Democrats will soak the young
Looking at the Ponzi schemes that are Medicare and Social Security, I’ve often wondered which generation of Americans will get stuck with the tab when the programs go totally broke. More and more, it looks like mine will.
Yet paying for baby boomers to retire comfortably, while knowing we’ll probably never be afforded the same luxury, isn’t enough. We’re also being asked to pay the cost of Democrats’ health insurance proposals — both now and in the future.
One part of this is pretty straightforward. A new health insurance entitlement will mean higher tax rates.
Not only “the rich” will get hit. The Wall Street Journal calculated in February that even if the feds took every dime of every American’s taxable income above $75,000, they’d barely collect enough money to pay for President Barack Obama’s proposed 2010 budget of $3.5 trillion.
That budget doesn’t include a new health entitlement. And those figures certainly don’t account for the disastrous economic drop-off that would occur under such an outrageous tax.
So, taxes will rise for the middle class. Today’s young taxpayers will be taxed more now to cover some costs, and later to pay for Washington’s borrowing.
Taxes, however, are just the first part of Democrats’ plan to soak the young.
Liberal health reform means 20-somethings not only will be forced to buy insurance that many of them don’t buy now. They’ll also have to pay higher premiums than they are charged today — to the benefit of Americans their parents’ age.
Three staples of Democratic health proposals are a mandate that citizens buy insurance, a “community rating” requirement that precludes insurers from charging customers different rates based on factors such as age and a “guaranteed issue” stipulation that prevents insurers from denying coverage to any applicant, regardless of pre-existing conditions.
A University of Kentucky economist, Aaron Yelowitz, studied the impact these new requirements would have for younger adults versus their elders in a new paper for the Cato Institute.
He concluded that the three provisions “would drive [health insurance] premiums down for 55-year-olds but would drive them up for 25-year-olds — who are then implicitly subsidizing older adults.”
The culprit is the community rating, an aspect of Democrats’ plans that doesn’t get nearly as much attention as the mandate or guaranteed issue.
Yelowitz looked at premiums in New York, which already has community rating, versus California, which doesn’t. On the Web site eHealthInsurance.com, he found that 25-year-olds in Bell Gardens, Calif., can choose from 107 health plans. The premiums they pay are one-fourth to one-third of what 55-year-olds in the Los Angeles suburb can expect.
The site quotes similar prices for Atlanta, which has a younger population than most of America’s other large metro areas.
In Brooklyn, N.Y., on the other hand, the young can choose from just 12 plans, for which they must pay the same premiums as older customers — and about three times as much as 25-year-olds in Bell Gardens or Atlanta.
The community rating means young New Yorkers get no price break even though they tend to be healthier and consume less medical care.
The average price increase nationwide from community rating probably wouldn’t be as stark as the difference between California and New York, but it would be significant.
Consulting firm Oliver Wyman estimates that the kind of rating required in the House-passed bill would increase costs for the youngest and healthiest insurance buyers by 69 percent. That would mean about $800 a year more for 25-year-old Atlantans.
Two-thirds of under-30 voters chose Obama last year. Yelowitz described this fact as “ironic.”
I’d call it self-destructive.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2010 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
123 comments Add your comment
Mike Harmon
November 11th, 2009
7:16 pm
Well said
TaxPayer
November 11th, 2009
7:45 pm
Kyle,
I worked for a Fortune 100 company for decades and was provided health insurance as part of my total compensation package. I started there in my late twenties. The people employed there, that also received this coverage as part of their total compensation, were pretty representative of the adult population in the surrounding communities with respect to age, race, education, political beliefs, etc. The younger and healthier employees therefore carried the bulk of the burden regarding the health care ‘payments’ (they were not actually deducted from one’s pay) since they rarely utilized this portion of their benefits while the older and/or less healthy employees received the most from this benefit while also receiving the equivalent or more vacation and equivalent or higher salaries and/or wages since these items were highly correlated with one’s seniority (at least within certain groupings and excluding a trivial number of outliers).
So, if most of the working population were to be subjected to similar conditions (and I suspect that many that are employed by the larger corporations are) throughout their working lives, how would their situation change if your worst fears were realized and everyone was suddenly required to have insurance? (By the way, do you recall what sort of exclusions and/or exceptions have been included in the various plans for small companies. I seem to recall wording that effectively excluded them from any added cost burden via tax credits, etc.)
On a side note, I’d also like to know if you think that persons that purchase individual policies should be afforded the same protections as persons covered on group policies. Finally, I have a few questions for you regarding social security and Medicare but I best let those lie for now. No sense in pushing it, eh.
Joan
November 11th, 2009
8:51 pm
I haven’t heard whether all those “middle class” people making $25000 or less are going to be required to buy health insurance or go to jail. And what about all those entitlement types? Are they going to have to buy health insurance with their welfare checks? If all we had to worry about were people who work we might be able to deal with this monster. Unfortunately, an awful lot of that money will be going to people who never have and never will contribute a dime for anything. I want that bill killed so dead we don’t hear about it again for at least 20 more years.
Norbit
November 11th, 2009
9:02 pm
Joan, if you want to kill the bill you should offer to sleep with it! I’m sure it would die from the proposition.
Michael H. Smith
November 11th, 2009
9:04 pm
The Ponzi schemes!
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514
‘Nuff said.
Del
November 11th, 2009
9:20 pm
Unfortunately, for the American people this bill is being driven by ideology. It could have been crafted to offer positive reform but that won’t be the case. It will either be rammed through and to quote Bill Clinton pass it and pretty it up later, I paraphrased his admonishment to the democrats in congress or it will die by the hand of moderate Democrats who face a potentially tough re-election battle next year. Hopefully, it will die because now is certainly not the time to turn over 6% of our economy to government.
Michael H. Simth
November 11th, 2009
9:24 pm
Yep, a Socialist’s ideology Del: It’s going to be tough getting use to saying, “We the Comrades”.
Aquarius
November 11th, 2009
9:35 pm
Democrats want to soak everybody who is productive and successful to pay for the losers and misfits who can’t take of their own problems
Misfit
November 11th, 2009
9:42 pm
Soak the rich, feed the poor and spread the love…..
I Want The Truth !
November 11th, 2009
9:46 pm
Sean Hannity makes “FAKE” videos to pimp his agenda.
Nancy PelosiCare stinks and is nothing short of a government takeover of your personal life.
All of this is a lie and a distraction designed to keep your eyes off the ball.
Watch the Federal Reserve…. Watch the value of our dollar versus.gold and oil.
You are getting screwed every single minute.
PLEASE —– Show up at Tea Parties !
Ask questions… Demand answers.
We The People have the power to change America.
