Obama denounces emphasis on health care protests

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Obama denounces emphasis on health care protests

The president didn't deny that there have been angry outbursts by foes of his plan at town halls featuring Democratic lawmakers this month. But he said that was hardly the whole story.

"TV loves a ruckus," Obama said. "What you haven't seen on TV and what makes me proud are the many constructive meetings going on all over the country."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama


absolutely pathetic.....this guy is ticked because his overall media is reporting facts and circumstances he doesn't like.......

this guy looks, more and more each day, like a goebbels....he has to chastise his media and tell them what to report on.....

imagine if bush said this.......the libs would go apeshit
 
"You can't tell us how you're going to pay for this," Rathie said of Obama's health care overhaul. "The only way you're going to get that money is raise our taxes."

"You are absolutely right," Obama said. "I can't cover another 46 million people for free. I can't do that. We're going to have to find money from somewhere."
 
"My intent is not to vilify insurance companies," Obama said. "I say, 'Let's work with the existing system.'" But he said some bad practices of insurance companies "are tough on people" and "have to change," including such things as denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Click to expand...

^exactly why i care so much about this issue^

he of course is vilifying insurance companies....but i agree with him htat the pre-existing conditions is a major issue....
 
Having a nice talk with yourself?

This is as dumb a criticism as you saying Obama saying it's "scary to do nothing" is equivalent to senators and governors and top Republican party members saying the government is going to have death panels and euthanize babies and grandmas.
 
Yurt said:
"You can't tell us how you're going to pay for this," Rathie said of Obama's health care overhaul. "The only way you're going to get that money is raise our taxes."

"You are absolutely right," Obama said. "I can't cover another 46 million people for free. I can't do that. We're going to have to find money from somewhere."
Click to expand...

Yes, there are about three ways they plan to get the money.

Raise taxes on people making over 350,000 a year by 1 percent. Reduce or eliminate government payments to private insurers to support Medicare Advantage, which is a huge waste of money and corporate welfare at its finest. Another option is to tax health benefits.

YOU and nobody you know will see a dime in extra taxes, but you're almost certainly going to see savings over what you currently pay for healthcare.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Having a nice talk with yourself?

This is as dumb a criticism as you saying Obama saying it's "scary to do nothing" is equivalent to senators and governors and top Republican party members saying the government is going to have death panels and euthanize babies and grandmas.
Click to expand...

i did not have the time to read the whole article at once.....my most humble apologies ib1bukkake

your second paragraph is......nothing....and not even remotely related....typical spin by a liberal....but i bet you supported the protests against bush....

hypocrite
 
OTE=ib1yysguy;493285]Yes, there are about three ways they plan to get the money.

Raise taxes on people making over 350,000 a year by 1 percent.
Click to expand...

stupid plan as that amount is minimal compared to the costs....btw....do you admit that is spreading the wealth around....you know the very thing obama tried desperately to run from and from which the media ground the bearer of said question into.....?


Reduce or eliminate government payments to private insurers to support Medicare Advantage, which is a huge waste of money and corporate welfare at its finest. Another option is to tax health benefits.
Click to expand...

MA appears to be a loss...no doubt....at the time it was thought to work....so don't be myopic and assume YOUR liberal plan is going to work perfectly.


YOU and nobody you know will see a dime in extra taxes, but you're almost certainly going to see savings over what you currently pay for healthcare.
Click to expand...

you're wrong, obama said 250K, now you're saying 350K.....i know people in both ranges....would i like to make that....hell yes....but that is not the point....you're advocating spreading the wealth....and IMO there is no way this plan is going to work without raising taxes below the claimed floor......no way.....government always says that.....and then more taxes...hell....bush I...read my lips.....

don't be fooled by the D next to the name ib1
 
Yurt said:
stupid plan as that amount is minimal compared to the costs....btw....do you admit that is spreading the wealth around....you know the very thing obama tried desperately to run from and from which the media ground the bearer of said question into.....?




MA appears to be a loss...no doubt....at the time it was thought to work....so don't be myopic and assume YOUR liberal plan is going to work perfectly.




you're wrong, obama said 250K, now you're saying 350K.....i know people in both ranges....would i like to make that....hell yes....but that is not the point....you're advocating spreading the wealth....and IMO there is no way this plan is going to work without raising taxes below the claimed floor......no way.....government always says that.....and then more taxes...hell....bush I...read my lips.....

don't be fooled by the D next to the name ib1
Click to expand...

The amount raised by a 1 percent hike on people 350,000 or over would be enormous. I think the estimate I read said around $500 billion, which is about half the cost of Obama's program. I'd have to find the source again, but I'm pretty sure it would be a waste of time anyway.

The first two plans alone would pay for the entire program - raise on taxes 350,000 or over and eliminate the Medicare Advantage clusterfuck.
 
