Government Health Insurance = Reparations???

[S55inPA]

Originally Posted by revstriker I've seen things like this before. Unfortunately, such articles just show up as blank paper (or blank screen) when you are wearing your Obama (socialist)glasses. And don't forget, for every negative thing that happens in socialized medicine programs, there is a "good excuse" for it. I'm sure the parents of the baby left to die are very comforted by these excuses. +1

To remove this ad, register today or login if you already are registered!

[Kaz]

Doctors protest in D.C.

http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2009...-rally-in-d-c/

[S55inPA]

Originally Posted by Kaz

Doctors protest in D.C.

http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2009...-rally-in-d-c/

i love the last one.
it's funny. all one has to do is
speak the truth to Disembowel
obamacare!

[revstriker]

So to "some" Obama supporters, this must be what a racist looks like:

Originally Posted by Kaz

[Kaz]

Originally Posted by revstriker

So to "some" Obama supporters, this must be what a racist looks like:

Like it says in the thread title




these are two awesome articles on those who think gov. healthcare saves money and how there is less spending in other countries


_________



http://www.twine.com/item/12gk9y1vk-...nt-health-care

Proponents of government-run health care like to point out that countries with such a system spend a smaller percentage of their gross domestic product on health care than the United States. What they don't like to mention is how those savings are achieved. For example:

Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence usually won't approve a medical procedure or medicine unless its cost, divided by the number of quality-adjusted life years that it will give a patient, is no more than what it values a year of life in great health - £30,000 (about $44,820). So if you want a medical procedure that is expected to extend your life by four years but it costs $40,000 and bureaucrats decide that it will improve the quality of your life by 0.2 (death is zero, 1.0 is best possible health, and negative values can be assigned), you're out of luck because $40,000 divided by 0.8 (4 X 0.2) is $50,000.



http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...9SV8uorqYsAXgP


A new study, published by the Pacific Research Institute, shows that -- across four decades -- the costs of government-run health care have risen far more than the costs of private care.

Since 1970, Medicare and Medicaid's combined per-patient costs have risen from $344 to $8,955, while the combined per-patient costs of all other US health care have risen from $364 to $7,119.

Medicare and Medicaid used to cost $20 less per patient than other care. Now they cost $1,836 more. (And that's even without the Medicare prescription-drug benefit.)

In fact, if the costs of Medicare and Medicaid had risen only as much as the costs of all other health care in America, then, instead of costing a combined $807 billion last year, they would've cost a combined $606 billion. That savings of $201 billion would have amounted to more than $1,750 per American household last year alone.

[Kaz]

Senator Snowe says there is “no way” a health-care overhaul that includes a public option can pass the Senate.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=auZYSu9ljFUs

[MG]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/215291?GT1=43002

The idea that we might ration health care to seniors (or anyone else) is political anathema. Politicians do not dare breathe the R word, lest they be accused—however wrongly—of trying to pull the plug on Grandma. But the need to spend less money on the elderly at the end of life is the elephant in the room in the health-reform debate. Everyone sees it but no one wants to talk about it. At a more basic level, Americans are afraid not just of dying, but of talking and thinking about death. Until Americans learn to contemplate death as more than a scientific challenge to be overcome, our health-care system will remain unfixable.

Compared with other Western countries, the United States has more health care—but, generally speaking, not better health care. There is no way we can get control of costs, which have grown by nearly 50 percent in the past decade, without finding a way to stop overtreating patients. In his address to Congress, President Obama spoke airily about reducing inefficiency, but he slid past the hard choices that will have to be made to stop health care from devouring ever-larger slices of the economy and tax dollar. A significant portion of the savings will have to come from the money we spend on seniors at the end of life because, as Willie Sutton explained about why he robbed banks, that's where the money is.

[MG]

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009...t-work-nevada/

WASHINGTON - No sooner than the Senate Finance Committee's chairman released his long-awaited health care bill today than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said it's not good enough for Nevada.

“While this draft bill is a good starting point, it needs improvement before it will work for Nevada," Reid said in a statement. "During this time of economic crisis, our state cannot afford to shoulder the second highest increase in Medicaid funding."

Wait.......What?

Reid said he received assurance from the chairman, Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, that the formula would be changed before the bill goes to committee next week.

One way the legislation plans to cover more uninsured is to make Medicaid available to more people. Right now Medicaid in Nevada covers limited low-income groups -- primarily pregnant women, children and seniors. The bill would expand care to include childless adults. But that would require a 5 percent increase in funding from the state.

Sooooooooooooooooooooooo, Not only are we seemingly destined to be forced into a substandard system from which we have no choice and are required to pay for 49% of the people in this country which pay no income taxes, the people of Nevada are going to get special exemptions over and above all the other States already that pay less than their fair share?

jfc

[revstriker]

Not surprising. The Dems want all these added services, but they want the "rich conservatives" to foot the bill for them. It's unacceptable if this will cost any of the protected class people any more money. I'm sure the formula will be changed so that the cost covered by the rich. You know, those who make more than $50k a year.

[S55inPA]

what good is health care reform if 45% of the doctors retire?

this is from Inverstors Business Daily.

"Grim Prognosis From Doctors Opposed To Health Care Reform"

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=506309


"Doctor opposition to health care overhaul proposals is broad and deep, revealing concerns not just about soaring costs, declining care, possible rationing and a lack of limits on malpractice suits, but also about government competence and motives, detailed responses to a new IBD/TIPP Poll show.

As reported Wednesday, 65% of the 1,376 practicing physicians who responded to a mailed questionnaire over the last two weeks said they opposed health care plans that have emerged from the administration and Congress. Just 33% supported them.

Perhaps the most shocking result: 45% of these professionals said they would consider closing their practices or retiring early if the reforms now under consideration were enacted
-------
"Fear Of Lawyers

A number of our respondents used identical wording for why they didn't support health care reform: "No tort reform."

"The more lawsuits against doctors, the more testing is done," said one respondent, uttering a frequent complaint. "The government never interferes with lawyers — why? They are afraid, or they're all lawyers."

A big issue for others was efficiency. They fear government control would mean massive waste and interference with their practices. "All the efficiency of the post office, all the compassion of the motor vehicle bureau," quipped one doctor.

Another looming worry: exploding costs. With expectations that the government will spend upward of $1 trillion on reform, doctors fear the inevitable controls, including rationing, that will come to rein in costs down the road.

"A government-run plan will be too expensive and will not be effective," according to one physician. "The plan will expect doctors to take a lower fee for a given service. The private plans will follow, and outpatient medical services will be forced out of business."

This is "typical government, throwing trillions of dollars in one swoop to 'fix' the system," said another. "They need to slow down, dissect the system and fix it properly."

"There will be mandated protocols, long waits, rationing of care, infringement upon a doctor's right of conscience, abortion paid for by (tax) dollars, with eventual euthanasia and infanticide," said still another, voicing the ethical concerns of many.

The federal government's notorious lack of success in running enterprises of any size, let alone one as big and complicated as a health care system — was also cited frequently.

"Health care in the VA (Veterans' Administration) shows how well government can render care," said one. "It is disgraceful."

Gov't Can't Run Diddly

Others pointed to the troubles with government-run Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which are all verging on insolvency and now account for an estimated $51 trillion in unfunded liabilities over the next half-century.

Government-funded rail was a favorite foil — so was the Cash for Clunkers program. The House health bill "is 1,200-plus pages of miniature and legalese," joked one eye-sore physician. "Please recall 130 pages of forms for each 'cash for clunkers' transaction!"

"Government control? Give me a break," said another. "Look what they've done to Social Security, the Post Office, the bailouts, etc. Medicare and Medicaid are not paying doctors enough, and the paperwork to participate is huge."

Other irate docs agreed: "Government has proven unable to manage many other programs, including Social Security, Medicare, and the postal service. Why do they think they can (run) a health care program?"

"Government health care will wipe out the private insurance companies," said another. "Most of the doctors in private practice will give up ... because of a low reimbursement from the government. The Medicare, Medicaid program is a good example of government-run health care."

Still others railed against what they saw as the real villains: insurance companies. Anger at insurance companies, which are now the main brake on health care costs, was plentiful.

"Between the government and insurance companies, I now only collect 28% to 30% of billed charges. No other business can function at that rate," this doctor added.

As many noted, all of the plans now being discussed would require massive tax hikes — and debt.

Foreign Experience

Many of those who opposed the plan had a unique perspective: They had practiced or lived under national health care systems in other countries.

Their comments about the experience were often scathing. To paraphrase progressive journalist Lincoln Steffens, they have seen the future — and it doesn't work.

"I trained and worked in Canada prior to coming to the U.S.," went one typical letter. "The same arguments were used in Canada to launch 'universal health care.' It is anything but universal and free."

Others had similar complaints.

"I did two years of training in Canada — disaster. When the government needed money, it decided patients with a stroke would not get a hospital bed. I had to have interns carry hemiplegic (a condition in which half a patient's body is paralyzed) patients to their families' cars."

"I am a former Canadian and I am a physician," added another. "I know a lot about government-run health care. If it's so good, then all members of Congress, the president and all federal employees should be the first to try it."

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by S55inPA

what good is health care reform if 45% of the doctors retire?

Dick Morris has been asking this and other such questions for some time now. Obama is planning on adding 40 million new patients, yet there is no plan on where the doctors would come from to treat these people. Add to that the existing doctors who would consider retiring, and you have even a further shortage.

So lets do some math: More patients + less doctors = rationing of service.

But I guess we should be careful. Speaking the truth is a "scare tactic" where telling lies is for the good of the people.

[S55inPA]

Originally Posted by revstriker

Dick Morris has been asking this and other such questions for some time now. Obama is planning on adding 40 million new patients, yet there is no plan on where the doctors would come from to treat these people. Add to that the existing doctors who would consider retiring, and you have even a further shortage.

So lets do some math: More patients + less doctors = rationing of service.

But I guess we should be careful. Speaking the truth is a "scare tactic" where telling lies is for the good of the people.

what amazes me Rev is this..... understanding that simple equation
eludes the intellectually bankrupt left.

[MG]

This Senate version is a nightmare.

2TRillion dollars, and this is what they come up with

With apologies to E.F. Hutton: When Ron Wyden talks about health-care reform, people should listen. When Ron Wyden balks at a Democratic health-care reform proposal, people should definitely listen

On choice, Wyden argues, the White House and congressional plans have defined eligibility for the new insurance exchanges so narrowly that the vast majority of Americans won't be allowed to participate.

For all the hullabaloo over the public option, the reality is that most Americans would not be eligible to choose even a private option. In an effort to avoid destabilizing employer-sponsored health care, the exchanges will be open only to the uninsured and small businesses.

"Nobody ever told the folks carrying the public-option signs all over America that 85 percent wouldn't even get to choose it," Wyden said. "For hundreds of millions of people, they're going to have no more leverage after this bill passes than they do today. They work in some company, some person they don't know in the human resources department decides what's good for them. Nothing has changed."

Basically, this bill sticks 51% of us with the bill, excludes 85% of us from participating and shuffles 2 trillion through the sticky fingers of government while eventually trickling a couple billion down to the same people currently enjoying the relaxing warm embrace of the current "safety net".

All this really is is a giant corruption forwarding scam. They are taking a bunch of taxes to be paid in the future and turning it into cash now for the poloticians to buy new boats with.

[LRM1]

Originally Posted by S55inPA

i heard this tonight on the Mark Levin show.
does government run health care/insurance = reparations?
here is the article he sited.


