Dean's budget-balancing act left taxpayers in red

[Jobber of the Week 0]

    Vermont had one of the highest per capita tax burdens in the country when Howard Dean left the governorship in January to run for president.

    Mr. Dean, a Democrat who calls himself a "fiscal conservative," says he balanced all his state budgets by cutting spending. And allies and critics alike praise his budget-balancing record.

    Vermont enjoyed a budget surplus this year while most states were in the red because of the recession that began three years ago.

    What the former governor doesn't say is that he raised hundreds of millions of dollars in higher taxes, including sales taxes, cigarette taxes, property taxes and corporate taxes, to balance the books while paying for his social welfare proposals.

    After 11 years under Mr. Dean's governorship, Vermont now ranks in the top tier of high-tax states, a fiscal legacy that President Bush's campaign strategists say they intend to highlight should Mr. Dean become the Democratic presidential nominee next year.

    Congressional Quarterly's Governing magazine, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, ranks Vermont second highest among the 50 states in the amount of tax revenue collected as a percentage of personal income in 2001 — about 9 percent to 10 percent.

    In a separate ranking that measured state tax revenue per capita in 2001, Vermont was in second place with six other high-tax states, including Massachusetts and California.

    Another ranking in June by the Government Finance Officers Association put Vermont in 12th place when state and local tax burdens are combined, well ahead of more populous industrial states such as New Jersey, Michigan and Illinois.

    Vermont's budget has climbed sharply, too, from $662 million in 1991 to $1.8 billion last year. Between 1997 and last year, inflation and population growth combined totaled 18.1 percent, but spending rose 51.7 percent.

    Once known for its Yankee thrift, the state has become a mecca for affluent liberals from neighboring New York. Vermont's sole congressman, independent Rep. Bernard Sanders, is an avowed socialist.

    "Roughly 20 percent of the population does not depend upon jobs for income, people who are trust funders or independently wealthy," says Michael Quaid, executive director of Vermonters For Tax Reform.

    Tiny, bucolic Vermont, with a population of 610,000 — about the size of Austin, Texas — does not have many of the problems of other states.

    More than 96 percent of Vermont residents are white; only 3.8 percent are immigrants. The unemployment rate is barely 4 percent.

    The birth rate is the lowest in the nation, which means Vermont requires less spending on education and welfare than other states. With a median age of 37.7, the population is the third oldest among the states, and its under-18 population (24.2 percent) ranks as the eighth smallest.

    Analysts give a mixed assessment on Mr. Dean's fiscal record. The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank that rates the fiscal performance of the states, gave him a grade of B from 1994 to 1996. By 2000, his grade had plunged to a D.

    "In 1999, he sought and won support for an across-the-board income tax cut to make the state more competitive. He was dead right on that score: Vermont has one of the highest income taxes in the nation and loses jobs and businesses to its income tax-free neighbor, New Hampshire," the Cato report card concluded.

    Mr. Dean denies that he overspent as governor or raised taxes unnecessarily. "I balanced more budgets than Bush ever did," he says.

    His fiscal policy as president "will be to limit the federal budget's rate of growth to the rate of growth in the economy," he said in an interview with The Washington Times earlier this year. "That's what we did in Vermont. You never let the budget grow faster than the economy."

    At the outset of his governorship Mr. Dean did cut spending aggressively, fighting his party's liberals in the General Assembly who wanted to raise income taxes and boost spending.

    "He has always made fiscal responsibility one of his baseline issues," said Christopher Barbieri, president of the Vermont Chamber of Congress. "He would rather cut the budget than raise taxes. He believes in the notion that reducing the personal income tax would be an incentive for the economy."

    But in the late 1990s, Mr. Dean shifted sharply. In 1997, he signed an education funding bill called Act 60 that raised property taxes in wealthier communities to redistribute money to poorer schools.

    "That was probably the biggest tax increase bill the governor signed. It raised taxes for about half of Vermont's homeowners and cut them for the other half. It was a redistribution of wealth toward lower-income property taxpayers," Mr. Barbieri said.

    Higher taxes were in part the legacy of Mr. Dean's predecessor, Gov. Richard Snelling, a Republican who died in office in 1991 after substantially raising taxes or implementing new taxes.

