Originally posted by tommy_boy
A bit misleading, libertygal, since the Bush tax cuts were primarily for the top percentage of earners, and everything is being done to only raise
taxes on that same bunch. You may be in that top earners elite class, but most of us are not. The expiration of the Bush tax cuts won't affect us in
the middle class a whole lot.
Hm, I do not think this is misleading at all. That means the companies that many of us work for will not give raises, if they haven't already stopped
giving them. So, when inflation hits, (and it IS coming!) and cost of living goes up yearly mind you, we have no redress.
It means less disposable income, it means less consumerism, it means MORE jobs overseas as we outsource the *rest* of this country.
It means more of us employed by those companies may lose our jobs as they flee overseas to avoid huge tax rates, and have cheaper labor. The US is
currently the highest in the world for coorporate tax rates, and they are only going up.
It means that some of us employed by those companies may lose our jobs to make up for the loss of tax cuts and increasing taxes. We cannot just keep
printing monopoly money.
I don't see that as being misleading at all. And, if they do go overseas, thats thousands, mabye millions more unemployed, and eventually *someone*
is going to have to pay for those taxes.
49% of people in the US pay no taxes. That leaves the remainder of us holding the bag. For anyone to even engage the idea this will not affect middle
class is a huge misnomer.
If the big corporations bail, the remainder of those that have jobs will have 0 disposable income. Who is going to feed and house all these unemployed
people? I mean, great, we will not have to worry about their healthcare, but what about what they eat? Where they live, sleep?
People WITH insurance today pray that they don't get sick, because those WITH coverage on a daily basis get hit with thousands and thousands of
dollars of unpaid bills. Don't make it sound like this new bill is going to cause some uniquely new problem.
I just had surgery and the bill was over 71 thousand dollars. I have to pay 400 dollars. Perhaps people should choose better insurance?
Look, I never said something didn't need to be done, but I do think this is huge overkill. They could have just as easily regulated the insurance
companies and expanded existing programs to cover those who could not afford their own coverage.
They cannot run Medicare and Medicaid, WHY should we even consider they can run something like this?
They fail to account for the cost of living and gasoline and food, when people *apply* for assistance. They don't care what your bills are, they only
care what you earn. That's a huge mistake.
Congress doesn't have to use the public option for the same reason I don't have to use it: Because their employer offers coverage.
I can't wait till the day you wake up and realize YOU are the Congress' employer! YOU are paying for their caddillac plan! HI!
Remember the AIG bailout that WE paid for? That's because they hold most of Congress' holdings!
Just what are you planning on doing in the coming years when your employer opts to pay the fine and just let you get the government option?
Their whole *intent* is to drive insurance companies out of business. This is about government control. There is an interview with Obama where he
*states* his intent is to drive insurance companies out of business, and have the government option be the ONLY option.
He states, "It may take 15 years, maybe 20, but this is what I want." But the MS kept that from you, just like all the other things, like
bankrupting the coal industry, and driving our electric bills through the roof. His words, *not* mine!
They got our banks, they got our automakers, they got our housing. What else after healthcare? We have almost nothing left. Why is this OK?!
So ok, Bush fooked up, but do you really think people deserve *this*? In punishing "repugs", people are blind to the fact they are punishing
themselves. It is insanity.
Unions don't have to use the public option because they have Collective Bargaining Agreements with their employers that negotiates health insurance.
If you're implying that the bill exempts unions from needing to consider the public option in negotiations, then I agree with you, it should be on
It dies exempt them, just like it exempts Congress.
I have collective bargaining too, that's what my HMO does. They negotiate a rate, and thats what the hospital gets, regardless of how much they bill,
they get that rate and nothing more, nothing less.
I guess you missed that part of the bailout where tax dollars are being used to pay for the Unions coverage? There are thousands of unempoyed Union
workers that have lifetime coverage due to you and me. GM and Chrysler could not afford to keep paying their coverage, they got bailed out. Thats your
money, and mine, and Bill's and Mary's. The government is US!
We The People now own GM and Chrysler. A *lot* of that money went to pay for the coverage of the retired and unemployable Union workers. (By
unemployable, I mean the ones who were sitting in the break rooms 8 hours a day because there was no work.)
Hey, wait! That's YOU again! Oh, maybe not. I wonder. Are you are in that 49% that don't have to pay any taxes? (you get a nice refund every
In terms of cost, I thought the CBO certified that this actually pays for itself? Am I wrong? Did that not happen?
You were misled, and not by me! The CBO only states it will "pay for itself" for the first five years. (Thats the first 5 years no one has any
coverage, and we are all paying taxes IN to the program, right?)
After that, it grows exponentially, up to 10 years. During the second 5 years, the billions in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid (wait, isn't that the
elderly and the poor?) *should* help them break about even.
After 10 years? The CBO won't touch it. Therein lies the rub.