Obama Health Plan to tax the rich

jlew24asu

lets just keep milkin em. its basically becoming a crime to be successful in this country.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/200 ... care_N.htm

Under the House legislation, families earning between $350,000 and $500,000 would pay an additional 1% in income tax. The new tax would increase with higher salaries so that families earning more than $1 million would pay an additional 5.4%. The tax would apply to the top 1.2% of households in the USA, according to a House Ways and Means Committee document.

Jeanwah

I'm completely OK with this.

jlew24asu

Jeanwah wrote:

I'm completely OK with this.

ok course you are. you aren't one of those who will have (more) money stolen from them

Jeanwah

jlew24asu wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

I'm completely OK with this.

ok course you are. you aren't have any (more) money stolen from you

I aren't have any money stolen from me?

jlew24asu

This bill will hurt small businesses.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124759535535340189.html

Small Business Faces Big Bite

House Health Bill Penalizes All but Tiniest Employers for Not Providing Insurance

WASHINGTON -- House Democrats on Tuesday unveiled sweeping health-care legislation that would hit all but the smallest businesses with a penalty equal to 8% of payroll if they fail to provide health insurance to workers.

The House bill, which also would impose new taxes on the wealthy estimated to bring in more than $544 billion over a decade, came as lawmakers in the Senate raced against a self-imposed deadline of this week to introduce a bill in time for action this summer.

Senators face a tougher battle because they are striving for a bipartisan bill. Key senators are weighing a combination of several more-modest fund-raising provisions, including some new fees on health-care industries.

Under the House measure, employers with payrolls exceeding $400,000 a year would have to provide health insurance or pay the 8% penalty. Employers with payrolls between $250,000 and $400,000 a year would pay a smaller penalty, and those less than $250,000 would be exempt. Certain small firms would get tax credits to help buy coverage.

The relatively low thresholds for penalties triggered the sharpest criticism yet from employer groups, who said the burden on small business is too high and doesn't do enough to help them expand insurance coverage.

"This bill costs too much, it covers too few and it has way too much government involvement," said Michelle Dimarob, a lobbyist with the National Federation of Independent Business, the main trade group for small firms. "Small business doesn't want any of those things."

jlew24asu

Jeanwah wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

I'm completely OK with this.

ok course you are. you aren't have any (more) money stolen from you

I aren't have any money stolen from me?

sorry, I my brain went faster then my fingers.

Pepe Silvia

jlew24asu wrote:

This bill will hurt small businesses.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124759535535340189.html

Small Business Faces Big Bite

House Health Bill Penalizes All but Tiniest Employers for Not Providing Insurance

WASHINGTON -- House Democrats on Tuesday unveiled sweeping health-care legislation that would hit all but the smallest businesses with a penalty equal to 8% of payroll if they fail to provide health insurance to workers.

The House bill, which also would impose new taxes on the wealthy estimated to bring in more than $544 billion over a decade, came as lawmakers in the Senate raced against a self-imposed deadline of this week to introduce a bill in time for action this summer.

Senators face a tougher battle because they are striving for a bipartisan bill. Key senators are weighing a combination of several more-modest fund-raising provisions, including some new fees on health-care industries.

Under the House measure, employers with payrolls exceeding $400,000 a year would have to provide health insurance or pay the 8% penalty. Employers with payrolls between $250,000 and $400,000 a year would pay a smaller penalty, and those less than $250,000 would be exempt. Certain small firms would get tax credits to help buy coverage.

The relatively low thresholds for penalties triggered the sharpest criticism yet from employer groups, who said the burden on small business is too high and doesn't do enough to help them expand insurance coverage.

"This bill costs too much, it covers too few and it has way too much government involvement," said Michelle Dimarob, a lobbyist with the National Federation of Independent Business, the main trade group for small firms. "Small business doesn't want any of those things."

is there any kind of credit if they do provide health insurance? while i think it should be a right to have it i think it's unfair to penalize smaller companies, especially with how rates just go up and up every year with less and less coverage, higher deductibles....and as Wendell Potter stated at the end of every year if that company had too many people actually use the insurance they raise the rates

ajedigecko

taxing the rich will not work...........wether you agree or not, the rich make this country operate.\

the rich hire people to work. if you tax the rich they become hesitant to invest and will not hire people. it is a simple formula.

decides2dream

ajedigecko wrote:

taxing the rich will not work...........wether you agree or not, the rich make this country operate.\

the rich hire people to work. if you tax the rich they become hesitant to invest and will not hire people. it is a simple formula.

i had seen this all yesterday and was waiting for the inevitable thread.


that said, i am unsure of your logic here. the rich are being taxed as individuals, if they make over $350,000 a year. and then yes, companies are also taking a hit. however, just b/c someone is a rich individual, does not necessarily mean they are in a place of power for hiring people....and even if they are.....if they have a business and need workers, they are going to hire workers.....b/c they need them. now, will they hire less workers, will they outsource more.....idk, possibly. we shall see. it also may not necessarily play out in the negaitve for the country.


