The Committee has prepared, for each member, a district-level analysis of the impact of the legislation. This analysis includes information on the impact of the legislation on small businesses, seniors in Medicare, health care providers, and the uninsured. It also includes an estimate of the impacts of the surtax that is used to pay for the legislation.
The results summary for my district:
America’s Affordable Health Choices Act would provide significant benefits in the 11th Congressional District of North Carolina: up to 17,200 small businesses could receive tax credits to provide coverage to their employees; 12,000 seniors would avoid the donut hole in Medicare Part D; 700 families could escape bankruptcy each year due to unaffordable health care costs; health care providers would receive payment for $120 million in uncompensated care each year; and 134,000 uninsured individuals would gain access to high-quality, affordable health insurance. Congressman Heath Shuler represents the district.
It then breaks the numbers down in more detail and gives this: "The surtax would not affect 99.2% of taxpayers in the district."
12 comments:
Website cool. Waxman not so much.
I can't get past Waxman's ears. Bob hates Waxman because he unseated our very own John Dingell.
But this district-by-district breakdown is exactly what is needed here. This is some damn fine work.
Waxman for Dingell is a trade I make every day and twice on Sunday.
We need to advance the ball on too many things, and Waxman has shown he can multi-task—while Dingell was a one-issue roadblock.
And Dingell's auto industry agenda would have strangled serious environmental movement in the crib.
Bob, you can probably speak with more authority on this, and would probably disagree, but it's my opinion that at the end of the day Dingell's coddling of the auto industry probably contributed to the situation they are now in.
Smitty, his ears? I'm thrown by his nose...reminds me of one of the characters at the end of the "Eye of the Beholder" Twilight Zone.
"Dingell's coddling of the auto industry probably contributed to the situation they are now in."
I agree with your assessment, but also likely agree with much of Dingell's coddling. I disagree with the west coast anti-Detroit meme.
I need to find where, but someone recently wrote how Waxman needed Dingell to get a decent health plan out of his committee.
Waxman represent all I hate about the west coast holier than thou liberal asses in our party.
Waxman represent all I hate about the west coast holier than thou liberal asses in our party.
I hear what you're saying, but I'll take an over-liberal guy like Waxman leading the charge since you know what emerges will be "moderate"d down anyway. Better to start all the way to the left and land towards the center, than start just left of center and end up across the aisle.
Whatever Waxman asks for with emmissions for instance, won't make it through, but Dingell would start out weaker than we need to end up.
In some ways I look at California as the canary in the coalmine—for better and for worse.
I look at California as an example of how not to run your state.
Bob, I like Dingell, too.
LOL, steves.
Yeah, between the Governator, term limits, ballot initiatives and obstructionism the state government is a total and complete clusterfuck.
That's the "for worse."
On the plus side, they have been out in front on environmental issues, higher education and other items.
They seem to take the approach of trying everything, no matter the cost, and hoping that it will work. I will admit that I tend to only see the negative and don't always see what works. I have read some about their wildlife management programs and they seem to do a pretty lousy job.
"Whatever Waxman asks for with emmissions for instance, won't make it through, but Dingell would start out weaker than we need to end up."
I don't buy that. Waxman goes after the boogeymen - i.e. cars. If Waxman was serious about emissions, he would have better supported Dingell's industry -wide emissions plans. Cars, semis, etc. in the US amount to 1.5% of the world emissions. Raising mileage standards doesn't do squat to help that. It does earn you favor with the enviro jerks though.
They seem to take the approach of trying everything, no matter the cost, and hoping that it will work
I always love it when some smartass brings in testimony to a committee hearing in the Michigan legislature that is laden with California policy examples. Even our hardcore Dem committee chairs can barely hide the smirks of derision.
Not that, you know, Michigan is a hell of a lot better off.
Post a Comment