Health care

skicat2001 wrote: He is a socialist and this is a socialist heatlh reform bill. The bill will "Kill" our Senior Citizens. Tax and tax more to pay the tax. But dont worry, he knows him and his liberal team, he a one term president, if he even makes that. O yea, also set up some more of them abortion clinics... A revolution is coming.. Where is Ronald Reagan when we need him..

Please..You mean in 82' when Reagan raised taxes on gasoline and cigarettes, or in 83' when he signed the biggest tax increase in payroll taxes? What about Iran Contra proud of that one too? Reagan is responsible for spreading at least 3 Trillion dollars because of his policies.

MI-nick wrote: i don't understand why no one seems to be interested in atacking the issue of why health insurance is so expensive in the first place. if costs are high and you just "cap" what you'll pay, how does that fix anything?? for example, insurance costs are high because it's costs a lot of money to go to the hospital. if it cost's $1000 to go to the hospital, capping what you'll pay at $500 reduced what you pay, but doesn't address the issue of why it costs $1000 in the first place. my guess it that doing that type of analysis is too hard so they just gave up..."we don't know why costs are high...but we have to do something". if you attack the root cause of why the cost is high and actually do something to reduce the cost (not just what you'll pay) then everybody wins. am I missing something here?? i think we need more engineers in politics....

Yup. If there is truly a concern to ensure health care is affordable and available to everyone, why is there not a focus on driving down costs? Why is the focus forcing coverage for those that don't have it now and funding it with taxpayer dollars? Why is the focus on providing government supplied benefits rather than keeping it private?

Some folks have been upset about roads, schools, etc. from their inception.

Sure, but they don't scream SOCIALISM! And I also agree with the post that MI-nick posted.

phospher wrote: Some folks have been upset about roads, schools, etc. from their inception. Sure, but they don't scream SOCIALISM! And I also agree with the post that MI-nick posted.

So do you think this whole health care bill is to try to help the people or some other motive? What's your take?

Well know they do not like to call socialist. Now they call him "Progressive Leaders", is the right way know.

Phil,
Ronald Reagan did those tax cuts to get away from unions that where tied to the goverment. He created many great things with some tax cuts, but I can gurantee the national defict was under a trillion dollars when he was president. Now this Obama coome walking in with a defict of 2.8 trillion dollars, and now is 12 trillion dollars. He a big spender.. NR!

Okie Boarder wrote: Some did. Many didn't understand what socialism is and does, nor did they recognize what was happening as such. Maybe what we're seeing today is a result of folks being a little more enlightened and outspoken and realizing that trusting the government is a bad idea, like our founding fathers were trying to teach us and prevent.

You so right!

phospher wrote: Please..You mean in 82' when Reagan raised taxes on gasoline and cigarettes, or in 83' when he signed the biggest tax increase in payroll taxes? What about Iran Contra proud of that one too? Reagan is responsible for spreading at least 3 Trillion dollars because of his policies.

Reagan did all he could with two liberal Dem congresses; so he pushed some of the tax burdon downstream, then everybody had a stake in the spending the congress really wanted to do.
Oh, you forgot winning the cold war and starting the biggest nukler' arms reductions the world had seen, resulting in Eastern Europe's rapid prosperity and security since its no longer a future DMZ for the day after.
Its all how you look at it, but we can pull-eeze back and forth all day long on this one.

It did not hit trillions until Bush.. His final year in congress..

I love liberals..

Now remind me a minute...not a big history or government guy here, but understand basic economics.

Surplus will occur when either spending is reduced or revenues are increased, right? Which one occurred during the Clinton years and why?

And folks wonder why the rich are taking their business and their money to other countries. The rich do not have to get a job in their neighborhood. They can take it anywhere. When they recieve a tax cut, every study shows that they invest the money, and end up paying an even higher proportion of the income taxes. All the talk about more taxing of the rich, is BS. The rich pay far more than their fair share. But, they are not without limits. They will not tolerate it forever. If the 95% of Americans who do not pay the majority of the taxes, keep trying to add taxes to the 5% of Americans who do pay the majority of taxes there will be consequences, and it will not be the rich who are suffering. You cannot tax others to create your own prosperity.

See one example article below. BKH

July 29, 2009

Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%

by Scott A. Hodge


Newly released data from the IRS clearly debunks the conventional Beltway rhetoric that the "rich" are not paying their fair share of taxes.

Indeed, the IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act.

Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago.

To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined.

Some in Washington say the tax system is still not progressive enough. However, the recent IRS data bolsters the findings of an OECD study released last year showing that the U.S.—not France or Sweden—has the most progressive income tax system among OECD nations. We rely more heavily on the top 10 percent of taxpayers than does any nation and our poor people have the lowest tax burden of those in any nation.

We are definitely overdue for some honesty in the debate over the progressivity of the nation's tax burden before lawmakers enact any new taxes to pay for expanded health care.

why do people live longer under so called socialized medicine? and for half the price?
the rich and the poor are another discussion, most of the rich in this country is old money handed down, granted, there are the rich who work very hard but too again dont blink an eye spending a thousand a month on healthcare and i feel they should be taxed more, alot of the 134 million notice when gas shoots up to 4.00 bucks a gallon or if thier premiums go up 200 or 300 a month, and this could cause bankrupcy, these are the people living paycheck to paycheck. is it fair? who is to say? the rich get to a point to where thier money will work for them merely by investments with alot of inside help. take the Annhieser Busch family, divide up 52 billion amongst a long family line and investors, per thier advisors its re-invested and big money makes big money. chances are the grandchildren and thier children will never have to work a day in thier life, is that fair or is it pure luck that they are born into that bloodline...should that bracket pay more taxes than the poor man scraping a meager living? probably yes

BTW, have you ever been around a truly rich person? they treat you like a servant, you are below them, and i really dont care for the rich...so tax the fck out of them...lol