nonniey Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 That is false. You are not "forced" to buy health insurance under the house bill or the Senate bill. It will merely not help your tax status. By that standard I guess you are forced to have children, forced to not smoke, forced to buy a house and take out a mortgage, etc. Did I miss something? Were mandates and fines dropped? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Did you guys know about this: Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill ... the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses: ... "It shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2009/12/23/a-surprise-in-the-health-care-bill/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 That is false. You are not "forced" to buy health insurance under the house bill or the Senate bill. It will merely not help your tax status. Not help your tax status :hysterical: The wordsmiths are out and about. A fee for being an "American" And on the other issue: I thought NO Congress can make a law that another following Congress must keep? With the mandatory fee above and the no repealing the committee they are chock full of Constitutional errors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 That is false. You are not "forced" to buy health insurance under the house bill or the Senate bill. It will merely not help your tax status. By that standard I guess you are forced to have children, forced to not smoke, forced to buy a house and take out a mortgage, etc. MJ must be one of those spin meisters that Larry was lamenting about! LOL:hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 That is false. You are not "forced" to buy health insurance under the house bill or the Senate bill. It will merely not help your tax status. . Have you even looked at the bill?:hysterical: By that reasoning I'm not forced to pay taxes either,try doing that sometime and you will find out the definition of force:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btfoom Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 That is false. You are not "forced" to buy health insurance under the house bill or the Senate bill. It will merely not help your tax status. .... Really, that is your statement? By that logic, noone is 'forced' to pay income taxes. It will merely not help your tax status. Noone is 'forced' to obey the law, it will merely not help your staying-out-of-jail status. :doh::doh::doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Did you guys know about this:http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2009/12/23/a-surprise-in-the-health-care-bill/ Holy Crap! I'm not sure that can be legit in the end. I dont think any law can get through that is 100% unrepealable. Sure makes it interesting though, nice find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 it will definitely be a disaster. Now, when you realize this as fact, like I did with my awful Bush votes, will you also reject the faulty thinking that you and they have engaged in all along?I will certainly engage in a comprehensive and (to the best of my ability) intellectually honest analysis to try and determine which aspects of my thinking were faulty. I will then proceed to reject/adjust/etc my thinking as needed.Having said that, I'll add that I will certainly not arrive to any general slogan such as: "we need more government" "we need less government" "government is the problem" "government is not the problem". I think underlying dynamics are too complicated to be captured that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section 130 Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Indeed it doesRaises taxes Creates fines Gives the govt more control over your health choices Creates yet another unfunded entitlement Cuts coverage options Increases your ins costs Expands govt control over private enterprise Raises rates on old people Say Hello to a loss of FREEDOM Merry ****ing Christmas This.... x1000 Well to all the Obamabots..... You got your change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 I will certainly engage in a comprehensive and (to the best of my ability) intellectually honest analysis to try and determine which aspects of my thinking were faulty. I will then proceed to reject/adjust/etc my thinking as needed.Having said that, I'll add that I will certainly not arrive to any general slogan such as: "we need more government" "we need less government" "government is the problem" "government is not the problem". I think underlying dynamics are too complicated to be captured that way. ,Thats great!! I admire you for that! for your second part, it kind of seems like you believe that there are many here who look at things that simplistically (you even appear to put me in that nutshell). You dont really believe that do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Question: If this is good for the whole country, why did 13 senators try to get their states exempt from this reform bill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 for your second part, it kind of seems like you believe that there are many here who look at things that simplistically (you even appear to put me in that nutshell). You dont really believe that do you? Nuances tend to come out when things are discussed in detail 1 on 1, but in a free-for-all forum atmosphere people often just summarize their beliefs by saying things like "we need less govt". I think this is dangerous because such overly simplistic language encourages overly simplistic thinking. And yes, some people do actually think that way. For example, I've had conversations with people who thought that "less government" was a meaningful statement prior to our conversation and did not think that way after it. Oftentimes people who are capable of analyzing nuances are simply not aware of them. All it takes is to point them out, and for people who think that they already got it this often requires a lengthy 1 on 1 conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinpride1 Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20091224/ts_usnews/howthesenatebillwouldchangehealthcare I just love this part .....Employer obligation. Companies with more than 200 employees would be required to enroll their workers in a health insurance plan, with no ability for employees to opt out. Companies with more than 50 but fewer than 200 workers would not be required to offer insurance, but if they didn't, they'd have to pay a fee of $750 per employee each year (with some variations). Companies with fewer than 50 workers would not have to offer insurance or pay any fees. Those rules would go into effect in 2014. The House bill would place similar requirements on employers, but with a different way of determining which companies are required to offer insurance. So... I think that i got this right? You are enrolled in the company plan but the company does not have to pay the insurance, you still do. If you work for a company (more than 200 employees) you are stuck with what ever crappy insurance they may offer. I do not have children but I have a lot of friends that do and could not afford the family plan offered by there employer so they had to go else where. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20091224/ts_usnews/howthesenatebillwouldchangehealthcareI just love this part .....Employer obligation. Companies with more than 200 employees would be required to enroll their workers in a health insurance plan, with no ability for employees to opt out. Companies with more than 50 but fewer than 200 workers would not be required to offer insurance, but if they didn't, they'd have to pay a fee of $750 per employee each year (with some variations). Companies with fewer than 50 workers would not have to offer insurance or pay any fees. Those rules would go into effect in 2014. The House bill would place similar requirements on employers, but with a different way of determining which companies are required to offer insurance. So... I think that i got this right? You are enrolled in the company plan but the company does not have to pay the insurance, you still do. If you work for a company (more than 200 employees) you are stuck with what ever crappy insurance they may offer. I do not have children but I have a lot of friends that do and could not afford the family plan offered by there employer so they had to go else where. should do wonders for unemployment too! Just imagine what a company of say 220 people will do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinpride1 Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 I got that straight right? The employer has to offer insurance but the employee still has to pay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Question: If this is good for the whole country, why did 13 senators try to get their states exempt from this reform bill? Did they try or did they succeed? How is this different than when Sanford and Jindal "tried" (and failed) to refuse 3% of stimulus spending? My point is, sometimes Politicians do things, not in the interests of their own states, but to try and make a statement about themselves and their own aspirations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Own it libs! It's 100% your mess!! Apologies. Frankly, I'm too depressed right now to even respond to this, uh, post. I'm gonna have to hide, somewhere. Cause if I see this being shoveled one more time, I'm likely to go postal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Apologies. Frankly, I'm too depressed right now to even respond to this, uh, post. I'm gonna have to hide, somewhere. Cause if I see this being shoveled one more time, I'm likely to go postal. I know, the truth really sucks when you have to face it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20091224/ts_usnews/howthesenatebillwouldchangehealthcareI just love this part .....Employer obligation. Companies with more than 200 employees would be required to enroll their workers in a health insurance plan, with no ability for employees to opt out. Companies with more than 50 but fewer than 200 workers would not be required to offer insurance, but if they didn't, they'd have to pay a fee of $750 per employee each year (with some variations). Companies with fewer than 50 workers would not have to offer insurance or pay any fees. Those rules would go into effect in 2014. The House bill would place similar requirements on employers, but with a different way of determining which companies are required to offer insurance. Yes, I think you have that right. I love that part too. It's a good plan and completely reasonable. So... I think that i got this right? You are enrolled in the company plan but the company does not have to pay the insurance, you still do. If you work for a company (more than 200 employees) you are stuck with what ever crappy insurance they may offer. That's not going to change anything for the vast majority of people. Your chances of finding a better plan on the individual market as opposed to your employer plan are slim. Coverages for employer based systems are usually more comprehensive and enhanced by employer subsidies. I do not have children but I have a lot of friends that do and could not afford the family plan offered by there employer so they had to go else where Your friends would likely be eligible for some federal assistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 should do wonders for unemployment too! Just imagine what a company of say 220 people will do. Lets See: Option1: Pay 12,000 of the average 15000 for a family plan Option2: Pay maximum fine of 700 the bigger you are, the more you have to offer to your shareholders. AND, the government will give us 57% off on the Gov't approved healthcare plan. So they aren't killing anyone... They'd need to make that 10,000$ fine for it to be useable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinpride1 Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Yes, I think you have that right. I love that part too. It's a good plan and completely reasonable. That's not going to change anything for the vast majority of people. Your chances of finding a better plan on the individual market as opposed to your employer plan are slim. Coverages for employer based systems are usually more comprehensive and enhanced by employer subsidies. Your friends would likely be eligible for some federal assistance. WRONG!!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! I was saying i love it being.... sarcastic!!! It's an idiotic plan because you employer doesn't have to pay anything only obligated to carry a plan thus you should still have an option to get your own insurance if you feel there plan they are offering is not good or affordable. Really a company plan is more affordable? Hmmmm ....that's why I have a individual plan right now because my company plan was almost double and I'm not kidding!!! I bet the government will help those with family plans just look at what they are doing already:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 It's an idiotic plan because you employer doesn't have to pay anything only obligated to carry a plan thus you should still have an option to get your own insurance if you feel there plan they are offering is not good or affordable. I think market forces will ultimately take care of this. People aren't going to want to work for a company that offers only a crappy plan. I know I wouldn't. Really a company plan is more affordable?Hmmmm ....that's why I have a individual plan right now because my company plan was almost double and I'm not kidding!!! Company plans are not necessarily cheaper but they do tend to be a better value because they have more comprehensive coverages and companies are able to pool their money together better than individuals. Although, one of the best aspects of this bill is it allows individuals to pool their money together thus making the individual markets cheaper than ever before. But not everyone will be eligible for the exchanges. I bet the government will help those with family plans just look at what they are doing already:doh: Not sure what you are talking about here. The Healthcare reform bill provides subsidies for families who can't afford health insurance. If you think what they are doing now is not enough (schip) you should be in favor of this change. This will help your friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Damn so who is considering Nevada as a place to relocate businesses so the other 49 screwed states can pay their bills?? How many Democrats are going to be voted out next year since this issue is going to stay in the news because the stealing of more money from the successful citizens will commence immediately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Speaking of the Constitution, Tulane, why are you comparing mandated insurance to tort reform? I don't see how they would be related in a constitutional sense. I guess I find it interesting that the same people would disregard the Constitution and a person's right to trial by jury so that the government could protect hospitals and insurance companies. You know, its actually in the Constitution that Americans have a right to trial by jury that congress may not infringe upon. As opposed to some "right to not buy health care" or something... the rest of this thread went to crap, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Does this bill come a jar of vasaline?? I really don't want this to be painful and I'm willing to share with my fellow ESer's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.