How is this "pushing back the undue influence of special interests" when this bill had RECORD LOBBYING by multiple special interests?

"Tonight," President Obama intoned near midnight Sunday, after the House had passed two health care bills, "we pushed back on the undue influence of special interests. … We proved that this government — a government of the people and by the people — still works for the people."

But even before the president spoke, the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America — whose .1 million lobbying effort in 2009 was the most expensive by any industry lobby in history — hailed the health package as "important and historic."

The second-biggest industry lobby in America, the American Medical Association, also cheered, as did the American Hospital Association, the No. 5 industry lobby. Throw in the goliath senior lobby AARP and Beltway powerhouse General Electric, and you realize Obama’s underdog tale is all bark and no bite.

The health care bill Obama signed into law Tuesday is a triumph for the special interests. It will benefit the biggest businesses, and by injecting more government into the economy, it will permanently stimulate K Street.

Yet all along Obama has claimed the opposite. The Democrats’ party-line Senate vote for the bill represented "standing up to the special interests," Obama said in December — just before the health care lobbyists and pharmaceutical political action committees hosted fundraisers for Martha Coakley to try to preserve the Democrats’ 60-vote supermajority.

Throughout March, as momentum built for passing the bill, and as Democrats adopted the mantra, "You’re either with the American people, or you’re with the insurance companies," health insurance stocks climbed in tandem with the bill’s odds of passing. The health sector outperformed every other sector in the S&P 500 over the last month.

And once the bill passed, health care stocks rallied. Insurance giant Aetna — whose product you are now required by law to own — hit its 52-week high the morning after. Drug maker Pfizer rose 4 percent Monday and Tuesday, increasing its market capitalization by .8 billion — almost a two-hundredfold return on the company’s .9 million lobbying effort.

In Washington, talk of who’s getting rich or taking a hit often distracts pointlessly from substantive issues. But it’s important here for two reasons.

First, there’s the unsettling but unavoidable conclusion that our president is willing to deceive us if he thinks he can get away with it. He knew the drug makers were on his side — after all, he cut a private deal with top drug lobbyist Billy Tauzin. He also knew that the media would consider any big government proposal a blow to big business.

Second, showing who benefits most makes clear that this "reform" wasn’t designed to "work for the people," as Obama claims. It works for the deep-pocketed companies who wrote it. Come January, you will no longer be able to buy over-the-counter medicines with your health savings account money — if you want the tax deduction, you’ll need to get more costly prescription drugs. That hurts customers and taxpayers while driving up health care spending — but it profits Big Pharma.

The bill is loaded with sugar plums for the drug industry:

o Taxpayers will subsidize drug makers even more. o Employers will be forced to give prescription-drug insurance to workers. o Generic versions of biologic drugs will be kept off the market for 12 years. o States will be forced to subsidize drugs through Medicaid. o Americans will still be prohibited from importing cheaper drugs from China. o Medicare will continue overpaying for drugs.

If the bill’s actual provisions paint a different picture from Obama’s rhetoric, so does the money trail.

Standing behind Obama at the bill signing Tuesday were Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., the leading Senate and House recipients, respectively, of health-sector political action committee money in this election cycle. The 2008 champs of health PAC fundraising, Max Baucus and Charlie Rangel, were also on stage.

And the man with the pen in his hand had received more money from drug companies and health insurance companies than any politician in the history of the country.

We won’t know for years whether Obama was right about the effects of this law. But we already know that Obama’s story of how we got here — the people triumphing over the special interests — is a tall tale.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obama-gives-sugar-plums-to-the-special-interests-88958037.html#ixzz0j93bEWth
Benito – you should read this. You ignorance is showing.

And what you get back in the taxes will be LESS than what you get for having a child deduction. How does that help? The businesses wont have to provide for health insurance any longer. The government will know your health history and everything that you do. The government will sign off on your health care and what is offered.

Case in point: I was on the VA health care too. I was denied a mammogram via the VA, 2 years ago when I turned 35 (I had SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR IT BECAUSE OF STRONG FAMILY HISTORY). I have spent the past 8 months fighting breast cancer and had a tumor that was 10 cm…almost four inches in size. It would have been easily seen if they had done what I asked them to do 2 years ago. I am still having to fight and now need radiation. All that will happen with this health care is the fact that there will be MORE people who will be in this situation…and unable to sue for any real amount of money.
Jake…It is one thing for me willingly let people know my history, but it is another one being FORCED to do so without any questions.

wouldn’t require either individuals or employers to get coverage.