    In 1994, Mr. Dean allowed income- and sales-tax increases to fall back to their previously lower levels (25 percent of the federal tax rate and 4 percent for sales). But he called the legislature back into session and raised the sales tax to 5 percent, retaining other increases, including a 9 percent tax on hotel rooms and restaurant meals.

    In 1998, with revenue pouring into the state Treasury, Mr. Dean promised to cut income taxes.

    "He had a surplus and the 1999 legislature [cut taxes] over the screams of the liberals. Liberals up here think of him as a Republican in drag because he won't raise the income tax even higher," said John McClaughry, president of the Ethan Allen Institute, a Vermont think tank that tracked the Dean administration.

    "But, yes, the state tax burden is undoubtedly higher because of the property tax increases, and during his years, he constantly increased tax rates on virtually everything," Mr. McClaughry said.

    And, he added, as taxes rose, so did the size of Vermont's government.

    "There's no tendency toward smaller government with Howard Dean," Mr. McClaughry said. "He wanted to expand government, and did."

    After losing a legislative battle in 1993 to enact universal health care in Vermont, Mr. Dean agreed to a scaled-down program to provide health insurance for children and lower-income adults through Medicaid that critics say does not cover costs.

    "We have a huge state health insurance budget," Mr. Quaid said.

 

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030806...13650-4135r.htm

 

Well? I think there's a bit of playing loose with facts since Snelling did more of the tax raising and Dean did more of the fund cutting, but I do think trying to impliment universal health care in this country is going to be a fucking disaster, no matter if you think it's a better or worse idea than what we got going on now.

 

On one hand, I don't like the tales of people doing their own dentistry with hammers and screwdrivers, but on the other, dear god will it be expensive.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

This is great and all, but does anyone else see the eerie similarities between Dukaukis and Dean.

 

 

- Both were New England Governors

 

- Both were/are presented as intellegent, and thrifty managers

 

- If Dean wins he'll be running against a Bush.

 

- The 2004 election will come in the wake of a military scandel, while the '88 election came in the wake of the Iran-Contra scandal.

 

- Both are using a rising deficit as a major campaign issue.

 

- Both ran/are runnign against a large field of Democratic canidates.

 

- Both ran/ will run against a black candidate in the primaries. (Jesse Jackson in '88 and Al Sharpton in '04)

 

- Both are running in the wake of a former Vice President losing the last election.

 

 

 

Any more?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

It doesn't mention that Dean dropped income taxes several times during his governorship. Look at the particular taxes he did raise: sales (by a penny. My lord, as if we can't afford 5 cents/dollar versus 4), cigarettes (I'm not exactly against this one), property (this one stings a bit, but then again... it's not as if the poorest individuals will hurt much from it), and corporate (please, they have enough loopholes as it is. I have no sympathy for their interests). The taxes that most people are killed by the most -- that is, income and payroll -- were not raised.

 

As for Universal health care, Dean's plan can be paid -- quite literally -- in its entirety by less than half of the Bush tax cuts. Judging by my paycheck this week, I'm not exactly seeing much of that anyway. Pardon me if I don't mind seeing them repealed.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

1 penny is 1% tyler

 

It's not much, but as in office space, those pennies ad up

 

Is going from 4 to 5 the same as going from 20 to 21?

 

In GA, i look at my paycheck...I'm working a temp job at UPS for the summer before I move and I pull in about 800 for a 2 week period

 

My paycheck goes to 650 after taxes. so that's a total state/fed tax of 19% *rounded*

 

I buy groceries to eat. I pay tax on that. I buy gas...yup, tax there too. And I take my fiancee out once a week. tax there too.

 

Thusly, with my apartment, car, and right now no medical, I barely break even, and I'm being fucking frugal...

 

I say this to disprove your point about people being able to afford 1 cent on the dollar.

 

Many of us can't.

[sfaJack 0]

As for Universal health care, Dean's plan can be paid -- quite literally -- in its entirety by less than half of the Bush tax cuts. Judging by my paycheck this week, I'm not exactly seeing much of that anyway. Pardon me if I don't mind seeing them repealed.

Do you mind if I ask how much you make a year? Or what your filing status is?

 

The reason I ask is because as a single guy with no dependents, my monthly take-home pay has increased about $60 a month since all those "useless" tax cuts took effect this year. That's nothing to sneeze at in my opinion. I'd hope you agree.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

How much are you going to save on health insurance, though?

