So, he's giving another speech...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/02/ ... index.html

Personally, I will be disgusted if it is more of the same nonspecific, shaded words crap he's been spewing. So, what would you like him to get specific about? My list:

~I would like to hear him specifically address the inequities inherent in any health insurance scheme. How those who try to be healthy must pay for those who don't even try (and yeah I'm a smoker so count me in the second group on that count).

~I would also like to hear him discuss paying for this plan (whichever plan it is that he favors) without vague suppositions about cost-savings and class warfare about making the 'rich' pay for it. During this portion, ideally he would address the fact that western countries who do provide healthcare as a citizen right have much higher tax rates across the board than we do.

~I would like him to address why we need a wholly new seperate plan rather than a single-payor system that includes everyone: children, the elderly, veterans, those who cannot afford it themselves, and of course federal employees.

There's alot more I'd love to hear (including discussion of the 5 year moratorium on private plans that I still don't quite understand well enough to tell which side is lying about it) but the three above are the big ones.

I'm curious-- what exactly do you want him to say here? How should he "address" this? It's just a fact that is, and won't change, no matter what kind of bill is created.

- He probably needs to explain what's in it for the vast majority of people who personally have insurance and don't necessarily see health reform as a crisis that affects them.

- I'd personally like him to address the individual mandate and how that will actually work.

- I'd like him to be frank and address how you can save costs without rationing, which he swears is not in the bill but we all know needs to be a part of any reform.

- He must be open and transparent about costs and how this bill and other future projects affect our deficit.

- He needs to either abandon the public option or unequivocally support it. He waffles on it almost daily. It appears to be back off the table, again. For extra credit, I'd like him to reconcile his single payer comments in the past vs. his latest comments that he's not in favor of single payer.

- specifics, specifics, specifics. Please no more general platitudes and vague themes. Give me some data. Get Ross Perot with a fucking pie chart in there or something.

I'd like for him to say "here is the plan, this is what we are going to pass" and then stick to it. He has no plan and it is turning this administration into a bunch of jellyfish

What I'd like him to say isn't going to happen. I'd like a scheme where personal responsibility factors into it. If I get lung cancer or emphysema I should have to find a way to pay for it myself. An obese person with diabetes type II, same thing. The alcoholic whose liver is destroyed, same thing. The high-blood pressure patient who simply won't change his diet/exercise, same thing. Tougher problems would arise than the ones I listed but I think you get the idea.

Ugh Kula. I don't particularly want to live in a country that legislates to that level. Fat people have to pay more? Smokers pay more? I see the logic, but where do you draw the line? Do I pay higher premiums because I'm about to go eat some Wendy's? And how do you even monitor/police that?

Even as a Canadian, I agree with Joxur.

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

That whole chicken/egg mystery would be a good place to start.

Oh, I forgot to say that mostly, I just wish the guy would govern, and stop making so many speeches.

You want him to cross party lines?

It's too bad that living a longer, healthier life isn't enough to make people not be fat or quit smoking.

What I want to hear explained, perhaps not by Obama but by the critics, is exactly how we are going to stop insurance companies from raping us on premiums without a public option.

In my humble (and probably very soon to be labeled socialist) opinion, higher taxes on the rich is the answer. Executive/CEO compensation has risen at a much higher percentage (and staggeringly higher dollar value) than the average worker since 1987. This has of course equated to the rich paying a "disproportionately high" dollar sum in taxes, but the tax rate has in no way been altered to make up for the fact that the wealthy have experienced exponential wealth gain. Would it really be unfair to ask people who bring home over 1 million a year to pay an additional 5% on each dollar over 1 million? Probably not.

What I would like to see is a comparison from those other countries that provide health care and have "higher tax rates" as to their average worker pay compared to executive compensation contrasted with ours. I already know for a fact that our executives put Japan and the UK to shame in terms of out earning the average worker. Or perhaps they shame ours by not being as greedy.

I do have an article that I am trying to find again that gave a chart comparing these things, but I just can't seem to find it. I'll post it when I do find it - for my own amusement.

The issues with this are the income bracket that your average Congressperson occupies, and scale. We're only talking about <1% of the population here if we set the bar at $1m plus. An executive bonus isn't paid out in dollars, or as a reportable income, they'd be stupid to do so.

