The American Spectator

Shamus| 2.26.10 @ 7:19AM

The peculiar structure of the tax code causes many serious problems. Congress has dozens of plans that allow tax free savings for various purposes. It would make more sense to set up a single plan that allows people to save for health care, retirement, education, purchasing a home, disability, or unemployment. Democrats for some reason always oppose any plan where an individual makes decisions for themselves, but they should be aware that collectivism has not worked effectively to provide for individual needs. They want to spread the wealth but all they wind up spreading is poverty.

Louis Jenkins| 2.26.10 @ 8:56AM

It would make more sense to set up a single plan that allows people to save for health care, retirement, education, purchasing a home, disability, or unemployment.

Health Care-Medicare and Medicaid, Retirement-Social Security, Education-Public Run, Purhasing a home-Fannie Mac and Freddie May= foreclosure, Disability-Social Security again, Unemployment-Unemployment benefits and Stimulus funded jobs.

They already have sizable control of the Land of the Free. The Federal Government, aka District of Crimminals, could not tolerate your personnal funds being placed in a private account for any contingency. They'd soon find a way to tax or confiscate it as has been proven.

These people cannot understand the Free Market. Let American character and enterprise work.

These people lay awake at night, scheming and planning ways to skin the producers, savers, or the financially aware. There is no limit to the means that they will employ.

Taxpayer| 2.26.10 @ 10:08PM

Also, money put into a tax-free account is no longer safe. Look at the Argentina example of how the government intruded on those accounts.

Bram| 2.26.10 @ 1:42PM

Wouldn't it make more sense to just stop taxing savings income and capital gains? Let me save waht money I can after income taxes and spend it as I see fit. I am an adult after all.

Al Adab| 2.26.10 @ 4:19PM

Bram,
That makes too much sense and takes the government out of the control business. After all they know what's best for us. Besides only "the rich" have savings and capital gains. (At least anymore)
heh:)

martin j smith| 2.26.10 @ 7:46AM

I will tell you what did not get said and maybe could not have: To Obama and the Democrat leadership:"This we know is a phoney "summit". We have already hear you expect to go the so called "reconciliation" route, if you do not get your way.. The American people need to realize that their government is broken. They will be victimized by a rogue democrat party and right now have no idea how bad it will get.

Dave Undis| 2.26.10 @ 9:04AM

The 3-year limit on payment for post-transplant drugs is a Medicare rule -- a government rule! If you buy health insurance from the private sector, your policy will probably NOT contain the 3-year limit. So Congressman Clyburn's story is hardly an argument for more government involvement.

Bob| 2.26.10 @ 6:33PM

Dave, you are factually wrong. Group and individual policies have dollar limits so you probably wouldn't even get to 3 years. Insurance companies are not stupid.... Besides, private insurance limitations on whether you can get the transplant paid for in the first place are far more restricted than Medicare.

wankel| 2.26.10 @ 9:10AM

>> What Didn't Get Said at the Summit

"It's Bush's fault"?

Gazinya| 2.26.10 @ 9:14AM

Where have all the flowers gone? They have gone to taxes, my son. A long time ago when I was young I read where The Kennedy struck out the medical exemption and replaced it with a 7.5% threshold. I thought at the time this is a joke. If I spend that much of my income on medical procedures, before I get to write it off, I probably won't live long enough to see the return. It was at this time that the Dems were really serious on making sure that no person 'slipped' through their patriotic duty to pay taxes. The Wrangles came up with a plan to tax the hidden wealth of those most agregious concubines of greed, the waitress. These women who were making minimum wage were skimming off the top from the coins left for their service. Not fair to The Pelosi or The Reid or even The Obama.

People, this is what the tea party is about. It is about going after these Lucifarians that boast $100,000 open bars in their taxpayer funded jets while we, the people, are being drained.

