Get ready for health care tax-apalooza
Photoshop: Reader Rachael in Ky
The Democrats are preparing for their Big Reveal on how to pay for their trillion-dollar government takeover of health care.
Gird your loins and say goodbye to your wallets:
By the end of this week, House Democrats may have answered the biggest question looming in the healthcare debate – how they plan to pay for their overhaul.
Leadership aides say they will introduce a bill by Thursday or Friday, in preparation for votes in committee next week. And that bill, they say, will include a way to pay for the bill…
…Leadership aides stress that no final decision has been made on how to pay the tab. The Democrats on Rangel’s committee will hold a marathon meeting all day Tuesday where healthcare and the “pay-for,” as it’s called, are sure to come up.
A large portion is expected to come from reductions in Medicare and Medicaid. But that won’t pay for the full overhaul. As for raising money, ideas have included a national sales tax, taxing soda and a “surtax” on people making more than $250,000.
In addition to that, House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.), Caucus Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) and Vice-chair Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) will hold six “listening sessions” that break rank-and-file members out by region. The three leaders will take concerns and ideas from the sessions’ members back to the leadership in preparation for markup next week.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Tort Reform « NEOAVATARA
- The Top and Bottom 10 States for Overall Freedoms « Jim Blazsik
- How the democrats are planning on paying for socialized healthcare: a national sales tax, taxing soda and a “surtax” on people making over $250,000. | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
- Gird Your Loins, Indeed « The Recreant Right
- Obama Job Approval Tanking: 52% in Rassmussen, Below 50% in Ohio « DONE (Democrats Over Nominating Elitists)
- Cap-and-Trade Energy Tax Bill… We’re in the Middle of Pretending to Save the Planet, Baby « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- The Obama Big Lie and Inconvenient Truth About Health Care–The Public Option Trojan Horse–Leads To A Single Payor Goverment Monopoly of Health Care and The Bankruptcy of USA! « Pronk Palisades
- Journalist Doing His Job: Jake Tapper Challenges Obama on Socialized Health Care (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Ronald Reagan’s Clarity… “The Gipper” Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Suspicious: WH Says “Obama’s Rhetoric Shouldn’t Be Taken Literally” Concerning Promise That Americans Can Keep Their Private Health Insurance « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Jeremiah Films
- Michelle Malkin » Tax-maniacs backing off health benefits?
- The Obama Big Lie and Inconvenient Truth About Health Care–The Public Option Trojan Horse–Leads To A Single Payor Goverment Monopoly of Health Care and The Bankruptcy of USA! « Pronk Palisades
- Those Silly Dems: House Democrats Release Health Bill, Without Costs for Taxpayers « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Applause: Contacting Senators about Cap-and-Trade Travesty Paying Off: Global Warming Hoax Tax Vote Put on Hold « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Applause: Contacting Senators about Cap-and-Trade Travesty Paying Off: Global Warming Hoax Tax Vote Put on Hold « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Michelle Malkin » Health care tax-apalooza: It’s here!
- Op-Ed Cartoons: Al Gore’s Global Warming Scam « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Section 304: Global Warming Bill Tyranny in Your Home « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Cap and Trade Shocker: Will Americans Be Forced by Commerce Sec. Gary Locke & Democrats to Pay for China’s Global Warming Emissions? « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Sen. Jim Inhofe Asks the $64,000 Question: Why Are We Debating This Meaningless Climate Bill? (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Rasmussen Report: American Majority, 72%, Against Obama Controlling Their Light Bulbs « Frugal Café Blog Zone
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Health care
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
TigerHawk
» Negative equityAmerican Thinker
» Sarah Palin and the low ebb of the cultural leftRedstate
» Morning Briefing for November 24, 2009Doug Ross @ Journal
» ACORN pwnage part II: Breitbart's BigGovt Lowers the BoomBig Government
» BREAKING: San Diego ACORN Document Dump ScandalVillainous Company
» Amateur Hour in the Oval Office Continues....
By the way, that surtax is 4% for anyone making over $250K.
