« AIP Column: Nancy and Steny's Message to America | Main | Obama's New Hampshire Town Hall Staged; Supporters Bussed in while Protesters Wait Outside »

Words Words Words

Brainy Quote is a website which displays notable quotes from notable people. Here are some interesting quotes made by candidate, then President, Barack Obama:

"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. "

"I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes. "

"I don't take a dime of their [lobbyist] money, and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House."

"I found this national debt, doubled, wrapped in a big bow waiting for me as I stepped into the Oval Office."

"I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class."

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

"My administration is the only thing between you [CEO's] and the pitchforks."

"Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go."

"We need earmark reform, and when I'm President, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

That he made those statements is undeniable. Barack Obama fashioned his image and reputation on the basis of these and similar statements. Whether he has kept the promises made in some of those statements, and whether he is in truth the man he presented himself to be, is now the proper focus for debate.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/36517.

Comments (45)

We have another lie. "That ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

We have another lie. "That is why the AARP endorced my plan". ww

I guess it's the proper foc... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

I guess it's the proper focus for debate if you have already decided that you don't like the guy and his policies. And you shouldn't! You're conservatives! Things would be a whole lot different if a liberal hadn't won the election and congress hadn't transformed to majority Democratic. However, others might suggest that the proper focus of debate ought to be on whether the country is better off than it was under Bush, or would have been under McCain. Another topic, for another blog.

May as well single out the most easily verified or falsified of your claims (apart from the 57 states remark--mega-lols on that one! He so stoopit!). As for cutting taxes for 95% of the country, Austan Goolsbee made this claim again last night on the Daily Show. I didn't watch the full interview, which was too long for the time slot and thus posted on the show's website, so perhaps he elaborated on that claim and I didn't see it. Anyway, they still maintain that it's true. Is it not? Has anyone who earns less than $250,000/year seen their taxes increase? Are income tax rates not lower for 95% of Americans?

When Obamalala stumbled and... (Below threshold)
MPR:

When Obamalala stumbled and bumbled about Obamacare being "like the....uh......Post Office". Emanuel and Axlerod probably soiled their drawers when they heard him say that. The image that pops into the mind is long lines, slow, rude workers and poor service. I work with Fed-Ex, UPS and the Postal Service. The best service comes from Fed-Ex and UPS by far. They are having a hard time with this economy but, they don't slack off on the service. The postal service is cutting back on service. When the government has a monopoly, like the P.O. does, they raise prices and cut back on service. Nobody in their right mind could think Obamalalacare will be any different.

That Obama made each of the... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

That Obama made each of these statements is indisputable at this point, hyperbolist.

It should also be noted that, having repeatedly promised that no one making 250k or less would see any kind of increase in taxes, and having emphasized his concern about the deficit during the campaign, Obama clearly ran as a centrist or moderate, not as the liberal he now wants to be as President. It is completely reasonable for the people to demand answers from President Obama about the large and growing disparity between his promises and his actions.

1) "However, others might s... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

1) "However, others might suggest that the proper focus of debate ought to be on whether the country is better off than it was under Bush, or would have been under McCain. Another topic, for another blog."

It might indeed be a topic for another blog, but, heck, since it popped into your mind, any attempts at self-restraint fail you so you'll bring it up any way as a diversion from directly addressing Obama's own statements DJ has cited above.

"Has anyone who earns less than $250,000/year seen their taxes increase? Are income tax rates not lower for 95% of Americans?"

They will increase passively when the Bush tax cut legislation expitres. And then there will be more proactive efforts in order to fund any socialist programs he can get enacted. Let's revisit this one in 4 years.

"Has anyone who earns less ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Has anyone who earns less than $250,000/year seen their taxes increase?"

Hey hyper, your Savior signed a law raising cigarette taxes by $1.00 a pack. But I guess only people earning $250k or more are the only ones who smoke.

"That he made those stateme... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"That he made those statements is undeniable"

And yet somehow he and his supporters still do deny them. As if by denying them the truth of the matter will go away. As if by desiring they will make it so.

