The news coverage has been heavy as of late of President Obama’s push to remake the U.S. health care system. While the dollars quoted of its cost are constantly changing, several moderate and conservative lawmakers have stated that the $1.5 trillion plan, presented earlier this week, costs too much. That proposed legislation seeks to provide coverage to nearly all Americans by subsidizing the poor and penalizing individuals and employers who don't purchase health insurance.
Would someone knock President Obama and these lawmakers on the head (gently of course) and tell them that money doesn’t grow on trees!
Just like the open bar tab that a generous person offers to pay at the end of happy hour, the bill has eventually got to be paid. Who will pay this bill? The “rich” are often singled out as the answer to that question. One proposal from last week would impose a surtax on individuals making more than $280,000 a year, a hard blow since this surtax would hit job creators especially hard because more than six of every 10 who earn that much are small business owners, operators or investors. So who really does pay the tab – the “rich” or those seeking employment or “everyone”?
And if you believe that only the rich will pay this tab, it isn’t going to happen because there isn’t $1.5 trillion of tax revenue to be generated from this rich-person surtax.
So who’s going to pick up the tax? Guess what? You are going to be rich!
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum
Would someone knock President Obama and these lawmakers on the head (gently of course) and tell them that money doesn’t grow on trees!
Just like the open bar tab that a generous person offers to pay at the end of happy hour, the bill has eventually got to be paid. Who will pay this bill? The “rich” are often singled out as the answer to that question. One proposal from last week would impose a surtax on individuals making more than $280,000 a year, a hard blow since this surtax would hit job creators especially hard because more than six of every 10 who earn that much are small business owners, operators or investors. So who really does pay the tab – the “rich” or those seeking employment or “everyone”?
And if you believe that only the rich will pay this tab, it isn’t going to happen because there isn’t $1.5 trillion of tax revenue to be generated from this rich-person surtax.
So who’s going to pick up the tax? Guess what? You are going to be rich!
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum
6 comments:
A Socialist "Democracy" ~ I love it! It almost works every time it's tried...
Now let me get this straight, the Government (federal, state, and local) indoctrinates at least 90% of the children in its' philosophies (government school).
It will control our bodies (National 'Health Care').
It already controls our income (IRS) and our land (Property Tax & Eminent Domain).
Add in the surveillance cameras, 'hate speech' laws, punitive uses of the tax code to limit expression, and the countless other legally coercive tactics it uses to bend you to Their will.
What is exactly is this thing, some called freedom?
Well written, Mr P, well written.
It's all in how you define "rich" and everyone has a different definition. Ben Stein defines rich as "anyone who makes exactly twice as much as me." I think that's so true, how we all define rich differently.
Growing up, I never thought of myself as rich, really, but I had a friend who thought my family was rich because we could afford cable every month. It just proves that it's all in how you define it, and that we should be grateful for what we have and not be envious of "the rich."
Rachel (Liftgirl)
Ralph, so long as a government is working for its people and not against them, socialist programs are always for the best. You cant honestly say that a nation with well funded education and health care isnt much better off than one without. If you look at world satistics on which countries are the best to live in, the top of the list allways is filled with "socialist" nations. Look at sweden, Denmark, or Canada. All have vastly superior life expectancy, education levels, and overall contentness amoungst thier populations, and all support socialist programs.
Yes there needs to be checks on things. Obviously the government needs to act for the people, and not against them. But in the end, If everybody is happy, well educated, and healthy the US is better off.
Hello Ralph, Rachel and Kyle, thanks for visiting Pierini Fitness. Sorry I wasn't "home" when you visited.
I'm aligned on the Ralph-side of discussion Kyle. Actually, I believe the health care proposal of John McCain when he was running for President was a good model. Problem was he didn't do a good job of explaining it and the media and the status quo army of vested interest didn't give him an audience.
I'm doing something like that in my personal life with a high-deductible plan and an HSA (health savings account). Consumerism and competition are the forces required and President Obama's proposal provides neither.
Have a great weekend!
A few random thoughts,
If health care is a 'right', the other side of that coin is 'involuntary servitude'.
The government already is cheating the Doctors in their Medicare and Medicaid(Cal) programs. The buyer(government) has a monopsony and wields it without abandon. They tell the Doctor what their service is worth and how much they will pay. 20 cents on the dollar is common.
Lech Walesca sp? worked in the shipyards in Poland, said the government pretends to pay us and we pretend to work.
I worked in VA hospitals and in spite of their amazing electronic record keeping, I would never recommend their care over private medical care.
Electronic record keeping is much more useful to keep close tabs on the citizens than for any fancied medical reasons.
If our 'servants' in government are given the best pensions(by AIG, and propped up with tax money), and have great health care, should us (the bosses) not have as great a pension and health plan as our 'servants'?
Speaking of skimming the 'cream' off the top of the patient population, the worst offenders are the government protected HMO's. Instead of the working people using the community medical facilities, the HMO's are 'skimming the cream' and protected from being sued for malpractice by the government ERISA laws. AS well as not required to care for the poor, the uninsured, the government welfare, etc. Then the government points out how the community hospitals are struggling financially. The HMO's operate on a couple other nasty premises, one being that once retired a person, legally speaking, is worthless. So if care is delayed or denied, where and what are the damages? Just so nothing hits the newspapers.
Kyle,
Who exactly determines what is the best country to live in? That's a highly subjective question to begin with. It's also interesting that these "facts" are often determined by organization based in....um... EUROPE! You mention Denmark and it's socialist policies, I have an interesting story to relate to you about the Danish Health Care System...
I have a friend who lives in Denmark. she got a severe caes of touncilitis. The doctors gave her an ineffective medication and after a week, she returned to the doctor and explained this. They told her that she wasn't dying and blew her off. So, she went home to Italy for Xmas sick.
Oh, and check your facts out. Our life expectancy is tied with Denmark, 1.5 years less than Sweden, and 2.1 years less than Canada. That's hardly what I'd call "vastly superior life expectancy."
Rachel, there's the point. Who really is rich? That's a very, very fluid concept that's highly subjective... and that's the point! That allows for PLENTY of latitude for deciding who is rich.
Nice Article, Ed. Keep getting the word out about how terrible of an idea this all really is!
Post a Comment