Republicans to vote to repeal Obama's Health Care Reform in Jan 11
445 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Glaber;27211079]I can't yet. I need to know who's available first, but that's not the point. Point is a Democrat Could beat him because of it too[/QUOTE]
Yes glaber your moral integrity shines throughout the night like the star of Bethlehem. The main role of the president is to constantly worry about reelection
No you silly, That's election year and only if he's running.
[QUOTE=Ridge;27209561]What happened to private healthcare when government-run began? Hmm?[/QUOTE]It still functions fine in every European nation. Here in Finland, for example, we have universal health care; but if you want for example a cosmetic procedure, want to have a procedure done immediately rather than waiting (and no, people using the public option and in dire need will not die in the waiting line) or so on you can easily opt for a private option out of your own pocket.
this thread makes me glad to be canadian
[QUOTE=Archy;27212895]this thread makes me glad to be canadian[/QUOTE]
This thread makes me glad to be Norwegian :smug:
[QUOTE=Ridge;27209737]Who are the national providers?
Here in the US we have Kaiser Permanente, Cigna, Aetna, United Healthcare and others jump to my mind immediately.[/QUOTE]
Kaiser Permanente kicks ass, my payments are assbackwardsly low and I have even the most mundane stupid shit fully covered.
But on topic, The federal healthcare idea is retarded, we need a Canadian like system with the states running the show. The current state of the federal government is not one that can run a NATION WIDE system effectively nor do we even have money to do it at ALL.
Everyone seems to forget that we are broke.
[QUOTE=Jewsus;27210202]I think it's worth pointing out that this "mandate" isn't a "law" in the sense that most of us think of laws. If you don't have insurance, you will receive a tax penalty. The federal, state, and local government governments already impose extra taxes on people and/or businesses for doing things we don't like, as well. My point isn't that you have to agree with it, my point is that there's a legal basis for it. So you don't HAVE to buy health insurance the same way you don't HAVE to buy cigarettes or hard liquor, but if you do, you will receive extra taxes. Governments all over the world and have always and will always impose taxes for the purposes of limiting negative externalities. If you buy gasoline, you're indirectly paying federal taxes. If you buy spirit alcohols, you're indirectly paying federal taxes. The only difference between health insurance tax credits (which currently exist) and lack-of-health-insurance penalties is the difference between the carrot and the stick. This ABSOLUTELY has precedent. Also I'd like to remind everyone that the government can just raise taxes and solve the fucking problem but that wasn't disco with the republicans. Also, the law is supposed to be deficit neutral by 2022 so even if it hasn't paid for itself by then, it would have been rendered quite inexpensive.
So lets review: It's legal and It's cheap.
No can we please start questioning whether it actually solves the fucking problem? Because despite all my defense of the democratic agenda, I don't think this will do jack or shit.
So lets review[/QUOTE]
So penalizing me for not buying something I can't afford(and don't give me that poor people are exempted shit, because I seriously doubt I would be exempted unless you show me proof) is going to make things better? Thank you Republicans and Democrats, you have seriously raised the bar on political insanity.
Give me free healthcare, don't give me healthcare, but you can't fucking make me pay for something I have no money for.
[QUOTE=Glaber;27211189]No you silly, That's election year and only if he's running.[/QUOTE]
then why even bring it up.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;27224672]So penalizing me for not buying something I can't afford(and don't give me that poor people are exempted shit, because I seriously doubt I would be exempted unless you show me proof) is going to make things better? Thank you Republicans and Democrats, you have seriously raised the bar on political insanity.
Give me free healthcare, don't give me healthcare, but you can't fucking make me pay for something I have no money for.[/QUOTE]
I blame the republicans because the original bill drafted by the democrats has a public option if I remember correctly.
Ah, but there were a great deal of us who didn't want that for fear of losing our current coverage.
[QUOTE=Glaber;27225523]Ah, but there were a great deal of us who didn't want that for fear of losing our current coverage.[/QUOTE]
Those fears were unfounded. Public insurance that everyone gets automatically coexists with private insurance perfectly fine in Canada, America could do it as well.
[QUOTE=Glaber;27225523]Ah, but there were a great deal of us who didn't want that for fear of losing our current coverage.[/QUOTE]
So you guys fuck it up for the rest of us? I mean you have a solid concern(IMHO), but then you guys help to create one of the worst health care reform acts in the world. You fucked over the poor man with this.
[QUOTE=Habsburg;27225389]I blame the republicans because the original bill drafted by the democrats has a public option if I remember correctly.[/QUOTE]
It takes two to tango, Obama still signed the bill. Both sides are to blame.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;27224672]So penalizing me for not buying something I can't afford [b](and don't give me that poor people are exempted shit, because I seriously doubt I would be exempted unless you show me proof)[/b] is going to make things better? Thank you Republicans and Democrats, you have seriously raised the bar on political insanity.
Give me free healthcare, don't give me healthcare, but you can't fucking make me pay for something I have no money for.[/QUOTE]If you can't afford it, you will be exempted; as will those whose religious beliefs forbid it. It says so in the bill itself.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;27225599]It takes two to tango, Obama still signed the bill. Both sides are to blame.[/QUOTE]
He probably thought it would be baby steps towards universal healthcare.
[editline]5th January 2011[/editline]
He's right though, it's a matter of when, not if.
[QUOTE=Wing_nut;27205473]Reagan did not create the skyrocketing debt. If you want to start pointing fingers, fine. The first largest debt increase came from Woodrow Wilson. From 1916 to 1919 the total federal expenditures rose 2,494 percent and the national debt went from $3.6 billion to $27.3 billion.
Source: [url]www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals/[/url]
Table 1.1[/QUOTE]
Also the Wilson thing might have had a little something to do with World War One. Also we bought up a bunch of foreign debt at that time so if you looked at the balance sheet you'd know why you're not right.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;27225840]If you can't afford it, you will be exempted; as will those whose religious beliefs forbid it. It says so in the bill itself.[/QUOTE]
Where the fuck does it say it though? What are the criteria for not being able to afford it?
[editline]6th January 2011[/editline]
All you are saying is heresay, which means absolutely nothing and is not proof at all.
If you want to see the exact part of the law that says so for yourself:
[url]http://docs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf[/url]
SEC. 5000A. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
Ctrl-f to find it, that details the part stating that people have to get health insurance
‘‘(2) RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS.—
This part, and the parts after it, details the exemptions for religious reasons, and other similar exemptions
Between that and the other one, there's exemptions for incarcerated people and illegals (
‘‘(1) INDIVIDUALS WHO CANNOT AFFORD COVERAGE.—
This'll be the part you're interested in
[QUOTE=yawmwen;27226147]Where the fuck does it say it though? What are the criteria for not being able to afford it?
[editline]6th January 2011[/editline]
All you are saying is heresay, which means absolutely nothing and is not proof at all.[/QUOTE]
...It's in the bill, but it's heresay? good one.
I figure i'll just quote the relevant part itself. I'll get around to quoting relevant section it refers to e.g. Section 1412(b)(1)(B) where it references the criteria by which it determines if one cannot afford it.
[quote]‘‘(1) INDIVIDUALS WHO CANNOT AFFORD COVERAGE.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Any applicable individual for any
month if the applicable individual’s required contribution
(determined on an annual basis) for coverage for the month
exceeds 8 percent of such individual’s household income
for the taxable year described in section 1412(b)(1)(B) of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. For purposes of applying this subparagraph, the taxpayer’s household income shall be increased by any exclusion from gross
income for any portion of the required contribution made
through a salary reduction arrangement.
‘‘(B) REQUIRED CONTRIBUTION.—For purposes of this
paragraph, the term ‘required contribution’ means—
‘‘(i) in the case of an individual eligible to purchase
minimum essential coverage consisting of coverage
through an eligible-employer-sponsored plan, the portion of the annual premium which would be paid by
the individual (without regard to whether paid through
salary reduction or otherwise) for self-only coverage,
or
‘‘(ii) in the case of an individual eligible only to
purchase minimum essential coverage described in subsection (f)(1)(C), the annual premium for the lowest
cost bronze plan available in the individual market
through the Exchange in the State in the rating area
in which the individual resides (without regard to
whether the individual purchased a qualified health
plan through the Exchange), reduced by the amount
of the credit allowable under section 36B for the taxable year (determined as if the individual was covered
by a qualified health plan offered through the
Exchange for the entire taxable year).
‘‘(C) SPECIAL RULES FOR INDIVIDUALS RELATED TO
EMPLOYEES.—For purposes of subparagraph (B)(i), if an
applicable individual is eligible for minimum essential coverage through an employer by reason of a relationship
to an employee, the determination shall be made by reference to the affordability of the coverage to the employee.
‘‘(D) INDEXING.—In the case of plan years beginning
in any calendar year after 2014, subparagraph (A) shall
be applied by substituting for ‘8 percent’ the percentage
the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines
reflects the excess of the rate of premium growth between
the preceding calendar year and 2013 over the rate of
income growth for such period.
‘‘(2) TAXPAYERS WITH INCOME UNDER 100 PERCENT OF POVERTY LINE.—Any applicable individual for any month during
a calendar year if the individual’s household income for the
taxable year described in section 1412(b)(1)(B) of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act is less than 100 percent
of the poverty line for the size of the family involved (determined in the same manner as under subsection (b)(4)).
‘‘(3) MEMBERS OF INDIAN TRIBES.—Any applicable individual
for any month during which the individual is a member of
an Indian tribe (as defined in section 45A(c)(6)).
‘‘(4) MONTHS DURING SHORT COVERAGE GAPS.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Any month the last day of which
occurred during a period in which the applicable individual
was not covered by minimum essential coverage for a
continuous period of less than 3 months.
‘‘(B) SPECIAL RULES.—For purposes of applying this
paragraph—
‘‘(i) the length of a continuous period shall be determined without regard to the calendar years in which
months in such period occur,
‘‘(ii) if a continuous period is greater than the
period allowed under subparagraph (A), no exception
shall be provided under this paragraph for any month
in the period, and
‘‘(iii) if there is more than 1 continuous period
described in subparagraph (A) covering months in a
calendar year, the exception provided by this paragraph shall only apply to months in the first of such
periods.
The Secretary shall prescribe rules for the collection of
the penalty imposed by this section in cases where continuous periods include months in more than 1 taxable year.
‘‘(5) HARDSHIPS.—Any applicable individual who for any
month is determined by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services under section 1311(d)(4)(H) to have suffered a hardship
with respect to the capability to obtain coverage under a qualified health plan.[/quote]
[quote=Section 1412(b)(1)(B)](b) ADVANCE DETERMINATIONS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall provide under the
program established under subsection (a) that advance determination of eligibility with respect to any individual shall be
made—
(A) during the annual open enrollment period
applicable to the individual (or such other enrollment
period as may be specified by the Secretary); and
(B) on the basis of the individual’s household income
for the most recent taxable year for which the Secretary,
after consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, determines information is available.[/quote]
[quote=Section 1311(d)(4)(H)](H) subject to section 1411, grant a certification
attesting that, for purposes of the individual responsibility
penalty under section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, an individual is exempt from the individual
requirement or from the penalty imposed by such section
because—
(i) there is no affordable qualified health plan
available through the Exchange, or the individual’s
employer, covering the individual; or
(ii) the individual meets the requirements for any
other such exemption from the individual responsibility
requirement or penalty;
(I) transfer to the Secretary of the Treasury—
(i) a list of the individuals who are issued a certification under subparagraph (H), including the name
and taxpayer identification number of each individual;
(ii) the name and taxpayer identification number
of each individual who was an employee of an employer
but who was determined to be eligible for the premium
tax credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 because—
(I) the employer did not provide minimum
essential coverage; or
(II) the employer provided such minimum
essential coverage but it was determined under
section 36B(c)(2)(C) of such Code to either be
unaffordable to the employee or not provide the
required minimum actuarial value; and
(iii) the name and taxpayer identification number
of each individual who notifies the Exchange under
section 1411(b)(4) that they have changed employers
and of each individual who ceases coverage under a
qualified health plan during a plan year (and the effective date of such cessation);[/quote]
Christ, legalese makes my head hurt. Please keep in mind this post is a work in progress.
The law as it currently stands is here: [url]http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf[/url]
[quote]For purposes
of applying this subparagraph, the taxpayer’s household
income shall be increased by any exclusion from gross
income for any portion of the required contribution made
through a salary reduction arrangement.[/quote]
This means that the income you are decided to have is increased because you are exempt right? This part makes very little sense to me.
god it must suck living in a country where one side of your politics is absolutely goddamn fucking retarded
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;27226220]...It's in the bill, but it's heresay? good one.[/QUOTE]
unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge:
What he said was hearsay(sorry for the typo).
He showed me the bill, which means that it can actually be argued.
[editline]6th January 2011[/editline]
Oh and thanks for showing me the article Doom. Although it's hard to understand this shit I am sort of getting it.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;27226410]This means that the income you are decided to have is increased because you are exempt right? This part makes very little sense to me.[/QUOTE]Doesn't make sense to me either. The important part is stated that if the cost of obtaining insurance exceeds 8% of a person's annual income, they're exempt.
This could make a lot of difference though on who is exempt and who isn't, considering they said that a person's household income is increased based on certain criteria I don't quite understand.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;27226430]god it must suck living in a country where one side of your politics is absolutely goddamn fucking retarded[/QUOTE]
It sucks because the one side that isn't fucking retarded is full of pussies
[QUOTE=yawmwen;27226548]This could make a lot of difference though on who is exempt and who isn't, considering they said that a person's household income is increased based on certain criteria I don't quite understand.[/QUOTE]I think i've got it; any income lost through a salary reduction arrangement with one's employer, meant to go towards a health care plan, is added back to the income for the purposes of determining eligibility for exemption.
If nothing else, it's worth knowing the law specifically forbids criminal charges against those who don't pay the fine i.e. they can't force you to pay the fine.
[quote=Section 5000A(g)(2)]‘‘(2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any other provision
of law—
‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of
any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed
by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any
criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary
shall not—
‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property
of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the
penalty imposed by this section, or
‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to
such failure.’’.[/quote]
Then I don't see how that's relevant anyways.
If I have a health plan through my employer anyways doesn't that mean I am exempt from buying my own personal health care?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;27226734]Then I don't see how that's relevant anyways.
If I have a health plan through my employer anyways doesn't that mean I am exempt from buying my own personal health care?[/QUOTE]I don't see how it's relevant either, but I guess they wanted all possibilities covered.
Pretty much; the burden of providing health insurance to those without it falls onto the employer if they're larger than 50 people employed.
It really doesn't make sense. I am a lot happier hearing that I am probably going to be exempt. However, I don't see the point of the bill then. They say they want everyone covered, except people who can't afford it, who probably weren't covered to begin with? The only thing forcing people to buy health care and then exempting the people who are most likely not to buy it anyways would do is lower the number of middle class and more well to do people from paying for treatment out of pocket instead of buying health insurance.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;27226887]It really doesn't make sense. I am a lot happier hearing that I am probably going to be exempt. However, I don't see the point of the bill then. They say they want everyone covered, except people who can't afford it, who probably weren't covered to begin with? The only thing forcing people to buy health care and then exempting the people who are most likely not to buy it anyways would do is lower the number of middle class and more well to do people from paying for treatment out of pocket instead of buying health insurance.[/QUOTE]
the bill was gutted of everything worthwhile in it. It shouldn't be like this.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