i remember when the first smoking bans were put in place and how bar and restaurant owners said how much it would cripple their businesses. it didn't.



so bottomline....we shall see..........

ajedigecko

decides2dream wrote:

ajedigecko wrote:

taxing the rich will not work...........wether you agree or not, the rich make this country operate.\

the rich hire people to work. if you tax the rich they become hesitant to invest and will not hire people. it is a simple formula.

i had seen this all yesterday and was waiting for the inevitable thread.


that said, i am unsure of your logic here. the rich are being taxed as individuals, if they make over $350,000 a year. and then yes, companies are also taking a hit. however, just b/c someone is a rich individual, does not necessarily mean they are in a place of power for hiring people....and even if they are.....if they have a business and need workers, they are going to hire workers.....b/c they need them. now, will they hire less workers, will they outsource more.....idk, possibly. we shall see. it also may not necessarily play out in the negaitve for the country.


i remember when the first smoking bans were put in place and how bar and restaurant owners said how much it would cripple their businesses. it didn't.



so bottomline....we shall see..........

i agree with your statement...........we shall see. it will be interesting to see what the rich do or how they invest in human resourses or monetary resourses.

soulsinging

jlew24asu wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

I'm completely OK with this.

ok course you are. you aren't one of those who will have (more) money stolen from them

I'm ok with it and I will be one of those people in a few years. I'm already shocked at my starting pay. I don't need that extra money and if it can go to ensure that nobody in this country has to go without food or a needed doctor's visit, I'm perfectly ok with that.

soulsinging

jlew24asu wrote:

This bill will hurt small businesses.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124759535535340189.html

Small Business Faces Big Bite

House Health Bill Penalizes All but Tiniest Employers for Not Providing Insurance

WASHINGTON -- House Democrats on Tuesday unveiled sweeping health-care legislation that would hit all but the smallest businesses with a penalty equal to 8% of payroll if they fail to provide health insurance to workers.

This, on the other hand is appalling, and a perfect illustration of why national health care is a good idea... we should stop burdening businesses with taking on the health care costs of their workers.

decides2dream

soulsinging wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

I'm completely OK with this.

ok course you are. you aren't one of those who will have (more) money stolen from them

I'm ok with it and I will be one of those people in a few years. I'm already shocked it what I'm starting at, I don't need that extra money and if it can go to ensure that nobody in this country has to go without food or a needed doctor's visit, I'm perfectly ok with that.

however, jlew is correct in saying you would have NO choice in the matter either. that much is right. i happen to agree with your line of thinking, and i know of many above those thresholds, i work for a good
# of em!......and while everyone likes to keep their $$$ earned, i also believe many believe in, and support, the greater good. i believe this plan looks at who will it 'hurt' less, to take more from their income, to fill in these healthcare gaps?


and hey, i am all for all of us chipping in and paying our fair share...towards universal healthcare.
i truly believe it would be the most cost-effective system with high-quality care IF done RIGHT. and it can be done, and it has been done, in numerous countries.

hell, i see from that interview of the cigna CEO stating that our current medicaide system, the government-run/funded healthcare system, has a higher rate of patient satisfaction than private insurance. (and yes, i know financially medicare is a mess....but again, it doesn't have to be....if we remove the 'for profit' nature from the healthcare industry) and yea...i've said all this before, ad nauseum, in the other healthcare thread....so i'll try and refrain this time around. at least some.

ajedigecko

soulsinging wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

I'm completely OK with this.

ok course you are. you aren't one of those who will have (more) money stolen from them

I'm ok with it and I will be one of those people in a few years. I'm already shocked at my starting pay. I don't need that extra money and if it can go to ensure that nobody in this country has to go without food or a needed doctor's visit, I'm perfectly ok with that.

i would be ok with it if i were single and no children..............but obviously i am married and have a daughter.

what the fuck am i saying...........i will never have that much money.

jlew24asu

this program is going to destroy the value of the dollar because of the amount of money we'll need to print to pay for this.....and bring health care quality down for everyone. as well as drive up overall costs.

inmytree

jlew24asu wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

I'm completely OK with this.

ok course you are. you aren't one of those who will have (more) money stolen from them

what...? stolen...?

damn it, you mean the taxes I pay as a non-rich person is legitamet and taxes paid by the "rich" is stolen money...?

those poor rich folks... :roll:

jlew24asu

inmytree wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

I'm completely OK with this.

ok course you are. you aren't one of those who will have (more) money stolen from them

what...? stolen...?

damn it, you mean the taxes I pay as a non-rich person is legitamet and taxes paid by the "rich" is stolen money...?

those poor rich folks... :roll:

nope, the money you pay is stolen as well. the vast majority of us are over taxed.

jlew24asu

jlew24asu wrote:

this program is going to destroy the value of the dollar because of the amount of money we'll need to print to pay for this.....and bring health care quality down for everyone. as well as drive up overall costs.

sorry for the source but its probably one of the only places to give an alternative view to the media love affair with anything Obama.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07 ... are-right/

The comprehensive health care overhaul being pitched by House Democrats could lead to a cost explosion in the long-term, a preliminary analysis from the Congressional Budget Office suggests.

Meanwhile, President Obama's vision for health care reform narrowly passed its first test Wednesday, as a Senate committee became the first to act on a bill aimed at overhauling the system.

In a party-line vote that reflected deep concerns over costs, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee voted 13-10, with all Republicans on the committee opposing, to pass a $600-billion version that would expand coverage to nearly all Americans by requiring individuals get insurance and employers to contribute to the cost.

The bill would provide federal aid to families and individuals making less than four times the poverty level, or about $88,000 for a family of four.

That's just the first hurdle for one of several bills, each with fluctuating cost estimates. For the House Democrats' version, the CBO estimate tagged the 10-year cost of the plan at just over $1 trillion.

"On a preliminary basis ... the proposal's provisions affecting health insurance coverage would result in a net increase in federal deficits of $1,042 billion for fiscal years 2010 through 2019," the report said, citing additional expenses for Medicaid and other federal subsidies.

One Democratic aide said the bill would add up to $1.5 trillion over the next decade. But the CBO estimate showed that even if the price tag holds to $1 trillion, more than 80 percent of the costs will hit in the last five years. This indicates that after 2019, taxpayers could be hit with a rising tidal wave of health care expenses resulting from the shift in health care coverage from the private to public sector.

Amid those staggering estimates, advocates and foes of such a plan are facing off in a pitched battle on Capitol Hill, coinciding with the tame-by-comparison drama of Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court confirmation hearing.

"This bill has massive spending and massive tax increases to try to cover the spending in the bill," Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., said at a press conference with other congressional Republicans Tuesday, complaining about a provision in the House bill to tax the wealthy. "Half of that will be hit on small businesses."

In a fundraising appeal titled "Hillarycare revisited," the Republican National Committee warned about "Obamacare" and said the government "already runs car companies, banks and mortgage companies. Republicans believe that the last thing the American people want is government telling them when and where -- or even whether -- they can get medical treatment for their families."

On the other side of the aisle, Democrats -- though hardly in lockstep over how to achieve reform -- are escalating their call for action against a tightening timetable.

Obama, who warned Congress not to delay upon returning from his latest overseas trip, gave another pep talk to Congress on health care reform Wednesday afternoon. He said the "status quo" was unsustainable and called on Congress to "buck up" and pass legislation.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce committee, gave a similar assessment.

"We cannot allow this issue to be delayed. We cannot put it off again," he said."We, quite frankly, cannot go home for a recess unless the House and the Senate both pass bills to reform and restructure our health care system."

In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid said he wanted floor debate to begin a week from Monday. With the Senate Finance Committee still struggling to reach consensus on its own bill, that timetable could slip. Even so, it underscored a renewed sense of urgency.

Obama's political organization is launching a series of 30-second television ads on health care, which will begin airing Wednesday in Washington and on cable TV nationally. A version will run on local stations in eight states -- Arkansas, Indiana, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, North Dakota, Nebraska and Ohio -- to prod senators to back the health care effort. They will run for two weeks.

In the ads, private citizens describe problems they've had with the medical system and say it's time for action. The sponsor is Organizing for America, Obama's campaign organization, which has become part of the national Democratic Party. The group would not reveal the cost.

All involved were mindful of the dwindling days before Congress leaves town. Obama wants legislation through the House and Senate before then to slow rising costs and extend coverage to some 50 million uninsured Americans.

Under the House Democrats' plan, the federal government would be responsible for ensuring that every person, regardless of income or the state of their health, has access to an affordable insurance plan. Individuals and employers would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties. The CBO estimated that the plan would reduce the number of "nonelderly" uninsured by 37 million over 10 years.

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.

Three House committees will begin voting on the bill Thursday. Changes in the legislation are likely to satisfy a group of moderate and conservative Democrats who are withholding support.

The 1,000-page bill is unlikely to attract any Republican backing, and business groups and the insurance industry immediately assailed it as a job-killer.

The Finance Committee was striving to produce a bill by the end of the week, though the committee's chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., acknowledged it would be a challenge to meet Obama's timeline.

Commy

wealth distribution in the United States is near 1920 levels. Money's been going to the top, about time some policies start reversing that.

decides2dream

jlew24asu wrote:

this program is going to destroy the value of the dollar because of the amount of money we'll need to print to pay for this.....and bring health care quality down for everyone. as well as drive up overall costs.

if/when that happens...feel free to say i told ya so...and i am sure we'll all agree! however, if our world doesn't implode....do please realize your pov is not the absolute word on what will, or will not, occur.....;)




given that we as a country have some of the lowest taxes in the world........i am unsure what you mean there?
i may not agree as to WHERE my funds go, and i sure could think of a lot better uses for a lot of it - such as universal healthcare - but yea......we're not necessarily 'overtaxed'....at least on income.


my property taxes are insane tho!

inmytree

jlew24asu wrote:

nope, the money you pay is stolen as well. the vast majority of us are over taxed.

great, let's stop paying taxes and disband the government...those fuckers keep stealing from me...