Poor naive me... I was watching a Sunday Morning news program thinking that the Democrats had gotten their tax increases, so the debt ceiling negotiations would focus on cost reduction. And BAMMMM, the Democratic Senator starts the rhetoric again about all changes going forward have to be fair and balanced. Meaning that now they want to go after "loopholes" and other revenue increasing measures.
I really have to wonder what they see as "People Paying Their Fair Share"?
Maybe they would be happy with a 100% tax rate for incomes over $1,000,000? I suppose they would rationalize that no one needs more than that to live on ??? They would follow up with, I mean look at France.
What do you think Liberals / Democrats would see as "People Paying Their Fair Share"?
Politico Dems done hiking taxes?
FOX News Fiscal Talks
G2A Political Continuum
Forbes France Tax Disasterous
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
People have already paid quite a lot. Concessions were made in 2011, and it's certainly the case that the folks who are asked to assume the burden of Social Security and health care cuts, are the very same folks who have been hurt most by the recession.
Now I am willing to consider cuts in those programs. It was President Obama, after all, who proposed cutting 700 billion dollars from Medicare, cuts strenuously opposed by the very same Republicans who demanding cuts today. But I expect something in exchange for those cuts, and part of what I expect are tax increases from the wealthiest Americans, the folks who have been hurt least by the recession.
--Hiram
Let's keep in mind here, that "entitlement reform" is a euphemism, particularly for Medicare and Medicaid cuts. While it is certainly possible to reduce costs in these areas, Republicans strongly oppose those cost cuts. And the other thing to keep in mind is that however much we cut health care, the need for health care will continue to grow and will have to be paid for by someone.
--Hiram
The $700 billion was not cut from the program or supposed user benefits... It was cut from what the health care providers would receive per treatment ... Well maybe the Healthcare industry was hard hit by the recession, but I don't think so...
And I assume your ideas for reducing cost are to socialize healthcare. Based on the high cost of gov't, military and schools, I am thinking you are wrong.
Now here is a creative idea, the patient pays for their own healthcare via private insurance.
In terms of the budget, it doesn't matter where it's cut.
Patients can't pay for the their health care. It's too expensive. So who does? It's been suggest on this board that churches should pick up the tab. I would like to see the specifics for that proposal.
--Hiram
Now why again can't they pay their insurance healthcare premium?
Now why should someone else pay it for them?
Now why again can't they pay their insurance healthcare premium?
The reasons vary. The fact is, they don't.
Now why should someone else pay it for them?
Because they don't want to pay for the health care itself. The same reason why anyone buys insurance.
You cannot just cut costs in entitlement programs without "harming" the beneficiaries. Already we have many doctors refusing to see Medicare and Medicaid patients because reimbursements are too low. We see health insurers increasing premiums by double digits because of Obamacare regulation, and employers simply cancelling employee and retiree health care coverage for the same reason. The only way to save money in these programs is by REFORMING them, and that means using competition and free markets, not more government tax, spend and regulate.
There is a simple rule of economics which says that if the total health care needs of the country costs $900 Billion, then that is how much has to be spent and it does not matter WHO pays-- individuals, insurance, or the taxpayers collectively. However, if those individuals, through competition, can lower that cost to $450 Billion (which they CAN), that is $450B that can go somewhere else in the economy.
Democrats think they can control COSTS, while Republicans want to reform programs to control SPENDING. The former isn't possible, and the latter is intolerable (to liberals).
J. Ewing
The funny thing is that apparently we are already paying for the needy through higher medical costs in our Private programs and State run programs.
So I'll never understand why folks want to incur the Bureaucratic overhead that comes with Federal programs...
Your first answer was poor in my opinion. So I'll tweak the question.
Now why should Hiram pay for his healthcare insurance premiums, AND those of others that choose not to or can not pay their own?
Now why should Hiram pay for his healthcare insurance premiums, AND those of others that choose not to or can not pay their own?
Because I don't want to pay for their health care.
--Hiram
If you don't want to pay for somebody else's health care, you should have that right, not have your wealth confiscated by government and 3/4 of it frittered away in bureaucracy.
IF health care were a matter of "provide your own" or true charity, costs would plummet and more people could afford it.
J. Ewing
If you don't want to pay for somebody else's health care, you should have that right, not have your wealth confiscated by government and 3/4 of it frittered away in bureaucracy.
What's the point of that if we don't have the right to deny health care?
We have a health care bill out there that needs to be paid. Who is going to pay it? Will the churches, for example, take us all off the hook?
--Hiram
"Now why should Hiram pay for his healthcare insurance premiums, AND those of others that choose not to or can not pay their own?
Because I don't want to pay for their health care.
--Hiram"
This has to be one of the strangest answers you have ever given. To paraphrase.
Hiram should pay his and their premium, because he does not want to pay for their healthcare...
Want to try to clarify this a bit...
Hiram should pay his and their premium, because he does not want to pay for their healthcare...
We are providing the health care. It's just a question of how we pay for the health care.
--Hiram
So you agree that we are already providing free healthcare for many, and that this is paid for through taxes, higher healthcare costs and charity.
Yet it sounds like you would like to invite more politicians, bureaucrats, public employee unions, government regulation, etc into the system. I just can't see how this would be a good thing for patient care, quality of service or cost containment.
So you agree that we are already providing free healthcare for many, and that this is paid for through taxes, higher healthcare costs and charity.
How can health care be free when we are paying for it through taxes, higher healthcare costs and charity? Isn't that a basic contradiction?
Healthcare is paid for in this country now, we just don't know who is paying for it. I, for one, am intrigued by the notion that churches and other charities should assume this burden. I am waiting for a proposal as to just how they are to go about doing it.
--Hiram
"We are providing the[ir] health care. It's just a question of how we pay for the[ir] health care." --Hiram
I think I've found the crux of your misguided thinking. "WE" should not be providing anything that we don't want to provide, nor paying for anything for which we do not want to pay. That government FORCES us to pay that which we do not wish to pay is the heart of the problem.
The other assumption you seem to make is that people have some sort of "right" to health care, and of course that is not possible, any more than people have a right to food.
J. Ewing
"WE" should not be providing anything that we don't want to provide, nor paying for anything for which we do not want to pay.
Perhaps, but that isn't the issue. We do want to provide these services. That's the decision we made when we decided not to institute the "death panels" whose responsibility would have been to deny them.
--Hiram
Not contradictory.
It is free for certain recipients at the expense of other citizens. And Obamacare just expands this situation.
"That's the decision we made [to pay for others' care] when we decided not to institute the "death panels" whose responsibility would have been to deny them." -- hiram
Wrong again. The death panels are solidly in place and a fundamental component of Obamacare. We just don't call them that. Listen to the horror stories coming out of Britain's NHS these days to know the fundamental flaw of socialized medicine. Then tell me how Obamacare is any different, if you can.
J. Ewing
J, What horror stories? Give us a link.
Here is some info.
Healthcare Economist
CATO Green Grass
Ever try Google? search "NHS horror stories"
http://nhshorrorstories.blogspot.com/
Now that was simple... I thought you were being general.
NHS Horror
Now that was a pretty lame site...
Yes, but illustrative of the broad general category of NHS failures. It's been all over the news of late; not sure what is being done by the Parliament about it. Not something we want to happen here.
Odd, I thought that a "balanced approach," which our dictator-for-life keeps insisting upon, would result in a BALANCED budget. Silly me. I ought to know that you can't trust a word that comes from his mouth.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment