I have to admit I was wrong about conservatives. I thought they wanted lower taxes and less spending. It seems they are not concerned about spending your tax dollars, as long as you are supporting their private industry donors.
I read the “Votes in congress” section of the 9/21/09 issue of the Post. The House Democrats voted to save nearly $9 billion annually on the student loan program by cutting out the middle man – the banks. The Republicans voted to spend the extra $9 billion of your taxes to help banks.
I started to think of some other examples. Despite having over 40% of all Americans covered satisfactorily by 5 government insurance plans, conservatives still believe private carriers are better, even though it increases your taxes. Proof! I now have Medicare at a monthly cost of about $300 to me. Taxpayers pay the rest of my costs. Formerly, I had a private Medicare Advantage plan which cost me $0. Taxpayers paid ALL my bill. (I do thank you all.) Republicans thought up this idea to spend your money, and liked it so much they tried last year to increase the amount you pay the carriers. The Democrats voted to save you money.
Republicans claim to love the troops in Iraq and Afganistan. But they hire many contractors who earn twice what troops earn, with substantially less risk.
Your insurance premiums are skyrocketing. They do not care. They have no real plan to improve. But they are afraid of a public option because they claim it will save people so much money, everyone will take it. Campaign funds will dry up.
Even on local level they prefer privatization. Our state Republicans tried to use stimulus money to give us a tax rebate. Then they voted to force us to pay more to Ameren so they can build a new nuclear plant. Is that how free enterprise works?
Of course, logic is not their forte. QUESTION: When President Bush hired a Haliburton to build roads and schools in Iraq, it was good. It is privatization. When President Obama tries to hire a Haliburton to build roads and schools as part of stimulus, it is bad. It is growth of big government. Can someone explain the difference to me?
Martin Walsh
Glendale
Previous Comments
logicprevails: Those with no insurance will have to pay up to 15% of their household income for insurance.
You can’t force insurance companies to take people with pre-existing conditions unless you force everyone to buy insurance. Otherwise, everyone would wait until they got sick to buy insurance. Also, it’s not fair that those of us who have insurance get stuck paying the medical bills for the schmucks who choose not to buy insurance.
Medicare will be cut by $500 billion.
Overall, Medicare recipients will get better coverage. The donut hole will go away. Preventive services will be covered at 100%. Physician reimbursements will increase. Private Medicare plans will no longer get subsidies, which will save $156 billion. If Medicare recipients think private Medicare is so much better, they can pay for it with their own money — not my taxes.
Those with “gold plated” insurance plans will pay a 35% tax on any plans over $8000 (individuals).
This is in the Senate version, but not the House version. May or may not be part of the bill.
Your measly $300 a month will skyrocket..which I actually agree with since you have been sucking on the government’s teat for awhile.
No it won’t.
Oh, and before you start rambling about how health insurance companies have been screwing people for years, they were recently ranked 84th out of 217 industries in profitability, with a 3.4% profit year to date.
Three insurance companies rescinded the policies of over 20,000 people over 5 years. In my world, that is SCREWING people. Insurance companies deny treatments all the time, causing people to die. In my world, that is SCREWING people. Insurance companies raise rates through the roof for sick individuals and small businesses with a sick employee, to force those people and businesses to drop coverage. In my world, that is SCREWING people.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Si: Ok, what ever you say. I suppose in your world, FICA is a “retirement contribution”, not a tax.
When the government takes money directly from the populace, its a tax. You can call it whatever you want (premium), but it is a tax.
I feel like I am talking to a rock. Pay close attention.
If you CHOOSE to PURCHASE the Public Option for your health insurance, you will pay PREMIUMS for that insurance. Those premiums are the ONLY funding the Public Option will receive. If you CHOOSE to purchase PRIVATE insurance, then you DO NOT PAY ANYTHING FOR THE PUBLIC OPTION!!!!!
I think y’all are getting the Public Option confused with the SUBSIDIES for low and middle income people to buy health insurance.
COMPLETELY SEPARATE ISSUE!!!
If you dittoheads get your way, and you succeed in getting rid of the Public Option, the cost of the Health Insurance Bill will NOT GO DOWN ONE PENNY. In fact, the cost will go ***UP UP UP***, because it will cost MORE to SUBSIDIZE the PRIVATE insurance policies.
EVERYONE who gets a SUBSIDY has the CHOICE of using their SUBSIDY to PURCHASE either a PRIVATE or a PUBLIC insurance plan. The CBO estimates that 2/3 of everyone who gets a SUBSIDY will CHOOSE a PRIVATE plan.
So there you have it.
Taxes for Public Option? NO!!!
Taxes for Subsidies? YES!!!
One more thing. In my world, FICA is most definitely a tax. Premiums you pay to purchase a Public Insurance Plan that you VOLUNTARILY chose to purchase are NOT a tax.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
rt “Bull”… You do know why U.S. Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, right?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tango;
I just had another idea for you. Term limits for all appellate and Supreme Court Justices. Say ten years, and at the end of that time they must step down. I would allow them to be re-nominated at that time, but they would have to go back through the confirmation process. That should help curtail any activist justices.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am an advocate of the Fairtax, and just returned from an update on the cause. Certainly the Fairtax would eliminate corporate welfare, most lobbyists, off-shore shelters, etc. I say that and do not condemn the suggestions above. Our current system is insane.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s probably more safe to say that it would `lessen’ bureaucratic corruption, but it could cut it out completely.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tango… What you’ve suggested is still more unwieldly than it needs to be. Geoism’s single tax proposal is an extremely simple approach to solving the problem. It also cuts out tax fraud and bureaucratic corruption.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tango;
You seem to be getting a fan club. I think I’ll join. Only two thing to add. Congressional members should have no expense accounts and they should pay all medical out of pocket. Other than that, I agree completely.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0