but then the rich will be able to afford even better health care, and their improved health will trickle down to all the rest of us.

"the poor, who don't pay taxes in the first place"

You mean they don't pay *much* in taxes. At least it doesn't seem like much to the rest of us. It might be lot to them....

The remarkable thing about Giuliani's plan is that it doesn't even try to make a serious pretense of being an actual solution to any of our current healthcare problems.

And why should it? The media won't report any details of the plan anyway, even if they don't solve the problem, so why should St. Rudy's bother coming up with a plan that actually might work?

But, but, ... tax cuts that benefit mostly rich people solve everything.

The reason why the MSM is unlikely to notice Rudy's "plan" would only help upper-bracket Americans is that most reporters any more are upper-bracket Americans with good employer-paid health plans. They just don't have the foggiest idea what it means to have to try to buy your own insurance on a small paycheck, with pre-existing conditions, with an American insurance industry that serves only its shareholders.

"It's that it doesn't even try to make a serious pretense of being an actual solution to any of our current healthcare problems."

well, this is the guy who said

"...We may be successful in Iraq; we may not be. I don’t know the answer to that. That’s in the hands of other people."

for rudy, problems are for somebody else to solve, what do you expect?

Kevin: ...it doesn't even try to make a serious pretense of being an actual solution to any of our current healthcare problems.

The only people this would matter to are (1) those who don't have adequate health insurance, and (2)those who care about public policy benefiting poor or middle class people. Thus it is a winning "argument" in a Publican primary.

Tell me again why people in Kansas are against public health care?

isn't progressive enough to benefit the poor

Nonsense Kevin. Rudy (America's mayor)'s plan does help the poor.

Link

"The former mayor's plan would also offer tax-credits to low-income individuals"

joey: You mean they [the poor] don't pay *much* in taxes. At least it doesn't seem like much to the rest of us. It might be lot to them...."

Not compared to their health care costs it's not a lot. Poor people can get at most a $1500 benefit from Giuliani's "plan." You know much an ambulance trip of about a 1/2 mile cost for my son this winter: $1500. You can easily "spend" that tax refund on an emergency or on drugs (of course you don't actually have the money to pay, just a promise of a refund) and have no way to buy any more health care if you need it.

People who are not rich need health insurance. The only way health insurance will work is with a national pool of the insured (so there is no cherry picking). The cheapest way to do this is with government health insurance.

Less than the whole truth from Al, as usual. The full quote:

"The former mayor's plan would also offer tax-credits to low-income individuals, although his campaign did not detail how much the credits would be worth or who would be eligible for them."

tax deductions don't help the poor, who don't pay taxes in the first place,

you mean many don't pay income taxes. poor people pay FICA tax, sales taxes, etc.

The NY Times article on 8/1 contained a Giuliani quote with what I took to be a ringing recommendation for the Democrats and a thrilling promise:

"That is where Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are taking you," he said. "You have got to see the trap. Otherwise we are in for a disaster. We are in for Canadian health care, French health care, British health care."

French health care! The horror, the horror...

Another analysis, of th NYT reporting on Rudy's plan is here
Rudy basically rails against government involvement in healthcare coverage and then proposes to use tax benefits. Oddly, neither Kevin, Ezra or the NYT thinks to point out that using tax deductions and credits is government involvement. He wants to pander so badly on this isse that he forgets what he's offering. Fortunately, the NYT doesn't remember to tell us that.

It literally wouldn't do anything except provide a tax break for the wealthy, the only people who would benefit from an increased tax deduction.

Um, that's not a bug. That's a feature.

Wealthy folks who provide health coverage for their employees will not benefit unless costs are contained, unless they have no concern about the continued viability of their businesses.

This is the Marie Antoinette, let them eat cake, approach.

I'd like to see just one of the members of this tribe acknowledge that while Rudy's plan has some minor flaws, and I'm not saying what they are, any Democratic candidate's proposal is going to be 1,000 times worse no matter what it is. Instead, you all sing and dance about how universal health care will come with free caviar and champagne for everyone, every day will be Christmas and no one will ever die again. You're all liars. And uncivil.

Does all this ridiculousness of the Rudy plan matter at all?

If Dems cannot punish the AG for lying to him under oath on their faces, or make the underlings in White House respond to trivial question under oath, or make any significant or even insignificant hue and cry about a wingnut calling the Democrats the mouthpiece of Al Queda, they can hardly be expected to defeat Rudy in the elections, notwithstanding his obvious lack of qualifications for the job of the President.

you mean many don't pay income taxes. poor people pay FICA tax, sales taxes, etc.

