Profiling CEOs and Their Sociopathic Paychecks

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Then what happened to the part of the bill that said persons not interested in the social program will be able to buy their own policies?

Sure they can--from the insurance industry who lobbied for the bill. Everyone is required to purchase their product. The only opt-out provision I saw was for religious objections.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[SpeedRacer 1]

This guy could deal with this problem.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[turtlespeed 220]

Quote

Then what happened to the part of the bill that said persons not interested in the social program will be able to buy their own policies?

Actually you are fined and assigned a policy type if your tax return shows that you did not make use of an Obama approved plan, and went out on your own to pay cash for a doctor.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[chasteh 0]

Interesting. However, I am still waiting for one of you guys to present something official about this.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Interesting. However, I am still waiting for one of you guys to present something official about this.

Text of the bill is here.

The relevant part:

Quote

SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

2
‘(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, overCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

This section imposes a financial penalty (an extra income tax) on anyone who fails to purchase health insurance.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[chasteh 0]

Not convinced yet, because I cannot seem to find a site that allows me to even look at the bill without my computer freezing.

edit: I want to look at subpart d.

Also, I want to see other provisions, like the ones that demonstrate how the insurance is to be provided to those who can't buy their own alternative, like you are likely to do.

Also, I thought the goal was to provide people with insurance - not to fine people for not having it or to give the government another reason to incarcerate them.

edit:

Will see PDF works better. Typing short to reduce memory usage.

"(1) IN GENERAL- The purpose of this division is to provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending.

(2) BUILDING ON CURRENT SYSTEM- This division achieves this purpose by building on what works in today’s health care system, while repairing the aspects that are broken.

(3) INSURANCE REFORMS- This division--

(A) enacts strong insurance market reforms;

(B) creates a new Health Insurance Exchange, with a public health insurance option alongside private plans;

(C) includes sliding scale affordability credits; and

(D) initiates shared responsibility among workers, employers, and the government;

so that all Americans have coverage of essential health benefits.

(4) HEALTH DELIVERY REFORM- This division institutes health delivery system reforms both to increase quality and to reduce growth in health spending so that health care becomes more affordable for businesses, families, and government.
"
And to reduce the size of my post overall.

[chasteh 0]

"‘‘(d) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE REQUIREMENT.—
13 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The requirements of this
14 subsection are met with respect to any individual for
15 any period if such individual (and each qualifying
16 child of such individual) is covered by acceptable
17 coverage at all times during such period.
18 ‘‘(2) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.—For purposes
19 of this section, the term ‘acceptable coverage’ means
20 any of the following:
21 ‘‘(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN
22 COVERAGE.—Coverage under a qualified health
23 benefits plan (as defined in section 100(c) of
24 the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of
25 2009).
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
172
•HR 3200 IH
1 ‘‘(B) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSUR2
ANCE COVERAGE; COVERAGE UNDER GRAND3
FATHERED EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH
4 PLAN.—Coverage under a grandfathered health
5 insurance coverage (as defined in subsection (a)
6 of section 102 of the America’s Affordable
7 Health Choices Act of 2009) or under a current
8 employment-based health plan (within the
9 meaning of subsection (b) of such section).
10 ‘‘(C) MEDICARE.—Coverage under part A
11 of title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
12 ‘‘(D) MEDICAID.—Coverage for medical as13
sistance under title XIX of the Social Security
14 Act.
15 ‘‘(E) MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES
16 AND DEPENDENTS (INCLUDING TRICARE).—
17 Coverage under chapter 55 of title 10, United
18 States Code, including similar coverage fur19
nished under section 1781 of title 38 of such
20 Code.
21 ‘‘(F) VA.—Coverage under the veteran’s
22 health care program under chapter 17 of title
23 38, United States Code, but only if the cov24
erage for the individual involved is determined
25 by the Secretary in coordination with the
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00172 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
173
•HR 3200 IH
1 Health Choices Commissioner to be not less
2 than the level specified by the Secretary of the
3 Treasury, in coordination with the Secretary of
4 Veteran’s Affairs and the Health Choices Com5
missioner, based on the individual’s priority for
6 services as provided under section 1705(a) of
7 such title.
8 ‘‘(G) OTHER COVERAGE.—Such other
9 health benefits coverage as the Secretary, in co10
ordination with the Health Choices Commis11
sioner, recognizes for purposes of this sub12
section."

Thus, you are not forced to buy one of "their" plans. Several provisions here say that you do not. (Including you, since you already have insurance plans - err, I mean, you do don't you?)

I wonder if the Bill has any slippery slope insurance...

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Thus, you are not forced to buy one of "their" plans. Several provisions here say that you do not. (Including you, since you already have insurance plans - err, I mean, you do don't you?)

Except for this part:

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.
(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT

19(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1

[chasteh 0]

That merely defines "grandfathered in" more explicitly. It does not limit your purchasing options, it only explains who is "grandfathered in"

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Thus, you are not forced to buy one of "their" plans. Several provisions here say that you do not. (Including you, since you already have insurance plans - err, I mean, you do don't you?)

I wonder if the Bill has any slippery slope insurance...

He never said you had to buy one of "their" plans but you have to have "a" plan or you are taxed an additional amount.

So health insurance is really no longer a choice. The gov't is requiring everyone to buy it. Unless you can't afford it. Then it will be "free."

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Thus, you are not forced to buy one of "their" plans.

How do you get that? Because if you already have one of their plans, you need not buy another?

You are required to buy a health insurance plan. You must buy it from someone who sells one. The only people currently selling them are the insurance companies.

There is some possibility (looking increasingly unlikely) that you'll have the option of buying a government subsidized plan.

But you would be forced to buy a plan. Unless you are already buying their product. In which case they'll let you off the hook because you're already paying them.


Your argument seems to be "if you are already buying one of their products, then you'll be allowed to keep doing that--ergo, you are not required to buy one." That's pretty nonsensical, don't you think?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[chasteh 0]

>He never said you had to buy one of "their" plans but you have to have "a" plan or you are taxed an additional amount

Read Tom's posts. Yes he did.

[chasteh 0]

>Your argument seems to be "if you are already buying one of their products, then you'll be allowed to keep doing that--ergo, you are not required to buy one."

It would if you demonstrated how that bill limits who you buy insurance from. There are an assortment of options listed there.

>You are required to buy a health insurance plan. You must buy it from someone who sells one. The only people currently selling them are the insurance companies.

You are forced to buy a plan, at least it seems so far. (I have yet to find a section of the bill demonstrating how having enough money/wealth would allow you to avoid buying insurance - similiar to how you don't have to buy car insurance here if you can demonstrate that you can afford to insure yourself.)

Yep. You must buy a plan from someone who sells one.

Aand of course, the people selling insurance plans are insurance companies. That statement is still far more broad than "you must buy one of their plans." Did you just so happen to include all the providers of qualified plans within the list of insurers you posted earlier? If so, are you really upset that your restricted to buying plans from a set of insurers that provided all your options anyway?

>That's pretty nonsensical, don't you think?

Claiming that you have to buy one of "their" plans but not showing how the bill requires that is. C'mon Tom, be nice. (Well, not too nice, but please prove your point- show where it says you have to buy from amongst that list and that any other insurance company providing the benefits listed in the bill would not be acceptable by the bill..)

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>Your argument seems to be "if you are already buying one of their products, then you'll be allowed to keep doing that--ergo, you are not required to buy one."

It would if you demonstrated how that bill limits who you buy insurance from.

At this point, I'm sure you're being intentionally obtuse. At risk of falling into your trap:

It doesn't have to lay out _who_ you have to buy it from. It says you _must_ buy it. That means you _are_ going to have to buy it from someone who actually sells it.

At the moment, and for the foreseeable future, the only people selling health insurance policies are (big surprise) health insurance companies.

Quote

Claiming that you have to buy one of "their" plans but not showing how the bill requires that is.

The "they" you're putting in quotes is "Health Insurance Companies". You know, the same companies that pay their executives hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and spend much more than that lobbying congress to shape the laws, so that you will be forced to purchase their product.

Quote

Well, not too nice, but please prove your point- show where it says you have to buy from amongst that list and that any other insurance company providing the benefits listed in the bill would not be acceptable by the bill..

Huh?

