About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

CNN's Roberts allows McCaughey to spread falsehoods about health care bill

June 24, 2009 1:47 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: John Roberts did not challenge Betsy McCaughey's assertion that the Affordable Health Choices Act "basically" "pushes everyone into an HMO-style plan."

119 Comments

On June 24, CNN's American Morning co-host John Roberts did not challenge former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey's assertions that the Affordable Health Choices Act "basically" "pushes everyone into an HMO-style plan" and that most Americans will have to "go through what they call a 'medical home,' which is this decade's term for an HMO gatekeeper." However, under the proposed legislation, individuals already enrolled in a health care plan or receiving health insurance coverage are able to keep their coverage and are not "pushed" into "an HMO-style plan."

McCaughey later stated that "most Americans will have no options. When they file their taxes, they're going to have to staple a proof, like a W-2, that they've enrolled in one of these qualified health plans, with the limits of choice: limits of choices of doctors, limits of choices of when you can see a specialist, when you can have a diagnostic test." In fact, individuals do not have to enroll in "qualified health plans." Indeed, the legislation contains a provision explicitly stating that "[n]o individual shall be compelled to enroll in a qualified health plan or to participate in a Gateway." In the bill, "qualified health plans" are plans that must meet certain criteria in order to be offered under a "Gateway." A gateway is defined as a state-run mechanism that "facilitates the purchase of health insurance coverage and related insurance products through the Gateway at an affordable price by qualified individuals and qualified employer groups."

From the bill:

''(1) VOLUNTARY NATURE OF GATEWAY. --

''(A) CHOICE TO ENROLL OR NOT TO ENROLL. -- A qualified individual shall have the choice to enroll or not to enroll in a qualified health plan or to participate in a Gateway.

''(B) PROHIBITION ON COMPELLED ENROLLMENT. -- No individual shall be compelled to enroll in a qualified health plan or to participate in a Gateway.

While the bill says that those who are not enrolled in "qualifying coverage" "for any month during the taxable year" may be fined as mandated by Subtitle D, the "Shared Responsibility for Health Care," the definition of "qualifying coverage" does not say that the plan a consumer is enrolled in must be a "qualified plan" -- it simply includes that as an option -- and the definition does not say it must be an HMO or have a "medical home." "Qualifying coverage" can be one's existing coverage. The office of Senate HELP Committee chairman Edward M. Kennedy has said that an "important foundation" of the bill is the principle that "[i]f you like the coverage you have now, you keep it. But if you don't have health insurance or don't like the insurance you have, our bill will give you new, more affordable options."

According to the bill:

(6) QUALIFYING COVERAGE. -- The term 'qualifying coverage' means --

(A) a group health plan or health insurance coverage --

(i) that an individual is enrolled in on the date of enactment of this title; or

(ii) that is described in clause (i) and that is renewed by an enrollee;

(B) a group health plan or health insurance coverage that --

(i) is not described in subparagraph (A); and

(ii) meets or exceeds the criteria for minimum qualifying coverage (as defined in subsection (d));

(C) Medicare coverage under parts A and B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act or under part C of such title;

(D) Medicaid coverage under a State plan under title XIX of the Social Security Act (or under a waiver under section 1115 of such Act), other than coverage consisting solely of benefits under section 1928 of such Act;

(E) coverage under title XXI of the Social Security Act;

(F) coverage under the TRICARE program under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code;

(G) coverage under the veteran's health care program under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, but only if the coverage for the individual involved is determined by the Secretary to be not less than the coverage provided under a qualified health plan, based on the individual's priority for services as provided under section 1705(a) of such title;

(H) coverage under the Federal employees health benefits program under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code; (I) a State health benefits high risk pool;

(I) a State health benefits high risk pool;

(J) a health benefit plan under section 2504(e) of title 22, United States Code; or

(K) coverage under a qualified health plan.

From the June 24 edition of CNN's American Morning:

ROBERTS: Meantime, to another one of the president's priorities: health care. So, what's another trillion dollars? President Obama standing firm on the public option for health care, in spite of that possible price tag, which is a staggering one, but private health insurance groups say they do not like the idea of competing with the government.

Former New York Lieutenant Governor Betsy McCaughey is a long-time expert in public health and is currently the chairwoman of an advocacy group for patients' safety. And she joins us this morning. Good morning to you. How are you?

McCAUGHEY: Good to be with you.

ROBERTS: So, we should point out that you were opposed to the Clinton health care plan back in 1993. You are opposed to a public option this time around. Are you just opposed to the government getting involved in providing health insurance for people?

McCAUGHEY: No, I've read the Kennedy bill through three times, and I'm worried because I'm a patient advocate -- I spend the first 80 hours of the week preventing hospital infections -- and this bill will mean fewer choices for patients. Basically, the bill pushes everyone into an HMO-style plan, with restrictions on your access to specialists and diagnostic tests. You'll have to go through what they call a "medical home," which is this decade's term for an HMO gatekeeper.

Doctors will be paid based on incentives to reduce care and save money, rather than being paid every time you get a service or you visit the doctor. The one outrage of this bill, more than any other, is that members of Congress exempt themselves from this limit on choices. They're members of a federal health plan, with many, many choices: fee-for-service plans, high-deductible plans, as well as HMOs, and plans with many more choices of doctors.

ROBERTS: There is a clause in there that says that federal employees are not eligible. I've got it right here. But they are just one of a number of groups that aren't eligible, and --

McCAUGHEY: Not eligible -- they're not being pushed into this. Otherwise, most Americans will be -- will have no option --

ROBERTS: It says here: "not eligible for coverage" --

McCAUGHEY: That's right -- page 114. But most Americans will have no options. When they file their taxes, they're going to have to staple a proof, like a W-2, that they've enrolled in one of these qualified health plans, with the limits of choice: limits of choices of doctors, limits of choices of when you can see a specialist, when you can have a diagnostic test.

And for seriously ill people, this just isn't good enough. If it were good enough, members of Congress would agree to it as well.

ROBERTS: Well, as I said, the bill is written here. It just says that these people are not eligible, as opposed to saying, "Hey, we're going to give you access." It would suggest you've already got -- you've --

McCAUGHEY: This isn't a question of choice.

ROBERTS: You've already got --

McCAUGHEY: You have to do it. If you don't do it, on page 104, there is a hefty penalty.

ROBERTS: But this would suggest that federal employees already have health care; they don't need this system.

McCAUGHEY: But other Americans who already have health care still have to do this. Let me make that clear: This is not optional. It's also a serious problem for people who are seriously ill, because the government has said they're going to slow the flow of dollars into the health care system. That's going to mean cuts in hospital budgets, fewer nurses spread even thinner, fewer diagnostic tests, so it means longer waits for treatment.

ROBERTS: Do you think that a health care plan is even going to see the light of day? There seems to have been a strategic blunder made in sending out this bill to the Congressional Budget Office for scoring -- it came back a trillion dollars over 10 years. Senator Dianne Feinstein [D-CA] said we don't know if we've got the votes to pass this.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by shaggles (June 24, 2009 2:19 pm ET)
      1  
      Sure it does. If by "pushes" she means "offering better care at a lower price which may eventually cause most people to chose the govt plan."
      Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (June 24, 2009 3:06 pm ET)
          2
        I noticed you didn't mention, "lower cost". The government is already broke. It has $55 trillion dollars of unfunded social security and medicaid benefits promised. Obama has already increased the deficit to more than all the other President's combined. This government program will only lead to more deficits and higher taxes.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by right ON (June 24, 2009 3:16 pm ET)
            3
          I can envision it all now. Obama's health care gets eventually passed and all is up and running, but because the present day rosy forecasters underestimated the future outlaying costs, as they always always do; we are deep in the middle of it and the politicians and administrators and bureaucrats come to us and say that unless we go along with a major tax hike people will be dying in the streets without their government funded health care. It's government by apocalyptic fear, it's they way they get us to vote for tax increases now - scare the bejeebies out of us.

          Then what are we to do? That is why the absolute worst case scenario regarding costs should be put forth in debate, but it never is, because politicians aren't wired that way. This is way too big and way too important to treat it like a highway bond that needs more money. If I could that guarantee from lawmakers, then I'll listen.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by loonz (June 24, 2009 3:26 pm ET)
            2  
            Let's assume for a minute your make-believe scenario comes true. Whose taxes do you think will be raised?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by right ON (June 24, 2009 3:31 pm ET)
              1 2
              Huh? Everyones, don't kid yourself. Property taxes, Income taxes, sales taxes, cigarette taxes, you name it.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by loonz (June 24, 2009 3:37 pm ET)
                2  
                The wealthy will be taxed. That's what a lot of states are trying to do now.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by right ON (June 24, 2009 3:39 pm ET)
                  1 2
                  LOL! The wealthy again, so you think you can just keep raising the "wealthy's" taxes and all will be good. My god, you can't be that naive. Never mind.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by loonz (June 24, 2009 3:43 pm ET)
                    2  
                    The wealthy have a sweetheart deal in this country. They should be paying more taxes.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by loonz (June 24, 2009 3:43 pm ET)
                    2  
                    The wealthy have a sweetheart deal in this country. They should be paying more taxes.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by right ON (June 24, 2009 3:47 pm ET)
                      1 3
                      Lord, your disdain for people who don't live off of someone else is staggering. If you think you can sustain a vibrant economy by punishing those that create jobs and put people like you and me to work, then you are not only incredibly naive, but scary as well. Good luck.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by loonz (June 24, 2009 3:52 pm ET)
                        2  
                        I only have disdain for people who tell the destitute, the sick, the disable, the old, etc. that they're own their own.

                        Again, if you can't pay your workers a decent wage, you obviously can't run a business.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by right ON (June 24, 2009 4:29 pm ET)
                            2
                          So the wealthy are saying all that because they have money? I was right, your disdain for them without any basis is stunning. Go to most charities and ask them how they could last one day without the wealthy "who tell the destitute, the sick, the disable, the old, etc. that they're own their own"

                          You are a piece of work.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 24, 2009 4:37 pm ET)
                            2  
                            Go to most charities and ask them how they could last one day without the wealthy
                            It's called a tax write-off. Of course, the majority of money charities get are from people with money. That's a tautology.
                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by loonz (June 24, 2009 5:09 pm ET)
                            2  
                            So the wealthy are saying all that because they have money?


                            Only the conservative ones.

                            I have a disdain for people in general who tell the destitute, the sick, the disable, the old, etc. that they're own their own. A lot of people saying it (mostly conservatives) are not wealthy at all.
                            Report Abuse
                      • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 24, 2009 4:34 pm ET)
                        2  
                        Lord, your disdain for people who don't live off of someone else is staggering.
                        The wealthy do live off of us. They take advantage of the government institutions setup to grease the skids of their business.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by right ON (June 24, 2009 4:55 pm ET)
                            3
                          Perhaps if you weren't so jealous of those that earn big bucks your petty whining wouldn't come across so pathetic. Work for your own money, and you won't have time to worry about how the wealthy are living off of you.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by nerzog (June 24, 2009 4:59 pm ET)
                            2  
                            I hear an awful lot of whining from the wealthy about their "tax burden".

                            Sorry, but I have no sympathy for somebody whose garage is bigger than my house.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by right ON (June 24, 2009 5:05 pm ET)
                                3
                              I have no sympathy for them either. I just don't live my life trying to figure out how I can knock them down a peg or two for having money.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by loonz (June 24, 2009 5:10 pm ET)
                                2  
                                They should be happy to pay taxes. This country made them rich.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by right ON (June 24, 2009 5:12 pm ET)
                                    2
                                  If all it takes is to be in the right country to be rich, why are so many of us not?
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by loonz (June 24, 2009 5:17 pm ET)
                                    2  
                                    Why do you think everyone is not rich or at least earning a decent wage?
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by right ON (June 24, 2009 5:18 pm ET)
                                        2
                                      You answer my question.
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by loonz (June 24, 2009 5:25 pm ET)
                                        2  
                                        The conservative wealthy and big business are trying everything possible to prevent that. We can certainly make everyone rich through the legislative process but huge amounts of money are influencing our politicians.
                                        Report Abuse
                          • Author by loonz (June 24, 2009 5:20 pm ET)
                            2  
                            It's more disdain for people who tell others their own their own. There's lots of wealthy people who care about the well being of others (mostly liberals).
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by right ON (June 24, 2009 5:22 pm ET)
                                2
                              This is the second question you won't answer, the other was the actual decent wage one.
                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by state57daily (June 24, 2009 5:56 pm ET)
                              2  
                              And more rich people who don't care. And for the record, I work hard for my money, I am not rich and I do not mind paying taxes in order for people who cannot afford insurance to have it.
                              Report Abuse
                          • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 24, 2009 5:35 pm ET)
                            2  
                            How do you know I don't earn big bucks? Aren't liberals supposed to be limousine riding, champagne sipping elites? Maybe I'm one of them?
                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by EZ4you2say (June 26, 2009 3:23 pm ET)
                               
                            Right on!
                            Report Abuse
                    • Author by smittymatt16 (June 25, 2009 12:34 am ET)
                        3
                      Why do you feel it is acceptable to take money from the wealthy at a higher rate than the rest of the population? Isn't 10% of 300,000 already much more than 10% of 30,000?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 25, 2009 1:47 am ET)
                        2  
                        Why do you feel it is acceptable to take money from the wealthy at a higher rate than the rest of the population?
                        Because they are the ones that are benefiting the most from society. Plus, they are the ones with the money. Getting money from people who don't have any doesn't work very well.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by smittymatt16 (June 26, 2009 12:00 am ET)
                             
                          Could it be that those benifitting most from society are the ones who are working the hardest in society? Or the ones making the most of the opportunities society has offered them? Or making the smartest choices when it comes to their money, career moves, or lifestyle?
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 26, 2009 4:13 pm ET)
                               
                            Could it be that those benifitting most from society are the ones who are working the hardest in society
                            Sometimes. Often times not. There are a lot of trust fund babies and others that simply make money moving money from one place to the next, adding no value to society.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by smittymatt16 (June 27, 2009 6:58 am ET)
                                 
                              True, which I think we all believe is deplorable. But those who have worked hard to earn their "riches" greatly outnumber those taking advantage of society.
                              Report Abuse
                      • Author by solon (June 25, 2009 3:21 am ET)
                        2  
                        You guys really dont get this do you? They pay the same percent of the first 30,000 as the guy who MAKES 30,000. Then they pay a higher percentage of the higher income. Progressive income tax is only fair. Try thinking about the percentage of DISPOSABLE income the rich pay as opposed to the working poor. There really is no shame in the way you guys carry water for the rich is there? You guys really do worship the almighty dollar and dont really care beans about anyone who isnt rich do you?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by smittymatt16 (June 25, 2009 11:56 pm ET)
                             
                          Bull. I care a great deal, and I make a lot less than you think. But it is simply unfair to tax someone more money simply because they have been successful. You consider those who are "rich" (or successful) to be awful people simply because they have money. And yes, I do get it.....I understand simple math which tells me that $30,000(10% or $300,000) is a lot more than $3,000(10% of $30,000). So why is there any incentive to make more money than what I am making when I can continue to make what I make (which isn't very much) and simply ride the coattails of those working hard to advance themselves and be successful.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 26, 2009 4:12 pm ET)
                               
                            Taxes aren't punishment, they are a way to raise money to pay for government. Someone has to pay for it and it might as well be the ones that have the disposable income to pay more.
                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by solon (June 26, 2009 4:38 pm ET)
                               
                            No you dont. I am tired of trying to explain how a progressive tax structure works to someone who apparantly just WILL NOT understand. Feel free to stay poor even IF you have a chance to make a LOT more money to spite the gov. It seems extremely dumb to me but hey its your life. Feel free to purposefully be a parasite. The wealthy get a whole lot more out of societies investment in everyones ability to make money. A working person used the education system to educate himself the rich used it to educate his entire workforce. I use the highway system to get to work. HL Hunt used it to become a billionaire in the Trucking industry. AGAIN. If you look at DISPOSBALE income the rich pay a much LOWER percentage of their disposable income than the working class. Say it takes 30,000$ just to live. If you earn 60,000$ and pay say 10,000 in taxes that is one third of your disposable income. IF you earn 6 million it REALLY only costs you the same 30,000 to live. Anything over that is your luxury not subsistance So if you pay 1.2 million in taxes that is a bit higher percentage and yet no where NEAR one third of your disposable income. Progressive taxation is fair.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by smittymatt16 (June 27, 2009 6:49 am ET)
                                 
                              See, I think that is where we disagree. Who determines what is someone's "disposable income"? I'm sure there is some formula (which is bogus), but what it comes down to is simply living on less than you make in order to save money for your future. No matter what your income level, if you don't live on less than you make, then you need to get another job, an additional job, or start making cuts in your personal budget because you obviously aren't responsbile enough to manage money. (not you personally) And I'm not poor, I only said I make a lot less than you probably think. Please provide support for your claim that the rich benefit more from government's investment into society's ability to make money.
                              Report Abuse
                  • Author by cArn (June 24, 2009 5:16 pm ET)
                    3  
                    Why do you put quotes around wealthy? It's not an imaginary concept like unicorns or leprechauns. Rich people exist.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 24, 2009 4:33 pm ET)
                    2  
                    The wealthy again, so you think you can just keep raising the "wealthy's" taxes and all will be good.
                    Yes. Look at what the tax rates were for the highest tax brackets in the 50's, a time when we had huge economic growth and get back to us.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by right ON (June 24, 2009 4:53 pm ET)
                        3
                      Once again, you don't know what you're taking about. Take a look at the sluggish economy of the late 50's and why DEMOCRAT JFK cut the tax rates in the 60's and the economic growth that occurred afterwards. Then you get back to us.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by loonz (June 24, 2009 5:16 pm ET)
                        2  
                        It was actually was a net increase. Hardly anyone was paying that 90 percent tax rate because of loopholes. JFK cut the rate to 70 percent and closed the loopholes and people were actually paying close to 70 percent.

                        Reagan lowered the tax rate and we went into a bad recession and he had to raise taxes every year after that. Bush lowered the tax rate and now we're close to a depression.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by right ON (June 24, 2009 5:21 pm ET)
                            3
                          So the high tax brackets weren't being paid because of all the loopholes, so then what the hell is the point? The rich didn't pay those high rates after all because of all the loopholes, so much for all the liberals who yearn for the 1950's when the rich were soaked, they really weren't. Thank you for making my point.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by loonz (June 24, 2009 5:27 pm ET)
                            2  
                            They paid somewhere in the neighborhood of seventy percent.
                            Report Abuse
                      • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 24, 2009 5:36 pm ET)
                        2  
                        and why DEMOCRAT JFK cut the tax rates in the 60's
                        You mean when he cut the top rate from something like 90% to 60%? Meanwhile, it's now what 32%?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by right ON (June 24, 2009 5:37 pm ET)
                            2
                          Cutting tax rates grows the economy, thank you for agreeing with me. You're finally learning. You still have a long way to go though.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 24, 2009 5:41 pm ET)
                            3  
                            Cutting tax rates grows the economy, thank you for agreeing with me.
                            No, it doesn't. This is a meme that the cons have been trafficking in for years. There is no concrete evidence that voodoo economics does anything other than further enrich those that are already rich and shrinking the middle class.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by right ON (June 24, 2009 5:47 pm ET)
                                2
                              Read up on your history young fellow, perhaps if you could turn that disdain for the successful into something concrete, you too could grow your own economy. Cutting taxes puts more money in people's pockets, that is common sense. And unless they store that money in their mattress, it gets put right back in the economy - just like Obama's stimulus money and those that back that.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by loonz (June 24, 2009 6:00 pm ET)
                                3  
                                If you cut taxes on people who spend most if not all of their income, the economy will grow. That's not the case with the wealthy.
                                Report Abuse
                              • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 24, 2009 6:02 pm ET)
                                3  
                                Cutting taxes puts more money in people's pockets, that is common sense. And unless they store that money in their mattress, it gets put right back in the economy - just like Obama's stimulus money and those that back that.
                                You should have quite while you were far far behind.

