Elites, Right Wing ones especially, want unemployment

Post Reply New Topic

People bluff a lot. The fact of the matter is that doctors take advantage of a lot of protective measures thanks to Congress. As a matter of fact, malpractice is only a very small part of the problem of physicians' high salaries.

Actually, you are just trying to smear Conservatives in general. I'm saying this based on your track record.

I start this whole thing with the topic about how unemployment is a deliberate policy choice made by governments and national elites in general, that it benefits the super-rich and that the super-rich want this, and people complain about alleged irrational hatred of the rich? Come on! This is cut and dry, they want unemployment, they want a reserve army of labour, they're doing this terrible thing and they're getting away with it. This isn't about envy, this is about justice!

I am quite frankly fed up with the bashing people just cause they are rich. If you have such a problem with someone making more money, how about you start your own business and stop trying to tear down everything other people make because you are too lazy to build something yourself.

What the heck source is that, it isn't remotely as advertised for starters.

Second, I actually know some doctors that refuse to take medicare PERIOD. Additionally, I know some doctors that can't afford health insurance due to the fees for liability insurance.

Get this through your head: THEY ARE NOT BLUFFING! They financially can't deal with all the crud from Obamacare and stay in business.

65% of the physicians polled said they oppose the proposed Obamacare plan. 45% of the physicians polled said that they would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement, if the plan were to become law.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... html?cat=5

If even half of those whom said they will quit actually do so we're in a lot of trouble and looking at a serious doctor shortage (which it wouldn't surprise me if the Democrats wanted that).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGNp0PFO5ow

Watch the movie.

A ‘Wave’ of ‘Obamacare’ Taxes?
The e-mail describes a "second wave" of tax increases that it says will take effect Jan. 1 under the new health care law. But this "wave" consists of three relatively minor tax changes that affect relatively few people.

What the e-mail describes as a "Medicine cabinet tax" simply aligns rules governing health savings accounts (HSAs), Flexible Spending Arrangements (FSAs) and Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs) with the tax rules that apply to deducting medical expenses generally. Under current law, taxpayers in general are not allowed to deduct the cost of non-prescription drugs as a medical expense. The only exception is for insulin. But those with HSAs, FSAs and HRAs were allowed to use pre-tax dollars to buy aspirin, over-the-counter cold and allergy medications, and other drugs available without a doctor’s prescription. The new "tax" simply says HSAs, FSAs and HRAs can’t be used to buy these medications — except for insulin — after December 31. (See pages 69 and 70 of the Joint Committee on Taxation’s "technical explanation" of the revenue measures in the new health care law, which can be downloaded from the committee’s website. This will affect a small proportion of taxpayers. For example, the health insurance industry says 10 million persons were covered by HSAs as of January of this year, roughly 3.2 percent of the population. For that relatively small group, the change does amount to a tax increase. It will bring in a total of $5 billion over the next 10 years, the JCT estimated in its "Estimated Revenue Effects" of the new law.
The "HSA withdrawal tax hike" refers to a doubling of the current 10 percent penalty that must be paid on any HSA funds spent for something that’s not a qualified medical expenditure. (See pages 71 to 73 of the JCT technical explanation.) The JCT expects that to bring in $1.4 billion over 10 years.
The "special needs kids tax" refers to a cap of $2,500 that the new law places on spending from FSAs. (See pages 74 to 77 of JCT’s technical explanation.) The argument made in the e-mail is that "many" families with special needs children now use FSAs to pay tuition at private schools catering to special needs children, schools that ATR says "can easily exceed $14,000 per year" in Washington, D.C. Perhaps so. IRS rules do allow use of FSA funds to pay for such expenses with pre-tax dollars. But the e-mail message offers no evidence of how many families might be taking advantage of this tax break currently. The claim is copied from the website of Americans for Tax Reform, but as ATR itself says: "For most people, the $2500 cap won’t be noticed." As ATR concedes, FSAs "tend to be used for things like small deductibles, co-payments, eyeglasses, over-the-counter medicines, and laser eye surgery." The amount deferred in the typical FSA is probably much less than $2500 today, ATR says. The JCT expects the change will bring in $13 billion over 10 years, but says nothing about how much of that is likely to come from the pockets of parents of special needs children.
We don’t argue for or against any of these three tax increases. We simply point out that, even taken together, they amount to less than $2 billion per year and, therefore, don’t constitute anything close to a "wave" of historically large tax increases taking effect next year.

you are WRONG about Obamacare, that is the facts.

I'm not using a redherring, Master_Pedant you need to look at the facts again. Everything interconnects.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... 027883.php

Also looks like the Dems are throwing in all the projects they can to torpedo the extension of the current tax rates or drive up the debt even higher.

I am quite frankly fed up with the bashing people just cause they are rich. If you have such a problem with someone making more money, how about you start your own business and stop trying to tear down everything other people make because you are too lazy to build something yourself.

I see a lot of this idea pushed forth that the Market is natural and in perfect balance and equilibrium and any regulations or interventions of any kind disrupts this perfection. This idea is everywhere. They say that health care will be perfectly administered if under total market control. This is one idea that has to be totally defeated.

These breathless defences of the superrich look like a form of Social Darwinism ideology. Those who criticise them and their machinations are inferior weaklings overcome with envy, they say, not accepting their lower position in the order of things. Thus it is accepted that these superrich can be tyrants because after all they are superior and that extends even to their alleged right to rig these perfect markets.

Many of the programs listed I would agree with, though I hate the reactionary move of letting many in class of idle rich keep their money, the capitulation on a death tax, and the useless subsidizing of ethanol.

I know of doctors who work only for public-funded healthcare programs. Anecdotes are fun, aren't they?

Elitist capitalists want a segment of the population to be unemployed so there is always a pool of cheap labor to exploit.

Elitist Marxists want everyone employed, but the masses to be equally impoverished so nobody can challenge their control.

Which of the two have your better interests at heart?

isn't your healthcare system going broke?

The death tax doesn't just affect the rich, it affects the middle class too. Unless you define everyone over the poverty line as rich.

stop picking on my canada!