[sanjuro]

I think it is that they are looking out for the corporations, and so far, I haven't seen proof otherwise.

 

[Dartman]

That and they have health care for life. They don't give a **** about us.

 

[stoney]

God forbid the tax implications? We have no more money to spend, sorry we don't.

 

[Transcend]

God forbid the tax implications? We have no more money to spend, sorry we don't.

Doesn't seem to be an issue when it comes to increasing nuclear weapons development and fighting wars on foreign soil...

 

[stoney]

It's all of it. There is no more f*ing money left. The American public needs to fire the current political "elite" and start over. They are playing kick the can and pushing problems down the line. It needs to stop.

 

[ohio]

God forbid the tax implications? We have no more money to spend, sorry we don't.

Which is why we need healthcare. It will SAVE us money. But don't let the math or economics get in the way of your ideology.

 

[chillindrdude]

until the "healthcare" bill addresses and incorporates meaningful malpractice reform, it's a worthless piece of legislation.

 

[stevew]

don't you mean moderate democrats?

 

[J-Dubs]

until the "healthcare" bill addresses and incorporates meaningful malpractice reform, it's a worthless piece of legislation.

So making sure people and their children can't be refused health insurance because they get sick is worthless without the 1% savings that tort reform represents?
Got it.

 

[3D.]

Enforced mandatory health insurance was enough for me to hate it, not to mention all the other crap that was thrown in like potential rationing of medical care by an ’above the courts’ government secretary and a set of regulations that haven‘t even been established yet… not smart…

1. pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE:

‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . .”




2. pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS:

‘(ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN READMISSIONS.—For purposes of clause (i), with respect to a hospital, excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.

and, under “Definitions”:

‘‘(A) APPLICABLE CONDITION.—The term ‘applicable condition’ means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the Secretary . . .

and:

‘‘(E) READMISSION.—The term ‘readmission’ means, in the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time period specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.

and:

‘‘(6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of— . . .
‘‘(C) the measures of readmissions . . .



3. pages 197-198, SEC. 441. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS

‘‘SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.
‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to—
‘‘(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,
‘‘(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and
‘‘(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.


4. pages 195-196, SEC. 431. DISCLOSURES TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES.

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, upon written request from the Health Choices Commissioner or the head of a State-based health insurance exchange approved for operation under section 208 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, shall disclose to officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, return information of any taxpayer whose income is relevant in determining any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Such return information shall be limited to—
‘‘(i) taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer,
‘‘(ii) the filing status of such taxpayer,
‘‘(iii) the modified adjusted gross income of such taxpayer (as defined in section 59B(e)(5)),
‘‘(iv) the number of dependents of the taxpayer,
‘‘(v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof), and
‘‘(vi) the taxable year with respect to which the preceding information relates or, if applicable, the fact that such information is not available.

somehow, i see people paying out the ass and the chosen insurance companies becoming extremely powerful.
thanks, but no thanks

 

[syadasti]

somehow, i see people paying out the ass and the chosen insurance companies becoming extremely powerful.
thanks, but no thanks

Have you looked at the cost of providing coverage to workers over the years? Employers have been dropping coverage completely, switching to shoddy providers, or changing to lower coverage plans and cost is still continuing to go up. Business owners know this trend isn't sustainable, its painfully obvious and I've see it firsthand. The system must change and its not going to be easy. Costs will likely still go up but they cannot continue increase as they are under the present system.

Insurance companies are too powerful right now and focus on the profits rather than serving their customers - they look whatever means necessary to deny coverage or drop people who need coverage most.

Society already pays for people who don't have coverage. People who don't have health coverage or limited coverage put off health problems until they are out of control and rather than taking cheap preventive steps they use the most expensive components of the system and we pay for it, may it be by overloading insurance plans or directly since they can't afford it - ambulance, emergency care, costly surgeries, and other costly procedures.

 

[Westy]

It's all of it. There is no more f*ing money left. The American public needs to fire the current political "elite" and start over. They are playing kick the can and pushing problems down the line. It needs to stop.

Are you familiar with the idea of a deferred tax? We are really good at it.

 

[Silver]

It's all of it. There is no more f*ing money left. The American public needs to fire the current political "elite" and start over. They are playing kick the can and pushing problems down the line. It needs to stop.

In that case you're pushing for the creation of an NHS style system then, right?

(Rhetorical question. I'm fully aware that you're a self styled libertarian who in practice is actually a fascist.)

 

[rockofullr]

In that case you're pushing for the creation of an NHS style system then, right?

(Rhetorical question. I'm fully aware that you're a self styled libertarian who in practice is actually a fascist.)

Is there a snazzy term for that?

If not I propose fascotarian.

 

[jonKranked]

somehow, i see people paying out the ass and the chosen insurance companies becoming extremely powerful.
thanks, but no thanks

and that's different than the current health insurance system how?

 

[drkenan]

I think it is that they are looking out for the corporations, and so far, I haven't seen proof otherwise.

You got Michael Moore's most recent email blast too? I totally agree with him on this issue.

 

[Pesqueeb]

until the "healthcare" bill addresses and incorporates meaningful malpractice reform, it's a worthless piece of legislation.

SRSLY? Tort reform is such a red herring. This has been discussed here many times. The simple fact of the matter is that medical malpractice suits, payouts, and insurance for Doctors isn't even 2 percent of what we spend on health care. Tort reform is Republican BS to make it look like they are doing something while maintaining the status quo.

http://washingtonindependent.com/55535/tort-reform-unlikely-to-cut-health-care-costs

 

[syadasti]

House Approves Landmark Bill to Extend Health Care to Millions

WASHINGTON — Congress gave final approval on Sunday to legislation that would provide medical coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans and remake the nation’s health care system along the lines proposed by President Obama.

By a vote of 219 to 212, the House passed the bill after a day of tumultuous debate that echoed the epic struggle of the last year. The action sent the bill to President Obama, whose crusade for such legislation has been a hallmark of his presidency.

more...

 

[greengreer]

I am surprised that they even voted. Just last week they were desperately trying to find some sort of loophole so the wouldn't have their names(votes) attached to the passing of the legislation when it fails miserably.

 

[stevew]

you see......now those dead brown people were worth it.

 

[kidwoo]

I am surprised that they even voted. Just last week they were desperately trying to find some sort of loophole so the wouldn't have their names(votes) attached to the passing of the legislation when it fails miserably.

What's going to fail miserably?

 

[Straya]

Well done America.

 

[Pesqueeb]

Well I'll be damned. Welcome to the 20th century America®

 

[splat]

It is going to be interesting , come November, how this plays out.

Because you know the Republicans are going to be using the tactic of XXXX voted for it and is not thinking about you.

and the Democrats are going to be YYYY voted against it and is not thinking about you. etc etc

ought to be very interesting.

 

[drkenan]

I am surprised that they even voted. Just last week they were desperately trying to find some sort of loophole so the wouldn't have their names(votes) attached to the passing of the legislation when it fails miserably.

What part of the legislation is not going to work and for what reasons?

 

[sanjuro]

BTW, I did look up Reconciliation. I noticed it was used 3 times during the Dubya era...

 

[kidwoo]

It is going to be interesting , come November, how this plays out.

Because you know the Republicans are going to be using the tactic of XXXX voted for it and is not thinking about you.

and the Democrats are going to be YYYY voted against it and is not thinking about you. etc etc

ought to be very interesting.

Can some of you, just once..........just once........talk about this bill in the context of what it will/won't accomplish, and not what it ****ing means for the careers of people who voted for or against it?

 

[dante]

Can some of you, just once..........just once........talk about this bill in the context of what it will/won't accomplish, and not what it ****ing means for the careers of people who voted for or against it?

Wait, actually debate WHAT'S IN THE BILL instead of just treating it like a game of political football with winners and losers? Are you really that new to P&WN?

3D. - So you earn more than $250,000/year? Congratulations, I never would've imagined...

(Sec. 9015, as modified by section 10906) Increases after December 31, 2012, the hospital insurance tax rate by .9% for individual taxpayers earning over $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples filing joint tax returns).

(did that get changed by the reconciliation bill, I didn't check)

Or maybe you have a health plan that is worth more than $23,000/year?

(Sec. 9001, as modified by section 10901) Amends the Internal Revenue Code to impose an excise tax of 40% of the excess benefit from certain high cost employer-sponsored health coverage. Deems any amount which exceeds payment of $8,500 for an employee self-only coverage plan and $23,000 for employees with other than self-only coverage (family plans) as an excess benefit. Increases such amounts for certain retirees and employees who are engaged in high-risk professions (e.g., law enforcement officers, emergency medical first responders, or longshoremen). Imposes a penalty on employers and coverage providers for failure to calculate the proper amount of an excess benefit.

I had no idea you were such a high roller....

(you know, *actual* reading of the bill and it's summary, instead of copy/paste from something?)

 

[stevew]

Can some of you, just once..........just once........talk about this bill in the context of what it will/won't accomplish

you'll need about 10 years for that answer.

 

[dante]

Oh, sorry, 3D., you apparently might also have hundreds of thousands of dollars (millions?) in the bank. Because if you have $100,000 in a CD earning 5% interest, you'll have to pay... (wait for it) ... $190 in additional taxes. I know, I know, those poor people with a hundred thousand of dollars in the bank making an unheard-of 5% return having to actually pay $190 in additional taxes.

My heart weeps.

 

[DamienC]

I hope Rush makes good on his promise.

 

[dante]

I hope Rush makes good on his promise.

I'll chip in $5.

 

[Pesqueeb]

Hey Dante,
Might you have links for your quotes? I'm having almost the exact same argument with a Alex Jones-tinfoil type here at work and would love to print that stuff off.
I've been saying teh same thing Kidwoo says to these right wing types. Please, please, just give me one, one, concise, fact based argument against the health care bill. Hell, make the philosophical argument of free market vs. government run so I can think that maybe there still is such a thing as a free thinking conservative. But no, all I get is paranoid hyperbole and conspiracy allegory. I'm pretty firmly convinced that the only people left arguing against health care reform are tinfoil hat Renegade Rick/OjaiDH types.

 

[eaterofdog]

Goddam this is like seeing the wimpy kid throw a haymaker in the bullies face.

Fvck the fvcking corrupt healthcare industry and their two faced repub lackeys.

I am someone who has good insurance and a good paying job and I supported this. Why? Because sometimes you just have to do the right thing.

 

[drkenan]

Man...the Audi forum that I spend a bunch of time on is full on against this while the bike riders are mostly for it. Kind of interesting to see the political differences between those who are in to modding German cars and those who are into riding bikes.

Anyway, unfortunately Rush can still do his radio show from Costa Rica so it doesn't really matter that much.

 

[dante]

Hey Dante,
Might you have links for your quotes? I'm having almost the exact same argument with a Alex Jones-tinfoil type here at work and would love to print that stuff off.
I've been saying teh same thing Kidwoo says to these right wing types. Please, please, just give me one, one, concise, fact based argument against the health care bill. Hell, make the philosophical argument of free market vs. government run so I can think that maybe there still is such a thing as a free thinking conservative. But no, all I get is paranoid hyperbole and conspiracy allegory. I'm pretty firmly convinced that the only people left arguing against health care reform are tinfoil hat Renegade Rick/OjaiDH types.

Click the link in my original post, it's to the .gov summary for the Senate health care bill. The quotes in that post are directly out of that.

Things got tweaked a little bit in the Reconciliation bill, so for specifics on new taxes I was using a Bloomberg article from this morning since the summary of it isn't on thomas.gov yet.

But yes, I totally understand where you're coming from, I'm dealing with my family members who equate citing bullsh!t rightwing talking points with CNN and Reuters, so I (and my wife) have gone straight to the source for things like "who will get tax credits to partially or wholly offset health care coverage" (answer, 100-400% of the poverty level, since below 100% people are covered by Medicaid). It's quite helpful for when my sister starts in on how this is a handout to jobless, lazy Americans (it's not, they have to have some way of being above 100% of the poverty level, usually with a JOB of some sort).

 

[Pesqueeb]

I hope Rush makes good on his promise.

Fvck, I'll help him pack. Ill even take vaction time to do it.

Dante,
Thanks didn't realize your original link was the same thing. Thank you for the Bloomberg link also.

 

[drkenan]

So if Republicans take back the House majority in November, does that mean they can repeal this? Or what if we get a new conservative dumbsh1t president in 2012? I don't know how all this works...can they just straight overturn the legislation?

Reason I ask is because McCain is already threatening:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/22/kathleen-sebelius-predict_n_508003.html

 

[dante]

Man...the Audi forum that I spend a bunch of time on is full on against this while the bike riders are mostly for it. Kind of interesting to see the political differences between those who are in to modding German cars and those who are into riding bikes.

Anyway, unfortunately Rush can still do his radio show from Costa Rica so it doesn't really matter that much.

If the original link didn't work, it's bill HR3590 on here:

http://thomas.gov/

Click on HR3590, and then go to Summary, and you'll find the bill's summary along with the exact areas to search farther into the bill.

(as a side note, the amounts of the plans that are taxable ($8500 and 23000) *are* indexed for inflation.)

(iii) SUBSEQUENT YEARS- In the case of any calendar year after 2013, each of the dollar amounts under clauses (i) and (ii) shall be increased to the amount equal to such amount as in effect for the calendar year preceding such year, increased by an amount equal to the product of--
`(I) such amount as so in effect, multiplied by
`(II) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for such year (determined by substituting the calendar year that is 2 years before such year for `1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof), increased by 1 percentage point.

edit: There's also the CBO analysis on it as well.

 

[Westy]

What's going to fail miserably?

You know, when 'Merica collapses into oblivion just like every other single wealthy nation on the planet.