So much for Grandma's prescription benefits (in Debates)
March 26 2010 2:18 PM EDT
And so it begins. The actually reading of the healthcare plan that was passed. All 2700 pages with its poor assumptions.
This is not the first thing we will discover about this law and it may just get worse.
March 26 2010 2:36 PM EDT
Did I miss a link to the actual clause in the bill? All I read was an inflammatory opinion piece without seeing the real info.
Unless I just missed it, would you mind posting a link or telling me where in the bill the clause is located? I'm not a fan of sifting through something 1.5x the size of Atlas Shrugged to find it.
March 26 2010 2:44 PM EDT
All I read was an inflammatory opinion piece without seeing the real info.
Did you expect anything less?
Ranger, it might help if you posted something from a website not called hotair.com ;)
The abridged version of Atlas Shrugged? :)
March 26 2010 3:05 PM EDT
March 26 2010 3:19 PM EDT
"You're increasing the incentive for companies to say 'We don't want to be in the health care business any more,"
this quote bothers me a lot. especially the "health care business" part of it. cause thats all it is to most of these people. a business, not a public health and well being issue but a business. anyone remember when they didn't show ads for prescription drugs on TV? when the doctor prescribed drugs for you, not you going and asking him for them? i still find it hard to put public health and for profit companies together and expect a good outcome.
March 26 2010 3:19 PM EDT
"For example, if a company spent $100 on benefits, including a $28 government subsidy, it could write off the full $100 on its taxes under the old rules. The new rules would allow the same company to write off only $72."
Interesting read, but am I the only one who couldn't get past the fact these guys have had years of tax write-offs for spending someone else's money? Daaang....
Not saying that won't have the potential impacts that the article claims, but this loop-hole should have been killed long ago.
March 26 2010 3:28 PM EDT
I couldn't agree more edyit. Every post I have seen against this has been about businesses losing profits. I am sure they will still find a way to make money.
Yes, they will. They will find a way to charge us more.
March 26 2010 4:15 PM EDT
I am sure they will still find a way to make money.
They will charge more, fire staff, or fold.
And if the price they charge is too high, compared to foreign companies like those in China (if appropriate), they may still have to close up shop.
There is a large part of the population that fails to understand that there is a point where more taxes = less revenue.
March 26 2010 5:27 PM EDT
So let me get this straight, Ranger...
The government is reducing subsidies, thereby making the drug marketplace more pure Capitalism -- something you have supported and supported and supported on every other thread (because otherwise we are becoming socialist) -- and you are saying this is a BAD thing?
In other words, the gov't is taking AWAY a socialist scheme (profits subsidized with all of our tax monies), and you are now COMPLAINING.
Hyp. O. Crite.
March 26 2010 5:32 PM EDT
Hyp. O. Crite.
I'm so glad someone else saw the metric ton of irony in this.
Ranger's a socialist!
I, on the other hand, support this reduction in subsidies. I guess that makes me the capitalist here.
March 26 2010 5:39 PM EDT
Extra points for being a Capitalist, LB!
Loss of points for quoting the metric system. What are you, some sort of euro-hippie-socialist!?
March 26 2010 5:50 PM EDT
Extra points for being a Capitalist
I disagree. I hate both extremes, so...
Still funny though.
There is a difference between government spending to encourage free market innovation and growth, and discouraging it. There is in fact such a thing as subsidies for capitalist purposes. For instance, let's say the city of Metropolis wanted to have a government sponsored small business expo (something many cities do). It is not unusual for those governments to charge to be in the expo, and allow subsidizing that charge so that small businesses can gain exposure and grow.
Taking that subsidy as a tax deduction, however... I don't think that falls under socialist or capitalist. I think that falls under a mistake in the tax code. There isn't any precedent that I know of that allows double dipping a subsidy as a write-off.
(EDIT: All I was trying to show in the first paragraph was that you can still be acting as a capitalist government while spending money to help businesses.)
March 26 2010 10:44 PM EDT
Very good points, NS.
Ranger, however, is still entirely a hypocrite for bringing this whole issue to the fore as some sort of salient point.
I just wanted to make sure we stayed on topic.
March 26 2010 11:12 PM EDT
I never stated I believed in the subsidies. But they are there presently.
However, my "salient" point you cannot get yourself to see is the increased taxes that made all the Democrats jump for joy to keep the CBO score as they wanted, is just complete crap.
Meanwhile, the elderly are going to be back on Medicare part D, which is worse than the insurance they had. Already the quality of care is decreasing. All in the name of socialized medicine.
Let us just wait till more pearls of this law become known.
As Pelosi said "We have to pass this thing so people can find out what is in it".
Well we are slowly finding these gems out.
March 27 2010 12:12 AM EDT
*clap* *clap* *clap*
Ohhhhh, THAT'S what you're doing... Giving us gems of inconsistent, back-pedaling, yet vitriolic wisdom.
March 27 2010 12:30 AM EDT
Ignore, ignore and put your head in the sand.
I clap for you as well.
March 27 2010 6:19 AM EDT
Here's a nice little piece on the healthcare plan and it's history - specifically how the ideas have been bounced around by Republicans for years before Obama got his hands on it.
March 27 2010 2:54 PM EDT
I was going to link the same article JW; it was a good read.
This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html
<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0031cF">So much for Grandma's prescription benefits</a>