http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/06/b-taxes-senate-health/ Granted, the increase is a result of health care companies not being able to deduct the taxes they have to pay for the dem's health care plan, but the disturbing news is that due to the staggering taxes levied against them and them not being able to write it off, those costs have to be passed out to................................ you & me. That's the problems with things like this. In the very end, it's the local citizens that end up paying for it all. There is a better way, but the dems just won't listen.
Link doesn't work for me very well, is it an AP article being reported on Fox? Or is it a Fox News article? If its the latter i'll wait for a more credible source. If the former, then lol at the dems.
WASHINGTON -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger praised President Barack Obama's drive to overhaul the nation's health care system on Tuesday and urged fellow Republicans to join in efforts to finish the job this year. The new Republican support for Obama's top domestic priority came as a potential setback emerged for Senate health legislation: Congressional tax experts reported that the bill would impose $29 billion more in taxes on health care industries than originally thought -- levies that could be passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums. That could be troublesome news for an overhaul bill facing a crucial vote in the Senate Finance Committee this week, and with Republican senators already complaining that the legislation contains too many taxes. Although Schwarzenegger stopped short of embracing a Democratic bill, his words of encouragement came on the heels of similar statements from other Republicans outside Congress, including former Senate Republican leader Bill Frist. The White House and Democrats highlighted them as evidence of momentum and division within GOP ranks. Schwarzenegger, who two years ago tried but failed to pass a universal health care plan in California, said in a statement that he appreciated Obama's partnership with the states and his effort to hold down costs and improve quality. He urged lawmakers from both parties to "move forward and accomplish these vital goals for the American people." Congressional Republicans responded that they have been calling for health care improvements for months -- just not the kind that Democrats are offering. "Americans want commonsense reform," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a speech on the Senate floor, arguing that Democratic plans would expand government control, raise taxes on the middle class and cut Medicare benefits. Tommy Thompson, who headed the Health and Human Services Department under President George W. Bush, said Monday the Senate Finance Committee bill "is another important step toward achieving the goal of health care reform." Frist, a heart surgeon, told Time magazine he would vote for the committee bill if he were still in Congress. However, both Frist and Thompson said they thought the bill could be improved. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a political independent first elected as a Republican, said Monday that health care legislation deserves support across the political spectrum. Questioned about the disparate Republican voices, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, "I hope that Republicans in Washington hear the message of Republicans all over the country that it's time to come in off the sidelines and actively get involved in making some serious progress on health care reform this year." On the tax issue, the Joint Committee on Taxation said in a memo prepared for Finance Committee Republicans that drug companies, medical device manufacturers and insurers would pay $121 billion over 10 years as a result of fees in the committee's bill. That compares with $92 billion originally calculated. The tax experts said the reason for the change was that the companies wouldn't be able to deduct the fees. The Finance Committee's top Republican, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, said in a statement: "These taxes will increase insurance premiums and health care costs for individuals and families." At the same time, they also could mean more revenue to help pay for expanding coverage to the uninsured. The industry fees are separate from a proposed new tax on high-value insurance plans that's also in the Finance Committee bill. The committee, the last one in Congress yet to act on sweeping health care legislation, had planned a final vote for this week but has been waiting for a more complete set of calculations from the Congressional Budget Office. Tuesday's tax report didn't shed light on the total cost of the bill, which stood at under $900 billion over 10 years going into a two-week drafting session that ended this past Friday. Dozens of amendments were added during the session, some making substantial changes, so senators want to see where that leaves the price tag of the bill before they go to a final vote. That figure could be available as early as Wednesday, according to Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. Baucus has a 13-10 Democratic majority on the panel so the outcome is hardly in question, though the margin may be. Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, the only Republican seen as a possible "yes" vote, declined to tip her hand on Tuesday, but said she still thought the bill needed more work to ensure coverage plans were made affordable to low- and middle-income families. She suggested that the value of the lowest-value plan to be offered within a new purchasing exchange might have to be lowered even more. "I'm still grappling with the question of affordability," she said. Senators continued to debate whether to allow the government to sell insurance in competition with private industry. A compromise by Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., that would give states menus of options to choose from to advance as alternatives to the private market was getting interest from some senators.
You do understand there's a difference between news on FOX and opinion on FOX, right? Is anything from NBC not considered reliable because of ideologues like Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz? Of course not.
I see your point, but this isn't opinion. Also, to be fair, I doubt anyone in Congress saw this issue- it just cropped up. My point was that there's only so much of a burden companies and "the wealthy" (ie, those making $125,000 per year or more) can reasonable bear before it's all just passed along to us. I think that in the end, we're the ones playing the fool. Or at least that's the sense I get.
This article is from the AP. I can trust that. I won't trust Faux news, sorry. Anything from Fox just doesn't have any credibility with me.
With all due respect, Fox may be a moderate news agency and trying to entertain like the others, but there stuff is actually proven to be more honest than most other news agencies by an independent company. I'm not saying they are my trusted news source (I like PBS), but you're thinking of them is false and narrow minded.
I wonder if the D's will ever backoff from the "making healthcare cheaper" campaign line. If the goal is to provide more people with healthcare, fine. I can understand that perspective. But it doesn't look like they really have a plan to make overall healthcare spending decrease. They are just shifting who pays for it, while overall spending increases.
You do realize that up until the 80's the highest tax bracket averaged around 70-80 percent. Whereas now it's in the 30's?