Executive bonuses are a whole different matter which also needs to be re-evaluated and more heavily taxed. I think (think) the max tax on capital gains is like 20% which actually lets executives who are compensated in that manner to be taxed at a lower rate than someone living near the poverty level.

And the answer to this isn't "if we tax them more they will take more". It's obviously just not working and the 1%ers need to recognize that.

So, the solution is one that isn't the right one to fix an obvious problem in your view? And "1%ers"? Really? I'm sorry, I don't see the problem here so long as their income is properly reported to their investors or they're a privately held company. The real problem lies with circle jerk boards that are allowing unsuccessful execs cash in. Reform the boards of publicly held companies, and you begin solving these problems as they're more likely to advance the interests of the company and its investors.

Somehow tho, I doubt that's your concern. I, for one, am not insecure with someone else's success and greater wealth than my own.

Yes, because THAT is the real reason for these opinions.

Give me a break.

I think you misread what I typed, or I didn't type it clearly. I meant the response to what I said wasn't "they will just get more pay if they are going to be taxed more to make up for it". Ie, tax CEOs more and they will just find ways to get more pay.

Of course the boards are ridiculous. It's a good old boys (and girls) club plain and simple. They scratch the CEOs back and he lets them borrow his yacht one weekend a year.

I, for two, am not at all insecure with people making vast sums of money. I'm 28 and if all goes well with my job this year I might clear 6 figures for the first time in my life. I don't find myself wanting in pay or health care or the other hot button issues of the moment, but I see others and feel their pain.

Where my opinion stems from is the gross difference in the scaling of pay between executives/CEOs and the average worker over the past 20 years. If you for some reason feel that execs and CEOs deserve to have gotten an even larger share of the pie, a pie that really should be shared across the board so that as the country prospers everyone feels the benefits I guess I must just be more generous than you.

Who are you to decide others deserve a greater share? That's up to the board and the investors ALONE. I don't get this. It's called work for a reason, not charity. The company owes you NOTHING beyond what you agree to. If it's something you find unacceptable, don't work there. It's a very simple equation.

Mark my words, class equality will NEVER be achieved through legislation or regulation. For those getting fucked (and I won't deny that some are) they need to stop bending over.

For some, I'm sure that's not the case. For most? It's either insecurity or laziness on their part. That's my opinion /shrug.

I actually don't have any issues with a 5% increase on each dollar over 1 million in earnings. But, until they adjust for non-income benefits including geographic cost of living, pensions and healthcare packages, they aren't really comparing apples to apples, are they. Given the 2 job offers below which would you take?

offer 1:
~$750,000 salary in NE Pennsylvania
~premium healthcare plan paid for in full by company
~50% company match in 401K
~financial planning consultations (including tax preparation) provided at company expense
~membership at fitness facility paid for by company

offer 2:
~$750,000 salary in Los Angeles
~bare bones healthcare plan where you contribute 25% of the cost

Which one are you taking? Offer 1 would be my bet because the benefit package has worth including not having to fully fund the person's own retirement and the salary will go further in NE Pennsylvania than in LA. Dollarwise, which is all that Congress is considering, these two positions are equal. Except they aren't.




You do realize that capital gains are not something that only 'executives' pay, right? The first time I heard this argument it was from Warren Buffet, comparing his own tax rate to his secretary's. It's a really good argument except he didn't address how to shield the secretary from the capital gains tax increase when she sells her home, invests her savings, etc.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, increasing the estate tax rate (I'd say go from 45% current rate to 75%) and lowering the exemption amounts (I'd say go from the current 3.5 million down to 1 million) would allow the generations that benefitted from deficit spending to help pay off public debt or at the very least stave off more deficit spending.

I am against the estate tax. Why should one's family have to pay a tax for the father/mother to drop dead - on stuff that tax has already been paid, and in some cases (personal property tax) many many times.

So how would you fund healthcare reform? Or any other government spending?

Your argument about prior taxation doesn't consider that it isn't the earning of the money that is being taxed but the transfer of that money, kinda like the gift tax but with significantly higher exemptions.

