Healthcare reform

[Cknolls]

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-ne...ock-health-bill

 

 

[Cknolls]

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm...ws-000003168293

 

 

This throws a wrench into the jam job by th Dems, no?

[Balta1701]

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm...ws-000003168293

 

 

This throws a wrench into the jam job by th Dems, no?

Oh, so now you guys LOVE the Congressional Budget Office? 2 nights ago they were a horrible horrible partisan group that has been seduced by the beauty of Obama's backside. But then its head says something that can be taken out of context appropriately to make it sound anti-health-care reform, and suddenly we're all good again right?

“In the legislation that has been reported, we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount and, on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs,” he said.

That is true. Of course, it's also true because the efforts to save money, specifically on Medicare/Medicaid, aren't in the portion of the bill that he is being asked about. He was testifying to the Senate, where unlike the House, the Bill currently sits in multiple parts because multiple committees are producing it, and because most of the significant cost-savings wind up happening more than 10 years out, which is when the projected health care cost explosion hits as well. But it sounds good, so hey, the CBO's wonderful again!

 

[southsider2k5]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...ost-states.html

 

Study: House Democrats’ Health Care Bill Pushes Top Tax Rates to Over 50% in Most States

 

July 16, 2009 11:59 AM

Print

RSS

E-mail

Share this story with friends

Facebook

Reddit

Twitter

StumbleUpon

More

 

A study by the non-partisan Tax Foundation finds that the 5.4% surtax on top wage-earners proposed by House Democrats to help fund health care reform would push top tax rates over 50% in 39 states.

 

"That means government would be taking more than half of every additional dollar from high-income taxpayers,” said Tax Foundation President Scott Hodge. “The lowest top tax rate would be about 47% --and that's in the nine states that don't tax wages."

 

The proposal imposes a new surtax of 1 percent on married couples who earn between $350,000 and $500,000 (singles between $280,000 and $400,000). Couples with incomes between $500,000 and $1 million (singles earning between $400,000and $800,000) would have a 1.5 percent surtax imposes. Couples who make more than $1 million, and singles who make more than $800,000, would face a 5.4% surtax.

 

ABC News’ Dan Arnall reports that the latest data book from the IRS (Tax Year 2006) indicates that 0.3% of all individual income tax returns showed an income of $1 million or higher; 354,093 tax returns out of a universe of 138 million filed that year.

 

The hardest-hit states in terms of the highest tax bracket would be Oregon (57.5%), Hawaii (57.2%), New Jersey (57.1%), New York (56.9%), California (56.8%), Rhode Island (56.2%), Vermont (55.8%), Maryland (55.6%), Minnesota (54.4%) and Idaho (54.3%).

 

Washington, DC’s highest tax bracket would be 55.0%. New York City’s would be 58.7%.

 

And yes, they are still planning to tax insurance.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories...13/daily37.html

 

The HELP Committee bill requires businesses with 25 employees or more to offer health insurance or pay $750 a year per full-time worker to the federal government. Individuals would be required to obtain coverage. The bill also would create an insurance exchange, where individuals and small businesses could purchase health insurance. That exchange would include a government-run plan that would compete with private insurers.

[BigSqwert]

LINK

 

Another Bad Argument Against Taxes

 

By Conor Clarke

 

 

Here's one from The Cato Institute's Chris Edwards, who describes the House plan as a "Socialist Surtax for Health Care" (what the heck makes something socialist, anyway?) and says that "what’s striking is how far American economic policy is moving to the left of policies in other major nations." By "other major nations" he means, of course, those socialist fools in Europe. Edwards goes on to argue that the new surtax (plus some other Obama tax increases that haven't been enacted yet) would "push the top [American tax] rate to 51 percent, which would be higher than many nations that were traditionally more socialist than America, including France (46%), Germany (48%), and Italy (45%)." Socialism!

 

But can you spot the sleight of hand? Edwards is talking about the top marginal income tax rate, not the total effective tax rate. The marginal income tax rate is what applies to your last dollar of of wage income. The total effective rate is what you pay on the average dollar of any income. Marginal rates matter, of course. But they also kick in at different levels and are offset by a variety of other policies. The total effective rate gives you a much, much better sense of how the government nibbles away at your earnings. (For a quick example of how easy it is to be mislead people by talking about marginal rates: the top rate in the 1950's was higher than 90%.)

 

Why is there such a difference between effective and marginal rates? One reason is that we tax capital gains and dividends at a lower rate than wage income. (This is why, for example, Warren Buffett complains that his secretary taxes at a higher effective rate than he does: so much of his income is from dividends and capital gains.) It's also why, when you look at the distribution of effective rates, the tax system looks a lot less progressive (excuse me, socialist) than it otherwise would:

 

[BigSqwert]

I forgot to add

[southsider2k5]

Oh, so now you guys LOVE the Congressional Budget Office? 2 nights ago they were a horrible horrible partisan group that has been seduced by the beauty of Obama's backside. But then its head says something that can be taken out of context appropriately to make it sound anti-health-care reform, and suddenly we're all good again right?

That came from one person exactly, but way to categorize that as "you all"

[ChiSox_Sonix]

That came from one person exactly, but way to categorize that as "you all"

 

It's different.

[kapkomet]

Ok, this is just funny...

 

Emminating from our bathroom walls moments ago to my three year old daughter:

 

"The time has come for all Americans to poo poo in the potty. Now - uuuhhhh - there will be those who disagree with this plan, but inaction simply cannot stand - we are going to reform our toilet habits. Now let me be clear - the time to poo poo is right now!"

 

LMAO. My wife has those Obama speeches down pretty good.

 

Then she said, even my three year old doesn't believe this crap.

[Balta1701]

Gallup: ranks of uninsured have increased by somewhere around 4-5 million over the last year.

[Balta1701]

Then she said, even my three year old doesn't believe this crap.

(Checks the spanking thread for an explanation...) J/k

[kapkomet]

Oh... maybe we should try that instead.

 

[Balta1701]

 

 

Link. Yeah, like you couldn't have predicted that.

[kapkomet]

 

 

Link. Yeah, like you couldn't have predicted that.

The CBO "score" of the updated bill is a lie anyway. But to you, it won't be.

[NorthSideSox72]

The CBO "score" of the updated bill is a lie anyway. But to you, it won't be.

But the first "Score" was accurate, because it fits your belief?

 

[kapkomet]

But the first "Score" was accurate, because it fits your belief?

Nope... well, for that version, it was accurate. Now they're playing hide the weenie. They are leaving out the medicaid part that they have to pass on to state's budgets. That's the major difference between the two bills. So, now, instead of the first number, whatever it was, now it's mysteriously less, while keeping the same services. Gotta love that trick. /waits for lib blog after lib blog telling me that the facts are wrong and government all the way baby!

 

[Balta1701]

RAND corp study links rising health care costs to job losses, lower economic output.

[kapkomet]

RAND corp study links rising health care costs to job losses, lower economic output.

 

It's Bush's fault, clearly.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

 

It's Bush's fault, clearly.

Its gotten to where your kaperbole isn't even related to the posts you reply to anymore.

 

[kapkomet]

Its gotten to where your kaperbole isn't even related to the posts you reply to anymore.

Look at the dates of the study.

[lostfan]

Look at the dates of the study.

1987 to 2005? Yeah man that's a clear indictment of Bush 43. He was so bad he managed to f*** things up when his dad was still vice president.

[kapkomet]

1987 to 2005? Yeah man that's a clear indictment of Bush 43. He was so bad he managed to f*** things up when his dad was still vice president.

I thought it was 1997 to 2005. Oh well. It's still Bush's fault...

 

 

[mr_genius]

1987 to 2005?

 

Bill Clinton

 

LOL

 

doesn't surprise me.

[Cknolls]

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/arti...10&print=on

 

Well, there you have it! Its called doing you f***ing job..... Is he promoting more smaller more efficient bills from the House...Retire old man, your time has past..Visit your wife in jail..

[lostfan]

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/arti...10&print=on

 

Well, there you have it! Its called doing you f***ing job..... Is he promoting more smaller more efficient bills from the House...Retire old man, your time has past..Visit your wife in jail..

He has a point. Could you read, and more importantly comprehend, 1000 pages of legalese in 2 days without anyone helping you do it? That's not a matter of "doing your job," it's a matter of actually being possible.