Obama Health Plan to tax the rich

PearlJain

Gern - ( still haven't figured out this websight) -
Look dude, perhaps you do have it all figured out. I'm not trying to stir up a hornet's nest or anything. I certainly don't think anyone posting here is evil by any means. Just educate yourself and draw your own conclusions. Have a good one, dude! :shock:

jlew24asu

Gern Blansten wrote:

heh....actually what is scary is that I know what I'm talking about and there's like only 5 of us

lol and people accuse me of being the arrogant one around here? wow

Gern Blansten

PearlJain wrote:

Gern - ( still haven't figured out this websight) -
Look dude, perhaps you do have it all figured out. I'm not trying to stir up a hornet's nest or anything. I certainly don't think anyone posting here is evil by any means. Just educate yourself and draw your own conclusions. Have a good one, dude! :shock:

That's my point...I did educate myself. Now educate YOURself

PearlJain

SundaySilence wrote:

SundaySilence wrote:

"Enough is enough" lends itself to the sentiment that your not happy with the current situation and you don't want things to get worse. You seem to be referring to the American tax policy as wrong, not right.

But its perfectly reasonable to look at our own history, or beyond our borders to similar cultures with similar values for perspective.

jlew24asu wrote:

all true.

so you agree...

jlew24asu wrote:

and what I dont want is higher taxes for anyone. I want lower taxes with less loopholes. find me another country that does that and I'll be happy to agree.

...but you're not happy about it...how about Mexico...

happy now?

But if you look at the most successful

I'm not really much into the "Robin Hood" theory (Nancy Pelosi - while her state of California continues to tank). Continue to take from the rich and give to the "poor." Some people really sit up and actually take notice with this particular "bill of goods." Any takers? If so - I really have a bridge I would like to sell ya.

PearlJain

Gern Blansten wrote:

PearlJain wrote:

Gern - ( still haven't figured out this websight) -
Look dude, perhaps you do have it all figured out. I'm not trying to stir up a hornet's nest or anything. I certainly don't think anyone posting here is evil by any means. Just educate yourself and draw your own conclusions. Have a good one, dude! :shock:

That's my point...I did educate myself. Now educate YOURself

Now your just asking for it. Whatever, dude. I'm not taking the bait. Argue with someone else.

Anon

jlew24asu wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

what loopholes are you referring to?

deductions among other things. I support lower taxes across the board, or a flat tax. I think the government would make more money and people would have more in their pockets.

I dream about a flat tax.

jlew24asu

JB811 wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

what loopholes are you referring to?

deductions among other things. I support lower taxes across the board, or a flat tax. I think the government would make more money and people would have more in their pockets.

I dream about a flat tax.

not sure how you can get more fair then that. I honestly believe it will encourage people to work harder to make more money because they will be able to keep more. and the government will make more because all the loopholes will be closed. seems like a no brainer

Gern Blansten

A flat tax or National sales tax is horribly unfair to the poor....doesn't work in our economy

Anon

Gern Blansten wrote:

A flat tax or National sales tax is horribly unfair to the poor....doesn't work in our economy

Why because then they buy what they can afford and not live above their means?

Gern Blansten

JB811 wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

A flat tax or National sales tax is horribly unfair to the poor....doesn't work in our economy

Why because then they buy what they can afford and not live above their means?

no...because they currently pay no income tax so you would force them to pay a tax that our current system says they don't make enough to warrant paying

decides2dream

mca47 wrote:

1%?!?! :shock:

I sure hope it doesn't put them on the streets!

this is, by far, the best post on this thread.
i meant to comment the other day, b/c i seriously laughed my ass off when i read it...but i was running....
really good stuff.



i am sure the extra $100 a month my husband and i now have to shell out for our joint health insurance due to costs.....deductibles/premiums being raised AGAIN....will hurt out bottomline a helluva lot more than 1% on someone earning 350,000+ a year.


and yea, i get it....but they have no 'choice' in it. will neith do i fucking' do!
nor the countless people who cannot AFFORD any coverage. plenty of people who work hard every day, just happen to work for companies who don't offer ANY coverage, etc. i am just sick and tired of everyone just assuming it's the 'lazy' looking for a 'free ride'....get the fuck over it. those 44 million uninsured? yea... a LOT of em, probably most of em...work 'harder' than many of us, but a lot less fortunate. american citizens like you or i....just a lot less fortunate. yea...the MAJORITY of us are just a layoff away from being uninsured.....and gawd forbid something happned to us then....please.

