Glenn Beck flips out...

**TheBeast** · July 21st, 2009, 09:14 AM

Just in case you care to be informed on the entire conversation between Beck and the woman.

Glenn Beck - Current Events & Politics - Glenn Beck: Kathy the idiot caller

**TheBeast** · July 21st, 2009, 09:33 AM

Who exactly are the uninsured? At any given time:

Roughly one-fourth of the uninsured are eligible for Medicaid or a State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), or have already enrolled and are erroneously counted as uninsured. If they are not otherwise getting free care, they can generally enroll at the time of treatment ? or even later!
More than 40% of the uninsured live in households with annual incomes in excess of $50,000 and presumably could pay premiums (or the employee's share of premiums) ? although there is some argument about the meaning of this number.
About one-fourth of the uninsured are immigrants, many of whom are illegal and will not be helped by health reform in any event.
Some of these categories are overlapping. Here is Keith Hennessey's attempt to give an integrated accounting.

Two more things to keep in mind: (1) federal and state legislation has made it increasingly easy to get insurance after people get sick and (2) an enormous amount of free care is delivered to people who have no insurance. These two factors alone virtually guarantee that many people will voluntarily choose to remain uninsured so long as they are healthy:

Federal legislation prohibits employers from denying coverage to employees because of health status and legislation in every state prohibits group insurers from denying coverage because of health status.
Six states even extend this type of regulation to the individual market and almost every state that does not has risk pools with subsidized insurance for people with pre-existing conditions.
The Urban Institute estimates that public and private charity care totals to more than $1,100 per year for every uninsured person in America.
So tell me again, why we are about to spend $1.5 trillion on health reform?

**R13** · July 21st, 2009, 03:47 PM

Again, not as cut and dry as that. Yes there are a lot that are eligible, but ome states also periodically institute CHIP enrollment caps, which may keep eligible people out. There's a good example. Just because some make that, doesn't mean 66 percent of the uninsured make less than $42,406. And a family's premium costs may actually be much higher than the average for individually purchased insurance, depending on the number of dependents, the ages of family members, their state of health and the state in which they live. Oh and don't forget the 1/4 that get denied even if they can afford.

It's 1.5 trillion over the next TEN years btw, 150 billion a year. Not too bad when you put it like that or set it beside 120 billion spent in Iraq every year.

**1inStripes** · July 21st, 2009, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by Burton13

It's 1.5 trillion over the next TEN years btw, 150 billion a year. Not too bad when you put it like that or set it beside 120 billion spent in Iraq every year.

Excellent comparison, because all we've heard is how bad bankrupt the war has placed the US in, while we are looking to spend more on a healthcare system that will not improve our situation IMO. How are we supposed to afford another 30 billion a year and improve our financial situation without higher taxes across the board?

**R13** · July 22nd, 2009, 01:27 AM

Yeah, the wasteful spending in Iraq, his tax cuts and a few other things was what was being complained about. Wasn't the tax hike on tobacco for the reform? Extending to more children?

**CoeburnCane** · July 22nd, 2009, 08:08 AM

How are we supposed to afford another 30 billion a year and improve our financial situation without higher taxes across the board?

We're not, and instead of complaining about higher taxes, more people need to realize that with the financial shape we're in currently that higher taxes are going to happen no matter what we spend/don't spend money on going forward. They have to happen, there's no way to recoup the revenue needed to get out of a deficit unless that happens. It's simple math.

**1inStripes** · July 22nd, 2009, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by CoeburnCane

We're not, and instead of complaining about higher taxes, more people need to realize that with the financial shape we're in currently that higher taxes are going to happen no matter what we spend/don't spend money on going forward. They have to happen, there's no way to recoup the revenue needed to get out of a deficit unless that happens. It's simple math.

I understand what you are saying, but when someone stumps for no tax increases on the middle or lower classes and then turns around and does it a year in, thats either a flat our liar or someone who was not too in tune to the situation going in.

Taxes are going to happen. I have said that since the election. Taxes do not have to happen though IMO if we would cut spending to places across the globe. Simple budgeting means you spend it where its needed the most, not just throwing it around to any and every Joe out there. It sure would be nice if I could go up to my boss and say, hey I need a raise so I can pay for cosmetic surgery. I would think the response would be a NO.

**TheBeast** · July 22nd, 2009, 11:16 AM

I understand what you are saying, but when someone stumps for no tax increases on the middle or lower classes and then turns around and does it a year in, thats either a flat our liar or someone who was not too in tune to the situation going in.

No more callers please we have a winner. Oh yeah it's not a year it was less than 6 months.

**CoeburnCane** · July 22nd, 2009, 12:17 PM

All I know is that anyone who listened to "less taxes" and used that as the sole reason for voting for Obama, or anyone who thought that McCain would/could keep all of his promises w/o raising taxes on businesses or the upper class either and used that as rationale for voting for him--both are equally gullible.

If you go in the hole (esp. as bad as the US is), you have to raise revenue. First year of Civics class we all learned that the sole source of revenue for governments is? Taxes.

If it gets us out of the hole and helps our financial position going forward and that's the only way it can get done--then yeah, I guess you can put me down for being for higher taxes. I agree that spending must be lowered in certain ways, but higher taxes is a necessary evil, regardless of if it had been Obama/McCain/you/me/a purple & yellow polka-dotted alien serving as president currently.

**1inStripes** · July 22nd, 2009, 12:53 PM

Believe me I didn't buy into the no tax increase junk. I debunked that numerous times. I didn't like the candidate that either major party set forth in this past election.

Sooo, we have been spending 26 billion dollars in funding outside the US not counting what we are spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. The government already has a ton of revenue coming in every year. We are cutting war budgets in Iraq, and can cut some of the money going over seas we can correct our debt situation in a decent amount of time. Far faster than what taxes itself would do when spending is just going to increase because of it. Simply tightening the spending belt would help a ton.