Obama's Tax on the Middle Class.

[Ufo Believer]

From: Campaign For Liberty

President Obama has no intention of keeping his campaign promise not to raise taxes on the middle class. Hiding this will take some clever moves, but maybe, now that he has won the Nobel Peace Prize, he’s trying for an Olympic gold medal in mental gymnastics.

The tax increase for the middle class will come as part of his effort to overhaul the 15 percent of the economy devoted to medical care. This became clear when the Senate Finance Committee bill’s price tag was disclosed. The Washington Post reported, "The $829 billion cost would be more than offset by reducing spending on Medicare and other federal health programs by about $400 billion over the next decade, and by imposing a series of fees on insurance companies, drugmakers, medical device manufacturers and other sectors of the health industry that stand to gain millions of new customers under the legislation." Obama does not oppose those charges.

"Fees" — that’s a euphemism for taxes. There’s an old saying that goes, Businesses don’t pay taxes; they collect them. Only people pay taxes. Corporations are abstractions. When government imposes taxes on corporations, you can be sure that they will have a negative impact on prices, wages, and share prices — which means that workers, consumers, and investors (many of whom are living on or building retirement accounts) will actually do the paying. The middle class will be well represented in those groups.

More here: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=292

[seax]

From: Campaign For Liberty

President Obama has no intention of keeping his campaign promise not to raise taxes on the middle class. Hiding this will take some clever moves, but maybe, now that he has won the Nobel Peace Prize, he’s trying for an Olympic gold medal in mental gymnastics.

The tax increase for the middle class will come as part of his effort to overhaul the 15 percent of the economy devoted to medical care. This became clear when the Senate Finance Committee bill’s price tag was disclosed. The Washington Post reported, "The $829 billion cost would be more than offset by reducing spending on Medicare and other federal health programs by about $400 billion over the next decade, and by imposing a series of fees on insurance companies, drugmakers, medical device manufacturers and other sectors of the health industry that stand to gain millions of new customers under the legislation." Obama does not oppose those charges.

"Fees" — that’s a euphemism for taxes. There’s an old saying that goes, Businesses don’t pay taxes; they collect them. Only people pay taxes. Corporations are abstractions. When government imposes taxes on corporations, you can be sure that they will have a negative impact on prices, wages, and share prices — which means that workers, consumers, and investors (many of whom are living on or building retirement accounts) will actually do the paying. The middle class will be well represented in those groups.

More here: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=292

I agree with what you are saying..but what Obama is leaving out is I don't believe the tax base is going to be there to pay it. There is a big hole in the economy now...jobs...with an unemployment rate of probably closer to 15% after the first of the year going into 2010...an already decomposing and bloated deficit...along with the fact that if whatever form of health care plan is passed...what are the small business's going to do about hiring...if...if...the need comes. Then...you have 'cap and trade' which will siphon more money off the already devastated middle class.

It's like sending someone off to dig ditches one day after heart surgery. This economy is too depressed..for a sustainable comeback...because we have never 'fixed' the problem that caused this to start with...too much consumption...not enough production. Consumption will slow down...but that will create a strain on any recovery (sustainable) to even think about an increase in growth...current business's expanding...new business and industry starting. Especially with current trade agreements and cap and tax.

If anyone thinks Obama can pump a few more billion dollars of 'play money' in the economy and make things all better....well...buy you a wheel barrow...you will need it to haul money to the grocery store to buy a loaf of bread.

best regards,

seax

Edited October 25, 2009 by seax

[AROCES]

Obama signed increase in tobacco Tax, who do you think is paying more tax with that?

The new green this and that will increase energy bills, who will end up feeling the pinch on that the most?

[seax]

He should be impeached...along with two thirds of congress (if we had the option). I am finding it very hard in light of current policy to think this is just bad judgement...or an ignorant president and congress. It is like someone reading a handbook...How To Break A Country....

I was told one time being stupid is as bad as just being plain 'mean'...so in either case...he is guilty....along with our elected representatives put there to guard against a mistake made by the electorate.

seax

[danielost]

Obama signed increase in tobacco Tax, who do you think is paying more tax with that?

