Last year there were 1.4 million personal bankruptcies in the US. According to a study by the American Journal of Medicine in 2008, 62% of bankruptcies are linked to medical costs. An astounding 80% of those people HAD medical insurance.
Conclusion: Over 800,000 bankruptcies in the US in 2008 were related to medical costs.
Stay with me - The cost of health care reform for the next decade is estimated at 1 trillion, about half of which must be realized through new fees or taxes - That's 500 billion.
It's hard to conceive of that much money. Conservatives claim that it will bankrupt the country. Let's look at that. Suppose the richest man in America (Bill Gates) was bankrupted to pay for health care and the second richest (Warren Buffet) gave up all his empire and down the list you went to come up with the 500 billion we need, how many individuals would be wiped out - bankrupted - as 800,000 American families were last year alone.. to pay for health care?
Answer - 37
Yep. The fortunes of the 37 richest people in America would completely finance the cost of health care reform in America not accounted for in savings from Medicare for a decade!
Source Forbes Magazine: http://www.abiworld.org/AM/AMTemplate.c … isplay.cfm
That's not how I propose it be financed - but it gives some scale to the magnitude of the gulf between the rich and the poor in this country. The US House proposal for financing was reasonable and not socialism:
I quote smartmoney.com.
"Starting in 2011, couples earning between $350,000 and $500,000 a year would be subject to a 1% surtax. For those making between $500,000 and a $1 million, the surtax would be 1.5%, and for those making more than $1 million the surtax would be 5.4%. .....A little more than 1% of U.S. households, or two million taxpayers, would be affected..."
There's a huge propaganda campaign (guess who is financing it) to prevent the rich from paying their fair share of taxes - and to provide citizens of this country with a shot at life - literally staying alive. I have no problem with people of differing opinions than I have - but facts are facts!
That's an interesting way of looking at it. I'm with you on this topic.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." (from The Red Lily, 1894)
"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:17, Papers 8:682
The reason why health care is so redonkulous in our country is because the government got involved in the first place. It established MAXIMUM wages, it made health care NOT be a part of wages (this is the reason it's considered a 'benefit'), it made employer provided health care UNtaxable, and it has also made it very very very difficult to get into the business of health care (i.e. forcing a potential health insurance to HAVE to be able to cover people in three or more states from the very start of their business).
The effects of these governmental interferences was to, undeniably, completely screw up the market. Health care not being taxed led to it being a better option than being paid money. Increased health care meant more people could get the care they needed. Increased demand led to higher prices, and the fact that this increased demand was being paid for by a third party, both the customer and the doctor had the 'get as much as I can while i can get it' mentality. (I live in japan with UHC, I've seen this first hand. It's quite disgusting.)
Now we're asking it to take over completely?
The simple truth is that we need to be demanding less government. I think that if we had the 37 richest people go bankrupt to pay for health care (which you do NOT advocate, I understand this) no one in their right mind would ever want to start up a company in the US. Bill Gates REVOLUTIONIZED the world, and if we were to just say 'screw you, we want health care'... no one would ever start a business in the US. (once again, I understand you do NOT advocate doing this).
You DID, however, advocate just simply raising the taxes on rich people to pay for poor health care. But... why are the poor entitled to the rich's wealth? This is a direct attack on someone's private property! I know that not all poor people fit this description, but why should the rich be forced to pay for people who are slobs, lazy, take unnecessary risks, waste time ... etc.
If we did this, then prices are just going to go up - if we increase the demand, and increase the third-party paying system, and if people had the mentality that 'well, the rich can afford it!'... it will just lead to the same problem, but now the rich will be poorer.
Do we really want the government to have the ability to take one person's wealth and give it to another for anything it deems 'a right'? (health care can not be a right - it has never been, and it can never be because it would necessarily mean you have the'right' to someone else's money.)
You asked us to look at the difference in wealth in the US, now let's look at the average level of wealth. The average wealth in the country provides for a home, a car, a tv, electricity and warmth, cooked warm food all year round, toasters, ovens, education, free time, computers, vacations... and so many other glorious things we take for granted.
The simple, easy, and obviously glaring answer to this problem, that very few people are even discussing, is ECONOMICS. Just let the market deal with it all. Get government out of health care ALTOGETHER, and allow people to use this wonderful device in their head known as a 'brain' to decide how to spend their own money. I know that 'preparing for the unexpected' sounds like a difficult venture, but then again, so is living.
If we let people make their own decisions, they would be encouraged to enter a doctor's office and actually ask the man"how much is this going to cost, and is there a cheaper alternative?". I asked my doctor how much a routine check up was going to cost (because i didn't have insurance) and he actually had to leave the room to ask a secretary. (italics) THE DOCTORS DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW MUCH THEY CHARGE!
Get. Government. Out.
Thank you for a thoughtful response. You didn't try to put words in my mouth or twist what I said even though you find my point of view - unsatisfactory. You sound like a libertarian - I'm not trying to put words in your mouth - but that's the basic principle behind 'get government out of everything' - which is the theme of your post (as I read it).
Let me get a few things out of the way - Regarding questions about the government's right to 'take one person's wealth and give it to another for anything" - I beat that up pretty good elsewhere with Madame X after you posted. If I didn't answer that issue, repost the question differently.
You mentioned the 'average level of wealth' . The average family makes just over 50K per year. The 'average' family medical insurance package costs 13K. If it's not offered through the employer, it costs 26% of gross income for an average comprehensive policy. It's impossible. So the average family has to go without of buy a catastrophic policy with caps and exclusions - they buy a policy for the price - not the features. And 800,000 people last year WITH insurance declared personal bankruptcy.
This illustrates my main gripe with libertarians - they ignore reality that doesn't conform to their worldview. Getting government out doesn't ever give that family medical insurance coverage they can count on. There is no free market fairy that will bring down cost to $500 per month for that family. The government can with subsides.
"Now we're asking it to take over completely?"
You see the government as a third 'team' on the field interfering with the consumer and insurance company. There's not even a public option left in the bill. The government is not a 'player' - they function as a referee in the game. Everyone who's alive is a candidate for health care so everybody pays. (with a few exclusions - religious and economic hard cases). The insurance companies have to cover everyone. That's the flip side of that coin.
People of limited means will get subsidies - so the insurance companies get payment in full. The government will require that a percentage of premiums (80%, I think) pays for medical services. This doesn't become an opportunity to gouge the government.
There's incentives and subsidies for small employers to offer coverage - and penalties for companies over 50 employees who don't want to offer group coverage. This levels the playing field between companies bidding on the same contract - the one who won't offer health benefits currently has an economic advantage over the one who recognizes an obligation to their workforce. That aint right.
There will be minimum standards on policies - just as there are safety standards on cars to protect consumers. I'm not a mechanical engineer or a lawyer, which is why I want standars on devices that my life depends on. We will end the anti-trust exemption to promote competition.
Football would degenerate into bloodsport and the fans would turn away - except that there are the guys in the striped pajamas on the field. That's the function of government here. It's not a takeover. The game has gotten unfair to the consumer - not because the government is in the game - but because they are NOT officiating the game fairly.
I never won an argument with a libertarian yet, and I'm sure I haven't convinced you. I respect your idealism but I'm looking for practical answers to real problems. In the end, that average family making 50K deserves it in my book. Show me where the unrestricted free market WILL get them there in the real world and you can sign me up.
(i'm writing this at a time when i shouldn't be - I didn't bother re-reading it, sorry! also, sorry for the caps - i would be using italics, but I can't figure out how to use them in the forums - i mean the caps ONLY as emphasis, not shouting.)
I simply can't agree with your statement that the government won't be a third party entity - if X knows that he doesn't have to pay for something out of his own pocket, he will naturally be much more liberal with his spending. It's just true - I'm guilty of it, my family and friends are guilty of it, and, not to presumptuous, I'm sure you're guilty of it. It's just human nature, and it can be summed up with the statement 'the tragedy of the commons'. It's one of the reasons why communism/socialism failed.
With regards to your argument with madam X, just because you quote a few famous people doesn't really matter. Teddy and Jeffereson both seem to be making the same mistake as Marx - they think that it is the wealthy that are benefiting off the backs of the poor (in some way shape or form), and that they must repay their debts. This is inaccurate. The rich get rich by giving the poor jobs, increasing the productivity of a society and thus increasing supply (and lowering prices) for the poor. If anything, the rich have already done their fair share for the poor. The poor owe the rich! (i, of course, am talking only of those who make their money through legitimate means, not through taxation, bribery, and thievery, etc). Just look at Henry Ford, he made cars available at a cheap price and revolutionized the transportation network - now even the poor of our country are able to own a car... why does he owe anyone anything more than that? Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, amongst others, made it so that computers were easy to use and cheap and available to everyone - now even the poor have access to computers for only a few hundred bucks!! Why do they owe anyone anything? John Rockefeller (in one of his legitimate acquisitions of wealth) made oil cheaper than ever, and now even the poor can fill up their car (thanks to Ford) with Gasolene (thanks to Rockefeller).
The rich don't owe anyone jack sh**, if anything I owe THEM!!!
Other (possible) arguments of yours most likely won't be able to convince me. If you were to argue along the lines of 'well, government is kind of a contract', then you must also point out that only one party (the government) has been able to define what the contract says. If you argue that certain aspects of the free market can not provide for the needs of the people, I can easily respond with 'yes it can, and it would if it were allowed'. If you were to demand that government is a necessary evil, I can only say that a government CAN have a place in society, and that place is what is agreed upon through contracts - i.e. the Constitution.
However, the simple fact is that our government is SUPPOSED to be restrained by a document called the Constitution, and this Constitution is being completely and totally ignored. Health care is found NO where in the powers given to Congress, our executive branch is practically writing legislation and our Supreme Court has dramatically over reached it's authority on NUMEROUS issues. IF we actually want health care provided by government, it is a state issue at best. I demand that the states issue nullify and interpose the unconstitutional legislation.
You argue that 'the government is just a referee in the game'. This imcompatible with all logic and also what the white house (the group of people doing the most work on the subject) are saying. http://www.whitehouse.gov/Issues/health-Care specifically says things like "Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans", "Maintain coverage when you change or lose your job", and "End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions". I've addressed all of these (and much much more) in a hub of mine, but I might as well repeat them. ALL OF THESE ARE DIRECT INTERFERENCES!! they are in NO way going to be 'just' referees.
Think about it this way - if you get in a car crash on Monday, buy car insurance on Tuesday, and then demand your car insurance to cover your accident... that would be lunacy. How can we expect this EXACT same issue to be applied to health care and not have drastic results? PRICES ARE GOING TO RISE - THE CURRENT ESTIMATES OF PRICE HAVE TO BE INACCURATE.
Also, what ever happened to the hippocratic oath - "I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability..." -- doctor's should be helping people out even if they can't afford the treatment so much (like they used to before widespread insurance).
Also, what of personal responsibility? I know you want to argue that the government will NOT take over health care but gov't states that it will directly interfere with providing insurance to anyone. Why must one person who plays safe and eats healthy pay for a fat slob who drives a motorcycle? A free-market solution would take care of this easily.
'just as there are safety standards on cars to protect consumers' - the regulations do require the company to do certain things, but in so doing they prevent alternatives from being created. I'm currently living in Japan, and cars are small and fuel efficient because there aren't as strict of safety standards, traffic deaths here are on par or better than the US because people drive sanely. We have such strict car-regulations, and yet Traffic accidents are one of the leading causes of death in the country! It just doesn't work.
IF customers actually want something, they'll get it through market forces.
"I'm looking for practical answers to real problems" - here you go: Get the government out of the entire health care market. This will lower prices dramatically, it will allow more doctors and health insurance companies to compete. If you are REALLY "looking for practical answers" you MUST realize that government can NOT actually provide anything to anyone, and you must realize that only other people can provide wealth to others.
If you're 'looking for practical answers to real problems', then why are we creating new problems by making there be 'penalties for companies over 50 employees who don't want to offer group coverage'? Why does health insurance have to be provided by an employer? why does it need to be regulated up the wazzoo by government? why can't it just be that people save up their own money, and then use that money when they need it? and count on their community to help pay for emergencies and the poor?
You MUST realize that if a company offers health insurance, it MUST pay less money as a salary! This means that if we want to force a company to pay for health insurance, instead of giving the employee 50k, he'll receive 40k and a 10k health package. Just because we force an employer to provide health insurance doesn't mean that it magically can create more money!!! Either way the employee is paid the same!! Employers AREN'T evil!! And even if they were evil, they would be forced to offer competetive wages through competition for labor.
Anyway, I could go on, but I want to summarize that easily, without a doubt, the free-market solution solves the problem properly. Health care is NOT a right. Federal gov't health care is NOT constitutional (state HC would be). It just won't work.
"In the end, that average family making 50k deserves it in my book." ... People only deserve what they work for. Health care can not be a right.
"Show me where the unrestricted free market WILL get them there in the real world and you can sign me up" - what about ALL of history before government interference was implemented? Is that enough evidence for ya'?
Hasn't this type of confiscation of wealth been tried before?
I wasn't proposing we confiscate the wealth of the richest 37 in America - just putting some scale to the vast gulf between the average working stiff and the top 10% in America who own 71% of America.
Yes - the Frech Revolution was such a confiscation - they enforced the redistribution of wealth with the guilitine - and I think that's a motivator in the French goverrnment and may explain their medical system, which is ranked the best in the world. - universal high quality medicine at half the cost per capita of the US. If the USA had ever executed the aristocrats of the US en masse, IMO there wold not be a problem enlisting their cooperation in social programs which benefit all.
Interesting proposal kill the rich in order to gain their cooperation. I think that was also done in Russia in 1917 which led to the creation of the Soviet Union, I think we all know how that turned out.
