by Arnie Webre, Jr.
Last night, like millions of Americans, I watched President Barack Obama's televised news conference about health care reform.
Although he spoke in conservative terms about his very liberal, general ideas about universal health care in America, he had me until he said that taxing only rich Americans to pay for the health care reform would meet his criteria, or words to that effect.
I appreciated that the president backed off of the earlier insistence that all businesses would be punished for not providing insurance to their employees by billing them with high penalty fees.
Currently, the proposal is that small businesses that have an annual payroll of less than $250,000 are completely exempt from these penalty fees, and those with payrolls over $250,000 have their penalty fees capped at 8 percent of revenue.
That is much better than what the proposal was before last night; however, I still believe that 8 percent is too high -- it should be no more than 5 percent of any businesses revenue.
Although I genuinely admire and like President Obama, I was shocked to hear a sitting President of the United States say, in effect, that it was okay to tax only the richest Americans for the 46-million newly insured under his plan. I honestly do not remember when it was that the United States became a Marxist socialist [communist] nation.
As a matter of fact, I do not think that The United States of America is a Marxist socialist [communist] nation, and I do not remember such a thing having happened, while I was preoccupied with other things.
I have always given President Obama the benefit of any doubt because I liked him; he is affable, has a brilliant mind, and I was glad to see the United States get a worthy African-American as President. I think it was high time that we broke that glass ceiling.
Nevertheless, after I watched his televised newscast, I had a bad feeling about his approval of the idea of taxing only the richest Americans.
Communism (Marxist socialism) equals shared wealth.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary says that the number one definition of communism is "1: social organization in which goods are held in common."
Well, I guess fiat money can be called a type of good or a type of asset. But in this case, we are not talking about asking only the richest Americans to pay for goods for the 46-million who do not have goods. We are asking a small number of rich Americans to pay for the health care services of 46-million people, who do not currently have it.
I call that Marxist socialism, communism.
President Obama calls it a community.
In an interview earlier this week, the president said that it was alright for him and other rich Americans to pay for the health care of the 46-million Americans who did not have it; "that's what a community is. We share with one another," or words to that effect.
Excuse me, but I remember very clearly when President Chavez, after having met and talked with President Obama, said that Barack Obama was more of a socialist than Chavez was, or words to that effect.
As much as I dislike what President Chavez' socialist regime has done to Venezuela, its people and its businesses, it appears that Chavez was, indeed, correct about President Obama.
Barack Obama, the U.S. President, was, as he explained his program to Americans on television last night, doing what he did to, first, get elected as a U.S. senator in the conservative state of Illinois and, secondly, to get elected as President of the United States of America.
He hid his real agenda by talking in conservative terms about his outlandishly liberal, Marxist socialist agenda. Clearly, President Obama has read The Prince, by Machiavelli. Obama understands that he must say one thing, but mean another, saying what people do not want to hear in soft, careful, comfortable, conservative language, while his real agenda is totally different than what he is projecting.
He has duped the American voters, as he is not what he represents himself to be.
Now more than ever, I thank God for the conservative Blue Dog and moderate Democrats and the Republicans, who will not let President Obama make only the richest Americans pay for the health care of 46-million newly insured Americans(1).
That is not a principal of a democracy; that is not a principal of the United States, at all -- even if most voters want something for nothing, and President Obama wants to give it to them, so he will easily be re-elected in three-and-one-half years from now.
Most of all, I thank God for the checks and balances built into our democracy by our forefathers.
Please support conservative Blue Dog and moderate Democrats and Republicans fighting the idea of only one select group of Americans paying for health care reform: the idea is un-American.
In a democracy, we help each other by choice, not by government dictate.
NOTE:
The author of this article is not a rich American, though he is proud to be an American.
Showing posts with label universal health care in America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label universal health care in America. Show all posts
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Universal health care in America
by Arnie Webre, Jr.
Forty-six million Americans do not have health care of any kind, therefore, America needs universal health care for those who do not have it, as well as to drive medical care costs down over the long-term.
So what is the problem?
The real question is how to pay for it.
Democratic New York Senator Charles Rangel thought he knew how to pay for it: a surtax on the highest earning Americans, to pay for those who cannot pay for their own health care.
Rangel originally proposed to raise $540 billion over the next 10-years with a one-percent surtax from couples who made over $350,000 per year, with graduating surtaxes at the $500,000 and $1 million levels of annual income.
Additionally, the proposed legislation would charge employers to provide health care for their employees.
In one such case, a Houston small-business owner was told by her elected representative in Washington, D.C. that she would get a bill of about $366,000 to provide health insurance for all of her employees, or she would have to pay a $44,000 penalty fee and all of her employees would then automatically be included in the federal government's health care program. Her annual income was slightly over $350,000.
We certainly do not want to over-tax small businesses disproportionately, as they are the engine of growth of our economy.
Since when did America stop requiring everyone who could afford to contribute to not pull their own weight?
The current drive to universal health care in the United States is sorely needed. On the other hand, the Canadians do not pay for their universal health care system by taxing only the rich -- everyone who can pay is paying for it through personal and corporate taxes; private insurance for individuals, hospitals and health care professionals; and, additionally, some provinces use sales taxes and lotteries.
As a matter of fact, the idea to provide health care to those who cannot afford it by taxing the rich is nothing less than a cross between socialism and communism. It is also one more example of the corruption from within our decaying society, the symbiotic relationship between the voters [who want something for nothing] and the politicians [who want to insure their re-elections] who want to give it to them.
Who has not been milking America for everything it was worth over the last 45-years?
We are all complicit in this long-term fleecing of the United States.
Fortunately, it appears that a marriage of convenience between the conservative Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans has avoided the frightening method of funding mentioned above, for our needed universal health care reform. Let us maintain our vigilance until either universal health care is passed this year without charging only one select group of Americans for it, or it is defeated.
We still need universal health care, so where does that leave us?
Let us go back to the drawing board and fund this from a much larger tax base, without concern for political patronage. Everyone who can pay, pays, and everyone pulls their own weight.
We all need to contribute: businesses, tax payers, insurance companies who provide insurance to hospitals and health care professionals, the health care system -- everyone, according to their means, with the most nominal [tiny] insurance premium amounts paid by those who live under the poverty limit.
On the other hand, no American citizen who lives under the poverty limit should be turned away from medical care for financial reasons, at any time, with federal health care insurance as payer of last resort in such cases, until the patient or the patient's family can pay nominal [tiny] federal health care insurance fees.
When, and if, health care costs do come under control and the system is paying for itself (becomes cost neutral), then we might be able to consider, at that time, if those who live under the poverty level should even have to pay. However, in our current economic predicament, that does not seem to be a wise starting point for universal health care in America.
Let us just get this new health care reform bill off the ground first, and then we will see, in time, what is possible.
Forty-six million Americans do not have health care of any kind, therefore, America needs universal health care for those who do not have it, as well as to drive medical care costs down over the long-term.
So what is the problem?
The real question is how to pay for it.
Democratic New York Senator Charles Rangel thought he knew how to pay for it: a surtax on the highest earning Americans, to pay for those who cannot pay for their own health care.
Rangel originally proposed to raise $540 billion over the next 10-years with a one-percent surtax from couples who made over $350,000 per year, with graduating surtaxes at the $500,000 and $1 million levels of annual income.
Additionally, the proposed legislation would charge employers to provide health care for their employees.
In one such case, a Houston small-business owner was told by her elected representative in Washington, D.C. that she would get a bill of about $366,000 to provide health insurance for all of her employees, or she would have to pay a $44,000 penalty fee and all of her employees would then automatically be included in the federal government's health care program. Her annual income was slightly over $350,000.
We certainly do not want to over-tax small businesses disproportionately, as they are the engine of growth of our economy.
Since when did America stop requiring everyone who could afford to contribute to not pull their own weight?
The current drive to universal health care in the United States is sorely needed. On the other hand, the Canadians do not pay for their universal health care system by taxing only the rich -- everyone who can pay is paying for it through personal and corporate taxes; private insurance for individuals, hospitals and health care professionals; and, additionally, some provinces use sales taxes and lotteries.
As a matter of fact, the idea to provide health care to those who cannot afford it by taxing the rich is nothing less than a cross between socialism and communism. It is also one more example of the corruption from within our decaying society, the symbiotic relationship between the voters [who want something for nothing] and the politicians [who want to insure their re-elections] who want to give it to them.
Who has not been milking America for everything it was worth over the last 45-years?
We are all complicit in this long-term fleecing of the United States.
Fortunately, it appears that a marriage of convenience between the conservative Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans has avoided the frightening method of funding mentioned above, for our needed universal health care reform. Let us maintain our vigilance until either universal health care is passed this year without charging only one select group of Americans for it, or it is defeated.
We still need universal health care, so where does that leave us?
Let us go back to the drawing board and fund this from a much larger tax base, without concern for political patronage. Everyone who can pay, pays, and everyone pulls their own weight.
We all need to contribute: businesses, tax payers, insurance companies who provide insurance to hospitals and health care professionals, the health care system -- everyone, according to their means, with the most nominal [tiny] insurance premium amounts paid by those who live under the poverty limit.
On the other hand, no American citizen who lives under the poverty limit should be turned away from medical care for financial reasons, at any time, with federal health care insurance as payer of last resort in such cases, until the patient or the patient's family can pay nominal [tiny] federal health care insurance fees.
When, and if, health care costs do come under control and the system is paying for itself (becomes cost neutral), then we might be able to consider, at that time, if those who live under the poverty level should even have to pay. However, in our current economic predicament, that does not seem to be a wise starting point for universal health care in America.
Let us just get this new health care reform bill off the ground first, and then we will see, in time, what is possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)