=ib1yysguy;493329]The amount raised by a 1 percent hike on people 350,000 or over would be enormous. I think the estimate I read said around $500 billion, which is about half the cost of Obama's program. I'd have to find the source again, but I'm pretty sure it would be a waste of time anyway.
Click to expand...

no....i want to see it

The first two plans alone would pay for the entire program - raise on taxes 350,000 or over and eliminate the Medicare Advantage clusterfuck.
Click to expand...

i notice you "missed" this question:

do you admit that is spreading the wealth around
 
Yurt said:
no....i want to see it



i notice you "missed" this question:

do you admit that is spreading the wealth around
Click to expand...

Taxes ≠ socialism. Sorry. This spreading the wealth around crap is just that. Society decides what services are worth rendering to itself through taxation. We're at the point now where were deciding that health care is one of those things worth spending money on.

But seriously, if you're going to try to make the case that taxation of any kind is "spreading the wealth" you'd be technically correct, but the implication is that it is socialism or communism or something. It isn't.

I'll find the link in a minute. I'm in the middle of something else. If you get bored of waiting, I bet you could find it on your own.
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/10/business/moneywatch/main5230656.shtml

That one has a good run down of the options being considered. The one about taxing the wealthy is listed here:

Tax the wealthy


Support: House Democrats

Opposition: Republicans, some newly elected House Democrats from wealthier districts, Senate Finance Committee members who believe any new tax revenue should come directly from the health care sector

Likelihood of inclusion in final bill: Uncertain

Value over 10 years: $544 billion

Potential cost to you: If you're an individual making over $280,000 or a family with income over $350,000, you could eventually be looking at a tax surcharge of from 1.0 to 5.4 percent on your income above that amount.

The current House bill would impose an income tax surcharge starting at 1.0 percent on the top 1.2 percent of earners in the country, or individuals with adjusted gross incomes over $280,000 and families that earn more than $350,000 (some legislators are calling for a higher threshold, however). The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the surcharge would have no impact on 96 percent of small businesses, but "imposing taxes on anybody in a recession is not going to promote economic growth," says Joseph Antos, a health policy expert at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute. Negotiators on the Senate Finance Committee reportedly prefer to raise revenues to pay for health reform from within the health care system itself, by taxing the value of health insurance benefits, for example, or penalizing employers who don't offer health insurance.

--

That one option covers more than half the cost of the entire reform.
 
Yurt said:
^exactly why i care so much about this issue^

he of course is vilifying insurance companies....but i agree with him htat the pre-existing conditions is a major issue....
Click to expand...

It's a major issue also with the Republicans, that and for a person to be able to carry their insurance from state to state.
 
ib1yysguy said:
The amount raised by a 1 percent hike on people 350,000 or over would be enormous. I think the estimate I read said around $500 billion, which is about half the cost of Obama's program. I'd have to find the source again, but I'm pretty sure it would be a waste of time anyway.

The first two plans alone would pay for the entire program - raise on taxes 350,000 or over and eliminate the Medicare Advantage clusterfuck.
Click to expand...

actually, according to IRS figures for 2006, if you charged a 1% surcharge on everyone in the top five percent of taxpayers (which has a threshold income level of $160k per year) you would generate an extra $329 billion dollars....

the income threshold on the top 1%, which is $420k (closer to your $350k), if charged a 1% surcharge, would generate $200 billion

http://actionamerica.org/taxecon/irsdata.shtml
edited because I dropped a decimal the first time....


and
In 2006 the federal government spent $60 billion on the Medicare Advantage plans, according to a report last month from the Government Accountability Office. In 2007 the spending increased to $77 billion. The GAO estimates in 2008 the expenditures increased to $91 million, the report said.
Click to expand...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jan/16/medicare-advantage-plans-may-lose-some-federal-cas/.....

so
That one option covers more than half the cost of the entire reform.
Click to expand...

combined you're up to $329bill plus $91bill or $420bill....what did you say the cost of the reform was?......oops, no wait....you didn't want to tax people making $160k.....I guess you only have around $300bill......sorry.....now, what were you saying?.....something about how to get the other $700billion?.....
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
actually, according to IRS figures for 2006, if you charged a 1% surcharge on everyone in the top ten percent of taxpayers (which has a threshold income level of $160k per year) you would generate an extra $32.9 billion dollars....

the income threshold on the top 1%, which is $420k (closer to your $350k), if charged a 1% surcharge, would generate $8.7 billion

http://actionamerica.org/taxecon/irsdata.shtml
Click to expand...

Multiply that first figure by 10 years and you have covered about half the projected deficit/cost of the Obama plan estimate by the CBO over 10 years.

The real number is exactly what I posted. Your ad hawk math doesn't account for the fact that the equation is slightly more complex than what I described to you. It's all in the article.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no, your just pulling it out of your ass.....I gave you IRS numbers....
Click to expand...

Yeah, IRS numbers multiplied in ways that don't reflect the ways they're actually planning to tax people. Again, I posted the CBS article which has the numbers broken down more precisely. Regardless, even if we took your numbers it still covers about half the projected deficit for the cost of the program.

The precise number is $544 billion. That aint nothing to scoff at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top