OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid

Yes and No. A Doctor making decision for me is no better.

 

Depends on what the meaning of is "is".

 

A valid point. GWB won't have to pay the piper. Just like with Reagan,
the successor gets the joy of recognizing reality.

Like Perot says "the first thing to do when you're in a hole is to
stop digging". Bush II doesn't even understand that part, let alone
the follow on.

 

There's a hug gape between people who qualify for public assistance
(low income) and people who don't make enough to pay for their own
health insurance (middle class). In addition, the cost of insurance to
employers is out of sight.

It's clear you never had to pay for either out of your own pocket or
you might have a clue.

 

No, there are not. Those are only for people with very low incomes.
People in between low income and high income fall into a large hole.

 

Seems like you're one of the "it doesn't cost me anything, my employer
pays for it all" crowd. I bet you smile with delight when you pay $15
for an office visit that costs $60 and then don't even worry about
where the other $45 comes from. I imagine you've never had a loved one
denied care because some profit minded insurance executive didn't want
to pay for it and reduce their multi-billion $ profits.

Try being the employer/owner some time and paying the costs out of
your own pocket. You'll realize how broken the system is very quickly.

 

AH... we come to your fundamental misunderstanding about the
difference between "insurance" and "paying money to cover an
incident".

Insurance companies take in money from lots of people. They spread
risk. They pay out claims, although less than they take in. But while
they have the money in their hands, they make lots of money from
investing it.

The state takes state and federal taxpayer funds and pays for the
uninsured. No risk spreading. No investments. They just take tax
dollars and spend them. Hundreds of millions in most states.

I'd like to see them stop using my money to pay the claims. I'd also
like to see lower rates, which would be the result of removing the
profit taking insurance companies from the middle where they serve no
value added function.

But you, brainwashed by those in power, have come to believe that
somehow magical money pays for your insurance and that you are not
paying, through state and federal taxes, for the uninsured.

You get gouged by the insurance company but you don't feel it because
you work for people who feel it for you. You pay lots in taxes to
cover the other claims but you don't feel it because you never look at
the Federal or State budget at the Medi* payment lines or at the taxes
they charge you for it.

 

Not really. Marginal rate vs. effective rate.

 

He inherited the shit given to him by Clinton. Remember the destructive
and contentious change of power from "the impeached" to Bush? The
economic collapse of Clinton's last year? The deception regarding the
terrorist threat (why did Sandy Berger steal and destroy those documents?).

 

Its clear that you don't have a clue.

 

Lie. Unless you consider $50,000 per year "low income".

 

Get a clue. You might have to actually do some research. Or maybe get
your third grade teacher to help you read.

 

What a complete imbecile.

 

You ire should be directed where it belongs, to the Congress, not the
President

 

I pay $12.00 for a $75.00 office call. Part of the balance isn't paid, the
Doctor discounts it. part of the reason an office call is so expensive. The
rest of the balance is paid by the insurance company I pay premiums to.

I have never had a family member denied care for any reason, even when my
uninsured adult daughter broke her leg. What would be worse, a "profit minded
insurance executive" denying care, or a TSA style government bureaucrat denying
care because the system is bankrupt?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Speak softly and carry a loaded .45
Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

What a load of crap. Bush II has been in office for eight years. What
the economy is doing now falls fully in his lap. Fortunately only a
few brainwashed neo-con ideologues like you would even attempt to
blame it on the former President.

 

Your one line attacks show that you have no real evidence to argue
with.

 

You are not being very clear here. If you mean that someone in the
15% tax bracket pays 15% of their Adjusted Gross Income in taxes, you
are just plain wrong. If you mean that adjustments to income affect
your effective marginal rate you are essentially wrong there as well.
Adjusted Gross Income reflects losses (such as writing off a debt owed
to you), certain taxes paid (half the self employment tax) or costs
paid (e.g. tuition, health insurance premiums for self employed) or
credits given the taxpayer by the government (e.g hybrid car credit).
Also IRA contributions up to a limit. As far as I can see, these
adjustments are not affected by income. In other words, if you earn
another dollar, your AGI will go up by $1. The same is generally true
of deductions. 401K contribution deduction limits may increase
proportionally with income (not sue of that) and you may choose to
make 401K contributions based on a percentage of your income, but that
is really just a tax deferral and you could end up paying more than
your current bracket percentage on that income.

Unless you chose to contribute a portion of an additional dollar to a
tax deferred retirement account, you will pay 15% of it in taxes if
you are in the 15% bracket. In any event, you will pay much less than
15% of your net income in taxes.

 

You mean the budget surplus?

The only thing contentious that I recall is the Supreme Court halting
the recount and declaring Bush the winner. That was highly irregular.

You mean the modest recession after the greatest economic boom in US
history?

Good question, it was a pretty bizarre incident in which he destroyed
three copies of the same document but left two others untouched. "The
document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert
Richard A. Clarke, was an "after-action review" prepared in early 2000
detailing the administration's actions to thwart terrorist attacks
during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable
discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat
of attacks on U.S. soil."

Doesn't seem like much of a scandal compared to what we learned from
the 911 Commission Report. Berger was only fined $10,000.

 

You don't seem to get it. I agree that if you can get private
insurance at an affordable price you should get it. However, if you
have an identifiable risk, you may find it very difficult to find a
policy and, if you do, the premiums may be unaffordable to all but the
very wealthy. Even without a health problem, many families not poor
enough to qualify for Medicaid can't afford $10,000+ in annual
premiums.