62% Federal Tax rate??!!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

the squeeky wheel gets the grease. What Zorn neglects to mention is the times and amounts Medicare has been raised. If at anytime this warning had been acted on we wouldn't be where we are now.

No. The "warning" was acted upon all the times listed.

Since inception of each program, it's always been known that Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security would have to undergo adjustments to remain solvent. And that's what we've always done. And what we'll do again now.

BTW Might has well set off a nuclear bomb somewhere in the U.S. rather than follow thru with Obamacare as it is simply a Medicare program for all.

That is a complete falsehood. You know that. LOL - I wish we had single payer, Medicare for all - that would be awesome. Vermont just agreed to go down the path of healthcare for all, not just the rich. Good for them.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

No. The "warning" was acted upon all the times listed.

Since inception of each program, it's always been known that Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security would have to undergo adjustments to remain solvent. And that's what we've always done. And what we'll do again now.

That is a complete falsehood. You know that. LOL - I wish we had single payer, Medicare for all - that would be awesome. Vermont just agreed to go down the path of healthcare for all, not just the rich. Good for them.

In 1969 total Fed spending was $183.6 billion, payments for medical services for seniors was $5.7 billion (3%) and total Fed spending for healthcare, including Public Health Services, Vendor Payments (welfare) and R&D was 10.9 billion
(6%)

http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/spend...ate=US#usgs302


In 2012 total spending is $3.728 trillion payments for medical services for seniors is $492.3 billion (13%) and total Fed spending for healthcare, including Public Health Services, Vendor Payments (welfare) and R&D is $866.1billion (23%)

http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/spend...ate=US#usgs302

Yea they fixed it!!!!! Indications of how harmful Obamacare would be for the country's economic health.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

In 1969 total Fed spending was $183.6 billion, payments for medical services for seniors was $5.7 billion (3%) and total Fed spending for healthcare, including Public Health Services, Vendor Payments (welfare) and R&D was 10.9 billion
(6%)

In 2012 total spending is $3.728 trillion payments for medical services for seniors is $492.3 billion (13%) and total Fed spending for healthcare, including Public Health Services, Vendor Payments (welfare) and R&D is $866.1billion (23%)

Yes - and? How many people does that cover, for what services? We have had a bit - oh, millions - of a population explosion. And the healthcare industry has been taking record profits for some time now

Yea they fixed it!!!!! Indications of how harmful Obamacare would be for the country's economic health

Yeah. They did "fix it". It used to cover thousands, now it covers millions. Pretty well done, actually. One of the most successful social programs ever.

Which has nothing at all do with the few industry reforms implemented in the PPACA. Hoever, the CBO says the PPACA will be good for the countries economic health, btw - for example, it extends Medicare by 12 years, while reducing waste in that program by 5 billion dollars (which helps pay for the program)

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Which has nothing at all do with the few industry reforms implemented in the PPACA. Hoever, the CBO says the PPACA will be good for the countries economic health, btw - for example, it extends Medicare by 12 years, while reducing waste in that program by 5 billion dollars (which helps pay for the program)

With blinks off..

The CBO letter says that the health law spends $780 billion in the next decade and pays for it by raising taxes and fees by $410 billion, and by reducing future Medicare funding by $500 billion. The CBO argues that the law raises more money ($910 billion) than it spends, but that is hardly sufficient reason to keep it, or any law.

Projections from another federal agency—the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)—fill in the grim picture on what ObamaCare will do. The CMS figures, released Sept. 9, show that if you buy your own health plan, you will have to pay more every year than you would have if the law hadn't passed.

Amazingly, only 3% more people will have private health insurance in 2014 than would have it if the law hadn't passed. But a staggering 85.2 million people will be on public insurance—Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or S-CHIP. That's 31% of non-elderly Americans. The new health law is pushing the U.S. toward a European-style welfare state, making more people dependent on government, instead of on themselves, and undermining incentives to work. The new law stipulates that Medicaid must provide the same health benefits that employers will have to provide for their workers.

To expand Medicaid, the law eviscerates Medicare. It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul, only it's robbing Grandma and Grandpa. The CMS shows that in 2019 the Obama health law reduces annual Medicare funding so much that it works out to $1,428 less for each elderly patient that year. Richard Foster, chief actuary for Medicare, has spoken with brave bluntness about the possible impact, warning that some hospitals may stop accepting Medicare. Where will seniors go?

Government projections are notoriously unreliable, but by the CBO's own numbers repeal would reduce government spending, lower taxes, and restore Medicare funding. Most important, repeal would protect your freedom and your medical care. The Obama health law lowers your standard of care, puts government in charge of your care, and shreds your constitutional rights—dangers these government projections do not address.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...133862774.html

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

With blinks off..

