Jackson Free Press

In the last televised Republican presidential debate on CNN, moderator Wolf Blitzer asks the candidates what should be done if a man without health insurance is seriously injured and cannot guarantee payment of the medical bills. While Ron Paul responds, some of the audience members give a shocking response.

"What do you tell a guy who is sick, goes into a coma and doesn't have health insurance? Who pays for his coverage? Are you saying society should just let him die?" Wolf Blitzer asked.

"Yeah!" several members of the crowd yelled out.

Paul interjected to offer an explanation for how this was, more-or-less, the root choice of a free society. He added that communities and non-government institutions can fill the void that the public sector is currently playing. ...

The answer may have struck a truly libertarian tone, but it was clearly overshadowed by the members of the crowd who enthusiastically cheered the prospect of letting a man die rather than picking up the tab for his coverage.

I have secretly wondered if some people felt that it would be better to let the uninsured die if it means that they won't have to help pay for their healthcare. Well, my suspicions have been confirmed. This is sad.

Previous Comments

ID

164948

Comment

There is something unattractively Darwinian in the current Tea Party crowd. One usually hopes that democracy would bring out the best in people rather than their most selfish instincts.

Author

tombarnes

Date

2011-09-15T13:01:52-06:00

ID

164949

Comment

This is the free market system. Dr. Paul is not the greatest articulator at times, but his answer was spot on. Try to buy groceries without money. Try to buy gas without money. Health care can be provided by the government, but up to a point. And we have passed point.

Author

Darryl

Date

2011-09-15T13:28:44-06:00

ID

164952

Comment

Oh? And whatever happened to the quaint idea of noblesse oblige? It seems to have died in the wave of greed which has overcome the Republican party in an unstemmed tide. I'm not saying that there aren't people on both sides of the fence who might share the blame, but the idea that those who have been most fortunate in our society have an obligation to assist those who have not has definitely become unfashionable. This has created a society which is far less decent on many levels.

Author

tombarnes

Date

2011-09-15T14:14:26-06:00

ID

164953

Comment

Darryl: I think the criticism is more with the audience members than it is with Ron Paul. I've seen the Tea Party explained succinctly in this way -- "Tell all those people suckling at the government teat to keep their grubby hands off my government entitlements!" -- and I think we're hearing that in the crowd during that debate. Society does pay for that medical care now (we all do, in higher premiums, and hospitals charge off what they can't charge to the government or make-up through ridiculously high charges or ambulance rides or medical tests), and that's not going to change; HCR takes us a little further down the road of sharing those costs more overtly and, hopefully, taking seriously the next step, which will be reigning in the actual cost of the services, equipment and other inputs into the system.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2011-09-15T14:22:48-06:00

ID

164954

Comment

Darryl: I think the criticism is more with the audience members than it is with Ron Paul. Exactly. Their responses sounded very death-panelish to me. Hey, instead of letting them die, how about forced euthanizations for the chronically ill? Maybe all pregnant women should get an amniocentesis to see which fetuses aren't "perfect" and weed them out before they are born. Maybe we should make the common cold illegal. Where does it end? I'm sensitive about this issue because a close friend of the family passed away a few weeks ago at age 40 after suffering a severe asthma attack. She had fought with asthma her whole life, among other things, and was never able to work. Prior to her death, she was fighting to get her nebulizer prescription refilled. I keep wondering if she would still be here if she had her medicine. Ironically, her name was Freedom. I can't imagine someone saying that she should be dead because she had to depend on the government for help when she couldn't work to buy her own insurance.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2011-09-15T14:49:04-06:00

ID

164956

Comment

Interestingly enough, many countries that provide free health care to all its citizens surpass the United States in wellness markers (life expectancies, infant mortality, etc.), yet spend less as a percentage of GDP than we do. (see Ranking 37th—Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System) It's a useful question to ask why we spend so much on health care yet get so little. The answer isn't simple, but looking at the medical industry (big pharma, medical equipment manufacturers, insurance companies, etc.) and their profit margins may be a place to start. Only the U.S. and New Zealand allow pharmaceutical companies to market their products directly to consumers, for example. As a result, about a quarter of the cost of every pill and treatment goes to marketing and less than 14 percent to research. And Americans are obsessed with obscure problems like toenail fungus and restless leg syndrome easily cured by expensive "lifestyle drugs." At the same time, health-insurance companies are making record profits despite the recession. They're raising their rates and dropping high-risk patients, unloading them on the government, i.e. the taxpayers. These are the kinds of things these debates rarely, if ever, get to. Instead, politicians seem hell bent to scare us into an "us vs. them" mindset, which is how we get to people saying they'd rather someone die if they can't pay for treatment. "Hey, I'm paying ... screw you if you can't pay." That's just a really nasty, brutal way of thinking. If there's a "them" we should be taking issue with ... well, follow the money.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2011-09-15T19:12:03-06:00

