I read the other day that we are embarking upon a new journey of expanding the hate crimes definition to include crimes based on sex and gender orientatation- BUT we are leaving out hate crimes by age. I am particularly aghast that the government is encouraging the practice of laying off older people though their new age tax to access health care.
Private insurance is out of (our and) their control, thanks to ERISA, but saying that its completely legal to tax business who have employees who have inexplicably, aged, or businesses foolhardy enough to have hired, as Obama puts it, "that one sick employee", more in the public sector is inexcusable.
Charging people who often, make less- more- for healthcare to prevent them from buying it. will now be endorsed by the government. After all, if they don't have insurance, nobody has to help them. They will just crawl away and die.
Is this wise? No.
No, its wrong. In Massachusetts, many older people find themselves being priced out of the market for healthcare, while their younger neighbors can afford it, at a half price discount.
The Senate however, in 2016 or whenever the public plan is unveiled, plans to charge those over 40 up to 500% more for healthcare, to keep public healthcare unattractive and preserve the insurers license to kill. Its as if they are trying to discourage older folks from helping lower their costs!
As they are more likely to complain, however, starting several years from now, they allow younger people, those who quite possibly don't desperately need the new self sustaining profitable public insurance, those who demographically, might demonstrate, those unlikely to ever USE it, to buy it cheap.
Does this pass the smell test? NO.
Debate has ensued over whether these mandatory fees for healthcare that is free just a few hundred miles away in Toronto, is a tax?
Yes, it is. Obama's age tax, is an even worse tax than all others because it collectively punishes those who are living longer (and presumably, eventually becoming eligible for Social Security and a government liability), for doing so.
Just like discrimination against people for the color of their skin or the sex they are, it should be a hate crime because people are not making a choice to be born in the United States, (where we kill people for not having money to pay for healthcare) they simply are.
Another unintended or not, end result is that younger people will be given jobs they often can't do, and older people who have worked decades to acquire world class skills, will be laid off just as they start to make decent money.
The Democrats' Health Care Bill offers each of us $290 a year towards lowering our $8000 cost per capita healthcare!
That's One Trillion Dollars over Ten Years,
or 100 Billion Dollars a Year.
Obama has also promised to SLOW the rate of growth in our doctor and hospital bills by ONE POINT TWO PERCENT EACH YEAR for Ten Years. That reduction in the rate of increase will mean perhaps a hundred dollars in savings over the next ten years for each of us!
Who needs single payer, right!
DISCUSSING OTHER COUNTRIES IST VERBOTEN!
IF YOU VALUE YOUR MEMBERSHIP IN OUR ONE PARTY, SISTER, DONT EVEN DISCUSS THEM!
The problems in society when people lose healthcare with jobs, unavoidable when even public insurance has high, COBRA-like premiums and even higher "cost sharing" will remain, just as millions are losing the ability to pay.
The nightmare of layoffs and bankruptcy thats being endured by anybody who get sick and millions of people over 40, will remain. And healthcare will remain unaffordable. Is THAT what we want? (And why- it can't be just to keep the young people off the streets? Are they that evil? And that resistant to real democratic change?)
What do you think? Is a 500% Age Tax to prevent those more likely to be sick from purchasing healthcare a hate crime?