Translation: income redistribution. Again.
Because you know, it’s only “fair”.
And it won’t be covered under obamacare. And it won’t be deductible on your tax return.
Michelle did not like my first comment. he he.
Fact is everyone will pay more in the end and get less health care.
Thank you all the idiots that voted for Odopey! no really, thanks. dumba$$es
Guess what industry will get a government bailout when people stop drinking as much soda.
It’s like cutting off the top part of the blanket & then sewing it to the bottom, and expecting the blanket to be warmer.
With an aging population and expansion of the S-CHIP program, how do you suppose they are going to manage this?
Just what the heck does “cuts in medicare” mean for us “seniors”? I have a feeling we are not going to like it.
don’t worry, obama will take care of the useless eaters..
capiche???
I’ve got a feeling this will not get too far. People are starting to get concerned about deficit spending and the fact that unemployment is still rising. I think they’ll manage to get at least one more bill through before people start calling for heads to roll. I just don’t know which one it will be. Cap & trade, stimulus 3, or Obamacare.
Isn’t it odd that free health care for all costs so much.
And how about that citizenship requirement? Oops there isn’t any. I guess illegals ride free again.
Meanwhile, back in reality the unemployment time bomb keeps ticking, with no end in sight.
What I get a kick out of is the fact that these meetings have been closed door.
This, the Congress of transparency and honesty. The days of corruption are gone, long live Constitution circumventing Obama and his cronies.
Obama tends to exaggerate just a tad. The surtax will be on anyone making over $25 per year.
At some point, enough US taxpayers will break out the torches and pitchforks to make a real difference. Until then, buy some K-Y and some Tylenol (before the federalies take it away), because Obama’s plans for us are going to hurt.
They aren’t the only ones to give the credit to for all of what we are going to be forced onto all of us.
All in the name of the single issue of illegal immigration.
Hope this whole ‘We need a 1976 to get a 1980′ works out as planned. And what’s the plan if Obama gets a reelected? I’m dying to know. No, really.
We Can’t Afford It…
The simple phrase to repeat to your friends and neighbors when talking about CRAP & RAID or OBAMACARE.
Either one is an economy killer…and people are worried about our economy.
Well hold on to your hat because we are going to get BOTH.
I have mixed feelings about that.
One thing I fear is that we won’t, THE ONE will recalibrate to a much more moderate version of hissef, and we will never hit the tipping point that I think is coming.
THE ONE would be much more dangerous if he realizes OPERATION OVER-REACH is working so well, and became more careful.
Yeah, it’s a lot better to blame a couple of thousand people who didn’t vote for McCain than the 62 million who voted for Obama.
***
Here is the ROCKETMAN guess on how this will be done.
***
Thursday night–President Obama (PBUH) goes on Obama News Channels and tells us how we have to “get this through” right now to save our medical system.
***
Friday night–2000 page bill put on the podium.
***
Saturday–1 hour debate on how this will “help out the little guy”.
***
Sunday night–1000 pages of “amendments” (aka payoffs and earmarks) added to bill.
***
Monday morning–passes by 10 votes after those representatives needing “political cover” are allowed to vote no by SanFranNan.
***
Where have I seen this “Deja Vu all over again” plan? It’s getting pretty familiar to me.
***
Expect a 1 Trillion VAT tax to pay for this C**P–or a 5 percent tax “surcharge” on anyone actually paying taxes. I remember a tax surcharge long ago–on everyone.
***
John Bibb
***
I said they weren’t the only ones. Seems that I’m correct in my guess that some here suffer from their own guilty conciseness.
Ok lets first get it out there that I do not like this proposed tax on the rich at “250,000″. Why is that considered “rich”? That is such baloney I don’t think you can define “rich” particularly at that small amount because some areas of the country have a higher cost of living than others. Perhaps if you lived in a low cost of living area 250K would seem “rich” but what about someplace like San Francisco, Boston or NYC, that is not not going to mean that family is “rich”. They maybe be comfortable but that is not “rich”.
