Pelosi’s New Payroll Tax: A Whip for Socialized Medicine - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

lug-nut · #1 (**permalink**) 1 Week Ago

Quote:

Pelosi’s New Payroll Tax: A Whip for Socialized Medicine

Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, set out a startling scenario in floor debate Saturday before the House approved the health care bill pushed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The bill would slap an 8 percent tax on the payrolls of employers who do not provide health insurance to their workers and pay at least 65 percent of the premiums for an employee who has a family insurance plan and 72.5 percent of the premiums for an employee who has an individual insurance plan. Barton spelled out what he believes will happen if this provision becomes law.

Many Americans might be tempted to casually conclude that the purpose of Pelosi’s new payroll tax is to force employers to buy health insurance for their workers and that the parties hurt most by the tax would be the employers who pay it.

This is wrong on both counts. The Pelosi tax will not force employers to buy insurance for their workers, it will give them an incentive not buy insurance. The parties most hurt by the Pelosi tax will not be the employers who pay it but the workers dumped into the government-run health care system Pelosi’s plan creates.

This will happen when employers discover that paying Pelosi’s tax is cheaper than buying health insurance. The Pelosi payroll tax will be a whip wielded by the state to drive Americans into a socialized health care system from which there will be no escape.

MORE

This is exactly what Bella Pelosi wants...everyone on Ooooobamacare. Quality and availablity of care will drop rapidly.

MattLarson · #2 (**permalink**) 1 Week Ago

That's not fair. Pelosi does not want everyone on Obamacare.

If she did, one of the 11 amendments requiring the Congress to get their health care from the "public option" would have passed.....

skeptic1 · #3 (**permalink**) 1 Week Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by lug-nut

MORE

This is exactly what Bella Pelosi wants...everyone on Ooooobamacare. Quality and availablity of care will drop rapidly.

Are you just waking up ? I posted the same information a short while ago. !

As an employer it is obvious an 8% tax would be cheaper than furnishing Health Insurance. But what is not obvious to most; that if ones job is lost insurance stops immediately. If they can get insurance at all they will be floored by the cost and under Cobra if thay can afford the premium along with the 10% aditional cost of administration it is only good for 18 months.

Some major firms go to great lengths to avoid benefits. Some by firing all their employees and hire them back part time thus eliminating the need to cover the part time employees (under the law or stipulations of the insurance company) Some use enough part time temps to avoid premium overtime.
or other benefit costs.

If you want more jobs take health insurance off the backs of all business i

Why should a business do any more/or less than contribute to a pool to allow this to occur ?

It (non responsibility for health insurance by a company) also levels the playing field for small business to compete with large business.

Look into these things it would seem you don't know what side your bread is buttered on !

The money is ours ! We put it in a pool to spread the risk ! What the hell is socialistic about that ?

Pay now or pay later. Good Luck !

PDF] C:\My Files\Revised JobSearch Guides -12-08\101 Just laid Off for ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Many workers experience a lay off at some time during their work lives. Since few jobs provide life-time job security, every job is a temporary job

SamInTheSouth · #4 (**permalink**) 1 Week Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by skeptic1

If you want more jobs take health insurance off the backs of all business i

I don't think businesses should keep shouldering the burden of providing health insurance, but that doesn't mean the only alternative is putting that responsibility in the hands of the government.

Angry American · #5 (**permalink**) 1 Week Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheSouth

I don't think businesses should keep shouldering the burden of providing health insurance, but that doesn't mean the only alternative is putting that responsibility in the hands of the government.

Well it's not like the private sector is rushing in to provide a solution. And I don't think deregulating health insurance like we did to credit cards, is a viable option. You'd end up with very attractive cheap plans that would be loaded up with costs on the back end, like when you actually get sick and need your insurance, you'll be faced with high costs, rationing, and policy cancellations.

Hell it happens with auto insurance. You get a policy you can afford, then you get in an accident, your claim gets paid, then your policy gets canceled. It happened to me, once.

Health insurance needs to be unconditional, not just for when times are good, but also for when the shit is hitting your fan. There is enough money in private insurance to provide unconditional coverage, but it would mean steep drops in profitability, which is something the private sector just isn't willing to endure.

Take Medicare for example, who else other than the federal government is willing to provide the services of Medicare?

Swoop187 · #6 (**permalink**) 1 Week Ago

DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO!!!

lug-nut · #7 (**permalink**) 1 Week Ago

Quote:

Reid Considers Payroll Tax Hike for Health Care

WASHINGTON -- Majority Leader Harry Reid is considering a plan for higher payroll taxes on the upper-income earners to help finance health care legislation he intends to introduce in the Senate in the next several days, numerous Democratic officials said Wednesday.

These officials said one of the options Reid has had under review would raise the payroll tax that goes to Medicare, but only on income above $250,000 a year. Current law sets the tax at 1.45 percent of income, an amount matched by employers.

It was not known how large an increase Reid, D-Nev., was considering, or whether it would also apply to a company's portion of the tax. President Barack Obama has said he will not raise taxes on wage earners making less than $250,000.

The officials spoke only on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to disclose details of private deliberations.

MORE

Seems Bella Pelosi may have some competition from Dirty Harry for who can raise taxes first.

Imperator · #8 (**permalink**) 1 Week Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angry American

Well it's not like the private sector is rushing in to provide a solution. And I don't think deregulating health insurance like we did to credit cards, is a viable option. You'd end up with very attractive cheap plans that would be loaded up with costs on the back end, like when you actually get sick and need your insurance, you'll be faced with high costs, rationing, and policy cancellations.

Hell it happens with auto insurance. You get a policy you can afford, then you get in an accident, your claim gets paid, then your policy gets canceled. It happened to me, once.

Health insurance needs to be unconditional, not just for when times are good, but also for when the shit is hitting your fan. There is enough money in private insurance to provide unconditional coverage, but it would mean steep drops in profitability, which is something the private sector just isn't willing to endure.

Take Medicare for example, who else other than the federal government is willing to provide the services of Medicare?

thats because the private sector has been held hostage by a corruption of the commerce clause.....hello.

lug-nut · #9 (**permalink**) 1 Week Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swoop187

DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO!!!

You know, I could get out my pics of Hitlery just to retaliate for that pic...but that'd be like a farting contest...everyone loses.

Swoop187 · #10 (**permalink**) 1 Week Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by lug-nut

You know, I could get out my pics of Hitlery just to retaliate for that pic...but that'd be like a farting contest...everyone loses.

I think a farting contest would make more sense then the shit [no pun intended

] that comes out of Pelosi's mouth.

SamInTheSouth · #11 (**permalink**) 1 Week Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angry American

Well it's not like the private sector is rushing in to provide a solution. And I don't think deregulating health insurance like we did to credit cards, is a viable option. You'd end up with very attractive cheap plans that would be loaded up with costs on the back end, like when you actually get sick and need your insurance, you'll be faced with high costs, rationing, and policy cancellations.

Hell it happens with auto insurance. You get a policy you can afford, then you get in an accident, your claim gets paid, then your policy gets canceled. It happened to me, once.

Health insurance needs to be unconditional, not just for when times are good, but also for when the shit is hitting your fan. There is enough money in private insurance to provide unconditional coverage, but it would mean steep drops in profitability, which is something the private sector just isn't willing to endure.

Take Medicare for example, who else other than the federal government is willing to provide the services of Medicare?

Health insurance companies need to be more flexible with the kind of policies they sell. People should be able to pick and choose what they want covered in their policies rather than these "one size fits all" policies that most of us have. That would bring down costs drastically for everyone. Most younger people only need a true insurance, one that covers them if they get a serious illness or in an accident or something. They don't need a high profile plan that covers every single sneeze and sniffle.

Regarding Medicare, right now the government is going to have to meet its obligation to those who currently depend on it. But what I would recommend for future recipients is to have them put money aside into a sort of interest bearing medical savings account that they can't use until retirement. Have younger adults start paying into a system like that so that when they do get elderly and retire they have money aside to pay for medical expenses, much like a 401k or something. It probably still won't completely eliminate the need for some kind of Medicare system, but it would cut back on it big time.

russ39301 · #12 (**permalink**) 1 Week Ago

if the government will let small businesses pool together to large purchasing blocks then health care cost would be reduced because small business would be offered the same deals as large businesses.
also allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines would open up competition further reducing cost.

Swoop187 · #13 (**permalink**) 1 Week Ago

The astounding part is we already have FREE health-care.

There are FREE clinics in nearly every county in the US.

I don't understand why they don't take those and improve them?

lug-nut · #14 (**permalink**) 1 Week Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swoop187

The astounding part is we already have FREE health-care.

There are FREE clinics in nearly every county in the US.

I don't understand why they don't take those and improve them?

$1.2 trillion might improve a few at least.

Swoop187 · #15 (**permalink**) 1 Week Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by lug-nut

$1.2 trillion might improve a few at least.

1.2 trillion is overkill.

We already have a platform in place, why not upgrade it?

No the liberals wants an entirely NEW program, at the cost of 1.2 trillion dollars.

That costs way to much, why? because liberals want people to have the "freedoms" of sex changes, abortions, plastic surgeries etc.

Its fucking nonsense.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode