AP Exclusive: Medicaid for the middle class?

[SoSpectacular]

Ah... pricks in suits that sit behind desks every day "managing" a business, paying themselves big bucks and not even breaking a sweat make me feel good...

 

I've always heard that you needed to have friends in high places in order to become just like them...

[R68 Subway Car]

You want to solve the budget crisis you do this:

 

-End tax loopholes for corporations AND individuals.

-Lower corporate income tax rates (yes, me the person who HATES the rich wants to do this)

-Prevent wages paid in foreign currency or to foreign nationals from being a US tax deductible expense. Since most payroll is processed by large clearinghouses like ADP, this is easy to do for the largest corps who are the worst offenders of outsourcing.

-RAISE personal income tax rates for high earners using a ladder tax system (example: first 10,000 of income is taxed at 5%, next 15,000 is taxed at 10%, next 25,000 is taxed at 25%, next 30,000 is taxed at 35%, next 70,000 is taxed at 50%, next 350,000 is taxed at 70%, next 500,000 is taxed at 80%, anything higher than that is taxed at 90%)

-Tax stock options as ordinary income based on their estimated value at time of issue...or just ban them outright.

-Golden parachutes and bonuses are taxed as ordinary income.

-Capital gains (on investments) become ORDINARY INCOME no matter what...unless they are part of an IRA or 401(k) account, in which case they are taxed at a lower rate.

-Separate commercial banks that handle loans from investment banks. This prevents customer deposits from subsidizing investment losses and generally guarantees the safety of money deposited in banks (especially with the FDIC).

-Raise the inheritance tax. The portion of any inheritance above 2 million is taxed at 75%.

-Index all applicable numbers for inflation so no one will ever have to think about this again.

 

Then:

-End corporate welfare

-End aid to nations that are not doing anything productive with it (Pakistan)

-Start paying off chinese debt FIRST to reduce their influence over policy

-Remove nonprofit status for ALL POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS and tax them too

 

Now, you want to fix healthcare you do this:

-Mandate employer raises for all employees to match the health insurance premiums paid by the employer for the previous year.

-End employer provided health insurance. Your employer doesn't buy you car insurance, why should your employer buy you health insurance, and why should employment have anything to do with the cost of health insurance?

-Allow the sale of health insurance across state lines, and allow individuals to choose the provider they want to use, creating true competition and keeping costs down.

-Healthcare will NOT be provided for ANY illegal immigrants unless they can pay for their procedure up front. If they do so, they are deported as soon as they are treated.

-Individuals who choose not to purchase insurance can still purchase care directly from the provider (ie a doctor) without using insurance. Cost is negotiated between the doctor and the patient.

-Dependent children without health insurance will have care provided no matter what. No child deserves to suffer because his/her parents did not buy insurance. If the parents are unable to pay, the public will pay provided the family proves financial hardship, otherwise the parents will be liable for all medical bill costs billed.

-"Family" medical plans would distinguish the number of children. For a father, for example, to purchase care for himself and his family, he would pay one premium rate if only adding himself, an additional cost for his wife, and an additional cost for each child. The current system establishes a "family rate" which charges the father the same rate regardless of if he is adding 1 child or 10, which is bulls&it.

-The elderly receive Medicare only. Medicaid ends. To qualify for Medicare, the individual must demonstrate financial need (ie the super rich are not eligible and must continue buying private insurance if they want to remain covered). Eligibility will be based both on WEALTH and INCOME (not just one or the other).

 

Problems solved.

There are some good points here. We should lower corporate tax rates. We also should stop giving money to countries who hate us. I feel we should pull out of the middle east and fix our problems. I finally believe that we should not give illegals healthcare.

[IntExp]

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness only apply to American citizens and LEGAL visitors living or visiting in this country. LEGAL immigrants have the right to ER care. ILLEGAL immigrants do not. No, the hospitals are not responsible for deporting them, but it should be their responsibility (as anyone) to report illegals to the proper authorities so they can be deported. LEGAL immigrants and citizens should NEVER be refused ER care. ILLEGAL immigrants absolutely should be, unless they can pay for it UP FRONT. And regardless, illegals should be deported.

 

Why call it a democracy if we give, as Locke put it, the natural rights of all people of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and deny it to others? These are all rights, that according to Locke, all people are born with. If we deny it here to a select group, why even call it a democracy? A democracy is not a democracy when we deny it to a group of people.

[SoSpectacular]

Illegal immigrants do not contribute to the U.S. as much as citizens do (except physical labor), and therefore cannot experience the same things we do

[IntExp]

Illegal immigrants do not contribute to the U.S. as much as citizens do (except physical labor), and therefore cannot experience the same things we do

 

So just because in your mind, because they don't "contribute to the U.S. as citizens do," they don't have the right to experience the freedom and protection of the law we all enjoy? They don't enjoy the natural rights that all people are born with? If we deny them the protection of the law, can we truly say that we are one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all? Explain why they are willing to work picking crops while being paid some low-a** wages and in some had conditions. You might as well cite Chief Justice's Roger Taney's opinion in Dred Scott, because it seems to emphasize your position.

[SI Subway]

Why call it a democracy if we give, as Locke put it, the natural rights of all people of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and deny it to others? These are all rights, that according to Locke, all people are born with. If we deny it here to a select group, why even call it a democracy? A democracy is not a democracy when we deny it to a group of people.

 

While I agree with your sentiments, there are a few things I need to point out. A "democracy" is a political system where people vote on public affairs or elect an official to do so (the latter is referred to as a republic, but that is just a form of democracy). Nowhere in the definition does it say that the three natural rights of all people need to be given (though they should). Also, every country should provide those rights to all their citizens, thus making illegal immigration unneccessary.

 

I honestly like the idea that illegal immigrants want to come to the US. Instead of forcing them out, we should use the same money to build Ellis-Island esque areas in New Mexico and Florida. That way, immigrants can enjoy all the rights of being a citizen without breaking the law.

[SoSpectacular]

So just because in your mind, because they don't "contribute to the U.S. as citizens do," they don't have the right to experience the freedom and protection of the law we all enjoy? They don't enjoy the natural rights that all people are born with? If we deny them the protection of the law, can we truly say that we are one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all? Explain why they are willing to work picking crops while being paid some low-a** wages and in some had conditions. You might as well cite Chief Justice's Roger Taney's opinion in Dred Scott, because it seems to emphasize your position.

 

While you do make a good point there, keep in mind that the rest of us with actual social security numbers are missing out on jobs and stuff because of them.

[Tokkemon]

While you do make a good point there, keep in mind that the rest of us with actual social security numbers are missing out on jobs and stuff because of them.

 

So, if you're more qualified, go take their jobs.

 

90% of the time, those jobs are crappy jobs that the average American doesn't want to do because of low wages and/or crappy work environment.

[SoSpectacular]

Which is a HUGE problem in today's society that NEEDS fixing

[Tokkemon]

Which is a HUGE problem in today's society that NEEDS fixing

 

So how would you fix it?

[SoSpectacular]

Make these jobs actually "worth" doing and get more people working...

 

Plus a little appreciation would go a long way towards boosting worker morale

[SubwayGuy]

Why call it a democracy if we give, as Locke put it, the natural rights of all people of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and deny it to others? These are all rights, that according to Locke, all people are born with. If we deny it here to a select group, why even call it a democracy? A democracy is not a democracy when we deny it to a group of people.

 

Read the Declaration of Independence carefully:

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

 

Illegals are not citizens, therefore they have not consented to the American government that provides these rights to those who, as citizens, have consented to the American form of government. Therefore the American government does not exist to guarantee illegal immigrants these rights, only people who ARE citizens, or who are here legally in accordance with the very rules of the government that would provide them with those rights in the first place.

[SubwayGuy]

Yeah, I mean I don't get people. It's like so I'm not as wealthy as the other guy so let me drain him of his wealth to even things out because he isn't entitled to enjoy what he's busted his @ss for. If one guy made his money honestly through hard work, why shouldn't he be able to keep it and not be overtaxed to death? It's his money and why does the gov't have to take all of it pass it around to those who are less fortunate? Is it the rich guy's fault that that the other people didn't push as hard as he did? NO.

 

YOU'RE not "draining" the other guy of his wealth. The government is to pay off deficits that were by and large created to give the wealthy tax credits...which in turn led them to reward the American people by shipping our jobs overseas. This is just comeuppins for a generation of free rides for the most wealthy.

 

And if you really believe the rich work harder than the working and middle class, you are delusional. They work comparably hard. The difference is one of those groups (the rich) has everything handed to them, and has salaries and bonuses significantly out of touch with reality that never go down. The average salary has been stagnant for 30 years, but the top 1% has seen their pay skyrocket. It's not only unfair, it's bad economics.

 

Now should he pay his fair portion of taxes?? OF COURSE. Should he be OVERTAXED?? NO.

 

It's not overtaxed. A progressive tax rate exists to offset the natural tendency of bottom up economics which given enough time aggregates the wealth in the hands of the rich and destroys a nation's economy.

 

Should the middle class be pay their fair share of taxes? OF COURSE. Should they be OVERTAXED?? NO.

 

What's fair for the middle class is different than what's fair for the very rich and the very poor. What I've proposed actually amounts to situating middle class Americans similarly to how they are now.

 

Should the poor pay their fare share of taxes?? YES. Should they be OVERTAXED?? NO.

