Some one is going to pay for it...

OffHeGoes29

and that somebody is you....


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090803/ap_ ... us_economy

slightofjeff

"You will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."
-- Barack Obama

"Read my lips, no new taxes."
-- George Bush the First

Of course, you had to be a fool not to see this coming.

keeponrockin

Maybe this is just me as a crazy Canadian, but the majority of Canadians share the view that we don't mind paying more taxes, knowing that everybody is covered.

slightofjeff

keeponrockin wrote:

Maybe this is just me as a crazy Canadian, but the majority of Canadians share the view that we don't mind paying more taxes, knowing that everybody is covered.

That would have been a hell of a sales pitch for Barack during the campaign. Instead, he made promises anyone with a brain -- including himself -- knew he couldn't possibly keep.

"No, no ... we'll make the rich pay for ALL of it. You won't have to pay a dime."

If it sounds too good to be true ...

know1

keeponrockin wrote:

Maybe this is just me as a crazy Canadian, but the majority of Canadians share the view that we don't mind paying more taxes, knowing that everybody is covered.

If we're all going to pay for the heathcare out of our own pockets anyway - ie higher taxes - then WHY DO WE NEED THE GOVERNMENT INVOLVED?

inmytree

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

and that somebody is you....


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090803/ap_ ... us_economy

makes sense to me...what's the big deal...?

mrvedderson

i would work for free if i could have just about anything i wanted

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

politicians lie.

OffHeGoes29

inmytree wrote:

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

and that somebody is you....


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090803/ap_ ... us_economy

makes sense to me...what's the big deal...?

Well there really isn't a big deal if you don't mind paying for it. The problem I have is that we are going to pay a lot more for substandard health care. Some health care is better than no health care if you can't afford it, but for the ones who can pay for good health care, they should have an option to buy into gov. run health care or private, not pay for both.

I know we can't have the option to choose where our tax money goes all the time, but somethings I feel we should have a choice. Education and healthcare should be a choice based system. These are two important programs that I feel the government doesn't need to force people to take its substandard version of. If the money was there for good health care and education from the government, then I say thats fine. But we all know that our goverment has a horrible track record of providing and managing social servicies... i.e. Social Security and Education
Just my 2 cents

inmytree

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

inmytree wrote:

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

and that somebody is you....


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090803/ap_ ... us_economy

makes sense to me...what's the big deal...?

Well there really isn't a big deal if you don't mind paying for it. The problem I have is that we are going to pay a lot more for substandard health care. Some health care is better than no health care if you can't afford it, but for the ones who can pay for good health care, they should have an option to buy into gov. run health care or private, not pay for both.

I know we can't have the option to choose where our tax money goes all the time, but somethings I feel we should have a choice. Education and healthcare should be a choice based system. These are two important programs that I feel the government doesn't need to force people to take its substandard version of. If the money was there for good health care and education from the government, then I say thats fine. But we all know that our goverment has a horrible track record of providing and managing social servicies... i.e. Social Security and Education
Just my 2 cents

I hear you, but you are operating under the assumption that Health Care will be "substandard"...I'm not, so I don't mind chipping in...I guess I'm a glass-half-full sort of fella...

Pepe Silvia

slightofjeff wrote:

keeponrockin wrote:

Maybe this is just me as a crazy Canadian, but the majority of Canadians share the view that we don't mind paying more taxes, knowing that everybody is covered.

That would have been a hell of a sales pitch for Barack during the campaign. Instead, he made promises anyone with a brain -- including himself -- knew he couldn't possibly keep.

"No, no ... we'll make the rich pay for ALL of it. You won't have to pay a dime."

If it sounds too good to be true ...

Ralph Nader's plan to pay for a universal health care system taxed speculitve trades something like 1 or 1.5%, which between '03-'08 their markets profits increased by 2,300%. i think that sounds reasonable

slightofjeff

inmytree wrote:

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

and that somebody is you....


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090803/ap_ ... us_economy

makes sense to me...what's the big deal...?

The big deal, or at least part of it, is that when asked on the campaign trail if he'd have to raise taxes to pay for this plan, Barack was adamant they would not. "Your taxes will not raise one dime. Not one dime." The middle class was actually going to get a tax CUT. Remember that?

Eight months in, it's, "Psyche. Your taxes are probably going to go up." At least George Bush took years before reneging on his "no new taxes" pledge. Obama's done it in eight freaking months.