At this point I've got to say you're intentionally misreading my words. I'm not saying any particular list, or specific companies. I'm talking about the sum total group of all health insurance companies selling policies in the US. In general, the term most often applied to such a grouping is the "industry," as in the "auto industry" or the "banking industry."

In this case the "health insurance industry," that being, specifically, the group of all health insurance companies offering policies in the USA, are on the verge of passing a law forcing every single American to purchase their products.


Now, as a thought problem, imagine if we replaced "health insurance" before "industry" with any other type of industry. For example, what if the "auto industry" got Congress to pass a law requiring that every American purchase a car. Or if the "gun industry" pushed through a law requiring every American to purchase a firearm. What if the "hotel industry" managed to make it mandatory that you spend at least two nights in a hotel every week? How about if the "banking industry" got a law made requiring you to have a checking account?


You seem awfully eager to defend an industry which has successfully lobbied Congress to abuse it's power on their behalf, rewarding them with a massive windfall of profit from new customers who are the very people least able to afford it. This seems very out of character from your other views. Let me be the first to say "WTF?" Are you just blinded by the fact that the industry lobbyists have bought the democrats this time around?


Seriously: are you really not understanding what I'm saying, or are you just trying to create an argument?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[chasteh 0]

>It doesn't have to lay out _who_ you have to buy it from. It says you _must_ buy it. That means you _are_ going to have to buy it from someone who actually sells it.

Ok. But wasn't the point you were trying to make that the bill limits who you can buy it from?

>so that you will be forced to purchase their product.

"Their" being health insurance companies? I understand that. But you were restricting the health insurance universe of discourse that the bill limits us to is restricted to the companies you mentioned. Are you only saying that it restricts us to buying insurance from simply anyone who can supply it? I don't have such a problem with that. You, I thought, had a pretty interesting point about limiting options to specific firms, but I guess you meant something else.

>In this case the "health insurance industry," that being, specifically, the group of all health insurance companies offering policies in the USA, are on the verge of passing a law forcing every single American to purchase their products.

Ok. So you do have a problem with the government requiring everyone to purchase health insurance in general. I see how your opposed to it, but I don't necessarily agree. If it made one specific business far more money than another, I would see a problem.

>Now, as a thought problem...

Ok. Yep.

Quote

Then what happened to the part of the bill that said persons not interested in the social program will be able to buy their own policies?

>Sure they can--from the insurance companies who lobbied for the bill.

It s ure looked like you were stating that the bill restricted who you could buy the plans from, considering you mentioned "who lobbied for the bill" not "all American health insurance companies."

>You seem awfully eager to defend an industry which has successfully lobbied Congress to abuse it's power on their behalf, rewarding them with a massive windfall of profit from new customers who are the very people least able to afford it.

Not at all. The point here is to make sure every person in the U.S. has health insurance, as opposed to just using "go get a job and get insurance with it" as an excuse. I fully understand and agree with your objections concerning using the force of congress to make people buy insurance. That wasn't my goal, but you seem to think it was.

>This seems very out of character from your other views.

Read above. I don't necessarily agree with the big, scary socialism that you say is responsible for ths bill. I also didn't say that I agreed with every provision of the bill, either.

>Let me be the first to say "WTF?" Are you just blinded by the fact that the industry lobbyists have bought the democrats this time around?

Scary huh. Its been a while since we could strictly blame a conservative congress and president for the same.

>the industry lobbyists have bought the democrats this time around

I also didn't say that I support those members of congress, either. I think you and I can easily agree that they represent a form of socialism that is far closer to a "bad" form of socialism than the kind Marx or Fromm consider socialism to be.

>Seriously: are you really not understanding what I'm saying, or are you just trying to create an argument?

You mean a quarrell, or a fight? No. Remember, you were constructing the argument, not me. Judging by post #76, your goal was far different than it appears now. (Far less objectionable)

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

But wasn't the point you were trying to make that the bill limits who you can buy it from?

No, my point was that it would force you to buy it.

Any idea what percentage of insurance companies didn't lobby congress on this bill? What percentage of policies are currently written by the ones who did? Any expectation as to what percentage of the new policies required by this bill will be written by those companies?

