Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (16959)	4/17/2010 11:40:36 AM
From: Alastair McIntosh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

..the top 1 percent of the population pays an additional $50,000 in taxes because of this legislation, and each of the bottom 50 percent gets about $1000 in benefits. That would mean that the population between the 50th and 99th percentile would not be affected by the legislation. If so, the bill should only be opposed by 1% of the population except for those who are opposed to any form of income redistribution. I'm sure that this isn't quite accurate as those in the 90th to 99th percentile will have some tax hit.

To: Lane3 who wrote (16959)	4/19/2010 7:28:38 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

I have long said that one of the prime motives for healthcare reform had nothing to do with health per se but rather was a desire by those on the left for greater redistribution of income. I think many see that as a benefit or secondary concern on top of the changes in health care they want, but I do think that most of them are honest about their belief that a bigger government role in our health care payments system is what is needed for health reasons. I disagree with their ideas, but I think their motivations are mostly honestly expressed.