Are these people just stupid? Let's propose $600 Billion in new taxes when the economy is in the crapper, yeah that will help everyone!

story here


I guess when you are just printing money then what the hell huh? Just give everyone in the US $1 million and call everyone a millionaire! (who cares if it would then cost $100,000.00 to get a bottle of water)

I'm a registered Democrat but I'm opposed to universal comprehensive health care.

But I am in favor of something to provide limited health care to everyone. If someone can't pay for their health care, perhaps something could be arranged for them to work it off somehow, through volunteer work etc. Something where it's not a blank check and would be mutually beneficial.

I'm against the idea of a welfare state, which this sounds similar to.

This just made my head explode...


This is already in place it’s called charity care, all hospitals are required to help you, and you’re not required to pay it back, I work for a very Large Hospital and we write off 3 to 4 million in "charity care" quarterly.
I am in favor of making them pay it back, but I am going to be blunt here most (not all) of the people that are seeking are lazy leaches and don’t want to do anything for them self’s

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

You missed my point then.

I said I am in favor of providing health care to everyone, but not for free. Anyone benefitting from health care that they can't pay money for must pay for it another way, in order to better their community, improve infrastructure, etc.

If you're unemployed and get hurt, it's fine to see a doctor and get taken care of. But maybe you need to spend the next 3 months serving meals at a local soup kitchen, or mowing the lawn in a city park, etc.

I am absolutely against giving away things for free.

Gotch ya


I agree but, lots of the ppl that come in are dead beats and have no plains on helping anybody but them selfs. If this type of thing was implemented these ppl would stop brining in there kids that really needed to see the doctor and that would have a whole new fall out.

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

I'm not sure what hospital you work at, but I've never, ever heard of a hospital not going after people for unpaid medical bills. EVER. Both my wife and I have dealt with it in the past. And the cost of unpaid medical bills in some areas are leading to hospitals having to close.

_________________

I have two outstanding medical bills from ER visits I made while I was unemployed.

They've never called me for collections, and they've never reported it on my credit history.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Shortly after I got out of the Army, I had a serious accident. I nearly died. The actual total of the hospital's bills was around $500. Not a huge amount, considering, and because I was uninsured they placed me on some "indigent" insurance plan that covered my accident. Unfortunately, they fucked it up and I had collection agencies hounding me for years afterward, despite all the proof I had that it was supposed to be covered.

A few years ago, my wife had an emergency and we weren't yet on an insurance plan. While we had every intention of paying, they never got a bill to us and we didn't hear anything about it until we started receiving collection notices. Paid it, but the fact remains that it went to collections. They didn't just "write it off."

Both occurred in California, but they were years apart and in different counties.

_________________

I am not saying that we don't try to get money, but there are ppl out there that don't care about credit and its hard to call somebody that does not have a phone and you can’t send mail to somebody with no address. So you three are not who I am talking about, in MN we have large minority communities that are poor and cannot pay or don't understand they need to pay.

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Same thing happened to my brother when he was injured at the navy shipyard here. Not nearly dying, just rolled his ankle. They gave him the runaround and probably spent a good six months trying to disprove it was a job related injury then finally caved in but we kept getting bills/notices/phone calls from insurance company.

Hospital bills drove my family growing up into bankruptcy. Trust me, those hospitals tried to collect.

I'm curious, krby--- under what circumstances would a tax increase be ok to you? Bad economy? Krby: OMG IF YOU RAISE TAXES WE'RE GOING TO DIE! Good economy? Krby: OMG IF YOU RAISE TAXES YOU ARE STEALING!

It would be ok when the government practices fiscal responsibility with the taxes it already collects. Reclaiming wasted funds is a viable alternative to increasing taxation.

so never then?

Yeah, the Federal Government never raising taxes would be a good start.

k, just so we're clear. If there will never be a time when you think it's ok for the government to raise taxes, we'll just assume it from now on. You don't have to post it every time-- we know already!

likewise we will just assume that you are willing to give everything you have to the Federal Government and become a ward of the state.

The neat difference between you and me is, there is actually evidence that I don't always want to give everything to the Federal Government on these boards. You, on the other hand, have *never* in my recollection suggested raising taxes as an option.

Until they get the reckless spending under control and take a full line by line audit of what they are taking in vs what they are spending AND cut so much of the complete crap that they continue to spend money on then no I will not support the federal government raising taxes. And don't quote your messiah about PayGo. Where the hell was PayGo when they were handing out trillions of dollars that weren't there?

what? I'm talking about ME, not my "messiah." I don't have a messiah, frankly.