Get involved. Blog. Speak Up!
hryder
November 11th, 2009
9:52 pm
Attention Congress, when ssi and medicare/aid are on a sound financial basis, if the majority(half +one) of the productive tax paying adult citizens want changes in their health care then and only then should changes be considered. Notice the caveate of productive tax paying adult citizens, not illegals, nontax paying leeches, or any others whose vote is up for sale to politicos with tax monies confiscated from productive citizens.
Craig A. Johnson
November 11th, 2009
9:57 pm
Kyle, Do you remember W.? Asked America to fight two wars without sacrifice; except the wealthiest 1% of the population (they get a tax break). As for the invasion of Iraq, what is a few million-billion-trillion, its someone else’s money and worry. And if the reason for invading is bogus, everyone else was fooled too! Not my problem. Healthcare in America currently is out of sync with Biblical teaching and decades behind other Western democracies. Environment care in America is in its infancy. The best solutions are made here, but bought by Europeans (e.g. Modern windmills). The national debt is great, but is it greater than a World Depression that would make Atomic Weapons more available to present terorists because nations with economies the size of Iceland collapsed? Do Conservatives Know Sacrifice Like They Know Hypocracy?
YUP>>> HE ADMITS THE VIDEO IS EDITED
November 11th, 2009
10:01 pm
Bulls*******
Choke….. Cough …. Choke
Bs…. BS .BS
Bobby dee
November 11th, 2009
10:31 pm
Gee! States can not even enforce mandatory auto insurance. I predict many people in the future will show up at the emergency room, just like they do now. Before the hospital gets paid for their services, the patient will have to pay the fine first. Just like car wrecks.
Artatlarge
November 11th, 2009
11:12 pm
Since the republicans are always wishing for a return to the Good Ol’ Days, let’s return to the Eisenhower years when the tax rate on the wealthiest Americans was on the order of %55+.
Maybe then we could get out of the hole dug by Reagan-esque tax cuts for the rich, and Bush-style borrow-and-spend profligacy.
But defending the health-care status quo is the worst solution for us, with Health Insurance Co. CEO’s pulling down over $100,000 per hour while 44,000 people a year die from not having insurance and thus readily-available health care.
Lets face it…if we want to fix our health-care system, tax vouchers won’t work…nor will tort reform (a pittance paid for ruined and lost lives that the above CEO’s would make in less than one morning)…nor will raising taxes on only the wealthy.
Tax money is all that can work. Relying on “free-market forces” will only result in more of the same. As unpleasant as it might be, and it is, everyone’s going to have to pay a little more. The poorest folk, who need the public option the most, will not be hit that hard, given the current tax structure for poverty. The middle class, who has the most to lose should things continue, may have to pay more taxes, but reigning in our out-of-control health-care costs will be worth it (given that so many bankruptcies are medical-expense-driven, less costly insurance and care might balance it out).
And if you think that retiring on Social Security means to “retire comfortably”, you’ve never known anyone relying on it, have you? Besides, those people have paid into the system for many years…it is NOT the hand-out you make it sound like.
And, no one is subject to prison if they don’t buy insurance, under the Democrat’s plan. That’s just another right-wing lie. So, so many.
Nick
November 12th, 2009
2:25 am
I’m one of those young voters who voted for Obama and I’d do it again in a heartbeat. The man is doing a far better job than McCain ever could have. Sure the healthcare bill isn’t as optimal as I’d like it, but Republicans rejected single payer off hand. What a bunch of chumps. More and more, I’m beginning to believe that the Republicans are the party of “no” and aren’t really fighting for me. They sure haven’t been the past 8 years, why start now? At least the Democrats are trying…
Gerald West
November 12th, 2009
5:37 am
Kyle, at his inauguration, President Obama was handed a $12 trillion national debt, a $1.2 billion federal budget deficit, and a looming economic depression caused by an irresponsible private sector sending $22 trillion up in smoke.
Irresponsible federal borrowing and squandering began with the Reagon administration and continued unabated except for a brief period when economic growth during the Clinton administration produced a burgeoning federal budget surplus.
So, how do you figure that “democrats” are to blame for 20 years of neglect and failure by Republican adminstrations and disfunctional Congresses?
Gerald West
November 12th, 2009
5:59 am
Here’s a tip for all writers of comments to the AJC: compose your text with a word processor that has spell-check, then paste it into the AJC comment slot. Otherwise, your typos and mis-spellings may detract from the message. I didn’t follow this advice for the above comment, and now find 3 mis-spellings and typos: Reagan, administrations, and dysfunctional. Shame on me!
Gordon
November 12th, 2009
6:17 am
The retreat position for liberals is always “but look at what Bush (or Reagan) did”. If you believe that Bush was wrong to spend as much money as he did (and he was), why would you support Obama for going down the same path at a much faster rate? WE ARE BANKRUPT AND ARE PRINTING MONEY! Even if this ridiculous health care plan wasn’t a terrible idea, we can’t afford it. We need laws that keep people from losing their insurance when they get sick, and to help with portability. It’s called regulation. But no, we add another huge ineffiecient government program that will add to our already unmanageable debt.
Nick @2:25, I wish I could be there when you wake up and realize what is happening to your future.
Jimmy62
November 12th, 2009
8:05 am
Healthcare in America is decades AHEAD of other countries. That’s why they buy drugs our pharma companies develop, and they send their doctors here to learn techniques our medical schools develop. If not for the free market in medicine in America, there would be a lot more sick or dead people in the world. Want to destroy innovation and sentence millions all over the world to die from diseases that otherwise would be cured in the future? Pass this bill.
Aaron Yelowitz
November 12th, 2009
8:12 am
Kyle – I wanted to thank you for citing my Cato study on your blog. If you have any additional questions, feel free to contact me. One of my main goals in doing the eHealth example was so that others could see how this redistribution would play out in their own communities.
Repukes and DummyCrats are ALL Scum
November 12th, 2009
8:17 am
Dummycrats robbing the young via taxes on the healthy to support the SICK, Repukes murdering the young in pointless foreign wars, I sure am glad my children are grown and out on their own in the world. Everyday, I laugh with malice at the lying, thieving, cowards in WashingAss, and move more of my wealth into gold, oil, silver, and foreign stocks. I did not have health insurance, ever, until I was 27 years old. I had never seen a dentist in my life up to that point. I had no cavities, no diseases, and I had paid no insurance premiums to insurance companies. Of course, if Lyndon Johnson had had his way, I would have been a grunt in Viet Nam, but I said “hell no” to that TexASS clown. Good old Uncle Lyndon would have provided third rate, but free health and dental care, which I did not need (Unless little brown brother punched a big fat hole in my hide). Time to put a leash on the WashingAss Scum, with a barbed choker collar.
Grob Hahn
November 12th, 2009
8:20 am
I get tired of hearing what “Obama was handed” or what “Obama inherited”. The man held up his hand and took the job AND the problems. He said he would fix it and made the problems his own. A president should NEVER whine about the previous administration in public. It’s not dignified.
Grobbbbbbbbb
fitzgerald
November 12th, 2009
8:33 am
Hope and change is doing just fine. I want to thank all of you folks, especially the young ones, for voting for Obama. With you thoughtful vote, my life is made easier with all of the free government benefits that I will receive for the remaining years of my life. Good points by all on this blog. Thankfully, I don’t have to rely on social security for my retirement.
William
November 12th, 2009
8:39 am
Well I am contributing all my extra money to oust all those reps. and senators who tried to pass this health bill. Even those from other states I will make contributions to their challenger. I encourage all of you to do the same. Vote out all the dems as soon as possible.
Your morning jolt: Ralph Long and his lonely endorsement of Mary Norwood | Political Insider
November 12th, 2009
8:47 am
[...] Some opinion: Kyle Wingfield thinks Democrats will soak the young. [...]
dewstarpath
November 12th, 2009
8:47 am
- Ten months into a Presidency is not long enough
of a time to determine how much something will cost.
Too speculative.
ohmy
November 12th, 2009
8:50 am
the political party that will get everything right is the one that will be “in” next…and so shall it always be
dewstarpath
November 12th, 2009
8:52 am
- It seems to me that the workplace insurance requirement
is similar to the automotive insurance required to drive a car.
I don’t believe that all jobs require the same level of coverage,
however. Actuaries and insurance adjusters should determine
rates based on job descriptions.
Kyle Wingfield
November 12th, 2009
9:29 am
Good discussion today, everyone. Thanks for keeping it civil.
Kyle Wingfield
November 12th, 2009
9:32 am
dewstar: One difference between auto and health insurance is that you can choose not to buy a car. Another is that what most states require is collision insurance — i.e., to pay for another party’s damage if you’re at fault in an accident.
Henry Grady
November 12th, 2009
9:43 am
THE YOUNG WILL NEVER GROW OLD!!!! We will just be paying for old people all our lives….or wait….
Every man, woman, or child for themselves! I’m tired of spreading risk between other people and sharing the burden. Oh wait…isn’t that what insurance is?
Doh.
Gregg
November 12th, 2009
10:00 am
Kyle, Even if were to stop spending today, our kids and grandkids would still be paying for the debt that we are now in. It amazes me at how Conservatives use this baseless argument. I don’t want my kids paying for this, Hah. They are going to pay if we don’t spend another dime toward the deficit.
Secondly, who pays for the people who go to the emergency rooms now without insurance? One guess, come on. That’s right we do? Who pays if you are hit by a driver without insurance? That’s right we do? You make it seems as though young people don’t get sick so therefore they don’t buy insurance. I got news for you health problems come at all ages. Especially now that PE is being taken out of school. Kids are getting bigger therefore will have more problems later.
I keep wondering about those people who have lost their jobs and have kids that may have conditions. What about them? Do they not desrve coverage? have you ever had to pay for COBRA, it costs about $1,000 per month for a family. That is plain crazy.
DannyX
November 12th, 2009
10:07 am
Democrats? Spending all your money and raising your taxes? LOL!
Please explain the following, Iraq war, Medicare Part D, massive government bailout. Not enough spending for you? How about some huge tax cuts to go along with the spending. Don’t worry though! The economy will fire up because of the tax cuts. Honest it will. Promise.
Of course Republicans don’t want to run on their record.
At least the Republicans were stopped before they could “fix” Social Security. Lucky for you thirty somethings. If you were allowed to invest your Social Security funds in the stock market we have some bad news for you. Your first 10 years in the work force has not been kind to your retirement funds. So far you would have to PAY $202.00 a month when you retire! A quarter of your work life has produced a deficit.
When do the tax cuts produce this bustling economy?
Dolores Umbridge
November 12th, 2009
10:07 am
Private medical insurance for healthy young adults who do not receive employer-provided benefits averages $1500 yr for premiums with a $5k deductible, no coverage for wellness checkups, no prescription drug coverage, and 50% paid on hospitalization.
Dee Raymond
November 12th, 2009
10:19 am
Kyle- Ga. requires automotive liability insurance. Yes, you can choose not to buy a car, but you cannot choose whether or not to get prostate cancer or MS. And if you ever have a child that needs neonatal intensive care or if you get a brain tumor, your AJC insurance will not cover it all. Everyone needs to review the “Lifetime Limited Benefit” section of their medical insurance policy. Get ready to sell your house and have your wages garnished.
Kyle Wingfield
November 12th, 2009
10:24 am
Gregg: I’m not saying this is the first debt future generations would be incurring — far from it. But frankly, the way to stop accumulating debt is to stop accumulating debt. That’s why, as I’ve written before, I don’t want the status quo or the “solution” we’re being offered now.
It seems to me that today’s politicians are trying to do what the generations before them did — create a new entitlement whose greatest burdens will be borne by someone else. At some point, “someone else” will run out of money. And I’m afraid we’re far closer to reaching that point than most people are willing to recognize.
booger
November 12th, 2009
10:27 am
Meanwhile Germany is considering a rather large tax cut in order to stimulate their economy. In the coming years we will have our tails kicked by countries who learned from our past successes while we rush to imitate the very worst of their economic policies. Karl Hess predicted this in the 1970’s.
Kyle Wingfield
November 12th, 2009
10:29 am
DannyX: So what happened to the economy between the 2003 tax cuts and the 2007 housing market collapse? And please explain to me how the tax cuts are responsible for the housing market collapse that provoked the financial market crash that got us where we are now — rather than a combination of loose money by the Fed, government subsidization of mortgage-backed securities, and government requirements that banks relax lending standards (the FHA is *still* giving out mortgages with only 3 percent down).
Kyle Wingfield
November 12th, 2009
10:30 am
And since I’m sure you’ll blame it on deregulation, please explain why the biggest problems occurred at the biggest banks — the very companies that are more regulated than any others in this country.
Regulation sounds like a nice solution, until you realize that the SEC’s 25-year-old lawyers are never going to keep up with the people they’re supposed to be monitoring. Create enough incentives for banks to take unreasonable risks, and don’t expect anything other than excessive risk-taking.
jconservative
November 12th, 2009
10:30 am
Good column Kyle.
Now let’s say we kill these health care bills and end up with the status quo. We are left with the Ponzi schemes of Medicare & Social Security (Kyle’s words). And Kyle is correct, his generation and those following (my kids & grand kids) are left with the bill.
So what do we do to resolve this “problem”? How do we keep Kyle & my kids out of the poor house?
