Would DU Accept A 2.5% Tax Increase Across The Board For Single Payer?

[no limit]

The house bill that passed last week would cover 96% of the uninsured according to the CBO. It would also make healthcare for the poor virtually free and it would set up some kind of public option (no matter how weak that public option happens to be at this time). In addition to this it would prevent insurance companies from dropping coverage, denying care based on pre-existing conditions, and making the insurance companies bound by anti-trust laws.

The only cost for all of this is a 2.5% tax increase on a small percentage of the population that doesn't want to buy any kind of insurance and doesn't qualify for a government subsidy. That small percentage of the population just happens to include me as my yearly income falls just outside of the limit of the affordibility credit (just missed it by a hair). I have a good job and I consider myself in the middle class (though Im probably below the offical definition of middle class). My employer provides no health insurance and I don't have private coverage as I am still fairly young and dont feel the cost is justified. So I will be one of the people that will be hit with this 2.5% tax if I dont end up getting insurace. But that 2.5% I will have to pay will end up providing healthcare to 96% of the current uninsured population. For me personally, that's a trade off I'm willing to make. I don't know about you guys. And I wonder if DU would be calling this 2.5% tax increase "criminalization of the poor" if that tax increase was applied toward a single payer system.

[robinlynne]

1. YES!

[eyeontheprize]

226. But it isn't what is being offered

Insurance would cost much more than the price of the fine.

But let's not get all wrapped up in facts.

[Timefortruth]

230. Shhhhhh

This is a feel-good thread.

[msongs]

2. if we cut the military/industrial/killers budget we wouldnt need a tax increase of any kind nt

[ThomCat]

40. Very true.

If we simply stopped giving the Pentagon raises and bonuses every year we could afford healthcare for everyone without any problem.

There is no shortage of money. The Pentagon budget and the separate war budget show this very incredibly clearly.

We spend more on the Pentagon then Every Other nation in the world Combined spends on defense. There is no justification for that kind of a military budget.

We could cut the Pentagon Budget by 25% right off the top and still be inside just the margin of fraud and waste the Pentagon can't account for. So let's cut the Pentagon Budget 25%, and put some of that toward universal Healthcare.

We could use the rest for jobs programs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. That would reduce unemployment, help the economy, and it would be "budget neutral" because it it comes from cutting an existing expense. :)

[C_Lawyer09]

56. Utopian but agree in principle

The pentagon budget will go up by appx. 20% annually and that doesn't address supplementals. 40% of the defense budget is black as is 100% of the CIA budget. Where is the transparency I heard so much about. Window dressing. The defense budget will never be cut, because the only thing we produce anymore is arms. Politicians won't speak up, because if those jobs are lost they'll lose votes.

[Juche]

116. Not totally

The military in total is about $600 billion. All state, federal and local spending on health care comes to about $1.4 trillion.

A 2.5% tax on all working people (not just a minority) would raise about $350 billion or so.

But yeah, I'd pay it. However I'd rather get full single payer and pay something like an 8% tax split 50/50 between myself and employers. Besides with single payer we save a trillion in lower private spending, so it all evens out. In fact we come out ahead by $400 billion with single payer.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

128. That figure is not accurate

Actually the figure for military spending this year, as was the case last year, will top $1 trillion once all costs are considered.

[Juche]

156. You're right

I was only thinking about direct expenses, indirect expenses add another 300-500 billion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

For the 2009 fiscal year, the base budget of the Department of Defense rose to $518.3 billion. Adding emergency discretionary spending, supplemental spending, and stimulus spending brings the sum to $651.2 billion.<1><2> Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $274 billion and $493 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $925 billion and $1.14 trillion in 2009.<3>

[anonymous171]

3. No. Soak the rich instead. Little people pay to much already. nt

[mainer]

21. Not enough rich people to pay for everyone. You'll have to pay, too.

As soon as it turns into an income-redistribution program (rich paying for everyone else) it will fail.

Overseas, in single payer countries, EVERYONE who has an income contributes.

[noamnety]

25. There are enough rich people that we shouldn't have to pay anything.

The top 10% of people in the US earn 50% of the wealth. Instead of them paying 50% of the cost (since they've got 50% of the money), I believe they could absorb 100% of the cost without it affecting their lifestyle at all.

[bobbolink]

44. So, then, please tell me... what would you have me give up?

I don't have enough income to afford a place to live, so I live in my car. Should I give that up and be subjected totally to the elements?

I often get criticised by the elite on DU for not eating the way they think I should, because I can't afford the same quality, organic, etc., that they can eat without thinking twice. I've already cut out one meal a day because I had to get work done on my car. Should I give up another meal so I can pay what you think I should on this deal... or maybe just give up eating altogether? (And then, of course, you can criticise me for not eating properly to keep myself well, so I need the health care that will cost YOU).

There are supplements that would help with my health problems, but I can't get them because I don't have the $$$$$.

Cold weather is coming, and I can't even afford to get thermal underwear to ...not even be comfortable, but just to not be quite as miserable.

What would you have me give up? I really want to know.

[DonCoquixote]

54. A-Men

Sometimes me and Bobbolink lock heads, but this is a no brainer. Those of us on food stamps or other public assistance already pay a large part of our income in sales tax. In Florida, tax haven, people ignore the fact that they spend an extra 20 bucks a week in Groceries! Yes, the Middle Class is hurting, but most of the money is in the hands of the rich, and they are the people who need to start pulling their weight!

[bobbolink]

62. Thank you. And, yet, do you think anyone else will actually reply?

Do you think my words will actually cause someone to actually think?

To question their assumptions?

[ThomCat]

69. People who are proud of their level of wealth

and think they earned it entirely on their own, that it reflect their worth as a person, and how good they are will not change their assumptions.

Too many people think that if they achieve comfortable levels of success it is validation of them personally. So they buy into the idea that the wealth is theirs, and nobody better touch it. So other people have a right to wealth too, because they must be good people, and nobody better touch their wealth.

Or maybe you can tax them as much as you would any other good person, but no more, because they are good people. You can't burden those good people. Go burden those bad poor people instead. They are poor because they are lazy and criminals and all of that shit. Right?

So it's okay to punish us for being poor with more taxes, and with lots of intrusive restrictions and requirements on any form of aid.

:grr:

[Naturyl]

78. Ding ding ding

We have a winner right here. ThomCat just laid it all on the table. That's the whole thought process in these self-satisfied little minds - nothing more, nothing less.

Thanks so much. Posts like this make DU worthwhile.

[bobbolink]

85. Exactly. And yet... "progressives" won't see themselves in this....

They think we are only talking about those evil RWers.

[Naturyl]

89. Indeed.

Personally, I had "progressives" with money in mind all along, for they are even more offensive than greedy right-wingers due to the added layers of self-delusion and hypocrisy. At least rich RWer's realize they are greedy and selfish...

[bobbolink]

99. Even after all the times I've seen it at DU and experienced it irl, it is still

a slap in the face to me.

I've come to really understand how people who have been poor all their lives see no difference in the parties, and don't go around with "hope".

They've been slapped around too much by those who consider themselves "aware". :(

It's too bad these "aware" people can't walk in the shoes long enough to GET IT.

[bobbolink]

82. Because if they look beyond those levels of assumptions, then they would

find their whole world turned upside down, because...

THEY WOULD THEN HAVE TO FACE THE FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE HOMELESS IN THIS COUNTRY BECAUSE THEY ALLOW IT!

"Thinking people are homeless because they choose to be may help you to sleep better at night, but bears no resemblance to reality." Mitch Snyder, homeless advocate.

[Naturyl]

95. So true.

I have known lots of homeless people, and have been one myself in the past. May be one again in the future. One thing has always held true - I have never met ANY homeless person who chose to be homeless. Certainly some chose not to work for all sort of reasons (all of which are ignorantly translated to "laziness" by most Americans), but none chose to be homeless as a result. All would have gladly accepted homes had homes been provided for them. But there's the rub - PROVIDED. That's just what American's don't want to hear, and don't want to do. Get your own damn food and shelter, this is America.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

132. Great post

:toast: to the dirty truth of the matter.

[Greyhound]

210. That's one of the best summations I've ever read. n/t

[ipaint]

238. Poverty also directly benefits them. Their wealth can't exist without poverty.

Wall street wouldn't exist if their weren't poor people to exploit and steal from.

Stick them all in medicaid and like fish in a barrel watch conservatives pick them off one buy one with benefit cuts, substandard care and ever stricter requirements for enrollment.

If the middle class can't understand the challenges the working class and poor go through daily just to survive how the heck are a bunch of predominantly white multi millionaire senators going to have a clue as to what a punishingly low subsidy looks like or cruelly high fine might be.

[ThomCat]

66. As another person living in poverty on a fixed income

who has been homeless and hopes never to be homeless again, I concur.

Poor people pay a very large portion of our incomes towards taxes for everything in society that we all share. A far larger percentage than we can afford without depriving us of necessities, and a far larger percentage than any wealthy person.

Wealthy people complain that they pay too much, that all us poor people are sponging off of them, but the truth is the reverse.

Every rich person's wealth is income redistribution. Every high paid corporate executive who gets paid millions while thousands of employees work more hours and get paid peanuts is redistributing income from those employees to himself. He is redistributing money from taxes to himself, which means from us to himself. How much of that multi-million dollar paycheck can a executive really be said to have earned by any real reasonably measure? Really?

Of all that income that the executive receives but did not really earn though his own hard work and labor, why shouldn't a reasonable portion of that go back in taxes to help everyone?

I'm really sick of this idea that an rich people can be given unlimited amounts of money, and they always earned all of it somehow, no matter how much, just because it was given to them. But workers aren't worth what they are paid, and they are overhead and liabilities that can/must be reduced. Rich people deserve all the unearned income that flows to them, and it is unfair to expect them to share it, but poor people don't deserve the money given to them and we should take more from them. This is just obnoxious double standards.

[Naturyl]

81. You're on a roll.

That was another bullseye post right there. So refreshing.

[ThomCat]

86. Thank you.

:)

[bobbolink]

84. The point is, you can see from these posts that "progressives" don't even THINK of us.

Their working assumption is that everyone, at least all those on DU, are as affluent as they are.

It's soooo wonderful to be so completely invisible.

Thank you for your fine words! :pals:

edited to say.... you want to place bets on how long it will be before some "brainer" says "You can't be homeless.... you're on the internets"?

Yup, there are always those "brainer" progressives.......

[ThomCat]

88. We've had several long, vicious threads here

about how people who are homeless can't or shouldn't own blackberries or cell phones or lap-tops. Because people who become homeless didn't have these things before they lost their homes, and don't maintain them in the hopes of getting off the street. :eyes:

We have had many judgmental pricks declare in all seriousness that if someone is homeless they should have to sell absolutely everything they own to try to keep their home before they accept public help. You're not allowed to own anything if you are homeless because they said so.

So, I won't bet on how long until one of them shows up. I would not be surprised it if it was fairly quick. :(

Yes, they think they are smarter than us too, and more "practical" and they are "living in the real world" when they demonize poor people and say it is impossible to help poor people without ruining the economy.