It avoids expanding the federal role in overseeing the health insurance industry.

it would not set up new federally regulated purchasing pools for individuals and small businesses.

it would allow individuals to use the Internet to purchase lower-cost coverage available anywhere in the country.

The plan would offer tax deductions and tax credits to help make the purchase of health insurance more affordable for individuals.

The GOP bill would take on medical malpractice, limiting jury awards for pain and suffering and creating new health courts in which a specially trained judge would hear and decide cases involving medical negligence.

It isn’t a government take over but entitles everyone to get available insurance and pools the coverages on a website so people can compare and should drive prices down through competition

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/house_GOP_health_bill/2009/07/29/241516.html

EDIT: This is the republican version of reform.

It is NOT a public option. There would be not takeover under this option. It simply seems much better than Hussein Obama’s idea for complete take over.
Edit:

APR: What do we do with an the uninsured? Medicaid is a failure. Ever since Nixon passed that law that enabled the health care to dictate prices they flew up.

My buddy and I own an LLC (taxed as an S-Corp). Can you deduct business expenses (such as phone) and health insurance premiums AND the standard deduction?

Also, do distributions/dividends have to be distributed equally (if we each own 50%, per say) can he take 60%, and I take 40% of distributions?

Thanks in advance.

A government health insurance plan sounds nice and pretty, but when you consider a little bit of history concerning the government and its regulation of the private insurance market and consider basic economics it’s pretty darn clear that as time goes on more and more people will be forced into government run plans.

First, the lie that the government wishes to just "compete" with private insurers is complete BOGUS. The federal (and state governments) already heavily regulate the private insurance market. Over the years governments (both state and federal) have required insurers to cover more and more procedures, many which have nothing to do with health thereby forcing customers to shell out more money instead of just simply allowing consumers to customize their plan….you know kinda like how you do with other insurance.

Also doctors spend around 30 billion per year (according to CNN) on malpractice insurance. So if we could have some tort reform of some sort to reduce law suit abuse.

But the point I REALLY try to make to people is this….Private insurance companies need to at least break even to keep themselves in business. Government does not. Government can afford to operate at a loss because it has an endless supply of tax revenue and the ability to borrow money from sales of bonds or by monetizing the debt with the Federal Reserve. Now ask yourself this….if you were a business of some sort, and you were competing against someone who could afford to operate at a loss indefinitely don’t you think you would have a hard time competing against them? They could afford to continually undercut you (at their loss) and eventually put you out of business. So as you can see the government is NOT competing against private insurers in a FREE market because
1) they regulate their competitors already and 2) they can afford to lose as much money as they want since they do not need to make a profit or even break even to stay in business.

Now some people would say that as long as they can afford to give people cheap medical care then it shouldn’t really matter if they operate at a loss….Well ok, but there is one problem with that and that is supply

If the government sets prices artificially low then their will be an increase in demand for those services. The system will not be able to handle everybody in a timely manner which will lead to long waits and rationing. Now to be clear there already is rationing today just as their is rationing of every product and service we buy….the rationing factor is the price. There are ways to lower the price using Free market solutions instead of the heavy coercive hand of government such as:

Tax deductions for health savings accounts that can be used towards deductibles or insurance premiums, tort reform, allowing private insurance to compete in a free market unlike what it has endured over the years as increased government regulation has increased the price.

I’m starting to ramble, but the main point I wanted to put out for debate is that government is NOT competing against private insurers because it is government that is setting the terms of competition and not the market and also the government can afford to operate at a loss while private insurers can’t. Talk about a monopoly!

Please if all you can say is a bunch of rude or ignorant things then please don’t comment.

1) People buy health insurance for themselves, or receive it through their employers. Whatever cost is not covered is paid by the individual, or through Medicare or Medicaid if eligible. (present system)

2) People pay for their health insurance. Insurance paid for by employers is now treated as income to the individual, but each individual also receives an equivalent tax deduction or credit to buy insurance. (This has the effect of getting employers out of the health insurance business somewhat, and making individuals more active in the process.) Allow for more interstate competition among insurance companies. Individuals pay for whatever is not covered, with some govt assistance if needed.