Anon

Gern Blansten wrote:

JB811 wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

A flat tax or National sales tax is horribly unfair to the poor....doesn't work in our economy

Why because then they buy what they can afford and not live above their means?

no...because they currently pay no income tax so you would force them to pay a tax that our current system says they don't make enough to warrant paying

So they shouldn't pull their own weight?

_

JB811 wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

JB811 wrote:

Why because then they buy what they can afford and not live above their means?

no...because they currently pay no income tax so you would force them to pay a tax that our current system says they don't make enough to warrant paying

So they shouldn't pull their own weight?

How is working your ass off for low wages and no healthcare so others can become rich off the fruits of your labor not pulling your own weight?

Let's look at them as work animals, if you prefer, since that might fit more in line with some people's attitudes about the working poor..... If you had a mule to help plow your fields, would you not provide for its health... just, if nothing else, to help secure your own profits? Even if it doesn't make moral/humanitarian sense to some people, it should make economic sense.

SundaySilence

jlew24asu wrote:

SundaySilence wrote:

...but you're not happy about it...how about Mexico...

happy now?

what about Meixco? I'm not familiar with their tax system.

In 2003 Mexico collected 19.5% of GDP, lowest of the thirty countries surveyed by the OECD.
Compare to 24.2% in the US.

jlew24asu wrote:

SundaySilence wrote:

But if you look at the most successful economies in history you will find progressive taxation and moderate redistribution of wealth.

such as?

G8

or if you prefer in the US, the greatest period of sustained economic growth in history occurred for the thirty years after WWII when marginal rates were at their highest

jlew24asu wrote:

also, define "moderate redistribution of wealth"

New Deal economics

soulsinging

scb wrote:

JB811 wrote:

So they shouldn't pull their own weight?

How is working your ass off for low wages and no healthcare so others can become rich off the fruits of your labor not pulling your own weight?

Let's look at them as work animals, if you prefer, since that might fit more in line with some people's attitudes about the working poor..... If you had a mule to help plow your fields, would you not provide for its health... just, if nothing else, to help secure your own profits? Even if it doesn't make moral/humanitarian sense to some people, it should make economic sense.

Why would you bother to do that. There are so many unskilled peasants out there that if a few of them drop dead from lack of health care, they're easily and cheaply replaced. It's far more cost effective to just replace them once you've used them up than provide for their long term health. Geez, you act like the workers have some intrinsic value as fellow humans or something. Fucking hippy.

jlew24asu

soulsinging wrote:

Why would you bother to do that. There are so many unskilled peasants out there that if a few of them drop dead from lack of health care, they're easily and cheaply replaced. It's far more cost effective to just replace them once you've used them up than provide for their long term health. Geez, you act like the workers have some intrinsic value as fellow humans or something. Fucking hippy.

I'd be willing to bet you are serious here. you'd be perfectly fine with a few lazy ignorant red necks from the south being passed by for free healthcare. or were you just kidding then

soulsinging

jlew24asu wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

Why would you bother to do that. There are so many unskilled peasants out there that if a few of them drop dead from lack of health care, they're easily and cheaply replaced. It's far more cost effective to just replace them once you've used them up than provide for their long term health. Geez, you act like the workers have some intrinsic value as fellow humans or something. Fucking hippy.

I'd be willing to bet you are serious here. you'd be perfectly fine with a few lazy ignorant red necks from the south being passed by for free healthcare. or were you just kidding then

Partly. The argument that it's in the interests of the rich to keep workers healthy doesn't work, because it isn't. It's cheaper for them to replace dead workers than it is to pay to keep them healthy. From the capitalist perspective, workers are cheap, fungible goods. It's not like a mule, they're more easily replaced than a mule. Though I do agree with her contention that low-paid unskilled workers pull their weight plenty by virtue of the labor they do that makes the rich get rich, so I agree with scb that it's absurd to act like those workers aren't pulling their weight and thus should just be left without health care if they can't afford it.

As to rednecks, I take the same approach to them that I do to the urban poor... just because some are lazy or ignorant is not grounds to deny them all health care because you're hurting many people that are decent and work very hard. That's the difference between me and conservatives. I'm ok with a few douchebags getting a free ride if it ensures that the decent are taken care of. People are always going to abuse systems. But for conservatives, it really chaps their ass if even ONE loser gets a free ride... it gives them fits! And they'd rather fuck over a broad segment of good, hard-working people than ever run the risk of a loser getting a free ride. Better a hundred innocent victims than one scumbag getting a windfall. They take the same approach to criminal justice and the death penalty.

