Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

3/15/10 Reconciliation Healthcare Bill (PDF) 2309 pages

page: 1
88
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+30 more 
posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   
After much debate, twisting of arms, resignations, terminations and outright chaos. Here is the 2309 page 2010 Health Care legislation!

I am reading through it right now, I encourage other members to read through it to find out what is wrong with it and what was snuck in this piece of legislation.

I will post any pork or outright outrageous information from the Bill when I find it.

2010 Health Care Bill PDF



-Kdial1





[edit on 15-3-2010 by kdial1]




posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   
We will start with taxes, which many are against... Page 167


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. ‘‘(b)

LIMITATIONS.—

‘‘(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The tax imposed
under subsection (a) with respect to any tax
payer for any taxable year shall not exceed the
applicable national average premium for such
taxable year.


And here is some more:


The following are some of the highlights of the tax increases included in the bill:

Section 1501 - Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage - Individuals will be required to maintain health insurance. Those that do not will be assessed an annual tax penalty of $750. The tax penalty is scheduled to escalate in subsequent years. Consequently, Massachusetts residents that do not maintain health insurance will be assessed a tax at both the state and federal level.

Section 9001 – Excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage – This provision levies an excise tax of 40 percent for any health coverage plan that is costs over $8,500 per year for single coverage and $23,000 per year for family coverage. Since this was protested vigorously by unions and public employees, the Senate caved and granted a massive concession. The tax is not levied on the individual receiving the tax free benefit, but is levied on the insurance company or plan administrators that provide the employee the benefit. How absurd is that?

Section 9008 - Imposition of annual fee on branded prescription pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers - This piece of the legislation imposes a $2.3 billion excise tax on the pharmaceutical industry. The tax is allocated across the industry and is based on market share, not on income. This tax starts immediately and is non-deductible for the corporation being taxed. These companies will still be required to pay their federal income taxes.

Section 9009 - Imposition of annual fee on medical device manufacturers and importers - This section imposes a $2 billion excise tax on the medical device industry. The fee is allocated across the industry based on market share, not on income. This tax starts immediately and is non-deductible for the corporation being taxed.

Section 9010 - Imposition of annual fee on health insurance providers - Another excise tax. This one is assessed on the health insurance industry in the amount of $6.7 billion per annum and is also based on market share. How can the imposition of $11 billion in excise taxes (section 9008, 9009 and 9010) on the health care industry reduce costs to consumers? Does anyone else suspect these companies will have to pass these costs over to consumers?

Section 9013 - Modification of itemized deduction for medical expenses – For those incurring significant medical costs, your ability to deduct these expenses will be decreased. This legislation increases the adjusted gross income threshold for claiming an itemized deduction from 7.5 percent to 10 percent.

Section 9015 - Additional hospital insurance tax on high-income taxpayers – This increases the Medicare tax on wages by 0.50 percent on individuals making in excess of $200,000 and married couples making over $250,000. This will be effective starting January 1, 2013. (As a side note, individual income taxes are already scheduled to increase in 2011, with the highest rate already increasing by 4.6 percent. This will be in addition to the tax increase as outlined here in Section 9015.)

Section 9017 - Excise tax on elective cosmetic medical procedures - The bill imposes an excise tax of 5 percent for any voluntary cosmetic procedures.

Source


-Kdial1

[edit on 15-3-2010 by kdial1] Added Article from www.boston.com

[edit on 15-3-2010 by kdial1]



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Ok, I may just be really paranoid here, but does this seem like the infancy stages of a population surveillance? Sounds like they are including this in the bill like they are anticipating another bill....

First we have the National Device Registry:









Then if you look at the Quality and Surveillance section there is this:



Then in the same section this bit of info about sharing information among Federal agencies.




Next thing you know they are going to be passing a bill that says we have to have an implant that keeps our medical records and everything else on it. Then they can share our chip with any other federal agency... Freakin Scary!!!!


-Kdial1





[edit on 15-3-2010 by kdial1]



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by kdial1
 


I'm reading through the bill too...but I am a supporter of this bill and have so far not found anything I am concerned about.

But to address your concerns.

1) Taxes on those that choose not to purchase health insurance. This is absolutely needed if the system is going to work. You can't get rid of pre-existing conditions and allow people to grift the system. So you either get health insurance...or you pay a tax up the amount of what an average health plan would cost. I'm glad they are doing this...the uninsured is one of the big problems with health care costs.


2) Tracking medical devices. This is not scary...it will be life saving. If you don't have an implanted MEDICAL device...this shouldn't worry you. The data collection is already done by many private companies and state governments...this is just expanding it to a national database. It really isn't scary at all...people need to calm down. Not everything is a conspiracy. Wanting everyone to have good healthcare does not translate into the government wanting to kill you.


+16 more 
posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


How can you be in support of government FORCING you to do anything? What country do you live in? Does the little thing called the Constitution mean anything to you?

I don't think it is the fact that you don't understand my definition of "freedom", you are just simply against it.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Missed one of the taxes that are getting thrown in...



1 ‘‘SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.
2 ‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—In the case of a taxpayer
3 other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addi
4 tion to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal
5 to—
6 ‘‘(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified ad
7 justed gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds
8 $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,
9 ‘‘(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified ad
10 justed gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds
11 $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and
12 ‘‘(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified ad
13 justed gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds
14 $1,000,000.

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para
4 graph (2), in the case of any taxable year beginning
5 after December 31, 2012, subsection (a) shall be ap
6 plied—
7 ‘‘(A) by substituting ‘2 percent’ for ‘1 per
8 cent’, and
9 ‘‘(B) by substituting ‘3 percent’ for ‘1.5
10 percent’.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by kdial1
 


I'm reading through the bill too...but I am a supporter of this bill and have so far not found anything I am concerned about.

But to address your concerns.

1) Taxes on those that choose not to purchase health insurance. This is absolutely needed if the system is going to work. You can't get rid of pre-existing conditions and allow people to grift the system. So you either get health insurance...or you pay a tax up the amount of what an average health plan would cost. I'm glad they are doing this...the uninsured is one of the big problems with health care costs.


Have you ever thought that there are healthy people in the workforce that choose not take health insurance because they have no need for it?

I for one do not need to go to the doctor that often, I maybe go twice a year. I would rather pay cash. There are many Americans that do the same thing I do.

Let me guess you rely on the government services more so than the average American.

I too have relatives that leech off the system with welfare and tons more ridiculous government handouts, they feel the same way you do about this Bill. Sad really.....


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

2) Tracking medical devices. This is not scary...it will be life saving. If you don't have an implanted MEDICAL device...this shouldn't worry you. The data collection is already done by many private companies and state governments...this is just expanding it to a national database. It really isn't scary at all...people need to calm down. Not everything is a conspiracy. Wanting everyone to have good healthcare does not translate into the government wanting to kill you.


This is scary, to most Americans. You are the small percentage that does not care.

-Kdial1


+3 more 
posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Forcing the American people to buy health insurance and then fining them if they don't is NOT constitutional. But what the hell it's just a piece of paper right?

I plan on challenging this in court if it comes down to it.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by projectvxn]



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I also rarely go to the doctor, in the past seven years I have been once, to get a physical that i paid $90 out of pocket for. Before that I had health-insurance through my work that i never used once, so i got rid of it. I went on a huge rant after this that I decided to delete....needless to say I do not believe the health insurance should be required.

So anyway, another out of the ordinary....




15 ‘‘SEC. 9511. HEALTH CARE COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS
16 RESEARCH TRUST FUND.
17 ‘‘(a) CREATION OF TRUST FUND.—There is estab
18 lished in the Treasury of the United States a trust fund
19 to be known as the ‘Health Care Comparative Effective
20 ness Research Trust Fund’ (hereinafter in this section re
21 ferred to as the ‘CERTF’), consisting of such amounts
22 as may be appropriated or credited to such Trust Fund
23 as provided in this section and section 9602(b).
24 ‘‘(b) TRANSFERS TO FUND.—There are hereby ap
25 propriated to the Trust Fund the following:
836
1 ‘‘(1) For fiscal year 2010, $90,000,000.
2 ‘‘(2) For fiscal year 2011, $100,000,000.
3 ‘‘(3) For fiscal year 2012, $110,000,000.


Then the usage...




20 ‘‘(d) EXPENDITURES FROM FUND.—
21 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2),
22 amounts in the CERTF are available, without the
23 need for further appropriations and without fiscal
24 year limitation, to the Secretary of Health and
839
1 Human Services for carrying out section 1181 of the
2 Social Security Act.


Now maybe somewhere in there I missed the creation of a section 1181, but (www.ssa.gov...) there is no section 1181 of the Social Securiy Act.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Taxes on those that choose not to purchase health insurance. This is absolutely needed if the system is going to work. You can't get rid of pre-existing conditions and allow people to grift the system. So you either get health insurance...or you pay a tax up the amount of what an average health plan would cost. I'm glad they are doing this...the uninsured is one of the big problems with health care costs.


I know, how DARE people not spend money so I don't need to spend as much money!



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
THIS is the type of thread that needs to be starred flagged and promoted to the top of ATS!

THIS IS DENYING IGNORANCE PEOPLE!

THIS is reality, non biased, non corrupted.

GREAT JOB kdial1



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
I wish I had time to read this whole thing. I guess that is why we have representatives to read it for us. Oh that's right, they don't have time either.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Nope, no cop outs. Time to really find out what is in this thing, its your government after all, time for the people to get informed without spin, so I ask that you make the time to read this bill. It's going to take me a while, but I intend to read every line.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by kdial1
 



Have you ever thought that there are healthy people in the workforce that choose not take health insurance because they have no need for it?

I for one do not need to go to the doctor that often, I maybe go twice a year. I would rather pay cash. There are many Americans that do the same thing I do.


Health is not a guarantee...you could wake up tomorrow and realize you are very very sick. Or you could get in an accident and need emergency medical care. And then what? You won't be able to pay cash for that...a 10 day stay in the hospital, depending on what tests and meds you need, can easily be a bill of over 200k. And if you can't pay it, they will take what they can from you...take your wages, take your house, take everything. And then what? Then they have to write off what they can't collect...and that will increase costs for the rest of us. And then you will be homeless, possibly jobless, and will be a drain on society. You are essentially gambling...but not only with your money....but with all of ours.

To say you are "healthy" so you don't need insurance is a fools statement. Insurance isn't meant to be purchased only by the unhealthy...that is the whole concept behind it. You get a large pool of people...most healthy...some unhealthy...and the risk is spread out. The premiums of the healthy help pay for the costs of the unhealthy. And eventually, odds are each "healthy" individual will someday cross into that "unhealthy" pool of people. But by that time, more "healthy" individuals have joined the pool and it balances out.

The game you are playing will end in disaster for you. Good luck trying to get insurance with your huge gap in insurance...and you will need even more luck if you get sick first and then try to get insurance.


Let me guess you rely on the government services more so than the average American.

I too have relatives that leech off the system with welfare and tons more ridiculous government handouts, they feel the same way you do about this Bill. Sad really.....


What a baseless ad-hom attack. So just because I see the value in having an overall healthier and well covered society means I am on government assitance???
You have just lost all credibility my friend.

Not that I need to address this...but I will. I have never taken "assistance" from the government...the most I have "taken" from the government is a federal student loan. And believe me...they are getting more back than what I "took". I own my own business, I make good money, I pay high taxes...but I don't complain because it isn't hurting me. I buy private health insurance for my family, I probably pay more in insurance than most people because I think it is irresponsible to not protect my families interest. We are a very healthy family (and a young family)...no major illnesses in any of my family member...and nothing major in family history either. But you know what...we have had to use our insurance for 2 major events that would of bankrupted me if I didn't have it. Neither event was avoidable and neither event was foreseeable. They just happened. I would probably even be in the bracket that will be hit with an additional 1-4% tax hike (depending on how good my year is) that is in the health care bill...and yes...I still support it. Because I see it as a needed tax for the nation to become a better nation.

So if the best you have is that "You must rely on government services because you support this bill"....then there is no need even discussing this issue with you.

I'm interested in discussing this in a civil manner without making baseless attacks on peoples personal lives. If you don't care to do that...then that is fine...it just weakens your arguments.



This is scary, to most Americans. You are the small percentage that does not care.


You are wrong...I may be the small percentage on ATS...but overall Americans are not scared by having their pacemaker registered in a national database. Because they would like a doctor in Florida to be able to treat them correctly while they are in vacation even if they had their device implanted in Texas.

Your "fear" comes from you making assumptions and creating a scenario that doesn't exist about the government microchipping everyone. I don't fear things that do not exist.

Some people fear everything...some people fear nothing...and some people, like myself, only fear things that are an actual danger to myself or my family.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


If you are going to claim it is not constitutional...then please provide proof of that claim.

Give me the section or the exact text that says this is not constitutional.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by kdial1
 


Your link in the OP is coming up as a jumbled mess of symbols. Would you double check to make sure it is correct and working correctly.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Update

This is the Senates Bill for anyone that is interested:

Senate Healthcare bill 2010

Hey MikeNice81, it seems to be working fine for me. DO you have Adobe Reader? This is a PDF file and requires Adobe.


-Kdial1



[edit on 15-3-2010 by kdial1]



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by kdial1
 


I was updating Adobe the first time I tried to access it. I guess the updater made it act a little crazy. Everything is working fine now.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I don't know why they just can't expand medicare or medicaid as to where people can buy it as insurance if they want too, and for those qualified who are older get it as they normally would. It would add funds to the medicare system and could give people lower insurance rates, also give insurance to those who get rejected by corporate insurance.

Forcing people to buy insurance is wrong, as it is currently wrong right now to force people to buy car insurance as they do.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by crusaderiam]



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by kdial1
 


Holy Crap! This sounds like the Mark of the Beast! You;re right, all they have to do now is pass a bill requiring an implant!





new topics

top topics



 
88
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join