Obama Adviser: Insurance Taxes NOT off the Table

[Lostinoz]

Great, just great! :mad:

http://www.action3news.com/global/story.asp?s=10008809

Obama adviser: insurance taxes not off the table
Associated Press - March 15, 2009 9:43 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) - One of President Barack Obama's leading economic advisers says the White House is opposed to taxing health insurance. But Christina Romer is not ruling it out.

She heads the Council of Economic Advisers and says the administration would not rule out taxing health benefits. The New York Times reported Sunday that the administration is considering such a move.

As a candidate, Obama opposed such taxes and called them "a multi-trillion dollar tax hike." Romer says the president remains opposed. But when she was pushed on its during a talk show appearance, she said nothing was being taken off the table.

Romer appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press."

[cbprice797]

Of course they are on the table. He needs money for his "plans" and the only way to get that much monetary influx is to tax everything possible.

[Lostinoz]

Of course they are on the table. He needs money for his "plans" and the only way to get that much monetary influx is to tax everything possible.

The way I viewed it is that it will become impossible to afford private health insurance, so we will run to the government for their socialized healthcare. :confused: Which is what I believe they want to happen.

[Skyowl's Wife]

The way I viewed it is that it will become impossible to afford private health insurance, so we will run to the government for their socialized healthcare. :confused: Which is what I believe they want to happen.

DING DING DING, we have a winner!

[herbalpagan]

Exactly! They had a good show this week by the Dr on CNN. He talked a lot about medicine, insurance and what national medical insurance would mean. There are many good points, the best being that 70% of medical costs go to working with and using the insurance plans out there. But, the government couldn't handle that and would have to subcontract it and they would subcontract to the current insurers and we'd be right back where we started.:rolleyes:

[Skyowl's Wife]

Exactly! They had a good show this week by the Dr on CNN. He talked a lot about medicine, insurance and what national medical insurance would mean. There are many good points, the best being that 70% of medical costs go to working with and using the insurance plans out there. But, the government couldn't handle that and would have to subcontract it and they would subcontract to the current insurers and we'd be right back where we started.:rolleyes:

Not quite back where we started. They intend to:

- "Advise" your doctor on treatment he/she can render based on a "cost-benefit analysis". When the numbers were run, a 57 YO man would NOT be eligible for a hip replacement, since the taxes he'd pay in his time left to work would not pay for the surgery. Doesn't matter that he's been paying all along.

- NO heroic measures for premie babies.

- NO heroic measure for anyone over 55.

- A huge portion of what is skimmed in taxes would not go to the insurance, but the fed bureaucracy necessary to monitoring all their rules so they can kill you faster.

- Smoker? No treatment for lung or heart ailments for YOU.

- Overweight? No heart-related, knee, or hip treatments for YOU.

They were also talking about forced abortions a la China.

Look at the socialized medicine in Canada. The wait for an MRI is currently around 18 months. The woman most responsible for the program up there showed up with breat cancer last year. Where'd she go for her treatment? California!