I do not promote the concept of wealth redistribution which is what this is. But I might be able to not laugh out loud at first blush if “rich” was defined by a higher amount. Seriously people think that 250K is so big but between my husband and myself in a high cost of living area we are not all that far off from that 250K mark and it is scary because we live within our means if we hit 250k that just means we will be comfortable but not rich. We will still need to drive our cars 10 years or longer before a new one but we will be able to save at a higher rate. But that doesn’t make us “rich” we will still need to watch finances and be concerned about helping our future children with college expenses, helping our parents with health expenses, and of course planning for our own retirement and health expenses.
For some reason the concept of “rich” is hard for me to define. If I was able to accumulate a worth of 20 million (in the bank and securities and assets) would I be “rich”? Maybe if that meant I could live off the interest that those assets provided yearly, but I wouldn’t want to define “rich” as 20 million because if I am able to work that hard to accumulate that value why can’t I spend it as I see fit, and support those charities etc that I want to, rather than have the government spend it? That is the key point I want to have the lofty goal of achieving that much wealth and then doing what I want with it, and if I support defining what rich is then I am limiting my own possibilities. I cannot define “rich” but I can sure tell you that 250k is not it.
You and a couple of others have been wailing the same song for months. And there’s nothing wrong with my conscience. I bit the bullet and voted for McCain.
I say legalize pot and tax the crap out of it, with the money going toward this misguided plan to nationalize health care.
That way the majority of people on government paid health care will actually be paying for it, in a roundabout way.
Of course then the producers in the economy would just have their money ripped away to pay for twinkies for the poor, disadvantaged pot smokers who can’t afford their munchies habit.
If you voted for McShamnesty then there’s no reason to get upset with my comment.
Will some enterprising reporter please ask top Dems why health care “reform” which is supposed to bring costs down and save American families thousands of dollars per year, should cost 1 or 2 trillion and demand an answer that is clear and to the point? Isn’t there the least bit of curiosity on their part in the fundamental contradiction there? Oh, yeah, Obama said something about these are only up-front costs and everything would be OK in a few years. Because govt programs have such a history of success there is no need to doubt all the imaginary savings in efficiency and cost reductions. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Yep. We KNOW that government KILLS innovation. We KNOW that government programs are IMMUNE from liability, and they will spend VAST sums on avoiding responsibility. We KNOW that government incentives are the INVERSE of market incentives. We KNOW that cost estimates of programs as proposed are ALWAYS a fraction of their ACTUAL cost as implemented.
This was NEVER about health care. It IS about POWER and CONTROL of peoples’ LIVES.
“Cuts in Medicare” is another way of saying “Sustainability,” which is a favorite method of liberals to check the population growth of others.
For example, liberals like “sustainable agriculture” in poor countries, even though what’s being sustained is hunger, poverty, misery, ill-health and early death.
“Sustainable healthcare” is going to mean that when you reach a certain age, there’s going to be an ice floe with your name on it.
Remember “Logan’s Run?” The movie in which everybody had a “sell-by date” of 30 years, after which they had to report for voluntary extermination? Hope-a-Dope and the donks may play around with the age limit, but the end result of “universal healthcare” is going to be the same: once you pass your sell-by date, the only healthcare you’re going to get is free suicide drugs.
I didn’t spend the 4th of July with my relatives this year because I knew that when my sisters would start up with their usual leftist snarky remarks, I’d have to point out that last November they voted to kill our mother.
That’s ObamaCare in a nutshell.
I think the plan it for seniors, like you and me, to die sooner.
#
I don’t get upset. I just disagree with your premise. I’ve seen no analysis of the past election that indicates that anything close to enough Republicans/conservatives sat out to affect the outcome, given that (as I recall) a record number of people went to the polls, and 20% of self-described conservatives voted for Obama. It’s no different than blaming the seven Republicans who voted for cap&trade instead of the 200 odd Democrats. The bill would have passed whether those Republicans voted for it or not. You can be mad at them for giving the Dem leadership a facade of bipartisanship and allowing a few Dems from marginal districts to avoid voting for it, but they weren’t responsible for the bill passing.
