| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
On November 10 2009 04:15 motbob wrote: Yeah, this would definitely make me less likely to work hard. Good thing this isn't what's in the bill. No what's in the bill is a legal form of coercion. | ||
|
Try
United States1293 Posts
On November 10 2009 04:15 motbob wrote: Yeah, this would definitely make me less likely to work hard. Good thing this isn't what's in the bill. The bill will cost money, correct? That will cause taxes to go higher, correct? Which means if you make more money, than you will pay more taxes, correct? And I was mostly responding to Crimson Lotus, who sounds like he is an altruist who would give away all his money to help poor people get health care. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On November 10 2009 04:15 motbob wrote: Yeah, this would definitely make me less likely to work hard. Good thing this isn't what's in the bill. Actually, for some higher tax brackets, the tax rate approaches damn near 50%. Given that a good percentage of doctors actually do fall in those income ranges, it's a fairly relevant issue to examine. | ||
|
agorist
United States115 Posts
Does nobody give a shit that the government is FORCING you to BUY something? | ||
|
betaben
681 Posts
how about: "If you work, you should not pay for another to avoid a very painful existence - even if they do not work, or do anything to avoid it themselves." | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
On November 10 2009 04:27 agorist wrote: Nobody is mentioning how the bill forces all Americans to acquire a government-approved insurance plan. Most of these options are private. Those who don't are fined. Does nobody give a shit that the government is FORCING you to BUY something? Double edged sword I guess, if you don't have health insurance and get injured badly. They can't just turn you away. Who pays for that? | ||
|
agorist
United States115 Posts
On November 10 2009 04:31 Undisputed- wrote: Double edged sword I guess, if you don't have health insurance and get injured badly. They can't just turn you away. Who pays for that? You do. They perform the surgery and give you a large bill. | ||
|
NotJumperer
United States1371 Posts
| ||
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
Reflecting the change noted above, CBO and the staff of JCT now estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting H.R. 3962, incorporating the manager’s amendment, would yield a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2010-2019 period (see Table 1). So the federal budget deficit will actually decrease because of this bill. Now, let's take a look at how the bill achieves this feat. Among other things, H.R. 3962, incorporating the manager’s amendment would establish a mandate for most legal residents of the United States to obtain health insurance; set up insurance “exchanges” through which certain individuals and families could receive federal subsidies to substantially reduce the cost of purchasing that coverage; establish a public plan that would be administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS); significantly expand eligibility for Medicaid; substantially reduce the growth of Medicare’s payment rates for most services (relative to the growth rates projected under current law); impose an income tax surcharge on high-income individuals; and make various other changes to the federal tax code, Medicaid, Medicare, and other programs. So what exactly is the nature of this surcharge? Let's find out. NET CHANGES IN THE DEFICIT FROM OTHER PROVISIONS AFFECTING REVENUES Effects on the Deficit of Changes in Revenues -39 -40 -59 -62 -65 -69 -73 -80 -86 -574 The above is a table that lost its formatting from the CBO PDF file. It basically says that the total decrease to the deficit from "revenues" (probably taxes) is 574 billion dollars over 9 years. The rest of the funding for health care reform comes from cost savings. So where are these revenues coming from? People in this thread claim it's from the rich. Let's find out! Surcharge on Adjusted Gross Income 0 31 32 45 49 53 57 61 64 68 157 460 Another table that lost its formatting. This one says that the income tax surcharge will be 460 billion over 9 years. But arrrgh the CBO paper doesn't go into greater detail than that. I've got to look for the actual text of the bill. | ||
|
Piy
Scotland3152 Posts
I appreciate -Undisputed is trolling to some degree, but he does still seem to represent the views of a pretty scary number of Americans today. To equate social reforms to stealing, to me at least, seems to hark back to the initial periods of industrialization in the early 1800's, wherein factory owners equated stealing to not being able to work employees more than 14 hrs a day. It's a less radical claim of course, no-ones claiming that those two things are close to the same thing. But its funny that the social reforms being implemented by the Obama administration are merely the continuation of a constant attempt to equalise humanity that begun in France with the Libertarian's and the Rights of Man, continued into campaigns for womens suffrage and the NHS and the Civil Right's Movement, and have now begun to spread into the areas of world poverty. In my opinion any attempt to block these reforms and bills is a step backward towards the problems faced by Lassez Faire capitalism during the industrial revolution. They will be blocked though, and isn't that just nothing short of very very sad. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32158 Posts
| ||
|
Not_A_Notion
Ireland441 Posts
On November 10 2009 03:41 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: I appreciate the fact that you read and answered my question. The news I have read recently has given me the impression that the house version of the bill will not pass. They need 60 votes to end debate and Lieberman has stated that he won't vote for the house version of the bill. I don't know if any republicans are planning on voting for the bill --- I doubt it though. Maybe the senator from Maine? Ah right,sorry I have kind of tuned out of the debate over the last few weeks so I got mixed up and thought the couple of republicans who voted for the stimulus would support it but half of whom have switched parties already so my comment was kind of dumb. Yeah it seems that Olympia Snowe is against it in its current form. And since some of Lieberman's bigger donors are pharma and insurance companies, I reckon he will remain steadfast in his opposition. So I suppose the market does have a point in betting against it. Plus I totally forgot about having to reconcile both versions of the bill even if it does pass the Senate. So I retract my original uninformed optimism on it passing, and replace it with a slightly less uninformed pessimism. Though I think that expecting a bill to be on the Presidents desk before the turn of the year might be forcing the pace somewhat, I mean it is a huge proportion of the economy to reform in 4 months imo. On the other hand, maybe they are rushing it because they believe they will never have a better opportunity, in which case it's really f*ucked. | ||
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
(a) General Rule- In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000. So if you make $1,000,001 taxable income per year, you pay 5.4 cents extra because of this bill. If you make $2,000,000 taxable per year, you pay $54,000 extra per year because of this bill. So I dunno how this statement from TheYango is true: Actually, for some higher tax brackets, the tax rate approaches damn near 50%. Given that a good percentage of doctors actually do fall in those income ranges, it's a fairly relevant issue to examine. since the VAST VAST majority of doctors don't make more than a million bucks. | ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
True, why are you paying any taxes then? | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
On November 10 2009 04:40 Piy wrote: Have any of you right wing republicans ever thought that by trying to block these health care reforms you are basically saying that the value of a person directly correlates to their net income. Theres a reason why logical people don't think like that y'know. I appreciate -Undisputed is trolling to some degree, but he does still seem to represent the views of a pretty scary number of Americans today. To equate social reforms to stealing, to me at least, seems to hark back to the initial periods of industrialization in the early 1800's, wherein factory owners equated stealing to not being able to work employees more than 14 hrs a day. It's a less radical claim of course, no-ones claiming that those two things are close to the same thing. But its funny that the social reforms being implemented by the Obama administration are merely the continuation of a constant attempt to equalise humanity that begun in France with the Libertarian's and the Rights of Man, continued into campaigns for womens suffrage and the NHS and the Civil Right's Movement, and have now begun to spread into the areas of world poverty. In my opinion any attempt to block these reforms and bills is a step backward towards the problems faced by Lassez Faire capitalism during the industrial revolution. They will be blocked though, and isn't that just nothing short of very very sad. I don't have a problem with you advocating tyranny but don't try to pass it off as logic. | ||
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On November 10 2009 04:27 agorist wrote: Nobody is mentioning how the bill forces all Americans to acquire a government-approved insurance plan. Most of these options are private. Those who don't are fined. Does nobody give a shit that the government is FORCING you to BUY something? Car insurance...? | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
On November 10 2009 04:47 HwangjaeTerran wrote: True, why are you paying any taxes then? Because if I don't, guys with guns will show up and throw me in jail. They got guns! | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
betaben
681 Posts
On November 10 2009 04:50 Undisputed- wrote: Because if I don't, guys with guns will show up and throw me in jail. They got guns! and without that you would not be paying taxes at all for anything? unlikely. even you must admit that the government can't run on nothing, and it provides many benefits. are you against the bill or an anarchist? | ||
|
RoyW
Ireland270 Posts
On November 10 2009 02:01 Sha[DoW] wrote: Honestly, I'm Canadian and I think that centralized Healthcare is an excellent step forward for the US. It is very expensive, but it is also very useful for everyone in the middle class and below in the states. No, it's not. Properly implemented socialised healthcare is cheaper for every western nation when compared to the US. The only reason that the US implementation is going to be so costly is because of the Insurance Industry. The new bill does absolutely nothing to minimise the major damage and cost to healthcare that is caused by privatised everything. Plus, when you're bleeding even more money in 3 years time, everything the dems will have done will just be undone by the new rep government. And a sincere question to those opposed to socialised healthcare. What arguments do you have against socialised healthcare that couldn't be applied to a fire department, for example? | ||
| ||
|
|
Kung Fu Cup
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
GSL
Yamato Cup
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
WardiTV Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