They sure as hell DO pay income taxes up-front.
Standard deductions don't reduce it much.
They may get all or most of it back, many months after they actually earned that money, but that does not negate the fact that taxes are taken out of every single dime they earn.
And that money is unavailable to them until they have filed a tax return, and received whatever refund(perhaps including EIC) that return indicates they are entitled to.

That extra $30(or $60 or whatever) a week can to make a substantive difference in day-to-day life.
Whether you get it back, eventually, does not mitigate the fact that you don't have it when you NEED it.

The Republican answer to anything is that it will run better on its own with enough tax cuts.

Republicans have abandoned rational argument and practicality for strident ideology. The have turned themselves into the anti-idea party, the party of fear.

And the first thing they fear is an intelligent discussion on the issues.

Speaking of Rudy...Meet the Mrs.

On the op-ed pages of todays NY Times, Gail Collins described her as a "particularly unpleasant combination of Catherine the Great and Britney Spears."

Madame Defarge: "...You have got to see the trap. Otherwise we are in for a disaster. We are in for Canadian health care, French health care, British health care."

French health care! The horror, the horror...

Rudy is banking on FOX viewers being completely unaware of how well the French system works.

He's not taking much of a risk there.

"I'd like to see just one of the members of this tribe acknowledge that while Rudy's plan has some minor flaws, and I'm not saying what they are, any Democratic candidate's proposal is going to be 1,000 times worse no matter what it is."

Thank you, Wail Allen, for putting forth the true Republican argument on this. What you are basically saying is that even if a Democrat proposed a plan IDENTICAL to Rudi's, it would be 1,000 times worse than Rudi's. Apparently, the ONLY criteria for judging a health care plan is the party membership of the person proposing it. And yet it is WE who are lying and uncivil? Get real.

Isle of Lucy:

I fear Gail Collins, whom I liked since her days at the Daily News, has been taking columnist lessons from Maureen Dowd. First a swipe at Edwards' hair and now Giuliani's wife. If these folk don't have enough substance to write about, they should only write once a week, or, better, never.

"who don't pay taxes in the first place"

Allow me to pile on this disappointingly false statement.

They don't pay much INCOME tax. They pay a significant fraction of their income in other taxes. Payroll, sales, property, etc. Guliani's plan would, of course, not benefit them. Not because they don't pay taxes but because an income tax deduction would not affect the vast majority of taxes they do pay.

Stop lying, fostert. What I actually said, if you had some reading comprehension, is that there are 1,000 Democratic plans and none of you will admit that there are tradeoffs in them. Are you illiterate?

Wail is merely a clever way to get around the no-spoofing rules. He's taken Will Allen's famously stupid talking points and arranged them into a compact post. Think of it as shorter and more honest Will Allen.

Let me get this straight..up to $15,000 is deducted which saves $1500 for those in the 10% bracket and maybe $5000 for those in a mythical 33% bracket. Who in the 10% bracket has $15,000 to pay on health care each year? That's sending a kid to a cheap college each year. They won't. They'll skimp on health care. No change there. The deduction is meaningless. Those who could save $1500 cannot afford the $15,000. And besides, even if they scratch up $15,000, every dollar over $15,000 eats up the tax saving.

And don't forget the FICA ax savings for the wealthy if they earn over, what is it now, $100,000.

Wail Allen,

Since you have now rewritten your argument to change the meaning, it makes sense. Except that most liberals I know will admit that any health care plan has trade offs. But your original statement did not limit itself to the Democratic plans that are currently on the table (at least as written). It was limited to "any plan... no matter what it is." I'm no expert in language but that sounds like NO limitation whatsoever. So how can EVERY single possible plan be "1,000 times worse" than ANY particular possible plan? That would be logically impossible unless we are to judge the plans based on something not contained within the plan (like who's proposing it).

Ummm no Wail, you actually said,

"I'd like to see just one of the members of this tribe acknowledge that while Rudy's plan has some minor flaws, and I'm not saying what they are, any Democratic candidate's proposal is going to be 1,000 times worse no matter what it is."

Maybe you meant something else, but the tribe cannot be blamed for your less than clear prose style.

....The media won't report any details of the plan anyway...Smithers at 11:42 AM

Gail Collins: This week, Rudy Giuliani is focusing on health issues, attacking Democrats’ plans to get the government more involved in covering the cost of medical care. In a campaign tour of New Hampshire town meetings, he used the word “socialism� so often that it crowded out the old nonterror-related record-holder, “Ronald Reagan.� Other frequently repeated nouns were “choice� (good) and “France� (bad).....His own proposal involves tax credits and repeated analogies to the way the cost of plasma TVs go down when people buy a lot of them. Since the campaign says it will take a few more months to crunch the numbers and make the details perfectly clear, I, for one, am prepared to defer probing any deeper....
Of course you are, toots, as long as it takes.

fostert, you continue to lie and resort to ad hominems. I must ask again: Are you illiterate? I said that if there were 1,000 Democratic plans, not one of them would have as few flaws as Rudy's. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

Clive, I note that you still refuse to answer the question: Would there or would there not be tradeoffs in any of the Democratic health care proposals?

Well? I'm waiting.

Since you have now rewritten your argument to change the meaning, it makes sense.

Just like the real Will Allen! Only smarter!

Yes, yes, Isle of Lucy, you are the mistress of personal attack. Did you have anything substantial to add to this discussion of the many flaws in Democratic health care plans?

No, I'm just here for the matinee.

"Rudy is banking on FOX viewers being completely unaware of how well the French system works.

"He's not taking much of a risk there."

Actually, he's counting on NYT reporters being unaware. The NYT news report quoted him making his odd comments about such highly-rated health systems being a "disaster," and offered no challenge or clarification.

By the way, let's forget about Fox: Very few Americans of any stripe could tell you much about the successes (and low cost) of Euro health care.

It literally wouldn't do anything except provide a tax break for the wealthy, the only people who would benefit from an increased tax deduction.

As Stefan pointed out, this too is a feature, not a bug, for the Republican dead-enders.

And as others have pointed out, Kevin, the poor pay less in income taxes. They pay relatively more in FICA, sales taxes, and so on. Please, please stop internalizing and repeating dishonest Republican talking points. Thanks.

You're right, Bob. I rescind my inappropriately narrow application of media criticism.

As for Americans in general being unaware of Euro health care: sure, but as you know, the media in general bears no little amount of responsibility for that.

Heheh. I certainly hope the foils arguing with "Wail" are in on the gag.

Wail Allen makes me nostalgic for the infinitely 'parodyable' (sic) tbrosz. Whatever happened to him?

"benjoya" already said this above but --

THE POOR PAY TAXES. Tax credits and deductions don't help the poor because they only work on income taxes (which they don't pay), not on FICA/social security/medicare, sales taxes, gas taxes, sin taxes, property taxes that are passed on in higher rent, and so on and so on, which the poor DO pay.

Deductions are worse than credits because in addition to not helping the poor at all, the help the higher-bracketed more than the lower-bracketed. Any DEDUCTIONS in the proposal are even worse than credits.

I can see the commercials now--

Circa 1787
Marie Antoinette stands in full court dress while her ladys in waiting fuss over her lace, bows and ribbons. A court messenger is telling her the news of the country.

"The people are starving your majesty (in french--of course), they have no bread."

Marie Antionette: "Then let them eat cake"

Circa 2008

A reporter looks earnestly into the camera and says "millions of Americans are un/underinsured for health care. The democrats have proposed varying forms of universal health care to cover all Americans."

A wingnut Repub watching this (who probably is under-insured himeself, but he won't know until he has a serious illness and has to pay thousands out of pocket) says "why that would be socialism!"

"You're all liars. And uncivil."

ROTFLMAO!

Ok, I've pretty good health care coverage. My employer pays the bulk of the cost. However, I pay a bit more in health insurance premiums than I do in federal income and Medicare taxes. Sure it all gets deducted pre-tax, but even if it came post tax, I don't think the numbers would be all that different. Kick in the very modest co-pays I pay for doctor's visits, prescriptions, etc. and well, no tax credit is really going to help. Oh, and I'm single so I figure the average couple with kids pays even more in health insurance premiums. I'd imagine that others who don't have a very generous employer health plan pay much more in premiums than they do in federal taxes.

Rudy's plan (and any plan that relies on tax credits, tax breaks, etc.) doesn't do much to deal with the cost of health care. It's a non solution for the vast majority of working Americans. Go ahead, pull your latest tax return or W-2. Compare how much you pay in federal taxes to how much you pay for health insurance (if you're lucky enough to have it). Still think tax credits, tax rebates, etc. are the solution? I'd love for someone to ask Rudy, "if I pay more in insurance premiums than I do in federal taxes, how will a tax credit, refund, etc. help me and still allow the federal government to do all the other things it needs to do like maintaining our bridges, roads, transit systems, providing for national defense, etc.?" Of course it won't happen since Rudy and the GOP is scared of getting questions from real people.

I'd rather see the insurance premium I pay every month go towards universal health care coverage than to some for profit insurance company. It's a "tax" either way--in both cases I don't "see" the money since for profit insurance company doesn't refund me the amount of premium I paid that I don't "use." Any extra I pay goes for salaries, fancy corporate perks, stock options, etc. Meanwhile millions go with out.