3) People pay taxes for an insurance system administered the government. The level of coverage (and who pays what "premium" and who gets what service) is determined by the government.

Which do you choose? Why? Are there any additions or changes you would make to my facts?

As smokers we know that tobacco is bad for our health! But we are the ones that are penalized for it! We are the ones that have to pay more for our health insurance and high taxes on tobacco! Instead of more taxes on cigarettes and tobacco why not put taxes on grocery items or raise the alchohol taxes! It not fair to target 1 group! Grocery tax would target everybody and it would be a more fair approach! I live in Indiana where they just put a state wide ban on smoking in businesses and places of employment! They had already spent money on airtight rooms with separate ventilation units and sealed doors! Smokers have been persecuted for a long time! I think that smokers should be able to claim some kind of tax deduction for the extremely high tax rate on tobacco! I WOULD ONLY LIKE SMOKERS TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION! THANK YOU

Isn’t this the biggest rip you’ve seen??

Got this in the company mail today:

Dear Valued Employee:

As you know, President Obama has asked Congress to pass the beginning of his health insurance plan for all Americans. The starting plan will cost some billion a year, of which the President has proposed billion in higher taxes for firms doing business overseas, which is half our company’s business. He asked Congress to find the rest of the money.

Congress has said the other billion a year will come from disallowing corporate tax deductions for employee health insurance, as well as raising the general corporate income tax rate to 35%.

The company will absorb the higher taxes on our foreign operations and the tax increase to 35% even though we expect this to eliminate our currently low net income.

Our corporation pays approximately ,000 per year per single employee and ,000 per year per employee family for the health insurance coverage you presently have.

This means that Congress has decided to raise our taxes by 00 per employee with single coverage and 50 per employee with family coverage.

As you know, our company’s sales have recently fallen by more than at any previous time in our company’s history. Our company is paying no dividends to the owners and may soon be in danger of not earning the interest cost of our debts.

Accordingly, we must pass onto our employees the entire added tax that Congress will impose on your health insurance plan. It is either this, go out of business, or move operations and most jobs overseas.

Effective the first of next month, all US employees electing single coverage health insurance will have their monthly contribution increased by 175 dollars and those electing family coverage will contribute an added 262.50. For hourly employees paid every two weeks, this is .75 and 1.15 respectively.

Thank you for your continued efforts to make the company profitable,

Human Resources Department

Starting a Semi-Pro Football Team that will be operated much like a small business. Due to the limitations of a non-profit tax exemption (would need to be in business for at least a brief period of time to be eligible) I need to know what type of expenses I can deduct from taxes.

1) League Fees: 00

2) Travel Fees: Unknown Rate, but will be a flat rate because it will be a charter bus going from our Home Field to the visiting home field. Expenses going TO the home field for the charter will not be included in the deductions

3) Office space for the hotline and computer use for generating communication between customers and the business. Also used to maintain the businesses’ website, keeping financial records, etc.

4) Field Rental. Paying the field rent for Home games. 00

5) Ticket Costs. Paying for the printing of Tickets used for sales. 0

6)Equipment. Equipment for each player costs about 0. 0×40 = 000

7) Jerseys and Uniforms. 0 each player, 100×40 =00

Players will sign a release of liability to the team with proof of thier own health insurance.
Also I didnt mean to ask if anybody needed help, I am the one needing help heh

Or are they no longer a reputable source?

From Investor’s Business Daily:

Obama has proposed effective tax increases of 20% or more in the two top income-tax rates, phasing out the personal exemptions and all itemized deductions for top earners, as well as raising their tax rates.

He wants a 33% increase in the tax rates on capital gains and dividends, an increase of 16% to 32% in the top payroll tax rate, reinstatement of the death tax with a 45% top rate, and a new payroll tax on employers estimated at 7% to help finance his health insurance plan. He’s also contending for higher tariffs under his protectionist policies.

Finally, he would increase corporate taxes by 25%, though American businesses already face the second-highest marginal tax rates in the industrialized world, thus directly harming manufacturing and job creation while weakening demand for the dollar.