Let's discuss what's in the Health Care Bill

page: 16
53
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   

PG 198 Line 4-6 5.4% ADDITIONAL TAX on peeps who have income of $1mil+. Redistribution of Wealth


‘‘(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified ad
5justed gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds
6 $1,000,000.


Verified true.

As an aside, there is also a substantial rate increase at 500,000.00 as well.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by mikerussellus]




posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   

PG 936 Government will develop “Healthy People & National Public Health Performance Standards” Tell me what to eat?


‘‘(b) RESPONSIBILITIES.—The Task Force shall—
16 ‘‘(1) identify clinical preventive services for re
17view;
18 ‘‘(2) review the scientific evidence related to the
19 benefits, effectiveness, appropriateness, and costs of
20 clinical preventive services identified under para
21graph (1) for the purpose of developing, updating,
22 publishing, and disseminating evidence-based rec
23ommendations on the use of such services;
24 ‘‘(3) as appropriate, take into account health
25 disparities in developing, updating, publishing, and
1 disseminating evidence-based recommendations on
2 the use of such services;
3 ‘‘(4) identify gaps in clinical preventive services
4 research and evaluation and recommend priority
5 areas for such research and evaluation;
6 ‘‘(5) as appropriate, consult with the clinical
7 prevention stakeholders board in accordance with
8 subsection (f);
9 ‘‘(6) as appropriate, consult with the Task
10 Force on Community Preventive Services established
11 under section 3132; and
12 ‘‘(7) as appropriate, in carrying out this sec
13tion, consider the national strategy under section
14 3121.
15 ‘‘(c) ROLE OF AGENCY.—The Secretary shall provide
16 ongoing administrative, research, and technical support
17 for the operations of the Task Force, including coordi
18nating and supporting the dissemination of the rec
19ommendations of the Task Force.


True. Verified true.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Claim:

PG 111 Line 208 The Federal Government will usurp all State powers in State Based HealthCare Exchange. Violation of 10th Amend.


What it says:

10 (1) a State (or group of States, subject to the
11 approval of the Commissioner) applies to the Com
12 missioner for approval of a State-based Health In
13 surance Exchange to operate in the State (or group
14 of States); and
15 (2) the Commissioner approves such State
16 based Health Insurance Exchange,
17 then, subject to subsections (c) and (d), the State-based
18 Health Insurance Exchange shall operate, instead of the
19 Health Insurance Exchange, with respect to such State
20 (or group of States). The Commissioner shall approve a
21 State-based Health Insurance Exchange if it meets the re
22 quirements for approval under subsection (b).


Okay, it won't usurp all state powers, but in order for states to start a Health Care exchange it has to be approved by the commissioner. So yes it does violate the 10th amendment.

So this claim is somewhat true.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


Appreciate it Mike!


So that sums up all the claims.

If anybody has any clarifications of the actual bill language that we might have mis-interpreted, please clarify.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Pgs 797-800 SEC. 1744 PAYMENTS for grad medical education. The government will now control Drs education.


Pages 797-798:

(bb) PAYMENT FOR GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘medical assistance’ includes payment for costs of graduate medical education consistent with this subsection, whether provided in or outside of a hospital.
(2) SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION.—For purposes of paragraph (1) and section 1902(a)(13)(A)(v), payment for such costs is not consistent with this subsection unless—
(A) the State submits to the Secretary, in a timely manner and on an annual basis specified by the Secretary, information on total payments for graduate medical education and how such payments are being used for graduate medical education, including—
(i) the institutions and programs eligible for receiving the funding;
(ii) the manner in which such payments are calculated;
(iii) the types and fields of education being supported;
(iv) the workforce or other goals to which the funding is being applied;
(v) State progress in meeting such goals; and
(vi) such other information as the Secretary determines will assist in carrying out paragraphs (3) and (4); and
(B) such expenditures are made consistent with such goals and requirements as are established under paragraph (4).


The claim is true in that there will be payments made for graduate studies. However, the way this reads isn't much different than the student grants and loans already made available for anyone who qualifies. For that reason I'm calling the claim that the government will control the doctor's education false.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


It's been an education. Thanks again to you and Jenna.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
I have been following this closely, mainly to see how your findings compared to my own, that said each person needs to draw their own conclusions from this plan. I have my own, and would like to present them, but somehow I believe this is not the place for that.

Either this is a good plan or a bad plan. It will either pass or fail in the house or senate, and that will depend a lot on what the American people think about this plan. To each their own.

Well done to all who participated in this.


Outstanding work.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I click on hot topic and this is it?

While I am here I just want to say I hope every single american man, woman, and child recieves decent healthcare by any means necessary.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by carnival_of_souls2047
 


Have you read the thread?