Ned| 2.26.10 @ 10:22AM

The biggest factor in the cost of health care in the US is government interference in terms and conditions, mandates for marginal services... and the various taxation effects on those not eligible for (or interested in) employer provided coverage ... so Dimocrats propose to resolve those issues with more government interference in terms and conditions, and mandates for marginal services? Makes as much sense as anything else that comes out of Fantasyland On The Potomac.

Bob| 2.26.10 @ 6:35PM

Actually, Ned, this is mandated by the states and not the federal government. The reason for this is to insure that more people are covered. If you left it up to insurance companies, they'd be far more restrictive. I know, I worked for one in group insurance.

JJ| 2.26.10 @ 11:20AM

I'm sure you are right. And I'm sure the Democrats want a Ginormous-Obamacare-Federal Office of National Health and Medical Authority. An apparatus the size of the Pentagon -- a towering inferno of health care taxation, directives, proclamations, vouchers, forms, 10-289's, F-16's, free aspirin dispensers, kleenex, sanctions, pamplets and a high commissioner for gall bladder procedures.

And a giant building on Pennsylvania Avenue: a Department of Healthcare Fortress with free flu shots and 4 helicopter pads and 5,000 government workers.

Eric Cartman| 2.26.10 @ 2:18PM

You say that like its a bad thing!

JJ| 2.27.10 @ 1:20PM

Yes, a $1,000,000,000,000,000,000 bad thing.

Eric Cartman| 2.27.10 @ 6:12PM

WOW! Well, I guess that is a bad thing. We probably shouldn't do it, then. But the Dembamacrats won't listen to reason. We may have to give them High Colonics, sort of like water boarding but only different.

Al Adab| 2.26.10 @ 11:33AM

A lot of Left argument as is typical based on anecdote rather than systemic thought. How much of medical costs are the result of pre-existing regulatory imposts for example? Why do these debates always proceed from a baseline of "What must the government do?" Why do we assume government action- proven so sucessful over the last 50 years- is the best "solution" to an issue?

The President performed in a condescending, patronizing attitude although to give him the benefit of the doubt, as Bush would have said, "in Texas we call it talking". Maybe in Chicago that's how they talk. It did however seem as though his mind was already made up and no proposal would find its way past the ideological firewall.

Why are so many good concepts and tort limits not part of this proposal, this bill? Sort of like Cod liver oil, "Take it, it's good for you."

JC| 2.26.10 @ 12:16PM

As a previous employer of fifty plus this article seems miss-leading. You can not purchase health insurance in a state from a company that does not meet state requirements i.e mandates states require that other states do not. You can always design plans but not eliminate those special mandates.

William Tucker| 2.26.10 @ 3:48PM

You're right. But companies that have ERISA plans aren't buying insurance. They are forming their own pools and self-insuring. Therefore they are exempt from state mandates. In fact they based their case for exemption on the point that it would be impossible to operate in different states while conforming with all the conflicting state mandates.

Bob| 2.26.10 @ 6:38PM

But that negates one of your other points, Tucker. Most of the self-insured plans use approved state policies. I was in the business, I know. Companies don't create their own policies, they just assume the risk through a reinsurance arrangement. Besides, most large company policies offer more than the major medical offered to small companies and individuals.

Gerald Stephens| 2.26.10 @ 2:40PM

CROSSROADS...

The choice of direction is straight forward - a structure created by central control wherein collective submission to historically proven failed concepts are forced upon the structure or one yielding the freedom envisioned by the Nation's founders.

Mr. Obama has clearly demonstrated that his grasp of anything is fatally deficient. We are at the moment a leaderless nation on the precipice of potential collapse.

Barring unforeseen circumstances, the plague associated with leaderless incompetence will persist for the specified time. Our survival is directly dependent upon the instincts inherent in a free people's individualism.

We do have a luxury denied many - elections. November 2010 will reveal which of the crossroads will be traveled.

Grald Stephens
Hartford, CT

Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 2.26.10 @ 5:33PM

Gerald: We'll be taking a right at those crossroads you referred too come November, better known as the path less traveled, the more difficult choice, the straight and narrow path. The one where you earn what you get, and keep what you earn, the way America used to do it, and they way we have to do it again. No more free lunches!! Boohoo!!

tom poole| 2.26.10 @ 3:01PM

I told my wife about 6AM yesterday that all the Republicans would hear was "it s' in the bill", and was I ever right. It took less than 1 1/2hours for Obama to say it three times, then I shut off the TV. There is no quesgtion he is the most supercilious man I have ever seen in public office we cannot get rid of him soon enough, at what point does disregarding the Constitution become a "high crime" subject to impeachment?

Bill Bettag| 2.26.10 @ 3:02PM

Good article and summary of the summit. The open market place and transparency of fees are what is needed in health care, and HSAs are a step in the right direction of pursuing that goal. The area where the insurance companies do carry the blame along with the medical community is the bogus "network discount" pricing system that has been established. What legitimate business can bill out at enormous billing rates, but then through the magic of insurance "network discounts" accepts 10 cents on the dollar if you happen to be covered under that employer sponsored health plan? Only in the medical field. Even with HSAs, this is a major draw back in having individuals becoming better consumers of health care. It is very difficult today to find out what you will be charged for health care until well after the procedure has been completed.

Bob| 2.26.10 @ 6:43PM

Tucker, this article is a joke, isn't it? The truth is that Republicans (and I'm one of them) really don't want any change. If they wanted things like tort reform and selling across state lines they would have passed it when they had control of the Presidency and the Congress.

The real truth here is that Republicans (and the Democrats as well) don't want to cut health care costs because doing so will make their reelection coffers smaller. It is disingenuous to say that Republicans really want to solve health care problems. In addition, the real reason Republicans don't want to reform Medicare is that they receive more votes from seniors than Democrats so they won't touch anything that might say, "We're going to let Grandma die!"

MikeBee| 3.1.10 @ 12:32AM

Bob,
You're way off here. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan, one of the largest health insurers in the world, supported DEMOCRAT Jennifer Granholm for governor of Michigan, not the Republican. After winning, she did them some favors via legislation.
The smart insurance companies will send $$$$ to both Dems and Repubs, simply to protect themselves. The dumb ones tend to support Democrats, like Blue Cross.

Liberal Reader| 2.26.10 @ 7:36PM

State regulations have been found effective because health care is sold at a local level: you can't do mail-order surgery. Mail-order insurance would be about as ineffective.

The Republican's "plan" to offer insurance across state lines would simply start a race of companies to take seats in states that regulate them the least, leading to more families being sunk under spiraling medical costs. Insurers would charge more for fewer benefits.

The problem with the Democrats' plan is that it does NOT undermine the free market basis of American health care. If this really were a "government take over," it wouldn't be 2,000 pages, it'd be 20. The complexity comes because it simply tries to regulate an industry into civilized behavior. It's a hopeless sham, of course. As long as companies PROFIT by cutting benefits and increasing premiums, the American people will continue to be shafted.

Bob| 2.26.10 @ 8:06PM

I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about, Liberal. Cars are also sold by local dealerships. If you live in Minnesota are you going to have your car serviced in Georgia? Your logic makes no sense.

Since I worked in the group insurance industry, I can tell you the reason you have state regulation is that insurance regulation is a state function -- both auto and health. In fact, if you're a "national" insurance company, you have filed policies in every state -- each of them following that state's regulatory limitations. We sold group insurance policies nationwide and had one claims operation.

Therefore, selling across state lines is certainly possible and it doesn't undermine the states regulatory responsibilities. The anti-monopoly measure is currently the only limitation. Therefore, getting rid of that measure would allow companies to compete nationally just by filing policies in those states. But the Republicans want to go further allowing you to choose the level of coverage you desire. As long as these policies are approved by the state, that's fine with me.

Insurance policies are nothing but private contracts between the insurance company and groups/individuals. Therefore, consumers will soon learn what each policy covers and what it doesn't cover -- just like auto insurance.

