Sibelius Fan
Sibelius Fan's JournalEr, they are both paid into. It would help if you knew the facts.
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc751Now, who were you saying doesn’t understand?
Just to be clear: both employee and employee pay into SS and Medicare. SS is currently 6.2% and Medicare is 1.5%, for a total payroll deduction of 7.7% each, or 15.4% for both.
Now, add 6% on each side of that current total (based on the premise that five-fold increase in MFA patients would mean a five-fold increase in the Medicare withholding tax): employees and employers would be taxed 7.5% for Medicare and 6.2% for SS, or a total payroll withholding of 13.7% on each side, or 27.4% total. And that’s in addition to income tax withholding.
Do you support Nancy Pelosi for Speaker in the next Congress?
Simple yes or no question.
Medicare is currently paid for by taxing 100% of people working in the US.
Those tax dollars are barely enough to cover seniors on Medicare, who account for roughly 19% of the population.
So the question is: how much would payroll taxes need to increase to cover 100% of the population as opposed to the current 19%? The current tax rate is 1.45% for the employee and 1.45% for the employer, or a 2.9% total. 19% divides into 100% 5 times, so one assumes that one would need to raise the payroll tax five-fold to cover 100% of the population. That would mean that the employee would pay a tax of 7.25% as would the employer, equaling a tax of 14.5%.
Add into this the fact that current Medicare recipients pay monthly premiums of $109 on average, or $1308 a year.
So do the math: if you earn $50,000 a year, your Medicare tax would be $3625 at 7.25%. Add in your premiums of $1308, and you're paying just under $5,000 a year per person for Medicare for All. Sounds good.
But what if you are a family with a spouse who doesn't work and two young children who don't work? How are they covered in the Medicare for All scenario? Surely, there would be additional premium cost involved. They can't be covered free of charge. That $5000 per year mentioned above covers ONE working person, not their family members. Even if you waive the payroll tax deduction and charge only the average monthly premium per person (as Medicare currently does), you are looking at an additional $3900 per year to cover a non-working spouse and two children. That makes your cost around $9000 per year, and that is equal to 18% of that $50,000 income you are earning.
And, to cover all bases, let's not forget that you are currently paying 6.2% of your income in Social Security taxes. Add that into the mix, and your combined Medicare for All and SS expenses for that family of 4 with one bread winner described above would be over 25% of your income.
That's still a bargain when compared to the taxes paid in European nations, and it's the true cost of having a truly socialistic approach to things. It is what it is. Let's not downplay the realities involved.
I don't have the answers. I do know that while Medicare for All might well be the best and fairest approach we could take toward universal healthcare, it comes with real expenses and real costs to real people.
No, it isn't as valid as the WCR, for the simple reason that the ENTIRE case
for there being a second gunman rests on the "evidence" supposedly contained on a dictabelt recording. That evidence - which was highly suspect at the time of the HSCA - has been definitively debunked in the intervening years.
It's simple: either Motorcycle Officer HB McClain's motor cycle was at the intersection of Elm and Houston to record the sound of a gunshot, or it wasn't. Synchronization of the existing still and video footage of the motorcade proves beyond any doubt that McClain'smotorcycle was NOT in position to record the shot it supposedly recorded. In fact, he was about 250 feet behind the motorcade, not the 120 feet that Mark Weiss insisted the motorcycle would have had to been at to record the sound of the shot. Weiss was one of the two people who presented this "evidence" to the HSCA. He said it was "essential" that the motorcycle be traveling 120 feet behind the motorcade, otherwise it could not have recorded the shot.*
Well, it wasn't and it didn't, based on the very standard of evidence that was insisted upon by the two men who presented the dictabelt evidence to the HSCA.
There are other obvious problems with the dictabelt recording, but the fact - and it is a fact - that McLain's motorcycle was NOT in the position required by the "evidence" to record the shot entirely falsifies the claims made that were based on the dictabelt recording.
BTW - were the dictabelt "evidence" being put forth to support the idea of Oswald as the lone gunman, the JFK CTists would be all over it. They would cite the falsification of the evidence that I have provided here. They would ask how such a recording could capture the sound of a bullet being fired while recording nothing of the crowd noise rising from the streets. But they cling to this non-evidence in desperation because they believe it supports their multiple gunman CTs.
