List of New Taxes in Senate Healthcare Bill

[PapaG]

On one hand, in most states (if not all), you are required to have auto insurance if you want to drive legally. On the other, you do have the choice to take the bus or a taxi or whatever and not pay for insurance.

You may well be right that requiring people to buy health insurance is unconsitutional. The govt. does have the right to tax and to provide for the general welfare of the people, but this isn't a tax.

If the federal government required all of age citizens to purchase auto insurance, regardless of if they owned a car, it would be un-Constitutional as well. I had this same debate at a dinner party we hosted last night during the Duck game. One of my more liberal friends brought up the car insurance argument, and I pointed out that the gov't did not mandate that all citizens own a vehicle and insure it, whether they planned on using it or not.

He had no response other than to say that mandating health insurance is different. I then asked him why he brought up auto insurance as a comparative in the first place. We both laughed and went back to watching the Ducks come back against Arizona.

 

[barfo]

If the federal government required all of age citizens to purchase auto insurance, regardless of if they owned a car, it would be un-Constitutional as well. I had this same debate at a dinner party we hosted last night during the Duck game. One of my more liberal friends brought up the car insurance argument, and I pointed out that the gov't did not mandate that all citizens own a vehicle and insure it, whether they planned on using it or not.

He had no response other than to say that mandating health insurance is different. I then asked him why he brought up auto insurance as a comparative in the first place. We both laughed and went back to watching the Ducks come back against Arizona.

If everyone owned a car, everyone would need car insurance. Everyone does own flesh, so it is not unreasonable to require everyone to have flesh insurance. You can't claim you aren't planning to use your body.

In the future, perhaps some of us will be using robotic bodies instead of flesh ones, and those people won't have to buy flesh insurance.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

If everyone owned a car, everyone would need car insurance. Everyone does own flesh, so it is not unreasonable to require everyone to have flesh insurance. You can't claim you aren't planning to use your body.

In the future, perhaps some of us will be using robotic bodies instead of flesh ones, and those people won't have to buy flesh insurance.

barfo

Well, that's an opinion, but it kind of goes away from the "it's my body" line the liberals (correctly, IMO) use in the abortion debate. If the government can dictate what we do with our bodies, and how we must protect them, then the final liberty has been lost.

 

[Denny Crane]

If everyone owned a car, everyone would need car insurance. Everyone does own flesh, so it is not unreasonable to require everyone to have flesh insurance. You can't claim you aren't planning to use your body.

In the future, perhaps some of us will be using robotic bodies instead of flesh ones, and those people won't have to buy flesh insurance.

barfo

It's not a choice to be flesh and blood. Therein lies the really big difference. Would you be in favor of requiring a tax on children, and if a woman can't afford to pay the tax she'd be forced to have an abortion?

Hail Mao!

 

[blazerboy30]

Actually it was the "income" tax. Unlike Bush One, Obama did not say no new taxes.

Actually, you're wrong.

 

[The Sebastian Express]

I wonder how they'll be able to get all those unemployed people to buy health care. It would seem rather silly to throw them into jail as that would surely cost a lot more than it'd be worth.

 

[barfo]

I wonder how they'll be able to get all those unemployed people to buy health care. It would seem rather silly to throw them into jail as that would surely cost a lot more than it'd be worth.

Unemployed people will presumably qualify for subsidies.
It's highly unlikely anyone will ever go to jail over (just) this.

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

As to the topic of this thread, I don't quite see the objection. It would be irresponsible not to raise taxes, if government is going to provide additional services.

I can understand you might not want the government to provide these healthcare services. But complaining that they are raising taxes to pay for it - when the alternative is borrowing money to pay for it - seems a little odd.

barfo

Ah yes, Barfo, building a nice strawman there.

 

[PapaG]

Unemployed people will presumably qualify for subsidies.
It's highly unlikely anyone will ever go to jail over (just) this.

barfo

Subisidies paid for by ...

 

[barfo]

Ah yes, Barfo, building a nice strawman there.

It's not a strawman at all, unless you have some special definition of strawman that the rest of us don't use.

The taxes are necessary if we have the services; they are not necessary if we don't. The question at hand is not whether to have taxes or not, but rather whether to have (a) services and taxes, or (b) neither services nor taxes. Separating the taxes from the services and only discussing one or the other doesn't seem terribly useful.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Subisidies paid for by ...

Taxpayers, obviously.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

It's not a strawman at all, unless you have some special definition of strawman that the rest of us don't use.

The taxes are necessary if we have the services; they are not necessary if we don't. The question at hand is not whether to have taxes or not, but rather whether to have (a) services and taxes, or (b) neither services nor taxes. Separating the taxes from the services and only discussing one or the other doesn't seem terribly useful.

barfo

We don't pay taxes for the post office.

 

[barfo]

We don't pay taxes for the post office.

