Shame Is the Name of the Game
I've been thinking about the difference between "shameless" and "shameful," and which label ought to apply to whom in the current health care debate. Both words seem at first to mean the same thing, another fluke of the wild 'n' crazy English language. But not in this argument.
House Democrats want to pay for part of their comprehensive health care reform package by a graduated tax that's downright shameless -- that is, it's offered bravely, without shame. Rep. Charles Rangel, for example, offers no excuses for a plan that would coax an extra 1 percent from comfortable married couples earning $350,000 a year. That's $3,500 a year from people bringing in $6,730 a week.
The surtax would double to 2 percent for those making more than half a million a year and go to 3 percent for the annual millionaires. Those folks are a tiny fraction of Americans. They make $19,230 per week. You'd think they might be willing to fork over about ten days' income, or $30,000 a year, to help bring health care to 47 million uninsured fellow Americans.
No way. Already, the push-back is in full swing -- and that's shameful. Republicans are pounding the Democrats for the very idea of raising taxes, and for doing it during a recession. It will halt spending! It will stunt economic growth! It will discourage investment!
Come on. Does anyone really think that someone making $6,730 a week or way more than that will fire people, or stop going out to eat, or stop buying stock, because she had to pay $3,500 more in taxes? Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein will wring his hands? Beverly Hills will shut down? This argument is both shameless in braving total ridicule and shameful in its hypocrisy.
Who, after all, had their taxes cut most over the past two decades? The wealthy. Who saw their incomes skyrocket while the rest of us felt lucky just to have any paycheck at all? And which jobs were the most likely to offer health insurance? Guess.
From 1979 to 2005, when national output more than doubled, after-tax income inched up just 6 percent for the bottom fifth of American households, after accounting for inflation. For the middle fifth of us, income rose 21 percent, but it leaped 80 percent for the top fifth -- and for the top 1 percent, who needed it least, income more than tripled, soaring by 228 percent.
Now the top 6 percent of Americans earn about a third of all the money in the country. Their jobs are by far the most likely to have health insurance attached: low-wage work has few or zero benefits, almost by definition. And taxes, meanwhile, actually fell 6 percent for the rich over last 15 years. Yes, middle-class taxes fell too -- by 1.7 percent.
Let's get real. The Republicans are shameless in their argument that the rich will suffer under Rep. Rangel's proposal, or other similar Democratic approaches. And it's shameful to keep denying health care coverage to the people who provide early childhood education for the children of the rich, or who clean their luxury hotel rooms and their corner offices, or wash the dishes in their fancy restaurants, or who care for their elderly parents.
We need comprehensive health care for every single American, regardless of income, and the rich should pay their fair share. And shame upon the shameless Republicans for their shameful argument against it.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
When Jimmy Carter was president the top 1% of wage earners paid 20% of the federal tax burden; they now pay 40%. The top 5% pay 75% and the top 20% pay over 90% of federal income taxes. The bottom 50% pay 3%. If the government took all the money the over $300k crowd makes it would still add billions of dollars to the deficit. . Healthcare needs to be reformed but nobody knows what the proposed bills contain. . There are some changes I think should be made.
1. Allow us to choose an insurance company across state lines.
2. Tort reform. Stop making doctors practice defensive medicine. The unnecessary tests they give to save their asses add up to 20-25% of our costs.
3. Allow small businesses, maybe through Chambers of Commerce, band together to get better prices.
4. Give individuals the same tax breaks given to businesses who buy healthcare. .
5. Limit pain and suffering damages.
6. Medical malpractice reform. Here in Oregon we have entire counties that do not have an OB Gyn to go to because of the excessive malpractice premiums.
We don't have a perfect system but neither does anyone else. The USA still delivers the best healthcare in the world as evidenced by the number of foreigners who come here for their care.
Great! I'm glad to see that the tax issue is getting more attention thanks to health care. Thom Hartmann wrote a great article recently explaining how raising taxes on millionaires not only leads to NO reduction in spending, but does reduce the amount of hoarding -- and has only that benefit and no negative side effects. In a nutshell, it keeps the over-privileged competitive, as laissez-faire economics arguments really depend on them always being. Searching "tax happiness" also leads to some very interesting information, mostly about western Europe.
Republicans with neither grace nor shame................
Republican economics:
In times of prosperity, the only way to continue the prosperity is more tax cuts! Without tax cuts, the prosperity will end. In times of economic downturn, the only way to end the downturn is more tax cuts! Without tax cuts, the economic downturn will only get worse.
Spending 10 billion a month on wars is nothing to get troubled about, and only a limp-wristed elitists socialist who hates the troops would oppose it. Re-allocating 1 billion a month already being spent on health care, which represents 1 trillion over 10 years (current estimate of the health care bills) is socialism and will destroy this country.
The Republican party, fiscally conservative since January 20th, 2009.
Well-said!
There is one thing I've learned about Conservative, economic ideologues: they are, above all, self-interested to the max.
Medicare and Medicaid provide health care to the elderly, the disabled, children and the poor, paid for by taxes on the rich. Most states have health care coverage for unemployed people and folks who do not get Medicare or Medicaid, also paid for by taxes on the rich. Since the rich, those in the top 20% by income, already pay 86% of the taxes in America, when does the other 80% of America start to pay their fair share?
Well that cuts it....Lou Dobbs and now this...
Great article!
Write them and let them know why we will not be tuning in; its time.
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form6a.html?2
SUBJECT: Objective journalism.
MESSAGE: I understand not only will you not run an ad pointing out the flaws in the recent Lou Dobbs programming but your station also won't run an ad against the health insurance industry. Until I see either ad I will block CNN on my home remote. I hope to be able to watch you again sometime in the near future.
CNN won't run a commercial exposing the health care industry for what they have done to the American people? SHAME, SHAME, SHAME.
CNN is just another Corporate whore defending it's friends and not caring about truth and the American people.
TUNR CNN OFF NOW!!!
Access to health care must not be connected to employment status.. If you disagree with this statement then you believe in a class system where only the most deserving (i.e.,$) have access.
Support HR676. It's a Single Payer system that is pro-business and pro-people:
* Slashes at least 30% of costs off the top by removing private insurance overhead.
* Companies take health care expenses off their books. Stock value increases. Better able to compete internationally.
* Small companies could have access to higher skilled workers because previously they couldn't compete in the labor market by offering similar benefits.
* More entrepreneurial ventures will launch since they have more money and less unrelated risk.
* Dramatic drop in bankruptcies.
* Dramatic drop in lawsuits. Most of these lawsuits are simply to obtain money to cover health care if something interrupts their coverage.
* Reduced system complexity. Greater efficiency due to fewer regulations.
* Savings from employees not having to fight with their insurers during work hours.
* HSA and MSA dollars redirected back into the economy for goods and services.
* Additional money to spend from not having to carry "uninsured motorist coverage" on your auto policy.
* Contract employment is more viable for workers since they are guaranteed access to health care.
* People are covered when unemployed. No chance of being wiped out financially if you lose your job.
* Health care providers (doctors, hospitals, therapists...) see increase in business with much less administrative expense.
This helps all
The benefits are many and easy to understand. It amazes me that anyone is against health care reform. So, what if it costs 1 trillion? It 's money well spent.
Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill-There will be a government committee that decides what treatment/benefits you get.
Page 29 lines 4-16: Your health care is rationed
Page 42: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose you HC benefits for you.
Page 50 Section 152: HC will be provided to all non US citizens, illegal or otherwise.
Page 58: Govt will have real-time access to individual's finances
Page 84 Sec 203: Govt mandates all benefit packages for private HC plans in the Exchange
Page 85 line 7: Specifications of "Benefit Levels for Plans" rationing
Page 145 Line 15-17: An Emplopyer MUST auto enroll employees into public option plan
Page 170 Lines 1-3: Any Nonresident Alien is exempt form individual taxes
Do you want me to go on? Have you read the bill? I suggest you do so.
Dale, don't forget to flag mail the health care dissent comments on this board to the White House, especially Annirich's reply below. You can flag mail my reply, too. I never thought I would live to see the day that a president of the United States would ask the American people to spy on each other and to send reports directly to him.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