Don't put words in my mouth. I'm just pointing out that societies where the masses have turned out the rich rascals with bloodshed, there is a healthy respect by the rich for the consequences of chaos - and because they have a vested interest in keeping their money and their heads, they provide for the masses. In the USA - no such fear exists - and it should.
The French Revolution led to Napolian - and that also did not turn out well. The American Revolution is an anomoly - we moved to a less repressive form of goverment than preceeded the revolution - which is why revolution is not to be treated lightly.
In every convulsion in the US, economic and social, the aristocracy has consolodated power and wealth. The current argument about health care is the first serious challenge to that dynasty to come along in decades. The rich have convinced a lot of people that the 'government' is threatening the rights of man - when in fact, a government for the people is challenging the supreme power of imense wealth.
I didn't put words in your mouth, you clearly advocate murder as a means of confiscating wealth.
Anybody who bothers to scroll up will see that I did NOT say that - or advocate that. You understood what I said - you disagree with what I said - so you twist what I said to discredit me.
Nobody is fooled by that.
taxes, by definition, are confiscations of wealth.
if you don't pay taxes, you go to jail and lose your liberty.
I'm ONLY saying this to shed light on the current argument between you three!
on the other hand, padrino kind of went overboard
"and because they have a vested interest in keeping their money and their heads, they provide for the masses. In the USA - no such fear exists - and it should."
"and it should."
Pretty clear what you want, I see no reason to continue talking about this, have a nice night.
"and it should" - so you go back to find out what the pronoun 'it' refers to and the noun preceeding is 'fear". So if you understand the English language, "it' refers to "fear"
You're talking apples and oranges. Creating a tax bill and calling it a healthcare bill has nothing to do with either healthcare, or the rich.
The 19th amendment gave women the right to vote, and I generally interpret it to allow them to speak for themselves, which in my experience, they are quite capable of.
She did, you just don't seem to comprehend woman speak, so I translated.
"At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will. At every stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth......
"No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar?s worth of service rendered?not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective, a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."
This is a quote of Roosevelt - not Franklin D. - but Teddy - the Republican Roosevelt.
While a fine quote, it still doesn't answer the question of why the rich should provide for anyone else. If someone is abusing the power they have from "swollen" wealth, then certain laws need to be in place to discourage those actions. If politicians weren't owned outright, it might be a start. But I haven't seen any personal integrity in government so far.
Because it's fair. If you wait for government to be dominated by integrity before doing what is right, you may have a long wait. America has been occasionally blessed with individuals of integrity in high office, who have persuaded persons of lesser virtue to do what's right. That's the best that I hope for.
If you weren't impressed with Teddy, maybe you like Thomas Jefferson better - the founding father in my book - and the first Republican.
"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:17, Papers 8:682
Here's a quote of Jefferson which I would call to your attention, particularly the phrase, "made a paradise by the contributions of the rich ALONE..."
"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. ... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811. ME 13:41
If you would like me to go to the New Testiment for quotes of Jesus to support my position, I will, but I am a fervent believer in the separation of church and state, I do that rarely and only on request...
What does the New Testament have to do with this discussion?
Today president Barack Obama was campaigning in Pennsylvania for his Healthcare Reform legislation. The main topic was insurance denial of persons with pre-existing conditions.
The president bashed the insurance companies ( THE BAD guys )for raising prices and demanded change in their operations.
Here's a tibit, you probably haven't heard as yet.
Who is the largest healthcare insurer in the world?
Yep, the US government
The US government administers medical programs, ship,veterans administration (VA),medicaid and medicare.
By the way some of those government managed programs are going broke.
Which insurance companies/programs have denied claims by their members?
US government #1 has denied 8.5% of service claims
Aetna #2 has denied 6.2% of service claims
Here we go again blaming others for the high cost of insurance and denials of services.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.
Keep in mind that there are 14.9 million( UNEMPLOYED ) ex insurance members who are not in the pool paying. When the paying pool drops, the paying members premiums will go up.
Jon - Eventually we were certsain to find an area of agreement. The denial of legitimate service claims by the government is a disgrace.
I suspect you are quoting figures which include the Bush administration - however I doubt that the problem is completely fixed yet and it needs to be.
Adddressing the ling term needs of Medicare and Medicad are essential - I favor taxing the more-than-adequite fortunes of the top 2% to do this. I doubt we agee on that point. The GOP seems to be trying to abstain from a bipartisan panel to straighten out the long-term budget issues. Neither you or I is likely to be invited, but do you think the GOP best serves the country by abstaining and taking pot shots at our efforts from afar?
"Keep in mind that there are 14.9 million( UNEMPLOYED ) ex insurance members who are not in the pool paying. When the paying pool drops, the paying members premiums will go up."
You are being deceptive here - on purpose or accidentally, I don't know. The size of the pool won't affect premiums. When the 'average' person leaves - the revenue AND liabilitis both depart for that person. No net change.
The increase happens when mostly healthy memebers quit the pool. The concentration of sick people goes up and the cost per head goes up. That's why the requiremnt to cover people with pre-existing conditions HAS to be coupled with a mandate that EVERYONE gets in the pool - the risk and costs of insurance are shared. A healthy young person pays in - statistically low risk - but he's covered when the risk goes up due to age or pre-existing conditions would drive him into a higher than average premium.
The CBO analyzed this and premiums will go down for the vast majority (those in group plans) and only goes up for people in individual plans because they can afford and will elect comprehensive coverage over the crap catastrophic policies that many people in individual plans buy because it's all they can afford.
What makes you think you are even remotely qualified to decide what someone else does with their money?
Padrino - I don't understand womanspeak. Help me out. What 'some one elses money' is she taking about? The portion that the richest 2% pay in taxes? I'm not deciding that.
Try not to resort to school yard tactics in a discussion, ok?
I think it's quite obvious what "spend someone else's money" means - It means ... spending... other people's... money...
Taxes are an example of this, Congress and the Executive branch decide how to spend upwards of 40% of our money. That's how it works.
Thanks for your thoughts.
The bush administration is gone and the Obama administration has been in office for the past 15 months , that’s a fact.
Yes, the governments actions in denying heathcare to their members is a disgrace and a pre-requisite in Obama’s plans to manage the private
healthcare industry by the government.
The elected members of the GOP HAVE OFFERED ideas to solve the
healthcare problems since day one. The president and the super democratic congress had full control of congress . The republicans had no say in the present approved legislation, the dems had the 60 votes needed to pass the Bill without them. And they did pass it.
There is no smoke and mirrors to "Keep in mind that there are 14.9
million( UNEMPLOYED ) ex insurance members who are not
in the pool paying. When the paying pool drops, the paying
members premiums will go up."
It’s a fact that when there is greater a supply, the the price will come down. Economic rule of supply and demand.
Your statement ,The increase happens when mostly healthy members
quit the pool 14.9 members not by their choice left the pool ( unemployed ),
the cost to the provider goes up and the premium will also go up. that’s
common sense. Both the democrat and republican senators agree that
pre-existing situations must be corrected .