Further BTW - at the time, Officer McClain insisted to investigators that his motorcycle was NOT anywhere near the corner of Elm and Houston at the time the shot was supposedly recorded. The HSCA elected to ignore the expert, eyewitness account of the ONLY officer whose motorcycle was said to be the source of the dictabelt recording. So, imagine once more if you will, what the CTists would be screaming about McClain's sworn testimony were the dictabelt recording being used to support the Oswald-as-lone-gunman theory. They would be rightfully saying that testimony contradicting the dictabelt theory was being ignored and dismissed. And they would be right, because that is exactly what the HSCA did in regards to McClain's sworn, eyewitness testimony - they ignored it.
NB: feel free to point out any and all factual inaccuracies in the above.
*"When the HSCA asked Weiss about the location of the motorcycle with the open microphone—"Would you consider that to be an essential ingredient in the ultimate conclusion of your analysis?"—Weiss answered, "It is an essential component of it, because, if you do not put the motorcycle in the place that it is —the initial point of where it was receiving the [sound of the gunfire]—, and if you do not move it at the velocity at which it is being moved on paper in this re-creation, you do not get a good, tight pattern that compares very well with the observed impulses on the police tape recording." - Source HSCA documents
David French on CNN: "Not a matter of he said/she said. It's a matter of he bragged, she confirmed."
Excellent soundbite.
French is a conservative writer for National Review.
Sorry Sen. Sanders, But Most Ds Are Quite Happy With the D Party As Is
And it's not because we necessarily reject all of the things you say about the D Party. It's because a lot of the things you say that the D Party needs to do IT IS ALREADY DOING.
The modern D Party has always stood up for the middle class. Always stood up for the disadvantaged. Always stood up for minorities, women and for economic equality. Do not deceive yourself into believing for a second that these issues were not known of and championed by the Democratic Party long before you decided to register as a D last April.
Frankly, you insult ALL Democrats when you say the the party "has to start" doing this, that or the other thing, when we have been doing this, that or the other thing for decades (that would have been during those decades when you were NOT a Democrat).
Maybe you missed what we've been doing because, well, you weren't a Democrat. Maybe caucusing with the Democrats isn't the same as actually BEING a Democrat. Maybe sitting on the back benches of the Senate as an Indy, never having to take a principled Party stand that might hurt you politically is not the way to stay on top of what the Ds are doing at any given moment.
When you talk about changing the Party, or about the need for a political revolution, you ignore what the Party actually stands for. You ignore the Democratic revolution that has happened over the past eight years in the form of Barack Obama. Rescuing the economy, getting us out of wars, killing OBL, saving the auto industry, getting unemployment to historic lows, passing the ACA and expanding Medicaid, making LGBT rights the law of the land, restoring our standing on the world stage - all while the stock market soared to new heights - is pretty effing revolutionary stuff after decades of RW disaster.
And guess what? It didn't take a "political revolution" for all that revolutionary stuff to happen. All it took was good old establishment Ds elected to office by the good old established rank-n-file Ds so they could do the good work that benefits the majority of the populace.
We've heard for 8 years that the country is "angry," and you have picked up on that mantra. Well, that mantra is code for saying "I'm pissed that a black man got elected president." It started with the Tea Party and the corporatists that funded them, it was spread through the conservative population and repeated by the media to the point where even Democrats began to feel angry. Angry about what? About all the things President Obama has accomplished in 8 years? Angry that gay people can get married? Angry that more Americans have jobs and healthcare, and that gas is cheap? Angry that we're not involved in major wars? Angry that bin Laden was finally taken out? Angry that states are starting to raise the minimum wage? Angry that the stock market has tripled in value? Angry that racism is being exposed in this country and called out for being anti-American? Angry that the Republican Party is imploding before our eyes?
Just what do you think Democrats are angry about, Sen Sanders?
We're not angry. We're elated. Elated that Hillary Clinton has won the nomination. Elated that Hillary Clinton will be our first female president. Elated that the good work done by President Obama will continue. Elated that for the first time in years, a lot of us are feeling that America's best days are still to come.
THAT is the reality of the Democratic Party that you have failed to recognize. And that's why you are not our nominee for the office of President of the United States.
Rant over.
Have you ever read the Warren Commission Report?
Apparently not, because all of the evidence - and there is a mountain of evidence - presented in that report answers these oft-asked questions. You'd think that after 60 years, people would consult that report, rather than dismissing it out of hand.
