If you have "no place to go," come here!

Dems health care reform: Taxes raised immediately, benefits, if any, to come later


WASHINGTON — Americans could pay billions of dollars more in new taxes for a few years before they're likely to see significant change in the nation's health care system under legislation that Congress is considering.

Some analysts said that's not necessarily bad. Delaying major health care changes until at least 2013, as the pending Senate and House of Representatives bills would do, would give the government sufficient money and time to get things right.

You mean save the country $400 billion a year by implementing single payer after all?

"You [who?] want to fully finance these reforms, so there's no reason not to start raising money," said Linda Blumberg, senior fellow at Washington's Urban Institute Health Policy Center, a center-left research group.

Really? Were the bailouts "fully financed"? Is the Afghan war "fully financed?" How come saving 45,000 lives a year has to be "fully financed," while throwing a few trillion to the banksters and a few more into the graveyard of empires doesn't? Isn't there something wrong with this picture?

No votes yet


A. Citizen's picture
Submitted by A. Citizen on

...this is exactly what Obama & Posse have had in mind all along. Thanks to the 'access bloggers' and many citizens who fell for President 'Hyphy''s hype we are all marching down the Yellow Brick Road singing a merry tune, eh?

But not for very damn long. I think Preznint 'Clueless' is gonna put his foot it in it big-time with 'One Speech too Far'. That would be the one he's gonna give next week to 'convince the American people of the absoluter necessity of ramping up our commitment to the teh MIC...Er... 'Freedom in the 'Stans'!

This fool really believes, like all good con-men, his own b.s. but the Citizenry is not going to accept Billions more in the 'Stans while they have to wait 'til 2013 for any sort of help with their now federally mandated insurance bills.


Jes ain't a gonna go down.

tarheel-leftist85's picture
Submitted by tarheel-leftist85 on

I'm not convinced Obama™ is clueless or really believes the tripe--same with Bush or any other Republicrat. That said, I think those things are less relevant than where He and His Disciples™' financial interests lie. Obama™ is one big marketing scheme, so figuring him out is like trying to figure out the essence of actors/actresses on commercials. Simply put, and generally speaking, the best way to know a politician is to simply follow the money. It's more difficult, and less empirical, to discern their purity of soul or intellectual capability (after all, Obama would talk down to people with platitudes, while Hillary and Edwards talked about, you know, policy).

You're totally right in the point that this was in the works from the beginning. The only way I would've voted for Obama as an "anti-war" candidate is if he would've have provided an economic narrative about our occupations--namely, that Iraq/Afghanistan are merely exercises in privatizing our national security/defense. We didn't go in those places to make to make them Christian or just because we're mean bullies. It's simply a matter of profit. We'll be occupying these places as long as "progressives" don't understand this (or are nefariously concealing it). Not only that, they'll be the ones "disappearing" us at home when their domestic neoliberal shock therapy ramps up (probably about the time the public en masse realizes that we are subsidizing BlueCross).