Has anyone seen their taxes increase? Why yes if you smoke or partake in other activities that the government has increased the levies on. Income taxes are not the only taxes people pay and many of the most regressive taxes are the ones that are being increased. People don't buy into the sophistry that these other taxes do not constitute a tax increase. If you are paying more in taxes it doesn't matter how the tax law reads, you're still paying more in taxes.

Simply stating that you should change your behavior is not a reasonable comeback either. Not paying the gas tax is not an option. Taxes on specific goods and services too often tax things that people cannot avoid. The whole point of taxing those items is predicated on the notion that people will not substitute other behaviors otherwise the tax would be ineffective at raising revenue and raising revenue is the main point of taxation. If you deny that you are either lying or a fool.

Obama now: "I have not said... (Below threshold)
George Author Profile Page:

Obama now: "I have not said that I was a single payer supporter..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd-F8Z6sSpA

Obama then: "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

Do you believe me or your lying eyes?

So cigarettes cost more--th... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

So cigarettes cost more--thanks for attempting but failing to answer my question, and barely being dicks about it! I guess if I was a non-smoker I wouldn't really care, but as a smoker, I have long given up complaining about the price of the stupid things. It's remarkable that they're even legal, when you really think about it.

My question was, have taxes really been reduced for 95% of the population since Obama became President? I'm not asking about whether they'll go up within the next few years--they surely will, with public health care on the horizon. I'm asking: are they now lower for people earning less than $250,000/year? Do feel free to take into account the increase on tobacco; but then if you smoke enough cigarettes that the +$1/pack will offset a decrease in income taxes, then you're probably hoping that public health insurance becomes available by the time you get emphysema.

DJ: agreed! As the minority, conservatives should be holding the majority's feet to the fire whenever possible. Democracy tends to be a bit more robust that way. If the country is in better shape by the 2010 elections, though, people won't care very much about these promises. One exception: it's forseeable, albeit unlikely, that the GOP might craft some coherent message around the deficit spending. The party is hardly overflowing with effective and charismatic communicators, though.

George: people change their... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

George: people change their positions based on what job they're trying to get. Nothing new. In 2000, George W. Bush was opposed to nation-building, and conservatives applauded him for it. In 2003, George W. Bush undertook a nation-building "adventure" in Iraq, and "conservatives" applauded him for it.

I'm really, really not trying to change the subject, because I like to try and not think about that guy. I'm only saying that there are examples--equally troubling ones, depending on your perspective--of people saying one thing on Day A, and saying another on Day B. Day A and Day B tend not to be adjacent to one another.

Hey hyper: YOUR question w... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Hey hyper: YOUR question was:

"Has anyone who earns less than $250,000/year seen their taxes increase?"

The answer is YES! Smokers are paying a buck more a pack. If you are going to ask a question, don't MOVE THE GOAL POST when someone responds and proves you wrong.

Ahhhh, but God-King Obama d... (Below threshold)
Hyperapologist:

Ahhhh, but God-King Obama didn't raise taxes for Canadians making less than $250K/year....

Hyperbolist - Nice... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Hyperbolist -

Nice try, but you DID ask if anyone had seen their taxes go up. Subsequently, you wish you had asked if anyone had seen taxes go down.

Actually I saw withholding go down, but that s not the same as taxes going down.

The real point here is that some people feel that Obama is talking out of both sides of his mouth on this issue. He is trying to hold the line on income taxes, while he is willing to raise taxes on gas and cigarettes and willing to tax your private health care insurance. He is saying he is holding the line on taxes, but in reality he is raising or proposing to raise a lot of taxes. Again my comment that the taxes he is raising are amongst the most regressive.

Hyperbolist - Yes ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Hyperbolist -

Yes people can and do change their positions.

I think if Obama truly has changed his position regarding a single payer system he needs to be a bit more detailed as to why he has changed his position if he expects anyone to believe him.

Obama's policies have always been very far left both in Illinois as well as the US Senate. His entire history and ALL his past statements suggest that socialized medicine is his aim. He has appointed many aids and advisers who have made very strong statements in favor of socialized medicine. Lastly, members of his own party have suggested that the purpose of this bill is to create a socialized medicine system and he has done absolutely ZERO to refute them. I have yet to see any statement regarding Jan Shatkowsky anywhere from Obama.