[bobbolink]

104. Do you notice how many "brainers" here are entering into *this* discussion?

Have you noticed all of those who answer so quickly "Yes!", have posted here and said, "Thank you. I can see that I wasn't really thinking clearly. Thanks for pointing this out"

?????

Isn't it interesting that there are THREE of us talking about literally life and death of actual people here?

Something to be really proud of, eh?

:cry:

Then people tell me to "have hope".

Yeah, riiiiight....

[Naturyl]

106. Well, to be frank, we're considered crazy.

People aren't engaging because we are known "nutjobs" who do this kind of thing in every thread.

"This kind of thing" being advocating for poor people. Whacko stuff.

[TCJ70]

108. You've got quite the chip on your shoulder

Putting thoughts in people's heads and all. I bet if you asked those same people who you feel are ignoring you if they'd be in favor of a bracket system to protect those who really can't give up any more, they'd be for it.

[ThomCat]

115. Um, no.

He doesn't have a chip on his shoulder.

And if you were right the poor people wouldn't be paying such high portions of their income in regressive taxes and fees.

People make a big deal about INCOME TAX being semi-progressive, and how poor people don't pay income tax. But that is the only example.

We pay the highest percentage of our income on sales tax for necessary items, because we pay the highest percentage of our income on necessary items and have the least discretionary income. We pay payroll taxes like everyone else unless we can't work for cant' find work.

It would be nice if you were right and our fellow democrats who supposedly care about the poor were really willing to make things progressive so that the poor payed less.

[bobbolink]

125. Wouldn't that be nice?

Can you imagine how it would feel if we opened DU everyday and found at least one thread asking people to take action on this issue, and there was enthusiastic response?

Can you imagine what that would feel like?

Geeee... the word "hope" might even become a possibility then........

[TCJ70]

134. So having a 0% bracket...

...that doesn't change anything but provides healthcare for the poorest in our country DOESN'T help?

[bobbolink]

123. Name calling is sooooo effective,

You can obviously see that this is hurting us (if you have any "progressive" sensitivity at all), so you handle that by...... critisizing us.

What a hero.

[TCJ70]

131. The only thing I criticized...

...was the posters statement about automatically being perceived as crazy. Then I suggested finding out more about the people he had already judged and even suggested a way of doing that...by investigating peoples attitudes towards protections for people who don't make much money.

[bobbolink]

136. Oh, right... "chip on your shoulder" is a term of endearment.

Pardon me...

:crazy:

[TCJ70]

138. I acknowledged my criticism...

...and you're right, it's not a term of endearment.

[bobbolink]

140. then don't act all surprised when you get the same back in return.

Some of us are just fed up with that shit, especially those of us who take it all day long because we're POOR.

Walk in our shoes for just a while..........

[TCJ70]

148. I'm not surprised. n/t

[bobbolink]

151. If that's true, then why are you demanding that we PAY, when you must KNOW

it's not even possible?

And, if it's really true that you live on less, then why is it you have no compassion, and instead, call names and are confrontive rather than compassionate?

Hmmmmm?

[TCJ70]

155. I re-did my post because I read some of your other responses below...

...you're ignoring people who are suggesting 0% payment brackets and minimum income requirements until any money is taken from anyone but they'd still get the same benefits. The money for those people would come from higher income brackets. I have nothing more to say because you won't be willing to hear it.

[bobbolink]

157. Yes, sir,,..... telling me what I will and won't do is soooo progressive.

Are you treating me that way because that is your usual snobbery, or because that is how you treat those you consider beneath you.... like poor folk?

[Naturyl]

139. Yes, because after a lifetime of having no money

I have no clue what people's attitudes toward my own segment of the population are. Oh gee, I'd better stop being so narrow-minded and judgmental and go learn what people really think. 34 years of experience is no excuse! Gotta start fresh right here at DU, and give people every chance to explain themselves in such a way as to make the audience believe they give a crap about the poor.

[TCJ70]

146. So, even if you had bothered to...

...ask the questions and got a good answer you would think it was an act? Here's the thing about the responses in this thread. Everyone reading it looks at it from the perspective of whatever their income level is. The fact that people of other income levels are not considered in the original snap judgement doesn't indicate that those same people are unwilling to promote protections for lower incomes.

[Naturyl]

150. So if they are, then why not mention it?

One poster did.

One.

Everybody else just said "yes" without qualification, which is why some of us naturally assume they weren't stopping to think about those who can't afford to pay anything.

[TCJ70]

161. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7003101&mesg_id=7004068

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7003101&mesg_id=7004214

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7003101&mesg_id=7004631

Protections for lower incomes being suggested. Two of them came out of nowhere and one came after a poster was asked about it.

[bobbolink]

175. WOW!

After all this, THREE people gave it some consideration.

Time for a :party: :toast:

[bobbolink]

173. YES! You GOT it!

"Everyone reading it looks at it from the perspective of whatever their income level is.'

BINGO!

And what we're pushing for is for people to have just a scintilla of awareness. What a concept!

If all white people thought about was being white, there would be a (righteous) uproar from people of color.

If all straight people thought about was themselves and never considered what its like to be gay, there would be a (righteous) uproar from gay folk.

It's damned time to insist that people of means CONSIDER those of us not in their realm of reference.

Now, that wasn't that hard, was it?

Can you just make a shift in your awareness with some grace, so we can get on with forging a more fair society?

[ThomCat]

186. Yes!

:applause:


Geez! I go offline for a few minutes to deal with a medical situation and take some pain meds and I come back to a righteous smackdown! Wow. :P


By the way, Most white people do only think about being white and have not the slightest clue what it might be like to be anything else.

Most straight people do only think about being straight, and wouldn't know how to even imagine being LGBT.

I guarantee that most people who don't have chronic pain or a disability never think about what life is like for us, and wouldn't know how to imagine it.

And this can also be said about people who have never been poor. There is no chance in hell that most of them know what poverty is.

People lock themselves in their privileged perspective. It is one of their privileges.

Having to understand another person's life thoroughly is a sign that you are servant. it is a sign of lower class, so the duty of understanding has always been pushed downward to poor people and minorities. Everyone has to understand the dominant culture, and how to get by in "normal" society. (i.e. theirs) They don't have to make any effort to understand us, or out lives, or our cultures.

[Raineyb]

183. Hostile much?

Because you have quite a chip on your shoulder for someone who wasn't even involved in the conversation but were quick to chime in about this alleged chip. It's nice that you've demonstrated the point that was made but it would have been preferable if you'd done it in a less hostile manner.

[TCJ70]

185. Maybe...

...I just don't see the sense in automatically coming down on everyone who doesn't list every possible situation and a solution for them. The person I responded to seemed to suggest that anyone who hadn't acknowledged the plight of the poor in this country considered people poorer than them crazy...that's quite a leap.

[ThomCat]

189. That wasn't what the post said at all.

The post was making the point that we are often considered crazy simply for even advocating for ourselves. People who advocate for the poor ARE often called nuts.

It was not saying that Anyone who hasn't acknowledged the plight of the poor is attacking anyone.

You took a very true and reasonable statement and took it as a personal attack on everyone who isn't helping the poor? That's a hell of a lot of defensive projection. :eyes:

[TCJ70]

190. Hmmm, I totally misread that.

I apologize. Thanks for clearing that up. I need to practice my reading comprehension...I guess I got caught up...

As one of the people who has put forward an alternative plan for lower income brackets (even though 2.5% is still an unreasonable and really unworkable number if that's the only part of the solution), I guess I'm one of the crazies now. Irony, eh?

[closeupready]

242. I agree with all three of you!

:yourock: :hi: Just can't add anything, because I've never been where you guys have (thank God).

Hoping you find yourself back to a home and warm clothes and good health. :)

[Political Heretic]

246. I stand with you.

[bobbolink]

257. Thank you very much. It is an honor to stand with you.

~~reaching out hand~~

[Naturyl]

105. Ruining their movie rental budget is more like it.

It's quite possible to end poverty and homelessness *immediately* without even causing the economy more than a hiccup. However, it is not possible to do so without asking that average Americans sacrifice just a little bit - maybe the equivalent of a couple dinners out per month. For most, that is not an acceptable bargain. Ending poverty and homelessness are simply not worth it. After decades of demonization from both sides of the aisle (remember bipartisan Welfare DEform), the poor and homeless don't matter enough to be worth giving up Red Lobster.

[bobbolink]

110. Yup, because then they couldn't pat themselves on the back for giving to "charity"

Flipping over a coin makes them ooooh, so superior.

If they HAD to give that coin... no way. No reward in THAT.

[Naturyl]

124. U.G. Krishnamurti put it best:

"Charity is the filthiest invention of the human mind: first you steal what belongs to everyone; then you use the policeman and the atom bomb to protect it. You give charity to prevent the have-nots from rebelling against you. It also makes you feel less guilty. All do-gooders feel 'high' when they do good."

[bobbolink]

133. Thank you for reminding me of that one! It really pegs it.

Hmmm... we should stand on the street with that quote on a cardboard sign.

:rofl:

[ThomCat]

193. Once of my favorite bits of wisdom also comes from him.

"It is by no means healthy to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."

I think about that every time I hear some kid insulted as not being "well adjusted." I think about it whenever I see people who seem to be so well adjusted to the really sick parts of our society, like wall street and DC. The ones that are well adjusted are the ones that are most sick inside.

[Naturyl]

196. I think that was Jiddu Krishnamurti, actually.

Not to be pedantic, but I used to study the Eastern stuff quite a bit and it just stuck out at me. Regardless, it's one of my favorites also and a very insightful statement. I'm sure neither J. or U.G. would much care who got the credit, anyway.

[ThomCat]

197. Ah, you are correct.

:)

[bobbolink]

258. Kudos to whoever! Maybe it was a mind meld. ^_^

At any rate, it should be on a poster that is constantly in front of us... because being well "adjusted" to a society that treats us as total shit would immobilize us.

Thanks for both of these wonderful quotes!

[Political Heretic]

247. YET ANOTHER INDICATION OF THE UPPER MIDDLE CLASS WHITE PRIVILEGE that dominates DU discussions

[bobbolink]

263. Unfortunately, that is a correct assumption. Add that--Male

Sadly, what is lacking is the actual progressive desire to learn and become more aware and more compassionate.

Pointing out any of this just results in angry defenseiveness.

[Naturyl]

100. I think they know that poor people exist.

Trouble is, we just do not MATTER. Our concerns are not mentioned, taken into consideration, or acknowledged because they are simply irrelevant. "The poor ye shall have always with you" and so on. We are basically the political equivalent of an ingrown toenail. It won't go away, but it's not worth paying much attention to. Middle class and working class concerns are much higher on the priority list. Those are the problems of people who COUNT.

[bobbolink]

114. I say, "Stomp on those toes!"

What you have just described is what uprisings and riots are made of.

We have told them very politely.

We have told them insistently.

We have told them angrily.

Yet, when the inevitable erupts, they will be soooooo insulted. "After all we've done for you......"

Where's that damned middle finger emoticon when it is so sorely needed?

