HR-2: Repeal of "Obama Care"

[Elderberry]

Lots of OPINIONS in this thread. Unfortunately not many of them are based on facts. READ THE F*CKING BILL. It's long and arduous, but at least then you MIGHT be more qualified to talk about it.

I am fed up to my eyeballs with all of the buzz words/memes that are being tossed around in this thread that are totally meaningless and worse, just plain false. Words like Socialism, government take-over, womb to tomb, can't pay for it now, how can we pay increases, government dole, etc. etc.

And speaking of womb--it it weren't for the Republicans, that would be taken care of too.

I'm surprised that there are so many people that base their 'well thought out' and 'long held' opinions on all of these memes that have been spoon fed by the media because you are too lazy to read and find out for yourself what is true and what is not.

I am officially refusing to respond to any other post from anyone that a) uses those buzz words in a post, and b) that hasn't read the bill -- all 1,990 pages of it. Democracy is hard work, as is being a good and responsible citizen. It's easy to spout opinions based on bullshit you hear in the news or worse yet by lies propagated the the opponents, which are congressmen and senators we should expect to be honest.

So, here's a link to the bill. If you want to make a comment regarding the take-over, or are perplexed by how it will be paid for, please read the document and list the pages and sections of the bill that have you perplexed and we can then start to have a truthful and meaningful conversation. http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

I might suggest if you have a smartphone or iPad that you upload the PDF file to your device if it has a book reader. It makes the document much easier to read and annotate for references in future discussions.

JK

I'm sort of pissed off right now, you might have heard about congress women Giffords of AZ was just shot at an event she was holding...she was shot in the head, several dead and six wounded. I can't wait to see who is responsible for this...but I'd be willing to take some bets.

[Simon of the Playa]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp ... 0#36033690

[Roberto Dobbisano]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp ... 0#36033690

[Trishntek]

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OCTOBER 29, 2009
Mr. DINGELL (for himself, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. GEORGE MILLER
of California, Mr. STARK, Mr. PALLONE, and Mr. ANDREWS) introduced
the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Education and Labor,
Ways and Means, Oversight and Government Reform, the Budget, Rules,
Natural Resources, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions
as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

This is not the bill passed by the Senate and signed into LAW by the President in 2010.

[Trishntek]

Income Premium Cap as a Share of Income Middle of Income Range (family of 4)a Avg Annual Enrollee Premium Premium Subsidy (share of premium) Avg Cost-Sharing Subsidy
100–150% of federal poverty level 2.1–4.7% of income $30,000 $600 96% $3,300
150–200% of federal poverty level 4.7–6.5% of income $42,000 $2,400 83% $1,800
200–250% of federal poverty level 6.5–8.4% of income $54,000 $4,000 72% 0
250–300% of federal poverty level 8.4–10.2% of income $66,000 $6,100 57% 0
300–350% of federal poverty level 10.2% of income $78,000 $9,200 44% 0
350–400% of federal poverty level 10.2% of income $90,100 $14,100 35% 0
a.^ Note: In 2016, the FPL is projected to equal about $11,800 for a single person and about $24,000 for family of four.[99] See Subsidy

Basically, our premiums depend upon our income. This, IMHO is just another form of income redistribution. And yup,,,, last I heard JK,,,,, we are still allowed to express an OPINION.

[Simon of the Playa]

yes opinions are welcome, even foolish ones.

[Trishntek]

A new excise tax goes into effect that is applicable to pharmaceutical companies and is based on the market share of the company; it is expected to create $2.5 billion in annual revenue.
Most medical devices become subject to a 2.3% excise tax collected at the time of purchase. (Reduced by the reconciliation act to 2.3% from 2.6%)

And exactly how will these items become less costly?

[Trishntek]

A state may apply to the Secretary of Health & Human Services for a waiver of certain sections in the law, with respect to that state, such as the individual mandate, provided that the state develops a detailed alternative that "will provide coverage that is at least as comprehensive" and "at least as affordable" for "at least a comparable number of its residents" as the waived provisions. The decision of whether to grant this waiver is up to the Secretary (who must annually report to Congress on the waiver process) after a public comment period.

Since when does the FED have such power over a State? Last I heard, the individual state is autonomous unless they affect another state by their actions. States have always had the option to refuse federal funding if they choose not to comply. This law MANDATES federal compliance. Plus it puts a great amount of power under the HHS Secretary.

[Roberto Dobbisano]

"TOO SOON!"

[Trishntek]

Here are all the changes made to the bill JK posted originally. This includes all the backroom deals made without debate.

https://www.cms.gov/LegislativeUpdate/d ... /PPACA.pdf

[Snowah Zark]

yadda yadda yadda.


tired, mean and stupid.....tea baggers can suck it, suck it hard.

republicans can suck it....just as hard.

thats my humble opinion of your humble opinion.

[Elderberry]

Income Premium Cap as a Share of Income Middle of Income Range (family of 4)a Avg Annual Enrollee Premium Premium Subsidy (share of premium) Avg Cost-Sharing Subsidy
100–150% of federal poverty level 2.1–4.7% of income $30,000 $600 96% $3,300
150–200% of federal poverty level 4.7–6.5% of income $42,000 $2,400 83% $1,800
200–250% of federal poverty level 6.5–8.4% of income $54,000 $4,000 72% 0
250–300% of federal poverty level 8.4–10.2% of income $66,000 $6,100 57% 0
300–350% of federal poverty level 10.2% of income $78,000 $9,200 44% 0
350–400% of federal poverty level 10.2% of income $90,100 $14,100 35% 0
a.^ Note: In 2016, the FPL is projected to equal about $11,800 for a single person and about $24,000 for family of four.[99] See Subsidy

Basically, our premiums depend upon our income. This, IMHO is just another form of income redistribution. And yup,,,, last I heard JK,,,,, we are still allowed to express an OPINION.

I don't mind when a person expresses their opinion, it just makes it all the more meaningful to me if it at least appears that the opinion was formulated from at least on a modicum of fact.

Sorry I posted the incorrect document. That you noticed is encouraging. I'll post links to the two final laws when I'm back on my computer.

JK

[Simon of the Playa]

yeah, you do that john.

[Roberto Dobbisano]

just DONT READ THESE BOOKS, YOU'LL GO CRAZY!


Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver's Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.


or so they say.

[Elderberry]

just DONT READ THESE BOOKS, YOU'LL GO CRAZY!


Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver's Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.


or so they say.

What about if I just saw some of the movies??????

JK

[Simon of the Playa]

close enough.

[Elderberry]

yeah, you do that john.

Why not be a pal and give me a hand with that.

JK

[Simon of the Playa]

i cant, i'm too busy

READING THESE BOOKS!


Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver's Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.


then i'll await my instructions from Quantico, and do the right thing....

[Roberto Dobbisano]

[JStep]

I have to agree with some things here, and disagree with some other things, in a very general way. I agree that most of the discussion is dominated by the pseudo-intellectual buzzwords and meme-slinging.

Wish I'd been around to post to this thread as it went along, there are so many angles I'd like to explore.

To start: The rich should pay more taxes. Why? Because they get more from the government. It's the same principle as insurance. The bigger and more expensive your house, the more you pay to insure (defend) it.

Also, a flat tax would only benefit the very wealthy at the expense of the poor. The things we use taxes for like highway improvements, airports, seaports, etc disproportionally benefit those who can afford to make use of them, therefore those people should assume more of their burden. The poor and very poor make little to no use of interstates, airports and international shipping ports. (Buying your Wallmart crap which was shipped, flown and trucked via this system is not the same thing as having the ability to make millions of dollars shipping, flying and trucking them to Wallmart for the consumer market.) These are just a few examples.

The now-fashionable rhetoric, most arduously touted by the corporate-funded astroturf Tea Party movement, is a lot of high-sounding empty hyperbole, in my not-so-humble opinion. All this (excuse me) CRAP about how the government can't do anything right is BS. WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. Like it or not, and though it has been steadily usurped over the last 40 years by the corporate class shot-callers, it is still WE THE PEOPLE who vote. We are supposed to be using this power to check the power of the private interests. In capitalism (and I am a capitalist) your dollar is your vote. He with the most dollars wins. This is no way to run a healthy functioning society. As we let the corporate feudalism (pardon my use of hyperbole here, but the literal definition holds) take over our country we are ceding our power to check these faceless corporate interests. Our industries and businesses and financial system built the things that make our country great, but it is the government of and by the people in control and guiding (read: regulating) that has kept it from becoming a modern era version of the medieval robber baronies.

