It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 7
53
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
PG 203 Line 14-15 “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax” Yes, it says that.

‘‘(4) NOT TREATED AS TAX IMPOSED BY THIS
14 CHAPTER FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.—The tax im15
posed under this section shall not be treated as tax
16 imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining
17 the amount of any credit under this chapter or for
18 purposes of section 55.’’.


-huh?-




posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


Hey Mike, I thank you for all the work you have done regarding this....so, since I have a current plan I don't have to comply? It amazes me how transparent they are, yet the majority of the people just don't get it! Sad times we are in....it's like the Doc. 2057, fast forwarded to 2010.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 


Thank You DontTreadOnMe!!! I very much appreciate that!

Okay Jenna & Mike, I'm caught up, can you please send me a U2U to let me know about where each of you have made it so far? Please


Hopefully this is not a repeat (if it is, you're posting really fast LOL)


PG 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public option plan. NO CHOICE.


The Bill states:


15 (4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES.—The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).


So we go to Section (c)


20 (c) AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT FOR EMPLOYER SPONSORED HEALTH BENEFITS.—
22 (1) IN GENERAL.—The requirement of this subsection with respect to an employer and an employee is that the employer automatically enroll suchs employee into the employment-based health benefits 1 plan for individual coverage under the plan option with the lowest applicable employee premium.
(2) OPT-OUT.—In no case may an employer automatically enroll an employee in a plan under paragraph (1) if such employee makes an affirmative election to opt out of such plan or to elect coverage under an employment-based health benefits plan offered by such employer. An employer shall provide an employee with a 30-day period to make such an
affirmative election before the employer may automatically enroll the employee in such a plan.

So this claim is false, there CLEARLY IS an Opt-Out Option, and if I am reading this corretly, there is still "private" insurane options too, i.g. "elect coverage under an employment-based health benefits plan offered by such employer"



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


I may be wrong, but what I *think* that means is that the tax imposed by that section will not be considered a tax when it comes to the purposes of determining the qualifying level for the credits against premiums



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ufoptics
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


Hey Mike, I thank you for all the work you have done regarding this....so, since I have a current plan I don't have to comply? It amazes me how transparent they are, yet the majority of the people just don't get it! Sad times we are in....it's like the Doc. 2057, fast forwarded to 2010.


According to this, you can keep your plan until the time comes (annual) for re-enrollment. Then you have to have the government plan.

I'm still looking for the specifics on that though. . .



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


How stupid do they think we are???? This is absolutely mind blowing....this tax will not be treated as a tax...please....next they will say, this vote will not be treated as a vote, and pass whatever they want.:flame
h damn, they already do that, don't they.....Lets just burn the fringen thing and tell them to do real reform.....Pharm/lobbist reform, Insurance Reform ect... if they would do that we would all be able to afford health care. Why can you get a script in another country for pennies, and in the US it cost $100?
there is no excuse, we need to wake up and ask the right questions to the right people!



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 


Stupid question, but how would you file that? And to add, where would deductions fit in on April 15th?



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 


Probably, but technically the claim is true. It does say the tax shall not be considered a tax. I'm telling you, they intentionally try to confuse people.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Claim:

Pg 810 SEC. 1759. Billing Agents, clearinghouses, etc. required to register. Government takes over private payment system.


What it says:

11 SEC. 1759. BILLING AGENTS, CLEARINGHOUSES, OR OTHER
12 ALTERNATE PAYEES REQUIRED TO REGISTER UNDER MEDICAID.


I have to mark this claim as true because it says it right there in the bill so much.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   

PG 167 Line 18-23 ANY individual who doesn’t have acceptable HealthCare according to Government will be taxed 2.5% of inc.


the section is quite a bit more than what that quote says. Here it is


TITLE IV—AMENDMENTS TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986
Subtitle A—Shared Responsibility
PART 1—INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
SEC. 401. 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.


It goes on to limit the tax to the "applicable national average premium" for the given year, and then further describes single person or family plan rates for the tax.

As this will amend the Internal Revenue Code, we can say that this one is true.

Why is it that premiums can vary by location but a tax for "opting out" will be on the national average??



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ufoptics
 


Here's the specifics. . .

PG 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public option plan. NO CHOICE.

