Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6634|132 and Bush

(Sec. 1501, as modified by section 10106) Requires individuals to maintain minimal essential health care coverage beginning in 2014. Imposes a penalty for failure to maintain such coverage beginning in 2014, except for certain low-income individuals who cannot afford coverage, members of Indian tribes, and individuals who suffer hardship. Exempts from the coverage requirement individuals who object to health care coverage on religious grounds, individuals not lawfully present in the United States, and individuals who are incarcerated.

Summary..
http://jeremysarber.com/2010/03/21/h-r- … l-summary/
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6749
Ummm so after this bill has passed in the house... Now it goes to prez to become law?
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5735|College Park, MD

Cybargs wrote:

Ummm so after this bill has passed in the house... Now it goes to prez to become law?
Obama signed it earlier today.

I just saw a vid on CNN where Biden introduced him to the press before the signing, and the microphones caught him saying "this is a big fuckin' deal" to Obama as he shook his hands.

edit: I meant Medicaid... blah they're both gubmint healthcare

Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2010-03-23 14:17:07)

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6634|132 and Bush

*Health Care Law as of 11:15 EST
Xbone Stormsurgezz
mtb0minime
minimember
+2,418|6688

Then what was with all the talk of it being ruled unconstitutional? Surely the Judicial Branch needs to read through and make sure everything's ok?
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6634|132 and Bush

No. There has to be action brought to the court. I think there are seven states planning to do so now.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6749

mtb0minime wrote:

Then what was with all the talk of it being ruled unconstitutional? Surely the Judicial Branch needs to read through and make sure everything's ok?
Only after it's passed. Just like how the Agricultural Adjustment Act was repealed.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6634|132 and Bush

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Ummm so after this bill has passed in the house... Now it goes to prez to become law?
Obama signed it earlier today.

I just saw a vid on CNN where Biden introduced him to the press before the signing, and the microphones caught him saying "this is a big fuckin' deal" to Obama as he shook his hands.

edit: I meant Medicaid... blah they're both gubmint healthcare
https://i41.tinypic.com/24glzf9.jpg
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|6749
20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms 
By David Hogberg     
Sun., March 21, '10    3:24 PM ET 
Tags: Health Care - ObamaCare - Freedom
With House Democrats poised to pass the Senate health care bill with some reconciliation changes later today, it is worthwhile to take a comprehensive look at the freedoms we will lose.

Of course, the overhaul is supposed to provide us with security. But it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care. We may be about to live Benjamin Franklin’s adage, “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”

The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee.

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employees’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 50 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).

10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))
13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a county where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).

16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).

The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).

17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).

That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).


http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/ … r-freedoms

Sounds good to me...lol
Love is the answer
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|6749
Obama signs health care bill: Who won't be covered?
"As Obama signs health care bill, attention turns to questions of coverage. In all, some 23 million Americans will still lack insurance in 2019, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate. "

"The health care bill signed by President Obama Tuesday will extend medical coverage to millions of Americans who are now uninsured – but not to everyone.

Among the still-uninsured will be illegal immigrants, plus people who choose to avoid the law's mandate to buy insurance – and pay a penalty as a result. It will also include some middle-class families who decide they can't afford coverage despite subsidies offered under the law. Depending on what insurance would cost, they may or may not owe a penalty.

Healthcare 101: What the bill means to you

Signs indicate that some 23 million Americans will lack insurance in 2019, after key provisions of the law have been in effect for as long as five or six years, according to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate. Meanwhile, the law would insure some 32 million people who otherwise would be uninsured in that year.

Those amount to ballpark guesses. But the estimates hint at an important general point, say health-policy experts: The law will extend an insurance net that is broad but far from universal.

Just how many people remain uninsured will depend on a few key factors. One is how regulators turn the law's broad provisions into specific rules governing insurance markets. Another is how individual Americans respond to the law. A smaller factor is how the Senate handles a pending "reconciliation" that could affect the shape of reforms.

Here are some groups who may lack insurance under the Obama law:

• Undocumented immigrants. This group won't be eligible for Medicaid or insurance subsidies on a healthcare exchange. In 2019, the CBO estimates, unauthorized immigrants will represent about 2 percent of a nonelderly population of 282 million people (or a bit less than 6 million people).

• People who don't sign up for Medicaid. The law will expand the ranks of those eligible for Medicaid to include people with incomes up to 33 percent above the official poverty line. But not all those eligible for Medicaid actually enroll.

• People who opt out, including younger workers. People who lack other coverage (Medicaid or employer-based coverage) will face a new mandate to purchase insurance. But some – perhaps a group skewed toward younger and single Americans – will choose to pay an annual penalty of $695 dollars or 2.5 percent of income, rather than a larger amount for insurance. The penalties would be capped at $2,250 per family as of 2016.

• People who feel insurance is unaffordable. This is similar to the "opt out," except that they may not owe a penalty. If insurance coverage would cost more than 8 percent of household income, people won't face a penalty for going without it. The law would provide subsidies that would assist people up to about four times the poverty level. For a family of four, that means federal assistance will phase out above about $88,000 in income.

Of course, lots of people find insurance unaffordable right now – a key reason that Obama has pushed for reform. "Hopefully there won't be as many people [in that group] because of the subsidies," says Judith Solomon, a healthcare expert at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington.

Most of the people who now lack insurance, she notes, will qualify for either subsidies or for Medicaid under the law. The Senate reconciliation process will affect how large the insurance subsidies are and how much federal help people can get with other out-of-pocket expenses.

Many families will choose to buy insurance even though they have to spend more than 8 percent of income. Another option people have – if 8 percent of income won't buy a full insurance plan – is to buy high-deductible catastrophic coverage, Ms. Solomon says. (People age 26 or younger can opt for those catastrophic plans under the law, regardless of their income level, she adds.)

Ninety-four percent of all nonelderly Americans will be insured under the Obama plan, estimates the CBO, the nonpartisan scorekeeper for legislation. The agency also figures that 5 million Americans will buy coverage without any subsidy, choosing from policies offered on a new government-regulated exchange. For those who do get subsidies, the average amount granted will be $6,000 in 2019, the CBO estimates.

Enjoy...

and to the anonymous karma.... You have no balls.
Maybe you could debate what is posted little girl?

Last edited by Catbox (2010-03-23 17:48:54)

Love is the answer
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5735|College Park, MD
This is why we should have had a public option... this is a start in that direction, but in some ways feels just as useless as the status quo.

I don't feel like addressing all those points so I'll pick this one

"4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712)."

Preventing big, costly health problems from starting or snowballing into something worse is cheaper. Better to detect cancer early and get rid of it than pay for someone's chemotherapy for many months, and post-treatment care for years.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6438|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

No. There has to be action brought to the court. I think there are seven states planning to do so now.
14 actually... (and the number looks set to continue to rise)

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/23/hea … tml?hpt=T1

The case was filed by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum and joined by 11 other Republican attorneys general, along with one Democrat. McCollum said the new law also forces states "to do things that are practically impossible to do as a practical matter, and forcing us to do it without giving any resources or money to do it."

McCollum's lawsuit was joined by his counterparts in Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota Texas, Utah and Washington. Virginia's attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, filed a separate case in his state Tuesday afternoon

All but one of those state officials, Louisiana's Buddy Caldwell, are Republicans. But McCollum said the case is not a partisan issue and predicted other Democrats would join the suit.


Of course, the problem here is that if the precedent is set that the federal government forcing states to use their own funds to enforce or run something is found unconstitutional...

well...  that means a lot of current programs are unconstitutional.

For example, much of the War on Drugs would be unconstitutional given that rationale.  Granted, I'm not saying that I would mind seeing this war end, but I think these guys don't fully grasp what kind of repercussions a ruling in favor of them would allow for.

If nothing else, states' rights advocates could get a lot more of their wishes very soon if this suit is successful.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5391|London, England
Considering that my state is withholding tax returns because it is near bankruptcy and can't afford to give people their own money back...
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6438|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Considering that my state is withholding tax returns because it is near bankruptcy and can't afford to give people their own money back...
One could say the writing isn't just on the wall...  it's on the books now...

I think the time is ripe for what I like to call "erstwhile libertarians."  It's not that we believe the least government is best -- it's that we realize we don't have the money for anything more than minimal government.

We've been running government on credit for too long now....
beerface702
Member
+65|6726|las vegas
sad sad day for America indeed.

All this is a bailout for the insurance companies under the guise of healthcare reform.

If i was a liberal who supported this i would be furious.

Only thing to do is vote the scum out in Nov. To be replaced most likely with crooked neocons that will bend us over in another direction.

they will be doing cap and trade next, probably legalize 30 million illegals, who then could vote in 2012...what next maybe GUN REFORM.

it will never end, the tentacles of this Government are suffocating

Last edited by beerface702 (2010-03-24 02:38:48)

FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6444|'Murka

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:


Eye of the beholder
Look at the behavior, not what they are trying to do legislatively. You can agree or disagree with their agenda, but look at their behavior as a separate issue objectively and you'll see what I'm talking about. The method they chose to use to pass this legislation, the "in your face" approach to the people who are protesting (those would be "the people"), comments regarding Constitutional limits on Congressional power...it's quite Orwellian in some cases.
It goes both ways ... both dems and reps behaves like spoiled little children, both sides have lost their goal of making the US a better place for it's citizens ...

It's an ongoing spiral of distrust that plunges deeper and deeper into a political abyss ... who started it and why is beyond interesting when your population is suffering from the political standoff in congress ... your political parties is more about destroying the other ones political agenda than trying to reach a common ground ...

Your congress needs to remember the basic ideas of representing the people ...
And I think we have a winnar.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6444|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

No. There has to be action brought to the court. I think there are seven states planning to do so now.
14 actually... (and the number looks set to continue to rise)

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/23/hea … tml?hpt=T1

The case was filed by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum and joined by 11 other Republican attorneys general, along with one Democrat. McCollum said the new law also forces states "to do things that are practically impossible to do as a practical matter, and forcing us to do it without giving any resources or money to do it."

McCollum's lawsuit was joined by his counterparts in Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota Texas, Utah and Washington. Virginia's attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, filed a separate case in his state Tuesday afternoon

All but one of those state officials, Louisiana's Buddy Caldwell, are Republicans. But McCollum said the case is not a partisan issue and predicted other Democrats would join the suit.


Of course, the problem here is that if the precedent is set that the federal government forcing states to use their own funds to enforce or run something is found unconstitutional...

well...  that means a lot of current programs are unconstitutional.

For example, much of the War on Drugs would be unconstitutional given that rationale.  Granted, I'm not saying that I would mind seeing this war end, but I think these guys don't fully grasp what kind of repercussions a ruling in favor of them would allow for.

If nothing else, states' rights advocates could get a lot more of their wishes very soon if this suit is successful.
The case isn't that unfunded mandates are unconstitutional. It's that you can't force private citizens to purchase goods and services under penalty of law (ie, private insurance) absent some public safety driving factor (like with auto insurance). However, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing to do away with unfunded mandates altogether...
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|6843|Nårvei

Hence why I believe a two party system in your case is obsolete, a high profile new political party could really muster lots of votes in the election for congress me thinks ... from both dems and reps ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6444|'Murka

Since our system isn't a two-party system, your view of its obsolescence is rather irrelevant.

It is dominated by two parties--like many other Western democracies--but it is not a two-party system.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6682

FEOS wrote:

Since our system isn't a two-party system, your view of its obsolescence is rather irrelevant.

It is dominated by two parties--like many other Western democracies--but it is not a two-party system.
It may as well be a two party system though.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6444|'Murka

ghettoperson wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Since our system isn't a two-party system, your view of its obsolescence is rather irrelevant.

It is dominated by two parties--like many other Western democracies--but it is not a two-party system.
It may as well be a two party system though.
Then one might as well make that argument for several other Western democracies, but few do. The FACT is, that our system IS NOT a two party system, it is a multi-party system that is dominated by two parties, just like any of several other Western democracies whose systems people don't seem to bitch about incessantly.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|6843|Nårvei

FEOS wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Since our system isn't a two-party system, your view of its obsolescence is rather irrelevant.

It is dominated by two parties--like many other Western democracies--but it is not a two-party system.
It may as well be a two party system though.
Then one might as well make that argument for several other Western democracies, but few do. The FACT is, that our system IS NOT a two party system, it is a multi-party system that is dominated by two parties, just like any of several other Western democracies whose systems people don't seem to bitch about incessantly.
Effectively it actually is FEOS ... what other parties are represented in congress?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6444|'Murka

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:


It may as well be a two party system though.
Then one might as well make that argument for several other Western democracies, but few do. The FACT is, that our system IS NOT a two party system, it is a multi-party system that is dominated by two parties, just like any of several other Western democracies whose systems people don't seem to bitch about incessantly.
Effectively it actually is FEOS ... what other parties are represented in congress?
That is irrelevant to whether the system allows for their participation. The system allows for completely unaffiliated (ie, independent) representatives to both the House and Senate (and even the Presidency). Thus, it is NOT a "two-party" system.

It is a system exactly as I described: A multi-party system that is dominated by two parties--just like many other Western democracies.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|6843|Nårvei

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:


Then one might as well make that argument for several other Western democracies, but few do. The FACT is, that our system IS NOT a two party system, it is a multi-party system that is dominated by two parties, just like any of several other Western democracies whose systems people don't seem to bitch about incessantly.
Effectively it actually is FEOS ... what other parties are represented in congress?
That is irrelevant to whether the system allows for their participation. The system allows for completely unaffiliated (ie, independent) representatives to both the House and Senate (and even the Presidency). Thus, it is NOT a "two-party" system.

It is a system exactly as I described: A multi-party system that is dominated by two parties--just like many other Western democracies.
Purely semantics FEOS, you knew very well what I meant ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5391|London, England

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:


It may as well be a two party system though.
Then one might as well make that argument for several other Western democracies, but few do. The FACT is, that our system IS NOT a two party system, it is a multi-party system that is dominated by two parties, just like any of several other Western democracies whose systems people don't seem to bitch about incessantly.
Effectively it actually is FEOS ... what other parties are represented in congress?
The Socialist Party has a representative from Vermont.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard