Reply With Quote
http://www.credoaction.com/comics/TM...01original.gif
You know, debating YOUR prejudiced view of the opposition is pretty easy.
http://www.credoaction.com/comics/TM...01original.gif
You know, debating YOUR prejudiced view of the opposition is pretty easy.
It is indeed satire and exaggeration.
You do have to admit that the tactic of calling anything having to do with the goverments involvement with health care as "socialised medicine" is a pretty standard schtick, regardless of whether it is socialized or not.
The strip also called the proposed reforms half-assed, and seemed to expect that Democrats would f*** that up anyways, right?
A bit of criticism for both sides, and, I think, fair criticism.
Something needs to happen, you and I can both agree on that much at least.
Yes. Tort reform and less government interference. All insurance plans should have co-pays, but that's a free market choice.
WASHINGTON, July 14 (Reuters) - A sweeping overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system to be announced on Tuesday in the U.S. House of Representatives will include a surtax on millionaires of 5.4 percent, congressional sources said.
The tax rate is higher than the 3 percent surtax lawmakers had been discussing earlier and would be imposed on those making more than $1 million a year, the sources said.
And they wonder why people want to shelter their money. What are the details?
since when has this administration dealt with details? details schmetails. just take what comes your way and don't complain.
When will demonrats ever learn. No matter how much they tax a group of individuals, the federal revenue settles to somewhere between 18% and 18.5% average of GNP. More taxation reduces economic activity, and thus, reduces revenue.
People that earn over $1 million a year pay 45% in taxes with this new legislation.
What nobody seems to realize is this program isnt designed to cover every American, its designed to cover those Americans who do not have health insurance currently.
It would seem that me, as an employer, now has a disincentive to actually continue to offer health insurance (especially if health benefits become taxable). Why should I, as an employer, pay for health insurance to employees who could freely get it (without weekly deduction to them) without me?
This is bizarro world, where politicians think up and agree to the most inefficent methods for tackling problems they perceive as large.
Healthcare = Total disastrous approach
Cap+Trade = Total disastrous approach
At least the President and his Congress are two-for-two, I guess.
Yes, that's what 101A was concerned about. He offers healthcare as a benefit, and there won't be a point to offering such.
House health plan to boost taxes on richthat penalty bull . I'm fine with paying for my own doctors visits during the times I worked and had no insurance.The legislation calls for a 5.4 percent tax increase on individuals making more than $1 million a year, with a gradual tax beginning at $280,000 for individuals. Employers who don't provide coverage would be hit with a penalty equal to 8 percent of workers' wages with an exemption for small businesses. Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan.No it won't. It might collect that much under the program, but with less money going elsewhere in the economy, jobs will be lost, and other revenue will decrease. The federal government will still only get about 18% to 18.5% of the GNP.The tax would raise an estimated $544 billion over 10 years.It even costs $1T more than they claim they will get in revenue.The liberal-leaning plan lacked figures on total costs, but a House Democratic aide said the total bill would add up to about $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private calculations.
Are any of you lib s stupid enough to buy this?
It sucks, but it's probably going to happen. Obama is determined to put the petal to the metal on the path to financial ruin.
I was trying to find the vote when the Department of Education was formed. Thomas doesn't have easy to find records that old. The vote was 215 to 201 in the house with 277 democrats and 158 republicans. 69 to 22 in the senate with 58 democrats and 42 republicans. The of course President Carter signed it into law. I assume it was a very partisan vote, but I couldn't find the dem/rep spits.
Oh well, not only will the health care set us back likely 1/3 or more trillion a year, it will be another nearly complete democrat failure.
Maybe democrats should stop thinking about their own selfish agenda and think what's best for the hard working normal people who keep the country running and don't want their health care quality to turn to .
Granted my politicians, whom I have the same health care as, will for sure be standing in line with me.
If the government doesn't kick big pharma and insurance in the nuts, they will eat us alive.
They are eating us alive already. Letting them continue to do so is the essence of the "free market" solution, and, unfortunately, is the ostensible end of so-called health care reform as well. Either way, they'll us.
The little guy always gets screwed. Status quo or reform makes little difference. The same interests write the bills.
+1
I think we can debate all day wether a free system would work or not, but I do honestly think there are 3 things that must absolutely get done in any kind of healthcare reform: 1) Get big pharma in check, 2) Get Insurance companies in check and 3) Tort reform.
I don't think you can have an effective system, free or otherwise, if you don't seriously address those issues.
I think that healthcare, in a country as wealthy as ours, ought to not be something that any individual does not have access to. And, frankly, people are not. People are not turned away at hospitals, or ER's - and many, many bills are written off.
Of course this patchwork, hit and miss coverage is NOT efficient or reassuring for those without insurance or govt. sponsored coverage.
We ought to develop a mechanism to get coverage for the majority of them through the private sector. Bringing a govt. "compe or" into the mix will ultimately lead to that being the ONLY payor. I know Obama says that is not the goal, and that it won't.....but it will. We all know it. It may take 20 years, but eventually Congress will stack the deck in favor of that option to the point that it will be THE ONLY option.
Also, I have a fundamental problem with the conventional wisdom statement that healthcare is "TOO EXPENSIVE" in this country. Yes, it is getting more and more expensive - and we DO spend more of our GDP on it than just about any 6 other countries....but stop with the knee jerk rhetoric for a minute, and look at the numbers:
Healthcare is 17 - 18% of our economy.
Healthcare (and related industries) provides 17 - 18% of our jobs.....
SO - when Obama talks about cutting healthcare costs, what is the natural conclusion to draw about the effect that will have on the job market? Seems to me that healthcare is doing a good job of providing jobs and expanding work opportunities as many other (manufacturing anyone?) contract. You can't outsource a nurse, an insurance salesman, or his secretary, can you? There has to be Pharmasists and techs in Walgreens, right? , healthcare is about the ONLY part of our economy that's providing jobs, growing, improving (in terms of product/service advancement), etc.....why screw it up? You "cut" expenses...you cut jobs, IMO.
Once the govt. gets involved in the employer/employee healthcare system (which is the controversial party of Obama's solution) - the govt. plan will get its ass kicked. The will not underwrite properly, probably not pay efficiently, but that won't matter - insurance companys are at a distinct disadvantage in that they can't print money to make up for shortcomings in those areas - it is impossible to compete with an en y that can.
My vote for providing health care to the masses is along the lines of credit unions and co-operatives. If a co-op can provide quality electricity or phone service, why can't we have a co-op provide health insurance, or just direct health care?
If a co-op is the one providing the health care, you know that A) they won't be out to make a profit, because all profits go back to the members. B) They are probably actually going to care about you as a human, because they are in the community.
Bingo. I'd be a lot more open to the idea of a government run plan if I knew as undisputable fact that 100% of the costs of funding that plan would be bourn by those covered under the plan. A not-for-profit government insurance plan needs to be a not-for-loss one as well in order to make any sense. But that's not what we're fixing to get. The government plan will just arbitrarily charge whatever premiums they think people can afford to pay with absolutely no regard for what it actually costs to provide those services. The plan will end up operating at huge losses and the taxpayers will end up subsidizing those losses so that the plan can keep going.
It would be nice if we as a nation would have the balls to look in the mirror, recognize that we're a nation of couch potatoes and accepted our portion of the respobility we have in rising health care costs. But we'd much rather have the freedom to do as we please and make it someone else's responsibility to take care of us when we don't like where our choices led us to.
Because co-ops have to compete with other electric companies, not a government that can fire up the printing presses and print another trillion to pay for the public option and undercut private insurers.
Oh, and just wait - all those small businesses that the government is going to fine 8% for not providing health care - when this pile of crap passes they're going to do whatever they have to in order to survive, which is going to mean wage reductions and more firings.
Hope everyone is ready for their government mandated lowered standard of living. Just be sure you send your thank you card to the lord Messiah and the Demo thugs in Congress.
It won't be arbitrary. Those with jobs will pay, those without won't. This isn't about fixing health care, it's about the Dems keeping themselves in power. And what better way than to provide free health care to the idiots who keep voting for them while sticking it to the 'man' with a job and 'wealth'.
Just wait until healty able-bodied men have to sit and watch their family members, who once had great health-care, now waiting weeks or months for both simple and serious treatment.
That's about as personal an assault on an individual as government can get.
All so about 16 million people can get insurance (and have their votes bought by the Dems)...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
