Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

US health care vote

ObamaCare 2010

  • Please log in to reply
147 replies to this topic

#81 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 12:27 PM

View PostDev F, on Mar 23 2010, 11:18 AM, said:

It's worth noting that under the reconciliation package, the mandate will not apply to individuals whose income is below the tax-filing threshold. So you could theoretically avoid the penalty the same way you could theoretically avoid paying Social Security -- by not making any money.
Actually, not quite. Let's say I put it all on Bear Stearns imploding and struck it rich. I pay absolutely nothing in payroll taxes on those capital gains.

In any case Social Security does not require that I enter into a contract with a private party. It's a government-provided service paid for with taxes. It takes more than a tax to make a mandate.


Cait said:

What point are you making, besides the point that these things aren't identical.
That's the main point I'm making. There are differences, and some of them may be ruled against the Constitution. For example, Virginia appears to be arguing that the commerce clause of the Constitution prohibits a federal mandate for state citizens to purchase health insurance from a private provider.


Cait said:

How do you think the government will enforce this mandate?
I think the IRS will have the health insurer send them an electronic form saying you have health insurance. If the IRS's computer system doesn't receive that form, it will look to see if you've charged yourself the fine on your income tax return.

Edited by Palisade, 23 March 2010 - 12:44 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#82 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 12:30 PM

View PostBad Wolf, on Mar 23 2010, 12:15 PM, said:

View PostDev F, on Mar 23 2010, 09:18 AM, said:

It's worth noting that under the reconciliation package, the mandate will not apply to individuals whose income is below the tax-filing threshold.

How nice for me. :rolleyes:

How can I be penalized for not having insurance when I get DENIED.


If the bill does what its supporters claim it does, you won't get denied.

Edited by Palisade, 23 March 2010 - 12:30 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#83 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 12:40 PM

View PostBad Wolf, on Mar 23 2010, 11:15 AM, said:

View PostDev F, on Mar 23 2010, 09:18 AM, said:

It's worth noting that under the reconciliation package, the mandate will not apply to individuals whose income is below the tax-filing threshold.

How nice for me. :rolleyes:

How can I be penalized for not having insurance when I get DENIED.


I don't understand why you keep saying this, several people have mentioned the part of the bill where you can't be denied.  
One of the main themes of Obamacare is protecting people with pre-existing conditions, making sure that they can get and
afford health insurance.

Another Democrat leaning Independent that has to search for truth because it can't be found on Fox News OR MSNBC.



"Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality"  by HRC


#84 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 12:41 PM

View PostPalisade, on Mar 23 2010, 10:27 AM, said:

Cait said:

What point are you making, besides the point that these things aren't identical.
That's the main point I'm making. There are differences, and some of them may be ruled against the Constitution. For example, Virginia appears to be arguing that the commerce clause of the Constitution prohibits a federal mandate for state citizens to purchase health insurance from a private provider.

Cool.  Thanks for explaining.  I thought that's where you were going with it, and like I said, it will be interesting to see if the Courts see it the way you do.  Without doing a lot of research on it, and former decisions, I'll guess and say it has a 50-50 chance.  LOL


Quote

Cait said:

How do you think the government will enforce this mandate?
I think the IRS will have the health insurer send them an electronic form saying you have health insurance. If the IRS's computer system doesn't receive that form, it will look to see if you've charged yourself the fine on your income tax return.

Humm, well, that could be.  That'll be interesting.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#85 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 12:53 PM

View PostBalderdash, on Mar 23 2010, 10:40 AM, said:

View PostBad Wolf, on Mar 23 2010, 11:15 AM, said:

View PostDev F, on Mar 23 2010, 09:18 AM, said:

It's worth noting that under the reconciliation package, the mandate will not apply to individuals whose income is below the tax-filing threshold.

How nice for me. :rolleyes:

How can I be penalized for not having insurance when I get DENIED.


I don't understand why you keep saying this, several people have mentioned the part of the bill where you can't be denied.  
One of the main themes of Obamacare is protecting people with pre-existing conditions, making sure that they can get and
afford health insurance.

And how many times do I have to say that that PROTECTION (which is as full of holes as a slice of swiss) doesn't kick in until 2014?
Posted Image

#86 JadziaDax

JadziaDax

    E.I.'s resident insomniac

  • Islander
  • 2,612 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 01:01 PM

View PostBad Wolf, on Mar 23 2010, 11:53 AM, said:

View PostBalderdash, on Mar 23 2010, 10:40 AM, said:

View PostBad Wolf, on Mar 23 2010, 11:15 AM, said:

View PostDev F, on Mar 23 2010, 09:18 AM, said:

It's worth noting that under the reconciliation package, the mandate will not apply to individuals whose income is below the tax-filing threshold.

How nice for me. :rolleyes:

How can I be penalized for not having insurance when I get DENIED.


I don't understand why you keep saying this, several people have mentioned the part of the bill where you can't be denied.  
One of the main themes of Obamacare is protecting people with pre-existing conditions, making sure that they can get and
afford health insurance.

And how many times do I have to say that that PROTECTION (which is as full of holes as a slice of swiss) doesn't kick in until 2014?

Unless you're under 18 (er...make that 14, since once you age out you won't be protected).....and I'm sure once the mid-term elections happen, and the next presidential elections happen, this 2014 deadline will have either been extended to 3014 or killed entirely. :( Which sucks, because it's one of the few good things about this bill.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup

#87 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 01:02 PM

^^^ Bad Wolf, AFAIK, the mandate doesn't start until 2014.

Edited by Palisade, 23 March 2010 - 01:04 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#88 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 01:06 PM

View PostBalderdash, on Mar 23 2010, 10:40 AM, said:

I don't understand why you keep saying this, several people have mentioned the part of the bill where you can't be denied.  
One of the main themes of Obamacare is protecting people with pre-existing conditions, making sure that they can get and
afford health insurance.

The provision, for Adults with a pre-existing condition, does not begin until 2014 I believe.  So, Adults who are uninsurable, will still be uninsurable if they have a pre-existing.  Well, unless Insurance Companies feel all benevolent and stuff.

Children with pre-existing conditions are helped immediately by this Bill.  But, not Adults.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#89 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 01:17 PM

View PostBad Wolf, on Mar 23 2010, 12:53 PM, said:

And how many times do I have to say that that PROTECTION (which is as full of holes as a slice of swiss) doesn't kick in until 2014?
Neither do the mandates.

#90 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 01:21 PM

View PostCertifiably Cait, on Mar 23 2010, 02:06 PM, said:

View PostBalderdash, on Mar 23 2010, 10:40 AM, said:

I don't understand why you keep saying this, several people have mentioned the part of the bill where you can't be denied.  
One of the main themes of Obamacare is protecting people with pre-existing conditions, making sure that they can get and
afford health insurance.

The provision, for Adults with a pre-existing condition, does not begin until 2014 I believe.  So, Adults who are uninsurable, will still be uninsurable if they have a pre-existing.  Well, unless Insurance Companies feel all benevolent and stuff.

Children with pre-existing conditions are helped immediately by this Bill.  But, not Adults.

Just popping back in with a fact. :)

Within the next month or so, the government will form a "high-risk pool" for adults with pre-existing conditions who do not have insurance. They will be able to get it then.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#91 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 02:01 PM

View PostSpectacles, on Mar 23 2010, 11:21 AM, said:

View PostCertifiably Cait, on Mar 23 2010, 02:06 PM, said:

View PostBalderdash, on Mar 23 2010, 10:40 AM, said:

I don't understand why you keep saying this, several people have mentioned the part of the bill where you can't be denied.  
One of the main themes of Obamacare is protecting people with pre-existing conditions, making sure that they can get and
afford health insurance.

The provision, for Adults with a pre-existing condition, does not begin until 2014 I believe.  So, Adults who are uninsurable, will still be uninsurable if they have a pre-existing.  Well, unless Insurance Companies feel all benevolent and stuff.

Children with pre-existing conditions are helped immediately by this Bill.  But, not Adults.

Just popping back in with a fact. :)

Within the next month or so, the government will form a "high-risk pool" for adults with pre-existing conditions who do not have insurance. They will be able to get it then.


Yeah, like I mentioned somewhere in these many threads.  Thank you Spec's!  :)

Another Democrat leaning Independent that has to search for truth because it can't be found on Fox News OR MSNBC.



"Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality"  by HRC


#92 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 04:11 PM

View PostFnlPrblm, on Mar 23 2010, 07:15 AM, said:

First, they all won't be voted out over this one issue, no matter how large.  They said the same thing about abortion declarations and gay/lesbian issues.  It didn't really happen.  By November, people will have largely either forgotten or moved on to the more immediate issue facing the country.  People have short attention spans in this country and politicians bank on that.

Sadly you're probably correct in that. I can only hope and pray enough people remember the screwing over these 219 did, and remind others of it. And while I would so love for everyone who voted yes on this thing to be voted out, and shown the door...I'm not holding my breath.



Quote

Scott really said it best and most eloquently, "it's the price of doing business in a civilized society".

I disagree. I don't see anything civilized about targeting one specific group unfairly.

A good analogy for this whole thing is this: picture a marathon race. You have several really fast runners, who has done what they are suppose to. They've eaten right, trained hard, etc. There are several other runners, who because of circumstances beyond their control, haven't been able to train as much, or eat the way they are suppose to. Now along comes the President of the race and he tells those who have done what they are suppose to..."You guys can't run your best. You have to keep pace with the others, so that all cross the finish line at the exact same moment."

Where is the incentive then to even try and succeed?

That's what this bill does.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#93 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 04:30 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on Mar 23 2010, 04:11 PM, said:

A good analogy for this whole thing is this: picture a marathon race. You have several really fast runners, who has done what they are suppose to. They've eaten right, trained hard, etc. There are several other runners, who because of circumstances beyond their control, haven't been able to train as much, or eat the way they are suppose to. Now along comes the President of the race and he tells those who have done what they are suppose to..."You guys can't run your best. You have to keep pace with the others, so that all cross the finish line at the exact same moment."

Where is the incentive then to even try and succeed?

That's what this bill does.
I still don't see how "living in poverty but getting a government subsidy to help pay for medical insurance" qualifies as crossing the finish line at the same time as someone who lives in the lap of luxury and doesn't even have to worry about medical coverage. It's like living on veal and caviar and complaining that the people who buy Wonder Bread and Velveeta with food stamps are eating just as well as you.

#94 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 04:53 PM

View PostDev F, on Mar 23 2010, 05:30 PM, said:

I still don't see how "living in poverty but getting a government subsidy to help pay for medical insurance" qualifies as crossing the finish line at the same time as someone who lives in the lap of luxury and doesn't even have to worry about medical coverage. It's like living on veal and caviar and complaining that the people who buy Wonder Bread and Velveeta with food stamps are eating just as well as you.


OK, first things first...Leave the Wonder Bread and Velveeta alone...LMAO. You'd be surprised at just how many things both products make better...LOL.

I don't have a problem with the government helping out those less fortunate. I DO have a problem with targetting a specific group to pay for it though. And the counter argument of "Well they can afford it" just doesn't cut it, IMO.

And, IMO, the tax dollars we already pay should pay for this. There are plenty of other things, namely pork, that the government can take the money from to fund this. But instead of that, they have targetted one specific group...just because it is PC to do so.

And don't get me wrong...I'm not defending that group because I am in the bracket...I wish I were in a bracket even remotely close to it. But it just isn't right to target one specific group because they are successful.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#95 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 05:39 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on Mar 23 2010, 05:11 PM, said:

View PostFnlPrblm, on Mar 23 2010, 07:15 AM, said:

Scott really said it best and most eloquently, "it's the price of doing business in a civilized society".

I disagree. I don't see anything civilized about targeting one specific group unfairly.

What group is being targeted unfairly?  The wealthy?  Seriously?  Because they fall into a higher tax bracket?  

By that logic, ALL taxes are uncivilized because there are, of course, people who will always be so poor (or so jobless) as to fall into NO tax bracket at all.  How dare we be unfair to them!

I mean, how do you have ANY sort of society in the year 2010 -- let alone a civilized one -- without some form of income tax to fund governmental services like law enforcement, fire control, defense, school, medical services, FDA, EPA, courts, etc.?  

I suppose you could argue for a national sales tax, but that has been shown to disproportionately target one specific group: the poor.  So that wouldn't pass muster by your logic, either.  Right?

No one likes paying taxes, but that doesn't mean they don't serve a good purpose, and everyone has to pay according to their means, which translates to a progressive income tax.  The more you make, the more you contribute `

Quote

A good analogy for this whole thing is this: picture a marathon race. You have several really fast runners, who has done what they are suppose to. They've eaten right, trained hard, etc. There are several other runners, who because of circumstances beyond their control, haven't been able to train as much, or eat the way they are suppose to. Now along comes the President of the race and he tells those who have done what they are suppose to..."You guys can't run your best. You have to keep pace with the others, so that all cross the finish line at the exact same moment."

That's a terrible analogy for society, which by definition is a community of people, not an individual in competition with another individual.  You're comparing apples and oranges.   Thomas Jefferson: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union."  Bolding mine.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#96 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 09:22 PM

View PostCertifiably Cait, on Mar 23 2010, 08:39 AM, said:

That's correct.  But if you want to work for someone, [as most people do] you have to pay SS taxes.

You have to pay Social Security and Medicare if you are self-employed, as well.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#97 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,309 posts

Posted 23 March 2010 - 10:02 PM

Oh how miserable are our memories....

Much earlier in the debate, there was a proposal put forward - one which got a very little bit of notice, most of it favorable.  That proposal was the Wyden-Bennett proposal. Here's a little bit about Senator Bennett's fortunes today:
http://www.theatlant...-mandate/37915/.  (Bennett is Republican, Wyden, Democrat).

Quote

But at least two other Republicans in states whose attorneys general say that an individual mandate is unconstitutional went on the record as supporting the Wyden-Bennett version. They are therefore by the transitive property not supporters of the constitutional case, unless they've changed their minds.

They are Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho. Other Republican cosponsors included Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee.

I'll state for the record (again) that I'm not thrilled about the mandate. Candidate Obama ran on a platform that only included mandates for children.  And, I'm not happy that the mandate doesn't come with a government alternative (public option at either the state or local level) so that we aren't forced to support private businesses. Indeed, I'd prefer if the stupid mandate was actually catastrophic coverage (after all, we the taxpayers will still pay for the catastrophic coverage when noncompliant folks get sick..), instead of a hidden tax.  But it should be noted that the constitutionality of the mandate was on no one's mind when it was in a plan that was in opposition to the dominant democratic one.

QT

Edited by QueenTiye, 24 March 2010 - 02:24 PM.

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#98 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,309 posts

Posted 24 March 2010 - 02:24 PM

AND, speaking of Sen. Wyden, here's an interesting tidbit: http://www.huffingto...t_n_511748.html

Quote

Speaking to the Huffington Post on Tuesday, Wyden discussed -- for one of the first times in public -- legislative language he authored which "allows a state to go out and do its own bill, including having no individual mandate."

It's called the "Empowering States to be Innovative" amendment. And it would, quite literally, give states the right to set up their own health care system -- with or without an individual mandate or, for that matter, with or without a public option -- provided that, as Wyden puts it, "they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill."

"Why don't you use the waiver provision to let you go set up your own plan?" the senator asked those who threaten health-care-related lawsuits. "Why would you just say you are going to sue everybody, when this bill gives you the authority and the legal counsel is on record as saying you can do it without an individual mandate?"

The provision actually was taken directly from Wyden's Healthy Americans Act -- the far-more innovative health care reform legislation he authored with Republican co-sponsors. In that bill there is also an individual mandate that would require Americans to purchase insurance coverage. But states that found the mandate objectionable could simply create and insert a new system in its place. All it would require is applying for a waiver from the Department of Health and Human Services, which has a 180-day window to confirm or deny such a waiver.

Hmmm...

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#99 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,028 posts

Posted 24 March 2010 - 03:35 PM

^ I love it.

#100 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 24 March 2010 - 06:01 PM

And of course Obama has now signed his dirty little side deal to prevent federal money being spent on elective abortion and authorizing the creation of regulations to govern that.  And we all know that regulations mean ADMINISTRATION which of course costs money that has to be paid for by SOMEONE.

Pardon me while I go throw up.
Posted Image



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: ObamaCare, 2010

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users