:argh:

[Warren Stupidity]

177. You would qualify for medicaid.

[ThomCat]

192. I do qualify for medicaid. But none of my specialist will accept it.

Because of my disability, and the care I require, I can't afford to lose my care for even a short time. My doctors all take my private insurance They all take Medicare. None accept Medicaid.

Right now I pay $600 per month out of pocket for insurance. If I start using the medicaid I qualify for I can no longer see my doctors. I lose my access to the care and treatment I am getting, that is all that is keeping me going.

I have spent more than the past year trying to find replacement doctors who do take medicaid. Few doctors will take it. Fewer specialists will take it. I found 2 doctors who take it, but their offices were not wheelchair accessible and I could not physically get into their offices.

I found 1 doctor who takes it who apparently takes it only to get patients who have noplace else to go. She was the worst, most insulting, unprofessional judgmental doctor I ever saw who treated everyone like criminal drug addicts the moment you walked in the door. Nothing is worth going back to doctors like that.

I still haven't found doctors I can see if I transfer to Medicaid. So if I give up my private insurance I lose all my health care, even though I had medicaid and could have it again.

That wasn't your point though. Your point was "You would get free health care." No, it is not free. It still has co-pays. They are just cheaper copays. But trust me when I tell you that you never want to have to depend on Medicare if you have any other option, even if it is cheap. Please don't hold that up as if it is a wonderful option. It is only better than nothing. Republicans have gutted it to the point where it is barely better than nothing.

[Naturyl]

198. "Medicaid" is now the official hand-waving answer

Especially since Obama lied about it. Yeah, he did.... look here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=230x4584

But beyond the fact that most people imagined to qualify for Medicaid actually don't, the other huge problem is exactly what you pointed out - even those who do have Medicaid have major trouble finding anyone to accept it. For example, in my state, Medicaid actually does cover basic vision care. Nonetheless, I have been without needed glasses for ten years because no optometrist will actually *accept* Medicaid. For ten years I have walked around seeing the world in a fog - not because it isn't covered, but because the coverage isn't accepted.

I've always felt that Medicaid is a toothless program without a law requiring at least some portion of doctors to actually *accept* it. It's like giving a kid a wooden nickel for bubble gum. The parents may say it's worth five cents, but good luck getting any shopkeeper to take it...

[ThomCat]

199. That is exactly the problem. You hit it right on the head.

The government has a program for poor people, but the republicans have gutted it to the point where it is skeletal and almost entirely useless.

Our government won't mandate that anyone accept medicaid. Which would create enough backlash to get medicaid fixed very quickly.

Our government won't fix medicaid. It's only for poor people, so what the fuck do they care if nobody accepts it and it doesn't work.

Most republicans want to destroy Medicaid. Most democrats want medicaid to exist, but they don't care enough to fix it. They just want to be able to point at it and say "see, that's how we help the poor. Go use that and be grateful for all of our generous help."

What that is all they want, then the absolute minimum is enough. We are the ones that get that minimum, and they are perfectly fine with that.

[bobbolink]

266. EXCELLENTLY SAID!

Now, why aren't there a lot of people either chiming in about how sad this is, or replying with thanks for learning something they didn't know?

Why is this so unimportant to "progressives"?

[dysfunctional press]

2.5% of your income.

as stated in the op.

[mainer]

248. As an example: the Netherlands

Those below a certain income level there have their premiums taken care of by the government. Those with incomes above that level MUST contribute. It's a sliding scale of sorts, with EVERYONE who's gainfully employed and able to afford it paying about 100 Euros per person per month.

No one's telling you, if you're impoverished, that you have to shell out what you can't afford. Any program that expects to get wide support has to not only enroll everyone, but also require contributions from everyone who can pay. It's how Social Security works. (Don't you pay Social Security? Are you screaming about that? No, because you know you will get benefits -- in fact, benefits that will probably exceed what you contributed.)

The rich will of course pay extra in this country. The bill already includes a 4.5% extra tax for high earners, something no one else will have to pay. But to say "Oh, let's tax the rich 99% and that will take care of everyone else" simply won't fly. It certainly doesn't happen abroad, in those countries that everyone here touts as admirable health care examples.

[Political Heretic]

244. It needs to be a progressive tax.

Everyone contributes, those with more ability to pay contribute more.

[mainer]

250. It already is planned as such. Extra 4.5% tax for high-earners.

As I understand it, it's in the bill. So the rich will be paying a penalty for being high earners.

[bobbolink]

267. Interesting that you say nothing about those of us who are BELOW you.

[mainer]

276. You don't know anything about me.

whether below you or above you, I'm just pointing out the European experience. I'm not trying to personalize anything, just laying out what has worked in other countries. And those other countries provide care for EVERYONE, using a system that requires that everyone who can afford it pay into the system.

Once you start asking ONLY the rich to pay the bill, you have to define who's rich. Is it everyone who makes more than $50,000? Over $100,000? Or just everyone who makes more than you? Once you start splitting those hairs, you end up fracturing what unifies the initial impulse to provide universal care.

Like Social Security, universal health care must mean that everyone contributes, and everyone benefits. Otherwise, it won't be accepted and has no chance.

[bobbolink]

278. Everyone? So those who have NOTHING can just go suck a lemon?

And that's the point.. you know NOTHING about me, or others like me who have nothing.

Yet, you act as if everyone is like YOU.

As for your question... those who benefitted from the Bush tax cuts should now pay up. Simple.

[KansDem]

253. Start by going after US tax cheats. I pay my taxes, why can't they?

UBS Bank in Switzerland has 52,000 to 54,000 accounts of American tax cheats. The bank is willing to release the names of just over 4,000 of these cheats. That leaves 48,000 to 50,000 accounts unaccounted for. And that's just one bank in one country.

Go after the tax cheats!

I don't mind paying 2.5% more if it will help every American with health care. But I'd like to get back as much as possible from the tax cheats!

[mwooldri]

71. I'd like to see a graduated system.

We all need to pay our fair share, but the poorest can't afford to pay so we shouldn't make them. The wealthiest can afford to pay but will scream blue bloody murder if they are taxed so.

I would support a tiered system...

0% to poverty level income,
10% on all income up to poverty to a ceiling of $250,000.
1% on all income over $250,000.

Thus by Republican logic, a millionaire is in the 1% tax bracket for health tax. 1% is less than 10%, right?

[ThomCat]

90. I never liked the idea that

over a certain amount, you get to pay less in taxes. That means rich people get a privilege and reward for being rich. Being rich is already a whole lot of privileges and rewards.

Have a graduated tax that tops out at 3% but keep it at 3% for ALL income, regardless of how much you earn, and have the IRS actually start auditing rich people again. Bush gutted the part of the IRS that had the resources and training for tracking where rich people hid money.

[mainer]

251. Did you notice that the rich get an additional tax in this bill?

I'm surprised no one seems to be noticing that there IS a penalty for high earners of an extra 4.5%.

[dysfunctional press]

241. 'the little people' would be saving money by paying the tax.

for most of them, 2.5% of their income is a lot less than what they pay for insurance/health costs already.

[driver8]

4. Hell, yes!! That is a no-brainer! n/t

[no limit]

6. So why wont you compromise and accept a 2.5% increase for covering 96% of the uninsured?

[Ruby the Liberal]

12. The house bill isn't Single Payer

Two different topics.

[eyeontheprize]

227. Oh, it just feels good to make stuff up

Let's run with it.

[driver8]

14. How do you know I wouldn't?? n/t

[ThomCat]

43. That isn't what this bill does.

pretending that it is, just shows lack of reading comprehension.

The 2.5% tax is only for people who refuse to buy an insurance policy. The most likely scenario is that a state opted out of the public option, and they can't afford a commercial policy. So they get hit with this tax as a penalty for being poor.

In exchange for that tax they receive... nothing.

Their only health care option is the same as today. If they are sick they can go to an emergency room and be charged the highest possible rates for any medical service, often 2x-10x what an insurance plan has negotiated for the same services.

You are also consistently implying that insurance will be free. Have you ever seen a government program work out that well? Have you ever been on a government program?

I've lived on government assistance. There is no such thing as free. People will still be buying their insurance. If some people get discounts, expect us to have to crawl through long difficult bureaucratic hoops to get those discounts, and expect that those discounts will be under attack every time there is a tight budget season.

You seem to have this compulsion to be overly optimistic, as if you are selling this new program. Do you work in sales? Your writing style seems like someone who has a sales background.

[no limit]

223. Sales background? I'm flattered

Actually I'm a pretty crappy sales person when my job requries it. But I'll tell my boss you said that, maybe I'll get some kind of bonus.

You can say I'm being overly optimistic but saying it doesn't make it true if you don't back it up. The bill outlines how much each person will get as far as affordibility credits go and it outlines who medicaide will be expended to. It's all in the bill, many members here have done the math before and showed how it would help them and the poor in this country. Show me how I'm being overly optimistic.

[bobbolink]

70. Because I don't even have enough to eat properly now, as it is.

Did you answer my question... What more would you have me give up????

See my post#44, then THINK about your demand that I "compromise"!

[bobbolink]

45. Of course its a no-brainer for you.... you can spare it,

Do you ever think of those who simply don't even have enough to live on?

Look at my post #44, and please tell me what I should give up in order to abide by what you are blessed enough to take for granted.

Please... don't blow it off... tell me what to give up.

[driver8]

234. I did not realize that I was speaking for everyone at DU...

and since I have no idea who you are, I cannot tell you what to give up.

Do I ever think of those who simply don't have enough to live on?

No, never..., that is why I want everyone in this country to have health coverage.

This is a post on a message board and has nothing to do with your life..., in case you are wondering.

[bobbolink]

268. You're correct about one thing... It has NOTHING to do with my life,

because my life, and the thousands like me, are of no concern to "progressives".

If it was different, it would be included in what people discuss, and how they discuss it.

[JanMichael]

5. In a heartbeat! That'd give a lot more people more...

...HEARTBEATS!!!!!

[bobbolink]

47. Except for those of us who don't have it, and would have to give up eating,

and... there goes that heartbeat....

Can you ever think of those of us who aren't in your comfortable situation?

Would that be at all possible?

[JanMichael]

168. Psst. In Michaels' perfect world incomes would be leveled...

...healthcare, old age security, decent housing and education would be universal.

Of course that would require a revolution which I would die for, and give up any overly relative comfort that you speak of.

The 2.5 % issue would be fine if were only applied to the top 50% in income taxes not regressive flat taxes.

I do not consider myself entitled or special.

I probably wasn't clear enough.

[bobbolink]

169. But, that's the point, isn't it? No thought at all was given to those of us

already not making it.

That is what we were trying to get people to see, and admit to, but they just become all defensive.

Isn't it interesting that its OK to be so oblivious to poor folk, yet other groups would raise holy hell here if they were ignored?

[JanMichael]

171. And why are you "not making it"?

I've heard the story before but how does it conflict with what I post?

We live in a shit system, period. I get the concept of people in the <30% to literally zero income (AMFI) categories.

Stop talking like you are the only person that get's this.

By the way, what's your solution?

[bobbolink]

178. Jesus H. Christ on a trailer hitch!

Do you ask personal questions like that of everyone on a public forum?