ID

164959

Comment

To tombarnes, did you really just throw out noblesse oblige? Please. There is a reason it is "quaint." We already have enough noblesse oblige...likely too much. So much so that we have created a subpopulation that is absolutely dependent upon it for survival. When the term noblesse oblige was coined, survival was a mere whim away and the importance placed on life much less than today. To Todd, regardless of where the acrimony lies, society and government is going to pay for less health care than in the past. There will be instances of deciding who and what gets treated and, unfairly or not, who doesn't. Does it make sense to apportion monies to terminally ill patients in their last days/weeks of life than to childhood vaccinations? Along with reining in the costs, true health care reform will rein in the level of care and ensuring some responsibility on the patients/sucklings without penny ante lawsuits. Ms. Willis, sorry to hear about your friend. But the apportionment of care is coming and more unfortunate instances of this as well. Already, people are being turned away from hospitals and clinics because of their inability to pay and their lack of insurance. You and other may mutter "death panels" but that is an extreme example of what is coming... And, to Ms. Mott...healthcare throughout the world (and I've seen it up close in more than 20 countries) is very strictly government controlled. And rationed. And if you don't like it, the government simply doesn't care. If you want the best treatments available in those countries, you will pay for it out of your own pocket. And the drugs aren't cheaper, on average, there. I remember a case where the government told a young couple that they wouldn't supply a medicine for treatment. The husband travelled to the neighboring country and purchased it off the black market and brought it back for his wife to be treated with. Is it right to charge someone who is insured two and three times the cost of treatment to offset the cost of treating someone who is uninsured? My answer to that is no. Insurance providers will be cracking down even more than they do now to this form of price gouging, thereby limiting even more the ability of hospitals to care for the uninsured. And, ahem, many of those countries who surpass us in those various statistics employ the strictest apportionment standards. And their population voted for it. The United States couldn't pass similar legislation because of the sense of entitlement in a significant portion of our country.

Author

Darryl

Date

2011-09-16T05:20:41-06:00

ID

164960

Comment

It seems like there is a key element left out of this article regarding the question that was actually asked. Here's a cut-and-paste from a news report I saw on Yahoo: "Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said..." So the question wasn't about someone who couldn't afford health insurance, it was about someone who decided to take the risk of going without health insurance and spending that money on other things. Just wanted to clarify that point.

Author

FrankEzelle

Date

2011-09-16T06:34:03-06:00

ID

164964

Comment

In response to the assertion that we "already have too much noblesse oblige", I beg to differ. My point is that the rich and the very rich have a duty to give back to the community at large. This has essentially gone by the wayside as those who have merely accrete more and those who have not are told to simply go out and do for themselves. How many rooms does one really need in a house? How many private jets? The gap between the extremely rich and the rest of us is widening every day and the top 2% see nothing wrong with keeping it all for themselves. There are, of course, a few notable exceptions, but the idea that those who have great wealth might be expected to share it has slipped into history.

Author

tombarnes

Date

2011-09-16T10:10:06-06:00

ID

164965

Comment

To Todd, regardless of where the acrimony lies, society and government is going to pay for less health care than in the past. There will be instances of deciding who and what gets treated and, unfairly or not, who doesn't. Does it make sense to apportion monies to terminally ill patients in their last days/weeks of life than to childhood vaccinations? Along with reining in the costs, true health care reform will rein in the level of care and ensuring some responsibility on the patients/sucklings without penny ante lawsuits. No doubt, but as we've seen, "tort reform" isn't the only solution, regardless of how often conservatives go to that well. You've got to reform the rest of the system, too. Darryl, I think your argument is something of strawman -- you're setting up this "either/or" conundrum that doesn't quite play for me. I think you can do both... government or government-mandated programs that cover the basics (and apportion costs of basic/emergency services more efficiently) and supplemental programs that allow people with means to receive care the care they can afford. What would make sense is fairly simple in my mind: Medicare for all, which offers limited coverages, emergency care, etc., and Medicare-supplement insurance, which can range from ala carte plans to HSA programs to "cadillac" healthcare plans. That system might not be dramatically different from what we have today, except there would be a more realistic approach to cost-sharing for people who, today, aren't covered. There are numerous examples of this (Canada, Germany) where not only is life-expancy better than in the U.S. but healthcare costs are rising slower and are a smaller proportion of GDP.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2011-09-16T10:17:24-06:00

ID

164966

Comment

And I should say, reforms should take some of the burden off of SMB businesses, many of whom are hurt when they, for instance, carry younger women or older men or whatever the "wrong" combination of employees is to keep premiums down. The base level of insurance -- whatever the mechanism for offering it -- should be shared as universally as possible to bring those costs in line with reality; above that, individuals and families should be allowed to supplement as they want and will.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2011-09-16T10:21:00-06:00

ID

164968

Comment

tombarnes stated "My point is that the rich and the very rich have a duty to give back to the community at large." Who said? I don't recall any clause in the contract I signed stating I was to be paid six figures and to "give back" anything. Noblesse oblige was a thinly veiled attempt by the ruling classes to keep the workers happy so they could continue to work. I give plenty in an ever-rising income tax percentage that is slated to continue to rise with an ever-irresponsible, fiscally challenged government. My only duty is to not break the law...I have no duty to give above and beyond what is requested of me by the government. You might feel that I and others should give back...and I agree with you to a point. When that giving back is unrequited, though, I will stop. Todd, I did present a binary situation but a version of that is what health care reform is. There is a finite pool with which to fund healthcare. There is an expanding demand for government-run healthcare. Do the math...less money for more care. The level of care will drop across the board or, as is feared, care will be maintained for some situations and abandoned in others. Nationalized health plans in Canada and Germany have their costs rising slower because of the caps on salaries of healthcare providers, rationing care (so-called quotas) and a greater sense of responsibility on their populations.

Author

Darryl

Date

2011-09-16T11:47:43-06:00

ID

164970

Comment

This is the free market system. Dr. Paul is not the greatest articulator at times, but his answer was spot on. Try to buy groceries without money. Try to buy gas without money. Health care can be provided by the government, but up to a point. And we have passed point. Yep... try to get the fire department to save your burning home without money, try to get the police to pursue the guy you just stole your car without money, try to drive from one end of Jackson to the other on the interstate without paying a toll, try to take your kids to a park to play on the playground without money, try to check a book out of a library without money... Wait... uh... nevermind. All of those things are provided by the government. Damn, Socialists!!!

Author

Tre

Date

2011-09-16T11:58:57-06:00

ID

164971

Comment

The rich have not, in fact, been paying their fair share of taxes. Tax rates on the richest segment of our society are the lowest they have been in decades. Several corporations like General Electric pay next to nothing in taxes. Indeed, they tell us that we are to perceive corporations as people. The sad state of affairs today is that the rich are not paying their share and have no intention of doing so.

Author

tombarnes

Date

2011-09-16T13:49:10-06:00

ID

164974

Comment

"The rich have not, in fact, been paying their fair share of taxes. Tax rates on the richest segment of our society are the lowest they have been in decades. Several corporations like General Electric pay next to nothing in taxes. Indeed, they tell us that we are to perceive corporations as people. The sad state of affairs today is that the rich are not paying their share and have no intention of doing so." Therein lies part of the problem; if corporations were indeed treated like people, they would not be paying next to nothing in taxes. The top one percent of wage earners pay almost 40 percent of Federal income taxes; I think the cutoff for the top one percent is around $300,000 this year. Just think for a moment what the impact would be if a corporation such as GE, which had over 12,000 times that much in earnings (yes, that is twelve thousand times) in ONE QUARTER, paid taxes at the same rate as that $300,000 lawyer (okay, maybe a lawyer isn't a good example since most of them get around taxes too). I will not attempt to define anyone's "fair share", but there is clearly some room for improvement here. Unfortunately, the next Presidential election will be the first in U.S. history in which non-taxpaying voters outnumber taxpayers, so the Obama administration is likely to remain in power, along with all the favors and half-billion dollar federal loans to his fat-cat corporate buddies and union thugs.

Author

notmuch

Date

2011-09-16T16:12:40-06:00

ID

164975

Comment

Darryl, No one system is always going to make everyone happy. And everyone has apocryphal horror stories about how bad a particular country's medical system is, including ours. It's just not possible to please everyone all the time. Let's make a distinction between rationing and control, however. Rationing implies that there's a limited amount of something and everyone gets a predetermined share and no more. Control, on the other hand, implies that there are rules and, hopefully, some rationale behind the rules. I believe that we need to control the types and levels of treatment provided free of charge. That just makes sense. Part of what drives our medical care up is that millions of Americans don't have access to basic preventative care. Providing that care to everyone is far less expensive in the long run than treating acute, severe and late-stage illnesses after a lifetime of no checkups and medical advice. It makes a lot of sense to provide for things like pap smears, mammograms and PSA tests on a regular basis, for example. It might not make sense, however, to provide enormously expensive treatments to every end-stage cancer patient with a zero chance of survival, any more than giving a liver transplant to a life-long alcoholic, something we already control. These are difficult decisions, yes, and they won't make everyone happy, but we need to make them. The medical profession treats old age and dying as diseases instead of it being a natural part of the cycle. We spend much more on keeping people alive after age 65 than before, and much more on catastrophic illnesses than on prevention. And while older people naturally need more medical care, we do need to find some balance. That includes adjusting our own beliefs that medicine is an exact science (it isn't) and that doctors must be infallible (they can't be). The reasons why America's health-care spending is so out of control are far too numerous to mention here; however, as a society, citizens ultimately pay for the ill health of our uninsured, whether through higher costs in old age, lost productivity, etc. Please provide your sources for Canadian and German health-care quotas. My search turns up a lot of unsubstantiated chatter on blogs but no primary sources, which leads me to believe it just isn't true. Here's a story that presents a different side The truth about Canadian healthcare.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2011-09-16T17:08:10-06:00

ID

164976

Comment

Notmuch, to say that more than half the voting age citizens in the U.S. don't pay taxes is a convenient spin on the truth. It is a "a cleverly selective reading of the facts." Here's two more sources for information on the subject: Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes. Who Doesn't Pay Federal Taxes? Keep in mind that in a country where the median personal income (where the same number of people make less than and more than that number) is around $32,000 annually, we're talking about a huge number of people with small incomes. That includes the elderly, disabled and students and the unemployed. Are you suggesting we raise their taxes?

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2011-09-16T17:52:52-06:00

ID

164977

Comment

Ronni, you are correct; in my haste I did not clarify that I was talking about federal income taxes. My point, however, was that if corporate tax structure was similar to that for the "rich" citizen taxpayers (in other words, if corporations were perceived as people), without the loopholes, we would have a totally different picture. Unfortunately, the large percentage of federal income tax non-payers makes it unlikely (assuming they vote) that things will change much. As I said, I will not pretend to judge what an individual's "fair share" is--but I also know that there are many millions who are very good at "getting" their "fair share".

Author

notmuch

Date

2011-09-16T18:24:52-06:00

ID

164978

Comment

notmuch, I agree with you regarding the rich, however, I'm not clear about your second point. Are you trying to say that everyone who makes less than $32,000 votes Democratic? Or that everyone who makes less than that is on the dole? And when you say "I know" how do you know it?

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2011-09-16T19:35:27-06:00

ID

164979

Comment

Ms. Mott, I was merely recounting information read from the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg Business reports about nationalized health care from years ago. I don't have specific sources, just general ideas. And, your thoughts about preventive health care services doing better for more people in the long run than acute care services is spot on as well. Getting people to assume responsibility for their own actions and not expecting the government to bail them out at every opportunity...that is what I am talking about. Rationing and control are simply word games in trying to make distinctions. Unfortunately, the ones that are going to be most affected are going to be ones with limited or fixed incomes. In business models, those that contribute the least...get the least. Tre, your make funny points but off the mark. The city/county/state government is charged with providing basic and fundamental services to the people and its infrastructure so that it may go on. Yes, your fire department will come and water off your burning house but it is not responsible for rebuilding it. And unless you have a secret stash of cash or home insurance, guess what? It ain't getting rebuilt. The police will chase down that car/purse snatcher, it isn't going to make sure you recoup all of your losses. Same story going on here. Emergency medical services will be provided but only up to a point. A busy ER doctor and nurse is not responsible for making sure that you get your glucose monitor, adhere to a diet and quit smoking and what-not.

Author

Darryl

Date

2011-09-17T08:54:07-06:00

ID

164981

Comment

Paul Krugman wrote an interesting column in The New York Times about this very subject on Thursday. He says, in part: In the past, conservatives accepted the need for a government-provided safety net on humanitarian grounds. Don’t take it from me, take it from Friedrich Hayek, the conservative intellectual hero, who specifically declared in “The Road to Serfdom” his support for “a comprehensive system of social insurance” to protect citizens against “the common hazards of life,” and singled out health in particular. Given the agreed-upon desirability of protecting citizens against the worst, the question then became one of costs and benefits — and health care was one of those areas where even conservatives used to be willing to accept government intervention in the name of compassion, given the clear evidence that covering the uninsured would not, in fact, cost very much money. As many observers have pointed out, the Obama health care plan was largely based on past Republican plans, and is virtually identical to Mitt Romney’s health reform in Massachusetts. Now, however, compassion is out of fashion — indeed, lack of compassion has become a matter of principle, at least among the G.O.P.’s base.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2011-09-17T15:49:13-06:00

ID

164982

Comment

Darryl, WSJ and Bloomberg aren't exactly unbiased sources. Who do you think the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg Business speaks for? Wait, wait ... could it be, um ... Wall Street? Big Business, such as insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies? As long as we lump every person who relies on government assistance into one big irresponsible bunch of freeloaders we will never get to resolution. I don't know of anyone who expects "the government to bail them out at every opportunity." That's a vast over-generalization and oversimplification of an extremely complex problem. It also smacks of bigotry a la Ronald Reagan's thoroughly discounted "welfare queen" argument. In the midst of the Great Recession, millions of Americans need help for any number of reasons. Getting people to take more "personal responsibility" assumes that every circumstance is within our personal control. It doesn't take a big mental leap to see that assumption simply doesn't hold hold up. If you've lost your job through a corporate lay off and are among the millions who can't find another one, or you're among the millions whose house isn't worth what you owe on it and you can't afford your mortgage payment or sell it for enough to pay off the mortgage, or the millions whose retirement savings were wiped out by Wall Street and you can't afford housing and groceries on what's left, exactly how does taking "personal responsibility" help? Words are important. Nuance is important. As Mark Twain famously said: "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug." It's the difference between saying "social safety nets" and "socialism." Huge difference. Like the difference between business and government. They are not the same thing. At all.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2011-09-17T16:48:00-06:00

ID

164985

Comment

Like Paul Krugman is unbiased. LOL I've heard it said more than once that Ron Paul supporters are the very reason why Ron Paul has no chance. To me, it sounded like a few people in the audience, not the whole audience (or the GOP base) erupting in shouts of "Yeah! There are fringe nuts in every large political gathering. As the shouts started Dr. Paul says no to the question. If you listen to the rest of his answer he does give the libertarian solution. That we can go back to the time when people paid for their own medical care and it didn't cost a gazillion dollars. There would be competition in the medical care industry and doctors would make house calls again. While that would be cool and all, it's never gonna happen. So, even Ron Paul admits that we will pick up the tab for those that can't and that it will be spread around in the community. That leaves us right back at Todd's point that ..."Society does pay for that medical care now (we all do, in higher premiums, and hospitals charge off what they can't charge to the government or make-up through ridiculously high charges or ambulance rides or medical tests), and that's not going to change," We all pay for medical care for those that can't afford it now. Why do we have to do it the most expensive way possible? It's ridiculous the way we do things now. But I personally don't believe Obamacare is going to be any better IF it's even constitutional, which I don't believe it is. I'm hugely disappointed that the Dems didn't pass a single payer plan like Taiwan has when they had the chance. Once people started using it no one could ever touch it again. Taiwan gives everyone access to healthcare and it costs them 8% of their GDP. We spend 16% and don't cover everyone. They get a card and can go to whichever doctor they like. I've got friends who could be working if they could get the surgery or therapy they need but they can't afford insurance, so they are on disability. How does that make any sense?