Medicare – two drivers – increasing number of people who will be going on the rolls & the rapidly increasing costs of medical care. You can help some by raising the age age of Medicare from 65 to, say 67 – (the same as Social Security). That will delay the baby boomers & allow for more funds to accumulate. But this is only temporary.
The second solution is to slow, or decrease, the expanding cost of health care. How do you do that? That is where the debate needs to be and NO ONE is addressing that issue.
At this time there does not seem to be a national will to resolve the
pending crisis.
Kyle Wingfield
November 12th, 2009
10:34 am
As for Social Security, you’ve missed the point of what the Republicans tried (half-heartedly) to do. The point is that my Social Security funds aren’t sitting somewhere, growing and just waiting for me to collect them. They are going out in checks to current retirees, as fast as Washington can write them. This is how a Ponzi scheme works, and Social Security is nothing if not a Ponzi scheme.
Would my account have dropped if I were investing those funds? As sure as my 401(k) did (although there probably would have been restrictions on the kinds of investments that could be made with SS funds). But the point is that no one my age can realistically expect to get money out of SS, even if we sure are paying into it.
The end of SS won’t be pretty, but it will only get uglier the longer we act like there’s no problem.
booger
November 12th, 2009
10:52 am
We all know by now that the house health bill will put tax increases in effect immediately, while implementation of the plan would take place in about four years. Besides this being an outright deception in pricing the plan, there is a larger question.
Will the taxes collected during the first four years be put into a special account for health care? If not then this means they will go into the general fund, and thus be available for more pet projects. Does anyone know the answer to this?
Gregg
November 12th, 2009
10:59 am
But Kyle you are going with the status quo if we do nothing to repair the problems we have with healthcare. The best cure is prevention and without insurance you have no reason to go to the doctor until it is too late. then again we the taxpayers foot the bill because they do not have insurance coverage. You say no to healthcare however the sicker and fatter we get the more it cost even the most fit of us.
Every republican/conservative wants less government. however they do not want the fire or police station to close in their area. They do not want the post office to close in their area. When something happens and their INSURANCE won’t cover it they want to know what the GOVERNMENT is doing about it. It sees you want less government as long as it doesn’t affect you.
Kyle Wingfield
November 12th, 2009
10:59 am
I’m not sure, booger. My (admittedly cynical) guess is that the money wouldn’t be put in any sort of special account, since the only earmarking that goes on in Congress is for members’ pork projects.
DannyX
November 12th, 2009
10:59 am
Kyle, for 8 years all we heard was how cutting taxes would cure everything. Massive spending and tax cuts produced deficits. If Democrats are to be lectured and criticized for their spending fine, but please tell us why we should listen to Republicans right now? What on earth have Republicans done the past 10 years that deserves confidence in their judgment?
How in the world do Republicans lead on the economy issue? For years all we heard was tax cuts………
Massive spending, plus massive tax cuts explains the Bush years perfectly. How do you switch from that to “Democrats soak the young,” almost overnight?
TaxPayer
November 12th, 2009
11:01 am
Kyle,
Does your employer provide you with health insurance as part of you total compensation package?
Linda
November 12th, 2009
11:20 am
Artatlarge @ 11:12, 44,000 people a yr don’t die from not having health insurance.
The poorest folks don’t need the public option the most. They already have public health insurance. It’s called Medicade.
The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation reported HR3802 specifies that those who don’t buy h.i. & don’t pay fines of about 2.5% of their income can face penalties of up to 5 yrs in prison. You may research section 7201 & 7203. According to the CBO, the LOWEST-cost family non-group plan would cost $15,000 by ‘06. That’s what they would need to stay out of jail.
Shananeeeee Fananeeeee
November 12th, 2009
11:23 am
Where are all those young people that were crying at Fraud-bama’s inauguration? They are really going to be crying soon enough. Obammy and his cronies are absolutely horrible for this country. Radical ideas and people do not work. This guy can’t even mourn the people who died at Fort Hood before having a preamble about the Native Americans. I agree the Native Americans went through bad things but to talk about that and then the Fort hood incident is just dumb. The country is taking notice, Dems are in trouble in 2010 and hopefully 2012 too.
whosoakswho?
November 12th, 2009
11:33 am
Democrats soak the young? Hardly. How about young soak the old? It’s what is happening now.
getalife
November 12th, 2009
11:35 am
Get ur guvmint hanz if my medicare!
booger
November 12th, 2009
11:40 am
I just read an article in yesterday’s New York Times entitled “Maine finds a fix for Health Care Elusive”. Maine introduced a state sponsored health plan a few years back and it has become an abysimal failure, but something we all can learn from. To quote state Senator Peter Mills, who is now running for govenor, “we didn’t have the money, and we tried it anyway, and now we are the poster child for what a poor state can’t do”.
The basis of their reform was a state sponsored plan to run in parallel with private insurance. They also put in a community rating provision which would not allow insurance companies to charge seniors more, and it does not allow exclusions for pre existing conditions.
The results have been what you would expcet. Private insurance rates have gone through the roof, and many companies dropped insurance alltogether driving more onto the state plan.
The state plan meanwhile found they were going broke, and began cutting fees to doctors. Doctors in turn began leaving their private practices.
Today because of budjet constraints, they have limited the number of people on the state plan to 9000, and anyone new coming into the system has a deductable of $10,000 to $15,000.
Maine had very good intentions, but sometimes that’s just not enough.
Linda
November 12th, 2009
11:42 am
Gerald @ 5:37, If the economic depression was caused by Reps, why did Clinton take credit for it?
The Clinton adm never had a budget surplus & added to the nation debt every yr he was in office.
getalife
November 12th, 2009
11:44 am
dems soak the young?
Come on wingnut. Include tax cuts for the rich, corporate welfare and bailouts, 2 nation building missions while our country falls apart, etc.
Try to be consistent in your failed ideology.
The fight to secure Seniors from living on the streets is over.
You lost con.
booger
November 12th, 2009
11:45 am
Kyle,
If the funds raised in the first four years are not set aside, then the pricing model of this plan is not just deceptive, it’s pure fraud.
dewstarpath
November 12th, 2009
11:48 am
- Good point, Kyle. But how realistic is it nowadays for
people who have a job where they can afford insurance
to not have transportation? It looks like only middle-class
and above will be affected by these new rules.
Linda
November 12th, 2009
11:55 am
Gregg @ 10:00, Yes, if we stop spending today, our kids & grandkids would still be paying for the debt we are now in, but if we keep spending $ we don’t have for stuff we don’t need, our great, great, great grandchildren will pay.
Everyone agrees we need health care insurance reform, but the current bill has little to do with health, care, insurance or reform.
DannyX
November 12th, 2009
11:55 am
Are we looking at taxes wrong? Should we instead be looking at purchasing power?