Reparations By Way Of Health Care Reform "
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=483402

"President Obama is on the record as being officially opposed to reparations for slavery. But as with other issues, you have to sift through his eloquent rhetoric and go beyond the teleprompter to get at what he really means.

His opposition to reparations is based on the fact they don't go far enough. In a 2004 questionnaire, he told the NAACP, "I fear that reparations would be an excuse for some to say, 'We've paid our debt,' and to avoid the much harder work."

Never mind there are those who thought we apologized at Gettysburg and that an African-American president is a recognition of the hard work that has been done.

At a press conference with minority journalists last fall, candidate Obama was pressed for more detail on his reparations position. He said he was more interested in taking action to help people who were just getting by. Because many of them are minorities, he said, that would help the same people who would benefit from reparations.

"If we have a program, for example, of universal health care, that will disproportionally affect people of color, because they are disproportionally uninsured," Obama said.

This may be a goal of Obama's health care plan: the redress of health care disparities on the basis of race and the punishment of those believed to be responsible, such as greedy doctors who perform unnecessary tests and procedures and greedy insurance and drug companies lusting for profits.


oh and don't count on the Blue Dog Democrats. they should be
called the Blue Ball or No Ball Democrats. completely spineless.

"Blue Dogs:All Bark, No Bite"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...496220036.html

"So far this year, the House has seen at least four major spending bills. Here’s how the Blue Dogs voted:

• The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (Schip). One of the first things the Democratic leadership wanted the newly inaugurated President Obama to sign was a huge expansion of Schip. Democrats have been trying to pass the expansion for over a year, with some bipartisan support. President George W. Bush vetoed the legislation twice, and Congress sustained his veto both times by a hair.

Schip was created for low-income uninsured children not eligible for Medicaid. Under the old bill, children whose family incomes were 200% of the federal poverty level were covered. With the new bill, Democrats increased funding to cover children whose family incomes are up to 300% of the federal poverty level—or $66,000 a year for a family of four. The Bush administration and most conservatives thought it should remain at 200%. Did the Blue Dogs agree? Only two voted against the expansion.

• The $787 billion stimulus. The next major spending package was Mr. Obama’s stimulus bill. Not one House Republican voted for the bill. The Blue Dogs? Only 10 of 52 voted against it.

• President Obama’s 2010 federal budget. In April, Congress took a vote on the president’s $3.5 trillion budget for 2010—by far the biggest spending package in history. Again, not one House Republican voted for the bill, but only 14 Blue Dogs joined them in opposition.

• The cap-and-trade energy tax. In June, the House took an enormous step by pushing through the president’s cap-and-trade energy tax. The legislation will stifle economic growth by imposing huge new costs on every business and each American household. Eight House Republicans voted for the bill. Twenty-nine Blue Dogs voted against the legislation.




and Rove breaks the numbers down to expose the insanity of ObamaCare.

"Obama's Great Health Scare"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...081271414.html

"At his news conference last week, he said “Reform is about every American who has ever feared that they may lose their coverage, or lose their job. . . . If we do not reform health care, your premiums and out-of-pocket costs will continue to skyrocket. If we do not act, 14,000 Americans will continue to lose their health insurance every single day. These are the consequences of inaction.”

A Fox News Poll from last week shows that 84% of Americans who have health insurance are happy with their coverage. And because 91% of all Americans have insurance, that means that 76% of all Americans will be concerned about anything that threatens their current coverage. By a 2-1 margin, according to the Fox Poll, Americans want coverage from a private provider rather than the government.