And don't denigrate insurance companies. Private enterprises are supposed to make a profit. That's is the American way. The way you lower costs is to increase competition and prevent monopolies. Eventually, competition will lead to lower rates.

Your problem is that you consider health care to be a right, not a privilege. If you believe it to be a right, you should argue for Medicare for all, and not the hodge podge we now have. By the way, many of the health insurance companies are mutual which means they are owned by the policy holders. Profits are distributed to them. For example, both my my auto insurance and health insurance companies are mutual. For example, a number of Blue Cross-Blue Shield health insurance operations are mutual. So there really is currently a "public option".

You really need to learn more about insurance companies.

Liberal Reader| 2.26.10 @ 10:45PM

Bob --

I may not be able to predict exact behaviors of insurance markets if they are permitted to sell across state lines, but when we come to the morality of this issue, I'm confident:

It is immoral to let people go without health care if they are too poor to pay for it.

Indeed, few would want to live in a society where people collapsed and died on sidewalks near hospitals for lack of money to pay for treatment.

Republicans at this point usually jump in to declare that the poor do NOT die on sidewalks; that they are cared for whether they can pay or not.

Well, then we all agree that health care is a social responsibility; that they wealthy should help pay for the poor; that the healthy should help pay for the sick; that the young should help pay for the old.

Health insurance has had DECADES to provide coverage that the people can afford and it has failed to do so. Coverage is becoming more expensive and offering fewer benefits every year, far beyond the rate of inflation.

The Republicans are right on one thing. One it comes to health care reform, we should scrap the current bill and start over. Where should we start? With the kind of plans that cover every other wealthy democracy on earth. Single payer, social medicine. I'm happy to help pay for others if they are sick, and I'm sick of greed being defined as a virtue.

Charles Stevens| 2.27.10 @ 3:52PM

No, we do NOT "all agree that healthcare is a social responsibility." Like all progressives, you are unable to think clearly because you are unwilling to both make distinctions and to employ hierarchies. Here are a few questions that may help:

1) Why do you conflate health care and health insurance?
2) Do you understand that the instances of poor currently being cared for are examples of government interference in healthcare already in extent?
3) Why are you comfortable with more reliance on government (i.e., more government control) instead of more trust in your fellow (individual) man?
4) Why do you not perceive a difference between voluntary charity and forced welfare?
5) Why do you believe that the government has not already been greatly involved in those areas of healthcare with which you are now unhappy?
6) Do you agree or disagree with the thesis that where government is already involved, the more it needs to get involved, in a never ending feedback loop?

Until & unless you can honestly answer such questions, you will be hopelessly mired in the absurdity of semantic games and postmodernist narratives that passes for progressive thinking.

Liberal Reader| 2.27.10 @ 9:13PM

Setting aside your cultural analysis (that I'm mired in "postmodernist narratives"), I've given thought to your questions and am prepared to offer some answers. I won't answer all of them, but I will answer some.
1. I don't "conflate" health insurance with health care. I think health insurance is a stupid idea. People should prosper and grow wealthy making useful, good things, not turning sick people away from doctors. The whole problem is that we do not HAVE a health care system.

2. When the poor receive treatment it is usually paid for by a mix of government funds, charity, and people who pay health insurance premiums. This is a stupid way to care for the poor, and everyone knows it.

3. There's no stark difference between the government and my "fellow man." In this country, the government is responsible to the people. Charity does wonders, and people can be very generous, of course, but it doesn't do enough.

5. Government is indeed involved in health care. But it's not involved enough.

We need to stop looking at health care as a COMMODITY. It is not a commodity. It is a necessary precondition to participation in the free market, like education. So, like education, it should be affordable to all, if not free.

To do this, we'd have to pay more taxes, no question. We'd also be FREE, however, of fearing that a catastrophic medical emergency will cost us our house, family business, or children's college education.

The way we do things now is STUPID. It doesn't work; it makes a bunch of fat cats rich, and the rest of us have to try to live with it. Well, I say to hell with it.

Charles Stevens| 2.26.10 @ 9:28PM

The peculiar lack of logic evidenced by Democrats during the healthcare summit is not so peculiar. Like all progressives, they are steeped (or possibly marinated) in semantic games and postmodernist narratives. A good example is their incessant fallback to tear-jerking anecdotes... they cherry-pick a symptom, mistake it for a cause, and declare a crisis.

On a larger scale, the whole premise of this summit was faulty. Obama and the progressives predicated their approach on their definition of bipartisanship: Move to the right side of the ship while it's still steering hard left.

Jim O'Brien| 2.27.10 @ 2:51AM

The Obama plan (which seems to change every hour) would force an estimated 20 million more Americans into Medicaid or some form of government insurance. How?

The feds would further dictate: 1) coverage of those with pre-existing conditions; 2) deductibles; 3) co-pays; and 4) coverage in general. Result? Premiums skyrocket and some insurers exit the business altogether. The Obama plan includes new taxes on medical providers, including drug companies, medical device manufacturers, hospitals, and doctors. Result? The cost of medicine goes up. Obama would also collect new taxes on employer-sponsored plans. Result? The cost of insurance goes up.

The Obama plan is designed to make more people resort to Medicaid, and be in favor of government-run medicine. Government (federal, state, local) is already involved in 50% of medicine in the U.S.

More government is not the solution. Government is the problem. We have the best medical care in the world as a result of free enterprise, and despite the government's meddling. What we need is more freedom of choice.

Tenn Slim| 2.27.10 @ 7:05AM

Opine
The OBNA Leftist base, Oval office sofa sitters, simply laid out the Summit agenda, and the OBNA folks followed thier script.
bt
Understanding how the system actually works is a true jigsaw puzzle. Eye glazing, for sure. More Commissions,? no. More Logistics Analysis, YES? In order to effectively solve the "problem", take one and only one part. Examine it as a Methods Analysis Ops Research effort. Do the same, as if we were following the Leftist Dots on Discover the Networks site. Anyone with a ounce of sense, knows you cannot take the whole pie and understanding the innards. Your MUST go to the basic recipe, of each and every ounce of detail. Truly an ornerous job, not one to be trusted to Leftists. We already know that they cannot find thier bu.. with both hands.
end
Semper FI

Susan Eno| 2.27.10 @ 10:39AM

The author obviously doesn't live in Massachusetts. I do and I just got our new insurance rates to starat April 1st. Our high deductible plan is going up up from $1204.28 per month to $1797.28 or $14451 per year to $21567 per year for our family. We changed to this plan several years ago because the HMO type plans went up too much now this is too expensive also. At about $21000 per year it's almost reasonable to self-insure (go without) and take chances that nothing really serious happens. We pay $2500 deductible per event before this insurnace kicks in. That means if I got run over by a drunk driver the first $2500 cost is my responsiblity. All drug costs are paid out of pocket and on and on. Of course we don't contribute to the health savings account part of this deal because with monthly costs as high as this there is nothing left. After 3 years of 99% of people covered by insurance in our state this is how much the prices have gone up. All the people across the country who think that universal coverage will make everything more affordable think again. And high deductible catastrophic policies - again not affordable the new rates from Massachsetts as of April 1st prove otherwise.

Larry| 2.27.10 @ 3:13PM

I think the country has, for the first time in its history, run into one of the more intractable problems it has encountered (Susan's e-mail above reminds me of that). I've scolded everyone from health benefits executives to insurance company representatives for years that the health care industry was headed for something like the chaos presented by the Obamacare legislation. People would get so fed up with things that universal or national health insurance would begin to sound palatable. The truth is, it is not, but because the system is so structurally unsound in many respects it can appear that way.

But I don't pretend to have a solution. Nothing appears to work very well. I think the first thing we must abandon is our own welfare state mentality, and then rethink this issue in terms of (1) how our technology has affected the problem; (2) how extended life spans affect the health care system; (3) how the changes in our expectations and our social arrangements have contributed to the problem.

I still blame Medicare/Medicaid in some measure for the spiraling of health care costs. I know it is not the only reason, but it has created certain expectations in the minds of the public, the medical community, and the administrative types in both government and the private sector about how health care should be provided and paid for. We have to think of how it should be paid for in a new way. I wish I knew how. But I still think the Republican proposals are for the interim better measures. People have to quit thinking that there is one grand solution to this problem. There isn't. Life's hard; life's a bitch and then you die. It may sound harsh, but until we steel ourselves to that reality no solution will work for anyone.

Lord Karth| 3.1.10 @ 12:05AM

Real "health care reform" begins by acknowledging one basic fact:

Everybody dies.

Jack| 2.27.10 @ 9:07PM

When in doubt, always employ forced association ....the alternative is very scary to those who are psychologically/intellectually dependent on gov't: free association among free individuals.

Northern Rebel| 2.28.10 @ 12:53PM

Liberal Reader:

Did you get an erection saying we must raise taxes? Did you say there is no difference between government, and "fellow man", which I take it you mean American citizens?

WOW!

Conservative America's goal, is to keep people like you, as far away from political power as possible.

The government runs the post office so well, let's give them 17% of the GDP! If UPS or Federal express was allowed to deliver mail. the USPS would be out of business in a month.

If we could get the government control they already have out of healthcare, or health insurance, prices would drop dramatically. We would be able to compete across state lines, and reduced the ambulance chaser's influence on premiums. Americans are notorius for shopping for the best price.

The present system gives people the impression that someone else is paying for their health care. Being put back in charge of their care, will change the nature of the way insurance is purchased.

We don't have to raise taxes, Mr. Liberal Reader. In the nineties, with a republican congress thwarting Clinton's socialist economic policies, we grew our way out of a deficit, and set records for tax revenue.

If you get gummint out of the way, American Know-how will triumph without a nanny state looking over our shoulder.

If you're looking for a babysitter, move to NYC, where the mayor tells you where and when you can smoke, whether you can consume trans-fats, salt, or sugar.

If government gets it's hands on our healthcare system, everything we do will instantly become a "health issue". We will be told what where , and when to do EVERYTHING! What you drive, what you eat, where you live, what kind of lightbulbs, WHAT KIND OF TOILETS, will become a "health issue".

That is Mr. Liberal Reader's perfect world.

That's the way the "elite intelligensia" like Mr. Liberal Reader wants it. He figures to be part of the proletariat and not be subject to the same things he demands of the"great unwashed".

Our founders created America for Americans. If you don't want to be an American, go where the socialists are, don't try to turn America into Switzerland, Mr. Liberal Reader!

Liberal Reader| 2.28.10 @ 4:30PM

Free market health care approaches are plentiful in the world. Indeed, most countries in Africa and S. America have them. If you have enough money, you can see a doctor. If not, too bad. No taxation is required for these services, since none are guaranteed by the government.

You'll notice that no wealthy democracies are among those nations who choose the free market route. I wonder why that is.

Could it be that when nations become wealthy they decide to purchase with that wealth a basic level of well being for their citizens? Impossible!

We've spent TWO TRILLION dollars on the Iraq War alone. The notion that we can't afford health care for all American citizens is absurd. It's a LIE.

Modest taxation would be required, of course, and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

The difference these days between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives try to convince you they can spend money while cutting your taxes and liberals don't. Take your pick.

In the end, a society in which the wealthy help pay for the poor, the healthy for the sick, and the young for the old is more sane, more just, more productive, and YES, more FREE, because its people can turn their minds from fretting about something as basic and necessary as seeing a doctor to other concerns.

Margie| 2.28.10 @ 6:45PM

"The difference these days between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives try to convince you they can spend money while cutting your taxes and liberals don't. Take your pick."
~LIE. But what else is new? Conservatives tell you that you need to cut spending while lowering taxes.