Author

WMartin

Date

2011-09-18T12:43:09-06:00

ID

164989

Comment

Point taken re: Paul Krugman, WMartin. On the other hand, I'm not repeating years-old rumors that I can't back up, and then attributing them to Krugman, which is what Darryl did with the WSJ and Bloomberg. Different contexts.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2011-09-19T11:17:09-06:00

ID

164990

Comment

Darryl said, "I give plenty in an ever-rising income tax percentage that is slated to continue to rise with an ever-irresponsible, fiscally challenged government." I am sorry the place you live in is raising your taxes. In the United States of America, taxes and the overall tax burden is lower than it has been in sixty years. And it is falling, not rising. Maybe you should consider moving here. Unfortunately, the tax burden on the Richest 2% or so has fallen a lot more than the tax burden on the rest of us 98%. The tax burden on corporations has fallen even faster. This does lead to a very fiscally challenged government because it's revenue stream has been decimated by ineffective, irresponsible tax cuts. The biggest problem with rising health care costs can be summed up in two words : "For Profit." ( Please pardon my blog plug, there is some relevance - http://bobbyshead.blogspot.com/2011/09/makers-and-takers.html )

Author

BobbyKearan

Date

2011-09-19T13:39:49-06:00

ID

164991

Comment

"The top one percent of wage earners pay almost 40 percent of Federal income taxes" Those poor rich people! What a horrible statistic... until you throw in the fact that the top 1% also take home over 55% of all capital income. http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4

Author

BobbyKearan

Date

2011-09-19T13:52:50-06:00

ID

165016

Comment

Ronni, it has been a while since I have had time to respond, so I looked back at my earlier post. I can't see where I mentioned anything about $32,000; however, I did see that you have apparently extrapolated that anyone making below that median figure is a voting non-income tax payer. It would actually not surprise me at all to learn that many of the non-income tax payers are corporations who received half-billion dollar government loans before declaring bankruptcy (Solyndra). Bobby, part of the problem is the discrepancy among the various types of income--for example, you referred to the top 1% of capital income earners, while my point was regarding the top 1% of wage earners, whose total income share (not just wages) is about 17%. This confusion leads to situations such as Warren Buffet complaining that he does not pay enough taxes, which Obama uses to justify raising income taxes even though this will not significantly affect Mr. Buffet, since very little of his income is derived through salary, etc. In fact, this will actually benefit most of Buffet's funds since they are set up to avoid negative effects from the type of tax increases Obama now wants to impose. Although it is well known that these two men are in each other's back pockets, Mr. Buffet will now be seen as some kind of folk hero. Hey, Mr. Buffet, I have an idea--if you are sad because your secretary is in a higher net tax bracket than you are, why don't you just write Mr. Obama a big fat check?

Author

notmuch

Date

2011-09-21T16:44:16-06:00

ID

165049

Comment

notmuch, I extrapolated the figure from your original statement that more than half of Americas voters don't pay taxes, which usually points to those not making enough money to own anything or own taxes. Corporations can't vote, yet. As to your second point, it's just more sleight-of-hand to differentiate where income derives when figuring taxable income. It all contributes to the bottom line and how much cash you have to spend. Buffett's point has always been that because the majority of his earnings come from capital gains (taxed at a much lower rate than ordinary wages), his overall tax rate is lower than that of his secretary. Obama's tax proposal would limit deductions on taxable income and roll back the marginal tax rate on the highest tax brackets to Clinton-era levels, according to the Wall Street Journal. The Tax Policy Center analysis found that compared to current tax levels, people earning more than $1 million would see their taxes rise by an average $166,133 in 2013. Their average federal tax rate would rise by about 5.5 percentage points to 38.4%. As a group, they would absorb almost 70% of the overall tax increase. People earning between $500,000 and $1 million would see their tax bills rise by an average $18,955. Their average tax rate would rise by about 2.7 percentage points, to 29.4%. As a group, they would absorb about 15.7% of the increase. I'm just not seeing how this is the huge unfair burden the GOP-TPers make it out to be. For millionaires, it's maybe one less Lamborghini in the garage. For those making between $500,000 and million, it's maybe one less exotic vacation. It's difficult for me to see either as deprivation or causing great suffering. On the other hand, cutting aid to the elderly or disabled may well cause a lot of suffering. If there's confusion, it's caused by spin, not facts. Obama's plan may not be perfect, but it's a start.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2011-09-22T19:07:57-06:00