So again, there is no evidence that he has changed his mind other than his assurances to the contrary. No explanation of his thinking. No details as to why it is that he no longer supports the positions he has held for decades.

GarandFan: no, they aren... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

GarandFan: no, they aren't paying more taxes. They're paying more taxes on cigarettes, but less on their income, with a net gain for themselves unless they make next to no money and spend almost all of it on tobacco.

You talk to me about moving the goalposts when you manage to find the playing field, friendo.

jim m: I agree 100% that ra... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

jim m: I agree 100% that raising taxes on tobacco and other consumer products is totally regressive. The easiest thing to do would have been to not lower taxes for the middle class, rather than resorting to regressive 'sin' taxes.

Nevertheless: are people who earn >$250k paying more or less taxes than they were in 2008? Austan Goolsbee maintains that they are paying less. Is he mistaken, or lying? Doubtful. Will they be paying more within the next few years? Oh, for sure. But they aren't now.

As for single payer healthcare, this may be the first step in that direction, but HR3200 is not making you switch to government-run health insurance. That simply isn't true.

Hyperbolist - I think you a... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Hyperbolist - I think you are missing the point. People are concerned with the total amount of their income hat is consumed by tax. It really matters very little if you shift my taxes from one line in my monthly budget to another. You're still taxing me

Ultimately, it just comes off as a disingenuous shell game.

Hyper -Sorry, man,... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Hyper -

Sorry, man, you're the one moving the goalposts. You explicitly asked "Has anyone who earns less than $250,000/year seen their taxes increase?"

You didn't exclude anything, down to a local half-cent tax.

And as far as income taxes go - we'll have to wait to see what the IRS does with the 2009 tax schedules. I'm thinking a lot of people are going to get significantly smaller refunds in 2010.

I would argue that while it... (Below threshold)
jim m:

I would argue that while it may not be making the switch to government run health care it is going far enough as to make it inevitable and that does happen to be he stated aim of many in Congress. (Pelosi, Waxman, Frank, Shatkowsky to name a few, including Obama when he was in the Senate)

Additionally the other stated aim of saving money is laughable. No one seriously believes that this plan will reduce costs (at least no one with a measurable IQ).

*Sigh*I didn't ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

*Sigh*

I didn't exclude regressive consumption taxes. They're included! Include all taxes! And now tell me, based on tax rates for this fiscal year, whether you will pay a smaller or greater proportion of your income to the government than you did in 2008?

That is what I meant by 'paying more taxes'--because that's what 'paying more taxes' means. You could pay $10,000 more in gas tax this year, but if you pay $10,001 less in income tax, then you're paying less taxes.

So, with these goalposts in mind, are Obama and his economists lying when they say that they have cut taxes for 95% of the population, as he promised they would during the campaign?

Jim M -If it's pos... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Jim M -

If it's possible to save tens of billions out of Medicare without affecting the level of service - it should be done FIRST, to demonstrate the ideas work.

Once that's done - THEN we can consider whether it should be expanded. But until they prove it - it's just more campaign rhetoric and you know how much of THAT survives after the election!

It's not possible to demons... (Below threshold)
jim m:

It's not possible to demonstrate that the ideas work because it is obvious that this will cost more money not less. Hence the need to pass it now without thinking too hard about it.

Plain and simple: Almost ev... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

Plain and simple: Almost every taxpayer will pay MORE taxes this year for the same amount of income as last year. Most folks won't understand it until they file their 1040's next year. Even the adjustments to the tax tables are largely bait and switch. A good proportion of taxpayers will have their refunds reduced because less tax was withheld.

Barry gets let off the hook a bit because the Cap and Trade bill may not get passed this year. Does it count in your book as taxes if I pay an extra dollar or so for gasoline? If refiners have to purchase carbon credits to refine their gasoline then why isn't that a tax if they pass it along?

Similarly with health care. My employer pays a bit less than $1000 per month for each employee's health care costs (including the fees paid for the insurance company to process the claims). If the bill gets passed then where is the money going to come from to replace this cost? Basically my employer will drop the coverage and let us go on the Gubmint Plan. The CBO has already stated there is no way to get enough revenue simply from the top 5% of earners.