It's easy to say, "All politicians lie," and that's true. I'd be much more willing to give Barack a pass on this one of he hadn't run on a platform of "change" and anti-politics-as-usual.

slightofjeff

inmytree wrote:

I hear you, but you are operating under the assumption that Health Care will be "substandard"...I'm not, so I don't mind chipping in...I guess I'm a glass-half-full sort of fella...

Name one government program that ISN'T substandard.

I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever that, if you currently have medical insurance through your employer or what not, the medical care the government is going to offer you is going to be not as good. I don't think anybody could even argue that.

Longer lines. Longer waiting lists. Fewer choices. More government red tape.

If you have no insurance now, it's better than nothing. If you already have insurance, you're getting screwed.

inmytree

slightofjeff wrote:

inmytree wrote:

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

and that somebody is you....


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090803/ap_ ... us_economy

makes sense to me...what's the big deal...?

The big deal, or at least part of it, is that when asked on the campaign trail if he'd have to raise taxes to pay for this plan, Barack was adamant they would not. "Your taxes will not raise one dime. Not one dime." The middle class was actually going to get a tax CUT. Remember that?

Eight months in, it's, "Psyche. Your taxes are probably going to go up." At least George Bush took years before reneging on his "no new taxes" pledge. Obama's done it in eight freaking months.

It's easy to say, "All politicians lie," and that's true. I'd be much more willing to give Barack a pass on this one of he hadn't run on a platform of "change" and anti-politics-as-usual.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/us/po ... .html?_r=1

August 4, 2009
Obama Renews Vow of No Middle-Class Tax Increase
By PETER BAKER

WASHINGTON — The White House tried Monday to douse speculation that it might raise taxes on the middle class in violation of President Obama’s campaign promise, just a day after two of his top economic advisers left the door open to such a move to rein in spiraling deficits.

Mr. Obama told his economic team in a meeting at the White House that he intended to stand by his promise not to increase taxes on families making less than $250,000, aides said. He then sent his spokesman out to repeat that message in front of the television cameras.

“The president made a commitment in the campaign. He’s clear about that commitment, and he’s going to keep it,” said Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary.

The renewal of the promise came a day after Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and Lawrence H. Summers, director of the National Economic Council, both refused to rule out tax increases on the middle class while discussing ways to pare the deficit. The two were speaking on separate Sunday morning talk shows, venues where administration officials are usually well prepared on the official line before appearing.

“It’s never a good idea to absolutely rule things out no matter what,” Mr. Summers said on “Face the Nation” on CBS. Mr. Geithner, on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” said, “We can’t make these judgments yet about exactly what it’s going to take” to tame the deficit.

Conservative critics interpreted those comments as laying the groundwork for trying to wriggle out of Mr. Obama’s campaign pledge.

“Obama should fire Geithner and Summers,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, a group that opposes tax increases. They “went on national television and implied the president lied his way into office and that he is open to raising taxes.”

The developments come at a time when the White House and Congressional Democrats, trying to figure out how to pay for expanding health care coverage, are considering proposals to increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Some critics from the left have suggested that Mr. Obama should not limit tax increases to the rich so that a broader cross section of Americans would be invested in the new health care system, as they are in Social Security and Medicare.

But the White House is trying to fend off attacks portraying Mr. Obama as a tax-and-spend liberal. Mr. Gibbs said that he had read the transcripts from Sunday’s shows “a few times” to study what had been said and that the president had made a point of reminding Mr. Geithner and Mr. Summers of his position, but was not scolding them.

“We talked about it as an issue,” Mr. Gibbs said, but added, “This wasn’t a, you know, like ‘school is in’ type of thing.”

Mr. Gibbs seemed exasperated at repeated questions on the matter at his daily briefing.

“If you don’t trust what I’m going to tell you, I don’t know why we do this,” he said finally.

Asked why Mr. Geithner and Mr. Summers did not repeat the president’s campaign promise, he said, “They left it to me.”

inmytree

slightofjeff wrote:

inmytree wrote:

I hear you, but you are operating under the assumption that Health Care will be "substandard"...I'm not, so I don't mind chipping in...I guess I'm a glass-half-full sort of fella...

Name one government program that ISN'T substandard.

I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever that, if you currently have medical insurance through your employer or what not, the medical care the government is going to offer you is going to be not as good. I don't think anybody could even argue that.

Longer lines. Longer waiting lists. Fewer choices. More government red tape.

If you have no insurance now, it's better than nothing. If you already have insurance, you're getting screwed.

I'll name two: Medicare and Medicaid...

I know we've had this sort of conversation before...you seem to know some facts that others don't...or it could be you're assuming...I'm guessing the latter....

and you act as if private, for-profit, insurance is giving more choices and that they have no waiting lists...

Pepe Silvia

slightofjeff wrote:

inmytree wrote:

I hear you, but you are operating under the assumption that Health Care will be "substandard"...I'm not, so I don't mind chipping in...I guess I'm a glass-half-full sort of fella...

Name one government program that ISN'T substandard.

I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever that, if you currently have medical insurance through your employer or what not, the medical care the government is going to offer you is going to be not as good. I don't think anybody could even argue that.

Longer lines. Longer waiting lists. Fewer choices. More government red tape.

If you have no insurance now, it's better than nothing. If you already have insurance, you're getting screwed.

exceptm now a lot of insurance plans are worthless unless you have a major accident.....

OffHeGoes29

I've been on a government run health care while I was in the military. It would take on average up to three months before I could get seen by a Doc for a couple of serious issues. It took me over a YEAR to get an MRI on my lower back.

Now the military is out sourcing its health care to the civilian side, which if you ask me is a smart idea. They still have a lot to iron out, but the health care for military isn't near what you would get in the civilian world.

slightofjeff

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

slightofjeff wrote:

inmytree wrote:

I hear you, but you are operating under the assumption that Health Care will be "substandard"...I'm not, so I don't mind chipping in...I guess I'm a glass-half-full sort of fella...

Name one government program that ISN'T substandard.

I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever that, if you currently have medical insurance through your employer or what not, the medical care the government is going to offer you is going to be not as good. I don't think anybody could even argue that.

Longer lines. Longer waiting lists. Fewer choices. More government red tape.

If you have no insurance now, it's better than nothing. If you already have insurance, you're getting screwed.

exceptm now a lot of insurance plans are worthless unless you have a major accident.....

Not really. Do you know how much a routine dental exam costs if you don't have insurance? An eye exam? A Z-Pac prescription?

It would be cost prohibitive, for most people, to do even these routine things without insurance.

slightofjeff

inmytree wrote:

slightofjeff wrote:

inmytree wrote:

I hear you, but you are operating under the assumption that Health Care will be "substandard"...I'm not, so I don't mind chipping in...I guess I'm a glass-half-full sort of fella...

Name one government program that ISN'T substandard.

I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever that, if you currently have medical insurance through your employer or what not, the medical care the government is going to offer you is going to be not as good. I don't think anybody could even argue that.

Longer lines. Longer waiting lists. Fewer choices. More government red tape.

If you have no insurance now, it's better than nothing. If you already have insurance, you're getting screwed.

I'll name two: Medicare and Medicaid...

I know we've had this sort of conversation before...you seem to know some facts that others don't...or it could be you're assuming...I'm guessing the latter....

and you act as if private, for-profit, insurance is giving more choices and that they have no waiting lists...

You think Medicare and Medicaid are well run? Seriously? Again, they fall into the "better than nothing" category. Ask any retired senior if they'd rather have the health plan they had when they were working, and see what they say.

As for choices ... I'll give you one example ... As it stands now, I have the choice NOT to enroll in a medical program if I don't want to. Under the Obama plan, I'm forced to enroll in one, basically at gunpoint. They want to fine people for not having medical insurance, kind of like they fine drivers who don't have car insurance.

kcherub

slightofjeff wrote:

As for choices ... I'll give you one example ... As it stands now, I have the choice NOT to enroll in a medical program if I don't want to. Under the Obama plan, I'm forced to enroll in one, basically at gunpoint. They want to fine people for not having medical insurance, kind of like they fine drivers who don't have car insurance.

Hey! Just curious slightofjeff...where did you see that you would have to enroll or be fined? Are you an employer? The only thing I can find with regard to a tax/fine being imposed it for employers who self-insure and if they are not meeting certain standards of care/insurance. I just finished reading the whole damn 1017 pages this weekend, and I didn't see that for anyone other than employers who self-insure. I am not sure if I am for it or against it yet, so I am not taking sides.

Random_Wookie

at least your presdient seems to be doing something useful, even if it is going back on a campaign promisse of no new taxes. prehaps that was a promise that could not be kept. but think it could be worse you could have krudd in charge of healthcare reform, which means it will be something that will be address next term. assuming that krudd gets a next term.