Facing numbers like these, Mr. Obama is dropping his high-minded rhetoric and instead trying to scare voters. During last week’s news conference, for example, he said that doctors routinely perform unnecessary tonsillectomies on children simply to fatten their wallets. All that was missing was the suggestion that the operations were conducted without anesthesia


and ..."The Pelosi Jobs Tax"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...688201934.html

Even many Democrats are revolting against Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s 5.4% income surtax to finance ObamaCare, but another tax in her House bill isn’t getting enough attention. To wit, the up to 10-percentage point payroll tax increase on workers and businesses that don’t provide health insurance. This should put to rest the illusion that no one making more than $250,000 in income will pay higher taxes.

To understand why, consider how the Pelosi jobs tax works. Under the House bill, firms with employee payroll of above $250,000 without a company health plan would pay a tax starting at 2% of wages per employee. That rate would quickly rise to 8% on firms with total payroll of $400,000 or more. A tax credit would help very small businesses adjust to the new costs, but even a firm with a handful of workers is likely to be subject to this payroll levy. As we went to press, Blue Dogs were taking credit for pushing those payroll amounts up to $500,000 and $750,0000, but those are still small employers."



with all of the irrefutable evidence that most people are happy with
their current health insurance and that our completely f'ed federal
government cannot only not afford to supply health insurance...let alone
try to manage it properly. why is our moronic president pushing it
so hard. getting even?...or just pure stupidity? why are we messing
with the best health care system in the world?


oh...and is there a "RIGHT" to health care?
here is a fantastic article that addresses that point

"Is There a "Right" To Health Care?"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...677645070.html

"The question of health care is not one of rights but of how best in practice to organize it. America is certainly not a perfect model in this regard. But neither is Britain, where a universal right to health care has been recognized longest in the Western world.

Not coincidentally, the U.K. is by far the most unpleasant country in which to be ill in the Western world. Even Greeks living in Britain return home for medical treatment if they are physically able to do so.

The government-run health-care system—which in the U.K. is believed to be the necessary institutional corollary to an inalienable right to health care—has pauperized the entire population. This is not to say that in every last case the treatment is bad: A pauper may be well or badly treated, according to the inclination, temperament and abilities of those providing the treatment. But a pauper must accept what he is given"

There is a simple explanation for this. Racism.

Not in the sense we're accustomed to - any questioning of the liberals is racism, but rather the Democrats relying on race to get them in and keep them in office.

Without there being racial issues, disproportionate numbers of minorities that are uneducated, poor, on welfare and without health insurance, there is NO perceived or support for ANY liberal ideas - except maybe anti-war hippies.

It benefits the Democrats to have poor minorities. What other group votes 95%, 95%! Democrat? It is exactly like the joke someone posted on another thread - The Democrats offer Ice Cream.

The Democrats, in their blatant hypocrisy point at everyone else and cry "Racism!" over anything and everything. They cheapen the term. But through their actions - entitlement, programs that don't encourage people to learn or work, they are the ultimate racists. Rather than kick those people in the butt and help them find jobs and make their own lives better, they give and give and create a perpetual culture of victimization that benefits no one.

That my friends is the epitomy of racism.

[Kaz]

here is a MUST read article! its written in very simple and jargon free language. it makes a reference to the incident in France of 2003 which almost no one brings up



________________


An economist explains health spending



by Robert Fogel,
Nobel Economist





First, Americans have had more money to spend.

"Between 1875 and 1995, the share of family income spent on food, clothing, and shelter declined from 87 percent to just 30 percent, despite the fact that we eat more food, own more clothes, and have better and larger homes today than we had in 1875," Fogel wrote.

If we limit the basics to these three items, that means spending on non-basic items rose from 13 percent of income in 1875 to 70 percent in 1995.

That is a fivefold increase.

Some of it went to entertainment, some of it went to government (taxes are much higher), and the rest went to other things, including health care.

So we have had more money to spend on health care.

The second reason we spend more is because spending more money on health care works.

"It is important to emphasize that medical interventions have not only contributed to the decline in prevalence rates of chronic conditions but also to the reduction in their severity," Fogel wrote.

"Advances in both surgical and drug therapies have significantly reduced the rate at which chronic conditions turn into disabilities that severely impair functioning.