1. They will tax the crud out of everything, and then tax it some more!
2. They will ration healthcare based on age, lifestyle and income level (poor get more).
There! I just saved the idiots in D.C. all that time and effort.
And, before the ultimate ObamaCare insult, to experience more pain, disability, poverty, and dependence.
They have already reduced Medicare payments to the point where doctors and hospitals are refusing (including the Chicago hospital that employed Obamamama) Medicare patients, and the proposal on the table will reduce them even more. We’re not far from the Dutch model of involuntary euthanasia, and even closer to the European model of malign neglect. And that ain’t no joke when you’re my age.
My “premise” is that the people who voted for Obama aren’t the only ones responsible.
As time goes on, the Dems will redefine who is considered wealthy. When they are done, the “wealthy” will be anyone who is not a government dependent.
They’re already following Ann Coulter’s liberal definitions:
- If you own alarm clock, you’re “Rich.”
- If you wake up to that alarm clock, you’re “Filthy Rich.”
All that’s left is to blur the two groups above until they’re all the Filthy Rich. Then, punish accordingly.
It has always been the plan to yolk each producer to dependents.
You simply REFUSE TO BE EATEN by others.
It’s the right, humane thing to do.
And my response is that they are.
“They can kill us but they can’t eat us ’cause that’s against the law!”
4% of $250k is $10,000.
People who make $250k aren’t rich. They are normally small business owners or lawyers/doctors/dentists.
$10,000 invested for 25 years ($10k a year added) at 4% interest grows to over $450,000.
Obama and his pals are using taxes as a means to curb behavior they deem as bad, so one can only deduce that they believe wealth is bad.
It’s now a crime in this country to be successful.
Thanks Obama.
Silver-lining department:
Our Muslim-in-Chief may actually push the “eating people” meme:
Yeah, yeah – it’s that time of the month.
Deal with it.
Keep in mind that these people spending your money have no more idea of what the health care system is than you do.
People ask me what a ‘deductible’ is.
Nobody knows what ‘co insurance’ is.
I will bet that at least 25% of the congress voting on this issue don’t know how to define those two terms.
The ONLY thing that congress knows how to do is spend money. They will TELL YOU that they know what they are doing and it will be better.
THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT WORKS! HOW CAN THEY KNOW HOW TO FIX IT WHEN THEY DON’T KNOW HOW IT WORKS.
If you want to fix health care, fix the portion you control first. Find out how to make something better out of something that you already do. Fix Medicare, Fix and expand the VA.
Do that first, then come to me with ‘comprehensive health care reform’.
It’s as disingenuous as claiming to care about ‘immigration reform’ when you aren’t even interested in securing the boarder to prevent the problem.
Secure the border first. Fix Medicare and the VA first.
Then we can talk about ‘comprehensive’ anything.
And my son called me with a newsflash:
Obama was taken to the hospital today. Seems the Russian dude zipped up before Obama “disconnected” and injured his tongue.
Why are they going on a ‘listening tour’? Because they have no idea what they are doing. . . but they need to know how to sell it anyway.
I’m writing to my senator Kay Hagen and hopefully help her understand why the free market is the best solution to keeping the cost of health care low. The government throwing money at it will merely turn the US into California because we’ll have spent money we don’t have. . . and expect our kids to pick up the tab.
We need to have a video of the Obama family sitting in a nice restaurant.
Have them discussing how much nicer this dinner is than the one they used to have when they lived in a one bedroom place.
Have the waiter bring the check to Obama and have Obama push the check to Sasha and says ‘can you get this for me honey?’
That’s what they are doing with the health care system. They want something for nothing and have our kids pay for their mistakes.
check me if i’m wrong, but aren’t medicare and medicaid partial state run programs which seems to me if the federal gubmint cuts expenses in those, this mandates states to either turn people away at the e-room door or pony up more funds. hmmmmmm, california and all these blue states, are you listening? your budgets will be getting tougher under the “allah”
If Obamacare passes, health care will not be free. Instead we will all be paying for our health care twice, just like we pay for the government’s public school system.
We will pay the first time with our taxes. And then we will pay a second time when we actually need to use the service and have to pay for private services that actually work.
We have a private school system that allows us to purchase private education when the government system becomes unacceptable. Will Obama allow us to purchase private health care services? If we are not allowed to pay for private health care services or private services become no longer available, will our second payment be made with our lives?
not to mention the stay at home voters that showed McShame and the RNC just what they thought of them…that worked out quit well did it not?
All this talk about cutting costs, but not a word anywhere in the whole debate re: tort reform. I know two very good GP’s who retired early because the malpractice insurance has become absurd, and they refused to pay it. No insurance, no practice. One of these fine men treated almost half of his patients without charge because they could not pay him.
Litigation is one of the key factors for the radical rise in cost. Reasonable caps on damages are needed, and the lawyers reigned in.
For a good reason. They’re all lawyers and so are their biggest contributors.
One of my docs told me the problem lies with insurance company’s, medical assoc.’s, doctors, giverment requirements and of course the always trustworthy lawyers.
Fix those problems and see how low your private health insurance goes.
Texas is considered a model of tort reform.
It is VERY hard to carry a med-mal suit to a verdict, partly because you essentially have to have a physician testify against a quack. That is a recipe for a quack to walk, in my experience.
Check out malpractice insurance in Texas. I think you’ll find it hasn’t plummeted, as this argument would predict.
What HAS happened is that only a very few, very well-healed firms can carry med-mal litigation to a verdict.
Again, in my experience…
rags, elswhere legal firms have physicians who do not even practice but serve as “expert witnesses” in litigation – making as much as or more than they would in practice. I’ll see if I can find the article. It’s been a while since I read it.
To: Ragspierre and Swede
Here is some additional data on the benefits of tort reform in Texas.
http://athousandnations.com/2009/06/18/when-state-governments-compete-for-doctors/
Tort reform should be an obvious first step toward lowering the costs of our health care system!
But, of course, Obama has already told the AMA that he was not in favor of tort reform. The trial lawyers who paid off Obama with campaign contributions don’t want tort reform.
Exactly so. You have a very small cadre of “hired mouths” who are willing to testify, because they become pariahs in the profession. I think that is wrong. I find such experts to be inherently dubious.
Having worked in med-mal both before and after the tort reforms, I can tell you that I think the pendulum swung way too far in favor of protecting bad docs. That was certainly not the intent, but this is one of those instances of “unintended consequences”.
Prior to the med-mal reforms, I could not imagine bringing and maintaining a merit-less lawsuit. I won’t say it could not happen, but I can say I don’t see how, and I have never seen one.
Now, many meritorious suits cannot be brought, though they certainly should.
I would also note that I sue other lawyers for malpractice, which is sometimes used in court as an indictment of me, personally, by opposing counsel.
It is an unfortunate truth of professionals that we do not tend to police our professions as we should. Rather, the opposite is true.
I know this is an outre’ opinion, but I think law suits are a market response. I’d be happy to argue that, but I’m headed out the door to visit my daughter and her family.
Please remind me another day, if interested.
Remember, a 100% tax IS possible in his world!
Just sayin’
Rags (or anyone else who can answer this),
I’ll admit I don’t know much about tort reform. But I guess my thinking was always that it wouldn’t stop lawsuits, it would just limit the amount that was awarded. For example, if something happens during childbirth, and the baby and/or mother dies, the remaining family shouldn’t be awarded millions of dollars. Bad things happen, and you should get something for your suffering, but enough of these “payday” lawsuits. But it’s sounding like that’s not how it is.
War Tip – In Bamaland 150% tax is possible. We will all need to borrow money from China to pay our taxes.
Here’s a list of all your elected representatives that will actually read the bill before voting for it:
any questions?