                                Cutting taxes on the poor and middle-class goes back into the economy because these people live check-to-check and thus spend almost all that they earn. The same isn't true for rich folks. It's been shown that they take the money and stick into savings accounts, or build a new plant overseas. Rarely does it go back into the American economy.

                                Voodoo economics has long-ago been discredited. I can't believe there are people that are still parroting its virtues. Wait, it's Tommy. OK. I guess it makes since. If anyone is an expert on carrying the flag for a dead and discredited cause with unprecedented obstinacy, it's Tommy.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by right ON (June 24, 2009 6:04 pm ET)
                                    2
                                  "The same isn't true for rich folks. It's been shown that they take the money and stick into savings accounts, or build a new plant overseas. Rarely does it go back into the American economy"

                                  Prove it. That is the fall back typical liberal line, it's baloney pure and simple. You get can your fellow posters here to buy that nonsense, but anyone with a brain won't. Nice try.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 24, 2009 6:12 pm ET)
                                    2  
                                    Prove it
                                    Well, I could look up the economics papers that clearly show this, but instead I'd like to ask you to prove your initial assertion, that voodoo economics spurs growth.
                                    Report Abuse
                              • Author by solon (June 25, 2009 3:29 am ET)
                                3  
                                Cutting taxes COSTS the economy money. They dont even PAY FOR THEMSELVES. That is shown by studies done by Bushs OWN economic advisors and tax cut advocates. You tell him to read up on history when it is clear you DONT know what you are talking about. The economy will keep growing eventually as more people are added to it buying and making a wage but the Reagan tax cuts DROPPED revenue for the next two years. The FACTS are clear and they dont back up your claim. It is religious dogma to people like you so you dont think you even have to show evidence it is correct but telling someone to check out history as if it will back up your DELUSIONS is just silly. I have a better idea why dont you for once in your life take a stab and having some dim idea what you are talking about.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by anotheramerican (June 25, 2009 11:30 am ET)
                                    1
                                  Solon wrote: Cutting taxes COSTS the economy money.

                                  That is laughable. The money doesn't disappear if it is not taxed. It simply has not been confiscated by the government and remains in the hands of those that earned it. You must be confusing government revenue with creating wealth.

                                  Government does not create wealth it only redistributes it. Private enterprise creates wealth.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 25, 2009 2:56 pm ET)
                                       
                                    Private enterprise creates wealth.
                                    Wrong. Labor creates wealth.
                                    Report Abuse
                                  • Author by solon (June 25, 2009 4:58 pm ET)
                                       
                                    You are delusional and NEVER know what you are talking about. As I have shown YOU PERSONALLY several times even Bushs OWN tax cut advocates did a study that says DIRECTLY that tax cuts dont even pay for themselves. There is NO DISPUTE that revenues FELL after both Bush and Reagans tax cuts. Investing in America DOES indirectly create wealth. While strictly speaking ONLY those who work create wealth investing in the infrastructure like rural electrification, the highway system, the telecommunication system ALL helped create a whole LOT of wealth. It COSTS the economy money when it helps to put that money into the hands of those who already have so much. To just assure it is accumilated at the very top to those who already have as much as they can spend it takes it OUT of the economy. If you give it to those who hide it in the Grand Caymans or make a factory in Indonesia that money is taken OUT of the economy, this isnt that hard to understand
                                    Report Abuse
                                • Author by EZ4you2say (June 26, 2009 4:18 pm ET)
                                     
                                  "Cutting taxes COSTS the economy money"
                                  "but the Reagan tax cuts DROPPED revenue for the next two years"

                                  You really need to do your homework before you make idiotic comments like that.
                                  "These data show that after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply", from 17.6% to 27.5%. That is total revenues collected by the govt.
                                  "The real problem was a recession(1981-82) that neither CBO nor OMB could foresee. Even so, individual income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989. "

                                  "The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993."

                                  Here's the link, if you're interested;
                                  http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by solon (June 26, 2009 4:46 pm ET)
                                       
                                    I HAVE done my homework and what I said is FLATLY TRUE. Tax revenues DROPPED the two years following the Reagan tax cut. You didnt even try to show otherwise you just made an excuse for it. Perhaps you should learn to read before making a fool out of yourself. What I said is not in dispute. I have linked to gov sites proving this the last three or four times I cited this. I get tired of doing the homework of brainwashed psychophants who cant think for themselves. Look it up. You gave us 9 years. Since the population grows so does the economy over time. However Manikew and Bushs other economic advisors. Tax cut advocates all in their study in THIS ISSUE said that tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves much less bring in more revenue. Try to keep up
                                    Report Abuse
                          • Author by loonz (June 24, 2009 5:58 pm ET)
                            2  
                            The economy grows because of a number of factors whether the tax rate is high or low. What I'm more interested in is who's benefiting when the economy the grows. From the 1930s up until Reagan, the beneficiary was the middle class. Since Reagan the beneficiary has been the wealthy.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by right ON (June 24, 2009 6:02 pm ET)
                                2
                              When the economy grows more people are put to work, that benefits us all because when people have jobs they spend money, especially when they aren't in fear of losing theirs. And the tax base expands. You can dump on the wealthy all you want, but who do you think hires people in this country?
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 24, 2009 6:13 pm ET)
                                2  
                                When the economy grows more people are put to work
                                Where are they put to work? In India?
                                Report Abuse
                              • Author by loonz (June 24, 2009 6:14 pm ET)
                                2  
                                If the economy is growing, the workers should benefit with wage increases and benefits that are higher than inflation. That hasn't been the case for thirty years.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 24, 2009 6:31 pm ET)
                                  2  
                                  Only nuts still cling to supply-side, voodoo economics. Tommy is a special kind of nut.

                                  Does anybody remember when Tommy used to pretend that he wasn't a righty, but really was someone in the middle? I guess his new moniker lays that lie to rest.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by LuvLuLu (June 24, 2009 8:55 pm ET)
                                    2  
                                    Did people really believe that Tommy wasn't a true blue rightie?

                                    Really?

                                    Boy, he must have been better at snowing people back then than he is now.
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 25, 2009 3:04 am ET)
                                      2  
                                      What people believed and what Tommy claimed are two different things. For one, I didn't believe it for a second.
                                      Report Abuse
                          • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 25, 2009 9:47 am ET)
                               
                            Cutting tax rates grows the economy, thank you for agreeing with me.
                            There's a reason that chart was called the laugher, er, Laffer curve. It's been debunked so many times and in so many ways I'm not surprised you still believe it to be true.
                            Report Abuse
                        • Author by oscar the grouch (June 24, 2009 7:56 pm ET)
                             
                          36% to be more accurate.
                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by EZ4you2say (June 26, 2009 3:55 pm ET)
                         
                      So you equate high tax taxation with huge economic growth?
                      Spoken like a true liberal!
                      Keynesian economics have never worked, and it won't work this time. You can't spend your way out of a recession.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 26, 2009 4:16 pm ET)
                           
                        So you equate high tax taxation with huge economic growth?
                        Wow! A starwman argument. Spoken like a true con.

                        There has to be taxation somewhere between 0 and 100%. The argument consists of what is the right balance and who is most able to bear the burden. Clinton raised taxes on the rich and we had the biggest economic expansion in our history. You simply aren't credible.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by solon (June 26, 2009 4:48 pm ET)
                           
                        Yes Keynseyan economics HAVE worked. You know what DOESNT work? You just spewing things and thinking THAT makes them true.
                        Report Abuse
            • Author by ajzito (June 25, 2009 1:40 pm ET)
              2  
              Right ON is probably a kid in his twenties or thirties. He probably doesn't know that the country has had booms during times of a top rate of 90% (Eisenhower), and busts during times of a top rate under 30% (Reagan recession); but he is surely old enough to know we've had booms following tax hikes (Clinton). There is no logic connecting tax policy to overall economic health. Right ON probably just accepts the malarkey handed down by Ronald Reagan about tax cuts magically making the "engine of entrepreneurship chug" or whatever idiotic line you want to use. And I guarantee you he is nothing but a cheapskate, who likes to dress up his venality in high-sounding moral and political arguments. His brand of trash has had its day for now, thank heaven.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (June 24, 2009 3:39 pm ET)
            3  
            So your taxes go up and you no longer pay health insurance costs. That sounds like a wash to me for most people.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by loonz (June 24, 2009 3:20 pm ET)
          2  
          We've been broke for thirty years now and now that a president wants to actually spend money on Americans the far right is going bonkers.

          The reason why we have so many government programs is due to massive wealth inequality in this country. If everyone was making a decent wage we wouldn't need gov't programs.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by right ON (June 24, 2009 3:23 pm ET)
              2
            No, the reason we have so many govt. programs is because when you give people something it is no way near as valued as if they earned it themselves. I learned that lesson as a child.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by loonz (June 24, 2009 3:28 pm ET)
              2  
              No. Pay people a decent wage and they won't turn to government.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by right ON (June 24, 2009 3:30 pm ET)
                  2
                I am all for decent wages, what is that exactly and what is your plan? Because if employers are somehow mandated to pay every employee a "decent" wage, where do you think they should either get the extra cash, or cut in order to do that?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by loonz (June 24, 2009 3:36 pm ET)
                  2  
                  If a business can't pay their workers a decent wage, they need to come up with a better business model or find a new profession.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by right ON (June 24, 2009 3:40 pm ET)
                      2
                    Another naive response. Amazing. Nice rant about putting businesses out of business. Deal in reality, have you ever run a business before. Never mind again.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by loonz (June 24, 2009 3:45 pm ET)
                      2  
                      If they can't pay their workers a decent wage they obviously can't run a business. It's time for them to find a new profession.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by right ON (June 24, 2009 3:56 pm ET)
                          3
                        Of course, because you see all employers who have people working for them are "wealthy sweetheart dealers". When you employ people, you are "wealthy", and if you don't pay them more, well, find a new profession.

                        I am sure that if there was anyone in this country that worked for someone who wasn't "wealthy", they just had their jobs eliminated because of your sage advice. Nice work.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by loonz (June 24, 2009 4:07 pm ET)
                          2  
                          All I said was: "If they can't pay their workers a decent wage they obviously can't run a business. It's time for them to find a new profession." All the rest you just made up.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by right ON (June 24, 2009 4:22 pm ET)
                              2
                            Please tell me what specifically a decent wage is? Let's say in your hometown? I need an actual annual salary please, not liberal double speak.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by loonz (June 24, 2009 5:34 pm ET)
                              2  
                              Enough for shelter, food , water, decent clothing, decent healthcare, a decent retirement, transportation, etc.

                              I live in NY and I would say a decent salary would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 to 60K.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by right ON (June 24, 2009 5:38 pm ET)
                                  2
                                So you want everyone to make that salary, I mean every full time person?
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by loonz (June 24, 2009 6:09 pm ET)
                                  2  
                                  Yes, if possible. We just need to back labor unions they way we use to. Unions make sure business management isn't hoarding profits made off the backs of their workers.

                                  I'm a unionize worker and the owners of the company where I work are millionaires while the workers get a decent wage and benefits. It's not hard to do.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by right ON (June 24, 2009 6:40 pm ET)
                                      3
                                    So let's say a small business owner in NY employs 25 full time people. 5 make 60K, 5 make 50K, 5 make 40K, 10 make 30K and the owner makes 80K. In order for everyone to make at least 50K per year, the owner needs to come up with 250K more per year in order to meet your salary requirements. Where does he/she get that from? He/she either reduces his expenses, most likely payroll, (duh, so much for your theory right there), or raise revenue by raising prices on the goods or services he/she produces.

                                    Which would you prefer? Oh, he could take a pay cut to 50K, but that's only 30K savings. I guess considering what you said he just finds another profession and 25 people are out of work.

                                    Great job there.
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by vhw28672478 (June 24, 2009 7:02 pm ET)
                                      3  
                                      tax cut for rich do not work
                                      Report Abuse
                                    • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 24, 2009 7:09 pm ET)
                                      3  
                                      It depends on the type of business. If he's got knowledge workers, then he couldn't get them in the door for less than 50K.
                                      Report Abuse
                                    • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 25, 2009 9:52 am ET)
                                      1  
                                      Which would you prefer? Oh, he could take a pay cut to 50K, but that's only 30K savings. I guess considering what you said he just finds another profession and 25 people are out of work.
                                      If he's a Republican, he fires 25 people, takes all their salaries as his own, and moves his operation overseas. So, 25 more people in Bangalore now have jobs, all making much less than his least-paid former employee.
                                      Report Abuse
                          • Author by dave (June 24, 2009 4:35 pm ET)
                              2
                            GM paid there employees a decent wage....that worked out well. They can't run a business, either.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by nerzog (June 24, 2009 5:30 pm ET)
                              2  
                              One of their biggest expenses is providing healthcare for their workers, a burden their foreign competitors do not share.

                              In a way, it did work out well. Detroit helped build the middle class in the 50s and 60s. Factory work in general gave millions of people a decent living in this country until manufacturers started farming out their work to slave laborers in other countries.

                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by loonz (June 24, 2009 5:30 pm ET)
                              2  
                              They were profitable just a couple of years ago. People are just not buying their cars anymore.
                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by solon (June 24, 2009 5:44 pm ET)
                              3  
                              The problem wasnt that they paid their workers a decent wage which they had been doing for DECADES of monumental prosperity. The problem was they couldnt run a business which is hardly the fault of the workers. Also putting the healthcare burden on our industries puts us at a competitive disadvantage to all the other industrial countries with a national healthcare system.
                              Report Abuse
            • Author by twseattle (June 24, 2009 3:37 pm ET)
              2  
              So health care is something you have to earn? And if your disease and insurer have 'payment gaps' and you go bankrupt it's your own fault? Insurers can use pre-existing condition clauses to deny payment forcing government to pick up the tab and this kind of back door subsidy is just fine? Really?

              Pay any attention in Sunday school as a child? What kind of morals allow the thought contortions required to drive people into poverty based on your desire to avoid taxes?
              Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (June 24, 2009 3:27 pm ET)
            3  
            I don't recall any of these Right Wing Weasels asking how we were going to pay for Puddinhead George's little adventure in Iraq, do you?

            In fact, Darth Cheney assured us that "Deficits don't matter".

            What a difference an election makes.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by right ON (June 24, 2009 3:33 pm ET)
                2
              If you're saying the leftwingers should react to health care the way rightwingers reacted to Iraq, then I am not sure what your problem with Iraq is, if you are a leftwinger who supports health care.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by nerzog (June 24, 2009 3:40 pm ET)
                2  
                Another faulty analogy from a conservative.

