What do we want? SINGLE PAYER. When do we want it? NOW. Who's going to pay for it? THE RICH.

[begin_within]

Now I feel better.

[cliffordu]

1. I agree completely.

If we could only make it so -

After the supreme court makes it legal for the corporations to OPENLY buy politicians, we are toast.

[Hippo_Tron]

2. Which is a great example of why elections have consequences

If Al Gore had been President we wouldn't even be discussing the possibility that the Supreme Court would make it legal for corporations to directly donate to politicians. Thanks Ralph "there's no difference between Bush and Gore" Nader...

[tblue]

4. Oh don't get me started.

[Greyhound]

8. The Big Lie Campaign continues...

:eyes:

[Hippo_Tron]

33. I don't believe that I lied at any point in my post

[Greyhound]

37. This nation underwent a coup in 2000. It had nothing to do with Nader.

Nor Pat Buchanan, or Alexander. or Forbes, or Dole...

Blaming Nader for this nation's acceptance of the coup d'etat is like blaming the cats for the Black Plague.

[Hippo_Tron]

55. I didn't say 2000 was Nader's fault

Just that he's a lying asshole for claiming that there's no difference between Bush and Gore.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

58. He played his part

A useful idiot to BushCo.

[aquart]

59. I'm sorry, but Nader promulgated The Big Lie that there was no difference.

And many believed it and spouted it and acted like there was NO REASON TO FIGHT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE.

So Nader can rot in Hell playing parchesi with the Filthy Five.

[Greyhound]

67. He was completely irrelevant. Donna Brazile ran one of the worst campaigns in

Presidential history, and Al Gore listened to her idiocy, causing what should have been a slam-dunk victory to be close enough to steal. Nader is just a convenient scapegoat for those that want to forget a completely forgettable, awful campaign. It was the Democrat's to lose, and they did.

Oh, and there is far too little difference between the Democratic and Republik parties.

[deaniac21]

73. It wasn't Ralph it was Diebold.

[drdtroit]

3. Never going to happen!

They spend their money in Washington to make sure they can steal ALL of our money.
RIP the USA

[begin_within]

11. It's so simple:

1. Pass single payer.
2. Raise the top income tax rate to pay for it.
3. Let the chips fall where they may politically.
4. Move on to the next pressing issue, namely GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE which is a survival-of-the-species issue.

[Dragonfli]

14. The Perfect Beginning Agenda! +100

[lib_wit_it]

21. But, but....what about bipartisanshit? /m

[SammyWinstonJack]

35. +1

:spray:

[ddeclue]

5. +1

[ShortnFiery]

6. We have "The People" but our representatives are bought and paid for by

the large corporations represented on K Street. :shrug:

[truedelphi]

17. I am cheering up over the last two hours since

Discovering "Yeswestillcan.org"

It helped me to feel like I was doing something.

[leftstreet]

7. Well hey now! Don't those tax cuts for the rich expire in 2010?

Well there ya go!

They WILL expire, right?

Right?

uh...

[Laelth]

9. I could not agree more. k&r n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[orleans]

10. and i absolutely LOVE the picture! n/t

[begin_within]

12. aww thanks, take it

I'm not going to keep it very long (as Henry VIII said about each of his wives) so take it and run with it...

[WillyT]

13. Yep...

:evilgrin:

[Dragonfli]

15. K&R - And Thank You - n/t

[truedelphi]

16. Me too. Thanks

And a big :toast: to you.

BTW one good outcome (for me) of all the politicking today is I discovered "Yeswestill can.org" which is a great place to check out and start work on getting us to Single Payer Universal HC.

[aquart]

18. No, no. THE PATRIOTIC RICH.

The patriotic rich whose family values want American families to be healthy and strong and unafraid because they know that this nation loves and cherishes its citizens.

[librechik]

26. +1

[begin_within]

27. thanks

[newtothegame]

19. Why don't we all pay for it since we're all going to use it? n/t

[begin_within]

24. To those who much is given, much is expected.

[newtothegame]

28. That doesn't make sense. We've all been given much, we were all lucky enough to be born in America.

So again, why can't we all pay for it?

[Hannah Bell]

31. because the top .1% (1/10 of the top 1%) receives more income than

the bottom 120 million - over 1/3 of the population.

if they give back the money, we'll pay for it.

[newtothegame]

32. So because you want their money, they should pay for it?

That's not a very compelling reason. If we want to get this passed, so that EVERYONE HAS HEALTH CARE, EVERYONE SHOULD PAY FOR IT. You're not making a very compelling argument for passage of reform when you say EVERYONE should be covered, but only THESE PEOPLE should pay for it.

[Hannah Bell]

34. because they have more disposable income than the rest of the population combined;

yes, they should pay.


1/4 of the population essentially has negative income, 1/10 is formally unemployed.

can't get blood from a stone; they can't pay because the rich took the money by:

1. holding wages flat 30 years
2. increasing collection of taxes from the bottom 2/3 of the income ladder
3. off-shoring jobs; union-busting
4. financial manipulation, the proximate cause of the current "recession"
5. etc.

[newtothegame]

38. Ok, but if we're not all gonna pay for something we're all gonna use, who decides the cutoff?

Who decides that a million isn't enough but 2 million is too much? Or that $100,000 makes you an underling but $200,000 means you foot the bill? Who decides the percentages? So the top 1% pays, but the multi-millionaire that falls into the outskirts of the top 1.5% gets off scott-free?

[whopis01]

54. It's called a progressive tax. Not that difficult. N/T

[alarimer]

69. Because they are parasites on society.

They earned their money on the backs of the rest of us. Or they (undeservedly) inherited from family.

The rich are bloodsuckers and parasites who contribute little to the good of society as a whole.

[newtothegame]

71. Do yu think any rich people came up wth an idea/product and found success with it?

Or does success in America automatically mean you must have stepped on someone to get there? If so, I feel bad for your sad, pathetic outlook on life. Find some happiness in life friend.

[newtothegame]

72. Do you think any rich people came up with an innovative idea/product and found success with it?

Or does success in America automatically mean you must have stepped on someone to get there? If so, I feel bad for your sad, pathetic outlook on life. Find some happiness in life friend.

[TxRider]

44. And they pay more taxes in dollars than the bottom 120 million as well.

[Hannah Bell]

64. let's see: 2005 figures from congressional budget office:

bottom 60%

share of national income: 25.8%

share of all federal taxes: 14.2%

range effective rate total fed taxation: 4.3-14.2% (median = 9.25)

average income: $37,266 (range = $0-$67,000)

after-tax (9.25): $33,819 ($92.6/day)



top 1%

share of national income: 18.1%

share of all federal taxes: 27.6%

effective rate: 31.2%

average income: $1,558,500

after-tax: 1,072,248 ($2,937/day)



so one person (1%) averages 1.5585 million & 60 people combined (60%) average $37,000 = $2,220,000.


The 1 person alone makes 70% of what the 60 people combined do. Not to mention that $37K is close to bedrock for a "decent" life for one person in the US (car, health insurance, house payment), let alone a family.


That 60% is approximately the bottom 180 million of the population.


what tax rate do *you* think would be fair, genius? so the bottom could pay more of their "fair share," i mean.

oh, & yes, let the peons pay for their own individual health care, too. everyone should pay their "fair share"!


you want them to pay? Raise their fucking wages.

if the super-rich made a mere $2000 dollars a day on average, it would more than pay for health care for everyone in the country.


http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/Appendix_wtoc.pdf

[gorfle]

39. The fallacy is that it was "given"

To those who much is given, much is expected.

No one gave me the things that I have earned in my life.

One of the things that pleased me greatly with President Obama's speech to the school children was the emphasis that you are individually responsible for your future. The sentiment, such as yours, that we all end up where we are in life due to luck or fate is a common one here on DU. It was refreshing to hear our Democratic President put the emphasis on success where it belongs - on the hard work and dedication of the individual.

[anigbrowl]

41. Agree. Some get a free ride, many earn wealth legitimately

and by legitimately I mean within the spirit of the law, not just the letter. single payer healthcare is something I am absolutely willing to pay a bit more in taxes for. In a properly-working economy, it's one government service people get significant real value from, more than most in fact.

I do think rich people can pay some more in taxes, which is why I support a progresive tax system and also think the cap on SS and suchlike should be abolished. But I reject ompletely this idea that pops up regularly on DU of 'I want X for everyone, but it should be paid for entirely by other people'.

Some people do make vast fortunes in unethical or even criminal ways. That does not mean that everyone who makes a lot of money is unethical or criminal, and those who suggest it does are practicing deceit just as much as those who become wealthy through fraud - the only difference is that the former are trying to accumulate political rather than financial capital.

[YoungAndOutraged]

42. If hard work and dedication actually meant something

My Grandfather would be a multi-millionaire, living in a mansion somewhere. Instead he works seven days a week, at age sixty-seven, just as he has since he was sixteen.

[gorfle]

50. Hard work and dedication do mean something, but not everything.

If hard work and dedication actually meant something My Grandfather would be a multi-millionaire, living in a mansion somewhere. Instead he works seven days a week, at age sixty-seven, just as he has since he was sixteen.

Hard work and dedication do mean something, just not everything.

You can work very hard and be very dedicated to ditch digging, but it won't make you wealthy. If you want wealth, you have to work very hard and be very dedicated to doing things that people want to pay lots of money for.

This is why President Obama was stressing the importance of hard work and dedication to academic endeavors. Scholastic success is very often a prerequisite to financial success.

[Hannah Bell]

65. go peddle it to the delusional hordes at tonyrobbins.com.

[Hannah Bell]

29. top 1% of households got more in bush tax cuts than the bottom 90%

of households combined.

that's how much more money they have than everyone else.

that's why.

can't get blood from a turnip, buddy. they took all the money.

[aquart]

56. Math not your subject?

If 90% of the wealth is in the hands of 1% of the people, why should 99% percent of the people pay as much for health care as the 1%?

You're thinking regressively.

[FLDCVADem]

57. That's ridiculous

90% of the wealth is not in the hands of 1% of the people.

Raise taxes on the wealthy, fine, but do we have to out and out lie about the numbers?

[Maru Kitteh]

62. n/t posted wrong place.

[Hannah Bell]

66. english apparently isn't yours, since i didn't say anything close to "90% of the wealth is in the

hands of 1% of the people," or "99% should pay as much as 1%".

[Jack Sprat]

20. We all need it. It saves money on healthcare

I thought it was a priority. The too many to number health care providers confuse the systems with different forms and requirements. What could be a streamlined efficiency of one administrator that consolidates records and reduces costs dramatically.

[Senator]

22. K&+R

[earth mom]

23. Totally Agree!

:kick:

[Festivito]

25. Fine, BUT, single-payer IS CHEAPER than insured-payer.

3K/yr/person is cheaper than the 6K we survived with and certainly cheaper than the 8K we pay now -- covers everyone for everything -- just lacks a bunch of insurance company clerks fighting unnecessary hospital clerks with a huge hierarchy of unneeded companies keep all the unnecessaries employed in their unnecessary efforts.

If we can afford 6K, we can certainly afford 3K. To the rich, fine, but it's a big so what.

[gorfle]

40. Logically, it must be so.

3K/yr/person is cheaper than the 6K we survived with and certainly cheaper than the 8K we pay now -- covers everyone for everything -- just lacks a bunch of insurance company clerks fighting unnecessary hospital clerks with a huge hierarchy of unneeded companies keep all the unnecessaries employed in their unnecessary efforts.

Leave the efficiencies out of it. Just by taking profit out of the equation there would be a cost savings. Whatever the current health insurance annual profit margin is, you would take that right off of the bottom line. 25% annual profits? Instant 25% reduction in the cost of health care.

[TxRider]

46. It's not that simple.

Insurance companies do not get all their income from policy payments.

They also gain income from investing and other activities. A single payer plan would not have those additional incomes to help defray expenditures.

[gorfle]

51. Why not?

Why could not a government-run insurance company also invest its premiums?

[TxRider]

52. Invest in what?

Can you imagine the maelstrom if the invest in Halliburton... Maybe GE while they are doing business with Iran? Can't see it.

Not to mention the millions of jobs people have at insurance companies, and what to do with them?

[gorfle]

53. On investments and jobs

As for investments, there is no reason why investment money could not be handed to some brokerage firm to manage for them, so as to insure impartiality. My 401K is managed this way. I give them money, and they invest for me. I don't know who they invest in.

As for jobs, yes, this is why I have said there will be no Public Option. It would destroy the private for-profit health insurance industry, with all the investments and jobs along with it.

[Festivito]

68. 25%! NOT! I'm talking 60% less.

3000/8160

Unnecessarily raised prices such as aspirin going for bucks instead of pennies.
Unnecessarily high judgments in all cases involving someone needing health care.
Aside from unnecessary clerks -- as unnecessary as auto workers.

This list is long and all good from here on.

[Vidar]

30. K&R

[imdjh]

36. Good thing they had their minds made up already.

Or I would think that stupid remarks like "make the rich pay for it" would have been part of what did it in.

[TxRider]

43. There's a problem there...

I don't think the rich could pay for it even if we took 100% of their income.

[bigwillq]

45. K and R!

:bounce: :thumbsup:

[YoungAndOutraged]

47. Bleed the leeches dry

The richest 1% have more than enough money to pay for nearly everything. And they got it by leeching off the rest. Is it too much to ask that they pay the least of what they owe?

[Wizard777]

48. They've been spending your money for so long. I think it is the poors turn to spend their money.

Why the hell not? :shrug:

They have no qualms about spending the money that comes from you breaking your back. So why shouldn't you spend the money they, ahem, earn by signing their name on things....... like golf cards. :eyes:

[Wizard777]

49. They've been spending your money for so long. I think it is the poors turn to spend their money.

Why the hell not? :shrug:

They have no qualms about spending the money that comes from you breaking your back. So why shouldn't you spend the money they, ahem, earn by signing their name on things....... like golf cards. :eyes:

[immoderate]

60. That sounds fair.

--imm

[SmileyRose]

61. recommended for the excellent photoshop in your sig

[robinlynne]

63. me too.

[harun]

70. I have no problem with everyone paying for it.