To answer your question:
1. Oswald practiced with the rifle he used to kill JFK, as testified by his wife, who was the one who took the pictures of him holding the rifle
2. Oswald achieved the rank of sharpshooter in the USMC, higher than a Marksman but not an expert. The kill shot at 80 yards would have been easy for a shooter of his skill. He was able to score a 48 out of 50 on shots fired at targets at 200 yards while in the USMC. The USMC testified to the WC that he was an above-average shooter when compared to USMC norms and an expert shooter when compared to Joe Public.
3. Expert shooters employed by the Warren Commission were able to duplicate Oswald's three shots with accuracy in as little as 4.6 seconds, using Oswald's own rifle, misaligned scope and all
4. Balistics tests to the recovered bullet and fragments matched Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of every other firearm in the world.
5. The so-called pristine bullet that was found on the stretcher at Parkland hospital matched Oswald's rifle through ballistics tests and came from a lot of bullets manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company that Oswald had purchased through mail order.
6. The rifle Oswald purchased from a firm in Chicago was traced to him via sales records within 24 hours of the shootings.
7. The so-called magic bullet wasn't magic at all. It performed as any fully jacketed round would behave. Its trajectory was a relatively straight line that went through JFK and Connelly. It did not stop and turn midair as asserted in Oliver Stone's ridiculous fiction.
There's so much evidence to support Oswald as the lone gunman. Read Bugliosi's *Reclaiming History.*
Vincent T. Bugliosi, Manson Prosecutor and True-Crime Author, Dies at 80
Source: NY Times
Vincent T. Bugliosi, who successfully prosecuted the cult leader Charles Manson and several acolytes for the savage murders of the actress Sharon Tate and six other people in August 1969, then became a best-selling writer of true-crime books, died on Saturday in Los Angeles. He was 80.
He had been treated for cancer, his son, Vincent Jr., told The Associated Press in confirming the death.
The killings of Ms. Tate and four others in the early morning of Aug. 9, 1969, and the murders of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca early the next morning terrified people in Los Angeles and horrified the American public.
The victims were stabbed repeatedly. Some were also shot. Ms. Tate, 26, who was married to the director Roman Polanski and was eight months pregnant, begged for her life before being stabbed, one of the killers, Susan Atkins, recalled later.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/us/vincent-t-bugliosi-manson-prosecutor-and-true-crime-author-dies-at-80.html?_r=0urce
He wrote THE definitive book on the JFK assassination.
Another Obamacare Success Story - And It's Personal
I've already documented my own great experience under the CA Medicaid expansion provided for under the ACA. In short, my high blood pressure is now totally under control (153/85 now down to 122/60) and I'm being treated for a pre-diabetic condition, with changes to diet and some medications.
But today, I want to talk about my wife, who is a cancer survivor of close to 9 years. We were on her COBRA until last summer when the 18-month COBRA window expired. In the final two years of annual check-ups/mammograms, it was recommended that she have surgery to remove a pre-cancerous tissue clump in the breast that had the cancer 9 years ago. We couldn't afford the surgery because the co-pay was ridiculously high (over $5000 a year in premiums paid, but we couldn't afford the out-of-pocket for her to have the surgery). With me not working, we rolled the dice and hoped things didn't take a turn for the worse.
But now we're on Kaiser Permanente through Obamacare, so my wife is going through the usual tests. The condition is still there and is still pre-cancerous. The difference is that under Obamacare, she can now have the surgery AT NO COST TO US. So, she'll have the surgery in July, followed by radiation treatment.
The thing is that KP only has radiation treatments available in LA and Ontario, and she's supposed to go 5 days a week for a couple of weeks. That's a bit much for us living in OC (KP is building a new facility in Anaheim, but it isn't done). However, under CalOptima Medicaid, you are allowed to change your provider every 30 days if you so wish. So, we could simply elect for my wife to go with a provider that offers radiation that's closer to home, returning to KP as provider once the treatments are done. Or, we could see if she can wait on the treatments until the Anaheim center opens. Or, we could see if an out-of-network option was available...which would cost us something.
IMO, this is what Obamacare is all about. Think of the million of Americans who are not able to get the same care that my wife is getting, all because some RW Christian politician is a racist who is keeping the Medicaid expansion from becoming a reality in their state for one reason: Obama is black.
Again, from the bottom of our hearts, THANK YOU, MR PRESIDENT!!
Profile Information
Member since: 2003 before July 6thNumber of posts: 24,393