The government mandating everyone to pay for health care insurance
will be challenged and may be found in violation of our constitution.
Please read the 2700 page bill and then decide if you could support it in
its present form.
No, it isn't fair. If I've worked my butt off to earn my fortune, why should I have to give it to someone else because a bunch of lazy asses are crying "do me"?
Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are not turning over their fortune to the government or the poor. An extra 4%+ of taxes is nothing to them.
If you are rich, why are you against paying your fair share in taxes? Paying your fair share in taxes is not the same as giving your fortune away...
Is this the new mantra "fair share in taxes"? I lean a little left on social issues but this health care stuff is just more money being taken to provide substandard care. The projected cost is 1 Trillion over 10 years, when was the last time our government came in under budget?
Warren Buffett wants the rich to pay more in taxes due to George W tax cuts he called voodoo economics which results in him being tax at a lower rate than most if not all of his employees including his receptionist.
Likewise, the rich are not paying their fair share in taxes.
So let him write a big fat check to the government in addition to his fair share. No one is stopping him. Or do you think we should all listen to him because he's rich?
No one including the rich, middle class, and poor are going to pay extra in taxes. Why should Buffett pay more in taxes so you (if you are rich) can get a free ride?
All he is asking is for Congress to do the right thing and raise taxes on the rich so the rich just like the non-rich pay their fair share in taxes.
Herbert Hoover did the same thing as George W... Excessively used tax cuts for the rich, leading to large deficits and horrible economic downturns.
Likewise, this is one of the reasons why both of them are considered among the worst presidents in US history.
Asking congress to raise taxes on anyone is the wrong approach. If the rich are not paying their fair share it is because of all the legal loopholes in the tax system, which people like Buffet paid lots and lots of money to bring about in the first place.
Buffet isn't mister nice guy with utopian ideals. He just wants to come off that way.
The GOP rich (and/or rich with extreme views like you) were more than likely to push for tax loopholes than Warren Buffett.
Warren Buffett is donating the majority of his fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
So he is not too worried about a "bunch of lazy asses" acquiring his wealth via "socialism."
Extreme views? I'm standing by the Constitution and it's original intent. But I guess to a socialist, that's extreme
I mentioned this before - a passing referance to 'TheConstitution' with no referance is smoke and mirrors.
Here's a red flag when you are reading political forums. People on the left do it, too, but less than conservatives, I think.. There is/was no 'original intent' as a single universal concept. It took the founding fathers a year to develp a consensus on the Declaration of Independence and any serious historcal treatment of that struggle will explain the huge differences between philosophies of the delegates to the Continental Congress. The development of the U.S. Constitution was just as divided and contentous. After it was passed, the founding fathers did not agree about what the Constitution allowed or prohibited. So when anyone treats 'origingal intent' or 'founding fathers' as if they are discussing a borg hive mentality is blowing smoke and trying to sell you THEIR opinion.
Compared to the robbers at Goldmine Sachs, CitiGroup, JPMorgan Chase and the rest of the Wall Street Banksters, Warren Buffett is mister good guy.
"Fair share" is defined by our elected representatives. The concept varies from time to time, depending on who's in the majority.
Why do you assume 4% is nothing to them. How do you know it's nothing to them? Have you asked them?
I did not asked them. I instead listened to their interviews and rationale why the government need to raise taxes on the rich.
Feel free to read the articles I posted below or conduct a Google search to read the articles or listen to the interviews yourself.
why the hell are we asking more of bill gates - he made easy-to-use computers so available to people that even the poor can buy a pretty well-made computer system for just a few hundred bucks, i.e. 20-30 labor hours.
Why are we asking him to do more for us? I say let him keep his money! The reason we can have this debate is because of him!!!! For god's sake, he's done enough!!
That quote refers to the taxation system as outlined in the Constitution, of taxing goods only, and not income. Since the rich were the only ones capable of importing goods, upon which taxes were levied, they were the only taxes the government could legally collect.
Jefferson's conclusion is that, without the rich and their enormous buying power, there would be no money to fund "canals, roads, schools". His statement in no way implied that the rich should provide for those who are poor.
It is a fine distinction, and understanding it is to understand the difference between why ALL of Obama's efforts are toward socialism and why the Constitution specifically outlaws that result.
"His statement in no way implied that the rich should provide for those who are poor."
Here's the statement. You can read.
"the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings."
Maybe this explains it better...
"The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government." --Thomas Jefferson to Maryland Republicans, 1809. ME 16:359
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682
You will see whaty you wish but the sanctity of the fortunes of the rich in America under democracy is a myth. An examination of the founding fathers in their own words proves this.
You're missing my point. I agree with Jefferson. It is property that gets taxed, not income, as stated in the Constitution. So a person may control how much he is taxed by what he does with his wealth.
The idea that the "rich should provide" for others not as rich is the antithesis of what Jefferson was saying.
I would be completely in favor of a system where taxes were based on property taxes and inheritance taxes which woould really do away with the perpetual concentration of wealth by class and family connections. If I was rich, that would scare me a lot more than income tax. The top 10% own 71% of the property in this country. So heck yes, I would gladly visit the idea of property and inheritance tax and a move away from income tax as a source of federal revenues and not just to pay for healthcare.
Is that what you are proposing?
No. There should be no tax on inheritance. It was already earned and taxed.
What I do stand behind is what it already says in the Constitution. That only property and not income, is taxed.
It always amazes me when people say something is 'in the Constitution' without a citation. It does make me suspect I'm reading fiction.
Teddy Roosevelt favored a graduated income tax on inheritance. You see it diffferently. I suspect TR knew the Constitution, though.
Article I Section 2 Paragraph 3:
“…direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several states…according to their respective Numbers…”
I'm sure he knew the Constitution very well - otherwise he couldn't have chosen exactly what parts to subvert so well.
If you've never read the Constitution, or you don't remember what it contains, I suggest you look it up yourself. Thorough reading of the Law of our Land can never be repeated too often. Especially when you don't know what it says or, especially if you don't understand what it says.
Also, when someone says something, it is common courtesy to either believe what that person is saying, or refute it with facts that you yourself provide. That's called respect, amongst adults anyway. You might want to look that up too.
Do you want to have a discussion or do you want to just act like a pissy 12-year-old?
So you are a Constitutional scholar who knows that income tax is illegal - and inheritance tax is illegal - and it's your asserion that Teddy Roosevelt subverted the Constitution....The citation from Article 1 doesn't mention income or inheritance tax one way or the other, nor does it say that 'direct' taxes will be the sole source of funds for the federal budget... but that point is probably acting like a pissy 12-year old.
OK. Glad we cleared that up....
I disagree with Madame on this one - taxing property is pretty much the same thing as taxing income. Every tax ends up being an income tax.
If it costs 6% more to buy things at the store, then my income can only buy 94% of what it could without the tax.
