Health Bill Would Add 3.8% Tax on Investment Income

Re:Health Bill Would Add 3.8% Tax on Investment Income by lrm242 on Monday March 22, 2010 @12:09AM (#1209285)

And now we will wind up paying for you because your family has medical issues and couldn't previously get covered. The burden has simply been shifted. Good? Bad? Shrug, depends on which side of the line you sit on.

I sit on the side of the line that favors less and smaller federal government. One of the beautiful results of the power we give to States to govern is that as a country we end up with 50 solutions. Our diverse populous can then choose which one fits best with their ideals and personal circumstances--and we get this while still maintaining ourselves as a cohesive country.

Unfortunately, this time the government has chosen to white wall a solution across all citizens rather than to let the fundamental action of our country (States rights) do the work which would have resulted in a better solution, IMO.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Health Bill Would Add 3.8% Tax on Investment Income by tptacek on Monday March 22, 2010 @12:29AM (#1209345)

In one set of circumstances, a family that could not obtain coverage now can, and contributes premium payments every months to compensate for that coverage.

In the other set of circumstances, the family can't obtain coverage. Something bad happens. Now, instead of having insurance cover it, they go bankrupt. We are all still paying the bills. The only difference that I can see is that in this set of circumstances, the family (a) didn't pay insurance premiums, and (b) was driven into bankruptcy.

What's the win you see in the second scenario?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Health Bill Would Add 3.8% Tax on Investment Income by lrm242 on Monday March 22, 2010 @10:54AM (#1210434)

To perform this analysis you must further explore the true costs of the first scenario.

[ Parent | on HN ]