He firmly declared that the energy that built the tea party movement does not have to lead to violence.

“What we learned from Oklahoma City is that our words really do matter. There is this vast echo chamber, and the words fall on the serious and delirious alike,” the former president warned. “You don’t have to be nice. But be careful with what you say and do not advocate violence.”

Clinton said the same kind of “disorientation” that riled Americans during his term is apparent today in “the idea that we ought to bring back Confederate month in Virginia without talking anything about slavery” and “the fact that you ought to be able to pack a six-gun into Starbucks and order a Cowboy Latte.”

-
Politico

1. First Time Homebuyers Credit. This credit was originally enacted in 2008, but was extended and enhanced twice in 2009, most recently in The Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009. A tax credit of up to $8,000 is now available for qualified first-time homebuyers in 2009. In addition, a tax credit of up to $6,500 is available for qualified existing homeowners who purchase a new principal residence.
2. Making Work Pay Credit. This credit is targeted to lower and middle income taxpayers and is equal to a maximum of $400 for individuals and $800 for married couples. To qualify for the maximum credit, a single person must have earned income of no more than $75,000 and no partial credit is given if earned income exceeds $95,000. For married couples, the earned income limit for a maximum credit is $150,000 with individuals making $190,000 or more receiving no credit.
3. Unemployment Compensation. The first $2,400 of unemployment compensation received in 2009 in excluded from income for federal income tax purposes. This exclusion was only for 2009 and has expired unless it is adopted again sometime this year.
4. Sales and Use Tax Paid on Automobiles. This is a temporary deduction for sales and excise taxes paid relating to the purchase of a qualified new automobile, light truck, or motorcycle purchased through December 31, 2009.
5. Education Incentives. The Recovery Act significantly enhanced the HOPE scholarship credit and renamed it the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC). The new credit has a higher maximum credit amount, is partially refundable, and is available to some higher income earners. It is also expanded to apply to the first four years of post-secondary educations (as opposed to two before.) This credit is set to expire at the end of 2010.
6. Child Tax Credit. The Recovery Act enhanced the child tax credit by making a larger portion of the credit refundable for 2009 and 2010.
7. Earned Income Tax Credit. The Recovery Act increased the Earned Income Tax Credit.
8. Bonus Depreciation. The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“Recovery Act”) extended bonus depreciation deduction for property placed in service in 2009. This allows businesses to deduct 50% of the qualifying property in the first year that it is placed in service.
9. Section 179 Expensing. The Recovery Act also extended the $250,000 limit on qualifying property that can be expensed by qualifying small businesses under Section 179.
10. Work Opportunity Tax Credit Expansion. The credit rewards employers that hire individuals from targeted groups. The Recovery Act expanded the targeted group to unemployed veterans and disconnect youth.
11. Energy Tax Credits. The 2009 Recovery Act expanded and extended many energy tax incentives for businesses.
12. COBRA Premium Assistance. This provision allows individuals that have been involuntarily terminated to pay only 35% of their COBRA health insurance premiums to their former employers for nine months, and their former employers are required to treat this as full payment. The employers then get to claim a tax credit for the other 65% of the premium on their payroll tax returns. Thus, it should result in no additional liability to the employee or the employer. Currently, COBRA Premium Assistance is only available for individuals involuntarily terminated prior to February 28th, 2010. There are a couple of bills that are proposing to extend this even further.
13. NOL Carryback. Both of the major acts past this year expanded the ability of small and medium sized businesses to count the losses sustained in 2008 or 2009 to recoup taxes paid in the prior five years.

Shame, shame on those dems for not giving the little people a break. Tsk tsk.

Go to the nearest mall today. Ask ten random people, ‘Who was the President of the U.S. at the beginning of World War II?’ See how many can answer correctly.

Ask ten more to even vaguely describe how the healthcare system works in Canada. Or for that matter, ask them how it works here in our own US of A.

Ask even ONE person what kind of government system is in place in France. Or India.

And finally… ask twenty people why they think national health care would be a good or bad thing.

If it does not pertain to most people’s general sphere of personal life space, it doesn’t seem to be all that important. It doesn’t pay their bills. It doesn’t change what’s on that night’s scheduled television shows.

But you better believe that EVERYONE has an opinion on national health care. (Thanks Fox News!)

Now. I will attempt to cease my meandering and move on to the point(s) of this article. Using Canada (our nearest neighbor) as an example, let’s make a reasonable effort to bring some hard facts and reality to this situation.

First off make a note that ALL Canadians, rich and poor, regardless of the state of their health, age, or employment status, are covered by the same comprehensive system. Canadians go to the doctor of their choice and receive hospital care for free. There are essentially no financial barriers to health care in Canada, and there is an ample supply of physicians. Private insurance that duplicates the comprehensive services covered by the provincial plans are prohibited. Co-payments, deductibles, and direct patient payments to providers for covered services are also not permitted.

Now on to current ‘myths‘.

National health care is communist. Communism is ‘evil’.

Oh those evil, evil Canadians.

This is not the first time this scare tactic has been used when the idea of national health care has been presented as an alternative within a population or community.

The current system in Canada originated in Saskatchewan in 1959. This was at a time when a huge percentage of our planet was just starting to move past the Second Red Scare. Communism and Socialism were words of hard, real threat and power. As the early stages of planning for the Saskatchewan Medical Care Insurance Act began, many among the population and medical community were crying “communism” in an attempt to prevent the coming change.

Big change is always a scary thing to face. I mean, think about what a daunting decision it would be just to change deodorant if they quit making the one that for 20 years has unfailingly kept you dry and mostly stink free? What if the one you choose instead leaves you with those nasty moisture stains in the crook of your arm in the middle of an important business presentation? Now THAT is frightening! You better believe I would be sending some rather ‘opinionated’ letters the manufacturer who took my personal hygiene security blanket off the shelf.

According to The Medicus Firm Physician Survey, 46% of the doctors in the US have threatened to leave the medical community if nationalized health care passes, leaving the population without adequate providers.

Doctors in Saskatchewan threatened to leave the province before they would work in a ‘socialized’ system. They were so intimidated by this impending threat against their career and freedom that when the legislation was passed on July 1, 1961, every doctor in the province (other than minimal staff at emergency medical facilities) went on strike for 23 days.

(Strange but true fact: The mortality rate in the province actually declined during the strike, primarily because of the decline in surgery.)

The local media supported the doctors and demanded that the government back down on its program. In spite of the local media’s support, however, as the strike wore on public opinion in Saskatchewan turned against the doctors.

The government eventually gave each of the physicians the choice to opt out of the new system and bill patients privately. Of the doctors practicing in Saskatchewan at the end of July, 1961… none of them chose to opt out. Life moved on in the forward thinking little province.

Doctors are against the health care bill because they will make less money after years dedicated to medical school and an accumulation of hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans.

Again. The same concerns were brought against the government of Saskatchewan in 1959.

In current day Canada, 95% of the doctors are private and bill on a fee-for-service basis.

In the five years preceding the introduction of the national health care system, physicians’ incomes averaged 33.94% above the average for other professionals. For the five years following, their incomes surged to 47.02% above other professionals.

Doctors still remain the highest paid professionals in Canada today.

Taxes are higher in Canada to compensate for the cost of health care.

Below is the standardized federal income tax rate directly quoted from the Canada Revenue Agency:

*  15% on the first $40,726 of taxable income
* 22% on the next $40,726 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $40,726 and $81,452)
* 26% on the next $44,812 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $81,452 and $126,264)
* 29% of taxable income over $126,264

I’m somehow missing the astronomical ‘highness’ of these numbers in comparison to current U.S. income tax rates. Is this just me? Should I schedule an appointment with my local eye doctor?

National health care will mean more big government and even more red tape.

Less than 3% of the expenditures in the Canadian system go to administrative costs.

Existing government-run health care programs in the U.S., which many people find inhibitingly complex, are hardly appealing models for a national system. One recent study revealed that 1 million medicare enrollees a year find the claim process so complicated or time consuming that they do not seek reimbursement, losing about $ 100 million in benefits to which they are entitled.

($ 100 million in un-reimbursed medical payouts. This isn’t chump change, people. Especially not for the medicare recipients of this country.)

There is more choice in the Canadian public run system, where patients may go to the physician of their choice and the physician need not worry about the patient’s ability to pay for treatment.

Can you say that about your HMO or PPO?

If you have an HMO or PPO, that is.

The level of care in Canada is sub par, and you could die on a waiting list before receiving a life saving surgery.

Infant mortality deaths per 1,000 live births is 10.4 in the U.S., compared to 7.9 in Canada.

Deaths from heart disease per 100,000 is 434 in the U.S. compared to 348 in Canada.

Overall life expectancy in years is 75.3 in the U.S. and 77.1 in Canada.

We have waiting lists in the existing U.S. medical system. Do you know anyone waiting for a kidney, heart or lung transplant?

How many times have you or someone you know been turned down for what your physician deemed a necessary procedure because the insurance company either didn’t want to pay for it, or did not agree with the diagnosis nor ‘necessity’ of the procedure.

According to a recent report by the General Accounting Office of Congress on Canada’s health insurance, “patients with immediate or life-threatening needs rarely wait for services, but waiting lists for elective procedures may be several months long.”

Every country, including even the U.S., rations health care to some degree.

The real issue is on what basis should this be done: ability to pay, or severity of need?

-
The Politics Of Canada’s Healthcare System