Thank You, Mike - I wish I could express it so simply.
"Somebody else should always pay... right?"
Spoken like a true socialist
If the middle class and poor are paying their fair share in taxes, the rich need to do so as well.
This poor person certainly does. Every week just like everyone else.
Is it that you're really poor or is it that you work hard and take home less?
I work very Hard. At present approx. 22% of my total earnings are taken of the top of my paycheck. This pays Fed. state and local income taxes as well as unemployment compensation, and FICA (whatever the H*ll that is) and then in addition to that I also get to pay a 52 dollar a year income privilege tax to work in this fair city where I live.
oh yea and lets not forget the property taxes and school taxes that are not included in the 22% and also the 6% sales tax I pay on everything I buy with the exception of food.
Federal Insurance Contributions Act or FICA is what funds Social Security and medicare. My comment wasn't directed at those who are working and getting screwed by the government, I meant the real poor, the ones who do not work and are receiving assistance. I feel your pain, I'm right there with you, but taxing those who provide employment is not going to help.
With that I certainly agree. The whole problem is not what Bill Gates earns or what Oprah earns it is the ridiculas anount of money we pay for the crooks in Washington to sit on thier butts and come up with more idiotic ways to steal from us.
P.S. I do work for a living and do not collect assistance but I am still poor.
Padrino, have you viewed the tax brackets?
This tax bracket http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
Notice the more money you make the higher percentage you pay.
So how does Warren Buffett only pay around 16% in taxes? Probably because almost all of his income is corporate dividends and capital gains which is taxed at a rate of around 15%. Only a small fraction of his income is taxable income.
I don't know that he pays 16% that is your assertion, if he is paying that rate then his personal income is around 33,950 I'm not buying that the second richest man in the country is making 33,960 and I doubt the IRS is either.
I am not a tax accountant but we can perform a quick and dirty calculation:
(Take 100K personal income *30% + 15% * $45M from dividends and capital gains and so on) / $45.1M = ~15%
I do not know what detailed proposals Buffett and Gates Sr are recommending for increasing taxes on the rich...
I'm sorry I do not understand could you explain?
I am not an accountant or CPA but Warren Buffett only receives $100,000 in salary a year which is subject to the tax brackets you included in the link above.
However, he earns probably over $40M a year in dividend and capital gains income which is taxed at a rate of around 15% or so.
That's the reason why he states that he only pay taxes at a rate of 16% or so a year.
How do you know what his salary is? Capital gains for the year would be taxed at 28% that is for everybody, long term gains (more than a year) are taxed at 15% again for everybody.
Because he has been paid around $100K in salary for 26+ years and he states in his interviews what his tax rate is and total income.
"Buffett said he paid a 16.5 percent tax rate on all his income because the tax rate on investment dividends and long-term capital gains is only 15 percent.
By contrast, a single employee at Buffet’s firm, Berkshire Hathaway, who earns between $33,000 and $83,000 must pay a 25 percent federal income tax rate."
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5812 … enate-dems
I'm not saying they shouldn't. I'm saying it is ridiculous to say they should "provide for the poor".
All people, regardless of wealth, social status, color, sex, religion or even gastric distension have the duty and responsibility, equally, to uplift and aid the poor and the needy. All of us - together. There is no such thing as a quick fix. You cannot punish those who have rightfully earned their income just because it's viewed as "not fair." It is counterproductive and it's simply not right. Redistribution of wealth is a farce and will lead us on a fast track to socialism. We have been warned of this trend and now it is happening.
Although there are vast numbers of people who need assistance now, the proper and best way to reform is the slow way - through persuasion. We have the ability and responsibility to get out there and rally support for whatever we believe in. If we believe in it strong enough to stick out the storm, the benefits of our efforts will bear fruit. Through persuasion and example more people from across the entire financial spectrum would be more inclined to help support. To force a result through destroying the agency of a class of people is not progress. Now, no one can tell me that assistance doesn't exist out there. The money, my tax money, is floating out there in a sea of "programs" and other funding. The assistance is out there, it's the educating and helping people find it that's the kicker.
Let's be not fooled. It is through these kinds of initiatives, here a little there a little, that will quietly take us to that forbidden destination. One day we will wake up late and not even recognize the country that we've molested.
The rich is currently not paying their fair share in taxes due to George W tax cuts. If some of you GOP supporters were rich, you would probably realize this.
However, if you are rich you are probably blinded by greed that has caused a lot of problems in this country. Remember pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.
Warren Buffett wants the rich to pay more taxes. Bill Gates Sr. wants the rich to pay more taxes... Why? Perhaps, because economic inequality is growing.. Perhaps they want to have access to the best public services that are paid for via tax dollars. Perhaps they want to pay it forward by aiding future Americans including future millionaires and billionaires. Perhaps they do not want to see this great country crumble due to rising deficits. Perhaps they do not want to see teachers, police officers, fire fighters, and vital government workers laid off. Perhaps they are strong believers of philanthropy and making society a better place by helping others including the less fortunate.
Some of Warren Buffet's employees pay taxes at a higher rate than he does. Some of you probably pay taxes at a higher rate than Buffett as well. Do you think this is fair? Do you think an individual earning $33K a year should pay taxes at a higher rate than the second richest man in the world?
"Bill Gates wants to pay more tax
A group of the world's wealthiest individuals are lobbying the US Senate to introduce tougher estate tax rules.
The protestors, including Microsoft founder's father Bill Gates Sr., fund manager John Bogle and Richard Rockefeller, are calling on the Senate to act before the holiday break to strengthen the US estate tax laws.
If the Senate fails to act, there will be no estate tax in 2010. This will effectively give the wealthiest 1% of Americans $400bn tax break over the next decade.
According to a statement from national nonprofit United for a Fair Economy today, the billionaires say low estate tax will result in significant losses for the federal government.
This revenue supports the vital public structures and systems - transportation and energy infrastructure, education and healthcare, among others.
"In making the 2009 estate tax cut permanent, the House of Representatives would give a huge tax-break to the wealthiest 1% of Americans over ten years, at a time when economic inequality has skyrocketed," said Lee Farris, UFE's estate tax policy coordinator.
Bill Gates Sr. said: "No one accumulates a fortune without the help of our society's investments. How much wealth would exist without America's unique property rights protections, public infrastructure, and academic institutions? We should celebrate the estate tax as an "economic opportunity recycling" programme. It's our turn to pass on the gift."
The rich is currently not paying their fair share in taxes due to George W tax cuts. If some of you GOP supporters were rich, you would probably realize this
There are at least 600 congressional staffers (public employees ) that have not paid their federal taxes.In the Obama administration at least 100 government employees have not paid their federal taxes.
i guess, they may have received dispensation from the chief.
That sounds to me like pure b.s. Can you provide a source?
According to a United States Congressman its not BS.