Quote

I don't necessarily agree with the big, scary socialism that you say is responsible for the bill.

I don't think I ever said big, scary socialism was responsible for it.

It's more like big, scary fascism. At least, that was how Benito Mussolini defined the union of business and government, working for each other's benefit.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[chasteh 0]

Maybe you should delete post 76, then.

>Any idea what percentage of insurance companies didn't lobby congress on this bill? What percentage of policies are currently written by the ones who did? Any expectation as to what percentage of the new policies required by this bill will be written by those companies?

Wasn't that up to you to provide, considering your statement from #76? Do you really think there won't be other firms, aside from those lobbying for the bill, who can provide a qualifying level of insurance?

> don't think I ever said big, scary socialism was responsible for it.

>It's more like big, scary fascism.

Good. Close enough. I don't recall supporting the creation of a law that requires people to have it and suffer fines by not having it. My understanding was that this bill would be far less of a "gotcha!" than it has turned out to be. How could I expect different, after seeing this thing. It is big enough that I could barely load it on my computer, and I have a very fast computer.

I also don't recall supporting the Patriot act either. It seems that no matter who the majority is, congress just seems to be out of control.

Oh yea, don't forget to delete post 76.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

It seems that no matter who the majority is, congress just seems to be out of control.

Yep. And the only way to change that is to reduce the power it holds.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Oh yea, don't forget to delete post 76.

I changed the word "companies" to "industry". Does that clear up the confusion as to the meaning?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[chasteh 0]

Mmmmm or we just stop electing the same people over and over again. Or we stop electing people who are so submissive that they will sell themselves to the highest bidder for their vote. That might do it too. Of course, my option requires people to have integrity. And we all know, congresspersons (lawyers) don't necessarily have integrity.

[chasteh 0]

>I changed the word "companies" to "industry". Does that clear up the confusion as to the meaning?

Quote

Then what happened to the part of the bill that said persons not interested in the social program will be able to buy their own policies?

>Sure they can--from the insurance industry who lobbied for the bill. Everyone is required to purchase their product.

Now we have a different issue to handle.

Here the general libertarian opposition to socializing and industry applies.

I still don't necessarily support forcing people to purchase it. However, I do support insuring more people than "getting a job" has done for us, especially today.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

I do support insuring more people than "getting a job" has done for us, especially today.

The bundling of employment and health insurance is a historical abberation (and error) created as a result of wage controls during WW II. Employers, unable to compete on price (i.e. higher wages) struggled to attract employees by offering larger benefit packages. One of the things they offered was health insurance. Unfortunately, this system, which was never supposed to last beyond the end of the war, was made virtually permanent in the mid 50's when health benefits were exempted from taxation.

Here's an interesting article on the subject.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[chasteh 0]

I'm reading it now... well in a second.... end of sentence.

What do you propose is the solution, be it not through employment, and not throught the U.S. government? Are there only a select few who "deserve" to have health insurance, in a similar way to how there are only a select few who "deserve" to have private property?

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Mmmmm or we just stop electing the same people over and over again. Or we stop electing people who are so submissive that they will sell themselves to the highest bidder for their vote. That might do it too. Of course, my option requires people to have integrity. And we all know, congresspersons (lawyers) don't necessarily have integrity.

The problem is pretty systemic. There's so much money washing through the system that it's impossible to really reform it. Which makes sense. Anytime there's a quick, easy profit to be made, there will be people trying to make it. The problem is that this particular profit is made by lobbying the government to convince it to give you the taxpayers' money. So long as that prize is there for the winning, you're going to see people spending money chasing it.

It's a pretty good example of "real world" compromises ending up in exactly the opposite place of the theoretical systems on either end, with the opponents of both getting the bad part of what they wanted.

Libertarians see an excessively powerful (and in some senses corrupt) government that is takes from the taxpayers and rewards it's supporters with the money.

Socialists see a corporate lobby that basically dictates policy to the government, to benefit it, at the expense of the common man.

In fact, both are right. Edit to add: and the pure version of either system is likely to be better than the "real world" compromise system that we have now.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

...in a similar way to how there are only a select few who "deserve" to have private property?

???

I don't understand. Can you explain what you mean?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com