Baucus on the “Real” Purpose of ObamaCare
According to FOX News, on March 27, 2010, Senator Max Baucus explained that the new health care law was an “income shift” to help the poor and address the “mal-distribution of income in America.”
“Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the mal-distribution of income in American is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind,” he said. “Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America.”
Unlike this blog, which has discussed the redistributive properties of the health law here, here, here, and here, Senator Baucus is apparently unaware of the fact that increasing taxes on productive employers reduces investment and hiring and limits job opportunities for many poor Americans.
No surprise. That is all Harry Reid is about. Stealing from some and giving to others. Usually it is not the poor on the receiving end however. And usually it is not the rich on the paying end either.
Remember, the poor are getting screwed by being herded into Medicaid –16 million additional people without a single new doctor or nurse trained.
If Alan Reynolds is right, the rich aren’t going to be paying any more taxes.
But seniors are going to lose $523 billion in Medicare benefits, to say nothing of all the new taxes on drugs, wheelchairs and crutches.
Even worse than the redistribution of income that Sen. Baucus explained, this new health care law takes income from future generations and gives it to the current generation.
Brian:
If you think about it, that is a low-risk proposition for a politician. The people they expect to pay the bill aren’t even born — much less able to vote. The bill will come due long after the politician’s have left office — and enjoyed the fruits of power.
Socialism under any other name is still socialism.
Yes, Joe, but socialism sold under misleading labels is more insidious — because it relies on deception.
If Sen. Baucus wants to redistribute income, why doesn’t he support universal health-care vouchers or refundable tax credits, which would simply redistribute income without all the costs associated with federal government controlling the pricing and allocation of medical services?
ObamaCare does not put one more dollar into the pocket of a low-income American, which he could use to acquire medical care of his choice.
It’s a transfer of income alright, but the transfer of income is from the American people to the U.S. government.
(BTW: I’m not a huge fan of income distribution by the federal government, but accept that it will happen in a society where almost everyone can vote once they turn 18.)