_

Quick point of clarification: Rednecks get their name from having red necks from working in the fields all day.... so "lazy redneck" is an oxymoron. Just sayin'....

tybird

jlew24asu wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

Why would you bother to do that. There are so many unskilled peasants out there that if a few of them drop dead from lack of health care, they're easily and cheaply replaced. It's far more cost effective to just replace them once you've used them up than provide for their long term health. Geez, you act like the workers have some intrinsic value as fellow humans or something. Fucking hippy.

I'd be willing to bet you are serious here. you'd be perfectly fine with a few lazy ignorant red necks from the south being passed by for free healthcare. or were you just kidding then

Ignorance and Red Necks are not exclusively Southern phenomenon....as for Mr. SS...his tongue appears to have been planted firmly in his cheek....that being said, the idea or view that he has presented is probably how many capitalists barons really view the workforce. I know this from studying our nation's history and experiencing life on the factory floor. Everyone should be required to spend some time in retail and working in a factory. It can make you a better person. :twisted:

_

What's most likely to bankrupt you?

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourHealth/whats-most-likely-to-bankrupt-you.aspx?page=1

Medical problems caused 62% of all personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. in 2007, according to a study by Harvard researchers. And in a finding that surprised even the researchers, 78% of those filers had medical insurance at the start of their illnesses, including 60.3% who had private coverage, not Medicare or Medicaid.

Medically related bankruptcies have been rising steadily for decades. In 1981, only 8% of families filing for bankruptcy cited a serious medical problem as the reason, while a 2001 study of bankruptcies in five states by the same researchers found that illness or medical bills contributed to 50% of all filings.

This newest, nationwide study, conducted before the start of the current recession by Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler of Harvard Medical School, Elizabeth Warren of Harvard Law School and Deborah Thorne, a sociology professor at Ohio University, found that the filers were for the most part solidly middle class before medical disaster hit. Two-thirds owned their homes, and three-fifths had gone to college.

But medically bankrupt families with private insurance reported average out-of-pocket medical bills of $17,749, while the uninsured's bills averaged $26,971. Of the families that started out with insurance but lost it during the course of illnesses, medical bills averaged $22,658.

"For middle-class Americans, health insurance offers little protection. Most of us have policies with so many loopholes, co-payments and deductibles that illness can put you in the poorhouse," said lead author Himmelstein. "Unless you're Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy."

The study underscores President Barack Obama's arguments in calling for health care reform legislation this year. In a recent letter to Democratic Senate leaders, the president said: "Health care reform is not a luxury. It's a necessity we cannot defer. Soaring health care costs make our current course unsustainable. It is unsustainable for our families, whose spiraling premiums and out-of-pocket expenses are pushing them into bankruptcy and forcing them to go without the checkups and prescriptions they need."

The study was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and published online by The American Journal of Medicine. It will appear in the Journal's August print edition. The researchers examined the court records of a random sample of 2,314 bankruptcy filings across the nation during early 2007 and contacted those filers for written explanations. The researchers then followed up with extensive phone interviews of 1,032 of those filers.

They found that a number of medical factors contributed to a family's financial disaster. More than 90% of medically related bankruptcies were caused by high medical bills directly or medical costs that were so high the family was forced to mortgage their home. The remaining 8% went bankrupt because a medical problem caused them to lose income.

The authors were not able to track credit card defaults caused by medical bills, but a 2007 study found that, of low- and middle-income households with credit card debt, 29% used their plastic to pay off medical expenses.

Individuals with diabetes, one of the most common chronic diseases in the U.S., and those with neurological illnesses such as multiple sclerosis had the highest costs, an average of $26,971 and $34,167, respectively. Hospital bills were the largest single expense for half of all medically bankrupt families.

Woolhandler, an advocate of a single-payer health care system, said lawmakers in Washington should reconsider health care reform in light of the study.

"Covering the uninsured isn't enough," she said. "Reform also needs to help families who already have insurance by upgrading their coverage and assuring that they never lose it."

This article was reported by Catherine Arnst for BusinessWeek.

Published July 15, 2009