Mr Spinkles
Mr
Conservatives: "I want to reduce the deficit. I want to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan forever. But I don't want to pay for it."
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Health Care Bill Passes!
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I think conservatives have a point when they say this bill will increase health insurance premiums. When you force private insurers to take on people with pre-existing conditions, they will most likely raise premiums.
I didn't read everything that has been posted on this thread but here are my concerns on the matter.
While I agree that this Health Care Bill does pose some interesting and in most cases helpful mandates. My biggest concern is who is going to pay for it? The gov't is already seriously in debt, you only have to turn on your television to be told that repeatedly by all the big name news stations. The bill (HR 3590)itself states it:
-Requires applicable individuals to maintain "minimum essential health care coverage" for themselves and any dependents beginning after January 1, 2014, meaning one of the following (Sec. 1501):
-Medicare and Medicaid;
-Children's Health Insurance Program;
-TRICARE;
-Veteran's health care program;
-Health care for Peace Corps volunteers;
-Employer-sponsored plans;
-Individual market plans;
-Grandfathered health care plans, meaning coverage that is offered and effective before the date of enactment; or
-Other health care plan recognized by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (including state high-risk pooling plans).
-Establishes a monthly penalty on individuals who can afford minimal health coverage but fail to provide it for themselves and any dependents, a penalty that must be reported on income tax returns, and resolves that such penalty shall be the greater of 1/12 of the following (Sec. 1501):
-A percentage of the individual's income: 0.5 percent for taxable years beginning in 2014, 1.0 percent for taxable years beginning in 2015, or 2.0 percent for taxable years beginning after 2015.
The biggest argument that I have heard in regard to this is that this portion (which I highlighted in red) is supposed to help pay for the cost of the bill. But briefly down the page it -Specifies that taxpayers cannot be criminally prosecuted, nor can a lien be placed on a taxpayer's property, for failure to pay penalties for lack of health care coverage (Sec. 1501).
So my next question is.. What is the purpose of placing penalties in the bill, if it then states that you can't enforce the penalties that it has placed? Sounds a little screwy to me.
While I agree that this Health Care Bill does pose some interesting and in most cases helpful mandates. My biggest concern is who is going to pay for it? The gov't is already seriously in debt, you only have to turn on your television to be told that repeatedly by all the big name news stations. The bill (HR 3590)itself states it:
-Requires applicable individuals to maintain "minimum essential health care coverage" for themselves and any dependents beginning after January 1, 2014, meaning one of the following (Sec. 1501):
-Medicare and Medicaid;
-Children's Health Insurance Program;
-TRICARE;
-Veteran's health care program;
-Health care for Peace Corps volunteers;
-Employer-sponsored plans;
-Individual market plans;
-Grandfathered health care plans, meaning coverage that is offered and effective before the date of enactment; or
-Other health care plan recognized by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (including state high-risk pooling plans).
-Establishes a monthly penalty on individuals who can afford minimal health coverage but fail to provide it for themselves and any dependents, a penalty that must be reported on income tax returns, and resolves that such penalty shall be the greater of 1/12 of the following (Sec. 1501):
-A percentage of the individual's income: 0.5 percent for taxable years beginning in 2014, 1.0 percent for taxable years beginning in 2015, or 2.0 percent for taxable years beginning after 2015.
The biggest argument that I have heard in regard to this is that this portion (which I highlighted in red) is supposed to help pay for the cost of the bill. But briefly down the page it -Specifies that taxpayers cannot be criminally prosecuted, nor can a lien be placed on a taxpayer's property, for failure to pay penalties for lack of health care coverage (Sec. 1501).
So my next question is.. What is the purpose of placing penalties in the bill, if it then states that you can't enforce the penalties that it has placed? Sounds a little screwy to me.
Troublemane
Well-Known Member
I am wondering that myself. If you haven't got health insurance, you still won't be able to walk into any hospital and get care without going into the emergency room. THIS BILL CHANGES NOTHING for average people. It will not cover you, if you do not have insurance. GOT IT? All it does is mandate you get insurance, and if you don't have it allow provisions for getting it.
Even if you are on the poor end of the spectrum, and you are just getting by, maybe still in school or just out of school, you still have to get insurance or pay a penalty. It will be the IRS who is enforcing this bill, BTW. Lets say years down the road you decide to get insurance. When they audit you, WOOOPS, looks like you failed to pay your penalty for the years 2014-2018! Looks like you owe the government 1-2% of your earnings for those years, with interest!
This is not gonna be pretty. This bill does nothing for people except raise taxes, and raise insurance premiums through the roof. I hope you all realize this.
Even if you are on the poor end of the spectrum, and you are just getting by, maybe still in school or just out of school, you still have to get insurance or pay a penalty. It will be the IRS who is enforcing this bill, BTW. Lets say years down the road you decide to get insurance. When they audit you, WOOOPS, looks like you failed to pay your penalty for the years 2014-2018! Looks like you owe the government 1-2% of your earnings for those years, with interest!
