Meanwhile, back on the Hill, there's a humble bill involving the entire health care system of the United States making its way through the Senate. Lawrence O'Donnell is not usually so honest and brazen about the liberal agenda as he was during this morning's appearance on MSNBC's “Morning Joe”, but one can certainly be thankful that he was.
According to O'Donnell, there are now three new tax brackets in this legislation, a new 35% tax rate on certain private health insurance plans, and half of the health care legislation now being debated is a massive new tax bill. O'Donnell made the following comparison:
For example, for example, last week in a retaliation toward China, we put a 35% tax, we call them tariffs when it's international, but a 35% tax on Chinese tires. In other words, a punitive tax for their behavior. We're putting in the Senate Finance committee bill - the idea is to put a 35% tax on health insurance plans that are worth more than $8,000 to an individual. Now that's an awful lot of health insurance plans.In other words, the Senate Finance committee now holds the American public to be as hostile to their agenda as Communist China - and they're going to punish “We the People” with a 35 percent tariff - excuse me, a 35 percent tax - on us for our behavior.
And the reason America is not aware of this impending intrusion into their pocketbooks? O'Donnell gleefully describes the problem:
And the reason those things aren't being covered is screaming about 'death panels,' yelling 'you lie,' and this stuff. This stuff is wonderfully diversionary and so the whole country has no idea. For example, what the - what half this legislation is. And half this legislation is a very big tax bill, a very big tax bill. New forms of taxation that are being invented have never been used before, nobody's talking about it because of this. It's very helpful to the Democrats and it's very helpful to legislating…Indeed. Conflagrations over who insulted whom are entertaining, but provide cover for Congress to invent new and interesting ways to hijack Americans' earnings. And how much, you might ask, is disappearing into the federal vortex?
When you do that 35% tax the only thing for the insurance company to do is to reduce the benefits by 35%. This is a very serious issue. And it's one - and it's used to finance about one third of the Finance committee bill. We're from a fourth to a third. It gets no discussion. And no amplification, one way or the other.
Many thanks to Lawrence O'Donnell, the self-described practical European socialist. I could not have said it better myself. The full transcript is below, and the video is embedded above.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: I see in this week's issue of "Time" you also have a piece on health care reform. And that's the other debate this morning. We were showing Tom the clips of Congressman Grayson and his first comments which was the Republicans want you to die quickly, then his apology which involved the word ‘holocaust.’ We're not going to replay them. But, Lawrence O'Donnell, you’re really keyed in to the health care debate and how these things pan out. Is the kind of shrill rhetoric on both sides getting in the way of anything happening?
LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: No, I think it's actually very helpful to moving the legislation and here's why.
BRZEZINSKI: Okay.
O’DONNELL: I was down there yesterday in the Senate Finance committee markup. And nobody's covering what happened in the Senate Finance committee markup yesterday. No one covered anything that happened in the Ways and Means committee markup which lasted quite a while and created three new top tax brackets which America doesn't even know about. And the reason those things aren’t being covered is screaming about ‘death panels,’ yelling ‘you lie,’ and this stuff. This stuff is wonderfully diversionary and so the whole country has no idea. For example, what the – what half this legislation is. And half this legislation is a very big tax bill, a very big tax bill. New forms of taxation that are being invented have never been used before, nobody's talking about it because of this. It's very helpful to the Democrats and it’s very helpful to legislating, the more shows like this spend time on nonsense like that –
RICK STENGEL: So tell us what’s happening!
O’DONNELL: I want to – no, I want to – do your homework. Go find it out. For example, for example, last week in a retaliation toward China, we put a 35% tax, we call them tariffs when it’s international, but a 35% tax on Chinese tires. In other words, a punitive tax for their behavior. We're putting in the Senate Finance committee bill – the idea is to put a 35% tax on health insurance plans that are worth more than $8,000 to an individual. Now that's an awful lot of health insurance plans. When you do that 35% tax the only thing for the insurance company to do is to reduce the benefits by 35%. This is a very serious issue. And it's one – and it's used to finance about one third of the Finance committee bill. We're from a fourth to a third. It gets no discussion. And no amplification, one way or the other.
RICK STENGEL: But there’s been plenty of discussion about the tax on those premium plans.
O’DONNELL: [sarcastically] Oh really?
STENGEL: You and I have talked about.
O’DONNELL: Nothing compared to ‘you lie’, nothing compared to this stuff.
BRZEZINSKI: Okay but Lawrence, Tom Brokaw, Lawrence didn't have to hold up a sign that said ‘die quickly’ to get us to listen to him, did he?
TOM BROKAW: No. But to just back off for just a moment. Whether we're talking about the food fight that is going on or the details that Lawrence is talking about now, the American people, again, are feeling left out of all of this. It is so complex for them, when 50% say they don't understand what the debate is about, I think that's wrong by about half, I think it's 100%.
O’DONNELL: That’s right, I can't find a single citizen that can tell me what they even think it is.
MARIA BARTIROMO: So that’s America’s fault, or the fault of people who are not giving the details about what this will look like?
BROKAW: Well, it’s a combination of all that. First of all there are a lot systems and a lot of parts to all of these systems that are in play in the House and in the Senate and in the committees. And it's – I'm very dialed in and I'm having a hard time every day kind of keeping up to speed on it. I'm talking to the principals, but at the same time it shifts and changes every day. And there are a couple of issues I think have been lost in all of this about what are – again, what is the end game, what are we going to end up with here. Besides the fact we're going to get more people who are going to have some form of coverage, what are they going to get for the coverage? One of the issues now is that we pay primarily for tests. And we have a very inefficient system in terms of what we pay for, for those who do have coverage. Are we going to have a system that's going to pay for value for performance, are you going to have coverage that's going to take that you go to a doctor and he doesn't order up tests but that they say or she says this is going to make you better or you're not going to have to pay for it. These are the debates.
O’DONNELL: The problem is this legislation is the Afghanistan of legislation.
BRZEZINSKI: That's great. That’s exactly it.
O’DONNELL: There’s not one member of Congress – the smartest of them – who can tell you what the final bill might look like. So they don't even know the target they are legislating toward. They can't describe it.
BARTIROMO: Why do you think that is?
O’DONNELL: Because the subject is far too complex. And the set of compromises you have to make are endless. So what you're compromising today you're going to be comprising again ten times along the way and you won't recognize it at the end.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
AAAAAA
October 1, 2009 - 15:33 ET by ninerdogCorrect me if I am wrong but did he just blame the Republican Party for new taxes in a bill written by democrats and the fact the he and his ilk are not reporting it because they are to busy.
Beside Congress playing
October 1, 2009 - 21:37 ET by jdhawkBeside Congress playing "hiding the salami" with the American people with this healthcare issue, Rush thinks tha the senate is going to attach the bill to another bill like another stimulus package that few dimocrats can refuse to vote for. Meanwhile, they won't read and they hope you can't get your hands on to read eithe.
Obama care sucks; it may even kill you.
Write, e-mail or call your elected represenatives and tell to vote no on Obamacare. Time is running out.
This senate healthcare bill will be attached to another benign bill as early as next week, pass the senate, go over to the house for conference and onto the president's desk before the middle of next month. The goal is to get this done before Thanksgiving recess. Don't let it happen.
The dimocrats don't have the needed 60 votes to get this done. They can only get this done by sneaking it through.
Let me get this straight....
October 1, 2009 - 16:06 ET by CobraMan"We're putting in the Senate Finance committee bill – the idea is to put a 35% tax on health insurance plans that are worth more than $8,000 to an individual. Now that's an awful lot of health insurance plans."
So the Senate is planning to charge Insurances companies a 35% tax on the policies they offer, not on any actual revenue they receive in premium payments, but on potential expenses an insurance company may incur in the future when covering the medical expenses of the policy holder?
In other words, the Senate want to tax POTENTIAL expense and not ACTUAL revenue? That's outrageous! No wonder the democrats don't want people to see this bill before it's passed! They don't want people to know that they've set a precedent for taxing security companies and banks the POTENTIAL, future "value" of expenses they incur when a savings account, stock, or security is reimbursed to the customer!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
This is simple class
October 1, 2009 - 16:46 ET by tcm22This is simple class warfare. This is the Senate's attempt to punish those who are able to afford high end health insurance premiums.
How adding taxes to existing insurance plans is going to help "control costs" is something they should have to answer for. I'm sure any response would be dripping with anti-corporate nonsense about "fairness" but have little to do with improvement in the health insurance industry.
How is one person's willingness to purchase expensive insurance even remotely the concern of the Congress?
It's also going to drive the
October 1, 2009 - 16:49 ET by Radical1979It's also going to drive the insurance companies out of business as less people can afford them. Why do think we can't figure this stuff out?
All that's true folks, but the 35% tax on rich health plans is..
October 1, 2009 - 18:10 ET by Gary HallAll that's true folks, but the 35% tax on rich benefit health plans is.. hypocritical from the D's at best. Why?
Look an expensive plan (generically speaking) is a rich benefit plan. It would offer a low or no deductible, rich preventative benefits, a high or no cap on benefits, rich prescription drug benefits, etc.
Come to think of it, has not President Obama, the national media and the Democrats been out in public, for weeks - months - years now, smearing and attacking insurance companies head on because in most cases the plans have high out of pocket costs, and don't cover preventative coverage?
So - if the plans cover what the president and his stogies have demanded from them, they will be penalized - taxed for it.
Seems like someone would notice this, besides yo lovely correspondent here!
(;~/ gary
They want to tax POTENTIAL benefits!
October 2, 2009 - 10:22 ET by CobraManThey want to tax POTENTIAL benefits, not actual benefits! Here's what people are forgetting: A health insurance policy is NOT a financial investment. You can't collect any MONEY from a policy when it "matures." You can't TRADE it like stocks. You can't even use it as collateral for a loan as it has no monetary value. It's nothing more than a debt mitigation program.
Under the guise of "reducing" the costs of health care, members of Congress want to tax people if they try to mitigate future costs through the use of insurance? That's insane! How will this actually help anyone?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
this is nothing but a big con game-
October 1, 2009 - 16:03 ET by JIMMY1660run by carnival folks from Chicago=lets steal as much as we can, leave the American citizen dazzled and dear in the headlights. and we shall make off with the goodies.
and they shall pay, one way or another.
BHO- THE PROGRESSIVE PIRATE
"That’s right, I can't
October 1, 2009 - 16:13 ET by Marat"That’s right, I can't find a single citizen that can tell me what they even think it is."
Once again the "Elite" only know what's going on.
If only the Elite...
October 1, 2009 - 16:25 ET by StarAZIf only the Elite know, how did O'Donnell find out and if he tells us this, there must be worse stuff he isn't telling.
The problem is that the
October 1, 2009 - 16:33 ET by Radical1979The problem is that the average American does understand the legislation, when we see it. That was proven in August during the Town Halls. Which is why these things are being done and not covered.
I bet O'Donnell has one of
October 1, 2009 - 17:05 ET by KevindFI bet O'Donnell has one of those Cadillac health care plans.
He does, and here's the
October 2, 2009 - 07:48 ET by Mike SargentHe does, and here's the kicker: It's the health care plan offered to the members of the Screen Actors' Guild.
That's right, ladies and fellas, this health care bill will HAMMER unions, and high among them Hollywood unions. Isn't that just poetic?
Another UK HealthCare Mess
October 1, 2009 - 17:57 ET by celatorHere's another UK health mess brought on by the UK's debt crisis. This highlights a major catastrophe the Democrats are determined to put us through: Tying the local medical care you receive to the NATIONAL debt.
In this case, the recommendation is that UK patients get billed for their "free" health care, in addition to the taxes they already pay for "free" health care.
You know who wants to force UK patients to do this? (you'd better hang on to your hat). The International Monetary Fund (IMF).
It doesn't get much nuttier than this, and if the D's and RINO's get their way, this is what we'll get in 4-5 years. Or worse.
Way to go Obama, Pelosi and Reid.
Here's the story:
http://www.dailymail...
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
Tsk tsk tsk
October 1, 2009 - 17:58 ET by cajun2Mr. Brokaw, 100% of the people who wait for you to give them news are the ones who know nothing. Angry mobs at townhalls, hundreds of thousands on the Mall, all know what is going on in DC. we read.So they take it apart, 600 amendments that they refuse to post for us to read. Years from now MrBrocaw will start his show by saying in the midst of major crisis "How did this happen? How did this get by us in the media? Hey, lets get somebody on the show from Newsbusters so they can bring us up to date.(applause)
News in the future?
October 1, 2009 - 22:31 ET by RHawkinsI doubt that the state run news agency (American National Broadcast Center ANBC maybe?) we could very well have in a few years will be covering anything but the anniversary of the unanimous election of Our Leader to his lifetime office term.
Confusion
October 1, 2009 - 18:13 ET by sevenI only read the page one time. In some places it looks like they collect the tax from the insurance company and another place it reads as if the tax is on the employye and done by the employer payroll deduction. If Obama thinks he can get his blackmail cut from the insurance company and the insurance pre4mium doesn't go up he is wrong. it will be passed along. He won't be able to feel most people long. They can tell when take home pay goes down.
At the rate Obama is dismantling the private sector...
October 1, 2009 - 18:31 ET by R D Helm...and make no mistake, his intentions are to destroy it completely, the only rich people left by the time ObamaCare kicks in will be a handful of dims and Obama's buddies.
That is assuming we haven't had a complete financial melt-down and the dollar still has a positive value by then.
-Dave
The election of 2010 will be our last chance to save our republic. -Neal Boortz
not looking good
October 2, 2009 - 08:55 ET by jon_torlinGiven the way the financial news is this morning, the meltdown and loss of value in the dollar is still on track to happen, just a matter of "when," not "if."
*sigh* How did it get allowed to come to this, I ask myself this all the time. I know how it came to this, I'm asking how it got allowed.
-Jon
If the legislation is too
October 2, 2009 - 09:35 ET by TenebrousIf the legislation is too complicated to understand what it is doing and no-one knows the effect it will have, why are they trying to pass it? What is to be gained?
-----
Random-jumbled-thoughts.blogspot.com
control is gained
October 2, 2009 - 09:47 ET by jon_torlinThere are lots of things in it that would allow the federal government more intrusive control of our lives (Is the unlimited access to our bank accounts still in there? Anyone?) that would rival that of the Soviet Union or any communist nation.
We would have very little say in what we want to do with our health, let alone health care. If anything, there are more things NOT about health care in this piece of drek that they are trying to push through.
But it's about controlling us, not about health care. It's also the first step to socialism and nationalism/communism, it worked for Hitler. So far 2 of the big American car makers and many financial institutions have been nationalized.
Speaking of banks, I saw in the news yesterday that a lot more banks are poised to be closed than before, at least those under the FDIC. At least those under the NCUA are in better shape, at least that's what I heard.
-Jon