I don’t know why Democrats are so touchy about the description. Well, some, like Al Sharpton isn’t. Their motivation is “fairness” which means to take from one person and give to another who hasn’t earned it. From the New York Times:
A big chunk of the money to pay for the bill comes from lifting payroll taxes on households making more than $250,000. On average, the annual tax bill for households making more than $1 million a year will rise by $46,000 in 2013, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group. Another major piece of financing would cut Medicare subsidies for private insurers, ultimately affecting their executives and shareholders.
The benefits, meanwhile, flow mostly to households making less than four times the poverty level — $88,200 for a family of four people. Those without insurance in this group will become eligible to receive subsidies or to join Medicaid. (Many of the poor are already covered by Medicaid.) Insurance costs are also likely to drop for higher-income workers at small companies.
Finally, the bill will also reduce a different kind of inequality. In the broadest sense, insurance is meant to spread the costs of an individual’s misfortune — illness, death, fire, flood — across society. Since the late 1970s, though, the share of Americans with health insurance has shrunk. As a result, the gap between the economic well-being of the sick and the healthy has been growing, at virtually every level of the income distribution.
The health reform bill will reverse that trend. By 2019, 95 percent of people are projected to be covered, up from 85 percent today (and about 90 percent in the late 1970s). Even affluent families ineligible for subsidies will benefit if they lose their insurance, by being able to buy a plan that can no longer charge more for pre-existing conditions. In effect, healthy families will be picking up most of the bill — and their insurance will be somewhat more expensive than it otherwise would have been.
Each according to his need. Enforced fairness.
What is the natural consequence of such actions? The rich make sure they are no longer rich. By any means necessary, they will make sure their income falls below the taxation threshold. A whole new industry will pop up to help rich people. And rich people will go buy health care somewhere else. They can afford to travel to Mexico after all, to get cheaper health care. And the cost of health care in America will rise from this legislation.
And then, the government will have to force people to pay more taxes, which is why the President is considering a VAT tax. This whole issue will spiral. Costs will increase, tax revenue will decline. The black market for everything will flourish.
The incentives are all wrong. Why should people quit smoking and eat right? Pay the fine for not having insurance and then buy insurance when you get sick.
Socialism never works because it fundamentally operates against human nature. It reinforces bad behavior and extinguishes good behavior.
But it’s “fair.”
Is it any wonder Americans hate with a pure, enraged hate, the politics of Washington, D.C.? What a disgusting town.
The New York Times reports the obvious, yet again:
The yearlong legislative fight over health care is drawing to a frenzied close as a multimillion-dollar wave of advertising that rivals the ferocity of a presidential campaign takes aim at about 40 House Democrats whose votes will help determine the fate of President Obama’s top domestic priority.
Oh, wait. What’s that? The article is about advertising being spent to sway those on the fence about the health care reform bill? That’s bad?
There aren’t even words to describe my contempt for this purposeful misdirecting piece of garbage cloaked as news.
If Jeff Zelany and the New York times cared about money in politics, they’d investigate the money that the Democrats are throwing around to bribe their fellow Democrats to vote for a piece of legislation that no one wants besides the New York Times editorial board.
I went to the article figuring they’d be talking about the avarice disguised as sausage-making and they’re taking time to talk about advocacy advertisements and the millions being spent on a bill no one wants?
The outrage should be focused where the American people are focusing: on the nasty pit-vipered swamps of D.C. But no. Focus everywhere else. Blame the American people and advocacy groups for trying to influence this fetid process.
The president’s traipsing through the jobless midwest? Worthless. The Congress Democrats bickering and buying-off and banning Republicans from the process? Worthless. The Press, like the New York Times, spewing empty drivel when Americans know the truth? Worthless.
Push ’em all into the Potomac and start over. We’d be better off.
Not content to show Obama with a halo, the New York Times is now creating images of him with a cross in the background.
Good grief. I guess the separation of church and state no longer applies when it comes to The Sainted One.
This is the definition of sacrilege. But I’m not sure the editors at the New York Times know God–that’s why they’re fooled by Obama.