"In the end, a society in which the wealthy help pay for the poor, the healthy for the sick, and the young for the old is more sane, more just, more productive,"
~The government doesn't get to dictate what I or any American citizen does with our own money. Dream on about your Socialist Utopian fantasy. By God's Mercy and Grace it will never happen.

"Besides this you know what hour it is, how it is full time now for you to wake from sleep." Rmns. 13:11.

Well, we are waking from sleep! No more voting Democrat. The Party of Big Government Socialism.

Margie| 2.28.10 @ 6:50PM

This one should work~
http://www.pjtv.com/video/Klav.....ypes/3155/

Liberal Reader| 2.28.10 @ 7:11PM

Margie --

Republicans for the past decade spent off the books like drunken sailors, all the while doling out a trillion dollars in tax cuts -- mostly to the wealthiest .05% of Americans. The systematically refused to pay for their spending. Medicare Advantage, the Bush tax cuts, and all war spending were not paid for by the Republicans.

Democrats will, in fact, ask the country to pay for the government's spending once the recession is over. That won't be popular, and Glenn Beck's face will explode, and the Tea Parties will honk and bray, but that's the way it's done.

There are, of course, debates to be had about sensible levels of spending. But I don't think you can honestly say Republicans partake in those debates in good faith.

As to the government being able to "dictate" what you do with your own money, you're not correct about that either.

There has NEVER been a time in the history of our Republic that the government has not taxed people. The fact of the matter is no one is entitled to 100% of what they earn.

You may not like that, and again, you may join the Tea Party in bawling and wailing about this simple fact of life, but there it is. It is not true that you are entitled to all of your own money.

Again, there are good debates to be had about how much the government ought to tax. I doubt Democrats like taxes as much as you probably believe they do, and I would bet every DIME I have in the bank their tax policies ultimately benefit you and everyone to whom you are related by blood more than Republicans do, but I don't know for sure. Again, there are debates to be had about the LEVELS of taxation the government OUGHT to ask, but there is just no question about the legitimacy of taxation.

victor| 2.28.10 @ 10:02PM

Simple reader:
"There has NEVER been a time in the history of our Republic that the government has not taxed people."

The first income tax was during the civil war, 1861, 72 years after the founding, repealed in 1872. Until then federal taxes were tariffs and surcharges on imported goods.
The next one came in 1894 and ruled unconstitutional in 1895, but that did not stop you buck grabbers. The income tax was imposed in 1916 and was only supposed to apply to 1% of 3000, but was jacked up by the dems to 77% to pay for WWI.
Even the self-sainted and thankfully departed FDR tried to tax 100% after 25000 in the 1940's.

The tax code has been used to rape the achievers and reward the featherbedders.

When the truly sainted Ronald Reagan dropped the rates from 70% down to 28% the revenues increased from 550Billion to 950Billion.
It's too bad that that dems owned the House, and therefore the purse strings, we would not have had the deficits we had in the 1980's.

You need to read your history books, mr. reader and not your Dear Leader's propaganda.

BTW what do you think is a fair proprtion of your salary that should go to Charlie Wrangel and Bawney Fwank, eh?

victor| 2.28.10 @ 10:06PM

Simple Reader:
"Republicans for the past decade spent off the books like drunken sailors,"

You obviously have never served in the military, much less than the Navy, as you would know that "drunken" sailors spend their own money, not yours.

"all the while doling out a trillion dollars in tax cuts -- mostly to the wealthiest .05% of Americans."

The top 1%, $328,000, account for 34% of the Federal Income Taxes, while the Bottom 50%, 45,000, account for a whopping 2.7%.
The so-called tax cuts were a reduction in the rates and not a giveaway as you characterize them.
Anyone who paid taxes got a reduction.
I'm sure you are unaware that 45% of taxpayers do not pay income taxes.

How do you give those non-taxpaying taxpayes a tax reduction or refund, unless it is a "welfare" check?

"As to the government being able to "dictate" what you do with your own money, you're not correct about that either."

Where is the authority to mandate that we buy any product or service?

