer will solve all of our problems is equal bullshit.

Overall, part of our problem is that the standard of living in the US has risen so high that it can only be sustained on the back of what used to be considered necessities. People don't go to the doctor because they don't need to all that often, and because they can't afford their stuff if they start going regularly.

80 years ago, an appendectomy was much cheaper. But more people died. Each life is precious, but it's precious to every single person who enters the medical system, not just to the person who would have died 80 years ago. We all pay for the infrastructure that includes more high-tech equipment.

30 years ago only the very worst fractures needed surgery and fixation. Now it seems to be the standard for nearly every break. That's good for the people who break things (quicker recovery, more solid bones). But it's overall way more expensive (a broken leg no longer costs a couple of thousand for X-rays and repeated casts -- it's tens of thousands for surgery, hospitalization, etc.).

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[cliffwhite 0]

Quote

30 years ago only the very worst fractures needed surgery and fixation. Now it seems to be the standard for nearly every break.

Quote

I remember as a kid a sprain was great news. You'ld be playing again in a week or two. Now they say a sprain is worse than a break.

Some 100+ year old lady was on the news yesterday. She credited her longgevity to never going to see a doctor.

Blues,
Cliff

2muchTruth

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[rushmc 23]

I am not saying there no issues that need dealing with however, consider the following.

68% say they are happy to very happy with their health care and healtch care insurance.

I think (my opinion) this is a drumed up issue to give the washington politions the oportunity to take over yet another portion of our lives. IF they get control they can controm many aspects of our lives claiming that doing other than they say affects the costs and therefor all of us.

They can control food, medicine, sports, transportation anything you can think of that will "affect" the cost to the tax payer of a government run/controled systems.

This is not about health care and it never has been. Just as with the AWG issue, this is about power, money and control.

How much freedom are we willing to give up?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,588]

I'm happy with my health care and insurance. That doesn't mean I think the system as a whole is sustainable, or that we don't need some change. It's short-sighted to say that because my personal insurance is good at this moment, that things are good.

My company's insurance costs are, like most, going up faster than profits or any other costs. This is not a long-term sustainable situation, and addressing it earlier is better than addressing it later.

You can reroute a stream a whole lot more easily than you can reroute a river.

Health care is becoming more expensive at a pretty impressive rate; it's also becoming better, but the cost is going up faster than is sustainable.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[wmw999 2,588]

Quote

How much freedom are we willing to give up?

Not a whole lot. No matter what system for paying for healthcare we have, in the US, if I have enough money, I'll be able to pay for whatever health care I want.

The amount of money that it costs might change, but it's going to anyway.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

This is not about health care and it never has been. Just as with the AWG issue, this is about power, money and control.

Now THAT is bs

I fail to see why it is so hard to believe that someone in government actually gives a shit about bringing better things to the Americann people.

Even GWB thought that invading other countries and running amouck was going to be the 'right thing' for the USA. He was dead wrong, but i have no trouble believing that he thinks that he was doing the right thing.

And I believe that the current government in power is actually trying to do good by providing better health care. They are compromising rather than doing it, but it is what it is.

Even you, in previous posts have accused Obama of being an 'idealist'. He can't be some 'idelaist' if it is all about power/money/control.

The power/money/control issue is there at some level, yes, but it is more on the side of the corporations the lobbyists and the greedy money mongers.

There are A LOT OF PEOPLE in this country and in the government that actually care about delivering good health care to all Americans.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

This is not about health care and it never has been. Just as with the AWG issue, this is about power, money and control.

Now THAT is bs

I fail to see why it is so hard to believe that someone in government actually gives a shit about bringing better things to the Americann people.

Even GWB thought that invading other countries and running amouck was going to be the 'right thing' for the USA. He was dead wrong, but i have no trouble believing that he thinks that he was doing the right thing.

And I believe that the current government in power is actually trying to do good by providing better health care. They are compromising rather than doing it, but it is what it is.

Even you, in previous posts have accused Obama of being an 'idealist'. He can't be some 'idelaist' if it is all about power/money/control.

The power/money/control issue is there at some level, yes, but it is more on the side of the corporations the lobbyists and the greedy money mongers.

There are A LOT OF PEOPLE in this country and in the government that actually care about delivering good health care to all Americans.

Too much going on the back anything you say here.

Examples
Will not write the bill (let along read it) before a vote
Will not make sure that illegals are not included (even though they say they are they will not nail it to the wall)
Obama handing out simulas money to whom ever he wants when he wants. (look at where the money is going to day, the anouncment yesterday and the inability to find out where it is and will go.

Obama has said he does not want a single payer systme when he is on tape saying that is what he really wants but it will take years

Obama flied to Copenhagen on the taxpayer dime to take care of Chicago ???>? WTF (gotta take care of Daily cause he is who got Obama where he is

Obama said he will put all bills on line before they are voted on. Another lie Why?

....and the list goes on

This will not provide better health care and there is no world example to say it will you can provide.

Who will pay for it?

If you really feel the gov is trying to do something good I will in all seriousness have to say I feel sorry for you.

Think man and stop "feeling"! Look at what is going on around you for christs sake.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

Will not write the bill (let along read it) before a vote

even the republicans admit they seldom READ any bill before voting on it

Quote

Will not make sure that illegals are not included (even though they say they are they will not nail it to the wall)

Obama does not actually write the bill, so write your congressman and make sure that it is included. I wonder how many 'illegals' are in the military , working in government jobs, etc already. It is a fact of life, while I agree with the position on illegals, I am NOT going to stop a bill for health care for such a trivial issue. That is like saying we can't change the bill 'cause Medicare is broken and we need to fix it first'. If Medicare is so broken then why did 8 years of GWB not get it fixed? It is just a fucking stall tactic that carries ABSOLUTELY no weight.

Quote

Obama handing out simulas money to whom ever he wants when he wants.

GWB used two wars to hand out money like a drunken sailor to whomever he liked. Bottom line, I would rather spend money on AMERICA, than Iraq. I would rather spend money on HEALTH CARE than a war. I would rather spend money on JOBS, and rebuilding industries than on 100+ foreign military bases.

He might be spending money, but he mostly has the priorities right.

I could give a shit about CHicago and trips to Denmark. Given what daily Presidential security probably costs this country, a trip to Denmark costs fuck all, and if we win the Olympics, then it will create thousands of jobs for YEARS in Chicago. I think a fairly worthy investment.

Name a bill that has been voted on before it went on line? I found them all......did you even look?

There are DOZENS of examples of better health care around the world as I have already said. Your definition of 'better' happens to vary from what the majority of people think.

I am looking around 'fer chists sake'

I see sick people, bankruptcies, greedy American capitalism that FUCKED this country out of a future. 8 years of nothing by destruction and fuck all to show for it.

But we will survive by taking care of AMERICANS. Not by taking care of other countries.

We can always rebuild. And we have started.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

GWB used two wars to hand out money like a drunken sailor to whomever he liked. Bottom line, I would rather spend money on AMERICA, than Iraq. I would rather spend money on HEALTH CARE than a war. I would rather spend money on JOBS, and rebuilding industries than on 100+ foreign military bases.

I've heard some conservatives claim that the terrorists hate us because of our freedoms. I've also heard some conservatives claim that tax funded healthcare would make us less free. Doesn't it stand to reason that, if those assertions are true, tax funded healthcare would make us safer from the terrorists?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rushmc 23]

Ok, more for the point

Quote

Smokers, Overweight People to Face Fine Under Health Bill

Thursday, October 1, 2009 12:56 PM

By: Dan Weil Article Font Size

The Senate Finance Committee approved an amendment to the healthcare bill Wednesday that would allow employers to charge workers with unhealthy lifestyles more for their insurance coverage.

The amendment would permits employers to adjust premiums as much as 50 percent according to the level of workers’ health habits, up from 20 percent now.

“Weight gain and unhealthy lifestyles that focus on smoking and lack of exercise have skyrocketed our healthcare costs," Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said in a statement cited by Politico news service.

Ensign, who sponsored the amendment along with and Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., said, "These costs could be lowered by focusing on what makes us healthy — through weight loss programs, smoking cessation and preventive care. Voluntary employee participation in these areas should naturally be reflected in lower healthcare costs.”

Opponents, including the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association, counter that the new rule may spur insurers and companies to keep basing coverage decisions on pre-existing conditions, even though the bill itself prohibits that.

A consortium of healthcare advocacy groups wrote in a letter: “While we appreciate the amendments’ intent to encourage healthy behaviors, we believe that allowing employers to vary premiums by up to 50 percent of the total cost of employee coverage could lead to discriminatory practices and make health coverage unaffordable for those who need it the most.”

Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican who is a doctor himself, says premium differences are important.

“Americans want simple, practical, affordable changes now. . . Changes that offer reductions in premiums for making healthy lifestyle choices,” he wrote in the Little Chicago Review.

And then why hide the price?

Quote

Obama's 'Stealth Taxes' Estimated at Over $1.5 Trillion

Thursday, October 1, 2009 6:10 PM

By: David A. Patten Article Font Size

Taxpayers at all income levels could be hit with over $1.5 trillion in new taxes, fees, and other costs over the next 10 years, despite President Obama's repeated promises that he would not raise taxes "one dime" on those earning less than $250,000 a year.

Details of several new tax proposals, including some that would disproportionately affect the middle and lower classes, have emerged following Obama's recent dust-up with host George Stephanopoulos on ABC's “This Week.” The two locked horns over whether the individual mandate in healthcare reform, which requires individuals either to buy healthcare coverage or face considerable fines, amounts to a tax.

Stephanopoulos suggested that fines levied for not complying with the mandate are a tax. Obama's response: "But George, you can't just make up that language and decide that's called a tax increase…. I absolutely reject that notion."

Under the Senate finance version of the healthcare reform bill, individuals could be penalized up to $1,900 a year for not buying insurance. That mandate would generate up to $20 billion in new federal revenue, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But is it a tax?

One strong indicator: The mandate would become part of the Internal Revenue Code. Failing to pay the penalty would result in a misdemeanor crime punishable by a $25,000 fine and/or up to a year in jail. Also, both the House and the Senate versions of the bill refer to the mandate fines as a form of "taxes."

So Stephanopoulos was correct, and Obama was mistaken: The fees assessed as part of the requirement that people purchase insurance coverage are indeed a form of taxes.

Heritage Foundation senior fellow J.D. Foster tells Newsmax that Democrats are searching for "anything to collect revenues" that don't appear to be taxes.

"The stealth taxes masquerading as fees in the various healthcare reform proposals are just another example of this," Foster says, "except that they also violate the president's promise of more transparency in government. And they violate his promise not to raises taxes on the middle class."

Or as a Wall Street Journal editorial recently declared: "His real problem is that the individual mandate really is a tax. But the president doesn't want voters to think of it that way, because taxes are unpopular."

Several other taxes or quasi-taxes are under consideration. Some have been written into proposed legislation, while others are still in the conceptual stage.

So far, Democrats have primarily relied on projected-but-unspecified savings in Medicaid and Medicare to mask the red ink spilling from their proposals. Ultimately, however, balancing the budget will require eliminating government programs or raising taxes. But some de facto taxes hit consumers indirectly.

"If they take your money without your permission, it's either a tax or a mugger," Grover Norquist, founder of the anti-tax Americans for Tax Reform organization, tells Newsmax. "You can call it anything you want, but a fee that you have to pay is a tax."

One tax has already been implemented. In February, Obama signed legislation hiking the federal excise tax on cigarettes by a whopping 156 percent, to $1.01 per pack.

An October 2007 report by Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the tobacco tax would generate approximately $7.3 billion per year. The tax disproportionately affects the working poor, because one in four smokers lives below the poverty line according to Americans for Tax Reform.

Other new taxes or "fees" that may be on the table:

Health-Insurance Company Fee. The "Baucus bill" passed by the Senate Finance Committee and parallel initiatives in the House would hit health-insurance providers with an annual fee. Robert Zirkelbach, director of communications for the America's Health Insurance Plans trade group, tells Newsmax the industry strongly opposes what he sees as a tax.

“New taxes on healthcare coverage will only make coverage less affordable for families and small businesses," Zirkelbach says. "This is the opposite effect of what health care reform is supposed to accomplish. Unless policymakers focus on the underlying medical cost drivers, healthcare reform will not be sustainable.” Price Tag: Over 10 years, the measure would cost somewhat north of $45 billion, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Energy "Tax." A U.S. Treasury Department document obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute following a Freedom of Information Act request reveals that the administration projected revenues of "$100 to $200 billion annually" from auctioning off the right to emit greenhouse gases – the system known as cap and trade. Some of the funds raised by the administration will go to development of alternative forms of energy and conservation, and other government programs. The Treasury report also projected that, "Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation." But once again, can higher fuel costs and other economic impacts legitimately be called a tax?

The Treasury Department said the difference between cap-and-trade proposals, which auction the right to emit greenhouse gases, and a carbon tax on emissions "have blurred." In April 2008 Peter Orszag, who now serves as Obama's director of the Office of Management and Budget, testified to Congress that: "Under a cap-and-trade program, firms would not ultimately bear most of the costs of the allowances but instead would pass them along to their customers in the form of higher prices … price increases would be essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program." Price Tag: At 1 percent of GDP, cap and trade as currently proposed would cost consumers $140 billion per year. The fact that it's not technically a tax won't be much consolation. The price tag over 10 years: $1.4 trillion.

Medical Device Fee. The Senate Finance Committee's healthcare-reform legislation – the so-called "Baucus bill" – proposes a tax on medical devices. Ironically, the "fee" will increase the cost of medical care, which is the very problem healthcare reform is ostensibly meant to redress. Foster warns employers may react to higher insurance costs by cutting workers' wages. Price Tag: About $30 billion over the next decade, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Fee on Brand-Name Drugs. The Baucus bill would raise $1.7 billion annually by imposing a fee on those who manufacture or import "branded," i.e., non-generic, drugs. Again, these fees, although not defined as a tax, will increase the cost of healthcare to consumers and insurance companies. According to Douglas W. Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, it's a given that consumers will foot the bill for the various fees in healthcare reform. "Those fees would increase costs for the affected firms," Elmendorf wrote in a Sept. 22 letter to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., "which would be passed on to purchasers and would ultimately raise insurance premiums by a corresponding amount." Price Tag: $17.2 billion over 10 years.

The so-called "Bo-Tax." This proposal would slap a 10 percent excise tax on cosmetic procedures, such as cosmetic implants or Botox injections. Price tag: About $11 billion over the next decade, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. It remains to be seen whether the Bo-Tax will be included in the final version of the legislation to be voted on by the Senate.

Soda Tax. When CNBC's John Harwood asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in May if Congress would consider levying a "soda tax" to raise money for healthcare reform, she replied "Everything [is] on the table." Since then, the idea of a soda tax has gained momentum. In September, several leading health experts endorsed a soda tax, saying it would help curb the nation's growing obesity problem.

Look for the soft-drink companies and the American Beverage Association to fight it. "I have never seen it work where a government tells people what to eat and what to drink," Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent recently told a Rotary Club audience, according to Bloomberg.com. "If it worked, the Soviet Union would still be around."

Any tax on soda would encounter tough resistance from lobbyists on Capitol Hill. Both The New York Times and doctors writing in the New England Journal of Medicine have called for a 1-cent-per-ounce tax on soda. The soda tax isn't in the current versions of the health-care reform legislation, but will probably resurface. In a recent edition of Men's Health magazine, Obama remarked: "I actually think it's an idea that we should be exploring." Price Tag: According to the publisher of the Beverage Digest trade publication, John Sicher, a 1-cent-per-ounce tax would raise $13 billion annually. But any soda tax faces an uphill legislative battle. If it does pass, insiders say, it would almost certainly cost less than a penny an ounce. "I think that a tax by any other name is still a tax," Sicher tells Newsmax. "If money goes from an individual's pocket into the public coffers, it sounds like a tax, and therefore it probably is a tax."

Even without the soda tax, these items add up to a "stealth tax bill" on Americans of over $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years – most of it stemming from the indirect costs of energy cap and trade. Of course, how many of these proposals make their way into law remain to be seen.

There's one group that won't be surprised to learn Uncle Sam is reaching deeper and deeper into its citizens' pockets: Voters. In August, a Gallup poll reported that 68 percent of them believed their federal income taxes would be higher by the time Obama's first term is completed. Of those, 35 percent expected their taxes to be "a lot higher."

Similarly, The New York Times stated in a recent editorial: "The question then is not whether taxes must go up, but when, how, and how much."

By current estimates, the budget deficit will reach $9 trillion in the next 10 years. Most economists consider that level of debt unsustainable.

Norquist says it's no surprise that those making less than $250,000 will feel the pinch of higher taxes and fees.

"There aren't enough rich people to fund his fantasies," Norquist says of Obama. "So he goes to the middle class and loots them. But because he said he wouldn't, he has to play the game of calling it something else."

Brad Schiller, a professor of economics at the University of Nevada, Reno, tells Newsmax it would be a mistake to strictly limit the economic discussion to taxes.

"I would say the cost burden on business and households in whatever form is a reduction on their income," Schiller says. "So we shouldn't focus exclusively on taxes. We should also look at fees and higher costs."

Schiller believes the added taxes, fees, and costs discussed so far will not represent a significant drag on the economic recovery in the next four years. In fact he calls them "barnacles on a boat," pointing out that major programs such as healthcare are phased in over a period of years anyway.

In the longer term, however, he says taking more money from consumers is "worrisome," because higher taxes and other costs inevitably hurt productivity.

Of more immediate concern, he says, are the higher interest rates that will be triggered by government borrowing and the deficit. Those factors "are going to be what really slows the boat down," he says. And he expects those factors to begin to come into play next year.

Other changes in the tax code are probably in store as well, and none of them is likely to help the economy. President Obama has called for raising the capital gains tax from 15 percent to 20 percent. He also wants to kill the Bush tax cuts that benefited those in the higher income brackets, who disproportionately shoulder the nation's tax burden. And Obama wants to eliminate a provision that allows U.S. corporations to defer paying taxes on overseas profits, as long as the money remains offshore. Once those profits return home to the United States, they are subject to the 35 percent U.S. corporate tax rate, one of the highest in the world.

All of those taxes and fees, however, would pale in comparison to a value-added tax (VAT), which would be similar to a national sales tax on consumption.

Value-added taxes are a common feature of the Western European societies that the globalists in the Obama administration appear to admire so much. John Podesta, the co-chairman of Obama's transition team and founder of the Center for American Progress, recently floated a trial balloon by telling Bloomberg Television that a value-added tax is more plausible than ever before due to the high deficit.

Former Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Altman suggests the VAT could raise $400 billion per year from taxpayers. And everyone would pay for the tax, regardless of their income bracket.

Comments Reuters columnist James Pethokoukis: "Obama's campaign promise to not raise taxes on households making less than $250,000 a year was always considered a joke here inside the Beltway…. Maybe it was a joke inside the campaign, too."

OMB director Orszag recently confirmed that he's currently looking for additional ways to narrow the budget deficit in the president's 2011 budget.

Does that mean the administration would consider imposing new taxes on those earning less than $250,000 a year?

The Wall Street Journal asked Orszag that question. He replied: "We're in the midst of putting together the 2011 budget, and we'll have more to say about that later."

Orszag's response led the Journal to advise its readers: "Hide the children."

How much is too much for you??

Quote

Dems Turn Back GOP Health Bill Tax Amendments

Thursday, October 1, 2009 4:10 PM

Article Font Size


WASHINGTON -- Rejecting Republican amendments, Democrats turned back GOP efforts to cast the health care overhaul as a tax hike on the middle class Thursday, as a crucial Senate panel aimed to wrap up debate on the measure by nightfall.

The outcome increasingly appeared inevitable with Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., declaring he had the votes for approval of the bill embracing President Barack Obama's priorities of extending coverage to the uninsured and holding down spiraling medical costs.

The final committee vote probably won't happen until next week so senators and the Congressional Budget Office have time to review the legislation. The full Senate and House are to take it up later this month.

The legislation would dramatically reshape the U.S. heath care system, extending coverage to about 95 percent of Americans, making carrying insurance a requirement for the first time, providing subsidies to help poorer people buy health plans and barring insurance industry practices like dropping coverage for sick people.

A new purchasing exchange, or marketplace, would let people shop for and compare insurance plans that would be required to meet certain standards. Baucus' bill leaves out a new government-run insurance plan _ opposed by Republicans _ to compete with private companies.

Republicans argued on Thursday that taxes the bill proposes on people who don't comply with the new mandate to buy health insurance would break Obama's promise to shield families making under $250,000 a year from tax hikes. The fees could rise as high as $1,900 for households that don't buy coverage.

"There are going to be a lot of people whose taxes are increased by this legislation," said Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho. That would violate "the promise and the pledge the president has made to the American people," he contended.

Democrats replied that the bill actually amounted to a $40 billion tax cut for Americans over 10 years since it provides for credits to help lower income people buy coverage.

"This is a message amendment," said Baucus, contending that offerings by Crapo and Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., were designed to make arguments against the bill, not improve it.

"What you're saying is you want to gut the president's program. More than that, you want to gut health reform," Baucus said.

The Crapo and Ensign amendments would have provided that individuals making less than $200,000 a year and families making less than $250,000 would be exempt from some of the fees in the bill. Both failed 12-11, with moderate Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas joining all 10 committee Republicans to vote "yes."

Another Ensign amendment _ to limit the impact of a new tax on high-value insurance plans that is the bill's main financing mechanism _ also failed on a 12-11 vote. This time Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., joined Republicans in voting "yes." Her state is home to major labor unions that oppose the tax because they fear members' health plans would be affected.

The back-and-forth came after Baucus opened the committee's seventh day of work by announcing he hoped to complete debate by the end of the day, opening the way for Democratic leaders to bring the historic legislation to the floors of both the House and Senate as early as mid-October.

Still, two weeks before the projected start of debate, key decisions are yet to be made.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid must decide, for example, whether to include a government insurance option, a provision sought by liberals who argue it would subject private insurers to much-needed competition.

Legislation that cleared the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee earlier in the year includes the so-called public option, but the Finance Committee twice rejected proposals along those lines this week. The Finance bill has nonprofit cooperatives instead.

"I favor a public option. We're going to do our very best to have a public option. But remember, a public option is a relative term," Reid, D-Nev., said Thursday. Several senators are floating compromises.

There is no uncertainty on the issue in the House, where Pelosi has said a public plan will be included in legislation that goes to the floor.

Democrats in both houses still are struggling to find ways to hold down the cost of the overhaul legislation while assuring quality health coverage for millions of lower-income individuals and families.

In the House, the issue has been the subject of closed-door negotiations in recent days, as Democratic leaders try to reduce the cost of their bill to the $900 billion over 10 years set by Obama.

In the Senate, Finance Committee Democrats worked privately on the same issue.

One proposal under consideration, advanced by Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., would allow subsidies ticketed for lower-income uninsured to flow to the states. The states, in turn, would negotiate with private insurers to provide coverage for the target population.

Olympia Snowe of Maine is the only GOP Finance Committee senator whose vote is in doubt, and she has yet to tip her hand. While she has voted with Democrats on some key tests she has also sided with fellow Republicans on other contentious issues.

On Wednesday, Obama lobbied reluctant Democrats by phone to support the Finance Committee measure.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Dude, this is NOT about health care.......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

So, which Obama do you believe?

Quote

Read Obama's Lips: When is a Tax Hike not a Tax Hike?

Thursday, October 1, 2009 6:14 PM

By: David A. Patten Article Font Size

Faced with delivering a "stealth tax bill" of more than $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years, Democrats are trying to spin the promises that President Obama made during the campaign.

When Sen. John McCain warned voters Obama was going to raise their taxes, the media accused him of distorting Obama's positions. Now it looks like McCain did distort Obama's intentions – by way underestimating just how much the president would boost people's expenses.

Democrats are suggesting Obama's pledge not to raised taxes "one dime" on those earning less than $250,000 really only referred to income taxes. So any other tax hike or fee would be fair game.

One small problem with this formulation, however -- it's not what the president said.

So when it comes to the president's promises on taxes, let the record speak for itself:

On the Campaign Trail

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 per year, will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." – Candidate Barack Obama, Sept. 12, 2008, Dover, N.H.

First Obama-McCain Debate

"My definition -- here’s what I can tell the American people: 95 percent of you will get a tax cut. And if you make less than $250,000, less than a quarter-million dollars a year, then you will not see one dime’s worth of tax increase." -- Candidate Barack Obama, Sept. 26, 2008, Oxford, Miss.

Biden-Palin Vice Presidential Debate

"No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama's plan will see one single penny of their tax raised whether it's their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax. And 95 percent of the people in the United States of America making less than $150,000 will get a tax break." -- Vice President Joe Biden, Oct. 2, 2008, St. Louis, Mo

Second Obama-McCain Debate

"So let's be clear about my tax plan and Sen. McCain's, because we're not going to be able to deal with entitlements unless we understand the revenues coming in. I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans, 95 percent.

"If you make less than a quarter of a million dollars a year, you will not see a single dime of your taxes go up. If you make $200,000 a year or less, your taxes will go down.

"Now, Sen. McCain talks about small businesses. Only a few percent of small businesses make more than $250,000 a year. So the vast majority of small businesses would get a tax cut under my plan." -- Candidate Barack Obama, Oct. 7, 2008, Nashville, Tenn.

Third Obama-McCain debate

"What I've said is I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans, 95 percent. If you make more -- if you make less than a quarter million dollars a year, then you will not see your income tax go up, your capital gains tax go up, your payroll tax. Not one dime.

"And 95 percent of working families, 95 percent of you out there, will get a tax cut. In fact, independent studies have looked at our respective plans and have concluded that I provide three times the amount of tax relief to middle-class families than Senator McCain does." -- Candidate Barack Obama, Oct. 15, 2008, Hempstead, N.Y.

Obama Speech Joint Session of Congress

"If your family earns less than $250,000 a year -- a quarter million dollars a year -- you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: Not one single dime. Not a dime. -- President Barack Obama, Feb. 24, 2009, Washington, D.C.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>Dude, this is NOT about health care.

Of course. It's about power. The GOP is out of power, and they will do anything at all to get back into power. Obama could propose a single payer system, they'd oppose it. He could propose an amendment banning any implementation of a single payer system, and the GOP would claim he wants to deny healthcare to children.

It has nothing to do with getting americans health care - it has to do with the politics of destruction.