 

A fair share they would pay too. What's fair to them is not what's fair to everyone else. Also, allowing the poor to keep more of their money instead of taxing them is actually good for the economy. They spend most of what they make, which creates consumer spending. The more you tax, the more dependent the economy becomes on government spending which leads to cries of "big government!" that we are hearing now.

 

Should the gov't stop wasting our tax dollars on BS?? YES and if they did that everyone could pay a reasonable rate of taxes and live alright. :mad:

 

Not true. The government is 13 trillion dollars in debt and counting. Instead of speaking in bold generic platitudes, why don't you give some very specific examples of how the government can run a 1 trillion dollar surplus for 13 years without raising taxes 1 cent? The answer is you can't, because as it stands those services are needed, and structural changes to stimulate the REAL (read: production) American economy do not exist. Cutting spending on programs that benefit Americans with no other offsets to better distribute wealth to create a healthy economic model will do NOTHING in the end to stem the tide of outsourcing and reduced consumer activity. And don't just say "cut welfare and social security" because #1 social security is a fully funded program that worked great until government started using it to finance all its other endeavours and #2 welfare is a drop in the bucket compared to the annual deficit.

 

Of course no one looks at the wasteful spending that gov't does. Instead they say TAX THE RICH. TAX THE MIDDLE CLASS. LEAVE THE POOR ALONE. I say BS! :mad: :tdown:

 

A wonderful speech, you're a regular Obama...or is it Romney? But it's easy to blame wasteful spending, let's see someone in this thread besides me get down in the trenches and pick out some actual line items to save some money, instead of just speaking in prophetic platitudes.

[SubwayGuy]

So, if you're more qualified, go take their jobs.

 

90% of the time, those jobs are crappy jobs that the average American doesn't want to do because of low wages and/or crappy work environment.

 

I've said this before and I'll say it again. If you want to stop illegal immigration you have to go after the employers too.

 

How about this? Employer has due diligence to perform a proper background check on any employee. If an employer hires an employee (note: an EMPLOYEE, not a contractor) who turns out to be an illegal, the employee is deported, and the employer is fined 10% of last year's GROSS income as a penalty (if an individual) or 1% of last year's GROSS income as a penalty (if a corporation).

 

That will reduce the number of employers willing to take chances hiring illegals, particularly high net worth individuals and corporations.

 

The "I didn't know" argument wouldn't hold water either. It would become the employer's job to know.

 

If a friend puts a gun in my car and doesn't have a permit, we get pulled over by the cops and the gun is found, in the eyes of the law I am as guilty as he is even though I didn't know about the gun.

 

Why should employers' relationships to illegal workers be any different? Do your homework, and make sure.

[SI Subway]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. If you want to stop illegal immigration you have to go after the employers too.

 

How about this? Employer has due diligence to perform a proper background check on any employee. If an employer hires an employee (note: an EMPLOYEE, not a contractor) who turns out to be an illegal, the employee is deported, and the employer is fined 10% of last year's GROSS income as a penalty (if an individual) or 1% of last year's GROSS income as a penalty (if a corporation).

 

That will reduce the number of employers willing to take chances hiring illegals, particularly high net worth individuals and

 

Why should employers' relationships to illegal workers be any different? Do your homework, and make sure.

 

Or, how about instead of deportation, we send the illegal immigrants to an "Ellis Island" Type place. Here, hopefully, they would no longer be illegal, but full-blown citizens.

[Tokkemon]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. If you want to stop illegal immigration you have to go after the employers too.

 

How about this? Employer has due diligence to perform a proper background check on any employee. If an employer hires an employee (note: an EMPLOYEE, not a contractor) who turns out to be an illegal, the employee is deported, and the employer is fined 10% of last year's GROSS income as a penalty (if an individual) or 1% of last year's GROSS income as a penalty (if a corporation).

 

That will reduce the number of employers willing to take chances hiring illegals, particularly high net worth individuals and corporations.

 

The "I didn't know" argument wouldn't hold water either. It would become the employer's job to know.

 

If a friend puts a gun in my car and doesn't have a permit, we get pulled over by the cops and the gun is found, in the eyes of the law I am as guilty as he is even though I didn't know about the gun.

 

Why should employers' relationships to illegal workers be any different? Do your homework, and make sure.

 

Because Employers have every right to pick whatever hiring habits they chose. If they want to have the extra expense of doing background checks, let them. If they want cheap labor and to look the other way, let them. If one mandates that one can't use cheap labor, then costs to the employer go up and prices go up for everyone else.

[QM1to6Ave]

@subwayguy- I got a line suggestion for you. Tax the shit out of anyone who is a lobbyist. Better yet, throw them all in jail and repossess their houses and cars to pay for their jail stay. The trickle down effect from getting rid of those leeches might take some time, but it will help set the stage to allow for change to create laws that are simpler and easier to enforce, not more convoluted and complex in order to protect industries.