The new green this and that will increase energy bills, who will end up feeling the pinch on that the most?

why the businesses and rich. i mean only the greedy would pass on all of those tax increases onto the costumers.

[Startraveler]

I suppose my question is, if insurance premiums paid to private companies are a tax, can't we just abolish the insurance industry and switch to a single-payer system that's really funded through taxes?

Since it's the same thing and all.

[danielost]

I suppose my question is, if insurance premiums paid to private companies are a tax, can't we just abolish the insurance industry and switch to a single-payer system that's really funded through taxes?

Since it's the same thing and all.

insurance premiums are not all tax. but with each fee that the government charges the insurance company the amount of premium going to taxes increases. thus the premium must like wise increase. taxes do not employ people. premiums do.

[Startraveler]

insurance premiums are not all tax. but with each fee that the government charges the insurance company the amount of premium going to taxes increases. thus the premium must like wise increase. taxes do not employ people. premiums do.

Most projections (e.g. the Joint Committee on Taxation's) of the effect of the Finance bill's 40% excise tax on high-premium insurance policies assume that most people/firms will change their behavior to avoid paying the excise tax--that is, they'll switch to less expensive (i.e. less than $8,000 for an individual or less than $21,000 for a family) plans. Thus avoiding what you're talking about.

[danielost]

Most projections (e.g. the Joint Committee on Taxation's) of the effect of the Finance bill's 40% excise tax on high-premium insurance policies assume that most people/firms will change their behavior to avoid paying the excise tax--that is, they'll switch to less expensive (i.e. less than $8,000 for an individual or less than $21,000 for a family) plans. Thus avoiding what you're talking about.

right lower premiums, lower coverage and to make up for it you'll have to sign up for the obama health care. of course when these lower taxes from the companies start to affect the amount of taxes taken in then they'll just have to go after the consumer for them or lower the so called expensive premiums. and what about the taxes on electical wheelchairs those are going up to.

[Startraveler]

to make up for it you'll have to sign up for the obama health care.

Huh?

[acidhead]

I suppose my question is, if insurance premiums paid to private companies are a tax, can't we just abolish the insurance industry and switch to a single-payer system that's really funded through taxes?

Since it's the same thing and all.

great idea startraveler... screw the free market... scrap it all together... hell, give every man woman and new-born the same name while were at it!

[Startraveler]

great idea startraveler... screw the free market... scrap it all together... hell, give every man woman and new-born the same name while were at it!

You think health insurance markets in the United States are a free market? Or can be, even theoretically? Good lord.

edit: Since people don't seem to understand this, I suppose it requires a brief explanation. Insurance companies don't do anything with regard to actual health care--that would be the providers (doctors, hospitals, etc). Insurance companies merely pool people's resources (something a non-profit company could easily do). However, insurers have to negotiate with provider networks to come up with reimbursements rates. A free market model of many small insurance pools competing with one another doesn't work because 1) it limits the bargaining power of insurers and thus allows prices to be driven up by providers and 2) small insurance pools couldn't afford to accept anyone but the healthiest and youngest members of a population to ensure profitability (not to mention solvency).

A single-payer system eliminates the inefficiencies of the insurance market while preserving competition on the provider side.

Edited October 25, 2009 by Startraveler

[acidhead]

Huh?

-how many times do older people have to explain to you the cause and effect nationalizing ANY industry does to the free market?

No offense personally Startraveler.... in reality its no fault of your own.

Our governments sold out most major industry to foreign countries through regulation and de-regulating private interest.

The result:

Kids for the past 20-30 years have been raised by parents who try to give their children everything their parents couldn't afford to give them.

The government knows this... just as older people know it.

The result is kids graduate asking, "Where is my job? Thats not fair!"..."Oh I have to earn it?"..."Uh okay"...<goes to college/university.. gets a degree or two or three>

<same kid>...."Where is my job?...I got an education in business and advertising...? Huh?!... where is my job?"..."Its not fair!"

<kids chanting>..... "Its not fair!...Its not fair!...Its not fair!..."

enter: Obama

<kids chanting>..... "Yes we can!...Yes we can!...Yes we can!..."

