Should the Bush tax cuts be extended?

[turbo]

False.

Please provide your sources. The WHO disagrees with you.

 

[mheslep]

Please provide your sources. The WHO disagrees with you.

Knock it off. It is fine to state your opinions (which I actually enjoy reading), it is not to state them as fact without reference and then to demand references from those who dispute your facts, as you well know.

 

[WhoWee]

The US has poor health-care outcomes in huge segments of our population and we lag behind the outcomes of "socialists" like European countries that regard health-care as a right. We also pay twice as much for the care, although tens of millions have no insurance.

If you live in Nigeria and you are rich, you can have world-class health care, just like rich people in the US. And you will have better health-care by far than poor citizens of the US. This system is a shame on our country, and it is getting worse and more expensive by the year.

If you live in the US and you have (full) Medicaid - you pay for nothing. You can run to the emergency room everytime you have an ache and get multiple CT scans, x-rays and MRI's (or multiple other tests - making a point).

Now you want to "give" everyone these benefits and have 1-2% of the population pay the bill?

Have you ever heard the story about eating the "Golden Goose"?

 

[turbo]

If you live in the US and you have (full) Medicaid - you pay for nothing. You can run to the emergency room everytime you have an ache and get multiple CT scans, x-rays and MRI's (or multiple other tests - making a point).

Any proof of this abuse? Where is the non-idealogical support for those statements?

 

[CAC1001]

Not all of the European systems really are government-run per se, at least not from what I understand. A lot of people I think believe all the Euro countries have a healthcare system that is either mostly nationalized like the UK's or nationalized health insurance, like Canada's, something like a "Medicare for all" as Obama had described what he wanted to create. But this isn't the case. The German system, for example, is not government-run (or not government run as in being "socialist"): http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/health-reform-without-a-public-plan-the-german-model/

I disagree with the author however that everyone opposing the individual mandate expects healthcare for free without having to purchase it. Many oppose it for two reasons here:

1) It may be normal in Europe, but for America, it's a major advance in the size and scope of governmental power (or scene that way) and many do not see how the Constitution allows for it

2) Many favor other reforms that they view would make health insurance a lot cheaper and more affordable so that far more people going to the hospital would have health insurance.

I also think one who favors a Euro-style system could very much make the argument that an individual mandate would be the right thing to do, but that as far as the Constitution currently is written, it is a stretch to say it permits it.

The way to solve that IMO though would just be to say that there is no "mandate," the government is just creating a new "Healthcare Tax" which you pay, however you are exempt from it if you purchase health insurance. This is similar, but I think not the same as a mandate.

 

[Al68]

The US has poor health-care outcomes in huge segments of our population and we lag behind the outcomes of "socialists" like European countries that regard health-care as a right. We also pay twice as much for the care, although tens of millions have no insurance.

If you live in Nigeria and you are rich, you can have world-class health care, just like rich people in the US. And you will have better health-care by far than poor citizens of the US. This system is a shame on our country, and it is getting worse and more expensive by the year.

Seriously? It's now a shame, in the U.S., to not be more socialist?

There is no shame in defending liberty. Socialism is deserving of shame. And no delusional Marxist logic will ever convince anyone with an IQ above 80 that there is shame in defending liberty against power hungry socialists.

 

[turbo]

The way to solve that IMO though would just be to say that there is no "mandate," the government is just creating a new "Healthcare Tax" which you pay, however you are exempt from it if you purchase health insurance. This is similar, but I think not the same as a mandate.

That's not a bad proposal. People who pay the tax get access to health-care. Not a problem. Not a neo-con (current Republican) idea, but one that will not get past today's Congress. Our representatives in DC are timid and cowed. We're screwed because the two major parties will not support or present candidates that have any backbone.

 

[mheslep]

Not all of the European systems really are government-run per se, at least not from what I understand. A lot of people I think believe all the Euro countries have a healthcare system that is either mostly nationalized like the UK's or nationalized health insurance, like Canada's, something like a "Medicare for all" as Obama had described what he wanted to create. But this isn't the case. The German system, for example, is not government-run (or not government run as in being "socialist"): http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/health-reform-without-a-public-plan-the-german-model/

I like much of the Swiss health system:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/health/policy/01swiss.html?_r=1

The Swiss government also provides direct cash subsidies to people if health insurance equals more than 8 percent of personal income, and about 35 to 40 percent of households get some form of subsidy. In some cases, employers contribute part of the insurance premium, but, unlike in the United States, they do not receive a tax break for it. (All the health care proposals in Congress would provide a subsidy to moderate-income Americans.)

