• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Baucus Calls HC Bill Wealth Redistribution

Danube

Banned
Dec 10, 2009
613
0
0

Max Baucus recently declared the "health-care bill" to be "an income shift, it is a shift, a leveling to help lower income middle income Americans." Baucus continued "too often, much of late, the last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY4Qbv7gPbo&feature=player_embedded#

Also - looks like a 3.8 gains tax on home sales was slipped in the new bill and people don't really know about it yet . If a person buys a more expensive home they can escape it.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
27,849
13,672
136
Acutally the largest example of wealth redistribution was the bank bailouts. All the money from the middle class to the richest.
 

dammitgibs

Senior member
Jan 31, 2009
477
0
0
I'm a lower-income middle American and I see no way in which this will help me. Maybe he's talking about those who simply live off the government?
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
I'm a lower-income middle American and I see no way in which this will help me. Maybe he's talking about those who simply live off the government?
Exactly. They keep saying that this helps the middle class, but it really doesn't.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
27,849
13,672
136
Part of what HCR will do is get the true cost of care "on the books"

Remember the Bush administration was keeping the cost of the Iraq war off the books. When Obama got into office he put it back on(one of the reasons the defecit went up).

All the people who are obtaining routine care in emergemcy rooms which is very inefficent and expensive. It adds to heath care costs which everyone winds up paying. It would be better for everyone to get these people in the system.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
Part of what HCR will do is get the true cost of care "on the books"

Remember the Bush administration was keeping the cost of the Iraq war off the books. When Obama got into office he put it back on(one of the reasons the defecit went up).

All the people who are obtaining routine care in emergemcy rooms which is very inefficent and expensive. It adds to heath care costs which everyone winds up paying. It would be better for everyone to get these people in the system.
You guys are so stupid with that argument.

The cost of the wars was ALWAYS included in deficits. It was just not included in the regular budgeting process. Instead the wars were paid for via separate bills. It was nothing more than an accounting trick by Bush.

What Obama did by putting war spending back on budget had NOTHING to do with the raising deficit. The deficit is going through the roof because of falling tax revenue and runaway growth in spending.
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
Part of what HCR will do is get the true cost of care "on the books"

asdf

All the people who are obtaining routine care in emergemcy rooms which is very inefficent and expensive. It adds to heath care costs which everyone winds up paying. It would be better for everyone to get these people in the system.
Hardly (the "on the books/off the books thing." I agree it would be better to get non-payers in the system - somehow.)

This bill shifts a large part of the cost increase off of the government's balance sheet (compared to a single payer system or some other options on the table) and into the privately charged premiums. That way when health care gets more expensive, the increased costs won't be going to the government (for the most part) and nobody will be able to claim that (the largest part of) the increased cost is "taxes". Never mind that this makes the insurance companies more and more like franchisees of the federal government (like the banks, state, and local governments are already).

Not to mention this bill doesn't actually extend coverage to anyone who isn't eligible for a subsidy (which is a large number of the uninsured). All it does is fine them.

It's not socialism, and it's not quite the old fashioned state oligopoly erected by dictators of old. (Which is why all the screaming of "socialist", "Nazi", "communist" all ring hollow.) It's a new hybrid political/economic model that takes the worst of both worlds. And no, I'm not making a partisan accusation here. Bush and Obama are horses of different colors, but they're running legs of the same relay race.
 
Last edited:

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
Remember the Bush administration was keeping the cost of the Iraq war off the books. When Obama got into office he put it back on(one of the reasons the defecit went up).
How many times does this bull have to be debunked? The Iraq/Afghanistan spending has always been figured into the deficit. It was just funded outside the 'regular' graft, I mean, funding process as emergency spending. Obama's record deficits are orders of magnitude larger than anything the world has ever seen before.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Acutally the largest example of wealth redistribution was the bank bailouts. All the money from the middle class to the richest.
TARP funds have been or are being repaid. So when are the poor going to reimburse the rich for healthcare? Does the new HC bill mandate that?

TARP was essentially a loan so trying to claim it was some sort of redistribution is disingenious at best and misleading BS at the worst.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,625
5,920
126
defense contracts are wealth redistribution. social security is an intergenerational wealth transfer from workers to retirees (and by dollar sums from the less wealthy to the more wealthy). the establishment of property rights is a wealth transfer.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,340
14,563
136
Your first mistake, Danube, is in calling it "wealth redistibution" when it's nothing of the sort. It's "income redistribution"- related, but not the same.

Pre-Reagan, income was redistributed by federal income taxes that were actually progressive, and by the very act of capitalists hiring american workers. Since then, serial taxcuts, particularly at the top, combined with offshoring have served to "redistribute" income to the tippy-top. Financial "innovations" and the legitimization of previously banned financial flimflams have also served the same ends.

Actual "wealth redistribution" has also been considerably diminished by modifications to estate taxes, as well. The whole "death tax" rigamarole, remember? As if anybody cares about taxes after they're dead...
 

nyker96

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2005
5,630
2
81
Acutally the largest example of wealth redistribution was the bank bailouts. All the money from the middle class to the richest.
I think I can understand why people here are upset with the HCR. In many ways it's raising the national debt by a large margin. I have to say, its timing is unfortunate. For the earlier gentleman who asked how this can help. I think for one thing it let's you choose your own health insurer and this same insurer can carry over even if you change job or stop working for while. You get more choices through competition and lowered premium through open competition.

Another thing I can see that might be helpful is insurer by 2011 is required to spend 80%+ on actual medical cost instead of administrative costs. I think many currently spend like 65% or so. This streamlining means you can save a bit on premiums.

A third advantage which I personally think is minor is that there will be no lifetime coverage cap on your policy. It might be very beneficial if you suffer from lots of chronic illnesses that drains your coverage funds quickly.

of course like all things in life there is a few down sides. first, you will be forced to buy insurance by 2013 or suffer from a penalty calculated based on your yearly income. If you are someone who elects not to get insurance, this will take your choice away. Another problem I is that if you are one of lucky individual who enjoys top of the line insurance yearly, these high cost employer provided policies (I believe 10k+/year/person policies) will get a 40% luxury tax which probably means you will have to shoulder some of that extra cost.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
141
116
What's wrong with wealth redistribution?

That's how most people at the top made their money.
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
You take from the productive and give the fruits of their labor to the parasites.
Hey! Stop talking about people who don't create wealth as if they don't contribute anything to the economy. :mad:
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
141
116
You take from the productive and give the fruits of their labor to the parasites.
You take from the executive in the office and give to the "parasite" that works on the factory floor?

Sounds good to me.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
What's wrong with wealth redistribution?

That's how most people at the top made their money.
Many people at the top actually create jobs and new opportunites and provide a service and/or product that others want. How many people did Bill Gates make filthy rich or even moderately well off either directly or indirectly. Many in this very forum, maybe even you, have benefitted greatly from one of the richest men in the world.

What do the poor who can't afford health insurance give us? Guilt reduction? A halt to the whining? A pat on the back to congratulate us on how benificent we haves are?

I know this. HCR doesn't make wealth it only gobbles it. In the years to come, when we finally have to begin paying the piper for this decision, it's not going to be pretty. It all sounds great now but there's a reason this is being phased in slowly. It's because the lawmakers involved right now can move on and wash their hands of it and force someone else to clean the mess up in the future. When this feel-good legislation begins to impact everyone's pocketbook, and it will, it won't feel so good. Just wait and see.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY