The Finding Out What's In The Bill Thread

[Ravi]

That provision preventing private insurers from writing new policies makes them nothing more than puppets of the U.S. Government! Meaning there is no option except the government option.

And unfortunately, I was mistaken, it was not only tied into the language of the public option it was tied into to entire bill. Did that language become part of the bill that was signed today?

Immie

You can find this debunked here.

IBD falsely claimed House health bill would "outlaw individual private coverage" | Media Matters for America

 

[Immanuel]

That provision preventing private insurers from writing new policies makes them nothing more than puppets of the U.S. Government! Meaning there is no option except the government option.

And unfortunately, I was mistaken, it was not only tied into the language of the public option it was tied into to entire bill. Did that language become part of the bill that was signed today?

Immie

You can find this debunked here.

IBD falsely claimed House health bill would "outlaw individual private coverage" | Media Matters for America

You can read the language in the bill (provided above) and tell me what you think.

I think that clearly destroys the health insurance industry or in fact makes them puppets of the U.S. Government which in my humble opinion destroys them.

Sure, that language is subject to interpretation, but the way I read that is that health insurers cannot write new policy that are not "government approved".

I've got a problem with that as it eliminates choice.

Immie

 

[antagon]

How about this for all those who think they might start their own little construction business.
*********************************************
PAGE 2107


1 (2) Section 4980H(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code

2 of 1986, as added by section 1513(a) of this Act, is amended

3 by adding at the end the following:

4 ‘‘(D) APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCTION IN

5 DUSTRY EMPLOYERS.—In the case of any em

6 ployer the substantial annual gross receipts of

7 which are attributable to the construction indus

8 try—

9 ‘‘(i) subparagraph (A) shall be applied

10 by substituting ‘who employed an average of

11 at least 5 full-time employees on business

12 days during the preceding calendar year

13 and whose annual payroll expenses exceed

14 $250,000 for such preceding calendar year’

15 for ‘who employed an average of at least 50

16 full-time employees on business days during

17 the preceding calendar year’, and

18 ‘‘(ii) subparagraph (B) shall be ap

19 plied by substituting ‘5’ for ‘50’.’’.

20 (3) The amendment made by paragraph (2) shall

21 apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.

That’s right, the construction industry, which currently has an unemployment rate of 27.1 percent (you read that correctly), is being targeted in this bill with a much lower exemption threshold than other small businesses. While most other small businesses are not subject to fines and regulations unless they have 50 or more employees, construction companies — wait, “any employer the substantial annual gross receipts of which are attributable to the construction industry” so this takes in lots of other companies who are ancillary to the industry as well — are subject to these same provisions if they have as few as 5 employees.
This little-noticed provision was slipped into the Senate bill just prior to its passage on Christmas Eve by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) And while members of Congress had pledged to the construction industry that they would remove this language or address it in the reconciliation package of legislative fixes, they didn’t.

Health Care Bill Targets Construction Industry Virginia Virtucon

1) the poster or the article they got this information from has interpreted this wrong. it clearly substitutes 5 for 50, not 50 for 5.

2)this shit isnt even in the bill as far as i can see...

the bill

wtf? this is a great thread in that it is the right way to look at the legislation... for its (de)merits... second post, and you've got a joe-the-plumber loser in the mix.

 

[Immanuel]

That provision preventing private insurers from writing new policies makes them nothing more than puppets of the U.S. Government! Meaning there is no option except the government option.

And unfortunately, I was mistaken, it was not only tied into the language of the public option it was tied into to entire bill. Did that language become part of the bill that was signed today?

Immie

You can find this debunked here.

IBD falsely claimed House health bill would "outlaw individual private coverage" | Media Matters for America

In a July 15 editorial, subsequently highlighted by Rush Limbaugh and the Media Research Center, Investor's Business Daily falsely claimed that the House tri-committee health-care reform bill includes "a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal." The editorial later stated that the "provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage." That assertion is false; the bill will not "outlaw individual private coverage."

In fact, the provision to which the editorial referred establishes the conditions under which existing private plans would be exempted from the requirement that they participate in the Health Insurance Exchange. Individual health insurance plans that do not meet the "grandfather" conditions would still be available for purchase, but only through the Exchange and subject to those regulations.

Thank you for proving my point!

Immie

 

[antagon]

(1) IN GENERAL- Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.

Read The Bill: H.R. 3200 - GovTrack.us

That provision preventing private insurers from writing new policies makes them nothing more than puppets of the U.S. Government! Meaning there is no option except the government option.

And unfortunately, I was mistaken, it was not only tied into the language of the public option it was tied into to entire bill. Did that language become part of the bill that was signed today?

Immie

i guess that could be conceived as puppetry. the wording empowers exchanges. for these to function in a way which forces competition, they need to force companies to use them, rather than separately sourced options competing with the exchange. thats how i see it. a bit like the stock exchange. rules limit the opportunity to privately place shares of your business, so that it can be done under the existing, guided system with regs and oversight.

still in the bill worded the same, FYI.... see HR4872

 

[Immanuel]

(1) IN GENERAL- Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.

Read The Bill: H.R. 3200 - GovTrack.us

That provision preventing private insurers from writing new policies makes them nothing more than puppets of the U.S. Government! Meaning there is no option except the government option.

And unfortunately, I was mistaken, it was not only tied into the language of the public option it was tied into to entire bill. Did that language become part of the bill that was signed today?

Immie

i guess that could be conceived as puppetry. the wording empowers exchanges. for these to function in a way which forces competition, they need to force companies to use them, rather than separately sourced options competing with the exchange. thats how i see it. a bit like the stock exchange. rules limit the opportunity to privately place shares of your business, so that it can be done under the existing, guided system with regs and oversight.

still in the bill worded the same, FYI.... see HR4872

Thanks for the info on HR 4872. I had not yet gone to find it.

I don't see the Health Insurance Exchange as anything close the the Stock Exchange. What I see is the government regulating the policies and the costs of private insurance and telling private insurers that they will offer coverage on things like breast enhancement (I hesitate to mention abortion, but that is what I am thinking) and that they will charge no more than X dollars for their coverage and deductibles will be no higher than Y etc. etc. etc.

That in my opinion constitutes puppetry.

And since I do not trust a damned thing said by any politician, them telling me it is a "stock exchange" is not going to fly.

Immie

 

[chanel]

We have a small plumbing biz with 8 employees and payroll over 250K. Pay the fine or reduce the payroll? This could hurt many good people.

 

[antagon]

(1) IN GENERAL- Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.

Read The Bill: H.R. 3200 - GovTrack.us

That provision preventing private insurers from writing new policies makes them nothing more than puppets of the U.S. Government! Meaning there is no option except the government option.

And unfortunately, I was mistaken, it was not only tied into the language of the public option it was tied into to entire bill. Did that language become part of the bill that was signed today?

Immie

i guess that could be conceived as puppetry. the wording empowers exchanges. for these to function in a way which forces competition, they need to force companies to use them, rather than separately sourced options competing with the exchange. thats how i see it. a bit like the stock exchange. rules limit the opportunity to privately place shares of your business, so that it can be done under the existing, guided system with regs and oversight.

still in the bill worded the same, FYI.... see HR4872

Thanks for the info on HR 4872. I had not yet gone to find it.

I don't see the Health Insurance Exchange as anything close the the Stock Exchange. What I see is the government regulating the policies and the costs of private insurance and telling private insurers that they will offer coverage on things like breast enhancement (I hesitate to mention abortion, but that is what I am thinking) and that they will charge no more than X dollars for their coverage and deductibles will be no higher than Y etc. etc. etc.

That in my opinion constitutes puppetry.

And since I do not trust a damned thing said by any politician, them telling me it is a "stock exchange" is not going to fly.

Immie

this is the finding out whats in the bill thread, immie, can you substantiate any of what you are saying is in the bill is actually in there?

there are certainly some differences between the h/c exchanges and the stock exchange. the main difference is that the exchange aims to have a standardized set of coverages as a minimum for qualified plans.

i dont know what it is like for people who get plans offered them from their jobs, having never gone through that. when you look online, however, at the comparison sites for private insurance, it is immediately obvious that aetna sells apples and blue shield oranges. you cant compare these plans side by side, beyond wide-sweeping bases like deductible amount.

if you are hell-bent on seeing everything as puppetry, you will certainly see it, but couldnt standardized coverage for the purposes of an exchange create direct competition in an all-apples market? right now insurers avoid this through diversifying their plans and altering the terms that they use for essentially, but not exactly the same thing.

i got my insurance from having to sit down with sales people. they pitched me on the way their favorite plan worked; they all sneaked around some general requirements (price/deductible) i had, but with many bizarre options clouding real comparison of their offerings.

this exchange bit could be refreshing??

 

[DiamondDave]

Link?

The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million

Stats there show 41%

Now.... again.... why is it OK for some to pay for the personal responsibilities of others.. in essence paying MORE for the same service??

You want that I get charged $10 for a gallon of milk while Joe Lazyass down the street pays $0.25 for the same milk?

whatever tax deductions that working americans take like the dependent deductions or deductions given for oneself and spouse in which these americans use to eliminate their income tax burdens, the wealthier still paying taxes TOOK ALL of those deductions also, eliminating their tax burden on their first 20-$30k as well....

those not paying income tax have gotten nothing that the wealthy did not also take advantage of.... it is a fair system for the most part, imo.

And you would be wrong

ANY system where non-contributors are given entitlements at the expense of contributors is by nature an UNFAIR system.. any system where inequality is inherently built in to the structure is by nature an UNFAIR system.... both of these things are in our system

 

[antagon]

The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million

Stats there show 41%

Now.... again.... why is it OK for some to pay for the personal responsibilities of others.. in essence paying MORE for the same service??

You want that I get charged $10 for a gallon of milk while Joe Lazyass down the street pays $0.25 for the same milk?

whatever tax deductions that working americans take like the dependent deductions or deductions given for oneself and spouse in which these americans use to eliminate their income tax burdens, the wealthier still paying taxes TOOK ALL of those deductions also, eliminating their tax burden on their first 20-$30k as well....

those not paying income tax have gotten nothing that the wealthy did not also take advantage of.... it is a fair system for the most part, imo.

And you would be wrong

ANY system where non-contributors are given entitlements at the expense of contributors is by nature an UNFAIR system.. any system where inequality is inherently built in to the structure is by nature an UNFAIR system.... both of these things are in our system

what a baby. have you ever considered that tax is 1) expressly for raising revenue. 2) that economics, rather than social justice is the basis of tax/entitlement policy. 3) that social justice issues are better fitting the poor, disadvantaged and needy than the rich, empowered and self-sufficient, anyhow?

clearly not. anyways, take your drum to a different thread and beat it. this one is about the contents of the healthcare bill.

 

[DiamondDave]

whatever tax deductions that working americans take like the dependent deductions or deductions given for oneself and spouse in which these americans use to eliminate their income tax burdens, the wealthier still paying taxes TOOK ALL of those deductions also, eliminating their tax burden on their first 20-$30k as well....

those not paying income tax have gotten nothing that the wealthy did not also take advantage of.... it is a fair system for the most part, imo.

And you would be wrong

ANY system where non-contributors are given entitlements at the expense of contributors is by nature an UNFAIR system.. any system where inequality is inherently built in to the structure is by nature an UNFAIR system.... both of these things are in our system

what a baby. have you ever considered that tax is 1) expressly for raising revenue. 2) that economics, rather than social justice is the basis of tax/entitlement policy. 3) that social justice issues are better fitting the poor, disadvantaged and needy than the rich, empowered and self-sufficient, anyhow?

clearly not. anyways, take your drum to a different thread and beat it. this one is about the contents of the healthcare bill.

Ever think that taxation, like justice, should be blind and not prejudiced?? Clearly not

 

[antagon]

We have a small plumbing biz with 8 employees and payroll over 250K. Pay the fine or reduce the payroll? This could hurt many good people.

after joe the plumber, im getting the impression plumbers run their bizs different than the rest of us.

ever thought about raising your prices like any other biz would? that doesnt occur to plumbers? sorry ralph, gotta let you go. we're probably going to incur another 7gs in fees because of you and obama, and we dont know any other way to cover that between now and april 2015.

contributing/covering employees is an option, depending on how much family theyve got, it might not cost too much. Sam will pick up half (for < 10 employees all making less than $80k/yr) according to the bill.

SEC. 45R. SMALL BUSINESS EMPLOYEE HEALTH COVERAGE CREDIT.

the bill

 

[antagon]

what a baby. have you ever considered that tax is 1) expressly for raising revenue. 2) that economics, rather than social justice is the basis of tax/entitlement policy. 3) that social justice issues are better fitting the poor, disadvantaged and needy than the rich, empowered and self-sufficient, anyhow?

clearly not. anyways, take your drum to a different thread and beat it. this one is about the contents of the healthcare bill.

Ever think that taxation, like justice, should be blind and not prejudiced?? Clearly not

no dave, i dont believe tax is a social justice mechanism, and should be blind at all... when i ponder that, i think that a tax system or govt 'blind' to economic impacts is inferior to the US.

clearly, resoundingly, not.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yet another broken promise. To Liberals....he lied yet again.

Osama Obama said every bill would be out there for 5 days before he would sign it....and he only waited 36 hrs.

If anyone made any deals with this lying **** they need to start checking their bank accounts.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I especially like this.

I also like the fact that children can stay on their parents policies until age 26.

Honestly, other that penalizing people for not purchasing insurance I can't find much to dislike...except the lack of a public option.

How about this? you like that?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...110449-health-care-reform-cost-estimates.html

Sorry, I tend to mistrust things written by people with an agenda.

Well just for the record ,this is what you are just blowing off ,Just so the people playing along at home can check how deep you are in the tank.
Are you going to go on the record and say there is no chance history will repeat itself?

With this kind of track record?




Medicare (hospital insurance). In 1965, as Congress considered legislation to establish a national Medicare program, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance portion of the program, Part A, would cost about $9 billion annually by 1990.v Actual Part A spending in 1990 was $67 billion. The actuary who provided the original cost estimates acknowledged in 1994 that, even after conservatively discounting for the unexpectedly high inflation rates of the early ‘70s and other factors, “the actual [Part A] experience was 165% higher than the estimate.”

Medicare (entire program). In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billion—off by nearly a factor of 10.

Medicaid DSH program. In 1987, Congress estimated that Medicaid’s disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments—which states use to provide relief to hospitals that serve especially large numbers of Medicaid and uninsured patients—would cost less than $1 billion in 1992. The actual cost that year was a staggering $17 billion. Among other things, federal lawmakers had failed to detect loopholes in the legislation that enabled states to draw significantly more money from the federal treasury than they would otherwise have been entitled to claim under the program’s traditional 50-50 funding scheme.

Medicare home care benefit. When Congress debated changes to Medicare’s home care benefit in 1988, the projected 1993 cost of the benefit was $4 billion. The actual 1993 cost was more than twice that amount, $10 billion.

Medicare catastrophic coverage benefit. In 1988, Congress added a catastrophic coverage benefit to Medicare, to take effect in 1990. In July 1989, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doubled its cost estimate for the program, for the four-year period 1990-1993, from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion. CBO explained that it had received newer data showing it had significantly under-estimated prescription drug cost growth, and it warned Congress that even this revised estimate might be too low. This was a principal reason Congress repealed the program before it could take effect.

SCHIP. In 1997, Congress established the State Children’s Health Insurance Program as a capped grant program to states, and appropriated $40 billion to be doled out to states over 10 years at a rate of roughly $5 billion per year, once implemented. In each year, some states exceeded their allotments, requiring shifts of funds from other states that had not done so. By 2006, unspent reserves from prior years were nearly exhausted. To avert mass disenrollments, Congress decided to appropriate an additional $283 million in FY 2006 and an additional $650 million in FY 2007.

http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/p...orm_Cost_Estimates_Reliable__July_31_2009.pdf

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[antagon]

very valid, fitnah. scrolling through the bill i seen contingencies for running unexpected surpluses. <== that was a much needed comedy break.