What the hell is with you?

Just when I think the level of awareness can't possibly sink much lower...

AND, don't order me around! How dare you tell me to stop anything!

I'm really tired of authoritarians!

Grow a damned heart!

[JanMichael]

182. You are the authoritorian. Not me.

You are telling everyone ad nauseum how ignorant they are, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly. All I asked is that you not paint yourself as the be all know-it-all and everyone else as a dumb-ass.

Oh and I get the $600/m comments in your other posts. It's SS or SSI or perhaps a pension.

Again - do you care to give your solution?

Should your SS or SSI (or part time waitress tips - the details do not differ in terms of poverty) be your only income or is there a more equitable way to divvy up our collective resources? Shouldn't you be in decent home? I think you should. Shouldn't you be able to have a decent meal or a pet companion? I think you should.

Not the enemy here.

[bobbolink]

259. This bears repeating... DEMANDING I give you personal information on a

forum like this is absurd, and totally authoritarian.

Were I to comply with such a DEMAND, I would be either nutz or completely ignorant of the problems of the internets.

I was once stalked IRL by a DUer, and it was so scary that I can tell you I am very skeptical of ANYONE who makes demands like what you have done here.

Projecting authoritarianism on me after making a DEMAND like that confirms for me that you are definitely NOT a "friend".

[JanMichael]

262. omg, calm down

I wasn't "demanding" anything. You and I have seen each other on DU for years.

Quit freaking out because someone might differ with you slightly in opinions on solutions.

[bobbolink]

269. Thank you for dismissing the very real concerns about stalking.

You're just all heart, aren't you?

Totally dismissive, demanding and ridiculing.

If I wanted to be talked to like that, I would join a RW forum.

[ThomCat]

205. Your earlier post was a hypothetical,

and as far as utopian hypothetical go was a good one. But when you start asking a homeless person why they are homeless so really cross a line. That is offensive. :(

Why would you need to know that, and what would you do with that information?

[Naturyl]

215. Judge. (n/t)

[JanMichael]

220. It's not offensive (I wasn't asking for specifics).

I am aware of a multitude of reasons for homelessness and many have different types of solutions for housing and food-stamps and vouchers etcetera. I ask so I might be able to understand better what policies need to be pushed to get units built, the types of units, the types of management policies, vouchers, services or not, income certifications, and so on.

I'll finish with why it really isn't offensive: She posted a long detailed description of her troubles here on a DU a while back. I had recalled such a post which is what I said in my post; I simply didn't feel like looking it up at that precise moment.

I don't get the hostility here.

[yodoobo]

7. That's alot less than I'm paying now for health insurance

Since family coverage is now about $10,000 a year (or more), this would only cost the average family about $1500 a year (based on $60k a year)

So yea, I drop my current insurance and signup for that in a heartbeat.

In fact, I think it would be a good deal for just about anyone making less than $500,000 a year. So this should appeal to the rich and poor alike.

[librechik]

8. In a heartbeat

so to speak

[Ruby the Liberal]

9. I would go 5% if it meant SP

A TRUE single payer. None of this for-profit bullshit.

[NRaleighLiberal]

10. Yes. N/T

[Kerrytravelers]

11. Personally, Mr kt and I are fine with a tax increase if those less fortunate will benefit.

However, I am concerned with something you wrote:

I don't have private coverage as I am still fairly young and don't feel the cost is justified.

Car accidents don't just happen to the older and insured. Cancer happens, regardless of age. Heart attacks happen to healthy athletes. The cost you'll pay if something happens to you will far outweigh any costs you incur purchasing health insurance now. Seriously, get yourself some insurance immediately. And, on a selfish note, if something happens to you and you don't have insurance, it is the rest of us who have to help pay for you.

Get insurance. Now.

[bobbolink]

49. And how do the "less fortunate" pay this increase?????

[Kerrytravelers]

170. Perhaps I'm misreading, but the less fortunate wouldn't be paying.

It would be people like myself and Mr. kt. We make a livable wage, have no children, very little debt. We're ok to pay a bit more if it means that people not in our situation or better will benefit.

[Warren Stupidity]

184. yeah but it is much more fun to pretend otherwise and have a huge outrage

Of course if you are living on 600/m you aren't going to be paying any new taxes. In fact you very likely qualify for medicaid and if you don't you should. But that is not going to stop at least one poster here from screaming bloody murder about any universal health care system that actually requires funding. It seems instead that healthcare grows on trees, and not privately owned trees either.

[Naturyl]

200. Are you sure about that?

"Of course if you are living on 600/m you aren't going to be paying any new taxes."

Why not? Are you aware of the ones we are already paying? Did you know there are already a whole host of blatantly regressive taxes hitting people making lower than poverty level incomes - such as food taxes, gas taxes, so-called "sin" taxes, etc? Why would a new one be out of the question?

[ThomCat]

203. There are serious problems with this.

many people who should get medicaid are turned away and told they don't qualify. It has been a well known scandal that states actively discourage enrollment in public assistance in order to keep costs down, so they have their staff lie to applicants about what the criteria for acceptance are.

The first time I applied I was homeless. I was told I made $29 too much that year to get any benefits at all, including medicaid. I was making under $7,000 per year and penniless at the time. I found out late that they were telling *everyone* that they made $29 dollars too much to qualify.

I have no idea why they chose that particular number. But $29 was the magic number they told everyone.

There is also the problem that even if you are allowed to sign up for medicaid, most doctors will not accept it. I have been searching for over a year for doctors who will accept it. The specialists I absolutely depend upon refuse to accept it. so I am forced to spend $600+ per month for private insurance.

If I could find doctors that accept medicaid I could use that instead. I qualify for it. I would love to stop spending such a HUGE portion of my fixed income on insurance.

If you can get medicaid, and you can find doctors who accept it, medicaid is incredibly restrictive in what the formulary will pay for. You better hope that what you need is what they cover.

Medicaid is being mentioned as if it is some wonderful thing, some solution, some proof that all is well. Medicaid is broken and has been for a long time.

Medicaid has been in Desperate need of repairs, upgrades and a huge infusion of funding for many years no. But in all the talks about health care reform I don't see Medicaid reform being included.

[Naturyl]

208. God, that makes you wonder who goes into social work, and why...

I can't imagine being a welfare worker and actually agreeing to lie to every applicant in order to disqualify them. What the hell is the point of working in the social services field? Where were the consciences in these agencies? Is it really just a meaningless paycheck like everything else? Did no one object? Maybe some did and were fired for it, I don't know. I'd like to think so.

Anyway, my sympathies to you. It's ridiculous and wrong that you qualify for Medicaid and are still having to spend most of your limited income on private insurance. This is the for-profit rip-off scam that so many Congressional Democrats (and quite a few DUers) want to see subsidized and legitimized by public funds and ensconced forever as our national health care "solution." It is beyond the pale.

I'm just sitting here shaking my head. I'm not "outraged" as some here would like to imagine. I'm way beyond that. Oh, I did years of furniture-throwing, volcanic outrage, no doubt about it. Not ashamed of that in the least - just no longer capable of it. There is a point when you just begin to get beyond all that. You just realize this is the deal, forever and ever (amen), and then you advocate for change anyway, simply because it's the right thing to do.

[ThomCat]

211. I have worked with many social workers

and been subjected to many more who were useless. As a whole, I have yet to see what the hell they get paid for.

When I knew my disability was reaching the point where I couldn't work much longer I started trying to plan ahead for the transition to being on disability. I met with 4 different social workers. One of them twice. Another of them repeatedly. Not one of them was the least big of help.

The one I met with the most, who was supposedly "one of the very best" would ask me every time I saw him if there was anything at all he could do for me. Every time he asked me that I would give him a list of questions I needed answers to. Always the same list.

They were questions about the agencies, the procedures, the forms, that someone with disabilities and health problems who is poor and facing homelessness may need and what they do and where they are how they can help someone who isn't mobile, etc. It was all stuff I would need to know, and would have a hard time tracking down once I had to stop working and my health got bad.

If you are home in pain and periodically bedridden, that is not the time to need to run around New York City chasing agencies to find a lot of answers. That is what I knew I was facing (and now deal with) so I NEEDED those answers in advance.

Being a social worker who works with all these agencies and with people going though this process, I figured he could answer those questions, help me find the agencies, get copies in advance of guidelines and forms, maybe help me make some contacts with people in the agencies, whatever.

Every time I would come back to see him, he would done nothing. Not once answer, not one phone call, nothing. And, with nothing done, he would smile at me, ask me how I was doing, and ask me if there was anything at all he could do to help me. :grr:

Can you understand the anger this still brings up in me?

I would tell him that I already told him how he could help me. I would hand him another copy of the list. He would look at it and tell me that it was a very intelligent and thorough list. (Thank you very fucking much, you useless fucking asshole!) And when I would ask him why he had not helped me get any of the information he would just smile and say, "Well, it's too soon to worry about it yet. Don't worry. You have time. If you want. You can find most of those answers from home on the internet if you want."

Well, if I can find the answers on the internet, what the hell service is he providing? :grr:

I swear he gets paid just to smile at people and ask them repeatedly how they are doing. That really seems to be all he ever really did. I never got any other service out of him.

For that he went to a prestigious graduate school, got a masters degree, and gets paid a professional salary.

[Naturyl]

218. Ugh... distressing, but not surprising.

It sounds like most of my experiences with "the professionals" over the years.

It sounds like you have a physical disability. The nature of it is of course none of my business and I won't ask for details, I just wanted to express my sympathies because I know how it is to deal with these people. I personally have a psychological (NOT cognitive) disability which I won't specify beyond that, due to the sort of bigoted, hateful reactions you get anywhere (DU included, sadly). All disabilities are debilitating, by definition. There are few if any "fakers" on SSI. Fakers go for the far more lucrative private insurance payouts - I've known them and seen them do it. It's sad how the unstated assumption (even in the minds of many of "the professionals") is that we are faking, exaggerating, or milking it. As if highly intelligent people (which I can readily tell you are) would forsake pretty much everything the world has to offer in exchange for a miserly pittance which is granted grudgingly and with suspicion.

Anyway, I'm rambling a bit. Yes, I can understand the anger all of this brings up in you perfectly well because I share it. No, I don't want to work - precisely because I have a disability. How hard is that for people to process? Impossible, apparently, even though it is the very basis of the concept of disability. I don't want to work because I have a condition which makes working the equivalent of having teeth pulled. In my case, that condition is psychological, but it could very well be physical with exactly the same result. Disabled is disabled. Why does America insist on punishing its disabled of all varieties with punitively low payouts (which result in degraded living conditions), cultural disrespect, and to top it all off, ridiculously unprofessional, callous, and uncaring treatment form "the professionals?"

[bobbolink]

270. If I'm remembering the time-line correctly, it was during RAygun that the REAL social workers were

pretty much dismissed.

I personally knew a social worker at that time, and she told me just how low the morale was.

Then they were replaced with people who played a social worker on TV.

Like you, I used to think that people went into these fields, and that includes ALL of the "Helping" professions, including the help agencies, food banks, homeless shelters, etc., for altruistic reasons. Like law enforcement, it all too often has more to do with power and control.

I really do appreciate very much your understanding, and your honest outrage.

It means a lot to me!

[bobbolink]

265. It is soooo sad that you should have to explain all of this on a "progresssive" forum!

Why aren't "progressives"--who consider themselves more compassionate and more aware than RWers are-- knowledgeable about these realities????

[optimator]

13. absolutely

not a dime would be going into the pockets of scum bag insurance middle men.

[Xicano]

15. Even if I had a greedy side it would say yes

Why? Because the compensation my employer pays me in the form of health care insurance I'd move to have that transfered to my wage compensation. Net result after paying the tax would still have me bringing home more pay than I do now.

[TransitJohn]

16. I wish EVERYONE would cease using the phrase "public option"

since there is no such thing in the bill the House of Representatives passed. As to your original question, I'd be more than willing to pony up a 2.5% increase, but "across the board"? No. All taxes in this country should remain progressive as they always have been. No regressive flat tax to cover the poverty stricken. That'd be anti-Democratic.

[bobbolink]

87. Thank you for remembering us. As you can see here, most don't even give us a thought.

:hi:

[ThomCat]

92. No matter how often we mention that it would be regressive

he loves the idea anyway.

So many people here really like the idea of taxing poor people. :(

[Shagbark Hickory]

17. Yes that's small patadaz

[jkshaw]

18. Yes!

[jkshaw]

19. Yes!

[Swede Atlanta]

20. Yes, Yes and Hell Yes!!!!!

[sabbat hunter]

22. I would want to know

if it would cover all costs, etc. But most likely yes.

[Mari333]

23. stop both wars and we are covered

cut 2/3 of the defense dept. monies. easy peasy.

[Laelth]

24. Absolutely, YES!

But it won't happen (for a while).

:dem:

-Laelth

[Sebastian Doyle]

26. For single payer, absolutely.

For Stephen Hemsley's tax sheltered bank account in the Cayman islands, fuck no.

[Bobbie Jo]

27. Yes. nt

[hfojvt]

28. that cannot bet the only cost

there is also a tax surcharge of 5.4% on incomes over $500,000.

Also, I don't know what you mean by 2.5%. Am I paying an extra 2.5% of my income in taxes, or are the taxes I pay going up by 2.5%?

2.% of my income is a fair amount, but it is still less than the "making work pay" credit that was part of the stimulus bill.

[clear eye]

29. You can't generalize about what DU would accept.

I would accept the 4% income tax increase that PNHP says would be the cost of single payer health care because the costs wouldn't spiral out of control like those generated by this bill would. (This bill doesn't negotiate w/ Big Pharma or providers, it sets % of revenue spent on "medical loss", which means for patient benefits, at even lower than it is now, and specifically prevents the "public option" from paying providers less than private insurers do whatever that turns out to be. The political will for keeping up in subsidies w/ spiraling premium costs makes it questionable that expenses for non-wealthy individuals will remain affordable. Even at the outset, some analysts figure that the permitted deductibles, copays, and unsubsidised premiums would make medical care a hardship for many. There would have to be effective political will in the same Fed gov't that is getting its campaigns paid by private insurers to bring anti-trust cases when price fixing occurs.)

Medicaid already makes health care for the truly poor almost free in exchange in many areas for a shortage of doctors, especially specialists, and in many cases second-rate care. This bill mandates the uncovered near-poor also enroll in Medicaid unless they are exempt from filing taxes. It doesn't prevent important abuses like mischaracterizing expensive essential treatments as "experimental" as a way of denying them. Most of the uninsured will be covered by law or fined, but the real question is covered for what? In MA a similar law led to pseudo-insurance masquerading as "catastrophic coverage". Medical bankruptcy is still significant.

You won't always be young. When this program degenerates as the private insurers become even wealthier as a result of the mandate and more important as campaign financers, how will your generation of then 40-somethings exercise any leverage to improve things?

[Lilith Velkor]

30. Hell to the yes

How the fuck is it "criminalization of the poor" to provide healthcare of the non-prison variety?

[laughingliberal]

31. I would. Might need something in place for people of very low incomes. nt

[bobbolink]

73. "Might"

:wtf:

[laughingliberal]

187. Merely a figure of speech. I would certainly support people in poverty not being subject to the tax

much in the same way EITC returns some of the payroll tax money people with low incomes pay. But without the head of household requirement.

[branders seine]

32. hell yeah!

It would make the 15% or 20% of my income I'm now paying to the cabal go away.

[nc4bo]

33. Yes. nt.

[footinmouth]

34. Can't speak for anyone else, for me - ABSOLUTELY!

[rucky]

35. That would pay for itself easily.

Right now over 10% of my income goes to health insurance (not care). Then there's the deductible, copay,...

[stray cat]

36. 2.5% is not enough - if you make 80,000 per year its only 2000

it won't even pay for yourself - let alone those who make less.

[inna]

37. Progressive taxation would be preferable, but even flat, proportionate taxation would be vastly bett

better than the idea of mandates (which are in effect a hugely REGRESSIVE backdoor tax that disproportionately hurts the struggling middle and working class).

[GreenPartyVoter]

64. Exactly what I was thinking.

[mirrera]

38. Yes

[mmonk]

39. Unequivocally yes.

[bobbolink]

41. Does it ever occur to most "DUers" that there are folks who can't

even make it on what they have, and losing ANYTHING, no matter how small to the rest of you, would mean even more deprivation?

Do you really forget that not everyone is in that great middleclass?

Could you please make the effort to remember us sometimes?

[madrchsod]

58. i understand what you are talking about

i would think that under a just system those under a certain amount would`t be taxed....but you know that i`m dreaming of an america that should exist but does`t.

[Fading Captain]

216. 2.5 percent of very little

Is not much to ask for health care.
Stop whining.

[clear eye]

232. Goodness! you have selective reading!

Every single person responding positively said they would pay that amount (or more) themselves. They were speaking for themselves, not for people too broke to afford it. The basic assumption on DU is that all taxation should be arranged so that the wealthier pay more, the poorer pay less, and the very poor pay nothing. Here, that goes w/o saying. It runs through just about every discussion on taxes and the economy in general. You have to be willfully blind to miss it.

It's just sad that your only pleasure is masturbating your rage. You have probably been able to notice that almost all DUers oppose the Mideast wars and do our damndest to get them to stop, yet they keep going. But somehow you've convinced yourself that if DUers really opposed homelessness we would be able to get the programs passed that would end it. This w/o knowing what issues we call our members of Congress about. (Or do you have a magical board that tallies what issues every DUer calls about?) How did we get so powerful on this societal ill, but not on any other?

Fortunately your misdirected rage won't stop DUers, who include many poor people (by anyone's definition), from advocating in the interests of the most vulnerable in society, especially the very poor. The reason most people don't respond to your posts is that they know by your false generalizations about them that you can't hear them. They are sorry that you've created a world in your mind in which every single person who isn't in your exact same situation, and some who are, are unwilling to lift a finger to help. They see you as being in a prison of your own making above and beyond your economic condition.

This post is probably useless as well, but I'm making a stab at penetrating your unfounded assumptions for your benefit. If you acknowledged that DUers w/ few exceptions actively select candidates to support who advocate strengthening the social safety net, you would be much closer to the truth and live in a much less grim internal world. If we're so incorrigibly negligent, why bother to post to us?

[driver8]

235. Thank you...

You have said what I was thinking but couldn't put into words.

[bobbolink]

271. NO spoken concern for those who don't have the means.

There has been so much ignorant posting on DU through the years, including gas taxes, fees on stuff the elite consider "bad" which hurts poor people only, etc., that knowing our situation is left out leads to the obvious conclusion.

Your choice of words is so disgusting (and so MALe) that I have no interest in debating you further.

Your lack of even any pretense of compassion says it all.

[Tesha]

42. Absolutely yes. (NT)

[rudy23]

46. Yes. It would save us so much in the long run + ease our fears about being wiped out

by costs. Single payer is the best way to drive down costs. I can see how the politics of it would be challenging, but it's a no-brainer for me.

[varelse]

48. For myself yes - I'd be fine with it

for anyone lower income than myself, no.

[bobbolink]

272. Thank you for including us.

Noted and appreciated.

:hi:

[Mira]

50. Of course N/T

[JerseygirlCT]

51. Makes sense to me. But

can I add a personal note for you, as someone who's been through those young and why get insurance stage?

Maybe you should look into some major medical insurance - at a young age, the big catastrophes are the ones likely to ruin you, financially...

At any rate, that's what I would counsel my kid once our insurance no longer covers him.

[madrchsod]

52. 2.5% would be a bargain--if it was a medicare plan

[bobbolink]

63. A bargain for YOU. Again I ask.. what do you want me to give up?

[mwooldri]

72. The health care plan you're presently paying 15% of your income for.

2.5% vs 15%? No brainer.

But 2.5% is not enough really.

[Naturyl]

74. Yes, because everyone is insured and is "presently" paying for insurance.

FYI, the posted you replies to is homeless.

[yodoobo]

79. Well 2.5% of $0 would be $0

So it would be a good deal even for the homeless.

[bobbolink]

93. Nobody can live on $0 Surely you KNOW that.

What about all the folks who have to try to keep alive on $674?

What do you want us to give up?

Hmmmm?

[ThomCat]

102. The smug lack of empathy or concern is really galling.

You can almost hear them saying, "who cares if poor people whine about paying their fair share."

No matter how poor someone is, people like to tax and punish the poor. No matter how rich someone is, people want to let them keep as much of their money as possible. Get it from the poor. :(

[bobbolink]

107. You know, what is really galling is not the lack of empathy or concern...

It's not even THINKING of us at all!

That we are either invisible, or lower than the scum they hire someone to scrub off their bathtub.

THAT is what is galling.

[Naturyl]

119. Yep, because at least bathtub scum-scrubber is working.

In their indoctrinated minds, they imagine that the bathtub-scrubber is trying to "lift himself up" though "hard work," etc. You and I don't even have the decency to do that, so in their minds, why should we even enter into consideration?

The situation of the disabled poor (SSI recipients) in this country is really apalling. Everyone gives lip service to the disabled, but when it's the POOR disabled, we can go eat cake. The unstated (but firmly believed) assumption on BOTH sides of the aisle is that SSI claims are usually fake, the disability doesn't exist or doesn't actually prevent work, and the disabled poor have access to all kinds of generous handout programs anyway if they would only sign up. But even if someone denied believing any of these false ideas, it still wouldn't do me any good. I don't need lip service, I need more than $674 a month to live on - and absolutely nobody is pushing for that. In fact, the only thing I've heard on the whole subject this year is that we are not getting a cost of living increase next year. Don't know if that's true, but it wouldn't surprise me.

[Naturyl]

112. Just animal behavior, really.

Certain great apes have a similar primitive society. The least fortunate of the tribe are punished further, and the most fortunate are rewarded further. It all gets back to genetic imperatives, "survival of the fittest," and what-not, but it would be nice if human beings could finally get beyond of all of that.

I'm still waiting.