Hyper stop digging.<p... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Hyper stop digging.

I for one did very well for the past 13 years. Except for the faux outrage of the left, the last eight years were great financially and I and my family felt safer. Not now. I have never felt so unsure of my future then I do now with this bozo in office and all the lemmings gushing at his cuteness and oratory skills.

GW was against nation building in 2000, but 2001 changed a lot of minds about that. Of course liberals like hyperbolist would just "talk" the misguided terrorists out of dying for their God. ww

Ricardo, that's what I am a... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Ricardo, that's what I am asking. Will regressive consumption taxes add up to more than the progressive reduction in income taxes for those earning less than $250k/yr?

I have to say: $1,000/month per employee?! Jesus Christ, you people get screwed! Not to mention the business angle: why would anyone build a factory in the United States when your corporate taxes are higher than in, say, Ontario, and the employer is on the hook for health insurance costs?!

Hyperbolist, where is your ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Hyperbolist, where is your basis for assuming that net taxes will decrease? The only changes made thus far in federal income tax is that withholding amounts have decreased. Since the tax rates have not been reduced, all that does is reduce/eliminate any income tax refunds for next year's filers. If you pay the same amount as last year, that by definition is not a tax cut and if you pay the same income tax rate but also pay higher fees and taxes on products, that by definition is a tax increase.

Hyper -"They're in... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Hyper -

"They're included! Include all taxes! And now tell me, based on tax rates for this fiscal year, whether you will pay a smaller or greater proportion of your income to the government than you did in 2008?"

If I hadn't gotten a raise this year, indeed I'd be paying a greater proportion of my income to the government.

(Shrug.)

Sorry, but you asked. I get an extra $15 every two weeks from decreased withholding - an extra $390 a year. But that's decreased withholding, not actually decreased taxation. It's a promise of a credit - IF I'm eligible for it.

Get More From Your W-4 - Check Your Tax Withholding - H&R Block Digits

Now, what about that 'Making Work Pay' credit?'

As part of the February 2009 American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (a.k.a 2009 Stimulus Act), which made approximately 95% of America's working families eligible for a 'Making Work Pay' refundable tax credit of up to $400 for working individuals and up to $800 for working couples, the IRS revised the withholding tables used by employers and payers of pensions.

To receive early benefit of the credit, eligible employees didn't have to do anything. Companies had until April 1 to institute the newly-revised withholding tables. Employees then began benefitting from the revised withholding tables, with larger take-home paychecks starting no later than April 2009. The revised withholding tables are for calendar years 2009 and 2010.

So what's the problem?

The problem is that because the IRS withholding tables cannot take into account ineligible taxpayers, workers with multiple jobs, or dual-income married couples, the reduced withholding may actually exceed the credit that you'll be able to claim when you file your tax return next year. And there's more.

What if you elect to accept your adjusted withholding, but at the end of the year, you're not eligible for the full credit - do you have to pay it back?

Well, yes. If your withholding was reduced by more than the credit to which you're entitled to claim, you will effectively repay the difference by way of a reduced refund or a higher balance due. The Tax Institute at H&R Block is awaiting clarity regarding possible waiver of any underpayment penalty that results because of this change. Continue to check Digits for updates.
This isn't a change in the tax rates - it's the promise of a credit. And what's a politician's promise worth any more? That credit could go away with the stroke of a pen.

"Jesus Christ, you peopl... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"Jesus Christ, you people get screwed! Not to mention the business angle: why would anyone build a factory in the United States when your corporate taxes are higher than in, say, Ontario, and the employer is on the hook for health insurance costs?!

Good damn question, Hyper. Might be why we're manufacturing less and less, eh?

Hyper #25-Actually n... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

Hyper #25-
Actually nobody's "getting screwed" right now. I have better health care/coverage than Canadians. My company pays for it, at least for now.

And as for the regressive taxes: I was saying that taxpayers will pay more in taxes this year even before you start counting the regressive taxes that may take a year or two to filter-in. In a balance sheet comparison, bottom line, the average taxpayer will pay more taxes in 2009 than in 2008.

How about one of B.O.'s fir... (Below threshold)
LouisianaLightning:

How about one of B.O.'s first lies while in office: he will post bills on-line for 5 days, so that the public will have time to review and comment on them, before the vote? (Paraphrased).

Hell, the 'rats leadership didn't even give Congress the time to read the 'Stimulus' bill!

I live in a small southern ... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

I live in a small southern town, yet the local hospital has multiple MRI machines and more than one type of Catscan. It is about 2 hours drive to the nearest large regional hospital, but only about 40 minutes by air via medievac helicopter. When you consider extreme critical care, or life threatening illness treatment, then I would prefer to be here compared with Canada or Western Europe. Those countries do, however, have nice cheap blue pills and I have to buy the expensive red ones here.

Willie: so there were no na... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Willie: so there were no nations harbouring terrorists before 9/11? Before 9/11, playing geopolitical whack-a-mole was a stupid idea, but after 9/11, it was absolutely essential for national security? Friiiiiig, Willie, I never saw it that way--because I'm not a moron.

As for your financial success over the past 13 years: well done! What a shame that all those big government Democrats on Wall Street inflated the credit market bubble and then popped it, sending the entire f*cking planet into an economic tailspin! Shame on them.

Anyway...

DJ & JL: that's the response I was looking for. If taxes do in fact go up during his first year in office, then that will be incredibly bad optics heading into the 2010 mid-terms. I wouldn't argue otherwise. And I appreciate the explanation of what decreased witholding means.

Ricardo: Americans who can afford health insurance certainly do have better access to equipment like MRI machines than Canadians. I would say, though, that I have better access to that sort of thing than, say, an uninsured poor person. And access is no better in the U.S. than in Japan, where they have a single payer system, and they pay next to nothing for Rx meds. So it's not the fact that you're privately insured that makes your system better than mine in that respect.

Hyperbolist - I do... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Hyperbolist -

I doubt that you would say you have better access to critical yet scarce technology and procedures in a socialized medicine setting.

A person presenting with no insurance at an American hospital with headaches and vomiting would get a head CT in less than 24 hours. In Canada they'd get an appointment for 6 weeks hence. (If they lived that long)

That's not my experience. T... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

That's not my experience. There are anecdotes that support what you're saying, but my family and I have experiences to the contrary.

What would this person have to pay for the CT scan?

My best friend was diagnosed with a brain tumor six years ago. He was in for tests and treatment that week, but died within three months. My father was diagnosed with a relatively mild case of prostate cancer, and had successful surgery a month later and was provided with home care (wound inspection, cleaning, re-bandaging) for a month after that. None of it was paid for out of pocket.

Here are two examples of the NHS providing top-shelf care at no direct expense to the patients or their families.

Nobody claims that the NHS or the Canadian Ministry of Health operate perfect systems. Reading what some Americans believe, though, you would think that Canadians are dying in gutters, and that Britain is still a Dickensian nightmare.

no, they aren't pa... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:
no, they aren't paying more taxes. They're paying more taxes on cigarettes, but less on their income, with a net gain for themselves unless they make next to no money and spend almost all of it on tobacco.

Jeebus Hyper... you need to be schooled on Smith, what, every month?

Raising a tax on a perceived need is a tax on wages as much as one on a real need.

AS for the "decrease in taxes", the 2009 withholding allowance was adjusted from $3500 to 3650. Spread out over a year, that's just under 3 dollars a week, and assuming that you make enough to pay that income tax in the first place.

And since many people pay no federal income tax at all, and many of them smoke, it most certainly is a tax increase.

"What would this person hav... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"What would this person have to pay for the CT scan?"

In many cases nothing. Hospitals frequently write off a lot of those cases. While it is true that urban areas with large numbers of uninsured have seen a lot of hospitals close, it is also true that many hospitals have closed and cut back on services due to high ratios of patients on medicare and medicaid. Those insurance plans are not sustainable for the hospitals.

It is also true that in such cases as above cities and counties have purchased struggling hospitals in under-served areas and this is an appropriate way for government to address the issue.

Looks like Bammy has embrac... (Below threshold)
starboardhelm:

Looks like Bammy has embraced the Muslim principle of Al-Takeyya which permits Muslims to lie to protect themselves or in aid of Islamic goals. Only in his case, it covers big-S Socialism, too.