Unlike the United States, where the Medicare program for the elderly costs taxpayers about $500 billion a year, Switzerland has no special break for older Swiss people beyond the general subsidy.

“Switzerland’s health care system is different from virtually every other country in the world,” said Regina Herzlinger, a Harvard Business School professor who has studied the Swiss approach extensively.

“What I like about it is that it’s got universal coverage, it’s customer driven, and there are no intermediaries shopping on people’s behalf,” she added. “And there’s no waiting lists or rationing.”

I highlighted the sentences on taxes so I can continue to pretend this is vaguely related to the OP Topic.

 

[WhoWee]

Any proof of this abuse? Where is the non-idealogical support for those statements?

Who said anything about an abuse? It is their right - Medicaid is an Entitlement Program.

I'm going to give you the quick wiki version - otherwise we'll need to move to another thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act
"Hospitals have three obligations under EMTALA:

Individuals requesting emergency care, or those for whom a representative has made a request if the patient is unable, must receive a medical screening examination to determine whether an emergency medical condition (EMC) exists. Examination and treatment cannot be delayed to inquire about methods of payment or insurance coverage, or a patient's citizenship or legal status. The hospital may only start the process of payment inquiry and billing once the patient has been stabilized to a degree that the process will not interfere with or otherwise compromise patient care.
The emergency room (or other better equipped units within the hospital) must treat an individual with an EMC until the condition is resolved or stabilized and the patient is able to provide self-care following discharge, or if unable, can receive needed continual care. Inpatient care provided must be at an equal level for all patients, regardless of ability to pay. Hospitals may not discharge a patient prior to stabilization if the patient's insurance is canceled or otherwise discontinues payment during course of stay.
If the hospital does not have the capability to treat the condition, the hospital must make an "appropriate" transfer of the patient to another hospital with such capability. This includes a long-term care or rehabilitation facilities for patients unable to provide self-care. Hospitals with specialized capabilities must accept such transfers and may not discharge a patient until the condition is resolved and the patient is able to provide self-care or is transferred to another facility.
"

Also from this link

"The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.

EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals", i.e., those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program. However, in practical terms, EMTALA applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S., with the exception of the Shriners Hospitals for Children, Indian Health Service hospitals, and Veterans Affairs hospitals[citation needed]. The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004,[2] or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients.[3][4]

The cost of emergency care required by EMTALA is not directly covered by the federal government. Because of this, the law has been criticized by some as an unfunded mandate.[5] Similarly, it has attracted controversy for its impacts on hospitals, and in particular, for its possible contributions to an emergency medical system that is "overburdened, underfunded and highly fragmented."[6] More than half of all emergency room care in the U.S. now goes uncompensated. Hospitals write off such care as charity or bad debt for tax purposes. Increasing financial pressures on hospitals in the period since EMTALA's passage have caused consolidations and closures, so the number of emergency rooms is decreasing despite increasing demand for emergency care.[7] There is also debate about the extent to which EMTALA has led to cost-shifting and higher rates for insured or paying hospital patients, thereby contributing to the high overall rate of medical inflation in the U.S."

Worth mentioning, general Medicaid benefits are state-specific.

 

[WhoWee]

Let's get back to topic.

You can't solve a complicated problem without considering all variables. Our specific problem is increased spending coupled with decreased revenues.

We need to find a way to cut spending drastically (IMO as much as 40% in some areas) and at the same time re-vitalize the economy. Our tax policy needs to encourage investment into property, plant and equipment IN THE US.

Until the conversation moves away from class warfare and protection of special interests, nothing will be resolved.

 

[CAC1001]

That's not a bad proposal. People who pay the tax get access to health-care. Not a problem. Not a neo-con (current Republican) idea, but one that will not get past today's Congress. Our representatives in DC are timid and cowed. We're screwed because the two major parties will not support or present candidates that have any backbone.

Well not a "right-wing" idea per se, but I could definitely imagine some of the neoconservatives favoring it. Remembering, neoconservatives are not notorious for limited government. Republicans created the Earned Income Tax Credit, which subsidizes the lower-income earners to a degree, and they also under bush pushed through that huge increase in Medicare.

 

[Shackleford]

Seriously? It's now a shame, in the U.S., to not be more socialist?

There is no shame in defending liberty. Socialism is deserving of shame. And no delusional Marxist logic will ever convince anyone with an IQ above 80 that there is shame in defending liberty against power hungry socialists.

People who believe socialism/marxism/communism - basically collectivism - do not understand the nature of government or human nature. Government has an inexorable tendency toward centralized authoritarianism. The Founding Fathers and Framers understood this very well. What has made America different from the very beginning when General Washington simply wanted to go back home to Mount Vernon is that we value the freedom of the individual to determine their own course. And we have also put into place measures to counteract that centralized government system tendency. Unfortunately, since the Civil War, those measures have eroded or simply not been enforced, or even worse forgotten.

 

[Al68]

We're screwed because the two major parties will not support or present candidates that have any backbone.

By "backbone", is it safe to assume you mean someone who is unwilling to rise to the level of oppression you advocate? Violating liberty requires backbone, but defending it doesn't? You are not this delusional and uninformed, why do you continue to pretend to be?

 

[Al68]

People who believe socialism/marxism/communism - basically collectivism - do not understand the nature of government or human nature. Government has an inexorable tendency toward centralized authoritarianism. The Founding Fathers and Framers understood this very well. What has made America different from the very beginning when General Washington simply wanted to go back home to Mount Vernon is that we value the freedom of the individual to determine their own course. And we have also put into place measures to counteract that centralized government system tendency. Unfortunately, since the Civil War, those measures have eroded or simply not been enforced, or even worse forgotten.

I agree. Like I said in a previous post, those measures have been systematically violated and undermined by enemies of liberty and the constitution. And those same power hungry politicians have also convinced many Americans that anyone who dares to try to protect liberty from them are "for the rich", "uncaring", "against working people", etc.

But it seems obvious today that peaceful co-existence is impossible. The Democratic Party adamantly insists on using force against honest, peaceful citizens to enforce their economic agenda. We cannot use reason or argument to change their minds. Marxist brainwashing is far too effective, as can be seen on this forum every day.

 

[CAC1001]

Marxist brainwashing is far too effective, as can be seen on this forum every day.

One thing on this (and off-topic, but just wanted to mention it): I wouldn't call it "Marxist" per se. Marxism was essentially a religion (an atheist religion in which the State was the god, it promised a paradise here on Earth as opposed to one in an afterlife), and a very strict one that emphasized zero tolerance for any private property ownership or privatization of any kind whatsoever. It emphasizes changing society through revolutionary means and a dictatorship.

But that isn't the definition of all forms of socialism. For example, look at Fabian socialism, which emphasizes liberal democracy and the implementation of democratic socialism via gradual means, as opposed to calling for revolution to implement a dictatorship: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society

Fabian socialism usually calls for the major parts of the economy to be nationalized, but otherwise, people can own their own homes and businesses are allowed to a degree. For example if you want to open a coffee shop or a shoe store, that can be fine. And the government is a form of democracy.

Note that to a Marxist, this form of socialism would be deemed "right-wing" and "capitalist" and not socialist even though it is a form of socialism. Britain under Labour Party for many years was based on Fabian socialism, also India as well.

Many don't know but George Orwell was a supporter of democratic socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell).

So while many people may be socialists, or have socialistic tendencies, I wouldn't say they are Marxism-influenced. The people who adamantly support democratic government but who have otherwise socialistic tendencies I'd put in the Fabian camp.

 

[Gokul43201]

The Democratic Party adamantly insists on using force against honest, peaceful citizens to enforce their economic agenda.

The Republican party does the same for their Social and National Security agendas. It would be a mischaracterization to label the Republican Party as defenders of liberty.

Someone (I wonder who) once wisely said something along these lines: you're not a defender of liberty if you only intend to defend those specific liberties that you care about.

 

[CAC1001]

Please provide your sources. The WHO disagrees with you.

Maybe this requires a separate thread, but it is something that I am very curious about: many say we do not lag behind the outcomes of the European healthcare systems, so why does the WHO say otherwise?

 

[Gokul43201]

... many say we do not lag behind the outcomes of the European healthcare systems, so why does the WHO say otherwise?

(emphasis mine)

That's a weasel word.

Nevertheless, one could just as well ask the following: The WHO (which is the primary health-monitoring organization around the world) says that the US lags behind the outcomes of European systems, so why do many say otherwise?

Never-the-never-the-less, you will find plenty of discussion about the WHO rankings if you search through old threads. I don't know if more recent rankings are different, but it seemed like their old ranking system did a pretty shoddy job on at least a couple of the parameters (infant mortality, being a big one, if I recall right). Whether or not those particular problem areas were sufficient to significantly skew the rankings is not something I specifically recall.

 

[mheslep]

... The WHO (which is the primary health-monitoring organization around the world) .

Well, the WHO is the United Nations health organization. I don't know that this makes it the primary health-mon. organization for the world.

 

[Al68]

The Republican party does the same for their Social and National Security agendas. It would be a mischaracterization to label the Republican Party as defenders of liberty.

Someone (I wonder who) once wisely said something along these lines: you're not a defender of liberty if you only intend to defend those specific liberties that you care about.

I agree completely, and my "characterization" was intended only to apply to economic issues, and even then only in a relative sense. If this were a thread about abortion, for example, I could just as easily refer to (most) Democrats as "defenders of liberty".

 

[Al68]

So while many people may be socialists, or have socialistic tendencies, I wouldn't say they are Marxism-influenced. The people who adamantly support democratic government but who have otherwise socialistic tendencies I'd put in the Fabian camp.

I was using the word "Marxist" to refer to their basic philosophy, not the specific means to achieve certain goals. To say that Fabian socialism is greatly "Marxism-influenced" is a monstrous understatement. Marxist ideology is at the heart of socialism, including the more moderate Fabian socialism.

 

[Gokul43201]

Well, the WHO is the United Nations health organization. I don't know that this makes it the primary health-mon. organization for the world.

Do you know some other org that is more deserving of that description? I don't.

 

[WhoWee]

It gets better than that. We borrow money from China to give tax breaks to the rich, so that they can invest in China, which increases our trade deficit, which ultimately leads to more borrowing from China. Supply-side economics is reduced to a sad joke, in a global economy. The money from tax breaks for the rich doesn't trickle down, it trickles away [as a function of domestic vs foreign manufacturing].


http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/briefingpapers_fdi_fdi/

I just noticed this post.

How many dollars from these tax cuts and Earned Income Tax Credits were spent at Walmart (and other retailers selling Chinese made products) by the "middle class taxpayers"?

We need a tax policy that attracts investment in the US.

 

[CAC1001]

(emphasis mine)

That's a weasel word.

Hmm...well, by "many," I just meant that I have read various doctors, economists, etc...say we have among the best healthcare system, however I couldn't remember all the different ones off the top of my head, so I just wrote "many."

Nevertheless, one could just as well ask the following: The WHO (which is the primary health-monitoring organization around the world) says that the US lags behind the outcomes of European systems, so why do many say otherwise?

Isn't this basically what I said, just worded a bit differently?

 

[Gokul43201]

Isn't this basically what I said, just worded a bit differently?

If it is, I misinterpreted your post. It seemed to me like you were predisposed to accepting the word of the "many" over the judgment of the "WHO". But I see now that this is not explicit in your post - I obviously interpreted more than there was to it.

 

[mheslep]

At the last minute, NO tax increase say's the Pres.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/us/politics/08cong.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&src=igw

 

[nismaratwork]

At the last minute, NO tax increase say's the Pres.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/us/politics/08cong.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&src=igw

Be careful that you don't put a ball in the gutter with that much spin! He certainly stressed that taxes wouldn't return to previous levels for those making <$250K, but let's at least be honest with each other and not call the natural end of a tax DECREASE, an increase.

Now we have the joy of watching house Democrats become paralyzed by their own lack of competence while John Boehner eats carrots and sits in a tanning booth. I respect the president to acceding to reality, but that reality is political pressure and cowardice, not tax hikes.

 

[mheslep]

Be careful that you don't put a ball in the gutter with that much spin! He certainly stressed that taxes wouldn't return to previous levels for those making <$250K, but let's at least be honest with each other and not call the natural end of a tax DECREASE, an increase.