Look at the Euro right now, looking pretty strong versus the dollar right now. They pay a lot in taxes and also get a lot more in return. What they do have left in their paychecks is probably worth more than what Americans have left in their paychecks after taxes.
Then look at what our economy has left. The traditional powers are fading fast. The liberal states are keeping us competitive with their Microsoft, Apple, bio-tech and university systems… The conservative states are producing Kia’s, Toyota’s, BMW, Volkswagens and great football.
ohmy
November 12th, 2009
12:05 pm
so when were the days when we considered the future well-being of our youth?–was it 40 years ago when 550,000 of them were in Vietnam, or 60 years ago in Korea or 65 years ago in Europe and the Pacific, or maybe 140 years ago when we sent them to fight each other–seems to me the young have been getting soaked all along…
Cutty
November 12th, 2009
12:08 pm
Medicare Part D….. Tax Cuts in 2001 and 2003…. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan…..
Those need to be added to the mix as well as they were unfunded expenditures. The tax cuts were supposed to stimulate job creation, but did nothing more than stimulate huge government deficits.
dewstarpath
November 12th, 2009
12:09 pm
- Booger makes an excellent point. There are an increasing
number of foreign companies out there that are using breakthroughs
that originated in the US to compete internationally. Examples
include Nokia wirelessly-powered cellphones (Denmark), Acer
notebooks (Taiwan), and RIM Blackberry PDAs (Canada).
It’s not just in economics. Germany, in particular, was heavy on
solar power development, long before the energy crisis started
around 2003. Although we can’t duplicate their proliferation of
solar-cell equipped buildings (even rural farms were outfitted
with massive arrays of cells), we could create a market to export
homegrown technologies to developing countries. All of the
foreclosed properties around the country could be earning revenue
in this regard, by adding additional power to the grid from their
roof tops.
Another point was made when Kyle mentioned the pork projects
for certain poiticians. Too often they are schemes that don’t add
to the domestic infrastructure, except in a few cases. A lot of
priorities need to be reoriented in some states.
dewstarpath
November 12th, 2009
12:13 pm
- DannyX – you bring up a good point as well. Apple
definitely is bringing in quarterly revenue – Microsoft,
maybe. They have a lot of competition. Except for a
couple of mouse products and the XBox, they need
more physical hardware products like their peers in
Cupertino.
StJ
November 12th, 2009
12:19 pm
The under-30s voted for Obama in overwhelming majorities – if this passes, they will indeed reap what they have sown.
ZDG
November 12th, 2009
12:20 pm
“would drive [health insurance] premiums down for 55-year-olds but would drive them up for 25-year-olds — who are then implicitly subsidizing older adults.”
Well, that’s because premiums for 25 year olds are much lower than 55 year olds. Kids is one factor. Diseases that come with aging is another.
Also, on the topic of SS and Medicare as Ponzi schemes: the problem isn’t the model (pay for your elders, your kids will pay for you) – this has been shown to work in many countries, including ours a few decades ago. The problem is the enormous waste and rise in health care costs that make “pay for your elders” very very hard to do. And who’s responsible for those rising health care costs? Insurance companies, doctors, the uninsured, fear of litigation…all the stuff Congress and the President are at least partially trying to address.
Intelligent words you’re using up there, Kyle. Let’s back them up with some intelligent thought, shall we?
TaxPayer
November 12th, 2009
12:22 pm
Kyle,
If I am following your story correctly (and skipping over the off the cuff remarks regarding Social Security and Medicare since there is obviously quite the history behind those matters that transcend political parties), you are complaining that the house Democrat health insurance plan to date is bad because it dumps an undue burden on the ‘young’. You offer up a Cato study to both confirm your statement and offer an option for the young — free market plans void of regulations that help to smooth out the age bias in insurance premiums at the expense of the young. But, you stop at that point. Please continue with your line of thought. Let’s consider yourself, for example, since you are a relatively young person. In order for you to take advantage of your age and purchase a lower cost health insurance plan, the first thing you will need to do is get rid of your current insurance. So, can you opt out at work and if you can, will you get any additional cash compensation that you can use toward the purchase of cheaper insurance? Will this individual policy provide the same coverage for less? Have you considered the loss of security that your group coverage provides you versus an individual policy per state law?
Perhaps, we just need businesses that are segregated by age so when one is young one can work for a young people’s company that offers health insurance geared for the young and covers things like child birth and work-related stress-induced ulcers, etc., and when one gets old, one can work for Wal-Mart and get a better deal on insurance geared toward cancer treatment but no maternity benefits,etc. What do you think, Kyle?
By the way, I’d also like to get your thoughts on the health insurance plan that has been offered by the Republican party.
Linda
November 12th, 2009
12:22 pm
DannyX @ 10:07, The pres can’t declare war all by himself. The Dem-controlled Congress that voted for the Iraq War in 10/02 had an obligation to review all the intelligence available to them.
Both Reps & Dems are bailing.
The stock market goes up & down but never away. I’ve never invested in a stock that just spent my $ like the fed govt has with social security. There’s a $14 T debt for social security & a $74 T debt for medicare that are unfunded.
Historically, tax cuts work during economic downturns.
Linda
November 12th, 2009
12:32 pm
Booger @ 10.52, The fed govt didn’t place our ss & Medicare payments into a secure escrow acct for our future. They spend them. The nation debt is $12 T plus $14 T for ss & $92 T for Medicare. Why is the world would you think they would “save” our health care taxes for the next adm?
DannyX
November 12th, 2009
12:40 pm
Linda, who cares what the Democrats did. If the Republicans are the great economic leaders why did they spend money so badly? If the Republicans are going to show us the way to economic prosperity at least show us what you have accomplished. Give us YOUR record. The blog subject here is “Democrats will soak the young,” not, “Democrats and Republicans will soak their young.”
Yea right Linda, Enron would never ever spend your invested money unwisely. Nor would GM or Bear Sterns. Or Arthur Anderson, Moody’s too. Or BoA, Wachovia/Wells Fargo? Citibank?……………………Too big to fail???????????
MrLiberty
November 12th, 2009
1:01 pm
Funny, I can’t say as I remember the last time the Republicans supported ending any of these programs? In fact, the prescription drug plan was both proposed and heavily supported by republicans during the last administration. But that shouldn’t surprise anyone. Neither SS nor Medicare, nor any of the myriad of govrenment entitlement programs could ever have passed without republican support.
Frankly the house vote the other night was a big surprise in that only one republican voted yes. You can be sure that if Bush had supported this crap virtually everyone except Ron Paul would have voted for it and spend all sorts of time jumping through hoops to justify their unconstitutional actions.
