Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

How to pay for the health care reform...Follow

#1 Aug 15 2009 at 6:30 AM Rating: Decent
Ok, not really, but it certainly is one method of generating revenue that was previously unavailable.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jjv38zjrXKfc4zhBk6XE4EsE4mLwD9A3ATF00
Quote:

WASHINGTON — A deal with Switzerland settling U.S. demands for the names of suspected tax dodgers from a Swiss bank has a lot of wealthy Americans with offshore accounts nervously running to their tax advisers — and the Internal Revenue Service.

"They are very frightened," said Richard Boggs, chief executive of Nationwide Tax Relief, a Los-Angeles-based tax firm that specializes in clients with tax debts exceeding $100,000. "You have the super rich who are not used to being pushed around and they are finding themselves in unfamiliar territory."

The U.S. and Swiss governments announced a court settlement last week in efforts by the IRS to force Zurich-based UBS AG to turn over the names of some 52,000 Americans believed to be hiding nearly $15 billion in assets in secret accounts.


That number will certainly boost the "people with income over $250,000" target group. I for one feel no pity for these people and I hope the IRS throws the book at them.
#2 Aug 15 2009 at 6:45 AM Rating: Decent
*****
12,846 posts
They should check Dubai as well... >.>

A coworker of my husbands alleged that he only had to pay 1200 in taxes - There is no way that it legit for someone making over 250,000.

Edited, Aug 15th 2009 9:46am by niobia
#3ThiefX, Posted: Aug 15 2009 at 6:52 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Lmao, Is there any problem you Liberals don't come across that you believe can't be solved by going after the "evil rich"?
#4 Aug 15 2009 at 6:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
ThiefX wrote:
You wanna bring down healthcare costs? Pass tort reform.

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh

Let me guess... you think drilling in ANWR will notably lessen our dependence on foreign oil as well, right? Adorable.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Aug 15 2009 at 7:05 AM Rating: Default
**
739 posts
Quote:
ThiefX wrote:
You wanna bring down healthcare costs? Pass tort reform.



Let me guess... you think drilling in ANWR will notably lessen our dependence on foreign oil as well, right? Adorable.


And let me guess, you think Obama's plan won't raise taxes on the middle class and we will all get the same level of care. Now thats adorable.
#6 Aug 15 2009 at 7:22 AM Rating: Good
ThiefX wrote:
And let me guess, you think Obama's plan won't raise taxes on the middle class and we will all get the same level of care. Now thats adorable.


I don't know if or how much my taxes would go up for the reform program, and neither do you - the bill isn't anywhere near finalized, let alone approved. I will say that I would absolutely not complain about a slight (~5-10%) rise in my taxes to help fund a decent public health care program, and I would actually encourage it if I was allowed to reap the benefits of such a program myself.

The horribly false assumption people like you make is that the common citizen absolutely values income over all else.
#7 Aug 15 2009 at 7:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Was that a weak attempt at a dodge? Because that sure looked like a lame attempt at a dodge. Let me check...


Yup. Lame attempt at a dodge.

The CBO, under Republican leadership in 2004, issued findings that malpractice suits constituted less than 2% of medical costs and that even adding in "defensive testing" and the like had an insignificant impact on the cost of health care. "Tort reform" is a tool the GOP use to fool the weak minded into supporting their agenda by offering it as a false solution to an issue. "We could lower health care (by 2%) if only we had TORT REFORM!!". Sounds a lot like "We could lower fuel costs (by a couple pennies after ten years) if only we could DRILL IN ANWR!!". Forget public health options/renewable energies -- those are silly Democratic solutions. The real answer is this GOP solution that will advance their agenda while doing nothing to fix the actual problem!

Works excellently to trick the simple minded though. Threads in this forum display that briliantly. But you continue to get all defensive and say things like "I bet he'll raise taxes!!" while defending the placebos the GOP feeds you. Makes you look real smart. Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Aug 15 2009 at 7:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
ThiefX wrote:
Alot of people you and the rest of the rest of the victims of a public school education call rich are small business owners who put alot of that $250,000+ THEY make back into THIER businesses.


Obviously not the case with these 52,000 Americans with a combined 15 billion in untaxed assets hidden overseas though, right?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#9 Aug 15 2009 at 10:28 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,952 posts
ThiefX wrote:
Lmao, Is there any problem you Liberals don't come across that you believe can't be solved by going after the "evil rich"?

You wanna bring down healthcare costs? Pass tort reform.

And for the record, this whole anyone who makes over $250,000 is part of the "evil rich" is seriously getting old. Alot of people you and the rest of the rest of the victims of a public school education call rich are small business owners who put alot of that $250,000+ THEY make back into THIER businesses.


Personal Income is distributed from the profits from a business AFTER the business has reinvested business income back into the business.

So if a plumber makes $250k total, and invests $200k back into his plumbing business, he's counted as having an income of $50,000, and is taxed with personal income taxes on that $50k.

Anyone who is a small business owner who has a personal income of $250,000, and is being taxed on that, almost certainly has a business yearly income turnover of 2 to 4 million dollars.

For the record, I'm a believer in universal safety nets, and public infrastucture. That doesn't stop me also being enthusiastic about widespread participation in private investments and businesses, and enthusiastic about riches and wealth. The only "evil" rich are the ones who dodge their tax obligations, their health and safety obligations, their environmental obligations with reguards to toxins and pollution, or who criminally dodge the law.

I'm a deep green who thinks that there's nothing stopping people from enjoying a luxurious life while at the same time minimizing the "ecological footprint" that they use. In fact it's commonsense that the two objectives often support each other.