Why attempt to take upon yourself to declare what is 'natural'? This is a fact: prior to yesterday's agreement, federal income taxes for all taxpaying Americans were set to increase from what they were paying on Dec 31, 2010, to a substantially higher rate the day after. More importantly, that increase from one year into the next would have, by wide agreement, had definite effects by way of hurting job creation in the US. Yes federal taxes decreased in '01-03, increased in '90, increased in '96, decreased in '81-84, decreased in '63, and so on, blah, blah, blah. A declaration that the prior to '01-03 tax rates are somehow the natural rate is just another symptom of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

 

[nismaratwork]

Who are you to say what is 'natural'? Before yesterday's agreement, federal income taxes were set to INCREASE from what they were paying on Dec 31, 2010, to something substantially higher the day after. More importantly, that increase from one year into the next would have, by wide agreement, had definite effects in hurting job creation in the US.

re bolded portion: For someone with what seems to be a solid grasp of math, I don't believe that this is what you believe in terms of the first portion.

For the second... yes, that's true, but captioning as, "no to tax increase" is misleading and intellectually dishonest. Oh, and the number on average is roughly an addition 3000 USD (a lot, agreed), but as for wide agreement, is it balanced by wide disagreement as well?

 

[turbo]

Who are you to say what is 'natural'? Before yesterday's agreement, federal income taxes were set to INCREASE from what they were paying on Dec 31, 2010, to something substantially higher the day after. More importantly, that increase from one year into the next would have, by wide agreement, had definite effects in hurting job creation in the US.

"Wide Agreement"? Please support this. Giving tax breaks to millionaires hasn't created jobs in the past, and it won't in the future. The GOP fails to admit that if the breaks are eliminated above $250K, $500K or $1M, every single cent that anybody earns below that amount will still be taxed at the lower rate established by the Bush cut. Only the earnings over that threshold would be taxed at a higher rate. Dishonest in the extreme.

 

[mheslep]

"Wide Agreement"? Please support this. Giving tax breaks to millionaires hasn't created jobs in the past, and it won't in the future. The GOP fails to admit that if the breaks are eliminated above $250K, $500K or $1M, every single cent that anybody earns below that amount will still be taxed at the lower rate established by the Bush cut. Only the earnings over that threshold would be taxed at a higher rate. Dishonest in the extreme.

I didn't say just the highest bracket turbo. Before the agreement, all taxes were set to go up, as I italicized before. Do you really need a reference stating that a tax increase on everyone would hurt job growth? I'm happy to dig it up if you like - seriously.

 

[WhoWee]

"Wide Agreement"? Please support this. Giving tax breaks to millionaires hasn't created jobs in the past, and it won't in the future. The GOP fails to admit that if the breaks are eliminated above $250K, $500K or $1M, every single cent that anybody earns below that amount will still be taxed at the lower rate established by the Bush cut. Only the earnings over that threshold would be taxed at a higher rate. Dishonest in the extreme.

The question I have is this - why is it fair to single out any particular group of taxpayers in this manner? What if the discussion was turned to "citizens of New England" - because they've been here the longest?

 

[Gokul43201]

At the last minute, NO tax increase say's the Pres.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/us/politics/08cong.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&src=igw

So far, nothing's been passed yet, so this may be a little early, but I'm tempted to play the moot card on an earlier post of yours in another thread (I think it's in another thread; you know which one I'm talking about).

 

[mheslep]

re bolded portion: For someone with what seems to be a solid grasp of math, I don't believe that this is what you believe in terms of the first portion.

First portion? eh?

For the second... yes, that's true, but captioning as, "no to tax increase" is misleading and intellectually dishonest.

The law, as it stood yesterday AM, was about to increase taxes. Obama stopped it. I gather you feel it is important to discuss motivations; how Obama did not want to make the agreement he did, that he'd promised a hundred times in the campaign to roll back the '01-03 tax cuts on >$250k incomes. Fine, post away, but I've read the NYT article and others; I'm not interested in any more, and am certainly not bound to talk about the President's motivations every time I discuss his actions.

Oh, and the number on average is roughly an addition 3000 USD (a lot, agreed), but as for wide agreement, is it balanced by wide disagreement as well?

On the economic hit from tax increases across all income brackets? No.

 

[mheslep]

So far, nothing's been passed yet, so this may be a little early, but I'm tempted to play the moot card on an earlier post of yours in another thread (I think it's in another thread; you know which one I'm talking about).

Very recent post?