House passes public option: Lobby vs. Lyk
Issue date: 11/18/09 Section: Opinion
If the Democrats had to make a compromise in order to pass this bill, it only shows the greatness of a democratic system. This may be a signal that we are getting better at meeting halfway. If the Democrats are the ones who have to step up and make the compromises to create change, so be it. Responsibility doesn't always mean winning. I have faith that President Obama will do what is necessary to make this country reach a much higher potential.
BY RYAN LYK
lykxx001@d.umn.edu
The recent passage of the healthcare bill means one thing: Republicans need to try harder. The New York Times reported that a $1.1 trillion bill passed in the house with a "slim margin," but with 39 Democrats opposed to it in the House and the Senate teetering on the edge of a filibuster majority, Majority Leader Harry Reid has a lot of work to do.
The GOP does not want healthcare to stay as it is. In fact, making this a debate over change is highly ignorant. The opposition here is quite simple: Obama's plan is wrong for America. Simply put, it is too costly and will lead to a collapse of private sector healthcare. Obama has a plan though, a way to completely pay for this change.
The current economy and the policies of Obama are not exactly boosting enough significant revenue to come up with $1.1 trillion. In order to solve this, Obama will tax the country and these taxes will have to be drastic, because Obama's plan requires a lot more coverage than Social Security and Medicare. According to the Department of the Treasury, America faces a $43 trillion obligation to these programs. Tax increases would be very harmful.
The GOP reports that 5.4 percent surtax would exist on small businesses placing a $153.3 billion burden on these Americans. The last time this happened was the stimulus, and since then about 3 million private-sector jobs have been lost. The argument always seems to be that a tax on the ultra-wealthy is harmless to the economy and the middle class, but keep in mind that according to The American, The Congressional Budget Office reported that "since the 2003 tax cuts, federal revenues have grown by $745 billion-the largest real increase in history over such a short time period." Does it make sense to impose taxes that would redo the progress made?
BY RYAN LYK
lykxx001@d.umn.edu
The recent passage of the healthcare bill means one thing: Republicans need to try harder. The New York Times reported that a $1.1 trillion bill passed in the house with a "slim margin," but with 39 Democrats opposed to it in the House and the Senate teetering on the edge of a filibuster majority, Majority Leader Harry Reid has a lot of work to do.
The GOP does not want healthcare to stay as it is. In fact, making this a debate over change is highly ignorant. The opposition here is quite simple: Obama's plan is wrong for America. Simply put, it is too costly and will lead to a collapse of private sector healthcare. Obama has a plan though, a way to completely pay for this change.
The current economy and the policies of Obama are not exactly boosting enough significant revenue to come up with $1.1 trillion. In order to solve this, Obama will tax the country and these taxes will have to be drastic, because Obama's plan requires a lot more coverage than Social Security and Medicare. According to the Department of the Treasury, America faces a $43 trillion obligation to these programs. Tax increases would be very harmful.
The GOP reports that 5.4 percent surtax would exist on small businesses placing a $153.3 billion burden on these Americans. The last time this happened was the stimulus, and since then about 3 million private-sector jobs have been lost. The argument always seems to be that a tax on the ultra-wealthy is harmless to the economy and the middle class, but keep in mind that according to The American, The Congressional Budget Office reported that "since the 2003 tax cuts, federal revenues have grown by $745 billion-the largest real increase in history over such a short time period." Does it make sense to impose taxes that would redo the progress made?
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 2
Jake
posted 11/24/09 @ 3:10 PM CST
First let's actually breakdown the "50 (actually 47) million uninsured Americans"
38% have personal incomes over $50,000 that choose not to purchase insurance
27% AREN'T EVEN CITIZENS
Of the remaining 35%, half of them are under 18 and have public options readily available that their parents have not signed them up for. (Continued…)
Post a Comment