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.

 

Health INSURANCE Reform, not Heath Care Reform???

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
How about increasing the deficit by another $239 million just over the next ten years?


True, but I'd rather spend it on taking care of our own people rather than making war with other countries, as we have been in the recent past. I complained about that cost. I've been saying for years that we're wasting money in other countries, trying to meddle in their affairs when we should be taking care of people here at home. Now that we are, I'm pretty pleased about it.

I don't agree with everything in this bill, and I sure wish it didn't cost anything, but I can think of lots worse things to spend it on...




posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

True, but I'd rather spend it on taking care of our own people rather than making war with other countries, as we have been in the recent past. I complained about that cost. I've been saying for years that we're wasting money in other countries, trying to meddle in their affairs when we should be taking care of people here at home. Now that we are, I'm pretty pleased about it.


I agree we should be taking care of the people here instead of elsewhere and if there wasn't billions upon billions already being wasted all over the place I might not care so much about spending even more to do something that's already being done. There are much more cost effective ways to do the same thing without requiring the government to put their hand into the insurance business any further than it already is.

Medicare/Medicaid is government run insurance. It's going bankrupt and full of fraud. Now they want to set it up so that a government chosen commissioner gets to tell insurance companies what they can and cannot offer in their plans. You think it won't affect you because you already have insurance, but it likely will. If your plan doesn't fit into one of their categories, your provider will be required to change it so that it does. Could that end up giving you more coverage? Sure, but it could also end up giving you less depending on what the commissioner decides each plan has to contain and whether your provider does an upgrade or a downgrade on your plan to fit within guidelines.

I keep hearing (and reading) people say that they have insurance so this won't affect them and they don't care, but the fact is this affects all of us. Whether it's just through taxes, which are going to go up to pay for this and won't be enough to cover it, or through your plan changing due to new government requirements, it affects everyone. Maybe not as much as someone who will be required to get insurance or pay a fine, but it does affect you.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
Maybe not as much as someone who will be required to get insurance or pay a fine, but it does affect you.


It's businesses that must provide health insurance for their employees, or pay a fine.

Bill

Search for Penalty. "Fine" does not appear in the document.

This health insurance bill will make businesses provide their employees with health insurance or pay a fine.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


That is what we all will like to see, but reality prove that Obama is spending like a drunken sailor and our economy is not recuperating.

The have not pour the stimulus into the economy the way they were suppose to.

Two things comes to mind, either the Democrats are waiting for mid term elections to boost their numbers and possibilities for re-election or the money is just no there.

The deficit already has ballooned more that ever in our history since the stimulus numbers projection, the nations economy is sinking, jobs are disappearing, how can you create revenue for programs if the taxable income in the nation is been depleted.

Government is getting bigger no smaller, money is been gouged by state from the tax payer already at least the tax payer that still holds a job.

As more and more people loses their income due to job loses how the money is going to be generated.

You know is very hard questions to be answer and nobody wants to do it, just promises.

Still like I say the bill will pass because the Democratic administration needs this bill like they need the air they breath for the next elections.

Regardless if it proves to be the worst blunder this nation will ever do during a full blown depression, (because believe it or not and regardless of what the cheerleaders in the administration tells all of us, numbers don't lie we are in a full blown depression).

Time will tell.

BTW thanks for the link, I already have read into the various definitions of that part of the bill.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's businesses that must provide health insurance for their employees, or pay a fine.


Not according to the CBO on page 3:


The specifications would also require payments of penalties by uninsured individuals, firms that did not provide qualified health insurance, and other firms whose employees would receive subsidized coverage through the exchanges.


I don't know why a government agency would say that if it's all a bunch of lies.


I'm still searching the bill, but not having any luck yet.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Please do some research.



"Even as we rescue this economy from a full-blown crisis, we must rebuild it stronger than before -- and health insurance reform is central to that effort," Obama said.

"If we do not control these costs, we will not be able to control our deficit. If we do not reform health care, your premiums and out-of-pocket costs will continue to skyrocket," he said.

As he laid out the list of benefits that health care reform offers, he dropped a direct reference to a government-funded public health insurance option.


It's not that hard to see that they are looking for "health care reform" they have switched the name to make it look better to undecided Americans. This GOV is corrupt! For those of you defending our president make no mistake this is about controlling your health and is not a RW scare tactic!

Read the full article from this liberal news source CNN Article



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I think I may have finally found something that gives me a starting point when it comes to individuals paying a fine. From page 9 of one of the CBO's cost estimates:


All legal residents would be required to enroll in a health insurance plan meeting certain minimum standards or face a tax penalty (described below). Individuals not required to file a tax return would be exempt from the penalty; exemptions for hardship and other reasons would be determined by a new and independent federal agency overseeing the health insurance exchanges (also described below).