[bobbolink]

129. I'm not willing to let them off the hook that easily.

I guess you're more generous than I am about that.

Animals treat me much better than "progressives" do.

[Naturyl]

144. Hehe, touche. Good point.

I have two dogs and they are outrageously happy to see me every day. Can't remember the last time anyone else of any political persuasion was ever happy to see me. The question in the back of their minds is always "what's this going to cost me?"

[yodoobo]

117. Give up? who said anything about giving up?

In this theorized, pie in the sky plan, I would support a minimum income before the 2.5% kicks in. say $20,000 a year?

Barring that, based on your $674 figure, if you could pay $16 a year to have all your health care needs taken care of, I suspect that you would support it.

Unfortunately the math doesn't support it though. There will never be a flat rate 2.5% for everyone.

[bobbolink]

118. Then, answer my question!

As I've asked you to do... read my post #44, and then tell me... what do you want me to GIVE UP?

[yodoobo]

122. Nothing!

I don't want you to give up anything.

[bobbolink]

126. Then where the fuck is the $16 going to come from?

Sell the gold from my teeth?

Oh wait.. I don't have any.....

Did you even read that post?

Why is it so hard for you to admit that you didn't even consider us?

Why can't you be big enough to admit that, and learn from it?

[yodoobo]

141. Did you read my post?

In this non-existant, DU only plan. I said I'd support a minimum income level. Go ahead.. Go read the post!

Are YOU big enough to re-read it?


Listen buddy. I'm not your enemy. I want healthcare for all just as much as anyone.

[bobbolink]

149. Ohmy..... gonna shoot back, eh?

Look, we see through your game. You were called on your lack of concern for those of us who "aren't like you". Instead of recognizing what you did, you now want to make US into your enemy.

Game or no... you ignored those who aren't in your neat little category.

Own up to that.

It's the progressive thing to do.

[yodoobo]

158. sigh.

This is getting ridiculous.


I wish you well.

[bobbolink]

164. Rather than wishes, it would be so nice if "progressives" would actually

remember us, and be willing to fight for us and help us make our lives more liveable.

Of course its ridiculous... to YOU. Because you aren't the one being shunted to the bottom of the pile.

Try walking in our shoes once.

[Naturyl]

147. You could always sell your blood.

Not sure about how it is where you are, but when I used to live in the shelters, that was a weekly tradition. Guys would go down to the plasma clinic and sell their blood for 20 or 30 dollars to get a couple packs of smokes, a sandwich, and some deodorant, etc. Personally, I never did it, because I'll be damned if I'm going to sell my blood to get by in this backward reverse wealth-redistribution scheme we call an "economy." But it's always an option to pay the 2.5%, right? Hehe...

[bobbolink]

154. Hey, thats the ticket! "Step right up and sell your blood for health care!"

Sounds just about right for these "progressives".

Yanno, it really is too bad we are so poor... this would make a GREAT full-page ad!

:applause:

[ThomCat]

97. You like the idea enough to be that smug

rather than going for a progressive funding idea instead? :shrug:

[yodoobo]

111. Nothing smug about it.

Those who have very little would be asked to contribute very little.

That seems quite fair.

Having said, that, under this plan, I'd support a minimum income before the 2.5% kicks in.

It doesn't matter anyway. This 2.5% talk is just pie in the sky forum talk.

Healthcare isn't going to be free or 2.5%

[bobbolink]

135. Well, yanno..... white racists don't see themselves that way, either.

There's always a rationale....

[yodoobo]

142. You are quite the angry one arent' you?

people who lash out at anonymous people never see themselves as anti-social either.


Look we all want healthcare.

Attacking your friends here isn't going to help much.

[bobbolink]

145. Practicing psychotherapy without a license?

"MY FRIENDS" don't ignore me, and insist that I pay for something when I have no $$$ to do so.

Why can't you be big enough to admit that you forgot about us, and own up to it, and learn something from it?

Is that so hard for you to do?

[yodoobo]

153. What are you talking about?

I don't want you to pay any money.

I haven't insisted that you pay anything.

I haven't ignored you.

I could hardly forget you, because I never knew you till tonight.

We are talking about a pie in the sky plan tossed on the wall by a fellow DU'er.

Thats it.

[bobbolink]

160. One more time.... we called you on your faulty assumption, so then you call it a game

and that is supposed to make it alright.

And, I'm sure you know that I was talking about forgetting poor people. We just don't figure into your equations.

Again, you were caught ignoring the needs of poor folk, and need to just admit to it, and learn something from it for the future, instead of getting all defensive.

[yodoobo]

162. You are incorrect about your conclusions

[bobbolink]

163. Well, then... that must settles it, doesn't it?

Thank you soooo much for your care and concern.

It will be remembered next election time.

[Naturyl]

159. Difference between justifiably angry and "anti-social."

Let's make your home address your car for a year or two (for starters) and see how your attitude develops...

Also, unless you are taking action to help people like Bobbolink get housing and a decent income, or at least advocating for that regularly, chances are you are not her "friend" in any meaningful sense.

"Friends" who give lip service, 30 seconds of sympathy, 50 cents in a coin jar, virtual hugs on a message board, and all of that are a dime a dozen. Actual friends who open up their WALLETS are rarer than functioning cells in Glenn Beck's brain. Personally it amazes (but sadly does not surprise) me that it's even *possible* for a person to be openly homeless for years on end while being an active member of a HUGE progressive community. Not progressive enough to take up a fucking collection, I guess.

[bobbolink]

167. Thank you.

Those words of understanding mean so much!

:yourock:

I really appreciate your caring....

[bobbolink]

91. Yes, we are invisible to these "brainers".

Completely and totally invisible.

We never enter their thoughts.

Sooooo "progressive".

[ThomCat]

109. You have said this a bunch of times on this thread

and notice that nobody else on this thread seems to be talking to the three of us.

[bobbolink]

113. It's obvious, isn't it? They gave been given many opportunities to

broaden their "awareness".

They've rejected it everytime.

THEN they will moan and groan about people "who vote against their best interests".

Don't count on my vote, anymore, brainers. Because I'm homeless, it took me over 2 1/2 hours just to register to vote last election. THEN it was a real hassle to turn in my ballot.

For what?

To be ignored?

PPPPffffftttthhh!

[bobbolink]

77. Look, brainer, I HAVE no "plan".

Can you not understand that not everyone is as affluent as you are?

Are you that seriously disconnected?

Did you read my post that I asked you to read... do you understand that I live in my car?

Again, I ask you... what the fuck else do you want me to give up?

Take your no brainer and live in it.

[Warren Stupidity]

180. Well you could give up the internets.

That ought to go first, don't you think? In your financial condition you have to scrap all the nonessentials.

[TCJ70]

181. That's not necessarily true...

...the internet is useful for things beyond posting on DU such as finding a job. Also, there are plenty of ways to get internet at places with free wi-fi.

[Warren Stupidity]

188. The poster lives in a car on 600/month and has cut out one meal a day.

I personally think the poster is making shit up, but that is only a guess. Yes for sure the poster is hanging out at the local library and yelling at us filthy rich people from there for us daring to think that a single payer system actually requires funding, and continuing its outrage even when many others suggested that of course there would be a floor on income levels. It seems the very idea of using taxes to pay for universal coverage is just wrong.

[Naturyl]

204. Mmm, yes. Very good. Fly that flag in true technicolor.

"It" does not even have a gender, I see. That's some pro-level dehumanization, my congratulations. Extra points for suggesting that "it" is lying about "its" circumstances, as if pretending to be broke and homeless was likely to be a rewarding experience in an America full of "people" like you.

True colors.... but will it cost you? Absolutely not. Had you made such comments about an LGBT member or an African American member, your unborn grandchildren would be feeling the hurt right now. But because you targeted "it," we won't hear a peep.

[ThomCat]

206. You are calling someone a liar, doubting that someone is poor and

homeless because they disagree with you about whether the poor should pay for healthcare and/or how much? What, do you expect someone to prove being homeless in order to have credibility with you?

:wtf:

That is really heartless and callous. If you have any real evidence of someone being dishonest you would say so, so obviously you don't so. This is just a heartless and cruel ad hominem attack.

[Naturyl]

202. Yes, because of course she has an internet connection in her car.

Couldn't possibly be a public library or a friend's computer, right?

And besides, those in your "financial condition" have the inalienable right to paternalistically dictate what the life choices and priorities of people in "lower financial conditions" should be, right? Unless of course they are rich, in which case they would have the right to dictate to YOU, no?

What exactly is "essential?" is a person's dignity and their ability to feel as if they still have some connection to the rest of the human world essential? If not, then yeah, the poor and homeless should all stay off the internet. Bread and water only! Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

Aptly named, methinks you are.

[ThomCat]

207. Holy Shit! Dis you really just have the Gall to go there?

Are you really telling someone else that they have to give up a possession or access to one because you don't think someone who is poor deserves it?

You have said many really offensive things in the past, and this is right up there!

How dare you tell anyone what who is struggling what they can prioritize as a possession or resource! How dare you try to micromanage anyone's life but your own!

:wtf:

You really owe an apology to that DUer, and you need to grow the fuck up. :grr:

[bobbolink]

264. Same ignorant judgements as RWers. Congratulations... you have reach for the low.

Check your assumptions at the door, dufus.

[madrchsod]

121. you should`t have to give anything up if you can`t pay.

my ss payments will get nicked around a 100 when i get medicare. 100 off of 760 that i get ain`t going to make me happy.but maybe in two years i`ll get a part time job being a walmart cart boy.

[Demoiselle]

53. YES nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. Of course. Healthcare consumes 17% of gdp.

Only an idiot passes up a 85% off sale.

But it begs the question of how you intend to cut 85% of the costs.

[yodoobo]

76. Yea its an awesome deal..Only available on DU I'm afraid

I'd go for it in a minute, but I don't believe that 2.5% is feasable.

[bbinacan]

57. No. Obama promised

no taxes for those of us making under 250k. That promise has been blown to hell.

[yodoobo]

59. Its not Obama asking the question. It a DU member

The deal "offered" by our fellow DU member would be fantastic deal for anyone making less than about $400,000 a year.

I'd drop my $1,000 a month plan in a second for a plan that cost about $2,000 a year. I suspect virtually everyone who can operate a calculator would as well.

[bbinacan]

60. How and why is your plan

$1000/month?

[yodoobo]

75. Thats about the what the average family plan cost

although it can certain cost alot more than that.

If you have a good job with benefits, you may pay less as your employer will cover a good chunk of it, but the actual costs is near what I described. I think the plan that Congress gets is about double that.

In any event 2.5% for health insurance would be an incredible bargain, even if rates were 1/4 what they are now.

[Peacetrain]

68. ? What are you talking about?

[dhpgetsit]

61. In a heartbeat.

[bluethruandthru]

65. Absolutely! n/t

[Peacetrain]

67. Oh My God Yes!

[Kaleva]

80. Bring back the tax rates in effect during the Eisenhower years.

[Gormy Cuss]

83. I'd accept a tax increase across the board with tiers ranging from 0 to 10%

for universal single payer.