Washington, DC—Today Rep. Jason Chaffetz introduced HR 4735 which would terminate the employment of current federal employees and prohibit the hiring of future federal employees who have a “seriously delinquent tax debt.” According to the IRS, nearly 100,000 federal civilian employees owed $962 million in unpaid federal income taxes in 2008. When retirees and military are included, more than 276,000 people owed $3 billion. Currently, only IRS employees can be terminated for non-payment of federal income taxes. HR 4735 would expand this to include all federal employees.
“Federal employees have an obvious obligation to pay their federal income taxes,” said Chaffetz. “Because they draw their compensation from the American taxpayers, federal employees owe it to the taxpayers themselves to pay their taxes. If not, they should be fired.”
Moreover, federal employees are treated quite well by taxpayers. Consider the following:
- Federal employees enjoy tremendous job security. Since 2000, executive branch civilian FTE employment, excluding the Postal Service, has increased from 1.89 million to 2.18 million, a 15% increase. Private sector employment decreased 3% from 110.2 million to 107.1 million. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics establishment data, table B-1, seasonally adjusted
- From December 2007 to June 2009, the number of federal employees earning more than $100,000 increased 46% while the number of federal employees making more than $150,000 more than doubled Source: USA Today based on data from Bureau of Labor Statistics and Office of Personnel Management, December 11, 2009.
- During the same time period, federal salaries increased 6.6% while private sector and state-local government employee salaries increased only 3.9%. Source: USA Today based on data from Bureau of Labor Statistics and Office of Personnel Management, December 11, 2009.
- Federal employee turnover rate – including layoffs, discharges, and quits – is 60% lower than the private sector average. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) data from 2000 to 2009.
Well, if that's true the IRS isn't doing its job. They also need to go after the 52,000 Americans who have secret Swiss bank accounts. Not to mention the multinational corporations who park their profits in overseas subsidiaries in order to avoid U.S. taxes. Also, don't forget the hedge fund and private equity fund managers who get capital gains tax treatment on earnings that should, in fairness, be subject to ordinary income tax.
Sure, whatever you say. But I think 100,000 Federal employees who could have their wages garnished would have a quicker result. The Swiss can be a little secretive about those accounts and it could take years, you know?
I believe that I heard it on '' World of Cavuto '' on Fox News Cable at 2:00 pm et
Cavuto talks about stocks, economy and sometimes he has on the show democrat congressman .
If he is inaccurate ,let us know.
Jon, I think we resolved the matter above. I retract my comment that it sounded like b.s. However, I'm looking for information on how the delinquency rate for government employees compares with the delinquency rate for employees in the private sector. As I commented above it seems to me the IRS should be able to do a better job of collecting taxes from government employees. Check my previous comment above.
That's nice. But 800,000 people in 2008 lost it all in personal bankruptcy who HAD medical insurance. And you propose we invoke the Peter Pan solution saying, 'I do believe in the free market' - over and over til it works.
According to Harvard, 45,000 people (maybe they were unbelievers in the free market) died for lack of health care last year because they did not have insurance. And 45,00 more will this year.. what about next year? The 'forbidden destination' for them was the graveyard.
The problem is - the assistance is NOT out there. If you want to tell me it IS, you need to cite chapter and verse where 45 million people go who are uncovered. I'll be sure and pass the word along.
A reminder ,if you lose your job, you or someone won't be paying your premiums.
You can't blame the insurance companies?
Who is the blame for the economy?
Clinton once said '' it's the economy stupid '' and he won an election with the help of a republican congress.WOW !
This congress is so concerned about health care for everyone,they forgot that people working, paying taxes and buying goods supports government entitlements.UNEMPLOYMENT 14.9%
Jon - This a phony argument and I don't care of you DID hear it from Glenn Beck. If we put those people back to work at average jobs that don't offer insurance through a company plan, they can't afford to buy it on their own. The problem of unemployment and health insurance are unrelated.
Currently emplyers are dropping coverge - off the top of my head - at the rate of 14,000 people per day/
We want the private sector to pick these people up - it doen't matter to the unemployed that it's a GOP recession and a democratic recovery. What matters is good jobs with benefits and at the top of the list is healthcare.
You are trying to divert the argument with a lie.
PL;EASE WHAT LIES ARE IN MY HUB?
Here's a fact republican control of congress and republican president
up to 2006 unemployment 4.6%
2007 to 20008 Dem control congress
2009 to 2010 (march) Dem control super control congress and Dem president unemployment 9.7% nationally actually 16.5%
Where is the recovery?
Were those unemployed better off in 2006 or 2010 ???
You betcha Sara would say
The economy has been in the democrat control for 14months, when will the jobs come? Oh ,and the last 2 years of the bush administration.
Everybody pays 15% on Capital gains the only ones who don't are those in the 15% or less category, they pay 0%
The year you are referring to was 2006 where he said he paid 19%.
Which came to 48.1 Million in taxes, thats a lot of money no matter who you are.
So Buffett total income for 2006 was ~$253M? or did he pay ~$9M in taxes.... 48.1M * .19
"Buffett stated that he only paid 19% of his income for 2006 ($48.1 million) in total federal taxes."
Padrino... this is what is probably going to happen.
These Bush W tax cuts that were passed via reconciliation will be reversed. Likewise, the rich can resume paying their fair share in taxes.
-The highest personal income tax bracket will return to 39.6% from around 35%...
-The Bush W capital gain tax cuts will be reversed
Come on! You MUST know that the health care bill is going to cost MORE than 1 trillion over 10 years! That number is a LIE! The taxes to pay for it will be collected over 10 years but the benefits don't kick in for another 4 and not fully until 2018!
Even with the dems numbers the "estimated" cost of this NEW ENTITLEMENT will be 2.5 trillion and we all know the government NEVER estimates costs accurately. Once this is fully operational it's likely to cost upwards of 6 trillion dollars over 10 years!
Let's forget about cost for a moment and let's address the issue of whether or not the federal government has constitutional authority to impose this upon us? Nowhere in the constitution is this allowed! Do you really want to give the government the authority to trade YOUR freedom to provide benefits to someone else?
Lastly, nothing in this bill will control the rising cost of care. Obama is demonizing the insurance companies to garner sympathy from the American people to pass his socialist plan. Medical costs will continue to rise, faster than inflation especially if you add 30 million people to the roles without increasing the amount of providers.
Under Obama's plan, providers are likely to stop taking medicare patients because the reimbursements are going to be cut in order to pay for this NEW ENTITLEMENT program.
$1,115 -- that's the average monthly premium for employer-sponsored family coverage in 2009. Annually, that amounts to $13,375, or roughly the yearly income of someone working a minimum wage job.1
It gets worse: a recent survey found that if we do nothing, over the next ten years, out-of-pocket expenses for Americans with health insurance could increase 35 percent in every state in the country.2
In an effort to put the past year's debate over health insurance reform into perspective, we're launching "Health Reform by the Numbers," an online campaign using key figures, like $1,115, to raise awareness about why we can't wait any longer for reform. We'll be sending out a new number every day. Learn what you can do to help spread the word:
$1,115 is more money than what many Americans pay for rent or mortgage. But there's more to the problem than just numbers.
Take Leslie Banks, an American mom with a daughter in college. In January of this year, she received a notice from her health insurance provider that her plan was being dropped. To keep the same benefits, the premiums for her and her daughter would more than double. Leslie was told by the insurance company that there was nothing she could do -- it was an across-the-board premium hike. If she paid the same monthly premium amount as before, the deductible would increase from $500 to $5,000, and she and her daughter would no longer have preventive care or prescription coverage.
Yesterday, Leslie introduced President Obama at a health reform event in Pennsylvania. Check out what they had to say.
It's important to raise awareness about numbers like $1,115 and stories like Leslie’s because skyrocketing health care costs impact all of us. So take a moment to forward this email to your family, friends and online networks.
With all of us working together, we'll send the message loud and clear -- the time is now for health insurance reform. It's time we made our health care system work for American families and small businesses, not just insurance companies.
Let's get it done.
Director, White House Office of Health Reform
Please! What's it going to cost ME in NEW TAXES to pay for 30 million new users of the system, and 100 new bureaucracies???
How much more will it cost in 10 years when all the insurance companies have left the business and we have just the government as the sole payer?
And what price do we put on FREEDOM? Because after this is enacted, the government is my master!
"And what price do we put on FREEDOM? Because after this is enacted, the government is my master!"
Hardly. Why would you say that? Moreover, under the present system
the insurance companies are your master.
To start with we would allow the federal government a power they currently don't have. If they can ignore the constitution for this, they can ignore it for anything. The protections afforded to us by the constitution no longer exist!
Secondly, under this plan, the government decides what care is acceptable. Just read the bill because I know no one will believe that! They set the allowable rates that insurance companies can charge etc. Everything will be controlled by the government.
Allowing the government to define what a "right" is means you accept the notion that "rights" come from government and you give them power over you. The government decides then who should pay and how much. This is simply a socialist system. Now they are coming for the rich but soon they'll be coming for me and you! Socialist systems don't work, never have and never will!
What's next Ralph? Housing? Jobs? Food? Is it right that people should go without these as well when the rich have many homes and so much money? Why should anyone have 2 homes? Do you the government should confiscate homes from people that have more than 1 and give them to those that have none?
Sorry, health care isn't a right, it's a good, and if you can't afford it, I'm sorry, maybe the church and your neighbors and family can help you out but it shouldn't be the government's role and constitutionally, it isn't!
People with views like yours said the same thing about the child labor law, Social Security, Unemployment Compensation, the Wagner Act, Medicare, Medicaid and so forth. None of them resulted in making the government your master. And neither will health care reform no matter what the final bill contains.
When an entity can dictate to a business owner how they can do business then they are effectively a "Master"! Slowly but surely the Government creeps into the private sector with the misguided notion that they can do it better. I ask, what has government supplied to we the citizens that has ever come in under budget? What does government manufacture/create that makes money?
The answer is Never and nothing, why do you think they can handle health care any better than the post office? By the way, the post office would be out of business if it wasn't against the law for a private company to compete completely with it.
Padrino - I pointned out at the top of this post that 800,000 people last year filed for bankruptcy for medical-related bills who HAD medial insurance.
I have posted at other times that 45,000 people per year die for lack of health care - for lack of health insurance. And untold millions suffer with treatable ailments - that don't get treated.
Show me a REAL free-market solution that provides comprehensive, universal care and you can sign me up. With a year to come up with options, the GOP plan would only help 3 million, not 31 million - and it would not reduce the deficit 100 billion over the first 10 years and 1 trillion over the next 10 years.
The bill's not perfect - we have the choice to do something or nothing. The benefit of this imperfect bill far outweighs the calamity that awaits if we do nothing.
YOur snark about the USPS ignores the fact that Post Office was a cash cow for decade after decade, generating more income than they consumed - which was absorbed by the general budget. For decades, it was the agency that made money. With a huge deline in mail volume, they have been operating in the red and need to restructure - and that's outside the scope of this hub.
Each of those programs are steps toward socialism, it's undeniable. Each of those entitlements are nearly insolvent. Every American citizen, man, woman, and child, is now almost 400,000 dollars in debt to the government to pay for all of the unfunded liabilities, or entitlement promises the government has made. Obama's health care plan will add to that debt, encumber every American with a mandate to purchase insurance as a condition of citizenship, and bring us another step closer to socialism.
The hysteria some of you engage in with regard to proposed health care reform alternately astounds me and makes me laugh.
I'm tempted to start copying and pasting some of these statements, along with the proper attribution, so that we can read them and laugh at them several years down the road.
My father, who voted for Obama in the last election, used to tell me when I was little girl in the 60s, that in 20 years the country would be overrun by black people and all the whites would be exiled or in prison camps. He sincerely believed that, too. To his credit, he was able to change his views over time. I hope some people who are so afraid of change will be able to do the same. It must be hard to live with such fear of a world that is moving forward whether you want it to or not,
I'm not going to assume what you're trying to say. Why don't you just spell it out?
Just what I said. Your dad couldn't look at what percentage of the overall population african americans represented and see how likely such a 'takeover' complete with concentration camps would be? Doesn't make a lot of sense no matter what your politics or prejudice.
Exactly my point. You get a gold star.
Fear causes people to deny reason and latch onto misinformation that feeds into their fear.
So, because your dad is bad at math we should pass this stupid health care bill?
I'm not afraid of change, I'm afraid of a government that refuses to govern in accordance with it's charter. Have you read the constitution? Please review Article 1, Section 8 that describes the powers GRANTED to congress.
Please note too, the rights guaranteed to ALL people, life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness.
Again pay attention to the words, "All men are CREATED equal..."
Freedom is guaranteed, we are created equal, we are not guaranteed equality in quality of life for as long as we live based on some common denominator developed by the government.
Look to to see where these rights come from, "the creator" not from government to be taken by force from your neighbors and given to you!
This isn't hysteria my friend, these are FACTS which your government has chosen to ignore pushing a socialist agenda using tragic examples of some people's lives to convince you it's for the "common good". Well what about ME? What about MY good? That's what the constitution was supposed to protect!
The government's chief responsibility to the American people is to keep us FREE, not to promise us entitlements use our collective wealth to keep hold of power for themselves!
Please do me a favor and copy this so that 20 years from now when you're crying in your 2 dollar vodka and wondering what happened to your freedom you'll have it to remind you how you surrendered it!
Well, if it is a FACT that the government is my master in 20 years, your fear will have been proven to be valid. If, however, the government is not my master in 20 years, then you will just be another one in the long list of people I've known whose fear and paranoia turned out to be just a manifestation of their own feelings of lack of control.
Either way, I won't be drinking vodka, though. Good ol' American bourbon is my drink of choice.
Poppa - You talk about your rights under the Constitution and quote the Declaration of Independence. So there's some shaky logic here at best.