So there would be nice hosp... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

So there would be nice hospitals for people with health insurance, and other hospitals for people who don't have it. What do you think the difference in quality of care would be between the two hospitals? What sort of doctors and nurses would end up working in the lesser of the two kinds of hospital? Would the patients have equal access to premium equipment and therapies?

It's insufficient to place the uncovered into a second rate system. That's not what advocates for reform expect to get out of this for those who presently cannot afford insurance.

starboardhelm: the <a href=... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

starboardhelm: the FreeRepublic is that-a-way, idiot.

hyper - "As for single ... (Below threshold)
Marc:

hyper - "As for single payer healthcare, this may be the first step in that direction, but HR3200 is not making you switch to government-run health insurance. That simply isn't true."

No? Then puzzle me this hyper:

Your a small business owner in the US. One of these bills slaps you with an 8 percent "fine" for each employee not covered by your company health plan.

Another version of the bills slaps you with a 750 dollar fine for each not covered.

So Mr. Small Business Owner what you do pay-up if one or both of these ideas goes thru or do you say the friggin hell with it drop all health coverage for all your employees and send them on their no-so merry way to join the gov run plan?

Hyper: I just read your com... (Below threshold)
Madalyn:

Hyper: I just read your comment regarding your friend and your father. I am very happy your father is doing fine, and so very sorry to hear about your friend. Losing a close friend is usually as bad as losing a family member. I am so sorry.
Madalyn

Hyper -Re your dad... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Hyper -

Re your dad - glad to hear he's doing well. Prostate cancer... well, my dad's got it also, and statistically it'll likely get all us guys in the end, eh? (Okay, bad joke, never mind...)

My father, at 82, was diagnosed with artery blockage in his heart. They put in stents, but that wasn't enough. At 84, they did a quad bypass on him.

He's 90 now, and takes care of my mother, who at 91 is barely able to get around.

His operations were covered by Medicare. I believe that under Obamacare, there would have been a bureaucrat who looked up his age (84), and looked up the amount of care someone that age was authorized (pallative care, not invasive operations) and would have denied the operation as being not cost effective.

He would have been dead six years ago. My mother would have had to go into a nursing home - and I don't believe she would have lasted long there. (They're sharing a room in an assisted living facility.) Instead, four years ago they moved from a city 2000 miles away to this locality - and they've been able to see their grandson grow into a fine young man. (Rather blearily, in the case of my mother. She refuses to get her cataracts removed.)

I do not trust the promises of a politician when it comes to health care. I trust them even less when the process has been rushed through to the point where there's not even a final bill for review - but it was supposed to be finalized and voted on without delay.

Madalyn: thank you.<p... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Madalyn: thank you.

JL: Glad your folks are doing well, your mom's cataracts notwithstanding.

I'm hopeful that public healthcare won't prevent people from getting the quality of care that your parents have enjoyed. Do you think people would stand for it? Do you think the Democrats could stand to lose the vote of every senior citizen in the country? I think it's more likely that they'll just raise taxes to cover the plan.

Marc: not sure I fully understand the dilemma, but I guess I would do what's best for my employees. If that means paying for them all to receive good health insurance, then I would do that; or if that means dissolving the health insurance part of their benefits and moving them to the government plan, then I would do that.

Not sure if the issue is unfairness to insurance companies (which nobody should care about) or a worry that people will not receive the same quality of coverage under a government-run plan...?

"I think it's more likel... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"I think it's more likely that they'll just raise taxes to cover the plan."

Mmmm, don't think so. The Tea Party protests are kind of a tripwire - the population's being taxed about all it'll tolerate at the present time. Raising the taxes will not go down well at all.

I'd prefer to see Medicare cleaned up - that $60 billion in fraud doesn't help matters one bit.

JLawson - Glad to hear your... (Below threshold)
Madalyn:

JLawson - Glad to hear your dad is doing so much better at age 90. Isn't it great that you had a minumum of 6 more years with your father. What a wonderful story. It's a shame your mom has not had her cataract surgery. My husband had it on both eyes, plus he had surgery to repair a detached retina. His eyesight is almost 20/20 now.
May God bless you and your parents
Madalyn




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy