Obama Embarrasses Republicans by Pointing Out That They're Playing Politics
- Thread starter ib1yysguy
- Start date
C
Cancel4
Guest
Massachusetts has tried health care reform - with a Republican governor. Did you call his plan "socialist"?
red states rule
New member
and where states do have it - it has failed
Look at this example from the blue state of
Now Dems want to take it nation wide
Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon
Terminally Ill Denied Drugs for Life, But Can Opt for Suicide
The news from Barbara Wagner's doctor was bad, but the rejection letter from her insurance company was crushing.
The 64-year-old Oregon woman, whose lung cancer had been in remission, learned the disease had returned and would likely kill her. Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay.
What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50.
"It was horrible," Wagner told ABCNews.com. "I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die. But we won't give you the medication to live."
Critics of Oregon's decade-old Death With Dignity Law -- the only one of its kind in the nation -- have been up in arms over the indignity of her unsigned rejection letter. Even those who support Oregon's liberal law were upset.
The incident has spilled over the state border into Washington, where advocacy groups are pushing for enactment of Initiative 1000 in November, legalizing a similar assisted-death law.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1
christiefan915
Catalyst
I haven't ignored anything. I asked you or somebody to break down the number to show what every individual would be expected to pay. For instance, my governor wants to raise the state income tax from 3.07% to 3.57%. I know exactly how those numbers affect my paycheck. I want to know what percentage of tax for government-funded health care would affect my paycheck, and how it will compare to the employee contribution now being deducted for the company's plan. You, on the other hand, seem unwilling or unable to address this point. I don't know how you pay for health coverage but believe me, those of us who fork over megabucks are very interested in the answer.
red states rule
New member
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
C
Cancel4
Guest
Too bad your puny minority can't stop what's coming because you don't have the votes.
The people want health care reform, and they will get it this year.
The people want health care reform, and they will get it this year.
red states rule
New member
I have given you the numbers dear - you are the one who wont accept them.
Try this - but don't be shocked - I pay for my healthcare ins out of my PAYCHECK! I earn the benefit my WORKING for a living
I do not expect you or anyone else to pay for my health ins
red states rule
New member
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
C
Cancel4
Guest
111th Congress (2009-2011)
Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (40 seats)
Other Parties: 1 Independent; 1 Independent Democrat
Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (40 seats)
Other Parties: 1 Independent; 1 Independent Democrat
christiefan915
Catalyst
Since your numbers didn't answer my question, I went to the Tax Foundation and found this:
"The latest proposal—one of several floated on Capitol Hill in the past few days and the third analyzed by the Tax Foundation since Friday—would impose a surtax of 1 percent on married couples with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) between $350,000 and $500,000 (singles between $280,000 and $400,000); 1.5 percent on couples with incomes between $500,000 and $1 million (singles earning between $400,000and $800,000); and 5.4 percent on couples earning more than $1 million (singles beyond $800,000).
The Tax Foundation released an initial report Friday based on another plan that had been floated that included a 4 percent surtax, as well as an updated report yesterday based on a three-tiered structured with a maximum rate of 3% for couples earning more than $1 million.
The Tax Foundation released an initial report Friday based on another plan that had been floated that included a 4 percent surtax, as well as an updated report yesterday based on a three-tiered structured with a maximum rate of 3% for couples earning more than $1 million."
If I paid the surtax at their highest rate, 4%, it would be much less than I pay now for the employee deduction.
red states rule
New member
I thought uit was so simple even a aliberal could find the WSJ article - but alas I was wrong
Seems you do ot care what others pay in taxes - or small business owners - only what YOU pay
A Reckless Congress
Democrats want to ram through one of the greatest raids on private income and business in American history.
Say this about the 1,018-page health-care bill that House Democrats unveiled this week and that President Obama heartily endorsed: It finally reveals at least some of the price of the reckless ambitions of our current government. With huge majorities and a President in a rush to outrun the declining popularity of his agenda, Democrats are bidding to impose an unrepealable European-style welfare state in a matter of weeks.
Mr. Obama's February budget provided the outline, but the House bill now fills in the details. To wit, tax increases that would take U.S. rates higher even than most of Europe. Yet even those increases aren't nearly enough to finance the $1 trillion in new spending, which itself is surely a low-ball estimate. Meanwhile, the bill would create a new government health entitlement that will kill private insurance and lead to a government-run system.
