- Joined
- Aug 7, 2009
- Messages
- 16,164
- Reaction score
- 5,060
- Location
- St Thomas, VI
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
one issue: republicans really have no interest in healthcare reform.
one issue: republicans really have no interest in healthcare reform.Ask yourselves, "How would the other side (Republicans) pay for health care reform?"
Some have proposed getting rid of social program such as Medicaid, Medicare and CHIP. I suppose if you could show there's a better, more economical way to insurer the poor, senior citizens or children, I'd be all for it. As it stands, even the leading House bill on health care reform would lower the FPL standard for Medicaid eligibility and eliminate CHIP while implimenting cost-cutting (savings) measure in Medicare. So, all three social health care programs would be affected by health care legistlation. But what Republicans are not saying is they'd take a backdoor approach to funding their health care reform legistlation.
Simply put, instead of imposing a tax on any one individual, company or industry, they'd instead tax the "cadillac policy" people would purchase...those so-called "premium policies". And who can afford such policies?
The rich, the wealthy, the financially afluent.
And yet they'd have us all believe there's class warfare taking place in the health care reform debate. Republicans won't impose a tax on the middle-class because they need their anger to help put down any form of health care legistlation proposed by the Democrats no matter how comprehensive it might be, but most important they need the middle-class vote to take power back from the Democrats. And certainly one way to do that is to continue to through these wild ideas out there of "redistribution of wealth" and "class warfare" when the truth is they intend to tax the rich just as the Democrats. Only they'll do it indirectly.
I've made mention of this intentional "slight of hand" economics before in recent posts. If you step back, take off the partisian blinders for just a moment and read what's really being proposed by both sides you'll see they're both doing it - using the rich to pay for health care reform. Only one side is being direct about it while the other side is not. Republicans won't tax you, the wealthy, directly based on your income because they can then get away with saying, "We're not going after your money." But what they will do instead is go after the things rich people buy - in this case high-end insurance policies - so they can still say, "We didn't go after your money, but they did."
So, no. Republicans may not be proposing to tax the profits of the rich directly, but they will dip into their pocketbooks and go after the things they buy instead.
Yes they do, bro. By a margin of 57 to 41.That's just it dumb dumb..... the majority don't want it, just look at the polls.
You are avoiding my question.Can anyone tell me how someone who cannot buy their own defense from other nations and groups of people has the right to have someone else be forced to provide it to him?
Yo 'bro, you can't even make sense can you?:monkeyYes they do, bro. By a margin of 57 to 41.
Kaiser Health Tracking Poll—October 2009
The October Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds public support for health reform unchanged since last month, with more in favor than opposed.
Fifty-five percent of Americans believe that it is more important than ever to take on health care reform now, while 41 percent say the country cannot afford it right now.
The survey also shows about half of the public believes that if reform passes, help for the uninsured and changes in insurance market rules would arrive within the first year, years ahead of the timetables contemplated in the legislation.
There is initial public support for a public plan option, an individual mandate and taxing insurers, but opinion is highly moveable. A continuing majority support taxing wealthy households (63%) and health insurance companies that offer the most costly policies (55%). The initial support for the insurer tax is quite malleable depending on what specific arguments are offered.
Also, 57 percent of the public say they favor the creation of a “government-administered public health insurance option,” however the poll indicates that this support dips to one-third (32%) when initial supporters are told that such plans “could give the government plan an unfair advantage over private insurance companies.” Alternatively, support for the public plan rises to two-thirds (65%) when initial opponents are told that public plans would be “a fallback that would only kick in if not enough people had affordable health plans available through the private marketplace.”
The October poll, the seventh in a series designed and analyzed by the Foundation’s public opinion survey research team, examines voters’ specific health care issue interests and experiences and perceptions about health care reform.
Kaiser Health Tracking Poll—October 2009 - Kaiser Family Foundation
Yeah and you might want to make note that he will continue to so. Internet crackpot troll.You are avoiding my question.
Ask yourselves, "How would the other side (Republicans) pay for health care reform?"
It's the stupid democrats that want to shove this crap down our throats, just wait until the next election.