                No, the subject is actually how people react to deficit spending. Let me help you.

                See, the Republicans had no problem with deficit spending when their rich buddies were getting tax cuts, and their idiot President was starting an unnecessary war. Now that a Democrat is proposing deficit spending to actually help people who really need it, the Republicans suddenly find deficit spending unacceptable.

                Get it?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by right ON (June 24, 2009 3:42 pm ET)
                    3
                  No, you brought up Bush (again), saying his supporters shut up about Iraq so hah, hah, we all should do the same about health care. What's good for one is good for another. That's fine, but it just makes your bellyaching about Iraq seem like major hypocrisy.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by nerzog (June 24, 2009 4:35 pm ET)
                    3  
                    Not really. We didn't need the Iraq War. We didn't need tax cuts for the wealthy. We need healthcare reform.

                    How are they equivalent?
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by cArn (June 24, 2009 5:26 pm ET)
                    3  
                    nerzog: No, the subject is actually how people react to deficit spending. Let me help you.

                    right ON: No, you brought up Bush (again), saying his supporters shut up about Iraq so hah, hah, we all should do the same about health care. What's good for one is good for another.

                    I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're pretending to be this obtuse. Nerzog said nothing about people "shutting up" or "what's good for one is good for another". That's all your spin.

                    He's talking about how the Republican's reaction changed on deficit spending when a Democrat came into office and wanted to do something besides tax cuts and increase the military budget.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by LuvLuLu (June 24, 2009 9:02 pm ET)
                      5  
                      Oh yeah, you are right, it's his spin, plus it appears to be clear it's his paycheck. Only here during the day, and he tries his darnest during those work hours to derail threads.

                      He is pretending to be this obtuse to stop us from discussing the subject at hand.

                      And way too many people let him lead them down that rathole.

                      So, did Tommy eventually stop being able to lead people down those ratholes - is that why he stopped using that screen name and became this sock puppet after he failed using JamesB?
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by twseattle (June 24, 2009 3:41 pm ET)
                1  
                Well then it's ok with you if we just take it out of the regular budgetary process and pretend it's not there when we calculate the deficit? That was the Bush tactic. (think of the three monkeys with their hands over their mouth, eyes, and ears)
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 25, 2009 10:01 am ET)
                   
                If you're saying the leftwingers should react to health care the way rightwingers reacted to Iraq
                STRAWMAN ALERT!
                Report Abuse
              • Author by albertsenj (June 26, 2009 4:33 am ET)
                   
                If you're saying the leftwingers should react to health care the way rightwingers reacted to Iraq, then I am not sure what your problem with Iraq is, if you are a leftwinger who supports health care.


                Well, let's see the body count in Iraq (just our guys is...?) that may be one small problem I have with that.

                If you've attended any funerals of our lost soldiers and talked to their widows even YOU might see a problem with the Iraq adventure.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by smittymatt16 (June 27, 2009 7:02 am ET)
                 
              You obviously don't agree with Cheney's statement that deficits don't matter, so are you happy with Obama's enormous budget and spending so far? Our projected debt is ridiculous. I thought we were all in agreement on government spending less after the last administration and congress willingness to spend nonstop.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by shaggles (June 24, 2009 4:27 pm ET)
          1  
          I said lower price but it wasn't a semantics game. I could just as easily said lower cost. I don't mind paying higher taxes for better care because I wouldn't be paying the insurance premiums I pay now.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (June 24, 2009 4:30 pm ET)
          3  
          Erroneous.

          Obama has not already increased the deficit to more than all other Presidents before him. That's just blatantly false, and something you made up.

          Obama's deficits have not been turned in yet, as in, you won't know how much deficit he has, or has not run up, until he's out of office. Right now, there are projections. Some are good, some are bad, but you won't know until he's done his 2 terms as President.

          Tax rates were much higher under Reagan, and yet, you guys LOVE him for being against taxes. Tax rates have gone down exponentially since the Reagan years, which is part of the reason we now have severe deficits.

          We could always cut way back on defense, that would make health care more affordable.

          If people are allowed to pay for this plan out of their taxes, or if I need to pay a little more to ensure that everyone in this country has decent care, I'm for it.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by vhw28672478 (June 24, 2009 6:51 pm ET)
      3  
      We need health care reformed
      Report Abuse
      • Author by albertsenj (June 26, 2009 4:43 am ET)
        1  
        Here's something I haven't heard anyone talking about. If we go to a government option that will de-couple health-care coverage from your job. That will make labor a more liquid resource, as companies won't have to factor in the cost of health insurance when they decide to hire someone.

        Think what that could do for small businesses. Right now, they have trouble attracting workers because they can't afford to buy insurance.

        We would also free up the money being used to pay for health insurance marketing, salaries and bonuses for insurance execs and the like which I've seen estimated to consume up to 30% of health-care dollars.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by sonyacade (June 27, 2009 12:16 am ET)
         
      If you are uninsured and does not have insurance, you should check out the website http://UninsuredAmerica.blogspot.com - jacquelynbrowne, California
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.