I don't know about you, but I am bone-weary of the lies being told, and sold, on Fox News about what this law does -- and doesn't -- do. Here's at least some of the the truth -- in a three minute package:
Friday, March 26, 2010
What The Health Care Reform Laws Will ACTUALLY Do -- THIS Year
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Good job-to you for posting and the President for the fortitude to get this done.
The credit goes to the legislators who had the courage to vote this in -- and of course, to Mr. Obama. Thanks to all of them, and all who came before them, trying to get this done.
Do stop back!
Namaste
You forgot to mention the jobs that will be lost and the decrease in income for the private sector due to the added tax burden. Oh, but the government will get their 4-5% cost of living raise, their pension will remain fully funded and they will have thier cadilac health care plan as well as all te unions. This is truly a sad week in the republic.
Let's see if those Fox-New talking points ever happen, shall we, Anon.?
If your central gripe is that federal government workers have it too easy, I think you are complaining about the reform package in error. They've had it that way for decades. Where was this notion, during the Bush presidencies, the Reagan presidency, even the Nixon-Ford presidencies?
Oh. right. It didn't matter (to you) back then -- because those guys were passing you "personal" welfare, in the form of massive tax cuts on the higher brackets -- effectively increasing the burden on the lowest earning tax-payers.
Thanks for the input, do check back in on us in 2011 or so -- let's see where we are, then.
Namaste
I'm trying to figure out where the notion that gov't workers have it easy.
There was no 4-5% cost of living increase in any given year but rather a 2.9% increase for 2009 and a 1.5% increase for 2010 for GS level employees. I can get you copies of the documentation if you need it.
Add to that, base pay for most GS employees is less than or at best equal to that of private industry. But, gov't employees do not get bonuses of the %s (typically no more than $3K; <3%) that private industry get (as much as 25% of base pay).
As far as the pension and health plans-fairly similar-speaking from personal experience. GS employees have the TSP (equivalent to a 401K) but with far less matching funds. The health plan is chosen from 5 or so plans according to individual desires. Just like in the pharma companies. And just like pharma, we contribute about 1/3 to the cost-with exactly the same 80-20 responsibility and deductibles.
So, as Ben Stein recently said "lay off the bureaucrat";
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/28/sunday/main6340942.shtml
To be clear -- I was in no way intent upon bashing federal government employees. I was pointing to the hypocrisy of complaining about the government benefits packages, selectively -- only in the context of legislation that the anonymous poster disfavors -- which actually has very little to do with government pay packages.
Thanks! -- You are, of course, right.
Namaste
Anon here!
Namaste, why do you libs always assume someone with an alternative view point is a Fox news person? Could it be someone has an opinion that is just opposite or different from your liberal view?
My obvious central gripe is the extra job loss due to the health care bill tax on business when we are already bleeding jobs! This is also my point about taxes, less workers with decent/good paying jobs decrease the tax base.
Okay Anon. -- you wrote:
. . . .My obvious central gripe is the extra job loss due to the health care bill tax on business. . . .
I promise, in two years' time, if you can provide to me, a reputable labor stats trend-line -- separate from the overall economic decline, that demonstrates healthcare reform ITSELF was actually responsible for costing the US economy a material number of jobs, I'll take my hat off to you.
I'll be keeping my Cubs cap on, no doubt, though -- as it simply. won't. happen. Blaming the slow job market on a measure that hasn't yet taken effect is silly beyond peradventure, BTW.
I think the "tax base" would be enhanced if multi-national corporate America would start paying its fair share of the tax-burden, and if the highest 1% of individual earners would continue to do the same.
We are too far apart to really convince one another, here Anon. -- so I'll let it go, and thank you for the commentary. I disagree; but I don't have to be disagreeable.
Namaste
[N.B.: It is a greeting, not a name. It roughly translates as "I bow to the Divine in you".]
Post a Comment