Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Obamacare bill contains 3.8% tax on homes sales capital gains for high income earners
- This topic has 145 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 12 months ago by
all.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 2, 2012 at 10:42 AM #747052July 2, 2012 at 10:49 AM #747057
CoronitaParticipant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dupe[/quote]
Technical problem today. or if did you think if you posted the same thing n times, on the n+1’th time, we’ll get it?
Heh heh heh 🙂
July 2, 2012 at 10:50 AM #747054spdrun
ParticipantMy point wasn’t an exact scenario. My point was that it isn’t 1861, and the stakes in case of civil war are much higher — therefore a peaceful breakup of the US isn’t as impossible as before. Weapons are worse, international media is much more advanced and nosy, so the alternative becomes unthinkable.
Even the Soviets weren’t crazy enough to try to hold things together when the end came in the 90s.
July 2, 2012 at 10:50 AM #747058CoronitaParticipant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dupe[/quote]
Technical problem today. or if did you think if you posted the same thing n times, on the n+1’th time, we’ll get it?
Heh heh heh 🙂
July 2, 2012 at 10:50 AM #747059CoronitaParticipant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dupe[/quote]
Technical problem today. or if did you think if you posted the same thing n times, on the n+1’th time, we’ll get it?
Heh heh heh 🙂
July 2, 2012 at 10:58 AM #747061briansd1
Guest[quote=ocrenter][quote=spdrun]
Are those your only two suggestions (magic or tax the rich)? If you say yes, then there’s no point going forward.
Personally, I’m for universal, public-option health care, paid for by a percentage tax on ALL incomes. But that’s just me.[/quote]
Me too.
That would be impossible to pass in DC given the “class warfare” and “socialist agenda” type arguments against it. We are left with Obamacare as the only alternative. Which of course in its core is a Republican product the the GOP has rejected purely because Obama has his hands on it. So there are no other options, we have in essence painted ourselves into a retorical corner.[/quote]
Absolutely.
Our health case costs as a percent of GDP is about twice that of other developed nations. So we are pretty at a competitive disadvantage.
July 2, 2012 at 11:41 AM #747051Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantDupe.
July 2, 2012 at 2:25 PM #747049ParticipantYikes! Dupe.
July 2, 2012 at 2:26 PM #747102Participant[quote=flu][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dupe[/quote]
Technical problem today. or if did you think if you posted the same thing n times, on the n+1’th time, we’ll get it?
Heh heh heh :)[/quote]
FLU: Dude! I know, right?
July 2, 2012 at 2:27 PM #747103ParticipantDupe, redux.
July 2, 2012 at 11:07 PM #747138Participant[quote=spdrun]My point wasn’t an exact scenario. My point was that it isn’t 1861, and the stakes in case of civil war are much higher — therefore a peaceful breakup of the US isn’t as impossible as before. Weapons are worse, international media is much more advanced and nosy, so the alternative becomes unthinkable.
Even the Soviets weren’t crazy enough to try to hold things together when the end came in the 90s.[/quote]
I’d like to bootstrap on your comment above regarding a peaceful breakup. I think we should be discussing federal tax transfers, because this is oft overlooked, especially by those who think blaming public sector unions solely for California’s fiscal quandry is valid.
The other important (and equally overlooked) aspect is the significance of Prop 13.
Two sides to every story. On the one hand, California is headed towards a fiscal cliff, and the pension overhang is certainly a major consideration, but it’s not the only reason.
July 3, 2012 at 12:11 AM #747140ocrenter
Participant[quote=AN][quote=spdrun]Why is socialism such a dirty word anyway? I’m a socialist on some issues, a libertarian on others, and I’m G-d damn proud of my views.[/quote]It’s not a dirty word to me. But I’m sure ocrenter tossing out the word socialism thinking he can get an argument from those who does think it’s a dirty word. I can see this thread going down a rat hole if there end up being a back and forth between him and those who think socialism is a dirty word.[/quote]
The point was simply we have completely removed single payer as an option because of its socialism connotation, which is quite unfortunate.
July 3, 2012 at 12:21 AM #747141Participant[quote=AN][quote=ocrenter]Why do we need to treat them in the ER even for extreme circumstances if they made the choice to go without insurance? Those extreme circumstances cost us the most bucks. [/quote]Because we’re not a bunch of heartless SOB? I’d like to see data behind what’s the % of expenditure for uninsured people between people coming for non real emergency vs extreme emergency. It will cost thousands, even if they come in for a common cold. I agree that extreme circumstances cost more per visit. However, I think the amount of people coming into the ER for non emergency out weigh the real emergency.
