Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
left  The Debate, telling you what you probably already know.   Options  V right
sunupu
post Nov 4 2009, 11:33 AM
Post #1


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 2,842
Joined: 23-February 08
Member No.: 474



I could blther on the retardery of the current health care "debate" for days and not going anywhere. So instead I'll let you read from the source.

Tell me if this link is any good, my Acrobat doesn't work. And before you give shit, I have read the memo.

And here's Dr. Frank Luntz's opinion on the issue.

Frank refuses to disclose who paid him to write the memo. My money is on either a hospital conglomerate or a tobacco company that doesn't want to pay higher taxes.


--------------------
The best way to get over someone is to get under someone.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jessica Rabbit
post Nov 4 2009, 04:09 PM
Post #2


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 1,374
Joined: 24-August 08
Member No.: 636





The information in that is not easy to follow. If I were confused on the issue, after reading this I would walk away more confused. He didn't cite his polling data, so how do I know who or how many were polled....or even that the poll took place.

I am not for universal healthcare. I do not think the problem is healthcare but insurance companies.

What was your point in posting that? To favor universal healthcare by showing one weak circular? or to show that the whole debate regardless of what side you support is retarded?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sunupu
post Nov 4 2009, 05:27 PM
Post #3


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 2,842
Joined: 23-February 08
Member No.: 474



Figured I'd have to explain.

Frank Luntz is the Republican strategist, his career includes many ideas Bush used, such as the Swift Boat campaign.

His polling normally consists of finding out what words have the biggest effect on people. Of all the red herrings, the term "Government takeover" seemed to have the most effect.

The point of all this nonsense is to show that the populist rage that seems so genuine is really a carefully manufactured product, designed to be frightening and backed by anti-reformists conglomerates (although I didn't get into that, at least not yet).

Obama takes money from Pharmaceutical conglomerates, and his opponents take theirs from hospital and health insurance (and tobacco, and snack foods, and so on and so forth) conglomerates. Every side has a sponsor, and therefore alternative motives.

With that being said, reform could come all of this if the public would pull its head out of its' ass and demand it. I don't think that's coming, just because the opposition to it is so well-financed and deep-rooted in right-wing patriotism. This debate has succeeded in even making populist outrage fake.


--------------------
The best way to get over someone is to get under someone.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sunupu
post Nov 4 2009, 05:37 PM
Post #4


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 2,842
Joined: 23-February 08
Member No.: 474



Did you also know that Michelle Bachmann (the woman who started the nonsense over death panels) had taken money from Phillip Morris, a tobacco company?

I may have already brought this up...


--------------------
The best way to get over someone is to get under someone.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jessica Rabbit
post Nov 4 2009, 05:38 PM
Post #5


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 1,374
Joined: 24-August 08
Member No.: 636



Ok. got it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nedak
post Nov 7 2009, 02:27 PM
Post #6


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 2,794
Joined: 18-December 07
Member No.: 441



Give me an option.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sunupu
post Nov 8 2009, 12:05 AM
Post #7


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 2,842
Joined: 23-February 08
Member No.: 474



I think public option would be better overall, but that's just my humble opinion.

Insurance companies would be out on their asses because they're so ineffective. A third of health care now is purely administrative costs, meaning people who don't do anything other than push paper. They don't offer anything substantial, and they don't cover people they're supposed to.

If Obama had any balls he would have called this "health insurance reform, but he's appeasing to insurance companies too. When Clinton tried to fix health care, insurance companies flooded the TV with negative ads. Obama compromised the public option so that wouldn't happen.


--------------------
The best way to get over someone is to get under someone.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jessica Rabbit
post Nov 8 2009, 09:42 AM
Post #8


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 1,374
Joined: 24-August 08
Member No.: 636



What makes you think the public option plan won't have a huge list of requirements? Do you honestly think the only factor in qualifying will be whether nor not you have insurance from your employer or the state? The insurance companies won't be gone. They'll be competing side by side with the regulator himself.


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jessica Rabbit
post Nov 8 2009, 11:05 AM
Post #9


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 1,374
Joined: 24-August 08
Member No.: 636



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3962:

On passage Passed by recorded vote: 220 - 215 (Roll no. 887).

Might I suggest reading this too...

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=421

Parts of the Bill that caught my eye:

SEC. 501. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

(a) In General- Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new part:
`PART VIII--HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES

`subpart a. tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.

`Subpart A--Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage

`Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
`SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

`(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--
`(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
`(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
`(cool.gif Limitations-
`(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year.
`(cool.gif APPLICABLE NATIONAL AVERAGE PREMIUM-
`(i) IN GENERAL- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the `applicable national average premium' means, with respect to any taxable year, the average premium (as determined by the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner) for self-only coverage under a basic plan which is offered in a Health Insurance Exchange for the calendar year in which such taxable year begins.
`(ii) FAILURE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL- In the case of any taxpayer who fails to meet the requirements of subsection (d) with respect to more than one individual during the taxable year, clause (i) shall be applied by substituting `family coverage' for `self-only coverage'.
`(2) PRORATION FOR PART YEAR FAILURES- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the amount which bears the same ratio to the amount of tax so imposed (determined without regard to this paragraph and after application of paragraph (1)) as--
`(A) the aggregate periods during such taxable year for which such individual failed to meet the requirements of subsection (d), bears to
`(cool.gif the entire taxable year.


..........
SEC. 512. HEALTH CARE CONTRIBUTIONS OF NONELECTING EMPLOYERS.

(a) In General- Section 3111 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection © as subsection (d) and by inserting after subsection (cool.gif the following new subsection:
`© Employers Electing Not to Provide Health Benefits-
`(1) IN GENERAL- In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every nonelecting employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to 8 percent of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(cool.gif).
`(2) SPECIAL RULES FOR SMALL EMPLOYERS-
`(A) IN GENERAL- In the case of any employer who is small employer for any calendar year, paragraph (1) shall be applied by substituting the applicable percentage determined in accordance with the following table for `8 percent':
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nedak
post Nov 8 2009, 12:31 PM
Post #10


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 2,794
Joined: 18-December 07
Member No.: 441



What is your point JR? That everybody will have to pay taxes? Is that suppose to be new news?

QUOTE
What makes you think the public option plan won't have a huge list of requirements? Do you honestly think the only factor in qualifying will be whether nor not you have insurance from your employer or the state? The insurance companies won't be gone. They'll be competing side by side with the regulator himself.

The public option won't have very many requirements.. It will work the same as the fire department or police department.

Also, of course the insurance companies won't be gone. That wasn't the point of this bill. The public option will cut private insurance costs, as they now have competition.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jessica Rabbit
post Nov 8 2009, 01:00 PM
Post #11


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 1,374
Joined: 24-August 08
Member No.: 636



SEC. 342. AFFORDABLE CREDIT ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.

(a) Definition-
(1) IN GENERAL- For purposes of this division, the term `affordable credit eligible individual' means, subject to subsection (cool.gif and section 346, an individual who is lawfully present in a State in the United States (other than as a nonimmigrant described in a subparagraph (excluding subparagraphs (K), (T), (U), and (V)) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act)--
(A) who is enrolled under an Exchange-participating health benefits plan and is not enrolled under such plan as an employee (or dependent of an employee) through an employer qualified health benefits plan that meets the requirements of section 412;
(cool.gif with modified adjusted gross income below 400 percent of the Federal poverty level for a family of the size involved;
© who is not a Medicaid eligible individual, other than an individual during a transition period under section 302(d)(3)(cool.gif(ii); and
(D) subject to paragraph (3), who is not enrolled in acceptable coverage (other than an Exchange-participating health benefits plan).
(2) TREATMENT OF FAMILY- Except as the Commissioner may otherwise provide, members of the same family who are affordable credit eligible individuals shall be treated as a single affordable credit individual eligible for the applicable credit for such a family under this subtitle.
(3) SPECIAL RULE FOR INDIANS- Subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1) shall not apply to an individual who has coverage that is treated as acceptable coverage for purposes of section 59B(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 but is not treated as acceptable coverage for purposes of this division.
(cool.gif Limitations on Employee and Dependent Disqualification-
(1) IN GENERAL- Subject to paragraph (2), the term `affordable credit eligible individual' does not include a full-time employee of an employer if the employer offers the employee coverage (for the employee and dependents) as a full-time employee under a group health plan if the coverage and employer contribution under the plan meet the requirements of section 412.
(2) EXCEPTIONS-
(A) FOR CERTAIN FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES- The Commissioner shall establish such exceptions and special rules in the case described in paragraph (1) as may be appropriate in the case of a divorced or separated individual or such a dependent of an employee who would otherwise be an affordable credit eligible individual.
(cool.gif FOR UNAFFORDABLE EMPLOYER COVERAGE- Beginning in Y2, in the case of full-time employees for which the cost of the employee premium for coverage under a group health plan would exceed 12 percent of current modified adjusted gross income (determined by the Commissioner on the basis of verifiable documentation), paragraph (1) shall not apply.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nedak
post Nov 8 2009, 04:40 PM
Post #12


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 2,794
Joined: 18-December 07
Member No.: 441



I don't see your point.

It won't cover abortions and immigrants, what's the point?

Also, you don't supply a source.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jessica Rabbit
post Nov 8 2009, 05:06 PM
Post #13


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 1,374
Joined: 24-August 08
Member No.: 636



QUOTE(Nedak @ Nov 8 2009, 04:40 PM) *

I don't see your point.

It won't cover abortions and immigrants, what's the point?

Also, you don't supply a source.


My source is the fucking bill. See the link I provided. And the section number. I'm not giving you information that is an interpretation. I'm copying and pasting from the bill.

You can make up to 4x poverty level to get gov healthcare. Anything above that, you HAVE to get it somewhere else. Poverty levels are pretty fucking low. So basically if you make over $40,000 you are screwed. Most of Americas middle class who would be considered the working poor are screwed. A two person home like mine has to make below $56,000. Well my husband makes 40 something and I make between 10-20k a year depending on what I'm doing. And we barely make it living only within our means. So if I can't afford healthcare right now making what I do, I will be penalized.

Just like any other gov program, if you are a part of the middle class you don't benefit from it. It makes it harder for you. Greater increasing the divide between the upper and lower class.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sunupu
post Nov 9 2009, 04:38 PM
Post #14


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 2,842
Joined: 23-February 08
Member No.: 474



Let me just say one thing: This is not the public option. It's more of a insurance-run Frankenstein. Public option is a system anyone can enter, and is not connected in any way to other insurance companies. The entire idea is for it to be difficult for insurance companies to engage in ripping off their customers, because the public option wouldn't.

With insurance companies running the system, there's no way any kind of reform will occur. It will continually rip off the sick, for the same reasons oil companies can charge extortionist rates. If an industry can police itself, it will inevitably rip off it's consumers.

Kucinich hit the nail on the head when he talked about it.


--------------------
The best way to get over someone is to get under someone.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



- Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd May 2018 - 11:57 PM
Skin created by Vanson Studios, © 2006 Sacred Cow Productions