And while we’re on the subject of entitlement programs that are forever going to screw the younger generation, lets talk about WAR.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, had no WMD’s, and was no threat to the US. A trillion or more later we are still there with virtually every republican bashing Obama for thinking about leaving.
Afghanistan (well, certainly all of the thousands of innocents that have been killed) had nothing to do with 9-11. Most of the killers were from Saudi Arabia (our friends) and other countries. We are still there to protect the oil pipeline from the Caspian region (the reason we invaded in the first place). Another republican scheme for their friends in the oil industry.
The War on Drugs. Another multi-billion dollare per year waste that is destabilizing every country that subject to our payoff influence including of course Mexico.
More war, less freedom. You can blame the democrats for this current hijacking of health care all you want, but the republican party is FAR from without sin on burdening future generations with unpayable debt and a reduced standard of living (and loss of freedoms).
Kyle Wingfield
November 12th, 2009
1:08 pm
Just finished my Sunday column and will try to answer as many questions as I can. But other people should feel free to keep jumping in.
DannyX
November 12th, 2009
1:12 pm
Isn’t it ironic that it is the federal government that is called on to bail out failed US businesses?
We blame the government for every single ill but pay no attention to the likes of the credit card industry who for years would send out cards with $10,000.00 limits and no interest for 18 months to dogs. And to 3 year old kids. These same credit card companies that increased spending limits every single month?
Trust in government? Trust in Enron? How about the accounting firm that was hired to keep their books? How about the current situation with bond rating agencies that may have had their ratings influenced? How much has social security lost? Fair question. How much has shady business deals cost your 401? How has that stock market been the last 10 years. Tell us about the massive amounts of fraud by “trusted” businesses that led to the latest meltdown. Every single person involved understands that it was not the government that led to the real estate collapse. There might have been a lack of regulation but it was certainly “we the People” taking advantage. Maybe that’s why we need to find someone else to blame. It was just about everyone taking advantage of a system that could not sustain itself. Most all of us were in on the looting in one way or another, but in a nice respectable manner.
Of course no one ever thinks about the consequences. Even now we are still talking about tax cuts. Sacrifice? Naw.
Jefferson
November 12th, 2009
1:18 pm
We can’t have a country of “haves” and “have nots”. The class gap cannot continue to grow as it has, and it started back in the 80’s with the “me” first instant gradifications “now” mindset. This is what really the kind of thing that brought the Reds to power in 1917, not the idealogy. The country was much better off when the wealth was spread and the gaps were smaller.
Repukes and DummyCrats are ALL Scum
November 12th, 2009
1:22 pm
Hmmm, The Great Society, and the Viet Nam War: Butter and Guns, now where did that lead? Tricky Dickey Nixon took AmeriKa off the gold standard in the early 70’s, because we were printing so much money for the guns and butter clowns that no one trusted the value of the dollar. Our Pals in France were exchanging their recently earned dollars for gold weekly, and Ft. Knox was in danger of a run on the gold bank. So Nixon closed the gold window, foreign nations could no longer exchange their excess dollars for gold. The value of the dollar fell in fx, but Tricky Dickey had a plan. He sent Henry KissinAss to Saudi Arabia with a deal: Price all your oil in dollars only, and we will guarantee your nations independence from all with our military might. So we went from a gold backed currency to a de-facto oil backed currency. The global demand for dollars went up because all nations that imported oil had to have dollars with which to pay for that oil. Now we are back to the guns and butter problem again, and the oil deal is looking bad. There is increasing talk of pricing oil in a basket of currencies, in gold, in Euro’s, and in Special Drawing Rights. Mark my words, the day oil is priced in anything other than dollars is the day the AmeriKan dollar dies, and with it our bloated lifestyle. By demanding both guns and butter, we bring that day ever so much closer.
Kyle Wingfield
November 12th, 2009
1:40 pm
People like to talk about the Bush tax cuts as if those cuts made revenues fall, fall, fall. It simply isn’t true. The biggest tax cut was passed in 2003. What did revenues do in the years that followed? Grow by 11.2%, 12.4% (a bigger jump than during any of the Clinton years), 9.5% and 9%. See table 4 here (though you have to do the percentages yourself): http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html
Income-tax revenue as a percentage of GDP also grew steadily in those years, and from 2005-2007 was at or above its historical average of 17.9%. Overall, from 2001-2008, the average percentage was exactly the same as the historical average of 17.9%. See table 1.2 here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/
So revenues were in line with historical averages. The problem was spending. Congress spent wildly under Republicans and Democrats alike during the Bush years.
Kyle Wingfield
November 12th, 2009
1:41 pm
Whosoakswho?: Please explain.
Kyle Wingfield
November 12th, 2009
1:42 pm
booger: Maine is not the only example, unfortunately.
Kyle Wingfield
November 12th, 2009
1:46 pm
dewstar: Not to be a pedant, but Nokia is a Finnish company. But on your topic: European researchers are notoriously bad at capitalizing on their innovations…it’s a source of much discussion and consternation over there. In particular, they wring their hands about the MP3 file’s German roots…and America-based profits.
Kyle Wingfield
November 12th, 2009
1:51 pm
ZDG: So you think everyone should pay the same premiums for insurance — keeping in mind what insurance is — regardless of how likely they are to incur costs? I don’t.
And what do health costs have to do with Social Security?
TaxPayer
November 12th, 2009
1:52 pm
Kyle,
Some of us people also like to talk about the fallacy of tax cuts during the Bush administration when we were also fighting wars and handing out more Medicare benefits and borrowing from others to make up the difference between receipts and outlays. Why didn’t the Republican administration try to at least avoid taking us into deficit spending by balancing the budget according to the philosophy that they so readily preached. In fact, the only way the Republicans were able to offer up those tax cuts was to end their own cuts in 2010 and assume that additional revenues from ending their own tax cuts would pay back all that increased debt. Come on, Kyle.
Linda
November 12th, 2009
1:53 pm
DannyX @ 12:40, At 10:07 you were LOL regarding the fact that Dems are spending & raising taxes & you asked someone to explain the Iraq War, Medicare Part D & the massive govt bailout.
There’s millions of people who care what the politicians do, increasingly. That’s why you see more taxpayers protesting on the street than since the Civil Rights movement.
I still stand that it’s safer to have a balanced portfolio in the stock market than to trust the fed govt’s Ponzi schemes.
retiredds
November 12th, 2009
1:58 pm
Dear Kyle, I read and continue to be amazed at the selective amnesia you and your fellow conservatives employ. Following is from Wikipedia:
Nominal debt in dollars quadrupled during the Reagan and Bush presidencies from 1980 to 1992, and remained at about the same level by the end of the Clinton presidency in 2000. During the administration of President George W. Bush, the debt increased from $5.6 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008,[6] rising from 54% of GDP to 75% of GDP.
