#1 Obamacare was mainly aimed at redistributing wealth04-02-2010, 09:44 AM
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
April 2, 2010
It hasn't attracted much notice, but recently some prominent advocates of Obamacare have spoken more frankly than ever before about why they supported a national health care makeover. It wasn't just about making insurance more affordable. It wasn't just about bending the cost curve. It wasn't just about cutting the federal deficit. It was about redistributing wealth.
Health reform is "an income shift," Democratic Sen. Max Baucus said on March 25. "It is a shift, a leveling, to help lower income, middle income Americans."
In his halting, jumbled style, Baucus explained that in recent years "the maldistribution of income in America has gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind." The new health care legislation, Baucus promised, "will have the effect of addressing that maldistribution of income in America."
At about the same time, Howard Dean, the former Democratic National Committee chairman and presidential candidate, said the health bill was needed to correct economic inequities. "The question is, in a democracy, what is the right balance between those at the top ... and those at the bottom?" Dean said during an appearance on CNBC. "When it gets out of whack, as it did in the 1920s, and it has now, you need to do some redistribution. This is a form of redistribution."
Summing things up in the New York Times, the liberal economics columnist David Leonhardt called Obamacare "the federal government's biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago."
Now they tell us. For many opponents of the new legislation, the statements confirmed a nagging suspicion that for Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress, the health fight was about more than just insurance -- that redistribution played a significant, if largely unspoken, part in the drive for national health care.
"I don't think most people, when they think of the health care bill, instantly think it's a vehicle to redistribute wealth," says pollster Scott Rasmussen. "But we do know that people overwhelmingly believe it will lead to an increase in middle class taxes, and we do know that people are concerned that it will hurt their own quality of care, so I think their gut instincts point in that direction."
By talking openly about redistribution, Baucus and others have gone seriously off-message. Democrats knew there was no way they could ever sell a national health care bill to a skeptical public by basing their case on income inequality. That's one reason they went to such lengths to argue -- preposterously, in the view of most Americans -- that the bill could cover 32 million currently uninsured people and still save the taxpayers money.
After Baucus' statement, I asked a Democratic strategist (who asked to remain nameless) whether fighting income inequality was one of his goals in supporting the legislation. Never, he said. "That's what the tax code is for."
"It was not to take something away from rich people, it was to provide something to people without coverage," he continued, making a distinction between striving for universal coverage and seeking to redistribute income. But he quickly saw that Democrats talking about redistribution could be politically damaging, echoing the controversy that erupted when candidate Obama famously told Ohio plumber Joe Wurzelbacher that "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
" 'Redistribution' is an easy charge to make," the Democrat said. "I'm not surprised that it's an argument critics make; what I'm surprised at is that Democrats are making it."
This week the DNC group Organizing for America offered a commemorative certificate to supporters who helped pass the health care bill. The certificate said, "We achieved the dream of generations -- high-quality, affordable health care is no longer the privilege of a few, but the right of all."
The privilege of a few? It is widely accepted that about 85 percent of all Americans have health care coverage, and the overwhelming majority are happy with it. There's simply no way anyone could plausibly claim that health coverage is the privilege of a few.
And yet that is the bedrock belief of some who supported the health care makeover. So it's no wonder that we're hearing about health care as the redistribution of income. Of course, we're only hearing it after the bill has passed.
Byron York, the Washington Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts appears on www.ExaminerPolitics.com ExaminerPolitics.com.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/po...-89725302.htmlStand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
SonnabendGuest04-02-2010, 11:28 AMIt wasn't just about cutting the federal deficit. It was about redistributing wealth.
04-02-2010, 11:55 AM
Or how Biden came right out and said it.Deplorably Proud To Be An American
04-02-2010, 12:08 PM
I work for the State of Tennessee and have great insurance, but I just received notice that a change is coming.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. Thomas Jefferson
04-02-2010, 12:09 PM
Sorry about the size of the image.I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. Thomas Jefferson
#6 Wealth Care
04-02-2010, 02:14 PM
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
Obama's health care plan is about redistribution of wealth. That is why the plan does not address reducing costs (only subsidizing the costs). The higher the costs - the more wealth can be redistributed. They want high costs!! The higher - the better.
04-02-2010, 05:36 PM
I have a question about Obamacare.
Someone at work last week told me that the employer's part of your health insurance premium is going to be counted as individual income on the 2010 tax returns for those of us with employer insurance coverage. Is this true? If so, can I have a source to back it up?
Last edited by Troll; 04-02-2010 at 05:36 PM. Reason: Chicken pot pie ate my grammar.Nothing helps a bad mood like spreading it around.
04-02-2010, 05:56 PM
If Congress is so interested in making everyone 'equal,' via wealth redistribution, why don't they start with themselves? Get rid of all their benefits and lower their incomes to the average national income. Better, they should receive the average income of the State they're supposed to represent.
While they're at it, they should quit exempting themselves from the same laws they want us to live under. In other words, lead by example.The poster formerly known as chuck58 on the old board.
04-02-2010, 06:20 PMLiberals: Obama's useful Idiots
04-02-2010, 06:35 PM
- Join Date
- May 2008
The government's position is that if your company gives you something free of charge, it is a benefit and should be taxed. I am not agreement with them on this but that is that their rationale. If you pay a portion of your health care, I don't think you will have to include the portion that your employer picks up as income on your 2010. What I have stated here is not the Gospel but what these clowns have rattled around in Congress. Also, some companies will drop all employees from their health care, pay the fine and let them go on the gov. plan cause it will be cheaper for them in the long run.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|