The CBO letter says that the health law spends $780 billion in the next decade and pays for it by raising taxes and fees by $410 billion, and by reducing future Medicare funding by $500 billion. The CBO argues that the law raises more money ($910 billion) than it spends, but that is hardly sufficient reason to keep it, or any law.

Projections from another federal agency—the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)—fill in the grim picture on what ObamaCare will do. The CMS figures, released Sept. 9, show that if you buy your own health plan, you will have to pay more every year than you would have if the law hadn't passed.

Amazingly, only 3% more people will have private health insurance in 2014 than would have it if the law hadn't passed. But a staggering 85.2 million people will be on public insurance—Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or S-CHIP. That's 31% of non-elderly Americans. The new health law is pushing the U.S. toward a European-style welfare state, making more people dependent on government, instead of on themselves, and undermining incentives to work. The new law stipulates that Medicaid must provide the same health benefits that employers will have to provide for their workers.

To expand Medicaid, the law eviscerates Medicare. It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul, only it's robbing Grandma and Grandpa. The CMS shows that in 2019 the Obama health law reduces annual Medicare funding so much that it works out to $1,428 less for each elderly patient that year. Richard Foster, chief actuary for Medicare, has spoken with brave bluntness about the possible impact, warning that some hospitals may stop accepting Medicare. Where will seniors go?

Government projections are notoriously unreliable, but by the CBO's own numbers repeal would reduce government spending, lower taxes, and restore Medicare funding. Most important, repeal would protect your freedom and your medical care. The Obama health law lowers your standard of care, puts government in charge of your care, and shreds your constitutional rights—dangers these government projections do not address.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...133862774.html

Yawn..as you said..deal with it..4 more years and then Rahm..you are going to blow throw a lot of keyboards

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Yawn..as you said..deal with it..4 more years and then Rahm..you are going to blow throw a lot of keyboards

Rahm's acting like a Republican in Chicago, a very pleasant surprise. I like his privatizing Streets and San. (Getting out of the crazy union demands/pay etc and the pure patronization it always represented) Shocked Riot has kept her mouth shut on that as she's so active in protecting unions. I like his budget cuts. He’s obviously no Obama and I’m sure Obama is glad to see him gone as he (Obama) can now continue his attacks on Israel unabashed.

I do think his reassigning desk cops to working some of the worst beats in the city is pure show as the majority were assigned to a desk for a reason. Usually lack of balls. These guys will drive the opposite way from a crime in progress but I suppose will serve as a visual deterrent nonetheless.

[dellinger63]

another good move by Rahm. Wish instead of serving Obama he had spent his time in DC mentoring him.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7042305.story

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

another good move by Rahm. Wish instead of serving Obama he had spent his time in DC mentoring him.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7042305.story

As you probably know, if it wasn't for Rahm that slots bill wouldn't be on it's way to Quinn's desk...He made a huge difference and is also the only resaon why Quinn might actually sign it.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GBBob

As you probably know, if it wasn't for Rahm that slots bill wouldn't be on it's way to Quinn's desk...He made a huge difference and is also the only resaon why Quinn might actually sign it.

Quinn is completely lost. He raises personal income tax in the State by 66% yet has reservations about signing the bill because the people of IL don't want it? If this was a stand alone horse-slot bill it would have been done 2 years ago. But as everything in IL everyone wants to get their beak wet.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

With blinks off..

[i]The CBO letter says that the health law spends $780 billion in the next decade and pays for it by raising taxes and fees by $410 billion, and by reducing future Medicare funding by $500 billion. The CBO argues that the law raises more money ($910 billion) than it spends, but that is hardly sufficient reason to keep it, or any law.

Obamacare makes money. It pays for itself, and it makes money.

Blinks off, Dell - right?

Projections from another federal agency—the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)—fill in the grim picture on what ObamaCare will do. The CMS figures, released Sept. 9, show that if you buy your own health plan, you will have to pay more every year than you would have if the law hadn't passed.

A partisan right wing think tank comes out against CBO figures. Who to believe? Oh, it's so hard to look at who has the integrity here!

Amazingly, only 3% more people will have private health insurance in 2014 than would have it if the law hadn't passed.

Yeah, that's kind of the point of it, and the number of insured will continue to increase. We have 330 million people in the country, we have about 40 million uninsured, and we'll get about 30 million insured here. A good thing. Next.

But a staggering 85.2 million people will be on public insurance—Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or S-CHIP.

Yes, so what? We have alot of very, very poor people in this country. Getting them health care is good for all of us. Especially young children. We, as a society, don't want young children of the poor to be starving, or sick, or unvaccinated, do we? Do you, Dell?

If helping the poor doesn't give one warm fuzzies, go back to paragraph one, where it says that doing so will make us money.

The new health law is pushing the U.S. toward a European-style welfare state, making more people dependent on government, instead of on themselves, and undermining incentives to work.

Well, nonsense. And what "European-style welfare state" is the author referencing in particular? The imaginary one in his mind?

It is encouraging people to be responsible, rather than living off their neighbors.

C'mon Dell - at least come up with good, reasoned opinion articles to share. This is a ridiculous stretch made up of straw men.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Well, nonsense. And what "European-style welfare state" is the author referencing in particular? The imaginary one in his mind?

It is encouraging people to be responsible, rather than living off their neighbors.

C'mon Dell - at least come up with good, reasoned opinion articles to share. This is a ridiculous stretch made up of straw men.

Complain to the Wall Street Journal. I'm sure as a former paramedic now vet you're far more informed on economic issues and impact. They'll listen to you and publish a redaction so quick you'll be able to hold your breath.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Complain to the Wall Street Journal. I'm sure as a former paramedic now vet you're far more informed on economic issues and impact. They'll listen to you and publish a redaction so quick you'll be able to hold your breath.

Get a grip and stop whining. It's an editorial. You think it's good. I think it sucks. For god's sake, it's written by BETSY MCCAUGHEY. Do you know who she is?

Edit: for those that do not know, Betsy McCaughey is the Republican strategist who single-handedly came up with, "Health care reform will have death panels that will kill your grandma!" as a fight against the Democratic effort for health care reform.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

My friend had an idea. No federal income taxes but a flat Federal tax (say 6-7%) on all goods and services that you buy.

That, I think, always sounds like a totally logical idea, until you get to thinking how much that disproportionately would affect the poor who would be taxed on everything they need to keep their lives going (which usually amounts to nearly all of their income) with the little money they already have, while the rich would be taxed on only a small percentage of their income in comparison.

Which makes it even more shocking that the GOP has not been trying to ram such a plan through Congress.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Complain to the Wall Street Journal. I'm sure as a former paramedic now vet you're far more informed on economic issues and impact. They'll listen to you and publish a redaction so quick you'll be able to hold your breath.

But you're the one posting this crap here, rather than mindlessly cutting and pasting right wing nonsense, think for yourself.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

That, I think, always sounds like a totally logical idea, until you get to thinking how much that disproportionately would affect the poor who would be taxed on everything they need to keep their lives going (which usually amounts to nearly all of their income) with the little money they already have, while the rich would be taxed on only a small percentage of their income in comparison.

Which makes it even more shocking that the GOP has not been trying to ram such a plan through Congress.

I would support a flat tax as long as it contained reasonable exceptions (ie: no tax on first $50,000 or so)...that would protect the poor and lower middle class.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

But you're the one posting this crap here, rather than mindlessly cutting and pasting right wing nonsense, think for yourself.

I have said I'm willing to give Obamacare a try if safeguards are put in place. Since it's billed as a money maker, should it fail to do so and hit maybe $5 billion in loses we need an escape plan less add another huge slice to a pie already full. We can't make any bigger a pie.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I would support a flat tax as long as it contained reasonable exceptions (ie: no tax on first $50,000 or so)...that would protect the poor and lower middle class.

why stop at $50K why not include all the middle class and make it 150K. Or even better make it a few million and screw only the ultra-rich.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I have said I'm willing to give Obamacare a try if safeguards are put in place. Since it's billed as a money maker, should it fail to do so and hit maybe $5 billion in loses we need an escape plan less add another huge slice to a pie already full. We can't make any bigger a pie.

Yes, we can. Easily. We can have the larger size of pie we had 15 years ago. Allow the Bush tax cuts to expire grows that pie significantly. Stop giving oil companies billions in subsidies to artificially prop up an outgrown industry that is an environmentally and physically complicated and expensive way to make energy. Close tax loopholes, and slightly decrease tax rates for everybody. Bring troops home, use far less expensive targeted drones and NATO (Kudos to the USA for killing Osama bin Laden's replacement in Pakistan!) The healthcare industry is 16% of "costs" in our country, a huge burden, which is why it must be addressed and not ignored - continue to make healthcare less expensive with greater coverage. Heck, just go to single payer Medicare for everyone and solve the problem once and for all. Allow the government to bargain for prescription costs.

We have one party that protects business, one party that protects the citizen, and one party that wants everyone to be on their own. We need less package deals, and more ala carte.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

.We need less package deals, and more ala carte.

we need the government to stop functioning as a provider and focus on governing and protecting. We have a hole in our fence and instead of protecting the country by mending the fence the government is so lost it is protecting and feeding the invaders.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Allow the government to bargain for prescription costs..

LMAO yea like $500 toilet seats and $1000 hammers.