Edited October 25, 2009 by acidhead

[danielost]

You think health insurance markets in the United States are a free market? Or can be, even theoretically? Good lord.

edit: Since people don't seem to understand this, I suppose it requires a brief explanation. Insurance companies don't do anything with regard to actual health care--that would be the providers (doctors, hospitals, etc). Insurance companies merely pool people's resources (something a non-profit company could easily do). However, insurers have to negotiate with provider networks to come up with reimbursements rates. A free market model of many small insurance pools competing with one another doesn't work because 1) it limits the bargaining power of insurers and thus allows prices to be driven up by providers and 2) small insurance pools couldn't afford to accept anyone but the healthiest and youngest members of a population to ensure profitability (not to mention solvency).

A single-payer system eliminates the inefficiencies of the insurance market while preserving competition on the provider side.

now its time for your lession. currently you have a choice of which company you want to buy insurance from or not buy any at all. that is free market. if we go to a single payer system. we lose those choices(rights). the government in this case gains those rights that we lose. thus the government gains more power. This is about your right to choose whom you want to give your money to period. if the government get's it they gain more power. if the company gets it you may challenge their decisions. who you going to go to if the government is making the decisions.

tell you what why don't you ask the employees of companies that are owned by a union. they have no one to turn to.

[Startraveler]

currently you have a choice of which company you want to buy insurance from or not buy any at all. that is free market.

As I just explained, health insurance markets by their nature tend to gravitate toward monopoly power over the markets to which they have access:

if we go to a single payer system. we lose those choices(rights).

No, you get some level of insurance coverage. Under the single-payer proposal, private companies may sell supplemental insurance if you want something else in addition to that government-provided coverage. We're already approaching a point--through the mandate and the stipulation that all insurers at least offer an essential benefits package under the current (non-single-payer) reform proposals--where essentially the same thing is happening in practice, just much more inefficiently and with a great deal of money being filtered out by private insurers. All in the name of protecting a flawed and useless private insurance industry.

Edited October 25, 2009 by Startraveler

[seax]

I suppose my question is, if insurance premiums paid to private companies are a tax, can't we just abolish the insurance industry and switch to a single-payer system that's really funded through taxes?

Since it's the same thing and all.

You don't pay taxes to private sector companies..only to be paid to the government by those companies..like sales tax. With a single payer system to the government there will be no incentive to hold premiums down...since when there is a short fall the government gets 'funny money' and charges it to the taxpayers...those that are employed that is...another item not talked about much. Looking at a possible 15% unemployment rate in 2010 with no plan of alieviating those numbers other than 'hope' and more government borrowed money.

We talk about buying a Cadillac....and are about to lose our 'rambler'....

makes a lot of sense....it's almost funny...

seax

[acidhead]

Fascism has come to America with the myth of 'Too big to Fails"...

'if'... i stress 'if' the health insurance companies have indeed failed the taxpayer and the free market through excessive rates and disqualified applicants

as proposed by your Federal government led by Obama than, the current trend we have witnessed would have indeed continued with more bailouts and

buyouts within the industry and nothing would have changed.

But it hasn't because the heath care industry IS the NEW major industry in America.

And the Federal Government is using the fear of excessive rates and disqualification as the tool to completely take it over.

Some will say... "no they aren't!"... "its not a complete take over!"..."that's a lie"...

Others will try to warn them... "yes they are!"..."socializing the largest entrepreneurial country ever will take time to manipulate public/popular opinion"

After the first giant leap is made to socializing even 50% of the population than its only a matter of time the government monopoly will end up providing up to 95%

No matter how the spin is spun a near complete take over will occur.... its a guarantee.

No business or group of business can survive a monopoly as large as the american federal government.

[Startraveler]

"socializing the largest entrepreneurial country ever will take time to manipulate public/popular opinion"

Did you just say the government is "socializing" insurance, which is already a mechanism for socializing risk and health care expenditures?

[acidhead]

Did you just say the government is "socializing" insurance, which is already a mechanism for socializing risk and health care expenditures?

lol... nice try startraveler... lol... did you just convince yourself on that statement?....lol

Edited October 25, 2009 by acidhead

[seax]

Did you just say the government is "socializing" insurance, which is already a mechanism for socializing risk and health care expenditures?

With one fundamental difference...they don't 'own' the health care industry...yet..

seax

[Startraveler]

Come on, I refuse to believe this level of absurdity is more than just a show. The reason you buy insurance is so that you don't have to pay for big ticket health care items yourself. In other words, you buy it so that when you need an operation someone else pays for it. That's a socialist concept, as all insurance inherently is--people combining their resources in a group pool from which hard-hit members can draw when they need to.

But don't look now, they're trying to socialize it!

[acidhead]

Come on, I refuse to believe this level of absurdity is more than just a show. The reason you buy insurance is so that you don't have to pay for big ticket health care items yourself. In other words, you buy it so that when you need an operation someone else pays for it. That's a socialist concept, as all insurance inherently is--people combining their resources in a group pool from which hard-hit members can draw when they need to.

But don't look now, they're trying to socialize it!

There is a big difference between comparing private insurance, as a form of socialism -to- Federal Government socialism.

Big difference.

-allowing the government to socialize 95% of healthcare will result in higher costs down the road and poorer quality.

-like every single government project it will spiral out of control with more people wanting into it and asking for free handouts.

Is this the kind of society people want? A society, in AMerica, born holding its hand out?

Edited October 25, 2009 by acidhead

[seax]

Come on, I refuse to believe this level of absurdity is more than just a show. The reason you buy insurance is so that you don't have to pay for big ticket health care items yourself. In other words, you buy it so that when you need an operation someone else pays for it. That's a socialist concept, as all insurance inherently is--people combining their resources in a group pool from which hard-hit members can draw when they need to.

But don't look now, they're trying to socialize it!

That's the way life insurance works...nobody pays in a million dollars worth of term life...insurance companies use mortality tables and everyone puts their money in a pool. But it is voluntary. If you don't want life insurance you don't have to have it.

The socializing part comes in on health insurance when some people set their priorities to having 4WD trucks...bass boats...lake houses...and don't see the need in furnishing health insurance to their family. Then Obama and the mentally ill contingency in congress steps in and says...we are going to just take control of the health care industry

pick it up...shake it up...and make the majority suffer for the bad decisions on priorities the few have made....completely ignoring the state of the economy and the consituancy.

Many of the people that can't buy health insurance now or pay the tax will be treated anyway. What you going to do...put everyone in jail that can't pay the tax? That cost about $40,000.00 per year per person ...and that' with bolonga sandwiches...

Big ticket health items aren't the only items on the list...it covers everything...the Obama administration is writing a check they can't cash.

seax

[Startraveler]

There is a big difference between comparing private insurance, as a form of socialism -to- Federal Government socialism.

If you believe that the health care reform bills in Congress are a form of socialism then no, there's no difference. And since you've already expressed that opinion you should agree that there's no difference.

Then Obama and the mentally ill contingency in congress steps in and says...we are going to just take control of the health care industrypick it up...shake it up...and make the majority suffer for the bad decisions on priorities the few have made....completely ignoring the state of the economy and the consituancy.

When did they say that? What provisions of the bills are you talking about? What is "the health care industry" (insurers or providers)? How does the majority suffer?

Edited October 25, 2009 by Startraveler

[acidhead]

If you believe that the health care reform bills in Congress are a form of socialism then no, there's no difference. And since you've already expressed that opinion you should agree that there's no difference.

Its not as cut and dry as you're trying to make it sound.

Insurance is a form of socialism.

Healthcare insurance is a form of socialism because private companies group together to share the risk of their separate insurance policies.

Complete(95%) monopoly of an industry by government is pure socialism.... one for all all for one approach will lower quality and raise costs tremendously through government.

There is a big difference Startraveler.

Why do you think... use your head.. critical thinking time... Why do you think cosmetic surgery costs have come way down over the years? ... costs for laser-eye or breast implants, etc..

Why do you think they have come down in price over the years?... cosmetic surgeries...