AP Source: Obama To Add Some GOP Ideas To Plan

A Democratic official tells The Associated Press that President Barack Obama will add some Republican proposals to a revised health care package that he will unveil Wednesday.

Obama plans to send a letter to Democratic congressional leaders on Tuesday detailing his plan.

A Democratic official, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to pre-empt the White House release of the letter, said the plan would include expanding the use of fraud investigators disguised as patients to uncover waste and abuse. The plan also would expand pilot programs on medical malpractice reform and would address health savings accounts and Medicaid providers.

Obama planned to make a statement at the White House.

(Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)


You must be logged in to post comments.

Username:
Password (case sensitive):
Remember Me:

Read Comments

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
  • by Anonymous Military Dude on Mar 6, 2010 at 07:10 AM
    I never said they were being repealed, he is letting them expire. Why would the Democrats want to keep something that actually works? Harry Reid put the a few more nails in his coffin yesterday by saying "Today is a big day in America. Only 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which is really good," if this guy thinks loosing 36,000 jobs is good news and he thinks the healthcare bill is good, what are we in for? Get them out before they do any more damage.
  • by NS Location: Greenville on Mar 5, 2010 at 09:28 PM
    Your entire premise is based on the wrong premise that the Bush tax cuts are being repealed. They were scheduled to stop in Dec. 2010. You and OSOC need to get your stories straight. He says they have already been repealed, which is absolutely not true!
  • by Anonymous on Mar 5, 2010 at 05:24 PM
    Dont you just hate it when some one posts facts?
  • by Anonymous Military Dude on Mar 5, 2010 at 04:47 PM
    Consequently, from 2000 to 2004, the share of all individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40 per­cent dropped from zero percent to –4 percent, mean­ing that the average family in those quintiles received a subsidy from the IRS. By contrast, the share paid by the top quintile of households (by income) increased from 81 percent to 85 percent. Expanding the data to include all federal taxes, the share paid by the top quintile edged up from 66.6 percent in 2000 to 67.1 percent in 2004, while the bottom 40 percent's share dipped from 5.9 per­cent to 5.4 percent. Clearly, the tax cuts have led to the rich shouldering more of the income tax burden and the poor shouldering less.
  • by Anonymous Military Dude on Mar 5, 2010 at 04:45 PM
    Rather than exclude these Americans, lawmak­ers used the tax code to subsidize them. (Some economists would say this made that group's col­lective tax burden negative.)First, lawmakers low­ered the initial tax brackets from 15 percent to 10 percent and then expanded the refundable child tax credit, which, along with the refundable earned income tax credit (EITC), reduced the typical low-income tax burden to well below zero. As a result, the U.S. Treasury now mails tax "refunds" to a large proportion of these Americans that exceed the amounts of tax that they actually paid. All in all, the number of tax filers with zero or negative income tax liability rose from 30 million to 40 million, or about 30 percent of all tax filers. The remaining 70 percent of tax filers received lower income tax rates, lower investment taxes, and lower estate taxes from the 2001 legislation.
  • by Anonymous Military Dude on Mar 5, 2010 at 04:43 PM
    Popular mythology also suggests that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts shifted more of the tax burden toward the poor. While high-income households did save more in actual dollars than low-income households, they did so because low-income house­holds pay so little in income taxes in the first place. The same 1 percent tax cut will save more dollars for a millionaire than it will for a middle-class worker simply because millionaire paid more taxes before the tax cut. In 2000, the top 60 percent of taxpayers paid 100 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 40 percent collectively paid no income taxes. Lawmakers writing the 2001 tax cuts faced quite a challenge in giving the bulk of the income tax savings to a population that was already paying no income taxes. more to follow
  • by Anonymous Military Dude on Mar 5, 2010 at 04:39 PM
    The 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increas­ing economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts shows that this is exactly what hap­pened. •GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent. •Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it has expanded for 13 consec­utive quarters. The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Divi­dend payouts increased as well. •The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quar­ters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
  • by Anonymous Military Dude on Mar 5, 2010 at 04:32 PM
    Sorry for all the FACTS that I'm posting about the Bush tax cuts.
  • by Anonymous on Mar 5, 2010 at 04:31 PM
    Government spending does not "pump new money into the economy" because government must first tax or borrow that money out of the economy. Claims that tax cuts benefit the econ­omy by "putting money in people's pockets" rep­resent the flip side of the pump-priming fallacy. Instead, the right tax cuts help the economy by reducing government's influence on economic decisions and allowing people to respond more to market mechanisms, thereby encouraging more productive behavior. The Keynesian fallacy is that government spend­ing injects new money into the economy, but the money that government spends must come from somewhere. Government must first tax or borrow that money out of the economy, so all the new spending just redistributes existing income. Simi­larly, the money for tax rebates—which are also touted as a way to inject money into the economy— must also come from somewhere, with government either spending less or borrowing more. In both cases, no new spending is added to the economy.
  • by Anonymous on Mar 5, 2010 at 04:27 PM
    Repealing the Bush tax cuts would raise very little revenue and could possibly even reduce federal tax revenue. Such tax increases would certainly reduce the savings and investment vital to economic growth. The individual income tax rate reductions come to $59 billion in 2007 and are not really a tax cut for the rich. All families with taxable incomes over $62,000 (and single filers over $31,000) benefit. Repealing this tax cut would reduce work incentives and raise taxes on millions of families and small businesses, thereby harming the economy and min­imizing any new revenues.
WITN

275 E. Arlington Blvd. Greenville, NC 27858 252-439-7777
Copyright © 2002-2016 - Designed by Gray Digital Media - Powered by Clickability 85972392 - witn.com/a?a=85972392
Gray Television, Inc.