Why hasn't anyone blames Bush yet?

Because it's so obvious it doesn't need to be said!

Are you one of those guys that votes every cycle based on which candidate says, "DURR TAXES R BAD"?

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm

Journalism is in such a sad state.

That is interesting because in my state Hospital bill are one of the items you can't file on.

You people are missing my point that this type of care is out there already, we dont need more we need less of it.



Yes, he was the only president in history that could do things with out the house and the senate (both run by Democrats) having a say it in.

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

charity care is great if you have no insurance and have a massive stroke . Having the preventative care in the first place to discover the high blood pressure and prevent the massive stroke, not so much.

This thread has really devolved. To get it back on the topic of the health care bill...

Now This CBO Projection Should Worry You
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_trea ... rying.aspx

The questions I have about this are:

1) I could have sworn the primary difference between Obama and Clinton during the debates was that Clinton wanted to provide insurance for all, and Obama wanted to make it cheaper and more available, but not necessarily for all. With Biden hinting at possible taxes on health care, where are the savings for people like me, who have solid coverage through work?

2) Is it worth 1.6 trillion to insure only about 2/3rds of those who don't have insurance? In the economy we're in, with our huge deficit that's only getting worse?

3) Can this even get passed? I saw polls yesterday from two sources that support for Obama's policies is eroding as people become more concerned about a host of issues, but in particular our debt. Wondering if there will be massive sticker shock, especially if the price tag on existing insurance doesn't go down significantly.

4) How do we pay for this?

Obama's plan has in it where having medical insurance is required for everyone. That alone will drive up the costs for everyone. Also the plan has the creation of a national health insurance provider that would directly compete with the private companies.

Obama's plan is the wrong way at the wrong time.

I wouldn't expect you to say anything different :p

Which is why I don't support the taxes. I believe in a single payer system with private options for those who can.



Absolutely. Again, you know I'm generally a fiscal conservative and I am all about a socialized healthcare system. There are PLENTY of bullshit cuts we can make. Corn subsidies? Solar subsidies? Hybrids? It's time to drop all three as they're losing more money than they're saving (even longterm) in adoption. This system is not that hard to pay for as long as you're willing to make the cuts in other areas that are truly not necessary.



ANYTHING can be passed if correctly marketed. Patriot Act anyone?



Along with making cuts, start legalizing pot and taxing it. Same for gambling both online and offline with a federal regulatory commission utilizing interstate commerce governance. States are still free to determine limits, in-state policy, etc. It would take some work, but it's worth it.

made me laugh

_________________

even better...

_________________

It isn't just Republicans that want to kill this beast.
(full story here)

Here is a graphic from the NYTimes on how the bill would impact NY City earners. What should be the most reveling to you is that small business owner would probably have to fire someone to pay for that portion of the health care costs. Secondly you would increase the exodus of people from NY City. (Full story supporting the graphic here)

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07162009/photos/news_graph.jpg
Leo: changed embedded graphic to link; too wide

I will continue to battle that this bill is bad.

New York Post, not NYTimes.

Am I the only one who finds it disturbing/surprising that they chose a graphic which implies the average New Yorker makes $285K? Or that someone who bakes muffins typically earns $80K/year?

I also don't have a whole lot of sympathy for the couple earning $1.5M/year, either. They don't look like they're hurting. And odds are, they already have health care. Heck, the people in the picture may already have Medicare.

See, and that's a fucking problem. Your sympathy for the poor and uninsured should NOT come at the expense of those doing well. You see that almost FIFTY percent of their income is already taxed, right? HALF. As in, Eddie Murphy in RAW, HALF. This isn't a problem for you?

People's sense of entitlement in this country is the exact problem with it. Regardless of lifestyle, that sense sure as shit isn't limited to the .5% of earners.

Honestly, we need to change the way we tax people in this country. I agree that fucking over the wealthy is a bullshit way to go. We need to institute a flat tax, and perhaps a national sales tax (excluding food, clothing, and other necessities) instead of picking the pockets of our upper class.

_________________

A flat tax I'm fine with. A national sales tax is more regressive and bad for the lower classes than you might think.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Sorry, was reading another story on the Times when I posted the Post story.

And Leo, the story was talking about who was going to be impacted the most. I would venture that the average "Wall Streeter" is making in the $285K range. It did not say average New Yorker.

What about a "luxury tax," then? Cars (beyond the second), electronics, etc.

_________________

I completely agree! And this is why I don't have a problem with higher taxes for the wealthy to help support those who need it.

Interesting....

And yet they still manage to be disgustingly wealthy!

