Thread: April 19th "Don't Tread on Me" Campaign

There is no way, not even close, that this falls under commerce. The highway anology, is again, comparing apples to oranges. That is infrastructure. I have to pay fed highway tax because I order goods from Ca and they arrive via intersate 80. Moreover, health care, under this bill is not interstate, it's intrastate. If I live in utah I can't buy health care from CA, unlike car insurance, since we seem to be stuck on roads. Here again, the gov't is forcing you to buy something just because you exist. Plus everyone is ignoring the big issue, 65percent of our country is over weight. Why should I have to pay into a system when I work hard to keep in great shape and then some fat ass with back problems, knee problems, diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease is killing the system. What if uncle sam want to tax your based on your body fat percentage. Then what, how are you going to defend that. Plus no one has mentioned we still don't know what the gov't is going to require to adhere to their parameters. It's simply a huge mess.

Originally Posted by mathew stouffer

There is no way, not even close, that this falls under commerce.

That's clause 3 of Article I Section 8. But who says it has to fall under commerce? Read the introduction and two clauses before that one.

FactCheck.org: What is the percentage of total personal bankruptcies caused by health care bills?

There are all kinds of nonsense studies. What they don't tell you is what caused the medical bills and the person has 5 houses to 10 cars, oh yeah and 6 heart attacks. If you place 30 million people into a system who is going pay for that. It's a simple question which no one can answer.

Originally Posted by mathew stouffer

If you place 30 million people into a system who is going pay for that. It's a simple question which no one can answer.

Who pays for it now? Do you really think those 30 million people never see a doctor for anything? We already pay for them through other taxes and high insurance premiums.

Why should I have to pay into a system when I work hard to keep in great shape and then some fat ass with back problems, knee problems, diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease is killing the system.

That question goes both ways. Why should some "fat ass with back problems, knee problems, diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease" pay for you when you fall off a roof or trip on your treadmill?

Originally Posted by Ken Rowe

Who pays for it now? Do you really think those 30 million people never see a doctor for anything? We already pay for them through other taxes and high insurance premiums.

That question goes both ways. Why should some "fat ass with back problems, knee problems, diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease" pay for you when you fall off a roof or trip on your treadmill?

Precisely, where is the personal responsibility?

I know a number of people who are ineligible for individually purchased private health insurance, starting with my wife: 107 lbs,, non-smoker, no drug use, exercises daily, excellent blood pressure and similar risk factors.... and at 57 was diagnosed with cancer.

In fact every one of the half dozen people I know in this situation are leading reasonably "healthy life styles", their major misbehavior was to lose a job (often after 30 or more years of hard work and steady employment) after experiencing a major medical problem.

It's true that there are a lot of obese, under-active tobacco smoking Americans - but there are also a lot of better behaved people in their 50s and 60s who are falling into the gap between available individually purchased private insurance and Medicare.

There is nothing inherently intellectually dishonest about believing that such a high-risk arrangement is a better state of affairs than living in a place which chooses to insure against such risks via mandatory insurance system.

But if the experience of other advanced economies is any guide you can expect to eventually be on the losing end of such arguments - once mandatory insurance arrangements are in place, the vast majority of voters prefer them to the previous alternatives.

one more study
Obesity Healthcare Costs US 147 Billion Dollars A Year, New Study

Originally Posted by Michael Thomas

I know a number of people who are ineligible for individually purchased private health insurance, starting with my wife: 107 lbs,, non-smoker, no drug use, exercises daily, excellent blood pressure and similar risk factors.... and at 57 was diagnosed with cancer.

In fact every one of the half dozen people I know in this situation are leading reasonably "healthy life styles", their major misbehavior was to loose a job (often after 30 or more years of hard work and steady employment) after experiencing a major medical problem.

It's true that there are a lot of obese, under-active tobacco smoking Americans - but there are also a lot of better behaved people in their 50s and 60s who are falling into the gap between available individually purchased private insurance and Medicare.

There is nothing inherently intellectually dishonest about believing that such a high-risk arrangement is a better state of affairs than living in a place which chooses to insure against such risks via mandatory insurance system.

But if the experience of other advanced economies is any guide you can expect to eventually be on the loosing end of such arguments - once mandatory insurance arrangements are in place, the vast majority of voters prefer them to the previous alternatives.

Existing conditions and no limits for medical conditions should have been the first and only health enactments at this time. The rest to very slowly take place over time...if that. Some form of it.

Also...this countries 30,000,000,000 uninsured and then the people that that have existing conditions and then the folks hampered by limits exceeds the population of most those countries or getting close to it. To dump it on society all at once in the tune of cash needed and then be sustained is outrageous. Where do you think all the Doctors and nurses are going to come from once all these folks start hitting the doctors offices and hospitals just like the abuse that goes on with those that have health insurance.

As far as the above...it took place.....it is law....there is no longer anyway to dispute it. It is their absolute law and is rapidly eating those countries alive with the cost and getting worse every year. It is unsustainable.

Look, n o one is saying that there is not items as mentioned above that needed changing whether it be slightly or completely in some way. Everyone wants the truly needy to be covered for major operations and near fatal diseases and such. There is just better and or slower and more economical ways to do it.

Medicaid, medicare, social security, post office etc etc etc etc etc . They are all about to implode do to lack of funds.

Massachusetts, California is about to implode. Corn wants to defend some things about Mass but for gosh sakes man...the only reason mass has survived was by government bail outs in the tune of billions.

The debt we are in is about to cripple us.

The cap and trade is about to cost a fortune.

The new health care bill is about to choke us to death.

I am certainly n ot trying to be a complete ass and I am sorry if I have offended anyone but please look at the right highlighted statements above. Where does one think the money is going to come from for all this.

And no think of the fact that the regular already in place not mentioned programs and entitlements still have to be taken care of yearly.

What seems to be the problem with figuring out that all of this is non sustainable. There just cannot be any possible way to explain why this is not possible at this time. To bring it on in a thriving, bubbling economy without 10 percent unemployment would have been a different story to absorb and buffer some of these costs and at the same time work in real profitable programs from the government to pull in real money and not by taxes. When the housing market picked back up, unemployment brought down to 3 to 4 percent etc etc etc.

Bringing it on in an economy where last month alone there were 500,000 people coming on to the unemployment rolls.

You don't see a problem with that.

Please folks. Consider the simplicity of what I have said. Don't just come back with it is high time we did this no matter what. Major corporations implement plans for growth over years not a year or a week no matter what they will possible do to the company. Then they don't do it unless the funds are available to do it. They don't do it and hope that the funds might be there later or they are going to price themselves out of business.

What happened to the sound business plan instead of throwing it against the wall and hope it sticks.

I am sorry for your families situation Michael and other families that fall into those same dilemmas Those things should have been changed long ago.

Originally Posted by Ken Rowe

Who pays for it now? Do you really think those 30 million people never see a doctor for anything? We already pay for them through other taxes and high insurance premiums.

That question goes both ways. Why should some "fat ass with back problems, knee problems, diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease" pay for you when you fall off a roof or trip on your treadmill?

Ken

The fact is everyone I know that does not have health insurance only goes to the doctors or hospital when needed. Most of them pay for most if no all their needs. The other large part of those that cannot afford health insurance do not visit the doctor very often and contrary to popular belief most of them do not sit in emergency rooms waiting for free car. Most of them only go when absolutely necessary.

If the hospitals are doing so poorly because of their massive losses then how do you think they are building these massive additions on to their hospitals and hiring vast amounts more nurses, doctors and other hospital staff. Its a frigging scam. The stand alone doctor in his own office is no different than anyone else in this country getting into his own business. It cost a lot of money and high insurance and high risk. Some of their practices take off and they expand and bring more doctors in and some of them starve to death and flounder

The insurance companies are about to be billion and billions of dollars richer. If anyone wants to get into the work force fresh out of college they should get into the insurance industry. It is about to explode with new and continuing business.. Why.......................because the insurance companies that we are going to be forced to by insurance from are already a massively profitable business. That is what there should have been controls put on. To make massive fortunes off of the illnesses of others should be illegal and is a shameful sin as far as I am concerned.

We already pay for all of that now. Why would you want to pay three fold for it.

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

Ken

The fact is everyone I know that does not have health insurance only goes to the doctors or hospital when needed. Most of them pay for most if no all their needs. The other large part of those that cannot afford health insurance do not visit the doctor very often and contrary to popular belief most of them do not sit in emergency rooms waiting for free car. Most of them only go when absolutely necessary.

While the people you refer to "do not sit in emergency rooms waiting for free care", how many of them actually pay their complete bills? I would bet not many. The rest of us end up paying for the care of those who simply let their bills go to collections.

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

If the hospitals are doing so poorly because of their massive losses then how do you think they are building these massive additions on to their hospitals and hiring vast amounts more nurses, doctors and other hospital staff. Its a frigging scam. The stand alone doctor in his own office is no different than anyone else in this country getting into his own business. It cost a lot of money and high insurance and high risk. Some of their practices take off and they expand and bring more doctors in and some of them starve to death and flounder

I'm not sure where you live but around here the smaller community hospitals and clinics closed years ago because they could not sustain themselves due to the massive losses they took every year. They couldn't hire descent doctors because they couldn't pay them enough to cover their student loans. If you're talking about the major medical centers in metropolitan areas most are expanding with grants from the Federal government. Money we're paying already in the form of taxes.

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

The insurance companies are about to be billion and billions of dollars richer. If anyone wants to get into the work force fresh out of college they should get into the insurance industry. It is about to explode with new and continuing business.. Why.......................because the insurance companies that we are going to be forced to by insurance from are already a massively profitable business. That is what there should have been controls put on. To make massive fortunes off of the illnesses of others should be illegal and is a shameful sin as far as I am concerned.

We already pay for all of that now. Why would you want to pay three fold for it.

In the original plan with the public option this would not be happening. But, the Republicans didn't want the public option. The Republicans wanted the private sector (insurance companies) to make money from the new program. And if the Republicans get their way, they will.

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

If the hospitals are doing so poorly because of their massive losses then how do you think they are building these massive additions on to their hospitals

Most hospitals are incorporated as non-profit entities. For the additions and new buildings etc. they raise restricted gifts that are part of a capital campaign that runs 4-8 years (the first 2-3 years aren't publicized - they are used to cultivate major gifts). The major donors provide the bulk of the funds in exchange for naming rights to the new construction. Being "restricted" gifts they can not legally be used for any purpose other than allowed by the donor.

For operating revenue, most major donors set up foundations or endowment funds where the residual is used to fund current operations. Perhaps you've noticed in the past couple of years that most investments haven't done so well. A number of my non-profit clients saw their operating revenues drop significantly in 2008 and 2009 as the value of their endowments went underwater. In those cases, even though they have $50m in the bank, they legally can't touch that money. They can only spend the interest, dividends, and appreciation gains, all of which have been scarce until recently.

I got a letter from my insurance company that said my rates were going up and the coverage is going down due to obamacare. And that's a fact!

Originally Posted by James Duffin

I got a letter from my insurance company that said my rates were going up and the coverage is going down due to obamacare...!

... as opposed to the letters you got for the last five years, that said that your coverage was going up and your rates were going down...

Originally Posted by Michael Thomas

... as opposed to the letters you got for the last five years, that said that your coverage was going up and your rates were going down...

You do not know what you are talking about as regards to my situation. My rates have been steady and the coverage consistent over the past three years. Like I said it is a fact. Do you have a fact to share about my insurance coverage? If not......

Originally Posted by James Duffin

I got a letter from my insurance company that said my rates were going up and the coverage is going down due to obamacare. And that's a fact!

I got a letter from my phone company saying they were adding a regulatory compliance fee because of the telecom act of 1996. They didn't mention that this fee was NOT a regulatory fee or government imposed fee or pass-thru fee - it was just something they made up to add an additional fee to our bills. And that's a fact!

Two things:
- The plural of "anecdote" is not "data"
- Companies lie (or liberally interpret the facts to suit their narrative)

It could be the case that your rates are going up because they think the health care legislation will cost more money. Or it could be a convenient excuse. I suppose neither of us will know unless we can audit their books.

That is an opinion not a fact about my insurance coverage. And what does your phone bill have to do with anything? I am a bit tired of excuses about how this is going to help me save money. I am not so gullible to believe that you can add 30 million people to health care and cost go down. If this was so why not add all Canadians and Mexicans and then it will be free....after all more is cheaper....right?

Originally Posted by James Duffin

I got a letter from my insurance company that said my rates were going up and the coverage is going down due to obamacare. And that's a fact!

Please scan and post the letter.

Anyone fortunate enough not to have seen their health insurance premiums increase substantially year after year throughout the last decade is having a very unusual experience:



In fact, I don't know personally anyone for whom this has been the case.

I'm not saying it's impossible, just that if it's the case that someone has not experienced any decrease in coverage or increase in premiums over the last few years there is something highly unusual about either the insurer or the insurance - if I had such a policy I would be taking a very hard look at what's what's covered, the co-pay percentage, the yearly and lifetime coverage limits, and the complaint history of such an insurer, because either they have perfected a very effective method of not paying claims,or they have invented some kind of anti-gravity field to control medical costs.

Originally Posted by James Duffin

That is an opinion not a fact about my insurance coverage. And what does your phone bill have to do with anything? I am a bit tired of excuses about how this is going to help me save money. I am not so gullible to believe that you can add 30 million people to health care and cost go down. If this was so why not add all Canadians and Mexicans and then it will be free....after all more is cheaper....right?

I made no opinion about your insurance coverage. Please show me where I did. You received a letter - I'll trust that you're accurately reporting its contents. That doesn't mean those contents are a true and accurate account. It could be true but we can't know that it is without the evidence. Just as I am willing to believe you received such a letter based only on your written assertion here, you're willing to believe that cost increases are due to the health care legislation based solely on their assertion. For my belief, it's because I don't see how you have much a motive to lie. On the other hand, I can see how your insurance company does. It doesn't prove they're lying, but because of that motive I'm less willing to take their word for it than I am to believe you actually received the letter.

I don't know if it will save money or not, but I understand the math of the people who say it will, and they have a plausible argument. However there are a lot of forward-looking assumptions and future actions that need to be put in place for those savings to materialize. If those things don't materialize then the savings likely won't either. Based on their track record, I have little faith that all of those pieces will be put into place in the future.

As for your gullibility, I can't say one way or the other. I do know this though. Those 30 million people are already in the health care system. My mother was one of them. She was unable to afford insurance and her health deteriorated to the point where she had serious complications and multiple cardiac surgeries on the public dime. The last six months of her life saw several major medical interventions, all paid for by the safety net care pool. We paid for her urgent care indirectly through higher taxes and higher medical costs (reflected as higher premiums and co-pays).

The question is, would her care have been less urgent and less costly had she had access to routine, preventative medical care? Could she have avoided the emergency room admissions for pneumonia if she were able to see a primary care physician for her lung infections? Would she have avoided major cardiac surgeries had she been able to afford her medications? I don't know, but actuaries say that there are a significant number of individuals that place a disproportionate burden on the health care system. At the same time, there are a number of healthy individuals that opt not to purchase health insurance, also placing a burden on it (non-participation is not a neutral action).

Insurance works best when there is a wide pool to spread the risk. By mixing in healthy individuals with the person unfortunate enough to be diagnosed with cancer, the latter doesn't have to bear the cost of treatment singly. This is the rationale behind the individual mandate. If health insurance companies are required to accept without respect to pre-existing conditions, they need some assurance that people won't decline purchasing health insurance until they get sick.

You are kidding.....right? LMFAO.....But I will send you the bill to pay if you like.

If you don't believe me then prove me wrong by quoting what is in the obamacare bill that proves me wrong. Since you are so gung-ho I am sure you have read it cover to cover.

Originally Posted by James Duffin

.
I will send you the bill to pay if you like.
.
.

.
I've Never Meet a Liberal with a Problem ( or a perceived one ) that My Money Would Not Solve.
.

Originally Posted by Corn Walker

I made no opinion about your insurance coverage. Please show me where I did. You received a letter - I'll trust that you're accurately reporting its contents. That doesn't mean those contents are a true and accurate account. It could be true but we can't know that it is without the evidence. Just as I am willing to believe you received such a letter based only on your written assertion here, you're willing to believe that cost increases are due to the health care legislation based solely on their assertion. For my belief, it's because I don't see how you have much a motive to lie. On the other hand, I can see how your insurance company does. It doesn't prove they're lying, but because of that motive I'm less willing to take their word for it than I am to believe you actually received the letter.

I don't know if it will save money or not, but I understand the math of the people who say it will, and they have a plausible argument. However there are a lot of forward-looking assumptions and future actions that need to be put in place for those savings to materialize. If those things don't materialize then the savings likely won't either. Based on their track record, I have little faith that all of those pieces will be put into place in the future.

As for your gullibility, I can't say one way or the other. I do know this though. Those 30 million people are already in the health care system. My mother was one of them. She was unable to afford insurance and her health deteriorated to the point where she had serious complications and multiple cardiac surgeries on the public dime. The last six months of her life saw several major medical interventions, all paid for by the safety net care pool. We paid for her urgent care indirectly through higher taxes and higher medical costs (reflected as higher premiums and co-pays).

The question is, would her care have been less urgent and less costly had she had access to routine, preventative medical care? Could she have avoided the emergency room admissions for pneumonia if she were able to see a primary care physician for her lung infections? Would she have avoided major cardiac surgeries had she been able to afford her medications? I don't know, but actuaries say that there are a significant number of individuals that place a disproportionate burden on the health care system. At the same time, there are a number of healthy individuals that opt not to purchase health insurance, also placing a burden on it (non-participation is not a neutral action).

Insurance works best when there is a wide pool to spread the risk. By mixing in healthy individuals with the person unfortunate enough to be diagnosed with cancer, the latter doesn't have to bear the cost of treatment singly. This is the rationale behind the individual mandate. If health insurance companies are required to accept without respect to pre-existing conditions, they need some assurance that people won't decline purchasing health insurance until they get sick.

Number 1

Why do you say that. That is another fallacy. The more people with health insurance , for one, the more that will be using it because "Why not, I have it I might as well use it to death". oops, little boo boo, gotta go to the doctors and have him kiss it. That alone will drive cost up because it depletes the funds that would have been there for the other things in the health care bill. Everybody uses health insurance when they have it. If they have a fever, a bad splinter, smash there leg and once limped around for a while now gets xrayed etc etc etc etc.

Number 2.

Health insured folks over time since its inception as far as folks getting it and using it has risen steadly over time and keeps getting more expensive. Yes there have been times like now the those rolls fell off due to recession and job loss, what ever.

Number 3

The number of folks going to the ER with no coverage has about remained the same with gains and looses over time but as time went on with more employers giving at least partial coverage the ones going without has not really changed.

Number 4

The insurance companies are going to have to accept no limits and that means for anyone no ,matter what the sickness, disease, what ever. The little things that they did not cover before cannot be denied because it was pre existing and the little things they only paid part of will continue to be paid for until time ends that means all illnesses, forever. Don't you see it rising by billions a year
Lots more numbers but I will stop there

Blue highlight above.

Which is it that you think you are going to save money on. Paying for millions of people to have health insurance that truly cannot afford and there are millions, don't know the real number and no one does but I can guaranty you millions of people. Then there are those that will not be able to afford it all and will get credits, tax credits, which they never paid anything into federal tax anyway or if they did they got a refund before.

Lets see. Lets take 3 million mothers or mother and fathers with two kids or more , lets say family plan and we will only figure it by 500.00 for health insurance coverage for a family plan to keep it simple............ 500.00 x 3.000,000.00 = 1,500,000,000.00 and lets remove all caps and pre existing conditions from them. Now that is not the only payout. The doctors and nurses get paid as well as the building, lights supplies etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc , the insurance company takes their cut, the families are poorer and more than likely more things going wrong and possibly poorer upkeep due to being poor (not knocking poor folks). 180 agencies, not just the 16,000 IRS folks and all there costs. Illegals still going to hospitals and cannot be refused care.

Lets go back

1,500,000,000 for the family plans is monthly whether they are sick or not. You are not paying anywhere near that in the absolute slightest now but yo will be. 1,500,000,000 x 12 months 18,000,000,000 plus plus plus plus plus plus plus.

Look I was going to go on for days but I am tired so you can be happy now that I stopped cause it would have went on for pages. The costs are absolutely staggering and will still have to pay for all other bills for gov services and protection and and and and and and and we have to pay for our debt we are in with the hundreds of billions if not trillions in interest over the years at the same time.


If you you don't get it yet than you absolutely never will. Stop reading the bill. There is not enough money in that bill for anything. You will be paid out to death

AND LETS NOT FORGET ALL THE GETTING OLDER, OLD AND REALLY OLD FOLKS THAT ARE HERE, GONNA BE HERE AND WILL FOR DECADES THAT WE WILL STILL HAVE TO PAY FOR AND THEY WON'T BE PAYING ANYTHING TO ANYWHERE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A FEW IN RELATIVE TERMS

Not yelling, just highlighting with caps. Stop reading the bill and the plans. There is nothing in there than plans for this massive amount of funding that is about to take place for ever.............................

Do you understand that

I talk in simple terms on here and am not going to exhaust myself talking in non layman's terms on a message board. I don't even care about spelling on here.

Before you or anyone responds please just take time and mull it over and stop looking in the bill. It tells you nothing on how this will really be handled. Not just health care but everything. You want to live in a foreign country that already has it go but don't bring the rest of us down with you. I know you just want to just talk health care and the new bill. The rest of life is out there to and will be right along with health care. Add them up. Trillions of dollars. Trillions of dollars. More for that than most countries entire budgets in a decade, debt, health care wars (they will be around a long long long long long time and when they go away there will be more), old folks (that figure alone from the time one cannot work anymore till they drop and then the folks getting to that age and then the folks like me that are following them to there grave) staggering figures, postal and gov workers retiring and beiong paid till death etc etc etc etc. This list alone is frightening.


Think about it folks then think of why everyone in the US should appose this until some real concrete plan of action with no crippling affect on 300,000,000 people.. ..Yes.... 300,000,000 people with no caps and no pre existing conditions and paying for those that cannot afford it every single month for eternity until one buy one everyone drops of old age. And the rest of the funding we must do for everything else on a yearly basis with all the interest.

Freaking staggering.

I keep saying I am sorry, so once again, I am sorry for the rant and any toe stepping I may have done.

There seem to be some misconceptions floating around in this discussion about what this bill does and does not mandate, for example there is some confusion over the difference between the requirement to enroll plan members irrespective of pre-existing conditions and requirements for what is covered under a plan once someone is enrolled - the fact that you can't discriminate in the first case does not mean that you required to provide unlimited care in the second.

For example the "exchanges" which will be pooling individual and small business purchasers to improve their bargaining power will be offering four different levels of insurance, which will essentially range from plans roughly equivalent to "high deductible catastrophic coverage" to plans which offer comprehensive access and lower co-pays similar to that provided by provided by "Premium PPOs".

(This is the way that supplemental Medicare plans are marketed today - insurers can offer plans at several different levels of coverage but the benefits at a given level of coverage have to meet specified standards at each plan level, which makes it far easier for consumers to compare choices - you are comparing apples with apples without reading through pages and pages of fine print and mysteriously arcane rules).

So while the exchanges cannot discriminate in enrollment on the basis of pre-existing conditions, all subscribers to a given plan will receive the same level of benefits - and only the level of benefits - mandated under the plan level they choose, and for example people who want low- deductible plans covering a wide range of services are going to have to pay up front for the privilege, while people who are willing to shoulder the risk of higher deductibles will pay substantially lower premiums in return for accepting a higher risk of unpredictable medical expenses.

Originally Posted by Michael Thomas

There seem to be some misconceptions floating around in this discussion about what this bill does and does not mandate, for example there is some confusion over the difference between the requirement to enroll plan members irrespective of pre-existing conditions and requirements for what is covered under a plan once someone is enrolled - the fact that you can't discriminate in the first case does not mean that you required to provide unlimited care in the second.

For example the "exchanges" which will be pooling individual and small business purchasers to improve their bargaining power will be offering four different levels of insurance, which will essentially range from plans roughly equivalent to "high deductible catastrophic coverage" to plans which offer comprehensive access and lower co-pays similar to that provided by provided by "Premium PPOs".

(This is the way that supplemental Medicare plans are marketed today - insurers can offer plans at several different levels of coverage, the benefits at a given level of coverage have to meet specified standards at each plan level, which makes it far easier for consumers to compare choices - you are comparing apples with apples without reading through pages and pages of fine print and mysteriously arcane rules).

So while the exchanges cannot discriminate in enrollment on the basis of pre-existing conditions, all subscribers to a given plan will receive the same level of benefits - and only the level of benefits - mandated under the plan level they choose, and for example people who want low- deductible plans covering a wide range of services are going to have to pay up front for the privilege, while people who are willing to shoulder the risk of higher deductibles will pay substantially lower premiums in return for accepting a higher risk of unpredictable medical expenses.

And if someone can only afford the minimum with a high deductible.........you pay for the rest and they will still go bankrupt and and and and ..They will be in the emergency room when their plan does not cover something. What you are telling me is that they will be forced to buy insurance , for one, they cannot afford, they will be forced because they cannot afford it to go to an emergency room and be taken care of anyway and or be billed for it and put them into finacial strate anyway, so you are saying the new bill is worthless because all will not be covered.

Lets see

Be forced to buy something and give up something in life ...like food.

What they cannot afford in payment for insurance ...you will be paying.

Have a plane that does not cover them for everything forcing them into the poor farm.

I guess I will stop there

What you are saying is everyone in the country is about to pay a fortune for something that is pretty much useless and does not do what it was intended to do which is get everyone covered, be affordable, won't be, and the only ones that will be covered for anything that could possibly go wrong with them is the poor families which this is the only thing Obama plan was meant for anyway and everyone else is in the same **** with a massive bill to pay and still be going broke because they could only afford to pay for a particular level of coverage.

Michael.

What do you think I have been bitching about. It is going to cost an absolute fortune. Raise fees and taxes on everything only to hurt the middle or lower middle income and only help the people living under the poverty level. The upper income folks will not be harmed other than some of their hard earned money but the middle income will be in the same boat they are in now. The lower middle income are going to get screwed altogether and the folks that cannot afford health care are the only ones to benefit at all. And be smiling all the way to the hospital knowing their life won't be affected at all.

It is an absolute sham from a flim flam man that snowed the roughly 50% (maybe a lot less) into this is a wonderful plan for everyone.

Keep talking about it and you keep exposing more. I said it would take pages and pages to list all the cost and bad that will come of this. You are just keeping me from typing. Everyone that thinks this is a wonderful plan keeps on posting why it ios a shitty plan and does nothing for the multitude but hurt them...just the poor make out. Everyone else lives a harder life with a tremendous less amount of money for them to put away for that rainy day, vacations, that extra special gift they planned on buying their deserving wife, that car repair, that new car payment, that house they were saving for, less food on their table, that new pair of sneakers for the boy that wears them out all to soon, retirement etc etc etc etc. You name it. That is a freaking wonderful plan.

Thanks

Originally Posted by Michael Thomas

.
There seem to be some misconceptions floating around in this discussion about what this bill does and does not mandate,

.

Yes There IS !

for example there is some confusion
all subscribers to a given plan will receive the same level of benefits -

..
The HHS Secretary Has almost 2 years before The Standards are established.

#16 of the attachment already caps out of pocket expenses @ $2,000 an Individual and $4,000 for a Family. ( Low, Medium or High End as you call the Levels)

Governmental One Size Fits ( nobody) All .


.
.

Shouldn't this thread be somewhere else? In the rantings of the Tea Party forum or something?

The insurance companies are doing now what the credit card companies did just before the new regs. kicked in, Fleecing America! As a small business owner I can assure you that I pay enough for health ins. to keep a small village in Africa well. About 32% of my operating expenses are insurance related.

IMO, one of the biggest mistakes many critics of this program make is the assumption that somehow the middle and working classes are the big losers under such a program - when in fact they are the biggest winners.

First, working and middle-class families have the most to lose.

The truly well off ( those with a net worth of $5 million or more outside of their personal residence) can self-insure (including the cost of long-term care should they become disabled) while and low net worth individual have little to lose economically should illness force them into bankruptcy. (Not that bankruptcy is a bed of roses for anyone; the emotional costs can be very high, and under the new bankruptcy laws you may find that your wages garnished for the next five years).

But families with substantial savings and/or significant equity their personal residence but without sufficient wealth to self-insure have everything to lose - there is a substantial likelihood that a serious illness during the period of involuntary uninsurance will cause them to lose the precarious financial stability they've acquired during an entire working lifetime.

Second, working and middle classes individuals and families have the most to lose if they attempt to improve their situation throughout entrepreneurial effort or change to a better job which creates an insurance gap - the affluent can afford to take such chances without risk of complete financial disaster, and low net worth individuals have little or nothing nothing to lose from gambling on improving their situation - so once again it's the working or middle class family that's often going to be putting their life savings and future financial security at risk of medical bankruptcy if they try to improve their situation.

This strikes me as completely perverse and counterproductive for both working and middle-class families and society at large - these are people you want to assist in their attempts to improve their situation (and strength of the national economy), instead, the current system often discourages entrepreneurial effort or taking a better job.

So if you are working, or middle class individual - and especially if you are self-employed or experiencing "job lock" resulting from insurance concerns - the new insurance law is likely one of of the best things that ever happened it you.

And once working and middle-class families realize that they no longer have to live in fear of medical bankruptcy, most will consider calls for return to a system in which only they - but not the comfortably affluent or the very poor - are forced to run such risks to be highly unreasonable.

Of course there will always be people who prefer to assume such risks - even for their children - and feel it is "unfair" that they are not allowed to do so.

But the evidence from every economy where such risks are limited is that a large majority of citizens prefer to pay the costs of being protected from such risks, and strongly believe that since they will have to pick up the tab for providing medical care to the "voluntarily uninsured" it's both "fair" and reasonable to require everyone to carry insurance, and thus assume at least some of the cost of their medical care and of the lifestyle choices which influence that cost.

----------------------------

I don't know exactly how so many conservatives came to be so opposed to the current plan (which bears a strong resemblance to previous Republican proposals, back when the Republicans were interested in presenting serious alternatives to Democratic proposals instead of soap-boxing about "socialism") nd a lot of such opposition simply doesn't make sense, as for example when the same people who believe that everyone ought pay at least some federal income tax so they "have at least some skin in the game" oppose requiring voluntarily uninsured people to purchase insurance for the same reason.

But I suspect that it often has less to do a specific policy concerns than with the conviction that government is inherently is designed to screw the working and middle classes, and that any proposal that comes out of Washington inherently has to be designed to serve the interests of the very rich and the verhimy poor at the expense of everyone else.

However while it's reasonable to be pretty cynical about the results of the political process, I don't think it's reasonable to assume out of hand that every result of that process worsens the situation of working and middle-class families.

Simply based on their own track record, there is no way the feds can pull this off. I have listed a couple of beauties myself and the website is pretty interesting.

amtrak
No student left behind
Social security
Medicare
medicade
War on drugs
Boarder security
F35
prohobition
our fed tax code
Broken Government | Failures by Full List

This is good one also

The federal government’s 100% failure rate « Crush Liberalism

You're wasting your time, Michael. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. The nearly complete lack of coherence in tea party beliefs and attitudes coupled with the anger and vitriol they use to express them should have been a sign that these people aren't interested in having a reasoned debate.

Go to a tea party rally - it's incredibly enlightening just talking to them. Not all of them are the angry Obama=Hitler misspelled sign-carrying types. Most are quite civil in their protestation. Talking to them though I'm struck that this supposedly better educated (according to the latest NYT/CBS poll) group has no ability to articulate what it is they're opposed to. Instead the people I've spoken with have talked vaguely about "taking our country back" and "freedoms" and "getting back the constitution."

This is visceral for them, and they don't know why. But I can tell you that Fox News and the GOP are playing them for all it's worth. From the lies they spread about jail time to the lies they spread about death panels, they're more than happy to provide the fuel for those seeking out justification for their feelings. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

Originally Posted by Michael Greenwalt

Shouldn't this thread be somewhere else? In the rantings of the Tea Party forum or something?

.
.
Or...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America_(radio_network)

Oops, They Went Bust Didn't They?
.

Originally Posted by Michael Thomas

.

First, working and middle-class families have the most to lose.
.

.
Michael,

I understand your heart is in the right place.

But you are basing your beliefs on Political Speeches.
* not The Passed Legislation.

Until The Definitions and Standards are Written Nobody Knows What they Will be.
* as it stands now there are holes big enough in The Law to float a Battle Ship Through.
.

Originally Posted by Corn Walker

This is visceral for them, and they don't know why. But I can tell you that Fox News and the GOP are playing them for all it's worth. From the lies they spread about jail time to the lies they spread about death panels, they're more than happy to provide the fuel for those seeking out justification for their feelings. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

Well dang it, if I only saved, or knew how to record interviews. Last night I swear the question about going to jail, was asked of Nancy Pelocie [ Sp? ]
I am almost positive she stated yes that could happen if someone don't pay.

Originally Posted by Corn Walker

. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
.

From the lies they spread about jail .

Originally Posted by Dan Harris

I am almost positive she stated yes that could happen if someone don't pay.

.

.
HotAirPundit: Nancy Pelosi Dodges Question About Jail Time For Not Buying Health Insurance
.

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

.

.
HotAirPundit: Nancy Pelosi Dodges Question About Jail Time For Not Buying Health Insurance
.

Thanks Billy. That one is close to the one I saw last night.

On to the Death panels, Now do we have the one where Barrock the great savour of all stated someting about giving an old sick person a pill.

Originally Posted by Dan Harris

Now do we have the one where Barrock the great savour of all stated someting about giving an old sick person a pill.

.
.
YouTube - Obama to Jane Sturm: Hey, take a pill
.
.

Don't get me wrong, I will probably benefit in the short run form the health care law. I have a 24 year olf son who works hard. He has three part-time jobs. He still lives at home, he's trying to find something full-time, but with all of the hours that he works, none of the jobs provide health care and his total pay won't allow him to afford to purchase it.

In the long term though, he and the rest of the country will be burdened by a tax debt that will be staggering. Yes, Bush left a trillion dollar deficit. But Obama is on his way to a multi-trillion dollar deficit. Some day, it will have to be paid. Maybe it's just me, but borrowing from China doesn't seem like a great idea.

I guess I'd have a lot more faith in the health care law if Congress hadn't exempted itself from it

Originally Posted by Corn Walker

You're wasting your time, Michael. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. The nearly complete lack of coherence in tea party beliefs and attitudes coupled with the anger and vitriol they use to express them should have been a sign that these people aren't interested in having a reasoned debate.

Go to a tea party rally - it's incredibly enlightening just talking to them. Not all of them are the angry Obama=Hitler misspelled sign-carrying types. Most are quite civil in their protestation. Talking to them though I'm struck that this supposedly better educated (according to the latest NYT/CBS poll) group has no ability to articulate what it is they're opposed to. Instead the people I've spoken with have talked vaguely about "taking our country back" and "freedoms" and "getting back the constitution."

This is visceral for them, and they don't know why. But I can tell you that Fox News and the GOP are playing them for all it's worth. From the lies they spread about jail time to the lies they spread about death panels, they're more than happy to provide the fuel for those seeking out justification for their feelings. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

Whats with the tea party garbage

Whats with thinking everyone has hatred in them

Why are you calling people liars

Everything everyone is saying has something somewhere to back it up.

Just becasue your opinion is one way based on which part of this you wish to absorb the other folks are showing you things that you choose not to absorb

Do you think that any of the folks against this plan want to see people suffering....I think not

Do you think that everyone against this plan is a racist and not just a racist but they hate the poor folks. I think not

Where do you get all this garabge from

Why are you against an enormous group (which you act like is a little band of liars and hooligans) that just happen to call themselves the tea party. I for one am not a "member" of the tea party but I respect there right to have a difference of opinion unlike yourself.

As far as the go to jail.........Don't pay for health insurance and then refuse to pay the fines and or penalties to the IRS (which will have soul charge of the situation whether you believe it to be true or not) and you will go to jail and be hounded to death and audited and anything else they wish to do to you like confiscate any goodies you may have to pay for the fines, penalties and health insurance. You don' think that will happen????? Not to be rude and blunt but you better wake up, have a strong cup of coffee, smell the roses and get back to reality and start thinking straight. The IRS has the ability and authority to my your life a miserable freaking hell and do not ever doubt it.

Do you thionk the millions of people that do agree with, what do you call them, tea baggers are a bunch of freaking useless idiot Americans that do nothing but sit around all day and night and watch Fox news. My God man. It is one news channel. I watch it and CNN and others all the time. Most of them talk about the same things. Does that make them all bad? Now if you are referring to Shawn Hannity then, well, he is like a Catholic, Islamic, Baptist, Republican or Democrat extremist. He is overboard on everything he talks about. ITS A NEWS PROGRAM. He is an actor (even though he believes his extremism) he gets ratings for being outrageous.

Do you really think that your view is the only view and everything that comes out of your brain cells is the only comprehensible way things could possibly be.

I have repeatedly stated countless items that are bad about this program with only the poor will benefit from. Everything I stated has been true. It is repeated by The dems on short blurbs on TV and in other forms of news and Repubs and liberals as well.

Am I possibly somewhat wrong or a little off on anything I stated. I am absolutely sure I am. The basics of it is that this program won't hurt the middle to upper middle class with the exception of much, much higher taxes and fees on everything but they will still be able to afford decent health coverage. The lower middle class will be destroyed and moved into the or close to poverty level and will only be able to afford the cheapest most useless insurance that will put them in a poor farm as it does now but the poor will be completely covered. Why is it that every American must buy health insurance and pay massive fees and taxes and in essence the only folks this helps is the poor. This was suppose to make i affordable for everyone, not free for many and the rest get screwed. The poor can already go to the emergency room and be paid for and there is no such thing as pre existing conditions or limits. They get worked on until they are better...you pay for it now. Why do you want to pay a massive amount more for it all and still have worse coverage then them. why do you want individual to be forced to by cheap health in surance and possible a cheap family plan that covers them for crap and then have to pay the rest themselves and possibly go bankrupt and the poor folks have no toll against them at all. Where is your head at.

Taxes, fees, penalties, debt interest, ongoing programs wars, debt that we have to pay back (already mentioned the interest), the mass amount of government employess for all 180 plus departments to be created to hanndle all this, 16000 or so IRS agent (for a little fun...Gestapo, and not much different) and all their expense and retirement and benefits and autos, and insurance, and sick days, and holidays and and and and everything imaginable that brings to bare on the economy (our wallets)

The burden on our wallets for those things already paid for such as health care for those that cannot pay there hospital and doctor bills and those that file bankruptcy and all of the associated items will be looked back on as "why the hell did we not settle for that and just fix things like no caps and no denial for pre existing conditions.

A lot of people have brought forth a plethora of information. Something to combat everything you keep coming up with and like the Dems who brought this on us................"Oh well, something had to be done"


Which words do you not understand about socialism, yes, people watching out for one another and lending a hand as is done now ....to....A full blown Social Republic such as the about to flounder, for some reason or other , praised, European countries or the collapsed USSR, Cuba. All floundered and the rest about to just as California and Mass are about to.

Your last post again

"You're wasting your time, Michael. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. The nearly complete lack of coherence in tea party beliefs and attitudes coupled with the anger and vitriol they use to express them should have been a sign that these people aren't interested in having a reasoned debate.

Go to a tea party rally - it's incredibly enlightening just talking to them. Not all of them are the angry Obama=Hitler misspelled sign-carrying types. Most are quite civil in their protestation. Talking to them though I'm struck that this supposedly better educated (according to the latest NYT/CBS poll) group has no ability to articulate what it is they're opposed to. Instead the people I've spoken with have talked vaguely about "taking our country back" and "freedoms" and "getting back the constitution."

This is visceral for them, and they don't know why. But I can tell you that Fox News and the GOP are playing them for all it's worth. From the lies they spread about jail time to the lies they spread about death panels, they're more than happy to provide the fuel for those seeking out justification for their feelings. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic."

OK...I will try to be a little nice (only because there are some fools hanging with the te party gatherers)

What a pompous sounding, ignorant sounding, condescending sounding, arrogant sounding, blithering, belittling fool. You have a touch of edumication and suddenly you are trying to talk like you are the only one that has gone to school in life and are doing it in you post to try to belittle everyone because for some strange reason they are all complete and utter idiots.

Who in the world do you think you are.

Did you even read what you said. You are talking about a tremendous amount of your fellow men.

So which are you Corn

A man that for some reason has felt held down all his life ? A man that believes even though he works for a living that everyone owes him something ? A man so blinded by the left that he cannot put 2+2 together ? A man that hates Republican or conservative thinking (I am neither but tend to agree that this is just a seriously bad bill) Someone that feels like he has been kicked all his life and he is now getting his just deserves ?

Your last post brought you out no matter what you have said in previous posts. You are a very seriously angry man.There is a difference about being angry over the bill and being an angry man in life. Not about the bill or no bill but about life in general. The nasty ole tea baggers piss you off more than you can possibly imagine. Republican thought should be carved out with a knife. You talk of everyone's angers and hatred and disgust..

My friend corn. You need to go see someone for these pent up, life long feelings. You are about the most prejudice man I have come across in a long time. Prejudice about everything and anything that you feel treads on you. You feel as though you have been treaded upon all your life and are not going to take it anymore. This has left the discussion for you about good bill, bad bill,. for you this has become personal. You are putting yourself above all those nasty tea baggers like you are better than those misspelled sign carriers and then you continue putting yourself above all the rest of the tea baggers because they cannot articulate or comprehend and and and the are blind led sheep intoxicated by Fox news (serious funny but not)

The reality is you are far worse than anyone of them....Don't think so? Read your own last post. Absolutely pitiful.

Holy, holy, holy. I have to stop doing this.. What was it you said

"You're wasting your time, Michael. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. The nearly complete lack of coherence in tea party beliefs and attitudes coupled with the anger and vitriol they use to express them should have been a sign that these people aren't interested in having a reasoned debate."

What a freaking joke. Do you hear yourself Corn. Turn it all around, change a couple words and then that would be exactly you. But that's OK that is what the Democrats do. They can tell you the sky is blue even though there is overcast and then when confronted with it Um, ah, oh, well, uh huh stutter, stutter, stutter and then change the subject and turn it back around.

I should not say All dems. Just the serious left stokers (I think they are smokin something very serious) like Pelosi

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

.
.
YouTube - Obama to Jane Sturm: Hey, take a pill
.
.

He did not just say that to that poor old lady about her mother.

He might as well have just said

Let the old bag die. She is a burden on society. Maybe that pace make would have pushed her life on for sometime to come. This program is not for the well off. The somewhat well off. The old folks, The middle income. It is all for (largely) inner city and outback country poor. It is not to make things better for everyone. The entire Bill was put forth as a lie.

Absolutely freaking pitiful.

I'm one of the few people I know who starts the day by reading Daily Kos AND FreeRepublic, and IMO I have a pretty good handle on the lies and evasions being pumped out by both sides on this issue .

And one general guideline I follow for myself when reading the propaganda from either side that pretty much universally applies is that anytime either side claims the health care bill does something that's obviously outrageous and politically suicidal, it doesn't do any such thing.

For example, does it appear remotely likely to anybody reading this discussion that someone running for national public office is going to advocate putting a few million people in jail for refusing to buy health insurance?