Edited, Aug 15th 2009 2:37pm by Aripyanfar
#10 Aug 17 2009 at 9:47 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,211 posts
This is what they were intending on doing all along. Taxing them, then they realized "Oh, the people with that kind of money are the people who are smart enough to have their money out of the country". Overtaxing I should say. The whole "Take from the rich, give to the poor" in general just does not work. At least no where near as it's intended.
#11 Aug 17 2009 at 10:16 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Legalize and tax pot!

Oh, wait, that will kill the market for pain medications and ruin the pharma industry.

Oh well.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#12 Aug 18 2009 at 11:37 AM Rating: Good
Single payer systems spend 2-3 times less per person then the convoluted US system and deliver comparable results. This reform is necessary and is likely to be the eventual result unless a totally new, untried system manages to deliver similar costs - the US cannot afford to remain with anything like the current system and remain competitive abroad.

The issue isn't the cost - it is convincing people to go to a single payer system and then what to do with the excess revenue (to which I say trim the debt, incidentally).

With even a public option on health care floundering, I doubt bigger fish will be fried until campaign finance reform is vastly more loophole-free. And that is the supreme court. The US founders were great: they made a slow-moving system intentionally and we have exactly what they wanted.
#13 Aug 18 2009 at 11:47 AM Rating: Default
I'm wondering where you people are going to instantly find hundreds of thousands of new doctors to treat the mass influx of new patients if this abomination passes. The quality of care would take a major hit.

#14 Aug 18 2009 at 11:52 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
India, of course.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#15 Aug 18 2009 at 11:55 AM Rating: Good
****
4,512 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
I'm wondering where you people are going to instantly find hundreds of thousands of new doctors to treat the mass influx of new patients if this abomination passes.


I wonder - would someone who currently can't get insurance rather have no doctor or a busy doctor?

#16 Aug 18 2009 at 12:06 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
I'm wondering where you people are going to instantly find hundreds of thousands of new doctors to treat the mass influx of new patients if this abomination passes. The quality of care would take a major hit.


So... you are against healthcare reform because suddenly more people could be treated?

Wow. You really are heartless!
#17 Aug 18 2009 at 12:11 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,158 posts
Admiral LockeColeMA wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
I'm wondering where you people are going to instantly find hundreds of thousands of new doctors to treat the mass influx of new patients if this abomination passes. The quality of care would take a major hit.


So... you are against healthcare reform because suddenly more people could be treated?

Wow. You really are heartless!


Partly that. But I think the bit that worries him most is that Americans will suddenly be paying for mexicans to have abortions.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#18 Aug 18 2009 at 12:15 PM Rating: Decent
*****
12,846 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
I'm wondering where you people are going to instantly find hundreds of thousands of new doctors to treat the mass influx of new patients if this abomination passes. The quality of care would take a major hit.



Physicians Assistants, Nurse Practitioners etc
#19 Aug 18 2009 at 12:33 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,369 posts
paulsol wrote:
Partly that. But I think the bit that worries him most is that Americans will suddenly be paying for mexicans to have abortions.


Yeah but don't the rich already do that when they knock up the maid?

#20 Aug 18 2009 at 12:37 PM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
paulsol wrote:
Admiral LockeColeMA wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
I'm wondering where you people are going to instantly find hundreds of thousands of new doctors to treat the mass influx of new patients if this abomination passes. The quality of care would take a major hit.


So... you are against healthcare reform because suddenly more people could be treated?

Wow. You really are heartless!


Partly that. But I think the bit that worries him most is that Americans will suddenly be paying for mexicans to have abortions.


Perhaps... but while that was tongue-in-cheek, the new healthcare reform does not cover non-citizens. And illegals will still just use the emergency room anyway (not for abortions, of course).
#21 Aug 18 2009 at 12:48 PM Rating: Default
CBD,

Quote:
I wonder - would someone who currently can't get insurance rather have no doctor or a busy doctor?


Hey biff what do you think the doctors are going to say when you double their work load with people who aren't able to pay for the service and increase their liability exposure.





Edited, Aug 18th 2009 4:48pm by publiusvarus
#22 Aug 18 2009 at 12:51 PM Rating: Good
publiusvarus wrote:
CBD,

Quote:
I wonder - would someone who currently can't get insurance rather have no doctor or a busy doctor?


Hey biff what do you think the doctors are going to say when you double their work load with people who aren't able to pay for the service and increase their liability exposure.
You heard it here first, folks.

Okra causes brain cancer.
#23 Aug 18 2009 at 12:52 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
with people who aren't able to pay for the service and increase their liability exposure.



Uh, since they will have insurance, isn't the payment thing a non-factor?
#24 Aug 18 2009 at 12:54 PM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
Archfiend MDenham wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
CBD,

Quote:
I wonder - would someone who currently can't get insurance rather have no doctor or a busy doctor?


Hey biff what do you think the doctors are going to say when you double their work load with people who aren't able to pay for the service and increase their liability exposure.
You heard it here first, folks.

Okra causes brain cancer.


Nah, although I personally don't care for the taste of okra. Rather, working for an insurance company requires crazy hoop-jumping to justify what you do for a living.

Note: I have nothing wrong with insurance sellers. I think insurance is a fine thing and necessary. But the way the current system is set up, insurance costs are becoming impractical, while services covered are being cut and really sick people are dropped. It's not a good system.
#25 Aug 18 2009 at 1:01 PM Rating: Good
****
4,512 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Hey biff what do you think the doctors are going to say when you double their work load with people who aren't able to pay for the service and increase their liability exposure.


Their work load will by far not be doubled. I understand it's really hard for you to do, but try to think intelligently and debate the issues at hand without resorting to conjecture. I know you have it in you.
#26REDACTED, Posted: Aug 18 2009 at 1:04 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 302 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (302)