The penalty assessed on people who would be subject to the mandate but did not obtain insurance would equal 2.5 percent of the difference between their adjusted gross income (modified to include tax-exempt interest and certain other sources of income) and the tax filing threshold. The amount of the penalty could not exceed the national average premium for plans offered in the exchanges.


And I found it on pages 167-168 of the bill:


‘‘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.
‘‘(b) 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.


Subsection (d):


‘‘(d) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE REQUIREMENT.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The requirements of this subsection are met with respect to any individual for any period if such individual (and each qualifying child of such individual) is covered by acceptable coverage at all times during such period.


Looks like this is another claim that we can put into the true box, it says it right in the bill that individuals without "acceptable coverage" will be taxed. That's why we had trouble finding it before, it calls it a tax not a fine or penalty.

[edit on 13-8-2009 by Jenna]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   




Good work Jenna!



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


I stand corrected.
Thanks for doing the dirty work.


However, as I read more about it, I tend to agree with the bill, as regards individual responsibility. If a person doesn't want health insurance, I think they shouldn't have to have it. But then, when they get sick, they should be left to die. And since we're human beings and this is America and we don't let that happen, these individuals have a responsibility to have insurance so that when they get sick, the rest of us don't have to pay for their care...



Health Insurance Reform Supports Individual Responsibility.

Health care is a shared responsibility among government, business, and individuals. Many Americans who could afford to buy health care coverage choose not to do so. If they are struck by illness or injury, the high costs of their care are borne by those businesses and individuals who currently purchase coverage, adding billions of dollars to the premiums they must pay. Senate health insurance reform will require all Americans who can afford it to buy health care coverage – just as all drivers are required to buy car insurance. This will reduce – if not eliminate – the hidden tax of about $1,100 on their health insurance that Americans pay to cover those without insurance.


Source

If we're really going for individual responsibility here (which I believe we all support) let's have every individual be responsible for their own health insurance instead of depending on the rest of us to take care of them when they do get sick.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I stand corrected.
Thanks for doing the dirty work.


That's what I do.



If a person doesn't want health insurance, I think they shouldn't have to have it. But then, when they get sick, they should be left to die.


Kinda harsh there, don't you think? I have to admit you shocked me with that one. Definitely not what I would have expected.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
Kinda harsh there, don't you think? I have to admit you shocked me with that one. Definitely not what I would have expected.


Yes, it was meant to be harsh. I was making a point. I don't agree with the government mandating us taking care of ourselves. But if a person is going to refuse health insurance and then depend on the rest of us to take care of him when he gets sick, I agree with a tax or penalty or fee, whatever you want to call it. I don't honestly think we should leave people to die.
After all, I am human and an American. I support my fellow Americans and want them to have the means to take care of their health. But I also support the choice for them to refuse. In that case, I don't want to be forced to pay for them.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Yes, it was meant to be harsh. I was making a point. I don't agree with the government mandating us taking care of ourselves. But if a person is going to refuse health insurance and then depend on the rest of us to take care of him when he gets sick, I agree with a tax or penalty or fee, whatever you want to call it. I don't honestly think we should leave people to die.
After all, I am human and an American. I support my fellow Americans and want them to have the means to take care of their health. But I also support the choice for them to refuse. In that case, I don't want to be forced to pay for them.


I didn't think you really meant that, but you never can tell when it's words on a screen. I was too shocked to come up with a better response.


I don't agree with a tax on people who don't have insurance. There are people now who don't qualify for government assistance for healthcare because of their income, yet their income isn't high enough to buy insurance on their own due to the cost. Under this plan, those people will be punished for either making too much or not making enough depending on how you want to look at it. That doesn't make any sense to me and hardly seems fair.

Insurance and healthcare need to be fixed, there's no question about that. But I cannot in good conscience support a bill that puts yet another group between a patient and their doctor, fines people for not participating in the system by choice or force, and will be run by the same group (government) who have made a complete mess of Medicare and Medicaid.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
This is exactly the type of healthy debate for which I was hoping. Good job on the research Jenna, as I was not aware of those provisions. That said, I still think we as a nation can come up with a plan that can address the issues as long as we have open dialogue without fear, misrepresentation, and name calling. This little thread on an alternative news/conspiracy website is proof positive that we can work together and can even, at times, agree to disagree. I thank you all for you participation, and look forward to discussing possible solutions that can work for all of us.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Artephius Abraxas Helios
Good job on the research Jenna, as I was not aware of those provisions.


Thank you, and neither was I. I had heard the claim a few times but wasn't positive that the language really was in the bill for it until I was reading through the cost estimate for the blog I just started.


That said, I still think we as a nation can come up with a plan that can address the issues as long as we have open dialogue without fear, misrepresentation, and name calling.


Agreed. I'd like to see a bill that fixes the problems without creating more to replace them and that isn't going to cost an arm and a leg to pay for. I'm convinced it's possible to do both.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
There are people now who don't qualify for government assistance for healthcare because of their income, yet their income isn't high enough to buy insurance on their own due to the cost. Under this plan, those people will be punished for either making too much or not making enough depending on how you want to look at it. That doesn't make any sense to me and hardly seems fair.