Americans favor health care reform 58% to 42%, boo dog.
As you know, him no can see it. Now you know what to do with trolls right?Reform, yes... What Obama and the democrats propose, no.
Big difference pal.
Republicans advocate granting the health insurance cartel more ways to huck us over.Republicans don't advocate for a complete government takeover that would cost hundreds of billions.
Republicans advocate granting the health insurance cartel more ways to huck us over.
Considering this was the same guy who ducked both of his challenges to you to debunk his Media Matters crap, which you did, what exactly made you give him the time of day now? You thought he had become a reformed partisan hack in the meantime?I'm done with you... I'm dealing in facts, and your dealing in partisan BS.
Have a nice day.
Americans favor health care reform 58% to 42%, boo dog.
a Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard University survey conducted in May 2007 found that 55% of respondents were unwilling to pay anything more in insurance premiums or taxes to increase the number of Americans who have health insurance. A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll conducted last month found that only 25% of Americans were willing to pay $500 more per year insurance premiums for universal coverage—far less than even the most optimistic estimates of what it would cost.
David Brady and Daniel Kessler: Public Opinion and Health Reform - WSJ.com
I'm done with you... I'm dealing in facts, and your dealing in partisan BS.
Have a nice day.
You don't have to wonder, just look it up... and btw, you are comparing apples to oranges, because the republicans don't advocate for a complete government takeover that would cost hundreds of billions.
You can't really say the wealthy are being treated unequally. In a capitalist society, material power, defined as the ability to influence outcomes in socio-political networks (usually to acquire good things or cause events advantageous to you), raises exponentially, not proportionally, as wealth goes up. Charging people of different income brackets at the same rate would not be treating them equally because every bracket up increases the exponent of material power.
"Support this plan, and we'll stick it to the rich guy, so that -you- can have something for free!"
Class warfare anyone?
Can anyone tell me how someone that cannot buy their own health care has the right to have someone else be forced to provide it to him?
You can't really say the wealthy are being treated unequally. In a capitalist society, material power, defined as the ability to influence outcomes in socio-political networks (usually to acquire good things or cause events advantageous to you), raises exponentially, not proportionally, as wealth goes up. Charging people of different income brackets at the same rate would not be treating them equally because every bracket up increases the exponent of material power.
Link Here
Seems this poll finds that a majority no longer believe in equality. Or don't care as long as they get their way.
A majority supports a government-sponsored heath insurance plan to compete with private insurers.
The “public option” component of reform is an example of how details matter. Overall 53 percent in this poll favor a government-backed alternative to private insurance in general, a modest majority down a bit from 57 percent last month. But support rises sharply, to 72 percent, if the option is limited to people who do not receive insurance from an employer or through the existing Medicare or Medicaid programs, as called for in the House-passed version.
http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1096a2ObamaPoliticsandHealthCare.pdf
Being wealthy doesn't enable a person to any more voting power than it does a poor person. Therefore charging them a higher rate for the same services is unequal treatment.
First up, progressive taxes are not equitable. Pairing a higher percentage as your income grows is like a double-tax. If it was a flat rate, you would still pay more in absolute amount. Of course, there are more tax shelters and deductions the wealthier you get.
Then we will say that we don't want to tax investment. Investment is what creates growth and jobs.
So the best solution is to have a consumption tax, a flat rate on whatever you purchase. Not only individuals, but also corporations will pay this as they buy equipment and services. Washington State has an 8.8% sales tax and no state income tax.
Another internet rich guy.
:roll:
No, because once you have money it is easier to make more money,
and once you have money you can start buying up shares in valuable capital like media outlets or campaign trails or companies that can secure taxpayer money to secure their own assets for the future. Granted, there are both legal and informal processes in place to guard against the influence of successful capitalists on the micromanagement of every element of society, but a single capitalist can still exert more influence in his region (and along with other capitalists, more influence nationally and even internationally) than any single person among the middle class -- or indeed, a large group of people or whole communities.
No single economic practice consistently creates growth or jobs.
He's more like an internet rash.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?