[slackmaster]

94. If it meant my employer and I no longer contributed to my health insurance through payroll deduction

If I could stop paying my share of premiums and my employer passed on to me the savings from not having to pay what they pay now, I'd come out ahead.

[Cleita]

96. 2.5% is such a good deal, I wish I had it.

Wait until you actually have to try to get medical care when you have nothing, you will find it is a very good deal. Also, remember you are getting older, and never will get younger. The time will come when you will get healthcare that is provided by those who are younger than you that you once resented paying into. That's the way it works. Just to think that you don't have to contribute to the pool because you are young and think you don't need it right now means that you think you are going to go to fairyland when that time comes. I'm not talking about you specifically, but people who think that way.

[XOKCowboy]

179. I hear ya Cleita

I payed my health insurance through my employer for 21 years. I've always been fairly healthy, no major surgeries or injuries, using it only for emergencies. Now that job is gone and I'm a freelancer in the same business and middle age is catching up to me. Now when I really need medical care there is no way I can afford (or even get) any insurance today. I make a decent living but any major medical emergency and I'll end up with nothing.

[dflprincess]

98. For sure at 2.5% I'd nearly break even with what I pay for a premium

I'd go up to 10% if it also guaranteed minimal copays at point of service. That would cost me more but it would be worth it if we could all see a doctor when we need to and not have worry about paying for it or wait until some insurance company clerk gave your doctor permission to treat.

[alfredo]

101. Yes. It would be cheaper than commercial insurance.

[guitar man]

103. He'll yeah

It beats the he'll out of the 12% of my salary I'm paying in premiums now.

[hunter]

120. Gut the DOD.

No problem. We could cut 90% out of that useless turkey and life would improve for everyone worldwide.

Scrap some aircraft carriers, shut down the Air Force, quit the "War on Terror," close military bases in other nations, say no to empire and yes to national defense. We'd still have our "national security" and bless ourselves with all the benefits of living in a first world nation rather than continuing this ugly charade as the very top dog manifest destiny of the American Banana Republics.

[mcablue]

127. If premiums would be cut by half, which is what other countries pay, then yes

Absolutely.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

130. Of course. I would at least.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

137. Not necessary

Hack away at the military budget.

Make corporations pay their fair share of taxes.

Increase taxes on those making $250,000 or more.

Cut subsidies to agribusiness.

Eliminate lobbyists and their waste.

and on and on and on and on....

Why the fuck is anyone advocating for any further tax increases on people. We are drowning in money it's just all being gobbled up by big business, military boondoggles and wealthy slush funds.

[davekriss]

143. Absolutey !! (nt)

[Chisox08]

152. Yes!

[upi402]

165. Right after the Bush tax cuts are revoked and then raised 2.5%

Then we can talk about getting reamed yet again ...because the elites just cannot be asked to pay their fair share.

[XOKCowboy]

166. Define "across the board". I'm a freelancer and have no insurance

I'm 55 yrs old with preexisting conditions. Like I can get any kind of affordable insurance. A 2.5% tax on my gross income would still be much less than what I paid per year for the crappy insurance I had at my last "real" job and I wouldn't have an insurance company auditor standing next to my doctor. If it helps others also then all the better.

[StarfarerBill]

172. Yes!

[Warren Stupidity]

174. Of course.

[Odin2005]

176. How bout paying for it with a Carbon Tax?

[Fading Captain]

217. Carbon tax? I hope this shit goes away

What a scam.

[dana_b]

191. I've never been for a flat tax

and never would. People who are at povery level or the working poor should pay nothing, imo. A graduated tax makes more sense to me. And yes, I'd happily pay my share.

[TheKentuckian]

194. 0-10% for single payer would be cool with me

Hell, I guess that might even eliminate the need for Medicare taxes which means anyone that is currently paying for coverage would make out like a bandit at least until the income levels get up there, of course the low income would be square, and those on the shallow end of the earnings pool would get a break from paying 15-20% or maybe a little less if the company has a decent plan.

[recoveringrepublican]

195. My family pays $120/month for outstand coverage, but I would be willing to pay 10% MORE in taxes

for EVERYONE to have health CARE! We are by no means wealthy. I think we made 75K last year, but the county we live in FL is pretty $$.

[Veruca Salt]

201. YES! nt

[Warren DeMontague]

209. Fuck Yes. 'Course, I think we could also halve the military budget & end the drug war

but that's just me.

[ThomCat]

213. Hell Yes!

I also would not mind seeing CIA budget chopped too after all the crimes against humanity they are guilty of. :grr:

[sabrina 1]

212. This is one of the most disingenuous posts I've seen

on DU.

I had an exchange with the OP about the fines that will be inflicted on the working who cannot pay for Private Insurance and which in the House Bill are being called 'excise taxes'.

The OP informed me that people who do not want to pay Insurance should have to pay a tax. I was not talking about people, apparenty s/he was talking about her/himself I see, who choose not to buy insurance, but those who cannot afford it.

The OP apparently doesn't believe that there are such people who will not be covered by this bill. S/he is convinced that anyone without insurance is responsible for that themselves. Iow, all those who have died, did so just out of stubbornness and selfishness because they wanted other people to pay their way.

The OP denies that the excise tax is a fine, punishment for those who will not be able to buy insuranc.

This is a deceptive attempt to get people to view what is a punishment, as a benigh tax being imposed on people like him/herself, who claims, and I'm not sure I believe it, s/he chooses not to pay. It is an attempt to confirm for him/herself that the rightwing meme that only selfish, laze people don't have Health Care.

It would have been far more honest to have linked to that exchange and then asked the question. But manipulation of the fines to pretend they are not punitive, was okay with him/her, so I suppose I should not be surprised.

Edited to add, I have unrec'd the thread for the reasons stated above.

[ThomCat]

219. Yes, I had a similar exchange in another thread.

This is a repeat conversation, trying to push the idea. This time it is pushed as more of a hypothetical though, because he wasn't getting support when he came out and stated exactly what he believes.

[no limit]

222. Wow you know absolutely nothing about me and instead of addressing my point you generalize about me

You can keep repeating the lie that this increase will apply to people who can't afford it but it is just that, a lie. All of the poor will be covered under this bill without any additional costs to them. The people that will pay for that are going to be a small percentage of the middle class such as myself with a 2.5% income tax increase. I am fine with having my taxes go up 2.5% if it means that people less fortunate than me will be helped.

Yet you guys don't see it that way for some reason and choose to lie through your teeth on this issue while there are still 47 million uninsured people in this country. In your world if you don't get exactly what you want you throw a huge fit; grow up already.

[sabrina 1]

237. What you are talking about is a fine. It is NOT going to be

imposed on those who can afford Health Care Insurance. It is a punishment for those who CANNOT. Your insistence that everyone, like you, without insurance, is without it voluntarily and could buy it if they wanted to is simply not true. You are the only person I have ever talked to who is without insurance because they choose to be. You have turned yourself in the Republican's fantasy of those without insurance.

This tax will not be imposed on everyone, only on those who cannot afford it. But I see you are cynically planning to use to your advantage already. Another reason why this bill is flawed. It will allow people to manipulate the system.

In thetantr Senate Bill, the fine originally imposed was to be $3000 but has been reduced to $750 which the Private Ins. Industry has thrown a temper tantrum over. It is still wrong and possibly unconstitutional.

You seem to be basing everything on yourself, judging others based on your own decisions. This is totally irrelevant to the facts.

Congress HAS written a bill that is forcing people to buy a product they either will not be able to afford or do not want from an Industry they do not trust. If they refuse they WILL BE FINED. This has never been done by Congress before. They are expecting to be challenged in court as soon as it goes into effect and someone with standing can file a lawsuit. I believe it will happen and probably go all the way to the SC.

You can deny all you want that this 'tax' is a choice. For you, it may be, for millions of the lower middle class it will not be. It is punishment and only applies to those who cannot and the small number such as yourself, will not purchase a product they are being forced to buy.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/05/health.care/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Individuals under the $829 billion Finance Committee plan would be required to purchase health insurance coverage or face a fine of up to $750. The House bill imposes a more stringent fine of up to 2.5 percent of an individual's income. Both versions include a hardship exemption for poorer Americans.

Congress's and your idea of poor Americans (under $40 K shows how little they and you know about the cost of living for families today). Millions will fall into the category of not being eligible for subsidies, and not being able to afford to buy Private Insurance. It is inevitable. They will then be punished with fines.

Your OP was disingenuous because you failed to tell the readers why you posted it. And you led them to believe that you were proposing a tax on all Americans. You did not say that this tax would be imposed only on those who could not buy insurance.

What could have been done, and this is what your OP made it seem you were presenting, is that Congress could have extended Medicare for All. That would eliminate premiums for individuals and businesses and replace them with a health care tax. Everyone would pay the same way they pay Unemployment and SS tax right now. That would be constititutional as Congress has the right to levy taxes, but NOT as a punishment for not purchasing a product whether voluntarily or because they cannot afford it.

One more thing, rightwing and DLC talking points such as 'you want things your way immediately' or whatever variation you used, diminish a person's credibility on a democratic board. Either present links to back up your claims, or make a credible argument and you might have a better chance of persuading someone to agree with you. These now ancient tactics simply identify you as someone who is not interested in a real discussion but who wants to impose their own views on everyone else. I could and have been persuaded by reasonable arguments, but never by these ancient tactics which are more appropriate coming from a temper tantrum throwing two year old.

[no limit]

239. The point I was making with my op is that if this 2.5% went toward something you liked...

...you wouldn't be calling this tax a punishment. Congress raises and lowers taxes all the time, that's part of life. If you are in the middle class and you can't brace yourself for a 2.5% tax increase you need to rethink your finances. 40,000 a year is 3,000 a month. 2.5% of that is $80 a month. And the fact remains that if this tax was for something you supported you would be okay with that even if it still meant some people wouldn't be able to afford that.

And you are right, it would be good if we could all argue with facts instead of making stuff up. So when you say that congress doesn't have consitutional power to levy such a tax the fact is that you are simply making this up. By your logic congress is punishing me for not having kids since I can't use the child tax credit making that child credit unconstitutional.

How about the carbon tax? Is that also unconstitutional since it "punishes" you for messing up the enviroment?

And I'm cynically planning to use my advantage already? What the fuck are you talking about? You don't know me, so I suggest you stop guessing. If you had payed any attention you would have seen I wont qualify for any direct help from the government. I really don't appreciate being called a crook that is planning on manipulating the system by someone that doesn't know me, really a dickish move on your part.

[sabrina 1]

249. First of all, I said the exact opposite of what you

attributed to me. I actually said that if Congress had imposed a medical tax on all Americans, it WOULD BE Constitutional as Congress has the power to levy taxes. Please read again. Imposing fines for not purchasing a product and calling them a tax, is not constitutionally sound and has never been done before.

As far as my supporting something because it went to something I liked? No, not if it was unfair to others.

What I would support, which I said in my post, is a fair tax, such as the SS or Unemployment tax on all Americans to pay for a Universal Health Care system.

What I do not support, and what I do not believe Congress can do, is a punitive tax on the poor.