(4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES.—The
16 employer provides for autoenrollment of the em17
ployee in accordance with subsection (c).
18 (b) REDUCTION OF EMPLOYEE PREMIUMS THROUGH
19 MINIMUM EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION.—
20 (1) FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES.—The minimum
21 employer contribution described in this subsection
22 for coverage of a full-time employee (and, if any, the
23 employee’s spouse and qualifying children (as de24
fined in section 152(c) of the Internal Revenue Code



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus

Originally posted by ufoptics
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


Hey Mike, I thank you for all the work you have done regarding this....so, since I have a current plan I don't have to comply? It amazes me how transparent they are, yet the majority of the people just don't get it! Sad times we are in....it's like the Doc. 2057, fast forwarded to 2010.


According to this, you can keep your plan until the time comes (annual) for re-enrollment. Then you have to have the government plan.

I'm still looking for the specifics on that though. . .


This also applies if you quit or switch jobs...



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   

PG 149 Line 16-24 ANY Employer with payroll 400k & above who does not provide public option pays 8% tax on all payroll.

PG 150 Line 9-13 Biz with payroll btw 251k & 400k who doesn’t provide public option pays 2-6% tax on all payroll



From pages 149-150:

SEC. 313. EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of the average wages paid by the employer during the period of enrollment (determined by taking into account all employees of the employer and in such manner as the Commissioner provides, including rules providing for the appropriate aggregation of related employers). Any such contribution—
(1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Commissioner for deposit into the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, and
(2) shall not be applied against the premium of the employee under the Exchange-participating health benefits plan in which the employee is enrolled.
(b) SPECIAL RULES FOR SMALL EMPLOYERS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any employer who is a small employer for any calendar year, subsection (a) shall be applied by substituting the applicable percentage determined in accordance with the following table for ‘‘8 percent’’:

If the annual payroll of such employer for the preceding calendar year:

The applicable percentage is:
Does not exceed $250,000 ..................................... 0 percent
Exceeds $250,000, but does not exceed $300,000 2 percent
Exceeds $300,000, but does not exceed $350,000 4 percent
Exceeds $350,000, but does not exceed $400,000 6 percent

(2) SMALL EMPLOYER.—For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘small employer’’ means any employer for any calendar year if the annual payroll of such employer for the preceding calendar year does not exceed $400,000.


As demonstrated by the table, these two claims are true. Employers whose annual payroll is over $400k will pay 8% in lieu of providing coverage and employers whose annual payroll is between $250k and $400 will pay 2-6%.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Claim:

Pg 789-797 Government will set & mandate drug prices, controlling which drugs will brought to market. Bye innovation


What it says:

17 (4) AUTHORITY TO PROMULGATE REGULA
18 TION.—The Secretary of Health and Human Serv
19 ices may promulgate regulations to clarify the re
20 quirements for upper payment limits and for the de
21 termination of the average manufacturer price in an
22 expedited manner. Such regulations may become ef
23 fective on an interim final basis, pending oppor
24 tunity for public comment.


Well, the first part is true. As far as the "bye bye innovation" part that has yet to be determined, but I wouldn't doubt it.

I believe this is actually scary than what the claim states. This gives the "secretary" authority to enact regulations(laws) completely bypassing congress.

[edit on 8-8-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   

PG 170 Line 1-3 Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay)



‘‘(2) NONRESIDENT ALIENS.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual who is a nonresident alien.


Well folks, subsection (a) reads


‘‘(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.


So that part IS TRUE.

Student Visas also qualify as non-resident aliens. Do they get coverage too?



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   

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?



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
I apologize if this was already included or touched upon, but I found myself trying to interpret this monster bill(alone) from a neutral standpoint to figure out what really is in the bill to pull away from all the myths both sides are throwing out there. (much like this thread is). I was reading this morning and I found this first and foremost. Page 16 of the Bill

1 SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT 2 COVERAGE. 3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV4 ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of 5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov6 erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health 7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance 8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the 9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met: 10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.— 11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in 12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance 13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll 14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef15 fective date of coverage is on or after the first 16 day of Y1.


Now they say you have the choice to keep your own coverage and that you aren't forced into the government plan. That's a spin though. What is actually happening based on the above snippet, is a grandfathering of coverage. Anyone enrolled in their private coverages may keep it and will be grandfathered in, but there will be no enrollment into these coverages on or after Y1. So does that mean the eventual and complete eradication of private coverage? Am I reading this right?



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:16 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?


I'm thinking it means, Jewel, Osco & CVS are all *really* the same company, so the annual payroll will cover all names the parent corporation has business under.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dienekes
So does that mean the eventual and complete eradication of private coverage? Am I reading this right?


There is a video of Obama saying essentially that.




posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


I'm having to skip some of these claims because A) The section is way to big to quote, B) I just don't feel comfortable giving an explanation because I don't understand it.

And as far as to answer you question, your guess is as good as mine.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join