redistribution of wealth

Rob the Young

I'm old enough to remember the days before auto liability insurance was mandatory.  One of the biggest arguments for its passing was that it would bring down the cost of insurance for everyone.

Well, it didn't.

It made the cost go up.  Before, if you were high-risk, the insurance companies would reject you for coverage, or the expense would be so great that you couldn't afford it.  But then, by law, they had to cover everyone-- and everyone had to pay a piece for covering those high-risk motorists.

We're seeing this now with health care coverage.

Personally, I'm going to be taxed on my insurance, something like $2800 a year.  In effect, my insurance just went up by $230 a month, so that I could pay for insurance for someone that won't pay for it themselves.  I have a great insurance plan, granted; but it's part of my compensation package-- I earn it.

Let me step you through the cost-benefit analysis a little bit here.

From the AP:

Nearly 4 million Americans - the vast majority of them middle class - will have to pay a penalty if they don't get insurance when President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law kicks in, according to congressional estimates released Thursday.The penalties will average a little more than $1,000 apiece in 2016, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report. 

Now to the funny part:

Democrats argue that the requirement and the penalties are a necessary part of a massive overhaul designed to expand coverage to millions who now lack it. They point out that getting more Americans, especially young and healthy people, in the insurance pool will reduce costs for others and could lower premiums."The new law will make health insurance affordable for everyone and CBO's analysis confirms that the vast majority of uninsured Americans will find health care affordable and choose to participate," said White House spokesman Nick Papas. 

---snip---

By 2016, those who must get insurance but don't will be fined $695 or 2.5 percent of their household income, whichever is greater.

---snip---

About 3 million of those required to pay fines in 2016 will have incomes below $59,000 for individuals and $120,000 for families of four, according to the CBO projections. The other 900,000 people who must pay the fine will have higher incomes.

(emphasis mine)

One more time:

It's necessary to fine people, notably those that don't really need it so much, for not buying insurance, so that we can say that it costs less, because we just took their money without providing them a service.

That is to say, it's all about getting something for nothing.

Some people are going to get something while giving nothing, and others are going to give something while receiving nothing.  It's that Robin Hood effect.  Young people and healthy people simply do not pay enough for insurance.  The solution?  Rob them.

If you make less than $28,000 a year, you will have to pay only $695 for not having insurance; ie you receive nothing except a bill.  If you make more than that, there's no limit.

Also from the AP:

More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.

---snip---

"During 2010-2019, however, these [cost-cutting] effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage," wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare's chief actuary. "Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare ... reductions is doubtful."

Now, why was I thinking that anyway?  Something about driving around in my car....

This is something of a mystery to me:

Tax credits would help many middle-class households pay their premiums, while Medicaid would pick up more low-income people. Insurers would be required to accept all applicants, regardless of their health.

The fact of the matter is we already have tax credits for that.  You have to itemize (Schedule A) to take the credit; but the only reason people don't itemize is if they come out better for not doing it.  But now, we need some other kind of tax credit.

The biggest health care expense most young people will face is having a baby.  That can get expensive.

There used to be a way for people to do that without having to worry about the expense of it.  It's called "Join the military."

Same with making a college education available to everyone.  We already have a program for that.  It's called "Join the military."

This health care fiasco is just another rob-the-young redistributionist scheme to give people who contribute nothing more than they're worth.  If anything, I see it as a reason for young people to become more involved in the political process.  You're going to be paying quite a bit for all the entitlements that the boomers voted in for themselves (Clinton balanced the budget largely by doubling the social security deduction from your paycheck-- look forward to more of that).

It's really your call as to how many losers and bozos you want digging in your pockets.  But until you realize that you're getting robbed, not much to the good is going to happen. 

How do you "soak the rich"?

When there are a lot fewer rich people to soak?

The number of American households with a net worth of $1 million or more, excluding the value of their primary residence, fell 27% to 6.7 million in 2008 from an all-time high of 9.2 million the year before, according to a report from market research firm Spectrem Group

Notice this occurred before we had a whole bunch of rich folks "going Galt"   This was just due to the drop in equity and real estate values.

Message to Obama and co. If you want to have rich people to soak in order to pay for all your fun stuff, hmmm, maybe that means we need to have....hmmm ...rich people.

Maybe letting the Bush tax cuts hang around until there's , a hmmm a recovery  might work better than getting rid of them in the middle of a economic crisis?

Of course, if income equality is the new holy grail, don;t bother. The one way to ensure income equality is to enact policies that make sure no one has any money.  And some people think you've done a splendid job on that front already.

 

 

 

Don't Tax Me Bro"

Bill Smith, Editor: Like most Americans, I identify with Joe the Plumber who wants to work, invest, own and seek the American dream of being successful. But, we are faced with a government that wants to tax our success for working hard to support others who have settled for less - government handouts - and thus live off the labors of "us." I'm not talking about those who can't work or are temporarily down on their luck through no fault of their own. But I am tired of government people, like Sen. Barack Obama, who want to to take my money and then redistribute (give) my money to those who can work to provide for themselves and those under their care. I especially don't like their giving my money to those who made past mistakes, made poor decisions or are just plain are lazy and now want to avoid the consequences of their actions, laziness, mistakes or poor decisions. Also, have you noted that while taxing "us" for working, the government keeps their "operational cut" which tends to grow over time. I join Joe the Plumber is saying Don't tax me for working hard or for having worked hard to save for my family's future!

Syndicate content