 

Far more than pennies.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Also, guess what? Vermont's 5c/dollar is 40th in the nation. It rose one penny from 4 cents, but it's still much less expensive than any other state.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Also, from the Vermont state website...

 

The general sales tax rate is imposed on the buyer on the purchase price of tangible personal property, amusement charges, fabrication charges, some public utility charges and some service contracts. There are 46 exemptions from the tax which include medical items, food, manufacturing machinery, equipment and fuel, residential fuel and electricity, clothing and shoes with a purchase price of $110 or less.

 

Rate: 5%

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy when you buy your televisions and don't expect to pay a small sales tax. Look at the expemptions there; food, clothes, shoes, etc. Those are necessities, and they're not taxed. Excises are taxed. Also, for people filing alone in income taxes, anyone who makes under $46,000 a year pays NO state income tax.

 

Married Filing Jointly - 2002

VT Taxable Income

Over But Not Over Base Tax Plus of Amt Over

$ 0 $ 46,700 3.6% $ 0

$ 46,700 $ 112,850 $ 1,681 7.2% $ 46,700

$ 112,850 $ 171,950 $ 6,444 8.5% $ 112,850

$ 171,950 $ 307,050 $ 11,468 9.0% $ 171,950

$ 307,050 $ 23,627 9.5% $ 307,050

 

 

 

Married Filing Separately - 2002

VT Taxable Income

Over But Not Over Base Tax Plus of Amt Over

$ 0 $23,350 3.6% $ 0

$ 23,350 $ 56,425 $ 841 7.2% $ 23,350

$ 56,425 $ 85,975 $ 3,222 8.5% $ 56,425

$ 85,975 $ 153,525 $ 5,734 9.0% $ 85,975

$ 153,525 $ 11,813 9.5% $ 153,52

 

 

 

Head of Household - 2002

VT Taxable Income

Over But Not Over Base Tax Plus of Amt Over

$ 0 $ 37,450 3.6% $ 0

$ 37,450 $ 96,700 $ 1,348 7.2% $ 37,450

$ 96,700 $ 156,600 $ 5,614 8.5% $ 96,700

$ 156,600 $ 307,050 $ 10,706 9.0% $ 156,600

$ 307,050 $ 24,246 9.5% $ 307,050

 

 

 

Single - 2002

VT Taxable Income

Over But Not Over Base Tax Plus of Amt Over

$ 0 $ 27,950 3.6% $ 0

$ 27,950 $ 67,700 $ 1,006 7.2% $ 27,950

$ 67,700 $ 141,250 $ 3,868 8.5% $ 67,700

$ 141,250 $ 307,050 $ 10,120 9.0% $ 141,250

$ 307,050 $ 25,042 9.5% $ 370,050

 

 

 

 

These are by no means extreme.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

As for Universal health care, Dean's plan can be paid -- quite literally -- in its entirety by less than half of the Bush tax cuts. Judging by my paycheck this week, I'm not exactly seeing much of that anyway. Pardon me if I don't mind seeing them repealed.

Do you mind if I ask how much you make a year? Or what your filing status is?

 

The reason I ask is because as a single guy with no dependents, my monthly take-home pay has increased about $60 a month since all those "useless" tax cuts took effect this year. That's nothing to sneeze at in my opinion. I'd hope you agree.

I barely make enough per year to file, since I'm a college student. However, I'm taking this from my parents' income.

 

My stepfather used to recieve $2000 per two weeks out of a base $3500 paycheck under Clinton.

 

He now recieves approximately the same (give or take 50 bucks)

 

I equate a ~$50,000 salary to middle class, don't you?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

And by the way, not to spam the topic, but Vermont's sales tax under Dean was 1.25% lower than Bush's sales tax of 6.25%, and Vermont has more exemptions.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Anyone who thinks any type of universal health care plan will cost as much as it is initially announced needs to go to a clinic in order to be treated for all the crack they are smoking...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

His health care plan, actually, only increases the health care coverage to people <200% of the poverty line. The rest of the health care will, theoretically, come when additional taxes are rendered to companies who do not provide it for their employees.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

sorry, but for the benefits i get from government ... living like a hermit is hardly worth it. guess thats cause im a caucasian male...oh well

 

/dont take that seriously, its laced with sarcasm...but seriously

 

tyler, thanks for revealing that youre in college, living off your parents income, and youre probably a dependant of them.

 

great. wonderful. now, for the rest of us who file independently, work 50 hours a week, regardless than im also getting a phd...and I barely get by, because my actual taxes amount to:

 

Paycheck taxes *state, federal, ss, medicare* 19%

 

Food

7%

 

Gas

what is it now...I think 25 cents on the dollar...correct me if im wrong, im guessing

 

other random stuff...property taxes factored into my rent...taxes factored into my power and water bill *because thats taxable revenue for the business...*

 

It's around 30%

 

and im poor.

 

If you can debate that point, not about Vermont, but about the General state of taxation, and tell me why someone with a predilication for raising it more is good for me? id love to hear it...

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Back when I lived in Ohio (all of last week), I remember seeing this sign on some gas stations that said gas taxes were 40-something cents per gallon -- that included all taxes, not just federal...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

tyler, thanks for revealing that youre in college, living off your parents income, and youre probably a dependant of them.

 

great. wonderful. now, for the rest of us who file independently, work 50 hours a week, regardless than im also getting a phd...and I barely get by, because my actual taxes amount to:

 

Wonderful, you can stop being a snide little fuck any time now. I work 43 hours a week myself, and I make barely enough to pay my own tuition. Don't make this out to be a "LOL TYL0R IS PAMPERED AND HE HAS NO IDEA KIK"

 

My $460 a week (before taxes) has always been cut by about a hundred bucks, before and after Bush's cut. Therefore, I'm making as much as you and I can honestly say that I get approximately the same amount taken out for taxes. Add to that the fact that my tuition is close to *$20,000* a year, and I don't get much in the way of financial aid (after the original partial scholarship), and you'll see that you're not too far away from my boat, especially since I live on my own 2/3 of the year.

 

Now, on to your issues:

 

 

1) Dean doesn't raise INCOME TAXES. These are the ones the federal government -- which is what Dean would be in control of -- can change, not sales tax, etc. Let's be clear here: a president Dean would have NO CONTROL over property, sales, etc. taxes. So, your assertation that you wouldn't want a tax-hiker is flawed.

 

This is in addition to the fact that we've seen budget surpluses grow the economy, meaning you should be able to get a better, higher paying job under a President Dean. He doesn't plan to balance the budget primarily through raising income taxes (especially since Bush's tax cut BARELY effects a ~$30,000 payroll anyway); he plans to balance it through controlled spending in the budget (Bush's budgets have gone up exponentially since he's come into office). Payroll taxes will not go up, because he's planning to bolster Social Security and Medicare by nixing the wage cap (in effect, making higher income people still have to pay proportional social security taxes). Again, this can only affect you positively, since you're the one who will be benefitting from a better job market.

 

 

EDIT: I may be wrong about federal control of gas taxes, so I edited it out. I don't *think* the feds control that, but I may have been wrong.

Edited August 9, 2003 by Tyler McClelland

[Vyce 0]

I'm just sitting here pondering whether it's possible for that gay bishop to legally "marry" Tyler and Howard in a nice civil union in Vermont.

 

I wanna be the flower girl.

[Guest MikeSC]

His health care plan, actually, only increases the health care coverage to people <200% of the poverty line. The rest of the health care will, theoretically, come when additional taxes are rendered to companies who do not provide it for their employees.

Ah, you actually buy those numbers?

 

That is so adorable.

 

Do you believe in Santa, too?

[sfaJack 0]

How much are you going to save on health insurance, though?

 

Far more than pennies.

Actually, my health insurance went down about $40 a month. Reason being I chose a $1000 deductible instead of a $250 deductible.

[Vern Gagne 0]

I'm just sitting here pondering whether it's possible for that gay bishop to legally "marry" Tyler and Howard in a nice civil union in Vermont.

 

I wanna be the flower girl.

That's not right.

 

Tyler is actually Howard Dean.The college kid is an elaborate rouse to campaign on this message board.

 

What's up Howie!

[Justice 0]

I'm just sitting here pondering whether it's possible for that gay bishop to legally "marry" Tyler and Howard in a nice civil union in Vermont.

 

I wanna be the flower girl.

That's not right.

 

Tyler is actually Howard Dean.The college kid is an elaborate rouse to campaign on this message board.

 

What's up Howie!

I have nothing to add to the topic, but I'd like to say I laughed pretty hard at this one.

[Guest MikeSC]

How much are you going to save on health insurance, though?

 

Far more than pennies.

Actually, my health insurance went down about $40 a month. Reason being I chose a $1000 deductible instead of a $250 deductible.

So, basically, your insurance didn't actually go down at all?

-=Mike

[Styles 0]

I'm just sitting here pondering whether it's possible for that gay bishop to legally "marry" Tyler and Howard in a nice civil union in Vermont.

 

I wanna be the flower girl.

That's not right.

 

Tyler is actually Howard Dean.The college kid is an elaborate rouse to campaign on this message board.

 

What's up Howie!

I was actually starting to think that. And if it's true, it's scary how uninformed he really is.

Oh and my 2 cents (half a cent after taxes): Taxes BAD, Relief GOOD!

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Cool. I'll be seeing you at Best Buy when we can go buy a music CD or the new Harry Potter book or something with our "relief."

[sfaJack 0]

How much are you going to save on health insurance, though?

 

Far more than pennies.

Actually, my health insurance went down about $40 a month. Reason being I chose a $1000 deductible instead of a $250 deductible.

So, basically, your insurance didn't actually go down at all?

-=Mike

Actually, it did. The only way it doesn't go down is if I actually have to pay that deductible. And that, barring some unforseen serious illness or tragic accident, is pretty unlikely with me because I rarely get sick. I'm willing to take my chances.

[Guest SideFXs]

Everyone here has expressed their frustration of the U.S. Tax code. Cumulatively, I estimate 50 cents of every dollar I earn is taxed. You college people, from middle class families, think it is tuff now?

 

The tax code is complicated because of politics. Since the mid-1960's government has sought to redistribute America's wealth to fight hunger, poverty, and illiteracy. Originally the idea was to massively tax the rich, (after all, they have enough money). However, the politicians discovered that there was massive wealth contained in the huge middle-class of the U.S. Programs from the "Great Society" of LBJ's, have been added in layers upon layers producing an enormous bureaucracy. A system inefficient and bloated. Government employee office buildings, salaries, pension plans, perks, and $340 hammers, don't come cheap.

 

Government needs to provide only three critical items, for a civilized society:

1. Maintaining health. (not universal health care)

2. Protection

3. Education

 

The utilization of our vast riches is dominated by the government cost. And attaining that revenue is insidious. The rich can afford high taxes and the poor don't have to pay.

 

If you invest, you are taxed. If you save money, you are taxed. If you buy a coat, you are taxed. If you buy junk food in California, you are taxed. If you buy property, you are taxed annually. If you work, you are taxed by the fed, state, and local govt.. Try to advance yourself and work harder, you get taxed more. Watch cable television, you are taxed. Purchase a car, you are taxed and don't forget license fees. Make a long distance phone call, you are taxed. Although you are encourage to "Play responsibly", playing the lottery is a tax. When you die, you are taxed, especially if your net worth is over 600,000 dollars and don't forget the funeral tax. That money you contribute to FICA, when you withdraw that money on retirement, you are taxed again. Water and sewage is a tax. Fill up your fuel tank, that is a 40% tax. Taxes paid by corporations? Guess what, you pay them when you buy their products or services. Travel? Pay an airport tax, motel tax, national park fees. Professionals, regulated by state govt., have to pay license fees.

 

Every one of your decisions to do commerce has to be considered, because of a tax PENALTY.

 

How about just a 17% flat tax? Russia is in its second year of a 13% flat tax. Guess what? Government revenue jumped 20%, after the first year of this simple new system. Imagine, a former socialist state implementing an uncomplicated flat tax and NOT DISCOURAGING FREE ENTERPRISE. Meanwhile the United States is becoming more socialist. Imagine that. And those that think, "Well Dean or Clinton, those liberal politicians are to blame." Nope, Pres.Bush too. Have you seen President Bush's latest approved budget? Not even a so-called conservative can tame this beast. But, the people have their politicians attention in California, with the recall of Gov. Davis.

[DerangedHermit 0]

sorry, but for the benefits i get from government ... living like a hermit is hardly worth it. guess thats cause im a caucasian male...oh well

Hey! I resent that!

 

*scratches head and leaves...damnit, that's GIMMICK infringement*

[Guest MikeSC]

How much are you going to save on health insurance, though?

 

Far more than pennies.

Actually, my health insurance went down about $40 a month. Reason being I chose a $1000 deductible instead of a $250 deductible.

So, basically, your insurance didn't actually go down at all?

-=Mike

Actually, it did. The only way it doesn't go down is if I actually have to pay that deductible. And that, barring some unforseen serious illness or tragic accident, is pretty unlikely with me because I rarely get sick. I'm willing to take my chances.

So, basically, you save money provided you don't get sick or hurt.

 

Hardly a good deal.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Everyone here has expressed their frustration of the U.S. Tax code. Cumulatively, I estimate 50 cents of every dollar I earn is taxed. You college people, from middle class families, think it is tuff now?

 

The tax code is complicated because of politics. Since the mid-1960's government has sought to redistribute America's wealth to fight hunger, poverty, and illiteracy. Originally the idea was to massively tax the rich, (after all, they have enough money). However, the politicians discovered that there was massive wealth contained in the huge middle-class of the U.S. Programs from the "Great Society" of LBJ's, have been added in layers upon layers producing an enormous bureaucracy. A system inefficient and bloated. Government employee office buildings, salaries, pension plans, perks, and $340 hammers, don't come cheap.

 

Government needs to provide only three critical items, for a civilized society:

1. Maintaining health. (not universal health care)

2. Protection

3. Education

 

The utilization of our vast riches is dominated by the government cost. And attaining that revenue is insidious. The rich can afford high taxes and the poor don't have to pay.

 

If you invest, you are taxed. If you save money, you are taxed. If you buy a coat, you are taxed. If you buy junk food in California, you are taxed. If you buy property, you are taxed annually. If you work, you are taxed by the fed, state, and local govt.. Try to advance yourself and work harder, you get taxed more. Watch cable television, you are taxed. Purchase a car, you are taxed and don't forget license fees. Make a long distance phone call, you are taxed. Although you are encourage to "Play responsibly", playing the lottery is a tax. When you die, you are taxed, especially if your net worth is over 600,000 dollars and don't forget the funeral tax. That money you contribute to FICA, when you withdraw that money on retirement, you are taxed again. Water and sewage is a tax. Fill up your fuel tank, that is a 40% tax. Taxes paid by corporations? Guess what, you pay them when you buy their products or services. Travel? Pay an airport tax, motel tax, national park fees. Professionals, regulated by state govt., have to pay license fees.

 

Every one of your decisions to do commerce has to be considered, because of a tax PENALTY.

 

How about just a 17% flat tax? Russia is in its second year of a 13% flat tax. Guess what? Government revenue jumped 20%, after the first year of this simple new system. Imagine, a former socialist state implementing an uncomplicated flat tax and NOT DISCOURAGING FREE ENTERPRISE. Meanwhile the United States is becoming more socialist. Imagine that. And those that think, "Well Dean or Clinton, those liberal politicians are to blame." Nope, Pres.Bush too. Have you seen President Bush's latest approved budget? Not even a so-called conservative can tame this beast. But, the people have their politicians attention in California, with the recall of Gov. Davis.

I would likely be in favor of something like that, but I think the lower class may get some sort of a break if needed, especially with the rising costs of housing and whatnot.

 

The truth is this: if you can get an accountant these days, you're likely to be paying hardly anything in taxes; thus, if there is a flat tax, there's no wiggle room. The problem is that it hurts the little guy, who won't be able to buy groceries anymore; it's appetizing, though, in the case of higher income people, who will be guaranteed to pay at least that amount. I'm in favor of it because it brings up state-earned revenues, not because it's more fair on the rich.

[sfaJack 0]

So, basically, you save money provided you don't get sick or hurt.

 

Hardly a good deal.

          -=Mike

I guess you can look at it that way if you want to. Saving nearly $500 a year with my "new" plan (yes, provided I don't get sick or hurt, which is still rather unlikely) is nothing to sneeze at, though.

 

It's interesting to note, however, that if I had stuck with my $250 deductible plan, the cost for my PPO would have only gone up $3 a month from last year. Wow. I chose the other plan because I saw no point in paying nearly $50 a month more and having to pay only $250 our-of-pocket in the unlikely event I needed major health care, instead of paying $15 a month and taking a somewhat safe gamble that I won't need to pay the $1000 out-of-pocket.

 

I just don't see where the problem is (for me personally...I obviously can't speak for others).