Funny how that works, despite their pitiable lot in life, being taxed into oblivion like that.

But, Tyral, despite what the graphic says, that's the implication it's making.

Likewise, Ele, I'm talking about the graphic and the people in it. They're dressed like they're going to a country club.

Obviously, nobody wants to pay half their income in taxes, but you can't just look at one person's taxes and say there's a problem with the system as a whole.

Instead, we have to look at the big picture and ask what they're getting for their money, the effect the tax system has on the economy, and how we can find balance.

This may sound a bit like I endorse socialism but I don't in any way.

I think one of the biggest problems we have in society is we have no idea how to correctly value work. For the most part the most important jobs have the crappiest pay and some of the least important jobs pay ridiculously well. Sure some jobs take a lot more education/training/aptitude than others but 1000x the pay from the bottom of a company to the CEO is ridiculous. School teacher versus stockbroker, high school principal versus a CEO, garbage man versus a plastic surgeon.

Most salaries are based upon what the market values for that profession. I whole heartedly support the idea you should be paid based upon what your services are worth. But the market is determining worth and the market has not been doing a good job at determining value of anything lately. If you make 100+ million dollars a year you are severely over valued I don't care if that is the market rate for a top CEO or athlete even, it is ridiculous. I wish I had a solution for it but I don't. I don't know any way to bring the top down or the bottom up without some sort of wealth redistribution. I just know that with the top end continually pulling higher and the bottom end hanging like dead weight eventually something is going to snap. And it’s the middle where I live that will get snapped.

Ahh, because those who needs are entitled to it? No, no and no. Once again, I support a national health care system. NO ONE in this country should be without emergency and basic preventative care (as well as full coverage for those with severe disability). But saying you don't feel bad for higher taxes for those who are wealthy because well...they have money? That's total bullshit and a real problem with this country. The MAN is NOT holding you down (unless you're Dave Chappelle in Undercover Brother).



A success penalty? Look, I don't deny for a second the code is completely fucked, especially with regards to estates, and to a lesser degree, capital gains. That's a problem with the CODE, not the people. You don't have a problem with it because, and only because, it's not you.



Here's a start. Don't. Other people's wealth is NONE of your concern.

[quote="Elessar

Here's a start. Don't. Other people's wealth is NONE of your concern.[/quote]

I agree in principle on this but the current system is so severly out of whack and somebody sooner or later is going to have to deal with making less than they do now. The poor can't go any lower so the top will have to come down somehow.

The best way to redistribute wealth is to find something the rich want to buy and sell it to them but how do you spend a billion dollars? The interest alone generates 82k per day at 3% apr.

No

"Redistribute wealth" is like "Socialism"...some buzz word that people have been trained to hate without even being entirely sure what it is, or aware that it already exists.

Unfortunately you missed my point. It won't be popular here I'm sure, but I was talking about the sense of entitlement some wealthy people have about their money, as though they earned it completely by themselves, it's completely their own, and the society that let them get that way and gave them the tools and resources to get that way has no responsibility. You know, THAT sense of entitlement.

And as Bovinity pointed out, wealth redistribution happens every single day and always will as long as a government of any kind exists. I'm sorry it's such a horrible word for you folk's ears.

I'm no accountant, but after looking at the 2008 tax tables and doing a bit of math, someone who makes $2.5 million and doesn't itemize pays roughly 39 percent of their income in taxes. That's a far cry from the 50% most people seem to claim. Of course, my math skills could just suck.

And to be honest, people who make more money *should* pay more. They're reaping the biggest rewards from the system, so they should pay more into that system.

That's not entirely true. When a small minority holds the vast majority of a nation's wealth, it effects everyone. People holding money for the sake of holding it not only doesn't benefit anyone, it harms everyone. That absolutely makes it everyone else's concern. If they won't spend it and put it back into the system, then I'm all for government doing it for them (ideally through revamping inheritance laws).

No, it harms YOU. However, I will whole-heartedly agree in regards to inheritance. It should be taxed as income...for everyone.



So, I can come over to your house and drive your car? I don't see ANY difference between the two. If I bust my ass making the Roxurface Widget, and your fat ass (not YOU, but you know what I mean) buys a lot of them, the societal arrangement is complete. I have goods you want in exchange for legal tender. My obligation to you is fulfilled. Once I pay an EQUAL tax on that income, my obligation to the government is fulfilled. This equation is VERY simple.

You assuming that because people buy shit/services that makes someone rich that you're entitled to some of that more than that consumer who purchased it? You know, THAT smells an awful lot like entitlement to someone else's hard work.