As far as "choosing" that isn't an apples to apples comparison in job offers regardless. If the jobs had the exact same pay/benefits I believe it would be the individuals choice. Perhaps the person loves Los Angeles and is willing to work for the same pay, but what would in effect be less buying power in the LA market. There must be some draw to New York, LA, San Fran, Boston, Chicago and other major business areas that make people move there.

Beyond that I would say it is the employers responsibility to make the pay commensurate with the job. If it were an apples to apples comparison and everyone moved to NE Penn because of the lower cost of living, the employer in LA would either have to up their pay or reconsider their location to attract workers.

You also bring up adjustments for benefits. I think benefits are just that: benefits. If your employer wants to provide a gym membership - more power to them. The gym then pays tax on their revenue and everyone is happy. 401ks and IRAs were established to assist people in planning for their retirement. I don't think there is any sort of pay abuse that can occur with them, but I could be wrong. You certainly can't just put money into it and take it out without paying a massive penalty.

And finally - the gold plated health care package. Perhaps the one you describe is one of the "premium" health policies that the government plans to tax insurance companies on. Again, this is your employers choice and part of the way they attract skilled employees.

Personally, I think every employer should provide:

- health insurance
- gym membership
- ira/401k or other retirement planning package



Of course I realize that capital gains aren't something that only executives pay, but I would say that it is only something that the fabulously wealthy abuse. Just as we have different tax brackets for income, we should probably have different tax brackets for capital gains.

Also capital gains on a house are allowed to reach 250k for an individual and 500k for a couple in profit before you are required to pay any taxes. Again anyone who is profiting that much on a home sale can perhaps afford the taxes they must pay in the end. I don't know too many people strapped for cash turning in a 250k+ profit on a home sale. Of course these exemptions only apply to your primary residence, but again if you have more than one home you probably aren't hurting.

And.. I'm pretty sure you are hit with capital gains taxes when you liquidate investments and not the other way around.

As far as the estate tax I would disagree. I think it would be better to raise the tax on money currently being earned, again above the 1 million dollar a year range, than to take what has already been made. Certainly not lowering the exemption.

So, it's the employer's responsibility except where CEOs are concerned? Why trust them with one hand and withdraw that trust with the other?
If salary were the only variable in location, or if there were parity between jobs & jobseekers that argument would hold up better.



So salary is not a benefit of employment? I see nothing wrong with treating EVERY aspect of compensation as salary and therefore taxable. Why do you? A case of "don't take my stuff take theirs"?


So, anyone who moves money around in the market 'deserves' to be hit with capital gains tax?


Why is that better? Today, a couple with the means, can shelter up to 7 million dollars. Why is it a good thing to tax Poor Schmuck who has worked 80 hour weeks at 2 jobs in order to finally, at age 60 let's say, earn 1 million dollars in salary rather than Joe College Student who inherits 7 million dollars free & clear because Mommy & Daddy died in a car wreck?

Because Mommy and Daddy already paid the tax, and probably a few times over. Why should everyone else benefit from MY hard work, if I choose to leave it with my daughter when I die. I paid my way AND her way in the process. I've already contributed more than Poor Schmuck. And frankly, the inheritance assures they won't be taking from the system, and thus, Poor Schmuck. For the record, the trustifarians in my building drive me insane and I cannot stand them, but I don't feel they owe anything more than has already been taken from those funds.

Life isn't fair, fucking get over it already.

Life isn't fair, you are correct; your daughter's taxes will be higher because our generation and the generations before ours recieved more from government than we/they paid into government. Where will the break-even point be in your daughter's lifetime? Are you leaving her enough to cover those higher taxes for her working lifetime?

It's fairly simple math. You need to leave her not only your portion of the national debt but also the money to service that debt for her lifetime to break even; and that doesn't take into consideration the higher interest rates that she will pay for mortgages, car loans, credit cards, etc because she is competing with the government for those dollars.

I see your point here, and I generally agree with much of it. This statement, however, I disagree with. See, I'm NOT receiving more from the government than I take. If she inherits a large sum of money, then neither is she. The only folks who are taking more than they put forward are those who are already benefiting. Those same folks seem to feel like they're entitled to a share of that inheritance from which they've already dipped into. I don't see how this makes sense.