Comments on: Democrats chomping at the bit to implement Socialist agenda in 2009

By: blog.nam.org

blog.nam.org — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:54:44 +0000

All in All, Not Much Talk on Rangel’s Tax Plan

At least in the blogosphere. John Fout, who watches the political blogs for TheStreet.com, comments

By: Dana

Dana — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:13:42 +0000

Thanks, Leslie. It was a conclusion that galled me, a conclusion to which I hated to come, because I believe that our private insurance health care system is the best in the world. But my insurance is higher and my taxes are higher precisely because we won’t allow people to suffer the consequences of their irresponsibility, and thus the government and paying customers have to pay more to cover the charity cases.

At least if we had some tax-based universal coverage, freeloaders like the Frosts (and millions of others) would be taxed as well, and have to pay something, have to bear more responsibility for themselves than they are doing currently.

By: Leslie

Leslie — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:09:24 +0000

Poster Dana astutely observes:

Our system of private insurance works only if there is a real penalty for not buying insurance. Since we are compassionate and sympathetic, we have removed that penalty — because the penalty for not buying health insurance has to be letting the uninsured die in the street if they need medical care and won’t purchase it.

Well, we won’t do that — which means we already have universal health care coverage. At least if we mandate some sort of system, free-riders like the Frosts would have to pay something, through taxation, rather than the nothing with which they’ve gotten away for so long.

Quite possibly the best thing I’ve read on the entire subject, Dana!

By: Dana

Dana — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:07:01 +0000

Unfortunately, I've become persuaded that universal health care is a very bad idea whose time has come. (Shameless blog plug alert!] It was the debate over the SCHIP veto and the story of the Frosts which persuaded me, not because I think that the Frosts deserve coverage, but because they will receive coverage for which they could have paid but did not pay. Our system of private insurance works only if there is a real penalty for not buying insurance. Since we are compassionate and sympathetic, we have removed that penalty -- because the penalty for not buying health insurance has to be letting the uninsured die in the street if they need medical care and won't purchase it. Well, we won't do that -- which means we already have universal health care coverage. At least if we mandate some sort of system, free-riders like the Frosts would have to pay something, through taxation, rather than the nothing with which they've gotten away for so long.

By: forest hunter

forest hunter — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 03:48:37 +0000

And as they lower that figure NC, they try to raise the entitlement (health care for poor kids) figure to 80,000.

When will the bounty be posted on these fools bent on America’s division and destruction?

By: NC Cop

NC Cop — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 03:16:52 +0000

Neil Cavuto's got a great post about this: I told you so!

Back then, "rich" was anyone making more than a million bucks. But I figured there are only so many millionaires out there to squeeze, so to pay for all these programs promised, you're going to have to bring that million down. Then lo and behold, John Edwards did. Said half-a-million makes you rich. Followed by Hillary Clinton, who suggested those making over 250,000 bucks could pay more taxes. And just today, Charlie Rangel knocking that figure down to 200,000 smackers

So predictable. So sad.