Yes you and your generation will be paying but you cannot ignore the reality of the run-up in the debt during the Reagan/Bush I/ and Bush II years (I guess you can if you deny the reality of it). My limited understanding of the federal deficit is that it is cumulative so you might have to include your Republican heros (especially the myth that Reagan was a fiscal conservative) in the equation. Just have to love that “supply side economics” myth used to justify the borrow and spend policies since Reagan.
I believe you have more than just
MrLiberty
November 12th, 2009
2:00 pm
Why is it only libertarians get the fact that spending and revenues MUST go down, and that maximizing the return on the Laffler curve is WRONG? There is nothing praiseworthy or defensible about Bush’s keeping revenues up. Why do so-called conservatives defend this? You will never will the argument with anyone unless you adopt some real PRINCIPLES. Like fiscal conservativism. What a concept! Cut government spending. Cut tax revenue. Eliminate the income tax. Bring the troops home. Start cutting the government size (like the DOEducation the revolution was supposed to eliminate). Solid stuff that shows you really mean it, in practice, not just long enough to get elected.
This country will certainly be no better off if a republican gets elected president in 2012 (unless of course it is Ron Paul). Like Bush, a new one plus a likely republican congress, will just run amuck like the kids in the candy store we had from 2000 – 2008.
As I recently read, Conservatives use the Free Market like Stalin used Communism – as a way to dupe the people into thinking they were going to get utopia, while the real outcome was the same for both groups – nothing but failed socialism.
MrLiberty
November 12th, 2009
2:02 pm
Linda, nothing is safe so long as the Federal Reserve can continue to create money out of thin air, continue to inflate the stock market and real estate bubbles, and ultimately destroy the value of the dollar.
The Fed must go. Read “End the Fed” by Ron Paul and the argument against them will be clear. No greater threat to liberty and american prosperity exists than the Federal Reserve.
Kyle Wingfield
November 12th, 2009
2:15 pm
Taxpayer: That wasn’t the assumption at all…the assumption with pro-growth tax cuts (i.e. on the capital gains tax…not every tax cut will spur growth) is that they will stimulate the economy enough to pay for themselves. It’s the “smaller slice of a larger pie” argument. The data indicate that it worked.
Can it produce a short-term deficit? Of course — though history suggests this deficit usually is fleeting. It is borrowing as an investment in the economy…and spending doesn’t work the same way.
Also often forgotten is that the deficit had shrunk dramatically by 2007 and we were projected to go back to a surplus within another year or two. Then the housing/financial crisis hit.
Where we agree (I think) is that spending shouldn’t have grown the way it did.
Linda
November 12th, 2009
2:15 pm
Mr. Liberty @ 1:01, If Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, had no WMD’s & was no threat to the US, why did Hilary Clinton say on 10/10/02 during the vote from the Dem-controlled Congress, “In the 4 yrs. since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical & biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, & his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort & sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological & chemical warfare, & will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons?’
Since most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia & since you think Afghanistan (where the Taliban were harboring & aiding al Qaida) had nothing to do with 9/11, are you suggesting that Congress should have approved war on Saudi Arabia instead?
If you think the US invaded & are still in Afghanistan for oil interests of the Reps, why do you think Dems prevent Reps from just drilling for oil right here off US shores?
dewstarpath
November 12th, 2009
2:19 pm
- Kyle – Nokia of Tampere, Finland.
My mistake.
DannyX
November 12th, 2009
2:21 pm
So Kyle, are you falling for the Obama trap?
According to the WSJ Obama says he plans on using about 300 billion in left over tarp funds to reduce the deficit. He may also be planning a 5% budget cut for all departments (except defense and veterans.)
If he shows a big drop in the deficit no matter how it happens he will remain popular and get re-elected. He knows the independents will walk if he doesn’t show progress with the deficit and spending.
Seems he’s taking one from the Reagan playbook. During his first run for governor Reagan realized he couldn’t close a deficit by just cutting spending. One of the first things Reagan did when he took office was raise taxes. Reagan said that the time to raise taxes was when the memory of the previous governor was fresh in everyone’s mind. He also claimed they would forget about it, they did, he was easily re-elected.
Obama came in raised the deficit. If he sticks to the plan that reduces the deficit in the future he will be re-elected using Reagan rule #1, blame the deficit and mess on his predecessor, Bush. Reagan Rule #2 wait for people to forget.
Kyle Wingfield
November 12th, 2009
2:24 pm
TaxPayer: I think you’re being a bit disingenuous about the insurance thing. We are talking about two different markets. People with employer-sponsored insurance may pay a higher premium at any given age than they might otherwise get, because that’s the deal in exchange for the employer to pay for part of the health insurance. Why do employers want to compensate workers this way? Because that’s the way the tax code is structured.
Point to me in H.R. 3962 where this part of the tax code is addressed — meaning the tax break is available to individuals as well as employers. Or point it out in any of the Senate bills. Maybe I missed something.
In the non-employer insurance market, where buyers are not getting subsidies, why should 25-year-olds pay higher premiums than 55-year-olds — for the sole purpose of lowering 55-year-olds’ premiums? And for the sole reason that the government decided to intervene in the market, with no economic justification at all?
The 25-year-old gets nothing more in return for his higher premium. The 55-year-old has done nothing at all to deserve a lower premium. The premiums have been set based on each consumer’s likelihood of needing medical care. That’s what insurance is!
Linda
November 12th, 2009
2:26 pm
DannyX @ 1:12, There’s plenty of blame to go around for the world-wide economic recession, Dems & Reps, borrowers & lenders, public & private, but it started with the ideology of Affordable Housing & the trigger was the fed govt REQUIRING Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac to make junk loans. The fed govt started the tsunami.
Kyle Wingfield
November 12th, 2009
2:29 pm
DannyX: Where is that $300 billion coming from? And I don’t mean the TARP account…
DannyX
November 12th, 2009
2:53 pm
Exactly Kyle. That’s how the game is played these days. Slight of hand.
George W Bush, may be able to say he helped re-elect Obama. Since they didn’t use all the tarp funds and companies are paying some back it will go to the Obama’s bottom line.
Republicans at the same time will not have the advantage of using the deficit against Obama as long as gains are shown. Heck after Bush modest gains would be wonderful.
Speaking of slight of hand every single Bush budget missed its mark, each time by billions and billions of dollars. They kept separate war allocation funds also.
I think the Republicans would be better served replacing their incumbents before bashing the Democrats.. You’re about to re-elect a lot of the fools that started this mess. Maybe Republicans should reload, then come after the Dems with some good old fashioned conservatism. Right now the likes of Rep Kingston and Sen Isakson sure aren’t helping the conservative name. Sen Vitter is about to be re-elected?