[QM1to6Ave]

Because Employers have every right to pick whatever hiring habits they chose. If they want to have the extra expense of doing background checks, let them. If they want cheap labor and to look the other way, let them. If one mandates that one can't use cheap labor, then costs to the employer go up and prices go up for everyone else.

 

Background checks through DHS tp determine if one is eligible to work in the USA are free or extremely low cost, if I am not mistaken.

[MHV9218]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[SubwayGuy]

Because Employers have every right to pick whatever hiring habits they chose. If they want to have the extra expense of doing background checks, let them. If they want cheap labor and to look the other way, let them. If one mandates that one can't use cheap labor, then costs to the employer go up and prices go up for everyone else.

 

Actually, they don't. They also don't have the right to hire underage workers. These are both against the law.

 

An employer found to have knowingly hired, recruited or referred for a fee, or continued to employ, an unauthorized alien for employment in the United States shall be subject to an order to cease and desist from the unlawful behavior and to pay a civil fine. An employer can be fined $250 - $2,000 per unauthorized alien with respect to whom the First offense 2 occurred before September 29, 1999, and not less than $275 and not exceeding $2,200, for each unauthorized alien with respect to whom the offense occurred on or after September 29, 1999.

 

An employer can be fined from $2,000 - $5,000 per unauthorized alien for a Second offense that occurred before September 29,1999, and between $2,200 - $5,500 if occurred on or after September 29, 1999. An employer can be fined from $3,000 - $10,000 per unauthorized alien for each Third or Subsequent offense that occurred before September 29, 1999, and between $3,300 - $11,000 if occurred on or after September 29, 1999. These penalties are not limited to employees for whom employers complete and retain I-9 files, but also cover employers’ use of contract personnel known to them to be unauthorized to work in the United States.

 

If an employer can demonstrate compliance with Form I-9 requirements, a good faith defense with respect to a charge of knowingly hiring an unauthorized alien will have been established unless the government can prove otherwise.

 

What I am proposing eliminates the "good faith" defense and puts the ball in the employer's court.

[SubwayGuy]

Or, how about instead of deportation, we send the illegal immigrants to an "Ellis Island" Type place. Here, hopefully, they would no longer be illegal, but full-blown citizens.

 

If foreign nationals want to become citizens, I am OK with that. But they've got to do it the proper way. Giving them citizenship for free after they get caught is not a proper way to solve anything and rewards illegal activity.

 

Citizenship should be earned, not handed out. Go and look at what it would take for a US citizen to become a citizen anywhere else. Why should the US, once the greatest nation in the world, give all of the benefits of citizenship in this country to people who have started their experience in this country by disrespecting and breaking its laws???

[SubwayGuy]

@subwayguy- I got a line suggestion for you. Tax the shit out of anyone who is a lobbyist. Better yet, throw them all in jail and repossess their houses and cars to pay for their jail stay. The trickle down effect from getting rid of those leeches might take some time, but it will help set the stage to allow for change to create laws that are simpler and easier to enforce, not more convoluted and complex in order to protect industries.

 

Lobbyists suck, I agree. I'd like to see the occupation made illegal in the same sense that being a prostitute is illegal outside of Vegas. They're both dirty diseased whores but the difference is at least one can see a prostitute f***ing them.

[Tokkemon]

People come here because:

1) Cause they gotz all da jobs!

2) Cause dey gotz all da moolah!

[SubwayGuy]

People come here because:

1) Cause they gotz all da jobs!

2) Cause dey gotz all da moolah!

 

Of course. Despite the economic downturn, many people still believe 1 and 2 to be true.

 

If their country doesn't "gotz all da jobs and all da moolah", however, that's their problem not ours. And if their solution is to violate a law in another country, then that's also their problem.

 

But if their solution is to obtain the proper visas, come here, and follow the path to legal citizenship until they have it by filing all necessary paperwork and working as a legal immigrant in the meantime....then I will be the first to welcome them with open arms.

[Tokkemon]

Except the process to legally emigrate to the US is ridiculously complex, time consuming, and costly. Speaking as an immigrant who came to the USA legally, it has taken me over a decade to even *start* the process to get a Green Card. And even then, its another 10 years until Citizenship possibilities even arise. And this is for a WASP male from CANADA! Imagine how it would be for a non-white Catholic person in the Xenophobic states of the South? So don't give me all this "shoulda, woulda, coulda." Poor Mexican families (for example) who don't have a dime to their name do not have the option of coming to America legally. Either they risk breaking the USA's laws and come there with the possibility of putting food on the table, or they starve in Mexico. In those circumstances, which do you think would be more attractive to them? When you can't feed your family, the threat of deportation or even jail time isn't that much of a deterrent.