 

[LuckyDan]

Adulthood now begins at 26.

Personally, my kids could use the time.

(Just looking for plusses.)

 

[Vel]

How about this for all those who think they might start their own little construction business.
*********************************************
PAGE 2107


1 (2) Section 4980H(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code

2 of 1986, as added by section 1513(a) of this Act, is amended

3 by adding at the end the following:

4 ‘‘(D) APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCTION IN

5 DUSTRY EMPLOYERS.—In the case of any em

6 ployer the substantial annual gross receipts of

7 which are attributable to the construction indus

8 try—

9 ‘‘(i) subparagraph (A) shall be applied

10 by substituting ‘who employed an average of

11 at least 5 full-time employees on business

12 days during the preceding calendar year

13 and whose annual payroll expenses exceed

14 $250,000 for such preceding calendar year’

15 for ‘who employed an average of at least 50

16 full-time employees on business days during

17 the preceding calendar year’, and

18 ‘‘(ii) subparagraph (B) shall be ap

19 plied by substituting ‘5’ for ‘50’.’’.

20 (3) The amendment made by paragraph (2) shall

21 apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.

That’s right, the construction industry, which currently has an unemployment rate of 27.1 percent (you read that correctly), is being targeted in this bill with a much lower exemption threshold than other small businesses. While most other small businesses are not subject to fines and regulations unless they have 50 or more employees, construction companies — wait, “any employer the substantial annual gross receipts of which are attributable to the construction industry” so this takes in lots of other companies who are ancillary to the industry as well — are subject to these same provisions if they have as few as 5 employees.
This little-noticed provision was slipped into the Senate bill just prior to its passage on Christmas Eve by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) And while members of Congress had pledged to the construction industry that they would remove this language or address it in the reconciliation package of legislative fixes, they didn’t.

Health Care Bill Targets Construction Industry Virginia Virtucon

1) the poster or the article they got this information from has interpreted this wrong. it clearly substitutes 5 for 50, not 50 for 5.

2)this shit isnt even in the bill as far as i can see...

the bill

wtf? this is a great thread in that it is the right way to look at the legislation... for its (de)merits... second post, and you've got a joe-the-plumber loser in the mix.

Umm.. Why don't you look on page 2107 and you'll FIND this "shit in the bill". And yes, it clearly substitutes 5 for 50. That is the problem. If you don't like my link, Google the information for yourself or better yet.. call your congresscritter and ask them.

 

[Vel]

Perhaps this article will be more clear.
*******************************************

Five new paragraphs in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's 383-page manager's amendment require construction contractors with only five full-time employees and at least $250,000 in payroll to provide employee health insurance benefits or pay a fine. The amendment, introduced by Sen. Jeff Merkley, Oregon Democrat, on behalf of his union patrons, treats the construction industry differently than all other industries. For small businesses in every other industry, the health care exemption applies to small businesses with less than 50 employees: a 10-fold difference. The move will impose astronomical costs on small construction employers who cannot afford health insurance to begin with, and inevitably cause more job-loss in an industry already seeing 22 percent unemployment and profit margins in the low single digits.



MCMAHON: Yet another reason to oppose Obamacare - Washington Times

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Perhaps this article will be more clear.
*******************************************

Five new paragraphs in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's 383-page manager's amendment require construction contractors with only five full-time employees and at least $250,000 in payroll to provide employee health insurance benefits or pay a fine. The amendment, introduced by Sen. Jeff Merkley, Oregon Democrat, on behalf of his union patrons, treats the construction industry differently than all other industries. For small businesses in every other industry, the health care exemption applies to small businesses with less than 50 employees: a 10-fold difference. The move will impose astronomical costs on small construction employers who cannot afford health insurance to begin with, and inevitably cause more job-loss in an industry already seeing 22 percent unemployment and profit margins in the low single digits.



MCMAHON: Yet another reason to oppose Obamacare - Washington Times

Nah its not a job killing machine.