Reid bill would cost $849B, expand coverage to 31 million people, aide says
By Lori Montgomery, Washington Post Staff Writer --- Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has assembled a compromise health package that would expand coverage to more than 31 million Americans at a cost of $849 billion over the next decade, a senior leadership aide said late Wednesday.
The cost of the package would be more than made up for by cuts in future Medicare spending and an array of new taxes, the aide said, reducing projected budget deficits by $127 billion no later than 2019 -- the biggest cost savings of any health care package so far assembled by congressional Democrats. The measure would also save the government money in the long term, the aide said, cutting projected deficits by as much as $650 billion between 2019 and 2029.
The aide did not release a formal cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, saying Reid was still awaiting a final report. But, he said, Reid has "received very good news from CBO confirming that we have produced a fiscally responsible bill that reduces the deficit, extends coverage to millions of Americans and meets the President's cost test."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
216 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 216 of 216Cons really really hate being told they like telling people what to do.
Makes them look like hypocrites.
Cons are total hypocrites -- those "freedom-lovers".
lol (if I may quote, HOTR).
"Especially since their wealth is coming from the labor of those working for them."
No, I was making a comment on the rediculous statement above! Simple fact: Someone has to be the boss; someone has to be the employee. That is how it works.
Casey, that's true: "Someone has to be the boss, and someone has to be the employee." But, since the employee is working 40 hours a week to make money for the boss, the boss should make sure that the employee is earning enough money to be able to lead a good life.
Unfortunately, not all bosses are so inclined. Without labor laws, many bosses would try to squeeze as much work as they possibly could out of their employees and give them back as little as possible.
Now, if you think that any system which has laws that protect employees is Socialism, then you are saying that a capitalist system is totally incapable of protecting employees. Is that really your definition of capitalism?
CJP, I wonder if HOOTER and the other crazy cons even think a minimum wage is necessary.
"Comon BB, even a con can see that the rich can afford to pay a little more. Especially since their wealth is coming from the labor of those working for them."
-Raygun
You sure are dense! Stop and think about your statement. Where is Americas wealthiest wealth at??? Is it sitting in savings accounts waiting to get taxed?
Raygun
Still waiting for a response? Where is Bill Gates wealth? The wealthy already pay almost all the taxes collected in the united states! What more do you want?
BB, fairly sure I am in at least the top 3 percent income bracket. My taxes don't feel that onerous, except maybe property taxes.
Correct me if I am wrong, as cons are such experts in all matters financial, as the last 8 years proved, but don't we all pay the same percentage wise for taxes (state, sales, gas, etc), except federal taxes?
"but don't we all pay the same percentage wise for taxes (state, sales, gas, etc), except federal taxes?"
-Raygun
I believe your correct but with federal income tax there is a huge difference between the top payers and the bottom. Liberals, like yourself, keep talking about how most of Americas wealth is tied up in only 1% of Americas population and how much you would love to tax that WEALTH not income.
So my question to liberals like youself, where is that money at and why do you think taxing it would be a good thing?
Wealth is only useful for assuming that the higher the wealth the more income an individual will have. And if their wealth is in property, they are paying taxes on it now. If their wealth is in stocks they don't pay until they gain is realized, when the stocks are sold. Again, the wealthy can afford to pay more taxes in income taxes. No one is talking about taxes based on wealth. If they have 10 billion is assets, and 1 million income, they will pay only federal taxes based on income.
BB, do you think people's income should be taxed progressively? That is the more income they have, the higher percent they pay in taxes?
"BB, do you think people's income should be taxed progressively?"
-Raygun
Hell no! I think people, like yourself, have earned that money and should get to keep "their fair share".
"Wealth is only useful for assuming that the higher the wealth the more income an individual will have."
-Raygun
I have to disagree with this statement, wealth is based more on your ablility to save money than it is to earn money.
How many times do you think an individuals income should be taxed?
Sales taxes
Fed income taxes
Estate taxes
"how many times do you think an individuals income should be taxed?"
--
I don't know BB. Who has the best tax system on the planet? Not little fkup Caymen Island BS, major countries, without oil, etc. Who has the best tax system regarding countries like us?
"Who has the best tax system on the planet?"
-Raygun
I would assume that the United States is close to the top of the list. Europes tax system is crazy. Yet every year that goes by our tax system become more and more like Europes. Why? Greedy liberals who cant stop spending money, also wanna be conservatives.
"Why? Greedy liberals who cant stop spending money, also wanna be conservatives."
--
JC, BB, do you know who has Darwin on their pretty paper, and who has "In God we Trust" on their money?
Happy Thanksgiving!
Happy Thanksgiving you crazy cons, and you normal people especially. :-)
BB, where should I buy land. Western Cascades, 200k, hopefully at least 20 acres with water (pond, lake, not river). What do you think?
Post a Comment