Six different login services available
No Facebook account… no problem.
Readers can now use their logins from six different vendors to leave comments on the TranscriptConnected blogs. Services include Facebook, Twitter, Google, Yahoo, AOL and OpenID.
We are still working the kinks out of the system with our staff blogs, but hope to begin offering blogs from community members soon.
Thanks for reading.
Powered by FireStats
dear john
I agree with Jefferson that no nation can be both ignorant and free, and fortunately, your ignorance on the subject of health care can be easily cured. The state of Florida expects an additional 1 BILLION a year in medicaid costs, not TRILLION–you should know the difference by now. The Lewin Group, which has been widely cited by Republicans in opposition to the health plan, has a comprehensive analysis (feb. 2010) of the financial impact on states. They expect states to see a net SAVINGS! OF $98 BILLION over the next ten years for states under the Senate plan due to reductions in safety net progams that provide funding to providers such as free clinics and public hospitals. This savings includes the added cost of more Medicaid enrollees and insuring state and local employees currently uninsured. Perhaps you are unaware that the unisured typcially get their health care at emergency rooms or other facilities on the taxpayer’s dime(whether we like it or not), which is the primary reason that individuals are being required to foot their own health bill (with generous subsidies for those who can’t afford it).
The Mass. bill signed into law by Mitt Romney has survived all legal challenges to date, and public opinion polls consistently show majority support for forcing individuals to purchase insurance, ranging from 50 to 70 percent(depending on whether subsidies are mentioned). A feb. Newsweek poll found 59 percent in support and 39 opposed. Whether this is constitutional or not is up to the courts, but it has been passed into law by a duly elected majority in the House and Senate, and signed into law by the President of the Untied States of America.
as for the corporate whining over the loss of their tax subsidy for prescription drugs, please refer to a post on MediaMatters American. The loss of the exemption is nothing more than reducing corporate welfare that is subsidized by the American public. In the 2003 Medicare prescription drug program, companies received a 28 percent subsidy for providing drugs to senior, a subsidy that was exempted from their income. However, that subsidy was also allowed to be deducted from their income for tax purposes, a double subsidy paid for by American taxpayers. The new law allows them to continue to exempt the subsidy as taxable income, but discontinues the practice of deducting the subsidy from their income. As Donald Marron, Acting CBO Director under P. Bush noted, “As the Joint Committee on Taxation recently noted, that treatment is highly unusual. In my view, its right that the recent legislation closed that loophole.”
As for the polls on public support for the health care plan, note that the Gallup poll (the day after the vote) found 49 percent thought it a good idea, and 40 percent a bad one, while a Rasmussen poll found 55 percent in favor of repeal. The difference is that Gallup polls all adults while Rasmussen polls only likely voters (just 58 percent voted in the 2008 election). If you are among the 42 percent who choose not to vote, then Rasmussen does not care how you feel about critical issues affecting the county. This gives a biased view of public opinion, especially considering that the population that doesn’t vote is most likely to benefit from the health care plan (just 5 percent of African-American youth voted in the 2008 election).
as for your griping about tax subsidies for affordable computers, autos, education and other luxury items, please note that the state of Oklahoma subsidizes about 70 percent of college education costs, while the federal government spends billions on student loans and grants. The provision in the health bill that provides for direct lending to students by the government will save an estimated $68 BILLION over the next ten years (CB0) by eliminating the corporate welfare given to large banks to make the guaranteed loans.
You might also want to know that (according to John McCain), you can save $3.6 trillion dollars over the next 10 years by eliminating the tax deductions for employer based health insurance, which affects 72 percent of the insured. That huge tax subsidy insulates both employees and employors from much of the market price signals sent by higher insurance premiums, and interferes with the free market. Individuals who purchase insurance outside of employment don’t get that tax subsidy, and pay much higher costs for their insurance. Nobody subsidizes my rent, my food, my computer, or my car insurance, and there is simply no justification for continuing to subsidize insurance (including for abortion), for a part of the population.
Another good source for you is the Tax Foundation’s report on total federal taxes paid by states and federal spending received. Oklahoma gets $8 billion more in spending than we pay in taxes while Palin’s Alaska pockets nearly 2 dollars in spending for every dollar of taxes. McCain’s Arizona gets 8.6 billion more, and Virginia leads the pack with $35 billion more in spending than they pay in taxes. In fact, of the 30 states that have a net benefit, just two of them (Hawaii and Penn.) voted for Bush in the 2004 election. Of the 20 states that paid more in taxes than they received in spending, only Texas and Florida (barely) paid more than they received. California paid $47.6 billion more than they received, Obama’s home state of ill. paid $19 billion more, NY $24 billion and NJ $26.5. Federal spending rose $1 trillion a year between 2000 and 2007 under Republican control as they handed out the pork, while taxes were cut to 14.8 percent of GDP in 2009, the lowest level since 1949, when Harry Truman was president, resulting in Banana Republic deficits and an economic catastrophe.
By the way, never forget that Jefferson’s rights applied to white adult males owning property, and that he was having sex with his slaves. The past is not as admirable as some would believe.