Margie| 2.28.10 @ 6:48PM

What Liberals Believe:
http://www.pjtv.com/video/Klav.....ypes/3155/

victor| 2.28.10 @ 10:25PM

Simple reader:
"We've spent TWO TRILLION dollars on the Iraq War alone.

Reliable sources, including Brookings, Sean Penn and the Kossack Kids have estimated 600-900 Billion.

"It's a LIE."

That's what I said, glad you agree.

maynard thomson| 2.28.10 @ 3:08PM

Mr. Tucker errs in a significant detail, when he says:

"Corporate benefit plans, on the other hand, are all exempt from state regulations under the Employees Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which pre-empts state regulation."

The implication is that all but individual plans (6% of the total) are immune from expensive state mandates--so why worry about state mandates.

Not so. In Metropolitan Life. V. Mass., the S. Ct. held that ERISA did not pre-empt state insurance mandates, whether bought by corporations, or individuals. What is pre-empted, not by ERISA but by federal labor law, are benefits provided by self-insured employers under a collective bargaining agreement.

This is important, because state mandates are a huge impediment to reducing insurance costs, and ought to be taken out, either by state action, or federal pre-emption.

DaveinPhoenix| 2.28.10 @ 5:06PM

"Could it be that when nations become wealthy they decide to purchase with that wealth a basic level of well being for their citizens? Impossible!"

--Is a nation which is $50 trillion+ in debt (including SS, Medicare, Medicaid) considered wealthy ?

Liberal Reader| 2.28.10 @ 7:18PM

Dave --

I'm sure the news has reached people even in Phoenix. The United States of America is wealthy. It is very wealthy. It has a high debt, to be sure, but it's credit rating is perfect.

Remember, the government's budget is NOT like a family's budget. This is one of the oddest and least helpful analogies propounded in our political discourse.

In hard economic times, wise families penny pinch and save. But it is for this very reason that in hard times government spends. In addition, there are many things that need to get done that the free market cannot deliver well; those things are done by the government. This is not to say the debt is not a problem. But it's not the problem hysterics on the right make it out to be (when the Republicans aren't in power and giving away the store in wild frat-boy style spending sprees).

victor| 2.28.10 @ 10:09PM

Hairy Reider:
"Remember, the government's budget is NOT like a family's budget."

The only difference is that when the family goes into the Red, they cannot print more money as Reid, Pelosi and Obama can and do.

Keynesian Economics is the second great hoax or delusion after darwinism and just before global warming.

Liberal Reader| 2.28.10 @ 10:19PM

Victor --

So, you don't believe in evolution. You don't believe that governments should stimulate the economy during recessions.

Tell me. Do you believe men landed on the moon in 1969, or do you think that was a hoax?

Do you believe that the speed of a falling object increases as it gets closer to earth because of gravity or because the spirit in the object becomes increasingly overjoyed by its approach?

Margie| 2.28.10 @ 10:48PM

Wow, Liberal Reader. My husband just got done spending a decent amount of time presenting you with historical fact, and this is what you must resort to. Perhaps you might want to include a helping of Toddard with that and accuse him of being a mentally retarded adult pretending to be a child with a black, hateful heart?
You certainly rank up there with the best of the Leftists, such as Obama, Alynski, and Axelrod in your slick tactic of trying to present your opposition as a whacko.
What about the EXCELLENT FACTS that he provided you with?
Wow, what a way of life you choose. I guess you are proud.

Fascist| 3.1.10 @ 6:34PM

Some words from Hitler:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the *Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

* You may replace it with: leftist thoughts.

P.S.: We also think black is hateful!

Liberal Reader| 3.1.10 @ 1:06AM

I only post the talking points I have been provided with by KOS. My income as well as my opinion comes from them. To understand my position please read.
http://weeklystandard.com/blog.....ego-castro

mili8951| 5.10.10 @ 2:30AM

http://www.edhardycawholesale.com/

سوريا| 6.25.11 @ 1:40AM

vvvvv

Air Jordans| 8.14.11 @ 10:55PM

is good