You mean passed on Sunday.

No use reading what you will soon experience once they pass it.

First question I have - why do they have the definition of "Dependent" as :

(5) DEPENDENT.—The term ‘‘dependent’’ has the meaning given such term by the Commissioner and includes a spouse.

What about any children of the spouse/dependent?

And then they have the definition of "Family" as:

(9) FAMILY.—The term ‘‘family’’ means an individual and includes the individual’s dependents.

And this one........

(23) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means the 50 States and the District of Columbia.

And what does "education" have to do with health care?
The reconciliation bill reported by the Budget Committee includes provisions for health care reform and for investing in education.

I believe this bill is going to have a lot of people, lawyers included, scratching their heads trying to make sense of everything written.

I am just waiting to see who will be the first one to take this to court and on what grounds.

(8) Preventive services, including those services recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services and those vaccines recommended for use by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
A 'task force on clinical preventative services? Is this a nice way of calling it a "Global Doc"?


(B) APPLICABLE LEVEL.—The applicable level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (United States city average) applicable to such year.
Does this mean we get just $5k for the first year of insurance? That will take care of one visit? "Regarding your broken foot, which toe would you like us to xray this year?".



(d) PUBLICATION.—The Secretary shall provide for publication in the Federal Register and the posting on the Internet website of the Department of Health and Human Services of all recommendations made by the Health Benefits Advisory Committee under this section.
www.global-log-on.com??



[edit on 18-3-2010 by nomorecruelty]

is this a pdf file?
second line

Originally posted by nomorecruelty

And what does "education" have to do with health care?
The reconciliation bill reported by the Budget Committee includes provisions for health care reform and for investing in education.

The Democrats are so worried this bill will not pass, they are tacking on an education financial-aid bill that was popular with Republicans as well in hope it will push the rest of the votes.

There is NO dirty trick that has not been used by the Democrats in their attempt to pass this bill, so now if it does pass we will have Government run Health-care AND School Loans.

[edit on 18-3-2010 by CalibratedZeus]

‘‘(f) ENFORCEMENT OF HEALTH COVERAGE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS.— ‘‘(1) CIVIL PENALTIES.—In the case of any employer who fails (during any period with respect to which the election under subsection (a) is in effect) to satisfy the health coverage participation requirements with respect to any employee, the Secretary may assess a civil penalty against the employer of $100 for each day in the period beginning on the date such failure first occurs and ending on the date such failure is corrected. —

‘‘(6) DEPOSIT OF PENALTY COLLECTED.—Any amount of penalty collected under this subsection shall be deposited as miscellaneous receipts in the Treasury of the United States

‘‘(c) EMPLOYERS ELECTING TO NOT PROVIDE HEALTH BENEFITS.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every nonelecting employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to 8 percent of the compensation paid during any calendar year by such employer for services rendered to such employer. ‘‘(2) EXCEPTION FOR SMALL EMPLOYERS.—Rules similar to the

‘‘Subpart B—Surcharge on High Income Individuals ‘‘Sec. 59C. Surcharge on high income individuals. ‘‘SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS. ‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to— ‘‘(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000, ‘‘(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and ‘‘(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.

And I guess this bill connects the IRS, Govt, Health Care, and Education all nicely within one shiny paperclip:

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.

So employers get penalized/fined for not buying this insurance, and employees/citizens get taxed more if they don't buy the insurance.

(3) CONTRIBUTION IN LIEU OF COVERAGE.—Beginning with Y2, if an employee declines such offer but otherwise obtains coverage in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan (other than by reason of being covered by family coverage as a spouse or dependent of the primary insured), the employer shall make a timely contribution to the Health Insurance Exchange with respect to each such employee in accordance with section 313.

ACK ! A "timely contribution"????

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

Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund??

This is sounding more and more to me like a Chicago styled "Play or Pay" scheme?



[edit on 18-3-2010 by nomorecruelty]

Well Iowa will take it to court... perhaps Virginia. Levin Legal Foundation is already threatening challenges - depending on how it gets passed. There will be others as well. Individuals who are "Fined" will probably begin challenging this like crazy as well - like me!

So you base your opinions on emotions and human reactions with out going through and reading it? Never base opinions on emotions.

Except most people are supporting this bill BECAUSE of emotions..

Damn the constitution, let's follow our emotions!