Here's a little note, albeit a shallow lot of truisms, it is at it's core a good assessment of the hollowness of the sound-bites and anti-government memes the John Birchers and the Heritage Foundation-like think tanks have been spreading since the 1930's.

==

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy (DOE). I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility regulated by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).



After that I turned on the TV to one of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service (NWS) of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspected food and taking the drugs which have been deemed safe by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).



At the appropriate time as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation (DOT), possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the EPA, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door, I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at public school.



After work I drive my NHTSA automobile back home on the DOT roads, to a house that has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it's valuables thanks to the local police department.



I then log onto the internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and read posts about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the Government can't do anything right.



~ Author Unknown

[ygmir]

Also, a flat tax would only benefit the very wealthy at the expense of the poor. The things we use taxes for like highway improvements, airports, seaports, etc disproportionally benefit those who can afford to make use of them, therefore those people should assume more of their burden. The poor and very poor make little to no use of interstates, airports and international shipping ports. (Buying your Wallmart crap which was shipped, flown and trucked via this system is not the same thing as having the ability to make millions of dollars shipping, flying and trucking them to Wallmart for the consumer market.) These are just a few examples.

aren't you leaving out all the social and entitlement spending?
don't "the poor" benefit from social programs, medicaid, welfare, free schools, free "higher education", etc, etc.?
as well as some who get "programs" for many things from housing assistance to SBA loans and stuff?

seems, a "flat tax" as in a "sales tax", would be pretty proportional.
The rich spend a lot more money (don't they?) buying fancy cars and planes and shoes and booze...........
so, would pay more.

[JStep]

Also, a flat tax would only benefit the very wealthy at the expense of the poor. The things we use taxes for like highway improvements, airports, seaports, etc disproportionally benefit those who can afford to make use of them, therefore those people should assume more of their burden. The poor and very poor make little to no use of interstates, airports and international shipping ports. (Buying your Wallmart crap which was shipped, flown and trucked via this system is not the same thing as having the ability to make millions of dollars shipping, flying and trucking them to Wallmart for the consumer market.) These are just a few examples.

aren't you leaving out all the social and entitlement spending?
don't "the poor" benefit from social programs, medicaid, welfare, free schools, free "higher education", etc, etc.?

as well as some who get "programs" for many things from housing assistance to SBA loans and stuff?

Directly they are, yes. Social Security (20% of our budget I believe?) is dependent on income. The more you put into the system the more you get out, so still the higher incomes get more from it. Also, the wealthy (and the non-wealthy alike) benefit indirectly from the rest that you listed. The very wealthy send their kids to private schools, but they benefit from public education just the same by having an educated, literate work-force. A work-force that can maintain a reasonable level of health and well-being (read: they can make it to work in the morning) because of the social safety net. While the poor benefit in that they can survive and hopefully even thrive, the wealthy still get more form this system as they are not just surviving, they are profiting.

seems, a "flat tax" as in a "sales tax", would be pretty proportional.
The rich spend a lot more money (don't they?) buying fancy cars and planes and shoes and booze...........
so, would pay more.

Actually, no. And this is why the Reaganite philosophy of trickle down economics is also crap. When you give money to the poor, they spend it. They have to. When you give money to the rich, they put it in the bank and earn interest off it. They already have the money they need to maintain their lifestyle. Lowering taxes on the rich does not create jobs or benefit the poor. They will buy their cars and their yachts regardless. By not taxing their incomes and capital gains, you are just allowing them to hoard more money and make interest off it. Likewise with corporate taxes. Progressive income taxes, estate taxes and capital gains taxes used to be much much higher and were considered to be fundamental to making America a land of opportunity where anyone with a sharp mind could work hard and possibly achieve great wealth.

[ygmir]

I really appreciate your information, and response.

Admittedly, I am uneducated, and, not well read.
But, know what seems "right" to me.
That said, I like to think I keep an open mind, and, if things are put such that I can see the logic, am not opposed to a change of said attitude.

It seems, a lot of what you say above, makes the argument for getting "rich". Is it not the idea, that, we work hard, strive, and, at times use "luck" to get ahead, to reap those benefits of wealth?
It seems, the struggle to "get there" is what drives societies engine.
And, if you take that away.........well.
I have close friends, origially from the former Eastern Block. And, that's one thing they decry. They say, when it was no real benefit, to do better, make more with less, etc...........no one wanted to get there, and, everything slowed. No one was enthusiastic, because, it got you nowhere.

I'm not so sure I agree with the premise the "the rich" take all their money and put it in banks.......I think they invest a lot in business, real estate, and stocks (which, if I understand it, helps businesses gain capitol for operation, expansion, and jobs.)
And, even if they do put a lot in banks, isn't that the engine that drives loans and such? Things the middle and lower folks need to get a "leg up"? Sure, there are unscrupulous bankers and loan agencies, but, in general, isn't that the idea?

Progressive income taxes, estate taxes and capital gains taxes used to be much much higher and were considered to be fundamental to making America a land of opportunity where anyone with a sharp mind could work hard and possibly achieve great wealth.

That, seems conflicted, to me.
I admit, maybe I don't understand, though.

How to taxes (money that goes to the government, to be mostly wasted), make for opportunity to get wealthy?

and, why, if penalized too heavily, would anyone with a sharp mind, want to get there? The incentive seems like it would decrease, proportionally, to the higher and higher tax rates.
and, seemingly, lead to more "cheating" or taking assets "off shore", to avoid such an issue.

[littleflower]

JK ......

i have 20 something years of turning tax law into tax software. if you think that you can read a 1990 page bill and know how it will actually apply to real life, you are a fool. the fact is, there are people who will turn that law into something that can be used by the agencies given the task of enforcement, and they will turn to a battery of lawyers who will write regulations .... adding another couple thousand pages to the thing. how are you on tax law? i've never heard you say a thing that would indicate any particular knowledge .... and yet, that's where the enforcement of the funding of this bill will ultimately land, no? other agencies will enforce the disbursement of those funds, and, of course, the whole thing is subject to dispute in the courts.

yes, you are very brilliant for having read the document and knowing exactly how everything will work. but i would feel much better if just ONCE you would admit that there are a few things you don't know.

jstep - your post is too dominated by the pseudo-intellectual buzzwords and meme-slinging to bother with.

[Elderberry]

JK ......

i have 20 something years of turning tax law into tax software. if you think that you can read a 1990 page bill and know how it will actually apply to real life, you are a fool. the fact is, there are people who will turn that law into something that can be used by the agencies given the task of enforcement, and they will turn to a battery of lawyers who will write regulations .... adding another couple thousand pages to the thing. how are you on tax law? i've never heard you say a thing that would indicate any particular knowledge .... and yet, that's where the enforcement of the funding of this bill will ultimately land, no? other agencies will enforce the disbursement of those funds, and, of course, the whole thing is subject to dispute in the courts.

yes, you are very brilliant for having read the document and knowing exactly how everything will work. but i would feel much better if just ONCE you would admit that there are a few things you don't know.

jstep - your post is too dominated by the pseudo-intellectual buzzwords and meme-slinging to bother with.

Trust me, there's lots I don't know. I think my strength is my ability to recognize what I know and what I don't. I only wish more people could.

JK

[Eric]

I'm just coming in for a second. I know there's a lot of follow up on my taxes post, but right now we're dealing with a lot.

Gabriel Zimmerman, one of the people killed in Tucson Saturday, was a friend of someone I'm close to. Suddenly esoteric political discussions aren't as much fun as they usually are.

I'm stepping back from political discussions, helping my friend deal with this tragedy, and trying to make sense of what happened.

Nothing is black and white anymore, and the shades of gray don't make any sense.

[littleflower]

i'm so sorry, eric ......

do take care of yourself ....

[Trishntek]

Jstep wrote:

To start: The rich should pay more taxes. Why? Because they get more from the government. It's the same principle as insurance. The bigger and more expensive your house, the more you pay to insure (defend) it.

By that logic then, we should be insured for our health according to our BodyMassIndex. The FATTER you are, the MORE you pay!

Hey Simon! You forgot one, which I read again just last year,,,,

Catcher in the Rye

[Simon of the Playa]

catcher IN the rye, you intellectual neanderthal.

[Trishntek]

catcher IN the rye, you intellectual neanderthal.

One thing about it Simon,,,,, we can always count on you to keep us humble,,,, kinda like taking a two-year-old to a restaurant.