Of course it does, and works well so long as all parties are on equal footing and the same standards are applied to all. If an equal tax on your income isn't enough to pay your bills? Get another fucking job, or god forbid, a better one. But hey, that's not being "compassionate" is it? For all the fuckers who bitch about money being the root of all evil, they sure do obsess about it more than those who actually have it.

So... they didn't earn their money? I don't get that. You say some outlandish, fantastic shit sometimes Fribur. This is right up there with "people aren't responsible for anything they do."

Someone who goes to school and busts their ass for four years, then spends their entire adult life working 60 hour weeks, traveling constantly, most certainly deserves every penny they're paid. The idea that someone who receives a paycheck hasn't earned it themselves is ludicrous.

_________________

You couldn't bust your ass at school unless the school existed... unless thousands of people busted their ass to clean that school, supply it with supplies, and teach you. You couldn't bust your ass at the school unless government systems allowed you to go to school in the first place, government systems staffed by people. You also couldn't bust your ass at the school unless there were roads to take you there, transportation vehicles that were made by thousands and millions of people as well....

We are all completely interdependant. You could not be here if it were not for that janitor, yet you are unwilling to help pay for that janitor's health care. Pretty shitty if you ask me.

None of you blink an eye at the idea of public education. It wasn't that way 130 years ago. I hope some day it will be the same way with public health care.

and sorry for the double post, but I forgot to mention that your posts show exactly the sense of entitlement I was talking about.

Kill off all the old people bleeding the country dry. K? Thx.

And they all do it free of charge, out of the kindness of their collective hearts. We should just give them some of our money because they sacrificed so much to ensure we had a good education!

That janitor wouldn't have a job if it weren't for the students, so he should feel grateful he's getting a paycheck in the first damned place. If he wanted to make more money, he'd have put more effort into bettering himself and improving his career opportunities. He didn't, so he's a janitor. Fuck him.

_________________

See, here's where you and reality diverge (or at least one of the points where you and reality diverge; it appears there are many).

You seem to believe that an individual who works is not entitled to compensation that reflects the skill and education needed to fill the job, and difficulty of the job. It appears that you believe that a janitor should be paid wages equal to what a doctor makes, despite the fact that a doctor requires years of school and a great deal of intelligence whereas a janitor has no real prerequisites for the job.

As a society, we almost always assign salaries based on the difficulty of filling a position, not on its importance. The easier a position is to fill (usually those requiring unskilled and uneducated labor), the less it pays. This is why employers can get away with lower starting salaries and cutting back on raises during times of high unemployment. The higher the unemployment level, the easier it is to replace an employee who leaves.

This is reality. Your socialist ideas do not reflect reality. If people willing to work as janitors start becoming rare for whatever reason, I'm sure they'll get paid more. Until then, they can deal with that or they can try to improve and educate themselves to better their chances of a more promising career.

_________________

I didn't really get that from Fribur's post at all.

His point seemed to be more about the attitude that when folks have money suddenly they want to take the attitude of cloistering themselves from the rest of society and behave as though their money was granted by divine right rather than by the very society they're scorning.

Not that I'm saying I totally agree, just that I think that's what he was saying.

People with money invest it. The fact that they are able to live off the earnings means it is drawing a profit. Meaning growth in what they invested in, meaning a benefit to their investees.

[quote="Tyral the Kithless].

As a society, we almost always assign salaries based on the difficulty of filling a position, not on its importance. [/quote]

That pretty much says it all.

To tie this back to health care. We have our $8.00/hour janitor who can't afford insurance but still has to get medical care. His bills are written off by the hospital. How do they afford that? They charge everyone else a little more. So society is already subsidizing the health care of these people anyway.

If we would just pay them enough then they could pay their own insurance be it mandated private insurance or taxes for a single payer system or whatever. But until their salaries are brought up they are not going to be able to pay and someone richer is going to have to pay for them. A person can go and get a better job but that just means someone else has to be the janitor. And here is the key. The janitor's job is too important a job to not get done. In fact most of the lowest paid jobs are too important to not get done.

You can't get away from the need for some type wealth redistribution no matter how hard society tries.

True, but it's still not "ok." While he may get emergency care, unfortunately that janitor and his family's life is destroyed when he has any kind of accident or major illness happen to him under the current system. Given the general wealth of our country as a whole, this is morally wrong for us to allow to happen, in my opinion.

There is, certainly, some sort of moral objection to the fact that citizens of the wealthiest (By far) nation on the planet not being able to get health care.

Not saying that Robin Hooding it up on the rich is the answer, just that it doesn't make a lot of sense.