If so can you point out the sections that would provide that care?



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Walkswithfish
I have been following this closely, mainly to see how your findings compared to my own, that said each person needs to draw their own conclusions from this plan. I have my own, and would like to present them, but somehow I believe this is not the place for that.


By all means, if your interpretation on any of these differs from what we've posted feel free to post your own. All of us tried to come at this with as little bias as possible, but that doesn't make our interpretations the only correct ones.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Well, KUDOs to Jenna, Hastobemoretolife & mikerussellusa!!! You folks kicked this bill's booty!

We are trying to get the mods (who have been contacted) to update the OP(s) with hot links from the claim to where it is reviewed, with Bill Text, in the thread. New readers, please be a little patient as we await the Mod reply/response.

I knew I wasn't going to have much time to do this work & called in the help of ATSers & see how well that works out!

I have read each and every post, I haven't seen where I really disagree with the posters interpretation of the actual bill text, although I still see a few areas where I really don't understand all the legalese.

I hope this thread can help to dispel rumors, like the original claims off of twitter that this began from, and help people of ALL POLITICAL PERSUASIONS to understand what this bill really does and doesn't say.

Thank You all for the help in getting this out in a clearer way for so many people to understand.

RedHatty



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 


I know this is entirely off topic, (thanks by the way-it was an education for me, I'm glad I was able to do this) but your avitar, from the other you had, just made me spill a glass of 15 year old scotch all over my desk. I can't stop laughing at the change.

Mike



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna

PG 151 Line 1-3 Aggregate Rules-tax on employers payroll not on public option include payroll of other biz.


From pages 150-151 Lines 19-5

(3) ANNUAL PAYROLL.—For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘‘annual payroll’’ means, with respect to any employer for any calendar year, the aggregate wages paid by the employer during such calendar year.
(4) AGGREGATION RULES.—Related employers and predecessors shall be treated as a single employer for purposes of this subsection.


I don't really understand the claim, so I'm not sure what to call it.

This section I do understand though, I think. I think this means that if I go work at companies A, B, and C all in the same calender year, my wages from those three employers will be considered to have been from the same source. It's entirely possible I'm way off on this one though. Anyone have a better idea as to what this section means?


Actually I take it to mean that if I own company A and I higher company B to do work for me under contract then the amount of my payroll and the amount paid to B will be combined as far as determining my tax rate. I think this is to stop someone from making all of there employees contract employees and thereby reducing "payroll" and tax rate.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 


Thank you for actually posting the thread that is beneficial to everyone.


One thing that I have noticed about this bill is that there really isn't a whole lot of what I would consider reform.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by redhatty
 


I know this is entirely off topic, (thanks by the way-it was an education for me, I'm glad I was able to do this) but your avitar, from the other you had, just made me spill a glass of 15 year old scotch all over my desk. I can't stop laughing at the change.

Mike



I am SO SORRY! I hate to be the reason for such an example of alcohol abuse!

New Forum rules for avatars, made me revert BACK to this one, it is one of my favorites


Glad you enjoy it



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
One thing I did notice, the version of the bill I down loaded has a date of Nov 2008.

They have been working on this for much longer than the public thinks. Hell, this was in the works before Obama got the nomination.

And it's not an old version, the relavent issues match word for word, line for line.


VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2
•HR 3200 IH


When I down loaded the pdf, this (above) is embedded at every page break.

November 24, 2008.

Just a curious note. Don't know what to make of it.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 


The irony does not escape me.





posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
I'm sorry I only got to research two points, but I want to thank everyone who did research I've found this very helpful. I don't care what side you lean towards I hope everyone takes the time to read the relevant sections and draw there own conclusions on the truth of what is in this bill.

I'm glad the trolling from the early pages stopped by page 6 or so, I'm also saddened that we were attacked for doing the smart thing and finding out if the claims by the oponents where true or false.

Thanks Redhatter for a great thread, It's been a while since I had so much fun delving into a thread.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by exile1981

Actually I take it to mean that if I own company A and I higher company B to do work for me under contract then the amount of my payroll and the amount paid to B will be combined as far as determining my tax rate. I think this is to stop someone from making all of there employees contract employees and thereby reducing "payroll" and tax rate.


You could be right. I've never had to mess with payroll, aside from being on the receiving end of it
, so I don't understand the mechanics of it aside from the basics. I didn't know that payroll could be reduced by calling your employees contractors.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by exile1981
 


And thank you for your contributions. It has been VERY NICE to have an intelligent discussion about pending legislation without all the political sniping, hasn't it?

I too have learned a LOT more from this joint effort that I thought I would. At least now when I discuss the bill, I can do it from an informed viewpoint.

Thank you ALL for helping me (and others) to get to that point





new topics




 
53
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join