Actually, we do, but so what? How is postal service equivalent to healthcare?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Actually, we do, but so what? How is postal service equivalent to healthcare?

barfo

It's a service, it's funded by what it sells.

http://247.newsvine.com/_news/2009/11/20/3525491-taxpayer-bailout-needed-for-the-post-office

The quasi-government agency announced this week that it lost $3.8 billion in the most recent fiscal year, which ended September 30th. It also delivered less mail - 26 billion fewer pieces less, a nearly 13 percent drop from the previous year. The bad news follows losses totaling $7.8 billion in 2007 and 2008.

The Postal Service, as it is quick to point out, is legally prohibited from taking tax dollars. But in order to stay afloat, the agency has been actively borrowing from the U.S. Treasury: At last count, according to Postal Service spokeswoman Yvonne Yoerger, it owes the government $10.2 billion.

 

[barfo]

It's a service, it's funded by what it sells.

The Postal Service, as it is quick to point out, is legally prohibited from taking tax dollars. But in order to stay afloat, the agency has been actively borrowing from the U.S. Treasury: At last count, according to Postal Service spokeswoman Yvonne Yoerger, it owes the government $10.2 billion.

The taxpayers pay the postal service to deliver mail for free for charities and such, to the tune of ~$100 million per year. Maybe technically that is fee-for-service, but it is tax dollars going to the postal service.

I still don't see what this has to do with healthcare. You might as well argue that food stamps should be self supporting.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Surely they can find $100M to pay for health care in the $3.6T budget by cutting out some earmarks.

 

[barfo]

Surely they can find $100M to pay for health care in the $3.6T budget by cutting out some earmarks.

I'm sure they could. But healthcare doesn't cost $100M, because healthcare doesn't actually consist of delivering fliers for charities. If people could be kept healthy by having mail delivered, you'd have a really excellent point.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm sure they could. But healthcare doesn't cost $100M, because healthcare doesn't actually consist of delivering fliers for charities. If people could be kept healthy by having mail delivered, you'd have a really excellent point.

barfo

The post office charges $.44 for a stamp. The govt. health insurance company can charge $1000 or $2000 per person, most of them won't use anywhere near that amount in services.

I'd prefer we actually try a public "option" that is an actual option and one that competes. If it offers health care at cost, it should have a price advantage to consumers, right? Let's see it.

 

[barfo]

I'd prefer we actually try a public "option" that is an actual option and one that competes. If it offers health care at cost, it should have a price advantage to consumers, right? Let's see it.

I agree with you on the public option - and so far I don't see any reason to believe that isn't what is being proposed - but you seem to be ignoring the fact that the cost of this bill comes at least in part from subsidizing the costs for those who cannot afford healthcare. It's a completely different issue than the public option.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

If the govt. sold insurance for $1, would they need to subsidize it?

 

[barfo]

If the govt. sold insurance for $1, would they need to subsidize it?

If they subsidized it such that it cost only $1, would they need to subsidize that last dollar? No, probably not.

I'm not seeing your point, however.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Veterans_Affairs

The VA budget is for 26M men and women who've served in our military, $38B went for health care.

"In the United States Federal Budget for fiscal year 2009, President George W. Bush, requested $38.7 billion - or 86.5% of the total Veterans Affairs budget - for veteran medical care alone."

That's about $1400 in health care costs per person, for guys who've been shot at, shot, parts blown off, subjected to whatever chemicals and radiation on the battlefield, and PTSD type disorders.

We owe the soldiers care as it's part of the social contract we make with them in exchange for going through all that.

The more outrageous claims are 45M are uninsured. If we subsidized them all, it'd cost $63,000,000,000.

Surely we can find $63B in a $3.6T budget.

If we charged people half that $1400 for govt. quality health care, we'd only need to find half that $63B in the budget.

If we look at the more realistic figure of 30M without insurance, we need to find 2/3 those amounts in the budget.

If we consider that just because 30M or 45M people don't have insurance doesn't mean they are unable to afford it, you'd have to find even less money in the already bloated budget.

I think we're being bamboozled.

 

[barfo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Veterans_Affairs

The VA budget is for 26M men and women who've served in our military, $38B went for health care.

"In the United States Federal Budget for fiscal year 2009, President George W. Bush, requested $38.7 billion - or 86.5% of the total Veterans Affairs budget - for veteran medical care alone."

That's about $1400 in health care costs per person, for guys who've been shot at, shot, parts blown off, subjected to whatever chemicals and radiation on the battlefield, and PTSD type disorders.

We owe the soldiers care as it's part of the social contract we make with them in exchange for going through all that.

The more outrageous claims are 45M are uninsured. If we subsidized them all, it'd cost $63,000,000,000.

Surely we can find $63B in a $3.6T budget.

If we charged people half that $1400 for govt. quality health care, we'd only need to find half that $63B in the budget.

If we look at the more realistic figure of 30M without insurance, we need to find 2/3 those amounts in the budget.

If we consider that just because 30M or 45M people don't have insurance doesn't mean they are unable to afford it, you'd have to find even less money in the already bloated budget.

I think we're being bamboozled.

And where do you think the "extra" money is going?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

And where do you think the "extra" money is going?

barfo

Goldman Sachs, just like all the rest of the near $trillion amounts spent over the past year or so.

 

[Denny Crane]

Goldman Sachs, just like all the rest of the near $trillion amounts spent over the past year or so.

Well, them and the death squads need to be paid.

 

[barfo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Veterans_Affairs

The VA budget is for 26M men and women who've served in our military, $38B went for health care.

"In the United States Federal Budget for fiscal year 2009, President George W. Bush, requested $38.7 billion - or 86.5% of the total Veterans Affairs budget - for veteran medical care alone."

That's about $1400 in health care costs per person, for guys who've been shot at, shot, parts blown off, subjected to whatever chemicals and radiation on the battlefield, and PTSD type disorders.

We owe the soldiers care as it's part of the social contract we make with them in exchange for going through all that.

The more outrageous claims are 45M are uninsured. If we subsidized them all, it'd cost $63,000,000,000.

Surely we can find $63B in a $3.6T budget.

If we charged people half that $1400 for govt. quality health care, we'd only need to find half that $63B in the budget.

If we look at the more realistic figure of 30M without insurance, we need to find 2/3 those amounts in the budget.

If we consider that just because 30M or 45M people don't have insurance doesn't mean they are unable to afford it, you'd have to find even less money in the already bloated budget.

I think we're being bamboozled.

According to the VA, they serve 6.1 million patients per year. I'm not sure where your 26 million number came from, or where the other 20 million went (maybe they didn't need any medical care?). VA medical budget for 2010 is $47 billion. That works out to $7700 per patient.

Now, if you want to provide healthcare for 30 million people at $7700/person, then that's $231B. Per year. Cost from 2014 to 2019: $1.386 trillion. Cost of senate bill: $848B.

Seems to be in the ballpark.

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

It's not a strawman at all, unless you have some special definition of strawman that the rest of us don't use.

The taxes are necessary if we have the services; they are not necessary if we don't. The question at hand is not whether to have taxes or not, but rather whether to have (a) services and taxes, or (b) neither services nor taxes. Separating the taxes from the services and only discussing one or the other doesn't seem terribly useful.

barfo

Yes, it is a strawman.

I, and many others in opposition to the proposed healthcare bills have said we can't afford it. The fact that all of these taxes will be imposed on an already weak economy is just proof that we can't afford it. We have all been saying that taxes would go up with these healthcare bills (because I don't trust the governent to actually cut spending elsewhere to provide healthcare), this thread is just real, hard fact that proves what we have been saying.

You're the one saying that the only way to have healthcare services is by raising taxes. Here's a thought, cut spending elsewhere. The government should spend the ridiculous amount of money it already has on the most important services. If healthcare isn't one of those most important services, so be it.

Again, you built a strawman.

 

[Denny Crane]

According to the VA, they serve 6.1 million patients per year. I'm not sure where your 26 million number came from, or where the other 20 million went (maybe they didn't need any medical care?). VA medical budget for 2010 is $47 billion. That works out to $7700 per patient.

Now, if you want to provide healthcare for 30 million people at $7700/person, then that's $231B. Per year. Cost from 2014 to 2019: $1.386 trillion. Cost of senate bill: $848B.

Seems to be in the ballpark.

barfo

There's 26M veterans total. That's from WWI, WWII, etc.

They're all entitled to VA care. Yet by your figures, only 6.1M of them show up. Sounds about right, because that's how insurance works. Most people are healthy and pay premiums and use some tiny fraction of what they pay, and the rest subsidize those who pay premiums and use more than what they pay.

That's what insurance is.

6M out of 26M? Sounds about right. It's still $1400 per.

 

[barfo]

Yes, it is a strawman.

I, and many others in opposition to the proposed healthcare bills have said we can't afford it. The fact that all of these taxes will be imposed on an already weak economy is just proof that we can't afford it.

I'm not sure how the existence of taxes proves we can't afford it.

We have all been saying that taxes would go up with these healthcare bills (because I don't trust the governent to actually cut spending elsewhere to provide healthcare), this thread is just real, hard fact that proves what we have been saying.

Yeah, that's what I've been saying too. Good that we agree on something.

You're the one saying that the only way to have healthcare services is by raising taxes. Here's a thought, cut spending elsewhere. The government should spend the ridiculous amount of money it already has on the most important services. If healthcare isn't one of those most important services, so be it.

Again, you built a strawman.

I see. You are correct, one could (in theory) cut other services to pay for this. But that's not something that is currently being considered (other than certain cuts in medicare). That is, in fact, a strawman, although if you want to propose which other services to cut, I'd be interested to read it.

The actual decision for congress to make is healthcare for the uninsured plus these various tax increases, or not. Not some completely different proposal that you'd prefer.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

BTW, from the Wikipedia link:

In May 2006, a laptop computer containing in the clear (unencrypted) social security numbers of 26.5 million U.S. veterans was stolen from a Veterans Affairs analyst’s home. The analyst violated existing VA policy by removing the data from his workplace.[9]