Hyperbole? That's what people said when we warned about this last fall in "A Liberal Supermajority," but even we underestimated the ideological willfulness of today's national Democrats. Consider only a few of the details:
.A huge new income surtax. The bill's main financing comes from another tax increase on top of the increase already scheduled for 2011 under Mr. Obama's budget. The surtax starts at one percentage point for adjusted gross income above $350,000 in 2011, rising to two points in 2013; a 1.5 point surtax at incomes above $500,000, rising to three in 2013; and a whopping 5.4 percentage points in 2011 and beyond on incomes above $1 million.
This would raise the top marginal federal tax rate back to roughly 47% or 48%, if you include the Medicare tax and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. With the current top rate at 35%, this would be the largest rate increase outside the Great Depression or world wars.
The average U.S. top combined state-federal marginal tax rate would hit about 52%. This would be higher than in all but three (Denmark, Sweden, Belgium) of the 30 countries measured by the OECD. According to the nearby table compiled by the Heritage Foundation, taxpayers in at least five U.S. states would pay higher marginal rates even than Sweden. South Korea, which Democrats worry is stealing American jobs, would be able to grab even more as its highest rate is a far more competitive 38.5%.
House Democrats say they deserve credit for being honest about the tax increases needed to fund their ambitions. But then they also claim that this surtax would raise $544 billion in new revenue over 10 years. America's millionaires aren't that stupid; far fewer of them will pay these rates for very long, if at all. They will find ways to shelter income, either by investing differently or simply working less. Small businesses that pay at the individual rate will shift to pay the 35% corporate rate. When the revenue doesn't materialize, Democrats will move to soak the middle class with a European-style value-added tax.
Phony numbers. Democrats will have to come up with something, because even the surtax puts their bill at least $300 billion short of honest financing. The public insurance "option" doesn't even begin until 2013 and the costs are heavily weighted toward the later years, but the tax hikes start in 2011. So under Congress's 10-year budget window, the House bill is able to pay for seven years of spending with nine years of taxes. Andy Laperriere of the ISI Group estimates the bill would add $95 billion to the deficit in 2019 alone.
Then there's yesterday's testimony, from Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Doug Elmendorf, that ObamaCare's cost "savings" are an illusion. Mr. Obama claims government can cover more people and pay less to do it. But Mr. Elmendorf told the Senate Finance Committee that "In the legislation that has been reported we don't see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs."
Further on the public plan: "It raises the amount of activity that is growing at this unsustainable rate."
No matter, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is whisking the bill through House committees even before CBO has had a chance to score it in detail. As Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan put it to us, "We will not have read it, and we will not have a score of it, but we will have passed it out of committee."
A new payroll tax. Unemployment is at 9.5% and rising, but Democrats will nonetheless impose a new eight percentage point payroll tax on employers who don't provide health insurance for employees. This is on top of the current 15% payroll tax, and in addition to a new 2.5-percentage point tax on individuals who don't buy health insurance. This means that any employer with more than $400,000 in payroll would have to pay at least 25% above the salary to hire someone. Result: Many fewer new jobs, with a higher structural jobless rate, much as Europe has experienced as its welfare states have expanded.
Other new taxes, including an as yet undetermined levy on private health plans. This tax, which Democrats say could raise $100 billion or so, would make it even harder for private plans to compete with the government plan, which would already benefit from government subsidies and lower capital costs. For good measure, the House bill also gets the ball rolling on tax increases on foreign-source corporate income.
We could go on, and we will in coming days. But the most remarkable quality of this health-care exercise is its reckless disregard for economic and fiscal reality. With the economy still far from a healthy recovery, and the federal fisc already nearly $2 trillion in deficit, Democrats want to ram through one of the greatest raids on private income and business in American history. The world is looking on, agog, and wondering why the United States seems intent on jumping off this cliff.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124779717982855785.html
C
Cancel4
Guest
You lost so many votes in 2006 and 2008 precisely because you don't know how to counter the broad appeal of a Democrat party that provides a real alternative to the Republican status quo.
Demographics, the media and the evolution of political discourse aren't on your side anymore.
Add many more confident, urbane Black candidates like President Obama, and it's easy to predict which way your outmoded politics of obstructionism will lead the GOP.
I'm looking forward to another 40 years or so of Democrat dominance of government.
Demographics, the media and the evolution of political discourse aren't on your side anymore.
Add many more confident, urbane Black candidates like President Obama, and it's easy to predict which way your outmoded politics of obstructionism will lead the GOP.
I'm looking forward to another 40 years or so of Democrat dominance of government.
red states rule
New member
You will have to settle for about 4. Like with Carter and an all liberal Congress - they are overplaying and over reaching and will soon be tossed out
We are seeing the results of unchecked liberalism. Rising unemployment, soaring deficits, inflation coming back, and soon massive tax increases and expanding government
C
Cancel4
Guest
You are apparently a willing tool of the health industry lobby.
The question is why.
Don't tell me you care about the public welfare.
You seem perfectly pleased with the status quo that condemns 47 million people in America to fear, uncertainty, disease, and death.
The health care fat cats invest untold millions of dollars each year in propaganda, lobbying and bribery to deflect any reduction of their profits.
They're now seeking nothing more than to minimize the threat that reform represents to their bloated bottom line.
Profit before people is their mantra.
The health care reform debate is one of the largest lobbying efforts in history.
This fight matches a powerful, monopolistic industry that claims one-sixth of the GDP each year and is an ever-worsening drain on the federal treasury.
The intensity and volume of their scare-mongering illustrates the vampiric relationship between an obscenely profitable industry and the voters whose elected representatives will make health care reform a reality before this year is out.
Your frantic reactionary efforts to retard the march of progress are curious, since you clearly don't have the votes to defeat the President's initiative.
Why don't so-called compassionate conservatives feel any compunction about caring for their fellow men, women and children in need?
The question is why.
Don't tell me you care about the public welfare.
You seem perfectly pleased with the status quo that condemns 47 million people in America to fear, uncertainty, disease, and death.
The health care fat cats invest untold millions of dollars each year in propaganda, lobbying and bribery to deflect any reduction of their profits.
They're now seeking nothing more than to minimize the threat that reform represents to their bloated bottom line.
Profit before people is their mantra.
The health care reform debate is one of the largest lobbying efforts in history.
This fight matches a powerful, monopolistic industry that claims one-sixth of the GDP each year and is an ever-worsening drain on the federal treasury.
The intensity and volume of their scare-mongering illustrates the vampiric relationship between an obscenely profitable industry and the voters whose elected representatives will make health care reform a reality before this year is out.
Your frantic reactionary efforts to retard the march of progress are curious, since you clearly don't have the votes to defeat the President's initiative.
Why don't so-called compassionate conservatives feel any compunction about caring for their fellow men, women and children in need?
red states rule
New member
A few facts and lessons for you son
1) I do not work for the health care industry. I work for a living and earn my healthcare ins as a benefit
2) I paid over $10,000 in medical bills - I did not demand someone else pay them
3) Obama does not give a damn about "reform" it is all about power and extending more control over people. You constantly ignore what the hell is in the bill - and go off on your stupid ass bumper sticker slogans
4) The 45 million nunber you toss out is highly inflated. 20 million are ILLEGALS - will you tell the US tazpayer they have to pay for their coverage. 10 million are people who decided not to buy ins - will you FORCE them to buy Obamacare? 9 million are people who are eligible for Medicare or Mediacade but decided not to enroll - will you FORCE them to sign up for Obamacare
5) It is clear there is no need for a $3 trillion plus bullshit plan like this when there ar eonly about 5 million who want ins
Last edited:
C
Cancel4
Guest
You got yours, right?
Apparently you aren't winning many adherents with your "facts".
Health care reform will pass this year, and President Obama will sign it into law.
We have a society where the majority rules, and the rule of law is respected.
You had your chance at the ballot box last November, and despite your worst efforts, you were unable to thwart the will of the electorate.
I'm confident that you will continue to lose the contest as long as you refuse to acknowledge that America has changed.
Apparently you aren't winning many adherents with your "facts".
Health care reform will pass this year, and President Obama will sign it into law.
We have a society where the majority rules, and the rule of law is respected.
You had your chance at the ballot box last November, and despite your worst efforts, you were unable to thwart the will of the electorate.
I'm confident that you will continue to lose the contest as long as you refuse to acknowledge that America has changed.
red states rule
New member
Like you have so far - you duck the facts and it is clear you are a troll with no desire to even attempt to engage in a conversation
Like so many of the supporters of "The One" you want things your way and your way only. Any dissenting voices will be and must be ignored, shouted down, and those people smeared
C
Cancel4
Guest
You are attempting to assume an importance that your electoral results do not entitle you to.
If you refuse to get on board with the duly elected authorities carrying out the will of the voters, don't be surprised when you find yourself marginalized and ignored as irrelevant.
If you refuse to get on board with the duly elected authorities carrying out the will of the voters, don't be surprised when you find yourself marginalized and ignored as irrelevant.