"Such interventions have been especially effective in genitourinary, circulatory, digestive, and musculoskeletal conditions.

"However, many of the surgical procedures are quite expensive, and the cost of the new and more effective drugs is increasing sharply, mainly because of the large investments in developing these drugs."

The United States, overall, has both the most expensive and the best health care in the world.

The socialist argument that somehow spending more on health care makes our health system inferior is absurd.

This argument is based on life expectancy tables.

But life expectancy has many factors, including average weight, homicide rates, suicide rates, genetics and traffic fatalities.

The emphasis in America is on saving lives, not money.

In every socialist country, the opposite is true. The only way to save money on health care is to ration it.

When socialists toss around a number such as 18,000 people die because they lack health insurance, I remember that 14,802 people died in France in August 2003 because of the French health system.

There was a heat wave, and instead of calling doctors back from their month-long vacations to tend those people, the French government decided to save money.

Adjusted for population, that would be like 70,000 deaths in America, or roughly 35 Hurricane Katrinas.

In England, the Taxpayers Alliance estimated that an extra 17,000 people die each year because of the quality of the National Health Service.

That is no big deal to many British people.

"An extra 17,000 deaths might seem high, but that figure needed to be set against annual mortality, which was between 750,000 and one million deaths every year," the liberal London Guardian reported.

"The countries with which the UK was being compared spent more of their GDP on healthcare."

The extra deaths are OK to liberals because, hey, look at all the money the government is saving.

[MG]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...diagnosed.html

Doctors were making mistakes in up to 15 per cent of cases because they were too quick to judge patients’ symptoms, they said, while others were reluctant to ask more senior colleagues for help.

While in most cases the misdiagnosis did not result in the patient suffering serious harm, a sizeable number of the millions of NHS patients were likely to suffer significant health problems as a result, according to figures. It was said that the number of misdiagnoses was “just the tip of the iceberg”, with many people still reluctant to report mistakes by their doctors.

There was a call for better reporting methods to ensure that each misdiagnosis was recorded and monitored properly.

Prof Graham Neale, of the Imperial Centre for Patient Safety and Service Quality at Imperial College London, who is carrying out research into cases of misdiagnosis in the NHS, said it was a problem that was not being adequately dealt with.

“There is absolutely no doubt that this is being under-reported,” he said. “But more importantly they are not being adequately analysed.

[LRM1]

That my friends is the fundamental root of the problem. Which numbers are real?

The left throws these numbers out dramatically "47 million!" to scare people into thinking no one has insurance- when in fact when really looked at carefully (which is virtually impossible), there are substantive reasons for that number that have nothing to do with people getting screwed.

But again, how successful would Robin Hood have been if there were no peasants being downtrodden by the rich?

It's the fundamental raison d'etre for the left - "the rich are getting richer, you are getting poorer and they are screwing you of what you deserve!". It actually sounds much better than "if you work hard, you too can become rich" if you're a lazy slob who feels like you "deserve better".

They promise "Ice Cream" to quote Marco Polo's joke.

[S55inPA]

the crazy liberals won't give up trying to foist their
money and power grabbing scheme on a public
that does not want it

"Liberals Refuse to Give Up on Gov't Health Option"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...public-option/

[S55inPA]

take a gander at this you left wing dummies.
it seems that the party of insanity is coming
after your wallet as well.

Barack Hussein Obama. MMM, MMM, MMM!

"The Baucus Bill Is A Tax Bill"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...249934348.html

"Consider the bill put forward by the Senate Finance Committee. From a budgetary perspective, it is straightforward. The bill creates a new health entitlement program that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates will grow over the longer term at a rate of 8% annually, which is much faster than the growth rate of the economy or tax revenues. This is the same growth rate as the House bill that Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) deep-sixed by asking the CBO to tell the truth about its impact on health-care costs.

To avoid the fate of the House bill and achieve a veneer of fiscal sensibility, the Senate did three things: It omitted inconvenient truths, it promised that future Congresses will make tough choices to slow entitlement spending, and it dropped the hammer on the middle class.

One inconvenient truth is the fact that Congress will not allow doctors to suffer a 24% cut in their Medicare reimbursements. Senate Democrats chose to ignore this reality and rely on the promise of a cut to make their bill add up. Taking note of this fact pushes the total cost of the bill well over $1 trillion and destroys any pretense of budget balance.

It is beyond fantastic to promise that future Congresses, for 10 straight years, will allow planned cuts in reimbursements to hospitals, other providers, and Medicare Advantage (thereby reducing the benefits of 25% of seniors in Medicare). The 1997 Balanced Budget Act pursued this strategy and successive Congresses steadily unwound its provisions. The very fact that this Congress is pursuing an expensive new entitlement belies the notion that members would be willing to cut existing ones.

Most astounding of all is what this Congress is willing to do to struggling middle-class families. The bill would impose nearly $400 billion in new taxes and fees. Nearly 90% of that burden will be shouldered by those making $200,000 or less."

--------

"But the economics are clear. These costs will be passed on to consumers by either directly raising insurance premiums, or by fueling higher health-care costs that inevitably lead to higher premiums. Consumers will pay the excise tax on high-cost plans. The Joint Committee on Taxation indicates that 87% of the burden would fall on Americans making less than $200,000, and more than half on those earning under $100,000."

--------

"Senate Democrats are also erecting new barriers to middle-class ascent. A family of four making $54,000 would pay $4,800 for health insurance, with the remainder coming from subsidies. If they work harder and raise their income to $66,000, their cost of insurance rises by $2,800. In other words, earning another $12,000 raises their bill by $2,800—a marginal tax rate of 23%. Double-digit increases in effective tax rates will have detrimental effects on the incentives of millions of Americans.

Why does it make sense to double down on the kinds of entitlements already in crisis, instead of passing medical malpractice reform and allowing greater competition among insurers? Why should middle-class families pay more than $2,000 on average, by my estimate, in taxes in the process?

Middle-class families have it tough enough. There is little reason to believe that the pain of the current recession, housing downturn, and financial crisis will quickly fade away—especially with the administration planning to triple the national debt over the next decade.

The promise of real reform remains. But the reality of the Democrats' current effort is starkly less benign. It will create a dangerous new entitlement that will be paid for by the middle class and their children."

[Goliath27]

Didn't read if this has been posted but I thought I could share here.......

YouTube - Teabaggers can't handle a little dissent

ALi

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by Goliath27

Didn't read if this has been posted but I thought I could share here.......

YouTube - Teabaggers can't handle a little dissent

ALi

Seemed to me like they were handling the dissent quite well. What was pretty stupid was the police allowing a counter protest in the middle of the protest. And if this was a large gathering of people in support of a public option, I wouldn't want the police to allow a guy to walk through with a sign suggesting no public option (and somehow, I think that dissent would have been quite different).

Reading the comments on that video were pretty funny as well. Gotta love the opinion that if you don't agree with a public option, then they must be stupid. And that is the BEST support for a public option that they can offer.

[Goliath27]

Originally Posted by revstriker

Seemed to me like they were handling the dissent quite well. What was pretty stupid was the police allowing a counter protest in the middle of the protest. And if this was a large gathering of people in support of a public option, I wouldn't want the police to allow a guy to walk through with a sign suggesting no public option (and somehow, I think that dissent would have been quite different).

Reading the comments on that video were pretty funny as well. Gotta love the opinion that if you don't agree with a public option, then they must be stupid. And that is the BEST support for a public option that they can offer.

I find it very Dangerous to allow him to walk through like that, with or without others support. I don't have a position on the whole Public Option/Not, just thought I could pass this down to you guys. Might make the thread a bit more interesting.

ALi