Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[DanaC]

*chuckles* I just love the notion that any of the people involved in this are 'Marxist'.

[SamIam]

I'm into Trotskyism, myself.

Merc's racial profiling of the Democratic party intrigues me. I wonder if down on the border along with the coyotes, drug smugglers, la migra, and everyone else, there are members of the Democratic party, eager to sign up each wet back as he crosses?

Also, I Googled the amnesty thing, and I have no idea where Merc gets his 35 million figure. Everything I read said 12 million. Obama said, "So what I've proposed... is you say we're going to bring these folks out of the shadows. We're going to make them pay a fine, they are going to have to learn English, they are going to have to go to the back of the line...but they will have a pathway to citizenship over the course of 10 years."

That seems reasonable to me, since the alternative would be to hire more law personnel, go on manhunts for these people, tear them away from their families in many cases, and transport them across the border. What a circus that would be.

[TheMercenary]

CEO pay should be a legitimate target. I wonder why it is often left out of the equation?

http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/hosp...as-997155.html

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Merc's racial profiling of the Democratic party intrigues me. I wonder if down on the border along with the coyotes, drug smugglers, la migra, and everyone else, there are members of the Democratic party, eager to sign up each wet back as he crosses?

Quite the contrary, actually. Generally speaking, both legal and illegal Mexican immigrants are Christian, and tend to vote Republican over social issues like abortion and gay marriage. While many obviously disagree with the anti-immigrant rhetoric, they know that it is, in fact, mostly rhetoric, and meanwhile a lot of the legal Mexican immigrants actually resent the illegals even more than the white folks do.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

CEO pay should be a legitimate target. I wonder why it is often left out of the equation?

So, you would rather the government set the monumental precedent of dictating how much an employee can be paid? Rather than just tax that employee at the level deemed appropriate, the way the government has always restrained CEOs' salaries?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

So, you would rather the government set the monumental precedent of dictating how much an employee can be paid?

Absolutely not. I just thought it was interesting that when all these people rail against big Corps and the cost of healthcare you hardly ever hear about the big CEO salaries. That was all. I don't think the government has any business telling companies how to run their operations, but as we move closer to a socialize medicine model this is bound to come up.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

...you hardly ever hear about the big CEO salaries.

WHAT???????????????????????

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

WHAT???????????????????????

I specifically about the hospitals, in this broad dicussion I rarely hear it brought up.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I specifically about the hospitals, in this broad dicussion I rarely hear it brought up.

I don't think hospital CEO's actually make that much. There are some that barely make the 250k bracket.

[Clodfobble]

In my mind, "CEO salaries" are inherently implied in the discussions about "letting the tax cuts expire."

But if you want to restrict it entirely to healthcare... then yes, the only way for hospital CEO salaries to be kept in check is, in fact, a single-payer system.

[piercehawkeye45]

It will depend on the area of course but I know for a fact that some barely make the 250k limit. Though $1 million isn't that much compared to other CEOs.

[classicman]

the fact (is) that according to the Committee on Joint Taxation,
51 percent -- that is, a majority of American households -- paid no income tax in 2009. Zero. Zip. Nada. …
Actually, to show how out of whack things have gotten,
30 percent of American households actually made money from the tax system
by way of refundable tax credits -- the Earned Income Tax Credit, among others.
So 51 percent of American households paid no income tax in 2009,
but 30 percent actually made money under the current system."

Cornyn took care to refer to households that pay no "income tax," rather than suggesting that they paid no taxes at all. Many Americans who pay no income tax pay other federal taxes, most notably the payroll tax, which funds Social Security and Medicare and is deducted from every working American’s paycheck.

Some families who pay no federal income tax may be liable for state income taxes (and local property taxes, sales taxes and the like).

In addition, the richest 10 percent, 5 percent and 1 percent of taxpayers each paid significantly higher effective tax rates than Americans lower on the income spectrum.

There are enough different ways to look at the tax burden to allow all sides to pick and choose tax statistics that favor their positions.

Link

[TheMercenary]

Imagine that....

[classicman]

Pretty much like all these issues - hence very little gets done and inefficiency ...
fuggit.

[TheMercenary]

Wow, the God Damm President of the United States lied to the public and Bull Shitted us to get a bill passed....

Imagine that.

Is there a health insurance horror story disseminated by the White House and its allies that ever turned out to be true? Obamacare advocates have exercised more artistic license than a convention of Photoshoppers. Now, a prominent sob story shilled by President Obama himself about his own mother is in doubt. It’s high past time to call their bluffs.
The tall-tale-teller-in-chief cited mom Stanley Ann Dunham’s deathbed fight with her insurer several times over the years to support his successful push to ban pre-existing condition exclusions by insurers. In a typical recounting, Obama shared his personalized trauma during a 2008 debate: “For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.”
But there was something fundamentally wrong with Obama’s story. In a recently published biography of Obama’s mother, author and New York Times reporter Janny Scott discovered that Dunham’s health insurer had in fact reimbursed her medical expenses with nary an objection. The actual coverage dispute centered on a separate disability insurance policy.
Channeling document forger Dan Rather’s “fake, but accurate” defense, a White House spokesman insisted to the Times that the anecdote somehow still “speaks powerfully to the impact of pre-existing condition limits on insurance protection from health care costs” — even though Dunham’s primary health insurer did everything it was supposed to do and met all its contractual obligations.
No matter. Expanding government control over health care means never having to say you’re sorry for impugning private insurers. Democrats have dragged every available human shield into the contentious debate over Obama’s federal takeover of health care. Personal anecdotes of dying family members battling evil insurance execs deflect attention from the cost, constitutionality and liberty-curtailing consequences of the law. The president’s Dunham sham-ecdote is just the latest entry in an ever-expanding catalogue of Obamacare fables:

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/07/15...macare-fables/