You don't support what 'right' under the Constitution is being threatened, so I can't go there. But the D of I does say that all men are endowed by their creator with certain rights among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
If my right to life is guaranteed by my creator, isn't it obligatory for the government to make reasonable provisions for my health - which is essential to sustain life?
I'm not making a legal argument - the Supreme Court determines the Constitutionality of a law without taking Jefferson's writings from 1776 into account. But there is a strong case to be made with the same words you used - that health care IS a God-given right.
Healthy people do not need high cost health insurance! They only need catastrophic health insurance to cover accidents.
The health care system is overused by people who will not take responsibility for their own bodies. They abuse themselves then when something goes wrong rush to the Doctor and expect to be "fixed". These people are the very reason for the astronomically high costs.
The fix it after it's broke approach is exactly why healthcare costs are so high.
People don't die because they don't have health insurance. People die because they didn't take care of themselves.
The Federal Government wants you to believe that socialist medicare is the solution to health?
The solution to health is prevention and it's a personal responsibility.
The only person that can make you healthy is you. The government continues to condone Cigarette Smoking. The Federal Government subsidizes the corn industry which creates artificially low prices on junk food, but does nothing to subsidize farmers who grow health promoting foods. The corn syrup that goes into Coca Cola is artificially low cost... the produce you buy at your super market is too expensive for the poor to purchase.
Mandating insurance is not going to save lives. Eliminating artificial subsidies on foods toxic to the body, and subsidizing healthy foods will.
It is significantly cheaper to maintain than to let something break then attempt to fix it.
Your ideaa reinds me of the obit for a guy in his 90s who ate nothing but healthy food and reportedly died in perfect health. We will all need coverage at some point.
Not taken to extremes, your point about taking better care of ourselves is COMPLETELY valid.
The Washington post agrees with it
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federa … illio.html
Thanks for the information. We need more facts and fact-based opinions in the forum discussions. The one fact not mentioned by the Washington Post is how the federal government employee delinquency rate compares with the delinquency rate of the general population. My guess is that the rate is similar. It would be interesting to know.
Having read these forums for a few days before I signed up, I noticed that most on the left side of the political spectrum don't really consider facts unless they come from their guys.
Not true at all. Neither side appears to be influenced much by opinions or facts from the opposite political side. And there are too few facts in support of opinions on both sides.
I disagree, I see posts lambasting FOX news all over this forum. I agree that their commentators lean to the right, but not the news portion of FOX news, its the same facts you are getting at CNN and ABC without the liberal bias.
Commentators commentate, that's their job, MSNBC commentators lean left, so?
The big difference is the FOX viewers outnumber all the other outlets combined, leading me to believe one of two things. The liberal viewing audience doesn't really care about whats going on and would rather watch American Idol or they are a lot more ignorant than the average FOX viewer.
I'm leaning towards both, I'm sure that you are not included in the groups I describe.
Well, stick around. You might change your mind. And thanks again for the info on federal employee tax delinquencies. I think we can agree that this is wrong. If we can't collect taxes from people on the federal payroll, we're in trouble. I worked for a corporation, for the federal government, and for the state government, and I've never been delinquent, and I've never been audited. I once received a notice that I'd neglected to declare under $100 of dividend income, and I sent a check to the IRS by return mail. I have difficulty seeing why it should be hard to collect back taxes from government employees or employees of private employers either, for that matter.
Very true, it shouldn't be difficult, but again we are talking about the federal government, They are not exactly a bastion of efficiency.
I've said this before but not to you. I've worked for a major corporation (34 years), the federal government (3.5 years) and my state government (5.5 years). There was about an equal amount of waste in all three organizations and a similar number of employees who weren't contributing much. I was pleasantly surprised when I went to work from the private sector to a government agency where I found a majority of competent hard working employees. Further, as someone responded,it is true that private corporations, in theory and mostly in practice, face competition and will eventually die if they are too inefficient. This is not necessarily true of poorly performing government agencies. Nevertheless, I think the federal government is for the most part unfairly maligned by the public in general and contributors to this forum in particular.
"we are talking about the federal government, They are not exactly a bastion of efficiency"
And they're not supposed to be.
This is an example of the blind leading the blind. i.e. Fox News leading Padrino and other Fox News fans.
I guess you have not seen the various fact checker sites designed just for Fox News?
Thank you for that bit of news, on that note I leave you to the ongoing struggle of the futility to change a mind.
Padrino, your knowledge is on display throughout this forum.
Speaking of Fox "News," did you catch Glenn Beck's closing speech at the CPAC convention? Here's a comment from the Washington Spectator: "Beck closed the convention with an emotionally over-wrought disquisition that began with a 1937 Rhode Island Communist Party pamphlet that described the Constitution as outdated and urged voting for progressive candidates, from which Beck concluded that today's progressives are communists conspiring to abandon constitutional government and create a socialist utopia.
"If that reads like the 'God is love; love is blind; Ray Charles is blind; therefore Ray Charles is God syllogism, it might have been the most reasonable argument Beck made in his one-hour speech.
"The audience followed Beck into an alternate reality in which God intervened to end the life of Warren Harding so that Calvin Coolidge could rescue the courntry from the depression of 1920--which was far worse than the Great Depression--and usher in the Gilded Age, an interrenum of economic stability between two depressions, the latter caused by the progressive policies of Herbert Hoover.
"I parted ways permanently with David Keene when he introduced Beck as a man who understands that Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and WOODROW WILSON were the most dangerous men of the 20th century...."
Beck and Fox News are a joke among nearly all informed, reasonable and moderate observers.
Padrino - Please note that I cites a variety of respected sources - not lefty blogs assembling my facts. In my discussion with Madam X (who is now mad at both us, I think - what's mysogny?) I quoted Thomas Jefferson twice and Teddy Roosevelt, both republicans What else do I have to do?
Wait till you pay your taxes!!
Just check your w2 federal tax withholdings and compare to last years.
Now you will see how Obama screwed all tax payers royally.
by Jezzzz8 years ago
I hear every day about how Obama is not telling the truth about health care reform. I would like to be educated about the subject. What is he saying that just get under your skin about health care...
by Georgiakevin8 years ago
I simply do not understand why people are fighting health care reform. I have heard the arguments against it and I keep saying how is that worse than being held hostage by the insurance companies? My insurance cost...
by Julianna7 years ago
The reform passed how do you feel? What do you believe are the pros and cons? Do you believe your Congressman of your state made the correct decision? The forum is open to discussion.
by Ralph Deeds8 years ago
President Obama again demonstrated his considerable ability to speak persuasively. His advocacy of his health care proposals was powerful and convincing, in my opinion. He explained the details of his proposals, the...
by Georgiakevin8 years ago
I simply do not understand why people are fighting health care reform. I have heard the arguments against it and I keep saying how is that worse than being held hostage by the insurance companies? My insurance cost...
by Jim Hunter6 years ago
From our Dear leader."The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system." –in remarks after a health care roundtable with physicians, nurses...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.