As for your claims that $3000 a month, (take out taxes first) is more than enough for people to live on, clearly you have no idea what it costs for a family to live, let's say in NYC or any decent area with good schools eg.

A mortgage payment averages around $1,200.00 a month. Home Insurance, maintenance, car insurance, clothing for a family, food, utility bills, etc. Many people on such an income cannot afford to go to the movies, and do not, or eat out once in a while, let alone take on another monthly bill.

An additional insurance forced on them is simply not in their budget. Something else would have to be sacrificed.

Besides, this should not even be a conversation in this country. Health Care is a right, not a commodity and it's shameful that this government has to cater to a Private Industry that profits from people's lives rather than simply provide for its citizens as all other civilized nations do.

You should not project your own ideolgy on others. I and millions of others do not support something just because it benefits us. If it leaves out others, or wrongfully punishes them because they are less 'privileged' no matter how much I like it for ME, I will not support it. We live in a democracy supposedly, and when a large number of citizens are not doing well, it does affect all of us sooner or later and it means something is wrong.

As far as paying for something that contributes to the common good, such as the tax you mention, it DOES benefit you. If children are neglected in a society, it affects all of us. We should take care of our children, whether we have any or not, the elderly, the disabled like every other Industrial society does. To not do that, reduces us to third world thinking and eventually, status.

[no limit]

255. But you are picking and chosing where taxes can and cant be applied

Yes, you did say that if they imposed this tax on everyone that it would be consitutional. You also said that taxing as a "punishment" is unconstitutional; I'm point out that you are making this up. And I gave you examples of why this is not true, wether it be the child tax credit or the carbon tax that has been talked about. You on the other hand didnt show how it is unconstitutional.

You say that a child tax credit benefits everyone indirectly. Well I am saying that the 2.5% tax on those middle class people that decide they dont want to buy any insurance also benefits everyone indirectly. That child tax credit costs me money eventhough I dont have any children. I am ok with that because I agree parents should get tax breaks to help them raise their children. Just as I am ok with the 2.5% tax if it means 96% of the uninsured will be covered and these asshole insurance companies will be forbidden from dropping coverage or denying care because of pre-existing conditions. Again, I'm just giving you an example. If we used your logic you would have to admit that congress is punishing me for not having kids as I have to pay a higher tax than someone who has kids.

I don't doubt that you support single payer, as do I, because you believe that it will help everyone, as do I. But we are not getting single payer any time soon, we all need to grow up and accept that. My argument continues to be that the bill that passed on Saturday is much better than the status quo. So keeping in mind you won't get a much better bill than this the choices you have are wether or not to kill this bill. And the amount of people this bill would hurt would be a tiny percentage of those that it would help. And that's a trade off we will have to live with atleast until primary season comes around at which point I will be with you when we try to get rid of the spineless dems in the house and the senate.

Finally, if you are paying $1,200 for rent on a $3,000 a month salary (before taxes) you are incapable of properly dealing with your finances. That's not my problem, it's yours. I would like to drive a fancy car and live in a nice house too; but I'm smart enough to know that I can't afford that right now.

[sabrina 1]

280. I think we have been talking at cross purposes and probably

do agree on more than we disagree about. As for supporting a Single Payer system, I think most sensible people do support it. I am well aware that we are not going to get it right now, this country has been too successfully indoctrinated for too long into thinking that selfishness and greed, under whatever name they choose call it it, means success. That doesn't mean people should not continue to make the point that it is the only way, the most efficient and the most fiscally responsible system, not to mention, the most humanatarian.

Having said that, the two points where I have a problem with what you have stated. The first is maybe a misunderstanding of your position on my part and if so, then I apologize in advance.

You have presented the excise tax as a choice. I have said it is not a choice, as it is stated in the bill. It is a punishment and will, regardless of the intention, cause hardship for many people.

Otoh, if you are not talking about how it is represented in the bill, but are offering it as a choice which people who cannot afford it, can opt out of, then I could agree with that. The problem is, right now, those for whom it is not affordable, do not have that choice. As far as taxes as a punishment for not buying a product from a private vendor, that is unconstitutional.

There are some good things in the bill. Such as, if it works and there are no loopholes they can find, Insurance Cos being unable to refuse people with pre-conditions.

The problem with this that many people are concerned about, include rewarding and bailing out a failed Industry which up to now, has allowed people to die because they are motivated by profit not be saving lives. I don't see these same people changing their philosophy and am certain that they will find ways to get around the laws.

For example, there IS a fine for any Corp that doesn't comply with the requirement that they not refuse someone with a pre-condition. But the fines are small compared to the cost of covering such people. What is to stop them from accepting the fines rather than the patient? Just as you are willing to do, rather than buy coverage? If that becomes the way they get around one of the best things in this bill, how has anything changed? I am not aware of anything in the bill to prevent this from happening.

A less important point of disagreement. I do not believe that those who support a Single Payer system are the ones who need to grow up. I believe the spoiled, over paid, temper-tantrum-throwing Private Insurance Companies, when they don't get everything they want, are the ones who need to grow up. The adults are those who see the seriousness of allowing tens of thousands of people to die to maintain a failed system. The children are those who see those sick people as possible profit-making customers, even if forced to purchase their shoddy product or by subsidies from the government. They are like greedy, spoiled children who demand that only their desires are met.

But the biggest problem people have with this compromise bill, and it is a compromise, is that it further cements into the culture, a belief that privatizing such necessary life-sustaining necessities such as health care, is an acceptable policy and slows down the process of ending the practice of profiting from life and death and joining the rest of the civilized world in accepting the fact that health care ought to be viewed as a right. Having experience with the European system where health care is a right and no one has to worry about getting care when they need it, such a for-profit system based on people's lives, is simply abhorrent. This country has a long way to go before it finally grows up and can take its place among the more mature nations of the world.

[Fading Captain]

214. Sign me up.

[Orsino]

221. Flat-taxers piss me off.

Those at the top could easily afford it; those at the bottom...not so much. It could still be a win, if it wound up effectively relieving our poorest of the burden of paying for medical care, but there is absolutely no reason why increased taxation couldn't be progressive.

Let's portion out the tax burden equally, if we absolutely must tax everybody. (We needn't.)

[ThomWV]

224. There are ways to structure a modified flat tax that would be much more equitable that what we have

First off a flat tax does not have to begin with the first dollar of income so you can still exempt the poor from having to pay any tax at all.

That said the real guts of a flat tax are very similar to the most important point about a public health care system. Everyone has to play or it won't work. That demands uniformity and in the tax issue the most important aspect of a flat tax system is that it applies to everyone, which means there can be no tax exemptions, no one can be let off having to pay their tax otherwise it is not a flat tax.

When Warren Buffett goes on the TV and admits that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary it tells you all you have to know about how utterly inequitable our tax system is.

[Orsino]

236. That's hardly across-the-board. What you're describing isn't really a flat tax.

No, not everyone has to play. As you note, a progressive taxation system could exempt some completely, or to any degree desired.

[clear eye]

225. Wait a minute. Are you saying that the House bill is "Single Payer"?

If that's what you think, you're severely underinformed on the whole issue. You also say, "The only cost for all of this is a 2.5% tax increase on a small percentage of the population that doesn't want to buy any kind of insurance and doesn't qualify for a government subsidy." Are you under the impression that the subsidy covers the whole premium and all other medical expenses?

A full explanation of what the current House bill actually is, (not H.R. 676 which was not even allowed a debate on the floor) and what single-payer actually is, is much more than I can cover in a comment. Please sit down w/ the most knowledgeable person in the area of current affairs who you know, and have that person explain to you what is going on in Congress regarding health care reform.

[eyeontheprize]

228. The question doesn't have to do with actual

legislation.

[clear eye]

233. Unfortunately it does.

It opens w/ "The house bill that passed last week...".

I guess the thread is working okay b/c most responders haven't read past the title. My only qualm is that some readers might interpret the positive responses as support for the bill that passed the House last Saturday.

What a tangled mess!

[no limit]

240. Dont blame me if people are too lazy to read

I never called the bill that passed single payer and I would guess most people here are smart enough to know that. If they dont know that and cant take 1 mintue to read past the subject line thats nobody's problem but their own.

[PVnRT]

229. Absolutely

Even better, cut down on Pentagon spending, and you'd not have to raise taxes at all.

[jtrockville]

231. ONLY if the proceeds do not subsidize profit.

If the tax subsidizes health care, ABSOLUTELY count me in.

[Prism]

243. Health care should be paid via a new tax. Mandates are horrible

Personally, I favor a progressive tax structured along the lines of our current income taxes. Meaning, taxes on the poor would be low to non-existent.

A new tax is a far, far, far better proposition, a fairer one, and it places the burden of health care across all Americans based on their ability to pay. This mandate crap, where middle and working class families can end up shelling out up to 12% of their income for mere insurance - not total coverage and care - is something I expect of the Republicans.

Democrats should know much better.

[alarimer]

245. No. The rich should pay.

I would only accept an overall tax increase if it guaranteed medicare for all.

But the rich need to bear the burden on that too.

[mainer]

252. Define rich.

More than you make?

[MNDemNY]

254. Hell Yes!!!

[annabanana]

256. Oh HELLS yeah.. on my HEAD. . . . n/t

[KamaAina]

260. A flat-rate across-the-board tax hike is regressive

I'd rather see it done by increasing the rates on each successive income tax bracket.

[notesdev]

261. Wait a sec there

Wasn't the whole point of this reform effort to bring DOWN costs? And didn't we get an unambiguous promise of no taxes on those making under $250k/year?

If it doesn't bring down costs, it's feeding the pigmen who have been siphoning off the money that should go to caring for human beings and stuffing it in their own fat pockets. That is the whole problem to begin with (insurance being a financial instrument, not a medical instrument).

How did we get from there to here so fast?

[no limit]

273. I agree, but consider the alternative that is the status quo

I think this bill is still much better.

[notesdev]

274. This bill is pure fascism

Mandating that every person pay insurance companies for the privilege of being alive? I'm pretty sure there are fundamental human rights violations in that arrangement.

Broken promises will lead to lost elections. Remember how well "read my lips" worked out.

[no limit]

275. Facism? My apologies, for a second there I thought I was talking to a sane person.

[notesdev]

277. you are, I am using the actual definition of the word

Mussolini: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

If this ain't that, then what is?

[no limit]

282. Yes, obviously this bill is the merger of state and corporate power.

You love the Glenn Beck show, try it out some time.

[notesdev]

283. Glenn Beck? My apologies, for a second there I thought I was talking to a sane person.

[Union Yes]

279. NO! Too regressive. I'd accept a 2.5% increase if the wealthy's increase were 10%.

edit for: at least 10%. 10% or more!

[bertman]

281. No. There are too many ways to get the money other than MORE taxes. Try rescinding

that Bush tax cut for the top 2%. Then, use all the money that we're giving to churches and religious organizations for whatever it is they're doing with it. Then do some heavy-duty prosecution for Medicare fraud--which is rampant to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars per year. Just prosecuting War Profiteers would bring in BILLIONS for fraudulent contracts and overcharges.

When the government stops throwing away money on shit projects and wars I'll consider paying MORE taxes.