House passed the Health Bill
- Thread starter bionicarm
- Start date
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by VinnyRaptor
http:///forum/post/3251719
a death blow to liberty? WOW, this is providing liberty not taking it away. what i dont understand is how can the christian GOP not want to provide healthcare for those who cant afford it or cant get it because of a pre-existing condition, especially children. the people who are on the wrong side of this bill are the same ones who opposed the civil rights act and medicare.
How can the christian democrats support killing babies through abortion? See how easily that weak and tired talking point is flippd.Moving on.
The civil rights act was oppossed by southern democrats.....reread you history.
Healthcare is not a right. show me the exact ammendment listed in ouur constitution/bill of rights.
http:///forum/post/3251719
a death blow to liberty? WOW, this is providing liberty not taking it away. what i dont understand is how can the christian GOP not want to provide healthcare for those who cant afford it or cant get it because of a pre-existing condition, especially children. the people who are on the wrong side of this bill are the same ones who opposed the civil rights act and medicare.
How can the christian democrats support killing babies through abortion? See how easily that weak and tired talking point is flippd.Moving on.
The civil rights act was oppossed by southern democrats.....reread you history.
Healthcare is not a right. show me the exact ammendment listed in ouur constitution/bill of rights.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3251689
How? Health insurance in and of itself already manipulates the market in a negative way and most of the healthcare inflation can be traced to 1) overconsumption due to the insurance product on price, & 2) Inducement by providers due to fee for service.
Didn't you see Obama's speech on Thursday I think it was? He flat out said this was the first step towards universal coverage. This "plan" is designed to fail, wait and see.
http:///forum/post/3251689
How? Health insurance in and of itself already manipulates the market in a negative way and most of the healthcare inflation can be traced to 1) overconsumption due to the insurance product on price, & 2) Inducement by providers due to fee for service.
Didn't you see Obama's speech on Thursday I think it was? He flat out said this was the first step towards universal coverage. This "plan" is designed to fail, wait and see.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3251701
Looking at recent polls I would say the only ones that have to worry about the Tea Parties are the reps...
So far the Tea Party is in the Republican corner. I don't know what polls you are looking at but evey one I've seen shows independents favoring the Republicans.
http:///forum/post/3251701
Looking at recent polls I would say the only ones that have to worry about the Tea Parties are the reps...
So far the Tea Party is in the Republican corner. I don't know what polls you are looking at but evey one I've seen shows independents favoring the Republicans.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by lovethesea
http:///forum/post/3251700
okay, I am glad you stated that, I heard the whole 1bill today and it stated it was because they were taking subsidies for thier retiree's insurance drug benefits and would have to consider cutting. What does it mean it is a non cash cost?? and it closes a loop hole for them?? Sorry, I am trying to keep up with this and all of the nonsense that the media and the companies are spewing. I am sure companies will use this as an excuse for all of their problems and the media doesn't know where they stand anymore on this.........imo of course.
That is a liberal's way of trying to convince you what you heard isn't really what you heard. Loophole or not, AT&T will have to find an extra Billion somewhere but the government doesn't care as long as they get the billion
http:///forum/post/3251700
okay, I am glad you stated that, I heard the whole 1bill today and it stated it was because they were taking subsidies for thier retiree's insurance drug benefits and would have to consider cutting. What does it mean it is a non cash cost?? and it closes a loop hole for them?? Sorry, I am trying to keep up with this and all of the nonsense that the media and the companies are spewing. I am sure companies will use this as an excuse for all of their problems and the media doesn't know where they stand anymore on this.........imo of course.
That is a liberal's way of trying to convince you what you heard isn't really what you heard. Loophole or not, AT&T will have to find an extra Billion somewhere but the government doesn't care as long as they get the billion
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3251773
How can the christian democrats support killing babies through abortion? See how easily that weak and tired talking point is flippd.Moving on.
The civil rights act was oppossed by southern democrats.....reread you history.
Healthcare is not a right. show me the exact ammendment listed in ouur constitution/bill of rights.
If he knew history he probably wouldn't be a Democrat
http:///forum/post/3251773
How can the christian democrats support killing babies through abortion? See how easily that weak and tired talking point is flippd.Moving on.
The civil rights act was oppossed by southern democrats.....reread you history.
Healthcare is not a right. show me the exact ammendment listed in ouur constitution/bill of rights.
If he knew history he probably wouldn't be a Democrat
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3251707
I own the 5th page! No, really, sorry for posting so much, I'm just catching up, posting as I go along.
It is non-cash because they don't actually have to pay a fine or anything, it will be reflected in financial statements only. They are saying it is a cost b/c they previously weren't paying tax on a portion of the retiree's drug coverage and now they do, as I understand it anyway. Again, we are talking about less than 1% of their projected annual PROFIT, and they are acting like the sky is falling. btw, their shares were actually up .34% today, can't be hurting that bad, just "good" for media. The deduction/loop hole was closed with this bill so you will hear yelling & screaming about a measley $1B (comparatively). The comparison you won't see is the top 5-10 executive pay compared to the "new" cost of healthcare...
Fact is before the health care fiasco AT&T was able to provide prescription drug coverage to their retirees at a net cost of X. That cost just increaed by a billion. Where do they make it up, increase prices, not in this economy. Cut retiree benefits? Probably going to have to. Wasn't this bill supposed to make health care better?
http:///forum/post/3251707
I own the 5th page! No, really, sorry for posting so much, I'm just catching up, posting as I go along.
It is non-cash because they don't actually have to pay a fine or anything, it will be reflected in financial statements only. They are saying it is a cost b/c they previously weren't paying tax on a portion of the retiree's drug coverage and now they do, as I understand it anyway. Again, we are talking about less than 1% of their projected annual PROFIT, and they are acting like the sky is falling. btw, their shares were actually up .34% today, can't be hurting that bad, just "good" for media. The deduction/loop hole was closed with this bill so you will hear yelling & screaming about a measley $1B (comparatively). The comparison you won't see is the top 5-10 executive pay compared to the "new" cost of healthcare...
Fact is before the health care fiasco AT&T was able to provide prescription drug coverage to their retirees at a net cost of X. That cost just increaed by a billion. Where do they make it up, increase prices, not in this economy. Cut retiree benefits? Probably going to have to. Wasn't this bill supposed to make health care better?
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3251810
"Healthcare is not a right. show me the exact ammendment listed in ouur constitution/bill of rights."
The SCOTUS has already held that where the preamble speaks of "promote the general welfare" the framers were including promoting the health of the People.
Even assuming the Supreme Court did say the general welfare clause included health care (I can't find such a ruling) Congress has the power to tax people to provide for the general welfare, not use the tax as a punitive penalty for not following a government edict.
If these attorneys general use that argument before the court I think they have a good chance of having the provision thrown out.
http:///forum/post/3251810
"Healthcare is not a right. show me the exact ammendment listed in ouur constitution/bill of rights."
The SCOTUS has already held that where the preamble speaks of "promote the general welfare" the framers were including promoting the health of the People.
Even assuming the Supreme Court did say the general welfare clause included health care (I can't find such a ruling) Congress has the power to tax people to provide for the general welfare, not use the tax as a punitive penalty for not following a government edict.
If these attorneys general use that argument before the court I think they have a good chance of having the provision thrown out.
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3251823
Even assuming the Supreme Court did say the general welfare clause included health care (I can't find such a ruling) Congress has the power to tax people to provide for the general welfare, not use the tax as a punitive penalty for not following a government edict.
If these attorneys general use that argument before the court I think they have a good chance of having the provision thrown out.
In Ellis v The City of GrandRapids SCOTUS held that "[T]he concerted effort for renewal and expansion of hospital and medical care centers, as a part of our nation's system of hospitals, is as a public service and use within the highest meaning of such terms. Surely this is in accord with an objective of the United States Constitution: ... promote the general Welfare."
I share your concern about using taxes as a punitive penalty. That's why it is a fine, not a tax. You even are subject to fines for not paying taxes! Fines are routine, and you can find them in almost every bill. However, there may be a potential to completely overburden the court system with individuals seeking their "day in court" over their fine. Makes you think that a single payer system would have been easier.
http:///forum/post/3251823
Even assuming the Supreme Court did say the general welfare clause included health care (I can't find such a ruling) Congress has the power to tax people to provide for the general welfare, not use the tax as a punitive penalty for not following a government edict.
If these attorneys general use that argument before the court I think they have a good chance of having the provision thrown out.
In Ellis v The City of GrandRapids SCOTUS held that "[T]he concerted effort for renewal and expansion of hospital and medical care centers, as a part of our nation's system of hospitals, is as a public service and use within the highest meaning of such terms. Surely this is in accord with an objective of the United States Constitution: ... promote the general Welfare."
I share your concern about using taxes as a punitive penalty. That's why it is a fine, not a tax. You even are subject to fines for not paying taxes! Fines are routine, and you can find them in almost every bill. However, there may be a potential to completely overburden the court system with individuals seeking their "day in court" over their fine. Makes you think that a single payer system would have been easier.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3251848
In Ellis v The City of GrandRapids SCOTUS held that "[T]he concerted effort for renewal and expansion of hospital and medical care centers, as a part of our nation's system of hospitals, is as a public service and use within the highest meaning of such terms. Surely this is in accord with an objective of the United States Constitution: ... promote the general Welfare."
I share your concern about using taxes as a punitive penalty. That's why it is a fine, not a tax. You even are subject to fines for not paying taxes! Fines are routine, and you can find them in almost every bill. However, there may be a potential to completely overburden the court system with individuals seeking their "day in court" over their fine. Makes you think that a single payer system would have been easier.
Interesting, an Eminent Domain case. I'd like to be able to find this someplace more substancial than Wikipedia but like I said it doesn't change the argument.
You have the government fining or taxing you for not doing something they don't have constitutional authority to require. I can see a case for considering a hospital a component of the public good. But telling someone they have to buy health insurance is not a public issue. What if that person has the means to pay thier medical costs out of pocket? What about someone who is healthy and never goes to a doctor? You are essentially making them pay for a private service they don't need. Unfortunatly even if this gets tossed I doubt it crators the whole bill, just this one provision, one of the few that makes any sense.
I also think the regulation stipulating the percentage of insurance premiems going towards patient care may raise an issue. I remember another case where they proposed a law like this and killed the bill because their legal councel said it would have been unconstitutional. I don't remember if it was because it attacked a specific corporation or if it was the specific industry.
http:///forum/post/3251848
In Ellis v The City of GrandRapids SCOTUS held that "[T]he concerted effort for renewal and expansion of hospital and medical care centers, as a part of our nation's system of hospitals, is as a public service and use within the highest meaning of such terms. Surely this is in accord with an objective of the United States Constitution: ... promote the general Welfare."
I share your concern about using taxes as a punitive penalty. That's why it is a fine, not a tax. You even are subject to fines for not paying taxes! Fines are routine, and you can find them in almost every bill. However, there may be a potential to completely overburden the court system with individuals seeking their "day in court" over their fine. Makes you think that a single payer system would have been easier.
Interesting, an Eminent Domain case. I'd like to be able to find this someplace more substancial than Wikipedia but like I said it doesn't change the argument.
You have the government fining or taxing you for not doing something they don't have constitutional authority to require. I can see a case for considering a hospital a component of the public good. But telling someone they have to buy health insurance is not a public issue. What if that person has the means to pay thier medical costs out of pocket? What about someone who is healthy and never goes to a doctor? You are essentially making them pay for a private service they don't need. Unfortunatly even if this gets tossed I doubt it crators the whole bill, just this one provision, one of the few that makes any sense.
I also think the regulation stipulating the percentage of insurance premiems going towards patient care may raise an issue. I remember another case where they proposed a law like this and killed the bill because their legal councel said it would have been unconstitutional. I don't remember if it was because it attacked a specific corporation or if it was the specific industry.
uneverno
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3251895
You have the government fining or taxing you for not doing something they don't have constitutional authority to require. I can see a case for considering a hospital a component of the public good. But telling someone they have to buy health insurance is not a public issue. What if that person has the means to pay thier medical costs out of pocket? What about someone who is healthy and never goes to a doctor? You are essentially making them pay for a private service they don't need. Unfortunatly even if this gets tossed I doubt it crators the whole bill, just this one provision, one of the few that makes any sense.
wwwwait. I'm not sure I follow your argument. It seems like you're saying that the provision you're arguing against, i.e. the enforcement of purchasing health insurance, is also the one you're saying makes the most sense???
I think we both agree, thought probably for vastly different reasons, that this is a bad bill.
Could you clarify please? I don't get it.
http:///forum/post/3251895
You have the government fining or taxing you for not doing something they don't have constitutional authority to require. I can see a case for considering a hospital a component of the public good. But telling someone they have to buy health insurance is not a public issue. What if that person has the means to pay thier medical costs out of pocket? What about someone who is healthy and never goes to a doctor? You are essentially making them pay for a private service they don't need. Unfortunatly even if this gets tossed I doubt it crators the whole bill, just this one provision, one of the few that makes any sense.
wwwwait. I'm not sure I follow your argument. It seems like you're saying that the provision you're arguing against, i.e. the enforcement of purchasing health insurance, is also the one you're saying makes the most sense???
I think we both agree, thought probably for vastly different reasons, that this is a bad bill.
Could you clarify please? I don't get it.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3251940
wwwwait. I'm not sure I follow your argument. It seems like you're saying that the provision you're arguing against, i.e. the enforcement of purchasing health insurance, is also the one you're saying makes the most sense???
I think we both agree, thought probably for vastly different reasons, that this is a bad bill.
Could you clarify please? I don't get it.
I like the idea of making everyone pay for their health insurance. I am sick and tired of paying the way for other people. That doesn't mean I think the government has the authority and one thing I hate more than picking up the tab for freeloaders is the government over stepping their constitutional authority.
This bill was sold to the public as a way to control insurance premiums. But look what it does.
Insurance companies cannot cap benefits and they must cover pre existing conditions. There is also a new fee they have to pay on every policy (don't know how much it is) and there is also a new tax on medical devices costing over 100.00. All that adds up to a whole lot of new costs for the insurance companies.
On the cost savings side we have ??? Making young healthy people buy insurance will help but at the same time the insurance companies are also going to be forced to take on a lot of sick folks who are using the ER's now and there aint crap in this bill to make the hospitals pass along any savings back to the insurance companies.
That is why I oppose the bill. It only deals with one side of the issue and the costs remain and even increase because of the bill. Everyone's insurance premiums are going to jump. If you pay your own way now you will pick up the tab those who who don't. If you pay taxes now they will go up to help give insurance to those who pay ZERO taxes now.
My issue is why no tort reform? Why no buying across state lines? Tort reform helps out the insurers and buying across state lines would help out the people in the low competition states at least but probably a whole lot more. How about we put the same profit restrictions on the drug companies and hospitals they did the insurance companies? That is the only way we are going to drop the cost to the consumer.
We are also expanding Medicaid, we all get to pick up those costs too. And if you think things are bad now Social Security just went into the red. We are going to have to deal with that and fast. Going to see taxes going up big time after the 2012 elections. As far as I am concerned this health care bill comes damn close to treason. I think it is purposely design to make things worse so they can push through a major socialized plan in a few years.
http:///forum/post/3251940
wwwwait. I'm not sure I follow your argument. It seems like you're saying that the provision you're arguing against, i.e. the enforcement of purchasing health insurance, is also the one you're saying makes the most sense???
I think we both agree, thought probably for vastly different reasons, that this is a bad bill.
Could you clarify please? I don't get it.
I like the idea of making everyone pay for their health insurance. I am sick and tired of paying the way for other people. That doesn't mean I think the government has the authority and one thing I hate more than picking up the tab for freeloaders is the government over stepping their constitutional authority.
This bill was sold to the public as a way to control insurance premiums. But look what it does.
Insurance companies cannot cap benefits and they must cover pre existing conditions. There is also a new fee they have to pay on every policy (don't know how much it is) and there is also a new tax on medical devices costing over 100.00. All that adds up to a whole lot of new costs for the insurance companies.
On the cost savings side we have ??? Making young healthy people buy insurance will help but at the same time the insurance companies are also going to be forced to take on a lot of sick folks who are using the ER's now and there aint crap in this bill to make the hospitals pass along any savings back to the insurance companies.
That is why I oppose the bill. It only deals with one side of the issue and the costs remain and even increase because of the bill. Everyone's insurance premiums are going to jump. If you pay your own way now you will pick up the tab those who who don't. If you pay taxes now they will go up to help give insurance to those who pay ZERO taxes now.
My issue is why no tort reform? Why no buying across state lines? Tort reform helps out the insurers and buying across state lines would help out the people in the low competition states at least but probably a whole lot more. How about we put the same profit restrictions on the drug companies and hospitals they did the insurance companies? That is the only way we are going to drop the cost to the consumer.
We are also expanding Medicaid, we all get to pick up those costs too. And if you think things are bad now Social Security just went into the red. We are going to have to deal with that and fast. Going to see taxes going up big time after the 2012 elections. As far as I am concerned this health care bill comes damn close to treason. I think it is purposely design to make things worse so they can push through a major socialized plan in a few years.
V
vinnyraptor
Guest
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3251728
Are you a christian? because if you are I would strongly suggest you read your bible. The bible is very clear on the subject of work, and the subject of giving. Notice I said giving, not taxing, against the people will.
But you ask what would Jesus do. I think he is very clear on what he'd do.
26"His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.
Matthew 25
28" 'Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
so everyone who doesnt have health insurance is "wicked and lazy"? that is lame, untrue, and definately not christian!
http:///forum/post/3251728
Are you a christian? because if you are I would strongly suggest you read your bible. The bible is very clear on the subject of work, and the subject of giving. Notice I said giving, not taxing, against the people will.
But you ask what would Jesus do. I think he is very clear on what he'd do.
26"His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.
Matthew 25
28" 'Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
so everyone who doesnt have health insurance is "wicked and lazy"? that is lame, untrue, and definately not christian!
bionicarm
Active Member
I don't agree with the 'fines' if you refuse to get insurance, but this is not something new. Everyone is lambasting the Feds for adding this fine to the bill, but these types of things happen on a daily basis at the State and City level. I get fined if I don't register or have my car inspected. The city fines me if I violate some 'code' regarding anything I do on my own property. I'm wanting to add an exterior building to my backyard for storage. Because it's over 100 sq. ft., I have to get a useless builders permit from the city. I pay $150 to go downtown, fill out a form, then get a permit to build. The city does nothing in return. Look at toll roads. The taxes I pay for gas are supposed to go towards improving and maintaining the local highways I drive on. The State spent that money elsewhere, so now if we want are highways expanded with more lanes so we don't sit in a parking lot all day, we have to build toll roads, where we are essentially paying twice for that road improvement. There's numerous other examples, but you get my point. Why is it that everyone is getting up in arms about this health care bill, when this same government abuse happens every day at the State and City level, yet no one complains?
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3252101
I don't agree with the 'fines' if you refuse to get insurance, but this is not something new. Everyone is lambasting the Feds for adding this fine to the bill, but these types of things happen on a daily basis at the State and City level. I get fined if I don't register or have my car inspected. The city fines me if I violate some 'code' regarding anything I do on my own property. I'm wanting to add an exterior building to my backyard for storage. Because it's over 100 sq. ft., I have to get a useless builders permit from the city. I pay $150 to go downtown, fill out a form, then get a permit to build. The city does nothing in return. Look at toll roads. The taxes I pay for gas are supposed to go towards improving and maintaining the local highways I drive on. The State spent that money elsewhere, so now if we want are highways expanded with more lanes so we don't sit in a parking lot all day, we have to build toll roads, where we are essentially paying twice for that road improvement. There's numerous other examples, but you get my point. Why is it that everyone is getting up in arms about this health care bill, when this same government abuse happens every day at the State and City level, yet no one complains?
States and cities aren't subject to the 10th amendment. I agree with you on toll roads so I don't use them. In exchange for being allowed the privilage of driving on a public road you agree to certain things which you can be fined for failing to comply with. Cities have the right to have building codes, making sense or not. I remember where I lived in Montana you had to get a permit to change the wax seal on a toilet.
One way around the 10th on this would be to change the tax code so anyone who purchases health insurance would get a big tax credit. It essentally does the same thing but makes it a reward for voluntarily doing the right thing.
http:///forum/post/3252101
I don't agree with the 'fines' if you refuse to get insurance, but this is not something new. Everyone is lambasting the Feds for adding this fine to the bill, but these types of things happen on a daily basis at the State and City level. I get fined if I don't register or have my car inspected. The city fines me if I violate some 'code' regarding anything I do on my own property. I'm wanting to add an exterior building to my backyard for storage. Because it's over 100 sq. ft., I have to get a useless builders permit from the city. I pay $150 to go downtown, fill out a form, then get a permit to build. The city does nothing in return. Look at toll roads. The taxes I pay for gas are supposed to go towards improving and maintaining the local highways I drive on. The State spent that money elsewhere, so now if we want are highways expanded with more lanes so we don't sit in a parking lot all day, we have to build toll roads, where we are essentially paying twice for that road improvement. There's numerous other examples, but you get my point. Why is it that everyone is getting up in arms about this health care bill, when this same government abuse happens every day at the State and City level, yet no one complains?
States and cities aren't subject to the 10th amendment. I agree with you on toll roads so I don't use them. In exchange for being allowed the privilage of driving on a public road you agree to certain things which you can be fined for failing to comply with. Cities have the right to have building codes, making sense or not. I remember where I lived in Montana you had to get a permit to change the wax seal on a toilet.
One way around the 10th on this would be to change the tax code so anyone who purchases health insurance would get a big tax credit. It essentally does the same thing but makes it a reward for voluntarily doing the right thing.
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3252114
States and cities aren't subject to the 10th amendment. I agree with you on toll roads so I don't use them. In exchange for being allowed the privilage of driving on a public road you agree to certain things which you can be fined for failing to comply with. Cities have the right to have building codes, making sense or not. I remember where I lived in Montana you had to get a permit to change the wax seal on a toilet.
One way around the 10th on this would be to change the tax code so anyone who purchases health insurance would get a big tax credit. It essentally does the same thing but makes it a reward for voluntarily doing the right thing.
Look up what happens when this thing kicks in 2014. I read somewhere they would provide a income-based tax credit for most consumers when they buy into these 'exchanges'. I thought it was $250, or somewhere around that.
http:///forum/post/3252114
States and cities aren't subject to the 10th amendment. I agree with you on toll roads so I don't use them. In exchange for being allowed the privilage of driving on a public road you agree to certain things which you can be fined for failing to comply with. Cities have the right to have building codes, making sense or not. I remember where I lived in Montana you had to get a permit to change the wax seal on a toilet.
One way around the 10th on this would be to change the tax code so anyone who purchases health insurance would get a big tax credit. It essentally does the same thing but makes it a reward for voluntarily doing the right thing.
Look up what happens when this thing kicks in 2014. I read somewhere they would provide a income-based tax credit for most consumers when they buy into these 'exchanges'. I thought it was $250, or somewhere around that.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by VinnyRaptor
http:///forum/post/3252065
so everyone who doesnt have health insurance is "wicked and lazy"? that is lame, untrue, and definately not christian!
How dare you as a democrat lecture me on christianity. Until you live it out, shut up...
It is funny democrat kooks SCREAM separation of church and state. Then suddenly they in their uninformed unintelligible logic decide something they're doing is "christian." And suddenly there is no problem with the state doing the "churches" bidding.
http:///forum/post/3252065
so everyone who doesnt have health insurance is "wicked and lazy"? that is lame, untrue, and definately not christian!
How dare you as a democrat lecture me on christianity. Until you live it out, shut up...
It is funny democrat kooks SCREAM separation of church and state. Then suddenly they in their uninformed unintelligible logic decide something they're doing is "christian." And suddenly there is no problem with the state doing the "churches" bidding.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3252124
Look up what happens when this thing kicks in 2014. I read somewhere they would provide a income-based tax credit for most consumers when they buy into these 'exchanges'. I thought it was $250, or somewhere around that.
It is hard to find details on that stuff. I know they are offering subsidies to people earning up to 88 grand for a family of 4 which I find highly offensive. I don't care if it's 25 bux I have a slight problem paying a subsidy to people who earn more money than I do.
I was watching Haley Barbour this morning and he pointed out one part of the fine print in the bill. They said that small business would have to pay up to 750.00 for not covering an employee. However if the cost to provide the insurance was more than 3000.00 the fine jumps to 3000.00. I am not sure what that whole deal is but Ed Rendell didn't dispute it. I think there are going to be lots more little nuggets like that come to light over the next few months.
http:///forum/post/3252124
Look up what happens when this thing kicks in 2014. I read somewhere they would provide a income-based tax credit for most consumers when they buy into these 'exchanges'. I thought it was $250, or somewhere around that.
It is hard to find details on that stuff. I know they are offering subsidies to people earning up to 88 grand for a family of 4 which I find highly offensive. I don't care if it's 25 bux I have a slight problem paying a subsidy to people who earn more money than I do.
I was watching Haley Barbour this morning and he pointed out one part of the fine print in the bill. They said that small business would have to pay up to 750.00 for not covering an employee. However if the cost to provide the insurance was more than 3000.00 the fine jumps to 3000.00. I am not sure what that whole deal is but Ed Rendell didn't dispute it. I think there are going to be lots more little nuggets like that come to light over the next few months.
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3252135
It is hard to find details on that stuff. I know they are offering subsidies to people earning up to 88 grand for a family of 4 which I find highly offensive. I don't care if it's 25 bux I have a slight problem paying a subsidy to people who earn more money than I do.
I was watching Haley Barbour this morning and he pointed out one part of the fine print in the bill. They said that small business would have to pay up to 750.00 for not covering an employee. However if the cost to provide the insurance was more than 3000.00 the fine jumps to 3000.00. I am not sure what that whole deal is but Ed Rendell didn't dispute it. I think there are going to be lots more little nuggets like that come to light over the next few months.
The question I have about this is the definition of 'coverage'. What percentage of the cost does the business have to pick up for each employee? They are supposed to provide these insurance pools and exchanges that are affordable to both individuals and small businesses. So as a small business, if I only had to pay 1% of the cost per employee (so that would be $30/year per employee if I could get a $3,000/year policy), would that be sufficient for me to avoid the fine? I am technically 'covering' the employee by paying for 1% of the cost.
http:///forum/post/3252135
It is hard to find details on that stuff. I know they are offering subsidies to people earning up to 88 grand for a family of 4 which I find highly offensive. I don't care if it's 25 bux I have a slight problem paying a subsidy to people who earn more money than I do.
I was watching Haley Barbour this morning and he pointed out one part of the fine print in the bill. They said that small business would have to pay up to 750.00 for not covering an employee. However if the cost to provide the insurance was more than 3000.00 the fine jumps to 3000.00. I am not sure what that whole deal is but Ed Rendell didn't dispute it. I think there are going to be lots more little nuggets like that come to light over the next few months.
The question I have about this is the definition of 'coverage'. What percentage of the cost does the business have to pick up for each employee? They are supposed to provide these insurance pools and exchanges that are affordable to both individuals and small businesses. So as a small business, if I only had to pay 1% of the cost per employee (so that would be $30/year per employee if I could get a $3,000/year policy), would that be sufficient for me to avoid the fine? I am technically 'covering' the employee by paying for 1% of the cost.