[quote=ocrenter]I agree single payer is the best system, but remember, that’s socialism![/quote]I never said it’s the best system. I just said I’m sympathetic about it and wouldn’t mind if it’s implemented. But I want the cost to be spread across everyone, so that everyone will pay for the service they will receive. Just like Medicare. Which is why I would rather have Medicare extended to everyone and increase the Medicare tax instead of the ACA.
What’s the point of tossing around the word socialism?[/quote]
Of course we are not heartless. But we got to pay for it, hence the ACA.
The whole point is you can’t go half way in as we are now, we can’t mandate emergency care yet do not mandate insurance coverage.
Extending Medicare to all is essentially a single payer system. Reason why I mentioned socialism is because that is the number one reason why it is politically impossible to achieve at least in the foreseeable future.
July 3, 2012 at 12:37 AM #747143an
Participant[quote=ocrenter]Of course we are not heartless. But we got to pay for it, hence the ACA.
The whole point is you can’t go half way in as we are now, we can’t mandate emergency care yet do not mandate insurance coverage.
Extending Medicare to all is essentially a single payer system. Reason why I mentioned socialism is because that is the number one reason why it is politically impossible to achieve at least in the foreseeable future.[/quote]
If a single payer system is impossible, then why not work together and come up with a solution to the health care problem that both side will like. When you have a bill that one side voted yes and another side voted will inevitably be challenged by the other side.ACA were passed with 100% of republican voted no, why didn’t they just go straight for single payer, since they’re not getting republic support anyways. Why go have way w/ the ACA?
I think both side can agree that we’re not heartless, regardless of political party line. Why can’t they all just sit down, investigate what are the top 10 reason for the rising healthcare cost and create 10 bills to fix those 10 problem. Would that be so hard?
July 3, 2012 at 2:17 AM #747145CA renter
Participant[quote=AN][quote=ocrenter]Of course we are not heartless. But we got to pay for it, hence the ACA.
The whole point is you can’t go half way in as we are now, we can’t mandate emergency care yet do not mandate insurance coverage.
Extending Medicare to all is essentially a single payer system. Reason why I mentioned socialism is because that is the number one reason why it is politically impossible to achieve at least in the foreseeable future.[/quote]
If a single payer system is impossible, then why not work together and come up with a solution to the health care problem that both side will like. When you have a bill that one side voted yes and another side voted will inevitably be challenged by the other side.ACA were passed with 100% of republican voted no, why didn’t they just go straight for single payer, since they’re not getting republic support anyways. Why go have way w/ the ACA?
I think both side can agree that we’re not heartless, regardless of political party line. Why can’t they all just sit down, investigate what are the top 10 reason for the rising healthcare cost and create 10 bills to fix those 10 problem. Would that be so hard?[/quote]
The #1 reason we don’t have a single payer system is because of the moneyed interests in Washington. It has nothing to do with Repubs vs. Dems, IMHO. The left-right thing is just a distraction. The FIRE industry (esp. insurance companies) initiated an all-out war on universal healthcare. Is it any wonder we were not given a public option, or that everyone is forced to buy *private* insurance?
————————According to President Obama, America’s health insurance industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to block the introduction of public medical insurance and stall other proposed legislation.[72] There are six registered health care lobbyists for every member of Congress.[73] The campaign against health care reform has been waged in part through substantial donations to key politicians. The single largest recipient of health industry political donations and chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance that drafted Senate health care legislation is Senator Max Baucus (D-MT).[74] A single health insurance company, Aetna, has contributed more than $110,000 to one legislator, Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT), in 2009.[75]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_reform_in_the_United_States
……………………..“The United States National Health Care Act, or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act (H.R. 676), is a bill introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Representative John Conyers (D-MI). The bill had 88 cosponsors as of October 7, 2009.”
“The act calls for the creation of a universal single-payer health care system in the United States… Under the policies this Act would enact, all medically-necessary medical care decided between doctor and patient would be paid for automatically and directly by the Government of the United States, ending the need for private insurance for such care, and probably recasting private insurance companies as purely supplemental coverage, to be used when non-essential care is sought, as often happens in the United Kingdom for things like dentistry services.”
“The bill was first introduced in 2003,[2] when it had 25 cosponsors, and has been reintroduced in each Congress since. However, it has always failed, including in its latest (unofficial) push by activists during the 2009 health care debates over the bill that became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. H.R. 676 was expected to be debated and voted upon by the House in September 2009,[3] but was never debated.[4] Advocates who remained staunchly for single-payer health care as the ultimate vote and passage of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 loomed, tried in vain to present HR 676 as a viable alternative to the Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3962, but were ignored, and even in some cases arrested by police during various nationwide debate events, with the implicit approval of Max Baucus, who acted as head of these debates.“
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Health_Care_Act
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.