Do you know the numbers they're using to determine who will qualify for government assistance under the new bill? And who will be expected to buy their own insurance should they refuse the government plan? And how much that insurance will cost?

I find it hard to believe that this "hole" is being completely overlooked. Not that I don't believe you, but I don't feel like I have the whole truth. This would still leave many Americans uninsured, which is counter to the main goal of the plan in the first place.

After all, if a family "can't afford health care" and they're buying their kids iPods and cell phones, I think they need to be taxed. Their priorities are messed up. If a family is barely putting food on the table, then it seems they'd qualify for government assistance.

I've been doing some research but haven't found anything yet. And unfortunately, I'm pretty busy elsewise today and can't spend all day on the computer.
But I do want to get to the bottom of this if I can.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Ive got to say that this is the first "sane" thread about the Obama Health Care Reform i have seen on ATS



After all, if a family "can't afford health care" and they're buying their kids iPods and cell phones, I think they need to be taxed. Their priorities are messed up. If a family is barely putting food on the table, then it seems they'd qualify for government assistance.


I was suprised by this affirmation.. Finnally someone seems to understand that the "free will".. and "freedom of choice" have its limits.. Limits based on common sence..


On the other hand, i know someone will say that they act like that because of the "nanny-state"
.. For those, listen up: Its not the nanny state! Its the goddamn fathers fault, that instead of raising their children like real parents, just want and/or need to keep them entertained.. Blame the ubber developed entertainement industry and/or the high work hours that a career needs that takes time away from family..

Anyway, sorry for a bit off topic


Keep up the good work



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Do you know the numbers they're using to determine who will qualify for government assistance under the new bill? And who will be expected to buy their own insurance should they refuse the government plan? And how much that insurance will cost?


That's part of the problem, we won't know until after the bill passes and they get their committee going. Only then will all the little details like that be decided on.


I find it hard to believe that this "hole" is being completely overlooked. Not that I don't believe you, but I don't feel like I have the whole truth. This would still leave many Americans uninsured, which is counter to the main goal of the plan in the first place.


I'm sure it's not being overlooked, I just don't think they really care. Congress, the House specifically, are more concerned with getting this bill passed than stopping and thinking about the intended and unintended consequences of the language in it.


After all, if a family "can't afford health care" and they're buying their kids iPods and cell phones, I think they need to be taxed. Their priorities are messed up. If a family is barely putting food on the table, then it seems they'd qualify for government assistance.


I personally know several families who can't afford insurance, or no longer have it because of losing their jobs during this recession, who can barely afford to put food on the table let alone buy an iPod. Yet they don't qualify for government assistance because they "make too much". Their priorities aren't the problem, but under this bill they'll still end up being taxed because they don't qualify for assistance but can't afford it on their own and the employers they've found don't offer insurance.

Edit: fixed quote tags

[edit on 14-8-2009 by Jenna]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Okay, so a few points.

- We don't know how much the premiums will be on the government option health care. So I'm thinking that we're jumping the gun with this concern. Yes, I'm concerned, but I can't make a judgment on this issue without having more information.

- Right now, all of us who have insurance and pay taxes are paying about $1000 per year in extra premiums and taxes for those who don't have insurance, but are treated by the hospitals.

- From what I can find out, if a family denies the government option, they will be taxed 2.5% of their income. For 2.5% to equal that $1000, the family would have to be making $40,000 per year. Not a great salary, but I would consider them probably able to afford a reasonable health insurance premium. Under Obama's plan, ALL children will be covered (until they're 26 years old). So whatever the government plan premium would be for the parents in that household is what they would have to pay to avoid the $1000 tax. They might choose to pay the tax and not have insurance.

- The bottom line (for me) is, Do I want to live in a society where those who can afford it give a little extra to make sure that everyone can have access to good health care? Or do I want to live in a society where the people who are fortunate enough to have a good income take care of themselves and let the less fortunate in our society go without health care and get sick and die?

AND

I want to live in a society where people take personal responsibility for themselves and their families as much as possible. Health insurance is part of that responsibility.

I'd prefer a different system, and as I've said, I don't agree with everything in this bill, by any means, but I definitely think it's going to be better than what we have now.

We need more real information to make these calls, IMO.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


My responce to this post is that you are 100% in fact and in your response to it.

While I agree with Benevolent, that insuring ourselves is a collective responsibility the burden should NOT fall on the person.

It is unacceptable to fine people for covering themselves as best they can, period.

While my agreement with BH stands my position is that if there is a provider that offers sub-standard coverage THEY should bear the burden not the person who pays for it.

While I believe in personal liberty I agree that ensuring we will not pass on the cost of our care is an extension of that responsibility.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Obama is going to enact the largest IT development project in history and it's going to save money.

[pause]

BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHA



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join