President Obama signed the "biggest attack on economic inequality" in three decades

[ProSense]

In Health Bill, Obama Attacks Wealth Inequality

By DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: March 23, 2010

For all the political and economic uncertainties about health reform, at least one thing seems clear: The bill that President Obama signed on Tuesday is the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago.

<...>

The bill is the most sweeping piece of federal legislation since Medicare was passed in 1965. It aims to smooth out one of the roughest edges in American society — the inability of many people to afford medical care after they lose a job or get sick. And it would do so in large measure by taxing the rich.

A big chunk of the money to pay for the bill comes from lifting payroll taxes on households making more than $250,000. On average, the annual tax bill for households making more than $1 million a year will rise by $46,000 in 2013, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group. Another major piece of financing would cut Medicare subsidies for private insurers, ultimately affecting their executives and shareholders.

The benefits, meanwhile, flow mostly to households making less than four times the poverty level — $88,200 for a family of four people. Those without insurance in this group will become eligible to receive subsidies or to join Medicaid. (Many of the poor are already covered by Medicaid.) Insurance costs are also likely to drop for higher-income workers at small companies.

more

[ProSense]

1. No comment? n/t

[damonm]

2. Too real for the haters...

[eridani]

3. Right. Giving public money to mass murderers attacks wealth inequality.

Taxing the benefits of ordinary people also helps. Sure. Subsidies to help people afford a product that they can't use helps inequality? No controls on skyrocketing premiums? Jeeezus.

[ProSense]

4. "the annual tax bill for households making more than $1 million a year will rise by $46,000 in 2013"

Travesty.

[impik]

11. Facts. Pffffff. So overrated.

[eridani]

12. They'll be extracting amounts from people with modest incomes which will be far more painful

--than being out $46000 is to a millionaire.

[amborin]

6. +10000

[kath]

7. +10

[Cha]

5. I'm so happy for those who

benefit from this HRC immediately and looking forward to working on getting it stronger and helping even more. I can see why the insurance companies absolutely hate it..along with the gops.

[Number23]

8. Absolutely fantastic.

[Kablooie]

9. That's such a socialist thing to do. In a real Democracy the peasants are supposed to starve.

[Maraya1969]

10. Question. What does this mean?

"Another major piece of financing would cut Medicare subsidies for private insurers, ultimately affecting their executives and shareholders."

Are they saying that before if a person had Medicare and private insurance then Medicare pays the private insurance companies for a part of the medical bill? That would be really fucked up if that were true and great if they were doing away with it.

[depakid]

13. In a way- that's the sort of framing we need- though

generally speaking, our strength should be in honesty- and not in pandering, sycophantic stupidity.