This is not gonna be pretty. This bill does nothing for people except raise taxes, and raise insurance premiums through the roof. I hope you all realize this.
Troublemane
Well-Known Member
Now, the war in Iraq was for oil, and to prevent china from dominating all the world's oil supply. The war would not even be as expensive if it weren't being fought by Haliburton and Blackwater. Afghanistan, has minor strategic importance itself, but keeps Pakistan stable. That money spent there is way more than it needs to be, but thats because the first Bush (and Bill Clinton continued it) cut our military in half after the cold war. Of course, reduction in force lead to the illusory "surplus" we had (which dems claim was because of clinton, but it was the reduction of the military, really)....this surplus would have been really handy, if it had actually materialized, but we used it to increase the size of government by a few trillion dollars. That part was W's fault.
But it took the Obama adminstration one year to spend as much as W in all 8 years he was in office. And to add to this, Obama is the commander in chief. HE could get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan.....the congress is democrat, they could have defunded the war for years now, had they wanted to. This is not a conservative's war, my friend. This is the dem's war now. The money spent there is as much on this prez as the past one. He could have said, send in more of our troops and get rid of the mercenaries....but, no. We have status quo. It really makes one think there is more going on behind the scenes. I think so anyway.:yes:
Last edited:
blackout
Violet.
Isn't it supposed to make the insurance significantly more affordable?
I imagine premiums are set by income and family size?
I pay a state plan for my kids at around $80 a month right now.
It doesn't cover dental, and there is no option for adults.
If the new plan doesn't do significantly better than this,
it is useless.
The big problem I see in general these days,
is the entire cost of living for people with ordinary jobs
is WAY higher than their paychecks.
And this is with even 3 full time jobs,
It is a real stretch to pay just the basic bills.
Each additional thing required to live,
each price increase,
each new bill to pay,
without a proportional INCREASE IN INCOME...
just guarantees that sooner or later
our little sinking houseboats
will capsize completely.
You can't just keep demanding that people pay
what they cannot possibly earn
to support a family.
Last edited:
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
Could someone explain H.R.3200 and H.R.3962. Did both get passed and one reforming the other?
DallasApple
Depends Upon My Mood..
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-bu...hy-people-go-bankrupt?mod=bb-checking_savings
This is what Im talking about.The problem isnt just about being able to afford to pay for insurance premiums.
Love
Dallas
This is what Im talking about.The problem isnt just about being able to afford to pay for insurance premiums.
Love
Dallas
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
whatcha sayin dallas?
you fallin into the same camp as EO that we cant afford to pay for this, individually?
DallasApple
Depends Upon My Mood..
What Im saying is even WITH insurance you can still end up losing everything if you get sick because of the super inflated cost for care and the insurance companies dont cover you 100% for anything and everything.
What if anything is going to be done about that?
Love
Dallas
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
scare mongering seems rife at the moment....
it would have been far better if things had stayed the same....NOT...
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Wait, so you're saying this bill isn't socialism, then? Would you make up your mind?
From how I understand it, tax subsidies are scheduled to help those in need. The goal is to minimize impact on patients financially so that health care is open for them to use.
The problem I have with that is a use of taxpayer money when we're this deep in a recession, heavily invested in two wars (and a lot of that money paid more toward Blackwater rather than our own troops), bank bailouts, etc.
The motivation to take care of our citizens? I agree with the compassion to do so. But the decision to take more from taxes to subsidize a for-profit industry? Same old politics.
The approach is naive at best.
DallasApple
Depends Upon My Mood..
I agree but at the same time Its also very bad for our economy for individuals to be wiped out ..college funds for there kids ..retirement .losing your home.etc..over getting sick and needing treatment..
Its a mess...:sad4:
Love
Dallas
Well yeah, Lana. I agree. :flower:
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
sigh; by making things more efficient.... Obama has been doing this all along
for example, by forcing healthcare to enter the 20th century and computerise records (note 20th century) which increases productivity.....
the cost to tax payers as a whole will actually be lessend...
hence the things like the promise of a trillion dollar savings....
There is a promise to provide tax subsidies for families struggling to pay their deductibles and their premiums.
Is this true or not?
DallasApple
Depends Upon My Mood..
But I dont understand why it should ever reach a point of "struggling" in the first place.
Why did it cost $2,500 for my husband to spend 5 or 6 hours in the emergency room recieving morphine and having a few test run over a kidney stone?
Love
Dallas
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
as far as I know...
thats the whole point isn't it...
obviously initially, there are going to be numerous moronic loop holes
but only this morning the news qwas saying congress has voted on more amendments yesterday than it did in the whole of december last year....
so all this scaremongering is just that
the whole reform laws are not set in stone yet, in any form