Why are the TAXPAYERS paying to sell private insurance?

[flacaltenn]

Everytime you see those healthcare.gov ads URGING you to enroll in a plan today.. Remember WHAT they are selling. The PRODUCT is not a government product. It is a contract with Cigna, Blue Cross, UnitedHCare, etc..

Why are the taxpayers paying to drive customers to giant corporations for their products?

And why isn't the media discussing the OTHER free services these corporations are recieving?

1) Free sales staff --- 100s of thousands of "ex-con" unlicensed navigators and promoters.
2) Free subsidies
3) Free collections assistance.
4) A guaranteed customer base.

What kinda deal enables the government to SHILL for giant corporations?

 

[MeBelle]

State sponsored tax exemptions/subsidies come with the 'privilege' for Health Insurance companies who were 'approved'.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why are the TAXPAYERS paying to sell private insurance?

Why as Bush trying to privatize part of Social Security: to enrich private industry. The taxpayer would have had to pay fees etc for the guidance to invest.

 

[flacaltenn]

State sponsored tax exemptions/subsidies come with the 'privilege' for Health Insurance companies who were 'approved'.

All those companies will be taxed the same? Regardless of whether they participate in the exchanges?? Or will they?? Will they be taxed differently depending on how many exchanges they participate in?

My only clue is that there will be a NEW tax on them --- presumably EQUAL?

So much we haven't found out yet MeBelle.. The press can barely handle the TIP of this debacle.. Half the ads on Sunday football were to push consumers to giant insurance corporation contracts.

USED to be -- if an insurance broker sold a policy -- they got a commission from the Insurer.. Where did the commission go? Do TAXPAYERS get a commission if healthcare.gov signs up a new customer?

 

[flacaltenn]

Why are the TAXPAYERS paying to sell private insurance?

Why as Bush trying to privatize part of Social Security: to enrich private industry. The taxpayer would have had to pay fees etc for the guidance to invest.

BS.. And off topic. THAT was a CHOICE.. And the assumption was that the person was intelligient to invest WITHOUT "help" from an ex-con gubmint "navigator"...

Why are WE paying to advertise a product from UnitedHealthcare?

 

[Sunshine]

Neither side of this debate seems to have put it together that the SCOTUS called the ACA a tax. They did which is why the SCOTUS deemed it was legal. But when did taxpayers ever have to pay a tax to a corporation and not to the government?

There is a disconnect in all this. Under the ACA BUYING insurance from a private non government CORPORATION = TAX.

Someone, PLEASE get it. PLEASE!

 

[MeBelle]

State sponsored tax exemptions/subsidies come with the 'privilege' for Health Insurance companies who were 'approved'.

All those companies will be taxed the same? Regardless of whether they participate in the exchanges?? Or will they?? Will they be taxed differently depending on how many exchanges they participate in?

What I'm talking about is, for example, the state of California gave some HI companies tax incentives in exchange for the companies to be 'accepted' IN the exchange (companies fearing they would lose money).

My only clue is that there will be a NEW tax on them --- presumably EQUAL?

Maybe a new tax for those companies who do not sign up with the exchange, but that is on a state by state basis.

So much we haven't found out yet MeBelle.. The press can barely handle the TIP of this debacle.. Half the ads on Sunday football were to push consumers to giant insurance corporation contracts.

USED to be -- if an insurance broker sold a policy -- they got a commission from the Insurer.. Where did the commission go?

The commission is still there, it's smaller now.

Do TAXPAYERS get a commission if healthcare.gov signs up a new customer?

That kind of makes too much sense!

 

[flacaltenn]

I want to know how our anti corporate leftist buds feel about this heavy petting btwn the corporations and the feds being their best idea since FDR...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why are the TAXPAYERS paying to sell private insurance?

Why as Bush trying to privatize part of Social Security: to enrich private industry. The taxpayer would have had to pay fees etc for the guidance to invest.

BS.. And off topic. THAT was a CHOICE.. And the assumption was that the person was intelligient to invest WITHOUT "help" from an ex-con gubmint "navigator"...

Why are WE paying to advertise a product from UnitedHealthcare?

Nope, it wasn't a choice. On topic. The corporatists wanted to dig into our SS with mandatory options and fees.

 

[flacaltenn]

Why are the TAXPAYERS paying to sell private insurance?

Why as Bush trying to privatize part of Social Security: to enrich private industry. The taxpayer would have had to pay fees etc for the guidance to invest.

BS.. And off topic. THAT was a CHOICE.. And the assumption was that the person was intelligient to invest WITHOUT "help" from an ex-con gubmint "navigator"...

Why are WE paying to advertise a product from UnitedHealthcare?

Nope, it wasn't a choice. On topic. The corporatists wanted to dig into our SS with mandatory options and fees.

Not gonna do that here. I invite you to do that topic in the BullRing with me. I'd enjoy that matchup.

Even if it WERE true --- it PALLS in magnitude to the MASSIVE THEFT and FRAUD that's been committed in the SS Trust Fund by the same incompetents that NOW want to sell you on managing MORE of your life's portfolio..

 

[emilynghiem]

Neither side of this debate seems to have put it together that the SCOTUS called the ACA a tax. They did which is why the SCOTUS deemed it was legal. But when did taxpayers ever have to pay a tax to a corporation and not to the government?

There is a disconnect in all this. Under the ACA BUYING insurance from a private non government CORPORATION = TAX.

Someone, PLEASE get it. PLEASE!

Dear Sunshine:

A. the tax issue that is controversial is that the bill was set up as a public health act reform, not as a tax. had it been set up as a tax bill concerning "revenue" it goes through a different constitutional process, which WAS NOT done in this case. So it is conflicting.
After the SC approved this as a tax, then lawsuits came up arguing it is unconstitutional because it did not follow the procedure as a normal tax/revenue bill. That's the legalistic argument for saying it was "fraudulent" to pass it through Congress claiming it was "not a tax" so that it would pass; then the same team arguing before SC that "it is a tax" so they can pass it there. This part of your argument is recognized; but it is being argued down and not being taken seriously.

B. As for the tax part, that is the part of the bill that citizens will have the FINE/PENALTY taken out of their tax return and kept by the federal govt "if they are not excused by this because they have proof of buying private insurance". So the money for buying private insurance would be going to the private company; while the $95-1% "tax" penalty would go to the federal govt with the income tax process.

If I had a legal team and infinite legal resources, I would argue that the rules for "exemption" are discriminatory and regulate on the basis of religion or political favor.
So either make it voluntary for ALL people, or make it mandatory to cover all people. The problem is with covering some and excluding others, mandating some or exempting others.

Again, these arguments are not taken seriously so nobody bothers trying them.

They purposely played with the gray area of the law to push this through.

The only way I could see winning this ideological war is either
A. add better options to the programs that all groups and all people would be covered in ways they agree with, so nobody complains and everyone pursues their way of funding it
VOLUNTARILY where there are no contested mandates but voluntary participation
B. add equally unconstitutional requirements on the mandates so that the flaws are exposed, then people would have to split off and form and fund their own cooperatives,
once it is clear that people cannot be forced to fund policies they religiously disagree with