It appears unlikely because in fact the the health care bill does no such thing, and in fact is quite specific about the fact that no such thing as allowed to happen; the law specifically prohibits the IRS from using the liens and levies to money owed by taxpayers who refuse to purchase health insurance and/or refuse to pay the fine for failing to do so, and specifically prohibits any criminal penalties for individuals who refuse to obtain coverage, See pp 131 here:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...590enr.txt.pdf

(There has been some recent discussion of whether or not the IRS will be able to withhold refunds for this purpose, I don't know if that question is been settled yet).

But nobody is going to jail for refusing to buy health insurance, and those who claim otherwise are either ill-informed - or as in the case cases of the many politicians and media commentators who have had this specific prohibition pointed out numerous times, must know better, and keep making such claims - are flat-out liars.

Originally Posted by Steve Frederickson

Don't get me wrong, I will probably benefit in the short run form the health care law. I have a 24 year olf son who works hard. He has three part-time jobs. He still lives at home, he's trying to find something full-time, but with all of the hours that he works, none of the jobs provide health care and his total pay won't allow him to afford to purchase it.

In the long term though, he and the rest of the country will be burdened by a tax debt that will be staggering....

I'm not quite following that: you (or your son, if he is paying part or all of the employees contribution) are paying premiums to insure him under your private insurance plan.

Why is this "increasing tax debt" anymore then it will be "increasing tax debt" when he obtains full time employment and pays premiums into a different private insurance plan?

Or, are you okay with this provision of the plan, but expect other provisions of the plan will increase "tax debt"?

He can't be insured under my family plan. He's too old and not in school, so he's not a dependent. He doesn't make enough to purchase a private plan, so right now he's uninsured and taking his chances. If he were to get injured or ill, he would get care (no one in this country is left lying in the street in front of a hospital). I should be all for public health care, and I am for some changes to the old system. I'm just concerned that the way that they went about it is all wrong. I pretty certain that no one actually read the entire bill before it was passed into law, and I'm not sure that the debt that we're incurring to acheive it is worth it.
Any plan that requires 16,000 more IRS agents to enforce is just plain wrong.
And again, if it's so great, why did congress exempt themselves from it?

As of September, if he's under 26 and has no option to enroll in group health insurance coverage through an employer your insurance will be required to offer him coverage under your plan - no limits on the premium they can charge, though (though it will likely be similar to other group plan members his age), and if coverage is "available" through one of his employers (but unaffordable) he still out of luck until 2014, when he will be able to purchase an individual policy via an exchange, which will likely be similar to his cost to purchase insurance through an employer, i.e. a lot less expensive than purchasing an individual policy.

Originally Posted by Michael Thomas

I have a pretty good handle on the lies and evasions being pumped out by both sides on this issue .

It appears unlikely because in fact the the health care bill does no such thing, and in fact is quite specific about the fact that no such thing as allowed to happen; the law specifically prohibits the IRS from using the liens and levies to money owed by taxpayers who refuse to purchase health insurance and/or refuse to pay the fine for failing to do so, and specifically prohibits any criminal penalties for individuals who refuse to obtain coverage, See pp 131 here:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...590enr.txt.pdf

(There has been some recent discussion of whether or not the IRS will be able to withhold refunds for this purpose, I don't know if that question is been settled yet).

But nobody is going to jail for refusing to buy health insurance,.

.
Michael,
What does "(2) Special Rules- Not withstanding any other provision of law
paragraph above the section you site.
(A) waiver of criminal penalties

Mean ?
.

Give it a rest

What would the gov be doing in placing the IRS in charge of auditing doctors and hospitals to find the cost of services and the amount an who does not have health insurance.

Further more. Lets see. The congress and senate and the speaker and the President cannot answer any of these question without stammering and stuttering and stumbling all over themselves but Michael picks up the info on line and suddenly he has all the answers to everything by reading a few items The next thing Mike I am sure you will say you read almost all 1000 pages and know everything that is in it.

As far as the only one you know that wakes up every morning.............And. I am not sure what you are getting at. You do this and that so you are now the absolute expert because you do certain things and everyone else is just an idiot...I get it.

So Mike. What you are saying is that we have to buy health insurance but if we don't there is nothing anyone can do about not buying it and nothing is going to happen to anyone that refuses to buy it or pay the fines and penalties for not doing so.

That's your logic and you are sticking to it?

Lets see. "But officer, I just don't want to get into your police car" "Furthermore you cannot make me or do anything about it"

I see. I understand the logic.

Keep writing and I keep seeing more and more flaws in what you say and the program.

Nice piece of legislature. And so well understood. As well as your flawd understanding.

You have nothing but dispute about everything anyone has put forth. Do you also see the flaw in that. Even when things are laid out for you. I know you are an intelligent man Mike and have always admired that but sometimes you just have to let the idiots tell you a thing or to. Sensory overload in believing you know it all. If you think that was bull...Not. Many very intelligent folks cannot see past a written word or there own nose because they do not want to spite it.

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

.
Michael,
What does "(2) Special Rules- Not withstanding any other provision of law
paragraph above the section you site.
(A) waiver of criminal penalties

Mean ?
.

Just what it says: that irrespective of any other law (or regulation given the effect of law), no individual is subject to criminal prosecution for failure to pay the penalty for failure to obtain insurance (which is the only sanction attached to failure to obtain insurance).

The next section states that the IRS cannot lien or levy upon any property of a taxpayer who fails to pay such a penalty, i. e. that the IRS is prohibited from seeking effective civil recourse as well.

You could argue that given the lack of meaningful sanctions the whole plan may fail because people won't obtain insurance, what you can't reasonably argue in the face of that language is that people will be going to jail, or fined and lined or levied, for failure to pay the penalty for not doing so.

Originally Posted by Michael Thomas

. . . what you can't reasonably argue in the face of that language is that people will be going to jail, or fined and lined or levied, for failure to pay the penalty for not doing so.

I will sleep better knowing I won't be lined.

(Would the lines have been temporary or permanent (e.g., tattooed lines)? )

IMO, the big problem with this bill is that it morphed from "Healthcare Reform" into "Insurance Industry Regulation", along the way dropping any pretense of effective cost control .

I'm not surprised about this because any kind of effective cost control involves rationing, and that's something that the party out of power can always use to club the party in power, so no politician the right mind is going to use the word or even realistically discuss the concept.

----------------

The reform of the insurance industry and the expansion of availability is going to be hugely popular politically, for example you can already see the Republican candidate for Senate in my state (Illinois, Kirk) backpedaling away from his original promises to fight for "repeal" as he starts looking at the opinion polls, which show that while voters are deeply suspicious of the concept of "healthcare reform" some of the actual provisions of the bill poll at 65% or better popularity, even in deeply "red" states.

In my opinion if you want to know where this actually going one of the best people to read is Joe Flower, who has an excellent record of predicting the general political shape of healthcare politics,and whose primary audience is the Healthcare Industry . He's paid for "telling it like it is" to healthcare executives who are trying to plan for profitable operation under likely future regulation, and is paid not to preach to the choir on either left or right, but to help pragmatic healthcare executives and corporate boards anticipate what they like to be faced with.... and so is paid specifically notto cater to the political prejudices or politically expedient talking points of the moment on either side.

Health Care Reform: Round 2 - Healthcare Futurist: Joe Flower

-----------------

Finally, many of liberal friends acquaintances would be quite amused to discover that some readers here consider me "liberal", many of my political views are actually quite "conservative", I just think it's been extraordinarily stupid of the American conservative movement to let itself get captured by a bunch of people who believe for example that current healthcare insurance industry practices make sense and are politically sustainable.

The result has been that conservatives (for example) threw away their very real leverage on healthcare reform and walked away with nothing when for example they could easily bargained for substantial "tort reform", expansion and improvements of healthcare savings accounts and high deductible private insurance, and a lot of other things - but instead completely dealt themselves out of the process of shaping this bill.

IMO, that's been a very high-risk strategy, and unless Republicans can manage to take at least one house of Congress this fall the the wing of the party is interested in actually influencing and making policy is going to have to start negotiating with the Democrats (you can't retain political power in Washington if have painted yourself into a corner where you can't accomplish anything of value for your constituencies). and that will set off a civil war in the Republican Party and the American conservative movement, and would further marginalize both.

Originally Posted by Bruce Breedlove

I will sleep better knowing I won't be lined.

(Would the lines have been temporary or permanent (e.g., tattooed lines)? )

I'm flattered that some people at least are reading my comments so carefully

Originally Posted by Michael Thomas

Just what it says: that irrespective of any other law (or regulation given the effect of law), no individual is subject to criminal prosecution for failure to pay the penalty for failure to obtain insurance (which is the only sanction attached to failure to obtain insurance).

The next section states that the IRS cannot lien or levy upon any property of a taxpayer who fails to pay such a penalty, i. e. that the IRS is prohibited from seeking effective civil recourse as well.

You could argue that given the lack of meaningful sanctions the whole plan may fail because people won't obtain insurance, what you can't reasonably argue in the face of that language is that people will be going to jail, or fined and lined or levied, for failure to pay the penalty for not doing so.

.
Irrespective of any other law:

Like say a Judgment?

Or Court Order?

Or Lying to the Federal Police.
* Oh I'm going to Get That There Insurance Officer.

Or Whatever subchapter B of chapter 68 referenced above A as"(1) In General The Penalty SHALL be paid upon notice and demand....
.
As I nor You have Esquire behind our names any other law covers a lot of ground.
.
Your above Post # 111 concerning It's still to be decided if the IRS can withhold funds?

Section B continues concerning Civil Penalty
*directly under Section A after the You cannot be put in Jail ( unless ) see irrespective.

B"(Limitations of Liens and Levy -The Secretary Shall Not
"(i) file notice with respect to any property of a taxpayer of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section or
"(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure."

So are you saying the Plain Language of the amendment ( not the Full Law) is Clear you cannot be put in Jail, But the question of if The IRS can withhold Funds ( take Your Property) has Not been Settled Yet?
,

Don't take my word for it, research the opinions of health care analysts (as opposed to talking heads and politicians) with regard to what that language means, and what it covers.

AFAIK the only potential loophole anyone has been able to find is the possibility that the IRS made might be able to withhold refunds to the extent of the penalties assessed for noncompliance - which a far, far cry from the claims of 16,000+ armed IRS agents kicking down doors to arrest the uninsured, or from even the IRS emptying bank accounts or seizing physical assets, which the IRS is allowed to do in most cases but which it is specifically forbidden to do in this one.

There are lots of problems with this bill (and with the healthcare system in this country generally), but it only complicates matters when politicians and media personalities continue to pump out misinformation even after it's been clearly established that some of it is little more than pure fantasy, and with the result that we have to spend time discussing wild hypotheticals and even outright fabrications instead of having serious discussions about to straighten out the mess we're in.

Originally Posted by Michael Thomas

Don't take my word for it, research the opinions of health care analysts (as opposed to talking heads and politicians) with regard to what that language means, and what it covers.

AFAIK the only potential loophole anyone has been able to find is the possibility that the IRS made might be able to withhold refunds to the extent of the penalties assessed for noncompliance - which a far, far cry from the claims of 16,000+ armed IRS agents kicking down doors to arrest the uninsured, or from even the IRS emptying bank accounts or seizing physical assets, which the IRS is allowed to do in most cases but which it is specifically forbidden to do in this one.

There are lots of problems with this bill (and with the healthcare system in this country generally), but it only complicates matters when politicians and media personalities continue to pump out misinformation even after it's been clearly established that some of it is little more than pure fantasy, and with the result that we have to spend time discussing wild hypotheticals and even outright fabrications instead of having serious discussions about to straighten out the mess we're in.

.
Thanks,

We have a long way to go for sure.

The Courts Will be Involved with this Monstrosity and will surely weigh in.

The Point I'm trying to make is Nobody Really Knows.

The Years in the Federal Court System will ( if The Bill Stands) flesh out some of those pesky details.
.

.

Patriot Act: Under section 802, at the discretion of the Attorney General US citizens can be held without charge, without being told why they are being held, without access to legal council, without any requirement to let anyone else know they are in custody and effectively without access to judicial review - essentially they can be "disappeared". Indefinitely.

Heath Care Bill: If you don't buy insurance you can be fined greater of $695 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount per family or 2.5% of household income, with exemptions for financial hardship, religious objections, American Indians, those without coverage for less than three months, incarcerated individuals, and those those for whom the lowest cost plan option exceeds 8% of an individual’s income,and those with incomes below the tax filing threshold (in 2009 the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 was $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples).

Which the IRS is effectively prohibited from collecting.

In my opinion, to compare the two and conclude that health care reform is a worse abuse of American citizens or American values than the Patriot Act - or even remotely in the same league - is a pretty pretty tough position to defend.

Originally Posted by Michael Thomas

Patriot Act: Under section 802, at the discretion of the Attorney General US citizens can be held without charge, without being told why they are being held, without access to legal council, without any requirement to let anyone else know they are in custody and effectively without access to judicial review - essentially they can be "disappeared". Indefinitely.

Heath Care Bill: If you don't buy insurance you can be fined greater of $695 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount per family or 2.5% of household income, with exemptions for financial hardship, religious objections, American Indians, those without coverage for less than three months, incarcerated individuals, and those those for whom the lowest cost plan option exceeds 8% of an individual’s income,and those with incomes below the tax filing threshold (in 2009 the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 was $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples).

Which the IRS is effectively prohibited from collecting.

In my opinion, to compare the two and conclude that health care reform is a worse abuse of American citizens or American values than the Patriot Act - or even remotely in the same league - is a pretty pretty tough position to defend.

.
Michael,

The Social Security Act of ( 1935 ? ) States No One But The Social Security Administration can Compel You to Give Them Your Social Security Number.

Now How Effective is That Statue?

Lets Talk in a Few Years.
.

Amen brothers and sisters. We were gathered here this day of 04/16/2010 to come together to agree that this will be reviewed a few years from now. Hopefully, God Willing we will still be around. On this day in 2013 we will review all notes from this time and compare them to 04/16/2010

God willing we will have smiles on our faces and wiping the sweat from our brows thanking God that this was all some nasty nightmare and our politicians made the proper fixes so health care is better and not worse than it is today without choking the life out of the citizens of the US. At that time I will be 59 and I hope all my older friends are well taken care of at that time and for all time to come and not cj=hoke the life out of the American citizens.

That lady earlier that was over 100 that was pretty much put to her daughter I believe was better off dead than have the proper instrument placed in her so she may breath a few more years and the blood pump a few more years instead of the ass Obama telling her that sometimes it is better to take that last breath for the sake of society.

Sorry but what a freaking jerk. I don't care what the reasoning was. For anyone to tell anyone else that they are better off dead than taking the chance for a few more heart beets should be arrested and locked away in some dark place with little to no food and water until their dying days.