Linda, nice try with the diversion. Falsifying loan documents was never part of the the Mac plans. Changing bond ratings to keep valued customers was not part of the plan either. American business giants have been a disgrace to this country starting with Enron.
TaxPayer
November 12th, 2009
2:55 pm
Kyle,
We had no pro-growth tax cuts. We had pro debt-bubble tax cuts with more and more money chasing after inflated housing and promises of higher and higher mortgage payments due to interest only ARMs, etc. We had a false sense of growth from this effort to build more and more bigger and bigger houses and the industries that supported it. There was absolutely nothing sustainable about it because there was no value being added to the economy. It was all a false value being extracted in the form of debt — a debt that has to be serviced in order to survive and one that can only be serviced by going further into debt until it all came tumbling down. The bubble has burst and the bills are still there — bills that were run up by funding wars and prescription drug company benefits and bailouts. The Democrats did not create all those bills but they do have to be paid for. How do you propose paying for them now that the tax revenues from that pro tax cut revenue growth have all dried up with the bursting of the bubble. Are you going to claim that all we need to do is cut capital gains taxes in order to spur the economy back to life. Or, will you claim that now is the time to cut spending and if so, what do you recommend that we cut. Social Security? Medicare? Those people receiving those benefits have paid in all of their lives in order to get those benefits. Medicaid? Well, you could cut that out since those people are just moochers, right? DoD? There’s a thought!
Kyle Wingfield
November 12th, 2009
3:14 pm
TaxPayer: That’s the first argument I’ve seen suggesting fiscal policy, rather than monetary policy and various regulatory mistakes (some people say too little; other say the wrong kinds), was responsible for the housing bust. So how do you explain the fact that the bubble began inflating in 1997 and had reached half its ultimate level before the tax cuts were even passed?
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/08/26/weekinreview/27leon_graph2.large.gif
As for false value, how much false value was in the 1990s growth, much of which was lost when the tech bubble burst?
And if the tax cuts were mostly for “the rich,” as most liberals claim, then how did they fuel subprime lending?
People may be exuberant about getting to keep more of the money they earn, but tax cuts don’t devalue money. Interest rates that are too low for too long will pump far more money — and false value — into the economy than a 4.6-percentage-point cut in the top marginal tax rate could ever do.
TaxPayer
November 12th, 2009
3:15 pm
Kyle,
Regarding the insurance, I challenge you to address the follow through that I began in my 12:22 post. Let us see where your original argument takes us in the real world and not some subset.
TaxPayer
November 12th, 2009
3:27 pm
Kyle,
I see slow growth in values over time as an acceptable level of inflation that is supported by such things as increased wages and productivity, etc. — not a bubble caused by speculation or other anomoly. I’ll have to get back to you for more in-depth discussion since I have to pick up my daughter in a few minutes.
Linda
November 12th, 2009
3:37 pm
The economic collapse started with the ideology that home ownership was a right, not a privilege. Just because some people had jobs, had saved & sacrificed for a down payment & paid their bills on time, it was not fair to those who had no jobs, no $ & bad credit not to be able to buy a home. Even tho there were yrs of regulation & deregulation, it wasn’t until the Clinton adm that headway was finally made.
For decades, most real estate loans were issued by mortgage companies who have no money, no deposits. Most conventional loans were written according to strict Fannie Mae guidelines, whether Fannie actually bought the loans or not, but they did buy & guaranteed most.
Fannie exceeded the quotas mandated by the govt.
In ‘04, before the collapse, Clinton BRAGGED in his autobiography that it was his adm that was responsible for the “staggering” “$800 B” in loans to borrowers who couldn’t qualify. In 8/08, he admitted on ABC with Chris Cuomo that the Dems for yrs had been resisting any efforts by the Reps to reign in Fannie & Freddie.
There were many Dems & Reps that contributed to the crisis, but Bush was not one of them. Just because 9/11 happened during Bush doesn’t mean he was piloting one of the planes.
Ga Values
November 12th, 2009
3:39 pm
I pay more in taxes than most 25 year olds make, is that fair, probably . My 24 year old daughter lives in Switzerland and pays about $800.00 per year for what she considers good health care. I am lucky 10+ years ago when I sold a company part of the deal was that they pay my wife & my health insurance through their group policy, they are now paying $18,000.00 for my insurance.
The idea that started insurance was shared risk but in the ’90’s health insurance split into self insurance for big companies , experience rated for small and mid size companies and a shell game for individuals. Having spent most of my life on the other side of the desk I can tell you group health insurance is a racket. That said I don’t see what the current Health care proposal will do to get “insurance back to being insurance. The Democratic plan is bad the Republican plan is worse. They say you get what you pay for, it looks like the lobbyist are getting what they want from government and the taxpayer is getting screwed.
Kyle Wingfield
November 12th, 2009
3:58 pm
TaxPayer: In trying to find your point, I can only conclude that you’ve missed mine. I’ll assume that’s because I didn’t explain it well enough.
What I was trying to do is show one way that the Democrats’ proposals would put additional costs on one group — the young — when they get nothing more in return. Besides higher premiums for the young in an effective subsidy for older adults — and the Cato study I cited simply demonstrates that this is the effect of community rating — young people will also pay higher taxes, probably for the rest of our lives.
What I would like for you to explain is why a 25-year-old would be better off under the Democrats’ plans. And before you say that the government would subsidize their insurance cost, I’d ask you go to the Cato study (the link is in my original post) and read the part that explains why these subsidies might be an illusion.
Kyle Wingfield
November 12th, 2009
4:00 pm
Good point, Ga Values. Nothing is going to change until we get back to thinking about insurance as it was intended to be. Yes, that includes those of us with employer-sponsored insurance. And no, nothing in any of the current Democratic proposals would push us in that direction.
retiredds
November 12th, 2009
4:22 pm
Kyle, I don’t understand why you continue to focus on the Democratic healthcare plan as opposed to the entire federal deficit. A large part of the young’s (those under 25) problem that you discuss rests with irresponsible spending for the past 25 years, not just what is proposed. You will be paying for those before you, but not just because of healthcare, but for the Democratic and Republican fiscal irresponsibility of many generations. Remember when the current president took office in January of this year the federal deficit stood at $12 Trillion!! That did not just materialize over night. I have subscribed for many years to a Constitutional Amendment to balance the federal books. I write to my representatives and get the typical form letter about what they are doing on my behalf and yet the deficit gets larger and government does not shrink. Kyle, this is not a Democrat or Republican problem. Since they are the two majority parties they both share in the blame. So please be more balanced in your writings. And, by the way, there is no such thing as a fiscal conservative. It is used as a campaign slogan only.