Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"President Obama, in a pivot from some of his harshest campaign
rhetoric, told Democratic senators yesterday that he is willing to consider taxing employer-sponsored health benefits to help pay for a broad expansion of coverage." http://tinyurl.com/kvkndy Is this a tax aimed at those who don’t need or use government health insurance? If you’re already getting benefits from your employer, you’re opting out of ObamaCare, no? Is this a case of forcing the private insurance by employeers to be canceled and forcing employees into a national care system? If that's the case where’s all the revenue from taxing health benefits coming from? I’m missing something. The way I read it, private plans will be taxed to pay for national health care thus, in practice, forcing people to move to the national system which is being paid for by taxes on insurance benefits that no longer exist. |
#2
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
"President Obama, in a pivot from some of his harshest campaign rhetoric, told Democratic senators yesterday that he is willing to consider taxing employer-sponsored health benefits to help pay for a broad expansion of coverage." http://tinyurl.com/kvkndy Is this a tax aimed at those who don’t need or use government health insurance? If you’re already getting benefits from your employer, you’re opting out of ObamaCare, no? Is this a case of forcing the private insurance by employeers to be canceled and forcing employees into a national care system? If that's the case where’s all the revenue from taxing health benefits coming from? I’m missing something. The way I read it, private plans will be taxed to pay for national health care thus, in practice, forcing people to move to the national system which is being paid for by taxes on insurance benefits that no longer exist. You are misreading it. |
#3
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 06:42:03 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote: "President Obama, in a pivot from some of his harshest campaign rhetoric, told Democratic senators yesterday that he is willing to consider taxing employer-sponsored health benefits to help pay for a broad expansion of coverage." http://tinyurl.com/kvkndy Is this a tax aimed at those who don’t need or use government health insurance? If you’re already getting benefits from your employer, you’re opting out of ObamaCare, no? Is this a case of forcing the private insurance by employeers to be canceled and forcing employees into a national care system? If that's the case where’s all the revenue from taxing health benefits coming from? I’m missing something. The way I read it, private plans will be taxed to pay for national health care thus, in practice, forcing people to move to the national system which is being paid for by taxes on insurance benefits that no longer exist. Obama now wants to do the same thing he came down on McCain for during the campaign. If your employer is contributing towards your health insurance, then that contribution should (according to Obama and McCain) be taxed as income. Of course, the major media, which ate McCain alive (paid for by the Obama campaign, of course) will make no mention of the fact that Obama is doing what McCain proposed. -- John H "The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money." --Margaret Thatcher |
#4
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 06:42:03 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote: "President Obama, in a pivot from some of his harshest campaign rhetoric, told Democratic senators yesterday that he is willing to consider taxing employer-sponsored health benefits to help pay for a broad expansion of coverage." http://tinyurl.com/kvkndy Is this a tax aimed at those who don’t need or use government health insurance? If you’re already getting benefits from your employer, you’re opting out of ObamaCare, no? Is this a case of forcing the private insurance by employeers to be canceled and forcing employees into a national care system? If that's the case where’s all the revenue from taxing health benefits coming from? I’m missing something. The way I read it, private plans will be taxed to pay for national health care thus, in practice, forcing people to move to the national system which is being paid for by taxes on insurance benefits that no longer exist. How much is the tax, Tom? Do you have a percentage figure upon which you're basing your assumption that it'll so punitive as to "force" people onto Obamacare? |
#5
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
jps wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 06:42:03 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock wrote: "President Obama, in a pivot from some of his harshest campaign rhetoric, told Democratic senators yesterday that he is willing to consider taxing employer-sponsored health benefits to help pay for a broad expansion of coverage." http://tinyurl.com/kvkndy Is this a tax aimed at those who don’t need or use government health insurance? If you’re already getting benefits from your employer, you’re opting out of ObamaCare, no? Is this a case of forcing the private insurance by employeers to be canceled and forcing employees into a national care system? If that's the case where’s all the revenue from taxing health benefits coming from? I’m missing something. The way I read it, private plans will be taxed to pay for national health care thus, in practice, forcing people to move to the national system which is being paid for by taxes on insurance benefits that no longer exist. How much is the tax, Tom? Do you have a percentage figure upon which you're basing your assumption that it'll so punitive as to "force" people onto Obamacare? Of course he doesn't. His purpose was to troll, not illuminate. I prefer removing the employee "caps" on all income for social security, and using the proceeds to help fund social security, medicare and health insurance. |
#6
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:39:11 -0400, HK wrote:
jps wrote: On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 06:42:03 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock wrote: "President Obama, in a pivot from some of his harshest campaign rhetoric, told Democratic senators yesterday that he is willing to consider taxing employer-sponsored health benefits to help pay for a broad expansion of coverage." http://tinyurl.com/kvkndy Is this a tax aimed at those who don’t need or use government health insurance? If you’re already getting benefits from your employer, you’re opting out of ObamaCare, no? Is this a case of forcing the private insurance by employeers to be canceled and forcing employees into a national care system? If that's the case where’s all the revenue from taxing health benefits coming from? I’m missing something. The way I read it, private plans will be taxed to pay for national health care thus, in practice, forcing people to move to the national system which is being paid for by taxes on insurance benefits that no longer exist. How much is the tax, Tom? Do you have a percentage figure upon which you're basing your assumption that it'll so punitive as to "force" people onto Obamacare? Of course he doesn't. His purpose was to troll, not illuminate. I prefer removing the employee "caps" on all income for social security, and using the proceeds to help fund social security, medicare and health insurance. Excellent idea. It'd also help address the disparity between what low and medium income families pay in percentage-of-income in tax with their wealthier counterparts. (Now watch while the "Conservatives" misread and misinterpret my statement as income taxes.) |
#7
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Of course he doesn't. His purpose was to troll, not illuminate. Of course you would know, Herr Krause. You make trolling a daily practice here. |
#8
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "HK" wrote in message m... I prefer removing the employee "caps" on all income for social security, and using the proceeds to help fund social security, medicare and health insurance. If I recall correctly employers match dollar for dollar the social security tax paid by employees. Does your plan also include having the employer match the new, uncapped tax? Did I really have to ask? My point is that although your idea has merit, there is a downside. Small businesses may not be able to absorb even more taxes without having a negative impact on their business, ability to grow or even maintain their current employee levels. Eisboch |
#9
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message m... I prefer removing the employee "caps" on all income for social security, and using the proceeds to help fund social security, medicare and health insurance. If I recall correctly employers match dollar for dollar the social security tax paid by employees. Does your plan also include having the employer match the new, uncapped tax? Did I really have to ask? My point is that although your idea has merit, there is a downside. Small businesses may not be able to absorb even more taxes without having a negative impact on their business, ability to grow or even maintain their current employee levels. Eisboch I did say "remove the employee caps," right? That does not mean removing the employer caps. |
#10
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 4, 5:42*am, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
"Pleas 2 'splain 2 dumm peepole..." tom, your typing is gretting abotu as bad as mine. I feel complamented ?;^ ) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
'Splain this lucy | ASA | |||
Pleas ehelp with a UseNet survey | General |